Analog Tape specs

bozmillar

bozmillar

New member
I started this thread in a different section, the realized it probably belongs here.

I've read about a million threads on analog vs digital, but they seem to generally be religious arguments rather than factual. I do not want to start another one. What I do want are some cold hard specs on reel to reel sound quality. SNR, Dynamic range, frequency response, THD and the likes.

We all know the how this works in digital audio, but as far as analog tape goes, I've never seen a spec written. Can somebody please provide this?

Also, the same for vinyl.

(I don't want this to turn into an analog vs digital argument. I just want some real information. The words warm, brittle, sterile and so forth are useless terms. Please don't use them.)
 
It depends on the machine and the tape used on it, what tape speed you're using and what standard the machine was aligned for. With all due respect, what you're asking is basically "How efficient are cars?"
Each model is different, and it will depend on what fuel you use, how they are driven and so on.

If you're interested, this will give you some ballpark figures (for that machine):
http://www.reeltoreel.de/worldwide/B77.htm

The figures for the A807 can be found in section 1.5 of this:
ftp://ftp.studer.ch/Public/Products/Recording_Analog/A807_MkI/Manuals/A807_MkI_Op_Serv.pdf (172 megabytes!)
...which is scanned from the original manual, but not OCR'd so I can't cut and paste the relevant numbers unfortunately. I note they didn't seem to be in the 2MB brochure, either.

Hope that helps somewhat... other people may be able to give you more specs for TASCAM, Otari machines and so forth.
 
This surely won't answer your question but specs are absolutely meaningless, generally speaking. The moment I stopped listening to folks who rave about freq response, S/N ratio and such and actually started listening to my analogue rig, it turned everything around for me, some 8 or so years ago.

Don't wanna sound brash but analogue, in general, is not about specs but rather whether you like the sound or not. On paper, many open reel machines may not look impressive but will sound like it. Tape machines are not tools of measurement but of experience. Same goes for vinyl.

Listen and work a bit with analogue and make up your own mind. Specs won't do it and will give you a skewed perspective.

--
 
Actually analog is very much about specs. There is nothing magical going on with magnetic tape. You can look at it scientifically to find out what is actually going on to find out why it sounds the way it does.

You can look at the waveform of a tack recorded on tape vs CD to get an idea of what the difference is.

Tape doesn't "feel" any different. It is doing something to the sound that people like, and that's what I'm trying to figure out. Again, no religious debate here.

And yes, my question was very vague. How about specs on the "best" analog tape and vinyl. And I know that that hardware can have equal specs to any digital counter part. I'm most interested in the actual medium.
 
bozmillar said:
Tape doesn't "feel" any different. It is doing something to the sound that people like, and that's what I'm trying to figure out. Again, no religious debate here.
Click to expand...

No offense intended here, but how can you say that when you have admitted yourself that you've never worked with analog?
 
It feels different because it is doing something to the sound. There's nothing magic about it. It's the same air molecules being compressed by the speaker cone and making it to your ears. I'm trying to get an idea of why magnetic tape sounds different.

Just so everyone can understand where I'm coming from, I'm not saying that digital is sonically better. I do believe that digital is more accurate, but I can be convinced other wise by someone who knows what he is talking about. I record digitally because I find it much easier to work with.

I just too often hear people defend tape and vinyl because it is more "real" and plays back exactly what was recorded while digital is just a bunch of 1's and 0's. I know that this is a bunch of bull and I know that most people who work with tape know that it's a bunch of bull. Something is happening to the sound on tape, and it's not just sending warm fuzzies through the speaker cone.
 
how can you say tape doesn't "feel" any better man? You obviously haven't worked with tape. Have you ever sat down and listened to vinyl? I guess not for quite a while. And if you have then maybe you should get your ears checked. None of us would be here wasting precious time conversing about this stuff if it didn't make us feel better some how. It seems to me like you are doubting your digital resources or else you wouldn't care about the science of it. When it comes down to it, science doesn't mean shit to most of the guys in this here forum. Its all about the puritism that you so clearly do not have.
 
bozmillar said:
It feels different because it is doing something to the sound. There's nothing magic about it. It's the same air molecules being compressed by the speaker cone and making it to your ears. I'm trying to get an idea of why magnetic tape sounds different.

Just so everyone can understand where I'm coming from, I'm not saying that digital is sonically better. I do believe that digital is more accurate, but I can be convinced other wise by someone who knows what he is talking about. I record digitally because I find it much easier to work with.

I just too often hear people defend tape and vinyl because it is more "real" and plays back exactly what was recorded while digital is just a bunch of 1's and 0's. I know that this is a bunch of bull and I know that most people who work with tape know that it's a bunch of bull. Something is happening to the sound on tape, and it's not just sending warm fuzzies through the speaker cone.
Click to expand...

To put it as simply as possible, analog recording is continuous, digital is sampling many thousands of times per second, but it's not continuous.
 
cjacek said:
bozmillar: We've done this before so no need to rehash. Check out this thread instead: https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=263641

--
Click to expand...

Actually, that is exactly what I didn't want this thread to turn into. I understand mshilarious's frustration because nobody gave him any real information when it comes to analog. I'm hoping to leave the word "digital" out of this thread completely.

Anybody who says that it has nothing to do with specs, is really saying that they don't understand the specs or don't know them.
 
Also, as others have mentioned, if you want to break it down only into specs, then that's your prerogative, but there are many other reasons why people choose to use analog.

For one, I like seeing moving parts. It makes me feel good.

I like cleaning heads and maintaining keeping a clean machine. It's actually fun to me and I take pride in a job well done. I don't enjoy backing up data in case of a hard drive crash.

I can't really tell you why. It's just the way it is.

There are way too many debates out there that get into specs and comparisons. I really don't care about that. It would take too much time to research it all, and that time could be spent recording, writing, etc.

When it all comes down to it, I like the sound that comes out of analog, and the sound that comes out of digital can sound nice too. I've heard many digital recordings that I thought sounded nice, as I'm sure everyone has. (And if anyone is going to say that they can instantly tell whether something is recorded analog or digital, I think they're lying and would not be able to demonstrate that in blind tests.)

But I just prefer to work with analog. For me, I can honestly say it's as much about the physical work process as it is about the sound.
 
famous beagle said:
For one, I like seeing moving parts. It makes me feel good.
Click to expand...

Valid
I like cleaning heads and maintaining keeping a clean machine. It's actually fun to me and I take pride in a job well done. I don't enjoy backing up data in case of a hard drive crash.
Click to expand...

Valid
I can't really tell you why. It's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Valid
But I just prefer to work with analog. For me, I can honestly say it's as much about the physical work process as it is about the sound.
Click to expand...

All of these seem to be good valid reasons for recording to tape.

I think my main beef is I have a problem when people quote untrue specs, both analog and digital (although I'm keeping digital out of this).

Untrue specs or ideas about analog:

1) Infinite dynamic range.

Again, anyone who knows anything knows that this is not true. Not true because tape very much has limited dynamic range due to noise. Infinite resolution means that you can predict exactly the value you will get with a given input and that transformation has a 1:1 mapping from the true source.

2) Because real sound is analog, storing on tape preserves its natural analog nature.

This is pretty much bogus because converting a pressure wave to an electrical voltage is a pretty unnatural conversion, and then converting that voltage to a magnetic bias on a tape is equally unnatural.

Again, I feel I need to reiterate the fact that I'm not arguing the benefits of analog vs digital here. I just want some real facts.
 
bozmillar said:
Valid

Valid

Valid

All of these seem to be good valid reasons for recording to tape.

I think my main beef is I have a problem when people quote untrue specs, both analog and digital (although I'm keeping digital out of this).

Untrue specs or ideas about analog:

1) Infinite dynamic range.

Again, anyone who knows anything knows that this is not true. Not true because tape very much has limited dynamic range due to noise. Infinite resolution means that you can predict exactly the value you will get with a given input and that transformation has a 1:1 mapping from the true source.

2) Because real sound is analog, storing on tape preserves its natural analog nature.

This is pretty much bogus because converting a pressure wave to an electrical voltage is a pretty unnatural conversion, and then converting that voltage to a magnetic bias on a tape is equally unnatural.

Again, I feel I need to reiterate the fact that I'm not arguing the benefits of analog vs digital here. I just want some real facts.
Click to expand...

I agree from the most part. I don't buy that analog is more "real" or "true" than digital. It came first, and so it's what many people got used to for a long time. But I agree, storing sound on a magnetic tape is no more natural than storing it on a digital hard disk.

Even my statement that analog is continuous and digital is sampled is only partly true. I mean, there is a finite number of those Ferric oxide particles on the tape, which are what's being magnetized and rearranged to form an "analog" (picture) of the sound being recorded. So, in a sense, analog is kind of sampling bits of the sound as well.

I think this is true. If my science is incorrect, someone please correct me.

But, regardless, I think we're kind of unsure of what you're asking. You can look all over the internet and find specs of tape machines and tape. So what's stopping you from doing that?
 
I can understand where he is coming from, somewhat. It's a curious question, not a question of a digital zealot.

I kind of liken analog and digital to cars. Analog is like a classic musclecar. They were big, brawny, and had a sound all of their own. Owners of such cars have a love affair with cleaning and tuning every little aspect. Newer "muscle" cars are efficient, quick, and don't quite sound "right" for a musclecar. Both have their fans and each suits a different crowd. However, NOTHING sounds and feels like a 60's big block engine. There are just some things that can't be duplicated with "new" technology. Simple as that.

I think what Bozmiller is trying to figure out is what exactly makes tape sound different from digital, other than the continuous vs. sampled aspect. Somehow I don't think anyone here can really answer that question. That would be a question for RMG or ATR perhaps, since we are going to dive into specs. For the most part, any format (analog and lossless digital) will produce 20hz to 20khz. I think what make/model of deck is pretty much irrelevant. Tape and track width influence the sound a bit. What makes tape have a "warmer/softer" sound? What is happening when a tape is at the point of saturation that makes a noticeable difference to the audio?

Am I helping or just mucking all of this up?:confused::p
 
I think this thread is veering away from specs and into subjective territory, and I'm probably the most guilty in that happening.

But I think my whole point is that choosing analog over digital actually has very little to do with specs for most people (at least it's that way for me), and therein lies the problem with the inquiry.
 
Unless the reason you choose analog over digital has nothing to do with the sound, then it is very much about the specs.
 
This is exactly right. I like the car analogy by the way.

I take the approach that if you don't know how something works, you can never work it to the best of its abilities. If I knew why tape sounds the way it does under certain circumstances, I would know how to make it sound as good as possible.

I'm not posing as an analog lover. I don't record to tape. I do want to understand why people are so gung ho when in comes to tape. Not the warm fuzzy why, but why tape sounds the way it does.

I also like to dispel myths from people who don't know what they are talking about.
 
This might be one of those unanswered questions, similar to "Why am I here?" or "What is the meaning of life?".

Now that I think about it, I don't think specs would be a deciding factor whether or not someone records on tape or via digital. It's much harder to edit with tape than it is with digital. Analog costs more in terms of maintenance, parts, and media.

When it all comes down to it, my honest opinion is that analog recording represents an art form in it's own. It is the mechanics of it that has a special allure to it. One can watch the meters bounce back and forth and the reels spinning, as well as the tension arms swaying a tad. I think it's the romantacism that is tied to the medium and the hardware.

20hz to 20khz is the same no matter what it is playing from.:p
 
jjones1700 said:
This might be one of those unanswered questions, similar to "Why am I here?" or "What is the meaning of life?".

Now that I think about it, I don't think specs would be a deciding factor whether or not someone records on tape or via digital. It's much harder to edit with tape than it is with digital. Analog costs more in terms of maintenance, parts, and media.

When it all comes down to it, my honest opinion is that analog recording represents an art form in it's own. It is the mechanics of it that has a special allure to it. One can watch the meters bounce back and forth and the reels spinning, as well as the tension arms swaying a tad. I think it's the romantacism that is tied to the medium and the hardware.

20hz to 20khz is the same no matter what it is playing from.:p
Click to expand...

I would like to say that I agree with most everything you said, but I think people who claim that tape is sonically better won't.
 
Mmmmmmm...

Tascam 34

Freq: 40Hz~22kHz +/-3db @ 0VU (15 ips);

S/N: 68 dB (NAB)/A Weighted @ 15 ips ;
.......92 dB with dbx (NAB)/ A-Wieghted @ 15 ips; (dbx: accessory)

Headroom: Recording Amp - Better than 25dB over 0VU at 1kHz.

THD: 0.8% at 1kHz @ 0VU/250 nWb/m

==========

Tascam 388

Freq: 30Hz~16kHz +/-3db @ 0VU (7.5 ips);

S/N: 92 dB with dbx (NAB)/ A-Wieghted @ 7.5 ips; (dbx: built-in)
.......59 dB without dbx (NAB)/A Weighted;

THD: 0.5% at 1kHz @ 0VU/250 nWb/m (dbx)

==========

That's all I've gotten, for now.:eek:;)

Specs do tell a story. Those specs look warm and fuzzy to me!:eek:;)
 

Attachments

  • 1-Tascam 34c.jpg
    1-Tascam 34c.jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 50
  • 1-Tascam 388z.jpg
    1-Tascam 388z.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top