If tape is so good why does it record so poorly?
- Thread starter Kingrex
- Start date
In theory when dubbing tapes we should never play and record using the same model of tape machine - all the intrinsic mechanical issues due to the design of the machine are doubled. Perfection is using an ATR and a Studer for dubbing.
Only by semi-local guys Jeff from J Corder and Eric at Gig Harbor Audio speaking of ATR and RMBI.
another reason for having 2x A80RC:
if shit happens with one I can swap cards when locating faults
also a limited storage of spares will cover both
if shit happens with one I can swap cards when locating faults
also a limited storage of spares will cover both
I spoke with John French at JRF Magnetics who experimented with the Bottlehead kit on the Otari and he advised the same - better to leave the machine as it was originally designed.
If I had only the two machines, I would playback on the Studer and record on the Otari. A wise man once told me that practically any tape machine can capture a good recording, but the playback circuitry of the best professional decks (Ampex ATR, Studer, Nagra, Otari MTR series) sets them apart from the other machines.
As for the Studer machines, the A80RC beats the A820/12/10 and rivals the ATR (to my ears).
My Studer A80 RCMKII 1/2”, 2 tracks, 15/30ips is calibrated to 510nWb/m. I use ATR Mastertape with great results.
Technical Info — ATR Magnetics
www.atrtape.com
Interesting post.
Please realize that ANY deck can have a different "sound" when used for recoding versus just playing back a tape. U47 and I found out long ago that decks, specifically Revox, can make a better sounding recording than they do when just playing back that or anther pre-recprded tape. We've (and I have to add most of you reading this) have found how "wanting" the playback electronics are in most decks, hence the flourishing of purpose-built, "outboard" electronics. Not many folks have delved into outboard record electronics.
Please understand that the decks we are talking bout here have TOTALLY separate record and playback circuitry - AND different heads. Gain structure in the amplification is different and you are "de-equalizing" when playing back versus equalizing/de-equalizing when recording/playback - using different techniques/components in those networks. PB and record heads are different - different physical configurations and low impedance for record and (usually) a good deal higher for playback. And there is the necessity to ad bias to the record head to linearize the whole process.
I've tried upgrading the audio parts in a few 1500's can say that they don't come close to a even a stock Studer. Part of the problem has to do with the heads. Panasonic made most of the heads for all of the Japanese recorders - confirmed by John French. I've done listening comparisons between the Technics/Nortronics/Studer/Nagra/Flux Magnetics heads and the best description of what I heard was a "loss of information" with the Panasonics - for a whole number of possible reasons like core material/lamination thickness/annealing/wire.
Charles
From a tape duplication perspective, I mentioned a long while back that a prerecorded tape is also ALREADY equalized per some "standard" curve - be it NAB/IEC/AES. When you Dupe a tape you use two decks, the playback decks' electronics amplify and RE-EQUALIZE it back to "flat". The second deck then amplifies and EQUALIZES it back to where it was or to fit another curve. Think of all the EXTRA amplification re/equalizing components involved to do this. What about the amplitude/frequency dependent phase leads/lags that this additional "futzing" adds the original "sound"? You are also throwing away gain while adding noise to the process. Why not just amplify the tape FLAT and feed it to the record head where the bias is added? I tried this on a [two] modified 1500 [one with a wired out Nortronics pro PB head and the other] with a Nortronics Record head and drove it with one of my preamps sans the playback EQ (but with a little EQ for the record head itself). It sounded really nice. If I were into trying to provide the ABSOLUTE BEST best tape duplication services, I'd use an approach like this - otherwise you are COLORING THE SOUND OF THE MASTER TAPES tape(s).
NOTE [ ] implies a later edit but now all the edited work have a line thru it?????????
Please realize that ANY deck can have a different "sound" when used for recoding versus just playing back a tape. U47 and I found out long ago that decks, specifically Revox, can make a better sounding recording than they do when just playing back that or anther pre-recprded tape. We've (and I have to add most of you reading this) have found how "wanting" the playback electronics are in most decks, hence the flourishing of purpose-built, "outboard" electronics. Not many folks have delved into outboard record electronics.
Please understand that the decks we are talking bout here have TOTALLY separate record and playback circuitry - AND different heads. Gain structure in the amplification is different and you are "de-equalizing" when playing back versus equalizing/de-equalizing when recording/playback - using different techniques/components in those networks. PB and record heads are different - different physical configurations and low impedance for record and (usually) a good deal higher for playback. And there is the necessity to ad bias to the record head to linearize the whole process.
I've tried upgrading the audio parts in a few 1500's can say that they don't come close to a even a stock Studer. Part of the problem has to do with the heads. Panasonic made most of the heads for all of the Japanese recorders - confirmed by John French. I've done listening comparisons between the Technics/Nortronics/Studer/Nagra/Flux Magnetics heads and the best description of what I heard was a "loss of information" with the Panasonics - for a whole number of possible reasons like core material/lamination thickness/annealing/wire.
Charles
From a tape duplication perspective, I mentioned a long while back that a prerecorded tape is also ALREADY equalized per some "standard" curve - be it NAB/IEC/AES. When you Dupe a tape you use two decks, the playback decks' electronics amplify and RE-EQUALIZE it back to "flat". The second deck then amplifies and EQUALIZES it back to where it was or to fit another curve. Think of all the EXTRA amplification re/equalizing components involved to do this. What about the amplitude/frequency dependent phase leads/lags that this additional "futzing" adds the original "sound"? You are also throwing away gain while adding noise to the process. Why not just amplify the tape FLAT and feed it to the record head where the bias is added? I tried this on a [two] modified 1500
NOTE [ ] implies a later edit but now all the edited work have a line thru it?????????
Last edited:
had an interesting long night discussion session with Charles King @ ETF in Belleme last year and we discussed the possibility of skipping the decoding and the coding processes when dubbing tape....don´t quite remember what we ended up with, but he liked the Aquavit we brought with us...
HI Christenen,
Dueling replies - at the same time
Hope you are well and hope to see you next year!!!!!
This has been a pretty enlightening thread. I mostly want playback. I have an old Columbia 4 track Brubeck that is starting the sticky shed and I want to save it. Put it on a 10", 7.5ips, 2 track. But if getting a good recording of it is too much trouble its not a big loss.
I do now wonder about getting another head block with a couple heads wired out. I really need a tech in Seattle. Gene is happy to make me a head block with a regular head wire out, as well as a flux head wired out. Then I could go back and forth. But I don't want to mail my Otari to get them calibrated or aligned or biased. Rookie here forgetting the correct terminology. What I was told was that once its done, as long as I don't loose the washers, I can take the block off and put it back on without loosing any alignment. In other words, swap between the 2 blocks. That would be a nice feature. Am I at the point of diminishing returns. HMmmmmmm. Probably comes down to what does it really mean to me.
I do now wonder about getting another head block with a couple heads wired out. I really need a tech in Seattle. Gene is happy to make me a head block with a regular head wire out, as well as a flux head wired out. Then I could go back and forth. But I don't want to mail my Otari to get them calibrated or aligned or biased. Rookie here forgetting the correct terminology. What I was told was that once its done, as long as I don't loose the washers, I can take the block off and put it back on without loosing any alignment. In other words, swap between the 2 blocks. That would be a nice feature. Am I at the point of diminishing returns. HMmmmmmm. Probably comes down to what does it really mean to me.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Whenever I dub for the majors, most want two versions... .one with EQ and one without.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
I have my decks wired directly in/out if I want to use external hardware. I'm sure you've heard of a few outboard record units.
Yes, there are plenty of correct answer here but what you originally said is a guy all sales and hype but not a very good Technician at his place. A tape deck with good heads and upgraded correctly should have no difference from source to tape at 7.5 IPS and above. The 3.75 IPS on decks was really not meant for music but for lower grade recording like FM.
I have been playing with my tape quite a lot after receiving my new direct out preamp from Tim Leinbaugh. The 7.5 ips are nice. But the 15 ips are special. I can't see how 7.5 copy to 7.5, or 15 to 7.5 would happen without some losses. But I guess that is part of the allure of tape and why copies of good masters are so valuable. The further you walk away , the more is lost.
That above is just my perception. I'm so novice. My 15 ips are quite a bit better than the 7.5 ips. Something changes at 15 ips. I do have a few Barclay Crocker that are real good. But the 15 ips stomp on them. The 7.5 ips I have that are failing are toss out material as far as I am concerned. Move on.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone found a good copy of Carole King Tapestry. Every tape and every vinyl I have sounds like a heavy wool blanket is pulled over it. Like she snuggled in for the ride. Is it really just a overly filtered recording at the master level. Nowhere is the magic???
Or a Carly Simon with Your So Vain and Anticipation that play alive and clean. Such great songs, but a bit overly compressed.
That above is just my perception. I'm so novice. My 15 ips are quite a bit better than the 7.5 ips. Something changes at 15 ips. I do have a few Barclay Crocker that are real good. But the 15 ips stomp on them. The 7.5 ips I have that are failing are toss out material as far as I am concerned. Move on.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone found a good copy of Carole King Tapestry. Every tape and every vinyl I have sounds like a heavy wool blanket is pulled over it. Like she snuggled in for the ride. Is it really just a overly filtered recording at the master level. Nowhere is the magic???
Or a Carly Simon with Your So Vain and Anticipation that play alive and clean. Such great songs, but a bit overly compressed.
Last edited:
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
As with LP's. I don't get cutting an LP from a digital source.... Blasphemy!!!
A properly working tape machine will make a certain amount of 3rd harmonic as its primary distortion component before the tape saturates. The 3rd harmonic, like the 2nd, adds richness. But if you are pushing the level so the meters are in the red, other harmonics will show up too (prior to saturation) making the tape recording seem 'louder' since those harmonics are used by the ear/brain system to sense sound pressure- their presence make the recording sound louder, just like they do in an SET.
You can do about 3 generations before things go to the bad place in a hand basket. Studios like to use tape because it can make the recording sound more lush and vivacious if used properly. Keeping in mind of course that it will be the master, and a lot of studio machines have wider bandwidth than digital systems, so its not all bad.
The trick here is to not demand more than about 20dB of gain out of the opamp. If that simple rule is followed, even 5532s can be surprisingly neutral! You can get better opamps now and they are drop-in replacements with lower noise and much higher gain bandwidth product. But even so, you still don't want to break the 20dB rule even with modern opamps- the gain bandwidth product isn't high enough yet.
Similar threads
