Earn $100 by testing your reel to reel tape recorder for me :)

[mshilarious]

Sorry, 4-track owners, according to VP and whitefly you are dirtbags and not eligible.

Everybody else, the first two fellows who own a reel recorder deemed acceptable to VP and/or whitefly and can perform a simple loop test with a .wav file I provide will earn the sum of $100 USD, to be delivered either by US Mail Postal Money Order or Paypal, at your discretion. If VP and whitefly elect not to participate in this thread, then I will select an alternate arbiter of reel recorder quality. VP, whitefly, and Beck are also disqualified from earning money in this experiment due to known bias (sorry, bad pun!)

In order to earn the cash, you must reserve your slot by posting on this thread, download the test file which I will link, send it out through a converter capable of 24/96 operation both:

- back to your converter input; and,

- recorded on a track of your recorder at proper nominal level (let's say both -10 and 0VU), then subsequently replayed into your converter input.

Then post the resulting unmodified 24/96 .wav files back where everyone can access them.

Proper gain staging must be observed at all stages, both digital and analog.

Your converter must also be acceptable quality; nothing too strict but it must demonstrate at least 100dB unweighted dynamic range and less than 0.01% THD with a -1dBFS peak 1kHz sine wave loop. If you are in doubt, run the converter loop first and post the results as I will not pay if the converter loop quality does not meet these relatively easy standards (just about anything north of a Soundblaster should be fine).

You must be able to complete the test this week.

 

[lonewhitefly]

As an owner of several 4-tracks myself, I take offense to being called a 'dirtbag' ... wait, did I just call myself a dirtbag?

 

[mshilarious]

I've been a dirtbag my whole life . . .

 

[moresound]

Dirtbags unite!

 

[mshilarious]

I used to have Grim Reaper on LP . . .

 

[mshilarious]

OK, second (or third I guess) requirement: you have to post the most dirtbag LP or cassette you *currently* own.

I'm going with Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, on the album cover that guy looks like the child molester he sings about being:

 

[Chilljam]

I can do it... if all you want is to record the WAV file to tape then record it back through an AD interface onto the computer?

Obviously I would need to record the WAV file just bypassing the tape going directly to the AD interface to compare the interface to the actually tape recorder?

I got a Tascam 32 and a Fostex R8. Where is the WAV file?

 

[Chili]

For $100?? Hell, I'll just send you back the same wav file... screw the reel to reel. (dust and cobwebs)

 

[moresound]

OK, second (or third I guess) requirement: you have to post the most dirtbag LP or cassette you *currently* own.

I'm going with Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, on the album cover that guy looks like the child molester he sings about being:

Guess I could include all of my Jim Nabors LPs.

 

[mshilarious]

I can do it... if all you want is to record the WAV file to tape then record it back through an AD interface onto the computer?

Obviously I would need to record the WAV file just bypassing the tape going directly to the AD interface to compare the interface to the actually tape recorder?

I got a Tascam 32 and a Fostex R8. Where is the WAV file?

I think the 32 would probably be nicer, yes? But if you don't mind twice the work for the same pay you could run both.

The converter loop should bypass the tape; I'll leave it at your discretion whether you run through the input/output sections of the recorder. Ideally that and then without the recorder entirely, just with the same cables (or other cables of same type and length) that you had patched into the recorder.

The tape test of course is as you describe, should be without noise reduction although you are free to run both if you like.

File is here:

Test file

Nothing special, just the usual 100Hz, 1kHz, 10kHz sines, plus a 100Hz square and white noise, all at 24/96. This is a mono file, 33MB download.

Please run and post at least a little snippet (say the 1kHz sine) of the converter loop so any problems can be identified and resolved before you burn tape.

Also, you need to name your dirtbag LP

 

[mshilarious]

For $100?? Hell, I'll just send you back the same wav file... screw the reel to reel. (dust and cobwebs)

You are also ineligible as a former moderator and therefore a dirtbag

 

[Chilljam]

Analog Recorder - Tascam 32 at 15ips using Quantegy 456 tape. Recorder was calibrated to 456 tape (different batch) approx. 3 years ago.

Digital Interface - Roland VS-1680. Recorded at 24bit/48kHz (maximum).

Exact same cables were used for all tests.

http://www.filedropper.com/tascam32test

File #1

Test file in windows media player through laptop line out (full volume) to Roland VS-1680 at -4dB reading (first test tone) on Roland.

File #2

Test file in windows media player through laptop line out (full volume) to line input in Tascam 32 at 0VU to line out of Tascam 32 (no tape) to Roland VS-1680

File #3

Test file in windows media player through laptop line out (full volume) to line input in Tascam 32 at 0VU through tape then monitoring off playback head to Roland

File #4

Test file in windows media player through laptop line out (full volume) to line input in Tascam 32 at +3VU through tape then monitoring off playback head to Roland

 

[Chili]

You are also ineligible as a former moderator and therefore a dirtbag

It's an elite status.

 

[mshilarious]

Sorry, the technical quality of the test is too low for me to use. The 1kHz sine in sample #1 has about 5% THD. I think this is probably because the Roland input is getting overloaded, because the playback is sample #4 has less distortion, likely because its output is lower level (it is impossible for a following device to remove distortion, so the distortion in sample #1 must be occurring primarily in the Roland). Also on sample #4 in the silence between tracks there is a curious amount of residual signal from other tests that were tens of seconds distant.

About all I can tell is the Tascam is fairly well calibrated for frequency response . . .

 

[Victory Pete]

Quote from the OP:

"Sorry, 4-track owners, according to VP and whitefly you are dirtbags and not eligible."

This is not a true statement. I said no such thing, please be honest.

VP

 

[lonewhitefly]

Quote from the OP:

"Sorry, 4-track owners, according to VP and whitefly you are dirtbags and not eligible."

This is not a true statement. I said no such thing, please be honest.

VP

I know, this is how silly this is ... no one said anything bad about 4-track ... in fact, I only have 4 and 8-track multi-tracks myself and much prefer them over 16 or 24-track or beyond.

And if you'd spent any time in this forum, you would be well aware of my position on 4-track ... reference this thread I posted just one month ago: https://homerecording.com/bbs/general-discussions/analog-only/got-scully-280-4-track-338045/

The implication I made was that CASSETTE is not a fair representation of analog, and Mr. Hilarious implied that this is the only form of analog he has ever used.

That said, I totally and completely support 4-track cassette as a viable format in any case. I still own one myself and some of the best recordings I've heard in recent years were made on these things. And I would record on one before I would use the highest grade digital recorder.

But there is a big difference between 1/2" 4-track at 15 ips and 1/8" 4-track at 3.75. That is all ... I've used both.

 

[mshilarious]

You both implied it, so stop the whining.

There is this amazing invention called "language", humans created it so we could share the knowledge of our experiences, which avoids the requirement that every human being have every experience in the world to understand the knowledge gained from that experience. You should try it sometime.

For example, because I own a Porta you both assumed that I took all tape quality to be equal. That is manifestly false, as evident in the many, many posts on the other thread where I said positive things about professional analog recordings that you somehow refuse to acknowledge. In fact, from that experience (wait for it) I *know* that larger decks must test better. I mean it's right there in the specification section in their manuals even if I had never heard a recording made with one.

In this thread I am having other people run the bench tests I would if I had the gear laying around. Unlike you, I have no desire to collect more machines than I can reasonably use in a single session, so there is no other way for me to gather that information (this is faster and cheaper too). By sharing images and text, I will gain a fuller understanding of the technical specification of this equipment.

What's even better is that based upon my experience in my primary occupation of analog circuit design, I will know how the equipment sounds based upon its test results and nothing else. I know you two think that tape is magical, but it isn't really, if it was you probably wouldn't use it because its results would be unpredictable. One day you'd get a nice warm sound and the next day a tape reel would turn into a bouquet of roses!

Whatever it does is predictable, repeatable, and thus can be fully described through analysis. I know you don't like that idea, but I have bad news: the engineers that designed these recorders believed that.

 

[miroslav]

.... in fact, I only have 4 and 8-track multi-tracks myself and much prefer them over 16 or 24-track or beyond.

I'm curious...why do you feel that way?
Sure, 1/2" 4 track has some serious width per track, but it's not just about that, and of course, with only 4 tracks, if you want to do more involved productions, you have to bounce, and bounce...which then undermines the "track width" factor completely...IMHO.
I've recorded on 4-track 1/4 back when the term "home/project studio" didn't even exist...and I had a HUGE amount of fun doing it, and man, I did all kinds of bouncing maneuvers between the 4-track and my 1/4" 2-track...but at this point, unless i was going to track to something like a 1/2" 4 or 8 track and then dump to DAW so I could add more tracks...the whole bouncing thing just doesn't work for me, though it can be OK if you are very careful and do a lot of pre-production so that you minimize the bounces and plan your sub-mixes accordingly.
Anyway...I was just wondering why you think a 4-track trumps a 16 or 24....?

...I am having other people run the bench tests I would if I had the gear....

As I said in the other thread...when I get my newly acquired 2" 24-track all set up (hopefully in the next couple/three weeks....I will be happy to run tests for you...and also I can include my 1/2" 16-track and even my 1/4" mixdown 2-track if you like.

 

[mshilarious]

OK, sounds like fun! miro is a stand-up dude!

 

[lonewhitefly]

You both implied it, so stop the whining.

There is this amazing invention called "language", humans created it so we could share the knowledge of our experiences, which avoids the requirement that every human being have every experience in the world to understand the knowledge gained from that experience. You should try it sometime.

I'm more interested in empirical knowledge, and learning from those with first-hand experience. Although I'm certain there are many things I could potentially learn from you, you're approach to 'teaching' is kind of offensive.

For example, because I own a Porta you both assumed that I took all tape quality to be equal.

I did not assume that you were treating it as equal. I simply wanted to know what your first-hand experience with tape was. Because, quite frankly, most people who say the kinds of things you're saying seem to have little actual experience with tape, that's all.

Unlike you, I have no desire to collect more machines than I can reasonably use in a single session ...

Once again, you are making these weird statements that are really made up. I don't collect tape machines. I do not have any more machines than I use regularly. My equipment is fairly minimal.

I know you two think that tape is magical, but it isn't really, if it was you probably wouldn't use it because its results would be unpredictable.

I do find tape to be somewhat unpredictable and I enjoy this feature.

Whatever it does is predictable, repeatable, and thus can be fully described through analysis. I know you don't like that idea, but I have bad news: the engineers that designed these recorders believed that.

I'm familiar with the people who designed and worked on some of these decks and have corresponded with some of them. I'd love for you to join the Ampex or Scully groups and repeat the things you've posted in this thread and see what their reactions are.

Have a nice day.