New production analog tape machine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetbeats
  • Start date Start date
Innnnnnteresting, very interesting! Looks to just be a consumer level playback deck, though. The other bummer is I googled around for pricing and came up with the princely sum of $10,000. Shucks :D Looks like that company is making high end electrostatic speaker too. Interesting.
 
I'm not surprised at the price to be honest...It appears to be targeted at the Tape Project crowd among whom I find what I feel to be a bloated fiscal sensibility...no offense meant to what they are doing but I just don't philosophically or operationally relate to it.
 
I feel ya there! Sure is a pretty deck, though!

It's kind of like... a dime short of new production, seems like it's a really money rebuild of old Revox machines, certainly a couple notches beyond, for example, the pro MCI machine refurbs which aren't pulling out and retrofitting electronics and giving them a smarter attire so much as replacing all the stuff that tends to break down over time so that they'll actually work properly :D

Tape seems to be regaining popularity, but the realities of building a newly designed machine mean economic unfeasability in the modern marketplace, so I suspect we'll be seeing more of these nicely done pro rebuilds.
 
Last edited:
I’ll withhold final judgment for now, but a few things make it hard for me to take it seriously.

- There are no specs listed.

- We all know tubes have some beneficial coloration, which is part of the draw. That is, pleasant coloration as opposed to digital’s objectionable artifacts. Everything has some coloration or artifacts that make it less than true to the source.

- Perhaps the biggest clue is the tubes in the pics have the funky “dampers” around them… nothing more than high temp rubber washers that don’t benefit tubes in any way. This tells me it's being marketed to the “Audiophool” crowd. Yep, the same people who make tape so damn expensive because it’s, “Rare” even though its not. ;)

It has the basic layout of the Revox B77, but who knows what’s inside, and unless the remote has all the functions it has a lot less user configurable features than the B77. Strange that it has the same mechanical counter as the B77 considering they're pitching this thing as so electronically refined. :idk:

One thing to remember is a big reason new tape machine manufacture became unprofitable is because old tape machines keep on ticking. It’s much more cost effective to buy used and restore to like new condition than to pay new prices. Manufacturers were competing with their own legacy equipment.
 
Last edited:
Beck said:
I’ll withhold final judgment for now, but a few things make it hard for me to

- Perhaps the biggest clue is the tubes in the pics have the funky “dampers” around them… nothing more than high temp rubber washers that don’t benefit tubes in any way. This tells me it's being marketed to the “Audiophool” crowd.
Click to expand...

So much for withholding judgement, eh! You ever play with tube dampers? If there are microphonics at play with a given tube in a given circuit, yes of course vibrations will affect them and therefore tube dampers will will have an affect. The rubber dissipates vibration, it just does. If no microphonics, then it's true that they aren't relevant. YMMV. As for those "rubber washer" type dampers, personally I don't think they're a good idea because they'll restrict heat dissipation and that's not really ok as far as I'm concerned. There are other designs that will damp vibrations without acting like a tube-strangling donut :D
 
briank said:
So much for withholding judgement, eh! You ever play with tube dampers? If there are microphonics at play with a given tube in a given circuit, yes of course vibrations will affect them and therefore tube dampers will will have an affect. The rubber dissipates vibration, it just does. If no microphonics, then it's true that they aren't relevant. YMMV. As for those "rubber washer" type dampers, personally I don't think they're a good idea because they'll restrict heat dissipation and that's not really ok as far as I'm concerned. There are other designs that will damp vibrations without acting like a tube-strangling donut :D
Click to expand...

These "tube dampers" do nothing for microphonics. This is a big audio myth, so you're not alone by any means in not understanding the nature of microphonics. It’s not as simple as putting a band around the glass. And as I said this is a big clue in initial assessment of this particular product, but I still will wait and see in the long term what this new machine might or might not start industry wide. Use the rubber bands if it makes you feel better. ;) I can’t underestimate the psychology of it all because that does have a significant impact on the user even if the device makes no measurable difference. And they’re cheap… so cheap in fact it kinda makes you wonder why tube manufactures don’t include them as a matter of course to improve the microphonics of their tubes right out of the box, doesn’t it? ;)
 
Beck said:
These "tube dampers" do nothing for microphonics.
Click to expand...


I never said they did anything for microphonics, I said they did something for tubes affected by vibration ;)

Personally, I can smell a pile of BS when it's in front of me, especially when it comes to audio "tweaks" which are mainly why there's a lot of hostility toward audiophiles--much of it is overpriced and dumb, no doubt. I've had experiences where tube dampers (Herbie's in particular, which for the record came free with some tube monoblocks I bought) changed things (for better or worse and the wherefore and why are different stories), but others where they did nothing.
 
Last edited:
yeh, something doesn't seem right about this. it appears that someone got a hold of a bunch of NOS Revox decks and modified them.
 
A better bargain is to buy a brand new Otari 5050 III built at the factory a couple of weeks ago. A bargain now at around 8k as the price is going up after the next five are gone.
 
lonewhitefly said:
yeh, something doesn't seem right about this. it appears that someone got a hold of a bunch of NOS Revox decks and modified them.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with that per se, since that's basically what ATR do to Ampex machines.
 
briank said:
I never said they did anything for microphonics, I said they did something for tubes affected by vibration ;).
Click to expand...

Right, they do nothing for a microphonic tube...BUT...they do dampen the vibration of the tube's internal components.
I use them on some of my guitar amp tubes.
When playing with some punch, the low end can make some tubes vibrate, and if the guts of the tube is vibrating against the glass of the tube...you can hear it on certain notes.

The silicone rubber bands don't solve all vibration issues...but they can help...and I've not noticed any issues with heat, but then, I'll only have of the rubber bands on a tube, some skinny and some thicker.

The audiophool crowd just gets a little kooky over this kind of stuff.
 
Beck said:
One thing to remember is a big reason new tape machine manufacture became unprofitable is because old tape machines keep on ticking. It’s much more cost effective to buy used and restore to like new condition than to pay new prices. Manufacturers were competing with their own legacy equipment.
Click to expand...

I think too much of the music "talent" of our time have come to expect and rely on the many vices of digital audio production, rather than the more austere, demanding process of tape. So the market is still relatively small and probably best met with restoration of old machines. To seriously consider a new machine, there would have to be more of a market for use of the machines.

Even then, it will take a genius who can follow in the footsteps of John Stephens to come close to making a buck selling machines to pros. John made arguably the best pro machines ever, and certainly the most portable by far, and he made a number of changes to the conventional designs of his era that must be followed on and extended to have any hope of a commercial product.

It must avoid any physical component that can be avoided, to cut cost, size and weight.

John designed his own, small, proprietary electronics to slash cost, weight and space. He used unbalanced audio without transformers to save an immense amount of cost and weight and get cleaner sound in the deal. And he designed a capstanless, servo-controlled transport, eliminating capstan, pinch roller, capstan motor, etc.

With modern control circuitry, a servo-controlled, capstanless transport should be easy. With digital controls and surface-mount electronics assemblies, the record and playback electronics should be self-regulating, small and robust. Probably use DB25s for I/O on a multi-track machine, quickly connecting with snakes to the studio patchbay or to a portable rack for live/remote use.

Obviously, there could be use for new, high-quality 2-track machines. Harder to assess how many of the multitrack formats would make sense. I tend to think fewer, maybe 8 and 16, recognizing that anyone interested in more tracks with probably want ridiculous track counts on a DAW. OTOH, I could be wrong. Stephens sold a number of 40-track 2" machines, some of which are still in service. AFAIK, though, any number of tracks on a complete, new 2" head stack is going to be an expensive chunk.

Just my ramblings, and more than I can or wish to undertake, but if the circumstances were right, the right consortium of talents, time and money could do something exciting.

Cheers,

Otto
 
I get suspect when I see a "tape deck" maker offering electrostatic speakers.

I have worked with every maker of electrostat speakers in the US since the late 70's and tell me please how many are still around! They are finicky, large, room and amp sensitive, and expensive.

And speakers no longer seem to be in vogue any more.

I have seen this trick too many times including the "harmonic" balancers.

You either maker taper players, amsp or speakers but not all three.

I think there is a smell of fish here!
 
I caught the link from a post over on the recordist.com Ampex List email listserv...there is some continued dialog going on about this over there...looks to be Revox B77 NOS transport parts built into decks with some tape path mods and the proprietary electronics PSU and amp sections. That's it.

I like my Tascam BR-20T much better.

Yes I know its a different format (half-track vs. quarter-track stereo...those Revox decks could be had as a stereo half-track though too, right?), but my BR-20T has a much advanced transport both electronically and mechanically and it cost me $350 with the slick-o Tascam tilting rack and the remote. That leaves me $9,650 to have some toob electronics built for it.

I have no plans to do that.

My point is in support of the "fix up old decks" ideology. I think you can land leagues ahead for far less $$$.

IMNSHO.

Pass.

[EDIT]

At the risk I just offended B77 followers/users, none meant. I'm a fan of all tape machines. I'm just making a fiscal illustration of a "new" machine and its price vs. an "old" machine and its price, and the fact that the "new" machine is based on an "older" machine. I like old machines. My MM-1000 is proof positive, but they are seemingly passing it off as a state-of-the-art machine rather than letting it be a B77 for all that that means you know? That's what gives me a rash. Its almost like trying to hide what it is and I feel that's actually a discredit to them AND the machine its based on which is a popular vintage machine for good reason.
 
I'm a bit chocked about the prices of both this new/rebuilt machine as well as the MX5050. Have they always (inflation, cost of living, what have you) been so expensive?
Or is the price so high because there's more expenses per unit when the demand is so relatively small?

I was only wondering what a good prosumer multitrack would cost if they did produce any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top