Best all-around 1" 8-track (excluding Studer)

[lo.fi.love]

Hey folks,

I'm tossing this random question into the forum for everyone to consider.

I like the idea of eventually upgrading to a 1" 8-track. Not now, or next year, but *someday*. Now, I want to hear peoples' opinions of different 8-track decks.

The newest 1" 8-track to my knowledge is the Otari MX-70, which makes me believe that these machines will be in better condition on the secondhand market.

And I'm excluding Studers from the debate because they're just too expensive!

Other than that... what do you think?

 

[dBu]

If I'm not mistaken the Otari MX-70 was also available in 16-track, so upgrading would be pretty simple if you ever wanted to double your track capacity. Just change the heads and tape guides then add amps.

I've never worked on these models, but Otari is in my opinion the best reel deck made since the Scully 280 series. I think Otari is still looked down on by many studio folks who'd rather have Ampex or Studer machines. But in the broadcasting realm, Otari has no equal. Extremely reliable. Plus they're really easy to work on. (By work on, I mean repair.)

That said, if you can get your hands on a Scully 280 series 8-track buy it. You could also look at getting a mono or two-track transport, a set of 8-channel heads and the corresponding tape guides, and 8 amp channels from different sources. Then rackmount 'em and build your own 8-track.

 

[RRuskin]

If I'm not mistaken the Otari MX-70 was also available in 16-track, so upgrading would be pretty simple if you ever wanted to double your track capacity. Just change the heads and tape guides then add amps.

You're assuming that the 8 trk & 16 trk Otari MX-70 models used the same motors. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. If they don't, then an 8 trk to 16 trk conversion done as suggested above would be iffy at best.

 

[lo.fi.love]

You're assuming that the 8 trk & 16 trk Otari MX-70 models used the same motors. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. If they don't, then an 8 trk to 16 trk conversion done as suggested above would be iffy at best.

I would guess that they do, because they both use the 1" format. Just guessing.

 

[RRuskin]

I would guess that they do, because they both use the 1" format. Just guessing.

I assumed the 16trk would be 2". My mistake.

 

[themaddog]

A friend of mine had a 1" MX-70 and loved it. I know he sold it when he upgraded to a 2" 24 track Otari (not sure which model) and he still regrets having had to sell it.

-MD

 

[Raw-Tracks]

First off, the MX-70 was available as an 8-track and a 16-track. Both are 1" tape. I have seen 8-track models that had 16 tracks worth of electronics. An MX-70 like that could be either 8 or 16 track, depending on headstack.

However, if it only has 8 meters, it can only be an 8-track.

I've seen relatively affordable 8-track 1" Studers. Don't rule them out. The Otari is a great machine. You also might look for an MCI.

 

[lo.fi.love]

I've seen relatively affordable 8-track 1" Studers. Don't rule them out. The Otari is a great machine. You also might look for an MCI.

I'm aware of the JH-110C being a much-admired machine. Do you have personal experience with one? Plenty of spare parts are out there from what I've read.

 

[themaddog]

First off, the MX-70 was available as an 8-track and a 16-track. Both are 1" tape. I have seen 8-track models that had 16 tracks worth of electronics. An MX-70 like that could be either 8 or 16 track, depending on headstack.

However, if it only has 8 meters, it can only be an 8-track.

I've seen relatively affordable 8-track 1" Studers. Don't rule them out. The Otari is a great machine. You also might look for an MCI.

Meant to say my friend's was a 1", 8 track.

-MD

 

[ofajen]

Probably Stephens (especially if you need portability), then 3M right after. M-79 is newer, slightly smaller and has varispeed, M-56 and M-23 sound better. Then probably Ampex ATR series. Dave Amels did group delay distortion tests and found that perceived natural sound in listening tests uniformly correlated (among a broad range of listeners) with low group delay distortion. Studers were at the bottom of the list (but their tranports work great!)

Cheers,

Otto

 

[RRuskin]

Probably Stephens (especially if you need portability), then 3M right after. M-79 is newer, slightly smaller and has varispeed, M-56 and M-23 sound better. Then probably Ampex ATR series. Dave Amels did group delay distortion tests and found that perceived natural sound in listening tests uniformly correlated (among a broad range of listeners) with low group delay distortion. Studers were at the bottom of the list (but their tranports work great!)

Cheers,

Otto

Aside from the machines using 3M transports, is anyone still around with knowledge and parts for anything made by Stephens?

 

[dBu]

...Then probably Ampex ATR series...

The Ampex ATR's sound okay, but are heck to work on. I've got a pair of ATR-700's and I've had nothing but trouble from them. Otari decks are much more reliable in my opinion, and easier to repair.

I've also found that Otari parts are much more interchangeable than Ampex. They're kind of like the Jeep of reel decks.

That said, I adore Ampex's older stuff. One day when I have some money to throw away I'm going to buy a couple of Ampex 300's. I've used a couple before and got addicted. Those are the best reel-to-reel machines ever made, and they have hot glass in them too! But I digress to the realm of mono and two-tracks... sorry.

 

[RRuskin]

The Ampex ATR's sound okay, but are heck to work on. I've got a pair of ATR-700's and I've had nothing but trouble from them.

The ATR 700 was not an Ampex machine. It and the ATR 800 were built by TASCAM for Ampex. The 700 began life as the TASCAM 7300/25-2 units.

 

[ofajen]

Aside from the machines using 3M transports, is anyone still around with knowledge and parts for anything made by Stephens?

Brian Roth is one. There is a fellow in Calgary named Dave Kean who is big into the machines and I've been told is now making the little plugin opamp modules for the electronics. He has a number of machines in service. I wouldn't be surprised if he is also able to work on the newer transports. He bought all of the remaining machines John had a bit before he died a few years ago. There is also some danger that I may become one of those people.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[cjacek]

I'd probably go for an OTARI or MCI, if I were looking. That's my gut.

 

[ofajen]

Probably Stephens (especially if you need portability), then 3M right after. M-79 is newer, slightly smaller and has varispeed, M-56 and M-23 sound better. Then probably Ampex ATR series. Dave Amels did group delay distortion tests and found that perceived natural sound in listening tests uniformly correlated (among a broad range of listeners) with low group delay distortion. Studers were at the bottom of the list (but their tranports work great!)

Folks here might be amused to know that in Dave's high-end listening tests on all these machines, ProTools HD 96/24 came in last after the Studer machines. The basic thing seems to be coherence of timing across the audio band. Ironically, the PT system has the least group delay, which is the defining characteristic among the tape machines, but its timing performance gets killed by the pre-echo of its FIR filter and that causes a bigger effect than the group delay of even the Studer machines.

FYI, when I referred to the Ampex ATR machines, I'm only referring to the Ampex-made ATR-100 series.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[SteveM]

The ATR 700 was not an Ampex machine. It and the ATR 800 were built by TASCAM for Ampex. The 700 began life as the TASCAM 7300/25-2 units.

No wonder! That's been confusing me for some time now.

 

[dBu]

The ATR 700 was not an Ampex machine. It and the ATR 800 were built by TASCAM for Ampex. The 700 began life as the TASCAM 7300/25-2 units.

Cool! I didn't know that. No wonder they've given me so much trouble.

Now I'm going to throw mine away after dismantling them with a sledgehammer.

Thanks for the info.

 

[ofajen]

The basic thing seems to be coherence of timing across the audio band. Ironically, the PT system has the least group delay, which is the defining characteristic among the tape machines, but its timing performance gets killed by the pre-echo of its FIR filter and that causes a bigger effect than the group delay of even the Studer machines.

I'm not quite sure how Dave does these tests on tape machines, but it's fairly easy to conduct a similar test on a mixer. It was interesting to compare my Mackie CR-1604 to my Roland SMX-880 line mixers.

The Mackie has a delay of around 9 usec at 20K. It's about the same a bit above 1K, but things got squirrelly right at 1K. Dunno why. Maybe the scope was just struggling to reveal timing info that tight on a frequency that low. Anyway, the response from an input channel through to the output is starting to roll off by 20K (1 dB or so) and is significantly down by 50K. It was interesting to observe the timing effects of eq, also. In most cases, the EQ produced significant timing shifts as well as level shifts.

Meanwhile, the Roland line mixer (no EQ) has a delay of 2 usec and it's pretty much constant across the audio band. The thing is maybe 1 dB down at 100K and was still putting out visible signal on the scope (maybe down 15 dB or so) at around 400K. I've been experimenting with tracking and mixing with those line mixers because it tends to make the use of eq and effects more limited and deliberate, but evidently a side benefit is that the audio is cleaner, too.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[RRuskin]

Cool! I didn't know that. No wonder they've given me so much trouble.

Now I'm going to throw mine away after dismantling them with a sledgehammer.

Thanks for the info.

Those machines are actually pretty darn good even if they are difficult to align. I have 40 + year old 25-2 that is still flat to 20Khz and is reliable as all hell. It's need 2 repairs all the time I had it.