Well, my demag has only a six foot cord, so I would require an extension cord to get to ten feet. I do keep all audio tapes ten or more feet away.
If tape is so good why does it record so poorly?
- Thread starter Kingrex
- Start date
This is probably a stupid thing to say, because people will shout, do it right then. But, I have also heard, if you demag wrong, your create magnetism in your heads, not eliminate it.
And I have seen threads where people in the know have some differing process. Unfortunately doing nothing leaves me in a place of denial. And denial implies your doing it wrong.
And I have seen threads where people in the know have some differing process. Unfortunately doing nothing leaves me in a place of denial. And denial implies your doing it wrong.
How to demagnetize heads and guides:
Of course you need a demagnetizing device- it should have a probe end and a push-to-run switch.
You do not need to be 30 feet from tapes- 6 feet is fine.
The tape machine should be off. Turn on the degausser, bring it to the guides- put it in contact with each guide and then slowly bring the device away from the part. The further away you get the faster you can pull it away. But it must be one prior to putting it near a part. So you probably can just keep it on. After treatment of the first part (guide) move to the next, which might be a head. Do the same process with each part of the tape path. The capstan and flywheel rollers are not necessary. When you finally shut it off, it must be at least 6 feet from the machine. If you shut it off close to a part it can magnetize the part. So if that happens by accident, do the task over again to get it right.
The degausser is a transformer with an extended core. When its on the core is the load, so you'll notice it heats up. So you can't spend 10 minutes doing this- the unit will burn out long before that. If you do this right it will take a minute or so.
Magnetized heads and guides will slowly degauss tape, causing a loss of high frequencies. So you have to do it unless you really don't care what happens to the tape investment.
Of course you need a demagnetizing device- it should have a probe end and a push-to-run switch.
You do not need to be 30 feet from tapes- 6 feet is fine.
The tape machine should be off. Turn on the degausser, bring it to the guides- put it in contact with each guide and then slowly bring the device away from the part. The further away you get the faster you can pull it away. But it must be one prior to putting it near a part. So you probably can just keep it on. After treatment of the first part (guide) move to the next, which might be a head. Do the same process with each part of the tape path. The capstan and flywheel rollers are not necessary. When you finally shut it off, it must be at least 6 feet from the machine. If you shut it off close to a part it can magnetize the part. So if that happens by accident, do the task over again to get it right.
The degausser is a transformer with an extended core. When its on the core is the load, so you'll notice it heats up. So you can't spend 10 minutes doing this- the unit will burn out long before that. If you do this right it will take a minute or so.
Magnetized heads and guides will slowly degauss tape, causing a loss of high frequencies. So you have to do it unless you really don't care what happens to the tape investment.
The world's leading expert on tape decks has said that 3 inches (~70mm) is all the distance you need before turning off the demagnetizer!
When demagnetizing each part on a headlock you can slowly move the demagnetizer from part to part
en.wikipedia.org
When demagnetizing each part on a headlock you can slowly move the demagnetizer from part to part
John G. McKnight - Wikipedia
Last edited:
@Kingrex Your arrows are pointing at the areas of concern and not those of no concern.
I've done degaussing with the recorder on. You really see the meters jump a lot more at 3" than you do at 6 feet! So I err on the side of caution.
I get he is not that concerned after 70mm. I did not see anything about the approach speed and retraction speed. And if he did it for every component. Or did he sweep the area. I can see where Tim is saying move from component to component as 70mm is 2.74" and all my components are inside that space from each other. So my demag tool head would be in a zone on influence if I were to approach each item individually.The world's leading expert on tape decks has said that 3 inches (~70mm) is all the distance you need before turning off the demagnetizer!
When demagnetizing each part on a headlock you can slowly move the demagnetizer from part to part
John G. McKnight - Wikipedia
No need to. The field from a demagnetizer will not hurt an amp, preamp or Turntable. And if you keep a demag unit 12" away from another deck, there is no concern.
The highest quality/most powerful demagnetizer is made by Annis (the Han-d-mag). They recommend 12" distance from heads when turning demag unit ON or OFF. A far cry from 30 feet.
Here are instructions for Han-d mag: https://rbannis.com/files/HOW_RECORDER_COMPONENTS.pdf
The world's leading expert on tape decks has said that 3 inches (~70mm) is all the distance you need before turning off the demagnetizer!
When demagnetizing each part on a headlock you can slowly move the demagnetizer from part to part
John G. McKnight - Wikipedia
I would be very cautious with such advice. Although dipolar magnetic field weakens with the fourth power of distance, most demagnetizers operate directly on the 50/60Hz mains and we risk that when switching them off, current is at its peak. The principle behind demagnetization is applying an alternate magnetic field that slowly lowers to zero as long as we move the demagnetizer away, creating a zero hysteresis magnetic loop at the end of the process that leaves the materials without magnetism. If we turn off the demagnetizer close to the heads we magnetize them! Also consider that some demagnetizers are more powerful than others! My usual safe distance is around 60-80cm.
BTW, some demagnetizers automatically create the ramp down sinusoidal signal that slowly decreases to zero - we just wait until they switch off in place!
I had friends over for a listening session. One wanted to hear my tape. It was slightly irritating to me that my 15ips tapes are so much better than any record or digital file I have. It's irritating because tape is a production to play. You have to load it, rewind it, reload it, then play it through without stopping unless you stop between songs. And I don't want the reels to sit where dust can get on them, so they have to be put away quickly. But darn they sound good. And my tape deck is on the other end of the room. I have a 38 foot single ended cable I made from Mogami microphone cable and nice set scew style Furutech ends. Even with that, the tape is head and shoulder more of everything.
I have a double speed Nakamici at my place. Its not able to fool you into thinking its 15 ips tape. But I now need to reassess if a copy of a 15 ips tape is better than my vinyl and digital. I'm not sure at this time.
I have a double speed Nakamici at my place. Its not able to fool you into thinking its 15 ips tape. But I now need to reassess if a copy of a 15 ips tape is better than my vinyl and digital. I'm not sure at this time.
Ok, On a very nice vinyl version of an album, and a direct copy of a master tape to double speed cassette, the cassette captures a little more body. The vinyl has a tad more air.
I feel my vinyl is pretty well tuned. $17k or so in equipment. And a double speed cassette on a highly modified machine using a $11 XL11S tape isn't better or worse. Its very similar. If you had a better vinyl setup and a really good record, you would take the vinyl. If you had an ok record, you would prefer the cassette. If the cassette was from a good master tape of course.
The cassette is not going to reproduce a nice record and make it better. Or even the same. At this point in time. The cassette machine is going back for more mods. And its not set up for true Metal Cassette yet.
I tried it against another master tape and a stream off Qobuz. The tape is adding a little midrange bloat and loosing some resolution. The stream is felt as a bit thin in comparison. But there is more detail to be heard. I still pick the stream. I don't want to loose content.
I feel my vinyl is pretty well tuned. $17k or so in equipment. And a double speed cassette on a highly modified machine using a $11 XL11S tape isn't better or worse. Its very similar. If you had a better vinyl setup and a really good record, you would take the vinyl. If you had an ok record, you would prefer the cassette. If the cassette was from a good master tape of course.
The cassette is not going to reproduce a nice record and make it better. Or even the same. At this point in time. The cassette machine is going back for more mods. And its not set up for true Metal Cassette yet.
I tried it against another master tape and a stream off Qobuz. The tape is adding a little midrange bloat and loosing some resolution. The stream is felt as a bit thin in comparison. But there is more detail to be heard. I still pick the stream. I don't want to loose content.
Last edited:
The only way to really find out how LPs really perform is with a direct-to-disc LP. They are very hard to record! But the results are spectacular. LPs have lower noise, wider bandwith and lower distortion than tape, but those benefits are rarely realized unless direct to disc.
It was my understanding that reels had a dynamic range up to 77 db and direct to LP was closer to 70. Can you post a link or 2 which compares the 2, including distortion and noise?
Noise: take any LP which is analog mastered. Can you hear when the tape starts up? The noise floor will increase.
My Westerex cutter system employed a 30dB loop around the cutter head. Cutter heads have feedback windings in them which is used for both feedback and real-time monitor of how the cut is turning out. With that kind of feedback (at all frequencies, I might add...) you get really low distortion. IME, most of the distortion 'in LPs' is really the result of the playback apparatus.
If the mastering engineer has done his job properly setting up the cutter stylus, the resulting lacquer cut will be lower noise than the playback electronics. IOW better than -85dB; rivaling RedBook. Most of the surface noise is a product of the plating and pressing operation in the pressing plant.
Acoustic Sounds has an LP production operation called QRP; they found that by damping their pressing machines during the pressing process that they could reduce the noise floor by well over 10dB. You can take this post as the 'link' since I found this out personally when talking to Chad Kassem, the owner of Acoustic Sounds, when making arrangements for one of our customers who wanted to have QRP do the pressing on his project.
In simplistic form it sounds like my vinyl LPs suffer the issues of the master tape noise and distortions, then compound on top of that the production issues with making the vinyl record from it.
There may be less losses if the master tape has been stored well and not stepped on to many times.
My tape electronics may be higher quality than my vinyl electronics.
Hence, I hear better sound from my tapes.
But, tape may not be the best media when compared to vinyl done right. Or maybe even digital.
I guess that is all fine and acceptable if I want to limit myself to a few well done albums. But I am not going to do that. I strictly listen to music I like and want to listen to. I don't ever play "audiophile" music for entertainment. I only play it when I have to do work such as analyzing something.
Ultimately, If I grab an album, or a digital stream and its a decent piece of media, I don't notice the losses. I sit back and very much enjoy my system. Its just a bit annoying when I do a comparison head to head and you hear the limitations in one or the other source. Heck, I would also be irritated if a $400 tape did not sound better than a digital file or record. That too would have been a big waste of money. And I have talked to people who are very disenfranchised with tape because they have other excellent sources that play better than the tapes they have aquired. My particular system with my individual media is what it is. It is by no means a measure of what can be.
There may be less losses if the master tape has been stored well and not stepped on to many times.
My tape electronics may be higher quality than my vinyl electronics.
Hence, I hear better sound from my tapes.
But, tape may not be the best media when compared to vinyl done right. Or maybe even digital.
I guess that is all fine and acceptable if I want to limit myself to a few well done albums. But I am not going to do that. I strictly listen to music I like and want to listen to. I don't ever play "audiophile" music for entertainment. I only play it when I have to do work such as analyzing something.
Ultimately, If I grab an album, or a digital stream and its a decent piece of media, I don't notice the losses. I sit back and very much enjoy my system. Its just a bit annoying when I do a comparison head to head and you hear the limitations in one or the other source. Heck, I would also be irritated if a $400 tape did not sound better than a digital file or record. That too would have been a big waste of money. And I have talked to people who are very disenfranchised with tape because they have other excellent sources that play better than the tapes they have aquired. My particular system with my individual media is what it is. It is by no means a measure of what can be.
Ralph, I'm curious your take on cleaning "New" records. Do you find there are contaminates on new records that need to be cleaned. Even records such as UHQR, Quality Records, ORG etc. Is it all in my head I think a record is more quiet after cleaning, or is there something that is really coming off a new record that degrades performance and needs to be removed. Your comment about surface noise is what made me ask.
I could be wrong but prior to digital 99% of LPs were made from tape and now it is probably 85% digital/15% tape so I am not sure what you mean by "vinyl done right." Direct to LP may be great but it isn't practical so unfortunately we are stuck with the current way LPs are made.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |