If tape is so good why does it record so poorly?

[Bruce B]

I have read in tape forum that we should never copy a tape using two equal machines - all the characteristic periodic imperfections of the machine - no mechanical system is perfect - will be doubled. Surely this advice considered that the quality of all the machines involved was similar.

Myth.....

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

I have read in tape forum that we should never copy a tape using two equal machines - all the characteristic periodic imperfections of the machine - no mechanical system is perfect - will be doubled. Surely this advice considered that the quality of all the machines involved was similar.

utter BS

 

[astrotoy]

Agree with Bruce and Leif. After all, both Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds use banks of ATR-102s for all their dubbing, and many others use identical models for their dubbing. (I do). Larry

 

[Foxbat]

There are many, many choices, dependent on your objective. You really need to select based on the sound. In many cases a particular machine will have recording and playback capabilities of unequal quality. For instance, speaking of ATR-102 I love its recording, but its playback leaves quite a bit to be desired, in my view.

 

[audioguy1958]

Agree with Bruce and Leif. After all, both Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds use banks of ATR-102s for all their dubbing, and many others use identical models for their dubbing. (I do). Larry

Yes, I've never heard of the desire to use different tape decks on purpose for duplicating. By the way, I'm surprised any modern music company can even find a number of A80's or ATR102's any more. You would think they are in high demand and becoming unobtanium. It would be interesting to see if any of these companies would be purchasing a roomful of new decks like the Stellavox TD9, Ballfinger, United Home Audio BR20 etc.

 

[Foxbat]

I would not. If I were running a production I would need something with proven reliability record, with ready parts supply and experienced technicians out there. Which pretty much means one of the two-three old, established brands.

 

[audioguy1958]

I would not. If I were running a production I would need something with proven reliability record, with ready parts supply and experienced technicians out there. Which pretty much means one of the two-three old, established brands.

I suppose you're right. I had forgotten about the need for ready parts replacement, as with the A80.

 

[Kingrex]

I thought the duplication houses used Otari.

 

[audioguy1958]

I've bought tapes from Acoustic Sounds, Ed Pong and Tape Project. Ed uses A80, I think Tape Project used ATR102 and I'm not sure what Acoustic Sounds uses.

 

[morricab]

I went to a store wth a friend shopping reel to reel decks. As a demo of why tape is so great, the owner takes a crappy cd player and uses the disc as a source to the tape deck. He records onto the tape and then flips the source switch back and forth between the cd and what has been recorded and is playing back from the tape. The owner is so smitten with himself. Listen to the difference. Hear how full the tape is. How rich the music sounds compared to the cd. I did not want to call the owner to the matt, but I sure told my friend, thats messed up. My belief would be a tape copy should be indistinguishable from the cd. Not the tape is bloated with artificial distortions, eq bands boosted. In general it was as if a loudness switch was flipped.

If this is truely what happens every time you dub a tape, how many levels would you have to go before the whole of the recorded media were not a compounded pile of mush and totally inaccurate to what was originally captured. If that is what tape does, I can see why no studio would want to use it. Digital is much more pure to each dub. It appears as if tape adds large, very audible amounts of incorrect, innaccurate additiona, not in the source noise to every level of the copy chain.

Am I wrong??? This guy swore up and down his cd player was direct to the tape with no processing. 15ips with a fairly new quality tape.View attachment 73079

Interestingly, my friend and I got very good clone copies off digital and from turntables with a Nakamichi ZX9. Much better than with his other Nak tape decks and his Technics R2R (X1000?). In A/B it was not easy to hear a difference whereas with the other decks you could hear pretty clearly the modifications to the sound. It was not gross coloration but audible for sure. The ZX9 was really transparent to the source.

 

[Kingrex]

My Nakamici BX300 does not sound at all like the source. I am excited to hear what happens when my deck is modified to run at double speed, and I think the heads rewired to be 1/2 track. That could end up a very good mix machine.

 

[astrotoy]

I've bought tapes from Acoustic Sounds, Ed Pong and Tape Project. Ed uses A80, I think Tape Project used ATR102 and I'm not sure what Acoustic Sounds uses.

Acoustic Sounds also has a bank of ATR102s. Chad gives credit to Paul Stubblebine, saying he copied Tape Project (including how they do the packaging of their tapes.) I don't know of any of the commercial companies that use the pro Otari's (like the MTR-15) for tape dubbing. Somebody on the forum may know. Besides the Ampex ATR-100 series, Studer A80 and A820 are pretty commonly used, but also several others, including the top pro Sony machine (which IIRC Jonathan H uses). Bob Attiyeh (Yarlung) uses the SonoruS machines that Arian Jensen developed based on the Revox PR99, and I remember someone uses the MCI machines which may or may be the ones that Chris Mara modifies. Opus 3 uses a modified Technics 1500 for playback and a Telefunken Magnetophone M-28 for the recording.

There are many other commercial companies producing tapes these days, and others can chime in and also correct any errors I've made.

Larry

 

[Kingrex]

I think the Otari was used for mass production of 7.5 and 3.25 ips tapes. Not current high quality production tapes.

 

[Don-RMGI]

I use Otari MTR 10's and 12's fully restored and modified by Soren, in Indiana. I know at least one other person using Otari's as well and at least one person who use MCI's. Not the Mara Machines.

I also use TASCAM 44ob's when I am doing 7 1/2 IPS 1/4 track duplication. Also restored and modified by Soren.

 

[microstrip]

Interestingly, my friend and I got very good clone copies off digital and from turntables with a Nakamichi ZX9. Much better than with his other Nak tape decks and his Technics R2R (X1000?). In A/B it was not easy to hear a difference whereas with the other decks you could hear pretty clearly the modifications to the sound. It was not gross coloration but audible for sure. The ZX9 was really transparent to the source.

IMHO the top Nakamichi cassette machines are excellent sounding - after going through several of them I stopped with a CR7E that I still play from time to time, just for nostalgia. I preferred the CR-7 to the similar sounding but better looking Dragon because I did not want the auto azimuth complexity, as I would not play pre-recorded tapes.

Nakamichi cassette machines used a not standard tape equalization - a tape recorded in a Nakamichi should be played in a Nakamichi machine, tapes I recorded in other machines sounded dull in the Nakamichi's.

 

[Foxbat]

Otari is a very capable machine, its MTR line, and MCI is also quite good, albeit not as reliable.

 

[astrotoy]

Soren is one of the great tape techs. He did my first ATR-102. Larry

 

[audioguy1958]

IMHO the top Nakamichi cassette machines are excellent sounding - after going through several of them I stopped with a CR7E that I still play from time to time, just for nostalgia. I preferred the CR-7 to the similar sounding but better looking Dragon because I did not want the auto azimuth complexity, as I would not play pre-recorded tapes.

Nakamichi cassette machines used a not standard tape equalization - a tape recorded in a Nakamichi should be played in a Nakamichi machine, tapes I recorded in other machines sounded dull in the Nakamichi's.

I have a rebuilt Nak 700ZXL and a 482. Both have been cleaned and at least partially recapped. I've purchased 2 boxes of the new Fox cassettes and tried them out on the 700zxl, and the sound is pretty incredible, easily as good as most consumer reel to reel machines. I've wondered what a Nak would sound like if its excellent transport (I think this could be done with a Studer cassette deck as well) were attached to a modern designed record and repro circuit and power supply? You might see a resurgence of cassette, surprisingly. The wow and flutter on the 700zxl is very low, and I know it could be drastically improved with a newly designed transport as well. Unfortunately the cost of research and design of this project would be prohibitive and unlikely to be recouped.

 

[rbbert]

I am not sure what Jonathan at IPI uses for duplicating; he has at least a couple of customized Studer/Revox that he uses for recording his masters.

I think Les Brooks does use Otari and Tascam for some of his duplication.

If one is concerned about reliability and service availability I would think that a UHA deck would have to be a strong contender.

 

[rbbert]

I have a rebuilt Nak 700ZXL and a 482. Both have been cleaned and at least partially recapped. I've purchased 2 boxes of the new Fox cassettes and tried them out on the 700zxl, and the sound is pretty incredible, easily as good as most consumer reel to reel machines. I've wondered what a Nak would sound like if its excellent transport (I think this could be done with a Studer cassette deck as well) were attached to a modern designed record and repro circuit and power supply? You might see a resurgence of cassette, surprisingly. The wow and flutter on the 700zxl is very low, and I know it could be drastically improved with a newly designed transport as well. Unfortunately the cost of research and design of this project would be prohibitive and unlikely to be recouped.

But why bother? Simply because cassettes may be cheaper than open reel? Having owned some Naks (Dragon, BX300, CR-7) I know they are very nice, but without using Dolby the noise is always noticeable, and Dolby B (and even more C) is problematic if there is any age-related HF loss on the recording (just from a physical standpoint, the much smaller surface area of a cassette tape results in an increased likelihood of this becoming meaningful). Also simply from a physical standpoint, considering manufacturing and engineering tolerances, a R2R operating at 15 ips (or 30 ips) will always be able to achieve lower wow/flutter than a cassette deck, and that is not even considering the contribution of the tape path inside the cassette shell (although the Nak transport does a good job of isolating that factor).