ATR tape on Tascam 58 transport

J

Jonk

Member
Hey folks,

As described in other threads, ATR tape is thicker than the usual 456/SM911 that the Tascam 8 tracks were designed for. And it seems to be making the transport work harder.

My question is, what would I adjust on the Tascam to compensate? Tension? Which tension? The tape seems tight for lack of a better word, compared to SM911.
 
Tape tensions are calibrated using a Tentelometer.Without one you can't get them accurately set.I recently set up a 58 to run with the ATR tape.USing the tentelometer
 
,it dialed in great using the original tension values in the manual and biased up just fine.Frequency response and noise measurements exceeded published values in the manual.
 
The 58 transport is plenty robust for ATR tape, but yeah, the tension will be way off and needs to be tweaked for that tape. You're still going to experience faster head wear with ATR, but nothing catastrophic. However, ATR on something like the 38 or TSR-8 is bad news.
 
Okay,
Just got done adjusting the brakes. They were off a bit. Up next is tension. ATR sounds Soooo good so far.
I can see how to do the first part of the tension alignment, (visually) adjusting the trimmer resistors so the idlers are correct.

Do you have a recommendation for the tentelometer wkrbee? It looks pretty easy in the manual. Not sure what to look for though in regard to that tool.

The following is a little off topic, but thought somebody might find interesting:

While adjusting bias and aligning the electronics so far, ATR doesn't seem to have a problem with noise or freq. response even down as far as +3 (250nWb) Pretty cool. You obviously aren't going to be able to push it into saturation but from my experience so far, my Tascam really wants to run at that level or the electronics start sounding glassy for lack of a better word. 3dB over at 10K seems to be the sweet spot on this machine, which appears to match ATR's recommendation, but I actually arrived at that after trying what someone else on the Electrical Audio forums incorrectly said was ATR's recommendation and finding bad frequency response.
But things might improve even more when I get the transport really dialed in. I haven't checked frequency response up above 16k, but the sound is really good as is.

I did some tests comparing ATR to SM911 and I think ATR sounds better. I biased for both formulas and correctly aligned the electronics, recorded the outputs of the same track to digital for comparison. I was using a song off my favorite album, Van Morrison's Astral Weeks for comparison. I first did a comparison at the exact same level, then I did a comparison where I started at the same reasonable level, then I gradually increased the level going into the tape machine to see how both formulas reacted.

Yes, there is noticeable tape saturation available with SM911, and seemingly none with ATR (at these low levels) ATR just gets louder and retains it's representation of transients beautifully. I don't really care for SM911, now, after having used it for a few years. I like 456 a lot, (wish is was still around. I didn't include it in this comparison) but there is something that seems a little poky or aggravated about the high mids of SM911. I can see some people liking it for that reason. ATR sounded wider and had a more ampexy top end I thought after this comparison. Though you can't make it sound like when slamming 456, it sure is elegant sounding.
 
Jonk, are you using RMGI SM911? I'm curious because BASF/EMTEC SM911 was always one of my favs... buttery smooth and lower noise than 456 when biased properly, and that's the only SM911 I use these days. I have no RMGI at the moment to compare.
 
Yeah, Sorry. I should have mentioned it's the new stuff, RMGI.

Buttery smooth is how I'd describe ATR in comparison to the SM911. I did find I could get lower noise from RMG SM911 than 456, when I was going back and forth between those formulations, but it takes a lot of tape hiss for me to say too much. The softness of 456 I've always liked. Slamming that tape still sounds great to me.

It's kind of a pain, and I wish that I liked the new 911 better, because I'm having to set up my transport again. Just got a tentelometer off ebay. Hopefully should be good to go soon. Give ATR a shot if you get a chance. I don't know what kind of machine you have, but last time I checked, the half inch pancakes of ATR are actually cheaper than the RMG ones. But if you have a stock of the EMTEC, I can see using that up first. . .

Also, I should mention that my statement of SM911 sounding poky and aggravated in the high mids is formed not from this singular listening test of Astral Weeks, but from a couple years of recording in a couple tiny rooms in my house where brightness is an issue to overcome, and in comparison to 456 in this regard, 456 seemed to help me out just a little bit, in taming that. So, a different room should and will make all the difference. My friend is using RMG SM911 on his Otari and in a big room and loves it.

But anyway, that comparison is my long term opinion that developed between SM911 and 456. This singular test I did between ATR and SM911 was illuminating in that I used a source from a great sounding room with a lot of depth and did a pretty close A/B test. Not perfect, but as close as I could get it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top