New Reel-to-Reel Titles - 4-Track?

[reelsound]

Fellow tapeheads, I wanted to take a quick survey to gauge your interest level in re-issues of classic rock albums on reel-to-reel tape.

Q- If someone was to release properly licensed major label titles made 1:1 FROM THE ORIGINAL ANALOG MASTER TAPES on 4-track/ 7.5 IPS tapes would you purchase them?

Q- Considering that similar type releases on 15 IPS/10.5" reels sell for $500-$1000 each, what would be a reasonable price point for a 4-track version of audiophile quality?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

the end performance result is unlikely to be good enough to justify the effort. you would need a user base of many thousands to start with to justify the cost of set-up. and getting commercial releases for iconic titles would be pretty tough. lots of headwind.

probably 2 track 7.5 i.p.s. 1/4" would have a much higher likely hood of success as the user base would be everyone with any tape deck. 4 track machines that are operational, with someone who wants to spend money on new tapes, is a pretty small group. 7.5 ips 1/4" 2 track can rival 15 ips 1/4" for performance. halving the cost of tape might be a workable thing, but still an uphill battle to actually get iconic titles. maybe a guy like Chad from Acoustic Sounds would have the pull to take a run at it.....but still 1:1 tape dubbing is an expensive process.

fun to dream anyway.

 

[reelsound]

the end performance result is unlikely to be good enough to justify the effort. you would need a user base of many thousands to start with to justify the cost of set-up. and getting commercial releases for iconic titles would be pretty tough. lots of headwind.

probably 2 track 7.5 i.p.s. 1/4" would have a much higher likely hood of success as the user base would be everyone with any tape deck. 4 track machines that are operational, with someone who wants to spend money on new tapes, is a pretty small group. 7.5 ips 1/4" 2 track can rival 15 ips 1/4" for performance. halving the cost of tape might be a workable thing, but still an uphill battle to actually get iconic titles. maybe a guy like Chad from Acoustic Sounds would have the pull to take a run at it.....but still 1:1 tape dubbing is an expensive process.

fun to dream anyway.

Excellent feedback and great point. 2-track 7.5" on 7" reels would make sense from a compatibility and quality perspective. What do you feel would be a reasonable price point for such titles? While we are dreaming

 

[Foxbat]

The cost would be about the same. Tape cost is a very small element in the overall cost, so, just for the sake of discussion, perhaps a saving or $25 per album.

On the other end... how about 30ips tapes for just $50 extra?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Excellent feedback and great point. 2-track 7.5" on 7" reels would make sense from a compatibility and quality perspective. What do you feel would be a reasonable price point for such titles? While we are dreaming

the way to look at it would be "where is the price point that might change the way tape deck owners and dreamers think in terms of assembling a library?" maybe it's $100, maybe $125, maybe $150. (at least at 7.5 ips you would always only need one reel) something low enough to spur on creating a dubbing process more efficient for lowering the cost. the current set-up of a half dozen dubbing decks doing 1:1 is too expensive for efficiency.

it would take a big leap of faith for someone to take the gamble. I don't see it happening mostly since vinyl is just too good and would be head to head mostly (or better) with 7.5 ips. just my take on it as I know how vinyl and tip top tape (15 ips 1/4") compares.

and iconic rock titles are not necessarily the best sounding tapes, although they can be excellent.

 

[reelsound]

the way to look at it would be "where is the price point that might change the way tape deck owners and dreamers think in terms of assembling a library?" maybe it's $100, maybe $125, maybe $150. (at least at 7.5 ips you would always only need one reel) something low enough to spur on creating a dubbing process more efficient for lowering the cost. the current set-up of a half dozen dubbing decks doing 1:1 is too expensive for efficiency.

it would take a big leap of faith for someone to take the gamble. I don't see it happening mostly since vinyl is just too good and would be head to head mostly (or better) with 7.5 ips. just my take on it as I know how vinyl and tip top tape (15 ips 1/4") compares.

and iconic rock titles are not necessarily the best sounding tapes, although they can be excellent.

Thanks Mike,

You and I are on exactly the same page regarding this subject. It really is a case of making a very expensive hobby (collecting 10.5"/ 15 IPS "master tape" copies) more accessible to more than the "lucky" few. At $500 plus for those quality tapes, it is a wealthy persons game. I'm thinking that $150-$250 per tape would open the door to many more collectors. As I understand it, there are well over 50,000 R2R machines of varying age and quality currently in use. Some of those decks were purchased for less than the cost of a single master tape copy. I too agree that vinyl is an excellent format. Assuming you have an equally priced turntable and R2R player, especially below $1000 in purchase price, I am of the opinion that the tape deck will sound better (better bass and no surface noise, etc) I have heard this in my own experience with mass produced 7.5 IPS tapes from the 70's vs. their vinyl counterparts on reasonable priced gear.

Every great journey begins with a single step. It is very exciting to see so many great titles released on 10.5" tape and to experience those tapes on a great system is an emotional experience indeed. One that I have never had with any other format.

 

[reelsound]

The cost would be about the same. Tape cost is a very small element in the overall cost, so, just for the sake of discussion, perhaps a saving or $25 per album.

On the other end... how about 30ips tapes for just $50 extra?

So then, are you suggesting that there is an audience willing to pay more for 30 ips copies? That's a lot of reels of tape to change during an album and (based on the cost of 1-2 additional pancakes of tape) might add $100 more in tape cost alone to the duplication process. I know that 30 IPS offers advantages in SQ even when duplicated from a 15 IPS master but are people willing to pay for it?

 

[Foxbat]

I can only guess the OEM pricing on tape, but I am absolutely certain it is NOT $100 per reel. So yes, I am perfectly willing to pay an extra $50 or so for 30ips recording... but I sure as hell am not going to pay twice the price of the 15ips ones. The royalties are the same, the process time is the same, it is just the added cost of one reel at OEM price.

 

[dminches]

I have been selling some of my commercial 7.5ips 1/4 track reels on discogs. These are reels for which I have better copies on either 15ips reels or LPs. Based on the prices I have been getting and the speed at which they sell I think there is a very healthy market out there for these tapes. In addition, I think there are many more people out there with working 1/4 track decks than 1/2 track.

Of course, the ultimate level of interest will be heavily affected by the price and my guess is that it will be pretty high, thus lowering the interest.

 

[dminches]

What confuses me is how are LP reissue companies able to charge less than $50 per unit? Are the LP royalty fees that much lower than the tape?

I realize the cost to make a reel (tape duplication including artwork, reels, boxes, etc) is a lot more than for an LP, but that doesn’t explain why reels cost $500 or more.

 

[Foxbat]

I have been thinking along the same lines.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What confuses me is how are LP reissue companies able to charge less than $50 per unit? Are the LP royalty fees that much lower than the tape?

I realize the cost to make a reel (tape duplication including artwork, reels, boxes, etc) is a lot more than for an LP, but that doesn’t explain why reels cost $500 or more.

material costs, and pressing process efficiencies. they've had almost 100 years of evolution for pressing records for volume. there are multiple plants doing it and competition. a knowledge base.

my guess is the manufacturing cost including jacket printing for a single disc is under $10, maybe as high as $15 in extreme low volume runs. maybe 75% higher for 2 disc titles. and shipping is much less.

tape duplication at 1:1 is comparatively in the dark ages. and the process of tape duplication is inherently inefficient. and how many experts who have done high quality tape at a volume? zero. never been done.

tape manufacturing cost is likely $100 a reel give or take. plus shipping.

 

[Foxbat]

Do you think recording companies buy tape at retail?

 

[reelsound]

Do you think recording companies buy tape at retail?

Very interesting perspectives on this and there is merit across the board. A few additional considerations to add. 1. record labels do not typically put out reel to reel titles themselves but rather license the rights to a third party like acoustic sounds who then do everything else. 2. The costs involved then include that license fee, mastering, blank tape (which costs at least $50 per pancake plus the metal reels which are not cheap either), duplication costs, packaging, liner notes, marketing, etc. The process is costly and difficult to do well. That is why the current cost is so high. Still, when done well, the results are stunning! Closer to the event than any other format IMO.

 

[Kour40]

I have more than 300 commercial 7,5 ips tapes. Most of them sound better than original LPs, but not as good as new remastered audiophile records. Acoustic production records are good example. That means commercial tape price should be less than 50-60$.
For this price tape duplication make sense if you have access to chip used magnetic tape without SSS.

 

[Ampexed]

My main question would be WHY? 1/4 track 7.5 ips suffers from poorer signal to noise ratio, has more wow/flutter, and most damning for me is that it has crosstalk from the opposite-direction tracks which is clearly audible to my ears. Raw tape isn't a bargain, but it sure is not all that expensive in the scheme of things. In my opinion, the companies releasing $500 tapes are charging too much unless the cost to them for use of the master is insanely high - if that is so, you'd be paying the same amount for the use of the master regardless of the speed and track configuration you're using. Nope, I think this idea is as untenable using the original master to duplicate cassettes.

 

[adrianywu]

My main question would be WHY? 1/4 track 7.5 ips suffers from poorer signal to noise ratio, has more wow/flutter, and most damning for me is that it has crosstalk from the opposite-direction tracks which is clearly audible to my ears. Raw tape isn't a bargain, but it sure is not all that expensive in the scheme of things. In my opinion, the companies releasing $500 tapes are charging too much unless the cost to them for use of the master is insanely high - if that is so, you'd be paying the same amount for the use of the master regardless of the speed and track configuration you're using. Nope, I think this idea is as untenable using the original master to duplicate cassettes.

The crosstalk issue with 1/4 track tape really depends on the head and the alignment. If properly done, crosstalk should not be a problem. The Ampex made 1/4 track tapes esp. from the late 60s and early 70s. can sound astonishingly good. The classical titles are a steal. I have bought NOS still sealed tapes for $30 - $60 each. Rock titles are much more expensive, since not many 7.5 ips were sold (the younger buyers had less financial resources in those days). My understanding is that the 1/4 track tapes that were made in Japan were duplicated in real time, whereas Ampex in the US were doing them at up to 16x speed. The Barclay Crocker tapes were done at 4x speed.

 

[jdza]

IMHO people collect 1/4-track tape purely for nostalgia and current prices reflect that.

Before tape became "a thing" and then a boutique " thing" I collected 1/4 track tapes. I started with the usual Revox machines, ending with a 1/4 track G36. I then had a Studer 67 modified with Nortronics pro heads and Bottlehead tube electronics and ended with a Studer A80 with Flux Magnetics 1/4 track heads.

I am surprised by how good these tapes can sound. This is not the same as saying they are great-sounding. They are not a match for 7.5 1/2 track and not even close to 15 ips. IMO both vinyl and streaming easily surpass it in sound quality.

I have more than a little invested in the hardware. Would I buy a new 7.5 1/4 track tape? No.

[

 

[Ampexed]

The crosstalk issue with 1/4 track tape really depends on the head and the alignment. If properly done, crosstalk should not be a problem. The Ampex made 1/4 track tapes esp. from the late 60s and early 70s. can sound astonishingly good. The classical titles are a steal. I have bought NOS still sealed tapes for $30 - $60 each. Rock titles are much more expensive, since not many 7.5 ips were sold (the younger buyers had less financial resources in those days). My understanding is that the 1/4 track tapes that were made in Japan were duplicated in real time, whereas Ampex in the US were doing them at up to 16x speed. The Barclay Crocker tapes were done at 4x speed.

Yes, crosstalk from the reverse tracks was a problem, and plainly audible - no amount of head alignment will cure this. Ampex duplicated their tapes on 3300 series high speed duplicators at 8x normal speed, or 60 ips. The only decent pre-recorded tapes from Ampex were their EX-+ classical releases which were recorded with PPM metering at generally 'hotter' levels on polyester tape. None of these were near the quality of vinyl. I can play any one of the hundreds of these tapes I have to this day - they are all hissy, lack bass, and have crosstalk from the reverse tracks which is plainly audible in quieter passages on classical tapes.

BTW, the EX-+ tapes had a short segment of white noise at the end of side "A" for quality control purposes. You can play it and monitor it on an FFT to see the frequency response of the dub. This was revealed to me by Jay McKnight who was the engineer responsible for the Ampex duplication operation.

 

[reelsound]

Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses. Based on this feedback it appears that 7.5" 1/2 track would be a preferred format over 4-track as an "entry level" product.