what REEL 2 REEL ?

[b0unce]

Salutations tape enthusiasts!

Look at how green I am - I know NOTHING about tape...but I want to pick up a reel 2 reel tape machine, for putting my digital sounds through....for stuff like playing it slower to pitch it down, or quicker.....other then that just for coloring my sound by putting it through the tape process.

I have a really transparent ad/da ... so I'm confident I can capture the nuances tape will introduce to the signal.


so can someone make some recommendations ?.....as for track count I only need to be able to put a stereo signal through it....although I dont mind doing it mono, one signal at a time if needs be.

I guess my interests lay in both ends of the spectrum - something dirty & full of 'character' ...and something which is archive quality, causing little degradation...



from checking ebay, $300 seems to be what reel to reel machines are changing hands for.....just a wee bit too much for me to take a risk, tho I can see myself picking up a few in the long run once I know what I'm getting


thanks in advance, and apologies to the veterans if this is an annoying question asked all too frequently

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Fully professional 2 track mastering decks add very little coloration unless they are driven to their MOL* saturation points.

Given your budget, you can rule a good chunk of those models out.

That leaves a few models from TASCAM like the 22-2 and the 32 and the odd Fostex.

Which ever one you snag, run it without noise reduction and keep the levels hot to gain the compression and response curves you are after. A TASCAM 32 might be best over all in that it has the larger reel capacity. It comes factory calibrated to Quantegy 456 tape but has enough headroom to be re calibrated to 499 or GP9 tapes which offer hotter level compatibility which would be important for achieving the best signal to noise ratios without noise reduction units like dbx or Dolby.

Cheers!

*Maximum Output Level

 

[_DK]

I'd recommend a Revox unit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Revox-reel-to-reel.JPG

 

[The Ghost of FM]

I'd recommend a Revox unit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Revox-reel-to-reel.JPG

Nice machine!

But, do they sell for as little as $300.00?

I believe there was a budget of that amount mentioned by bOunce in his original post.

Cheers!

 

[Tim Gillett]

This recalls to me a discussion in Analog Only a few weeks ago.
It seems popular to use analog tape these days not for its linearities but its non-linearities. There's a huge difference there.
NR systems like dolby and dbx were designed so that you didnt have to venture into the non-linear ( distorted) region of the analog tape when tracking. Tape distortion is desirable in certain cases but no serious engineer wanted to be lumbered with tape distortion on the original track(s) and have no option to get rid of it later on. You couldnt get rid of it later on.
Like reverb, once it's there, it's there for good.

That's why I am confused by people who stick with analog tape for tracking but cant seem to agree on the reason for doing so. Bounce seems to want tape as an fx and that's fine. But doing original tracking with tape is something else again. Do you use analog tape because of the distortion it adds (when you saturate it) or because of the distortion it mostly doesnt add (when you dont saturate it)? These two approaches are very different from each other.

You can use analog tape in a way that gives "analog warmth". But you can just as easily use it to not give "analog warmth" and to be as uncolored as possible. Tape is capable of both. There is nothing in analog tape that automatically gives you "that analog sound", as Ghost pointed out.
The strange thing is, since the mid 60's, NR systems allowed engineers more and more, to avoid the analog tape "sound", if they so chose, when using analog tape. And this was years before digital was a practical option.

It's good to know what you're doing and even better to know why you're doing it.
Tim G

 

[Beck]

Generally good post, Tim G. But I might add that the term "Analog warmth" did not exist until the advent of digital recording.

The terms distortion, tape compression and saturation existed, but analog warmth as it is used today simply means, “Not digital.” It was the perceived harshness of digital high frequencies that gave birth to and popularized the term. It is a relative term.

Many of the finest producers and engineers used analog tape compression to great effect with distorted guitar and snare, so that’s nothing new. In fact it was not uncommon to have certain tracks biased differently to maximize this effect.

When tape is used as a transparent medium it still has the advantage of not introducing undesirable characteristics unique to digital processes. The exaggerated quality achieved through tape saturation is just one use of tape. The misconception that this is the only element that separates analog from digital is the cause of much confusion.

Analog warmth = the absence of digital coldness.

~Τιμόθεος B

 

[N7SC]

b0unce & Ghost,

I strongly second _DK's recommendation of a Revox unit.

The Revox in the linked photo _DK provided is a PR99 Mark II, which has balanced XLR inputs and outputs. Whether or not it would work for b0unce depends on what connectors his set-up uses. Otherwise it is a good machine, which can, occasionally be had within his budget. One just got listed on eBay, starting bid of $9.99. Link is right below.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Revox-PR99-MKII...9QQihZ009QQcategoryZ67812QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

From what I can see the heads on the machine linked to, above, look rather worn. Probably useable for a while, but certainly not in great condition. FWIW, when you can find them a set of new heads for this machine will set you back between $150 and $400. The heads for the PR99 also fit the A77 and B77. And, note that the B77 is really just a PR99 with RCA inputs/outputs, and made to look prettier for home/consumer use. Neither the B77 or the A77 have the spiffy electronic tape counter/auto locator of the PR99 Mark II and Mark III, but it is just a toy, a really cool one, but just a toy that is not necessary.

Major known weakness of the Revox PR99/B77 is that the transport control pushbuttons get flakey (probably quite literally, internally) and stop responding to normal pressure after a while. They can also put the machine in a mode different from what you pressed, like instead of stop, it might go into play or ff or something other than what you intended. On the up side, the transport is fully logic controlled, so tape spillage is not going to be a problem. And, the performance is classic Studer/Revox, which is to say it is outstanding.

I recommend looking for an A77, half-track, high-speed (7.5ips and 15ips) model in the best condition that you can find. My preference is an A77 Mark III or Mark IV (lotsa improvements and somewhat harder, longer wearing heads). The A77 has performance equal to the B77/PR99, and it has an electronically controlled transport, but without logic control. This eliminates the weak transport control pushbuttons of the PR99/B77. It is a more reliable machine. And the half-track, high-speed models can give performance that is mind blowing. With the right tape, like 3M 996, or Emtec (now RMGI) SM 900, they can produce S/N levels that seem, to the ear, to rival digital systems, with greater dynamic range than almost any other analog system imaginable, and superb high-frequency reproduction. All without any kind of noise reduction. So can a PR99/B77. But the A77 goes for much less $$ and it should be fairly easy to find one to fit b0unce's budget with plenty of room to spare.

Link to a great A77 page: http://www.reeltoreel.de/worldwide/A77.htm Note the original Revox guarantee at the bottom of the page. Speaks volumes about how well these machines were designed and built.

Link to a B77 page: http://www.reeltoreel.de/worldwide/B77.htm

Link to a great Revox site (source of the two pages above): http://www.reeltoreel.de/worldwide/index.htm

 

[Tim Gillett]

Generally good post, Tim G. But I might add that the term "Analog warmth" did not exist until the advent of digital recording.

The terms distortion, tape compression and saturation existed, but analog warmth as it is used today simply means, “Not digital.” It was the perceived harshness of digital high frequencies that gave birth to and popularized the term. It is a relative term.

Many of the finest producers and engineers used analog tape compression to great effect with distorted guitar and snare, so that’s nothing new. In fact it was not uncommon to have certain tracks biased differently to maximize this effect.

When tape is used as a transparent medium it still has the advantage of not introducing undesirable characteristics unique to digital processes. The exaggerated quality achieved through tape saturation is just one use of tape. The misconception that this is the only element that separates analog from digital is the cause of much confusion.

Analog warmth = the absence of digital coldness.

~Τιμόθεος B

Tim B.
If "analog warmth" means today simply "not digital" maybe that's gonna lead to confusion.
The standard analog tape machine test, subjectively anyway, was and is listening to source and then tape interchangeably, and listening for a difference. At best, there is no appreciable difference.
The same test we should apply to digital. Whether analog tape or digital, a recording that is practically indistinguishable from the source, is not "cold" but faithful. In the same way, a witness who faithfully tells the truth in court is not "cold" but honest. If we take it to its logical end, a liar is "warm" and an honest person is "cold": hardly the right way of putting it.

What's the difference between a faithful analog tape recording and a faithful digital recording? In practice, nothing. Both are faithful. If one is "cold" then so is the other.
If early digital recordings were harsh (compared to the source signal they were supposed to be capturing) then they were harsh BY THAT STANDARD.
But that's the point. The standard is the source signal, not the analog or digital recording of it.

I didnt say using analog tape compression was new. I said that NR meant you now didnt have to venture into saturation if you didnt want to. Nobody was forced not to distort. If tape distortion was the effect they wanted, producers could still do it as much as they ever did. An option is not a directive. It opens up possibilities. It doesnt decide for you.

"Analog warmth" was a production tool then and still is today. But its absence should not be called "digital coldness" any more than not overdriving the analog tape, then or now, results in a necessarily deficient recording.

If we are to say, and rightly, that analog tape when used transparently does not introduce the undesirable characteristics of digital recording, we should be fair and admit that when used transparently (How else can you use digital? Trying to get "warmth" by overdriving it sounds like a train wreck as Tim, you once rightly said. But then so does any analog amp sound, even in an analog tape machine, when clipped to a square wave.) digital equally avoids the weaknesses of analog tape recording.


I agree that tape saturation/compression/distortion is not the only element that separates analog tape from digital recording but I dare suggest it's usually the only useful analog tape advantage, unless we are to say that there are great practical uses for tape dropout, wow and flutter, phase non linearities and any other weaknesses of analog tape that the makers tried so hard to minimise or eliminate. and long before digital came along in a practical way.
For my money, tape saturation/distortion/compression is the only normally desirable analog tape characteristic.
THAT, I suspect, explains the position largely of analog tape recording in the world today, however we might lament that state of affairs, and however we might continue to use analog tape and machines for all sorts of good reasons, including still making excellent recordings, with or without the warmth.

Regards, Tim G

 

[SteveMac]

Tim B.
If "analog warmth" means today simply "not digital" maybe that's gonna lead to confusion.
The standard analog tape machine test, subjectively anyway, was and is listening to source and then tape interchangeably, and listening for a difference. At best, there is no appreciable difference.
The same test we should apply to digital. Whether analog tape or digital, a recording that is practically indistinguishable from the source, is not "cold" but faithful. In the same way, a witness who faithfully tells the truth in court is not "cold" but honest. If we take it to its logical end, a liar is "warm" and an honest person is "cold": hardly the right way of putting it.

What's the difference between a faithful analog tape recording and a faithful digital recording? In practice, nothing. Both are faithful. If one is "cold" then so is the other.
If early digital recordings were harsh (compared to the source signal they were supposed to be capturing) then they were harsh BY THAT STANDARD.
But that's the point. The standard is the source signal, not the analog or digital recording of it.

I didnt say using analog tape compression was new. I said that NR meant you now didnt have to venture into saturation if you didnt want to. Nobody was forced not to distort. If tape distortion was the effect they wanted, producers could still do it as much as they ever did. An option is not a directive. It opens up possibilities. It doesnt decide for you.

"Analog warmth" was a production tool then and still is today. But its absence should not be called "digital coldness" any more than not overdriving the analog tape, then or now, results in a necessarily deficient recording.

If we are to say, and rightly, that analog tape when used transparently does not introduce the undesirable characteristics of digital recording, we should be fair and admit that when used transparently (How else can you use digital? Trying to get "warmth" by overdriving it sounds like a train wreck as Tim, you once rightly said. But then so does any analog amp sound, even in an analog tape machine, when clipped to a square wave.) digital equally avoids the weaknesses of analog tape recording.


I agree that tape saturation/compression/distortion is not the only element that separates analog tape from digital recording but I dare suggest it's usually the only useful analog tape advantage, unless we are to say that there are great practical uses for tape dropout, wow and flutter, phase non linearities and any other weaknesses of analog tape that the makers tried so hard to minimise or eliminate. and long before digital came along in a practical way.
For my money, tape saturation/distortion/compression is the only normally desirable analog tape characteristic.
THAT, I suspect, explains the position largely of analog tape recording in the world today, however we might lament that state of affairs, and however we might continue to use analog tape and machines for all sorts of good reasons, including still making excellent recordings, with or without the warmth.

Regards, Tim G

Whatever you're trying to say here, digital is not an exact replication of it's recorded source, if that's what you're saying. And I have no technical way to back this up and I'm not interested in trying to, but there are alot of factors that go into reproducing a sound and there is no "exact" replication. Digital changes the sound as much as tape and all of us here favor the sound of tape replication over the digital replication. You can't argue with someones preference, why do you try?

 

[b0unce]

wow, thanks so much for the thoughtful replies people.
I've only just read them, so I'll do a little more reading on the models you recommended & post back with my thoughts.

I need to clarify something tho, $300 is not the budget....but it is more than I am willing to spend -without knowing what it is I'm buying- .... if those reel 2 reels were changing hands for $100, I'd probably take a chance and buy one without so much as asking here or anywhere else for advice....sounds wreckless, but as Tim Gillett pointed out I am really looking to use tape as FX.

If there was a reel 2 reel which was capable of 'dirty, colorful, characteristic' sounds as well as 'transparent, archive quality' sounds which retailed for $600 I'd go for it.....and maybe I'd go as far as $900+. Things like being able to get tape, or in the event of it breaking or needing new parts - are pretty important too.

maybe such a unit doesnt exist? and its either 'dirty & colorful' , or 'high quality' ....in such a case, I would totally appreciate your recommendations for each - now that you know what I'm willing to spend. I guess the dirty and colorful models are probably the cheaper ones ?

As I said, I have a nice ad/da so I'm confident I can soak up alot of the nuances I'm looking for...(metric halo if anyone's curious)

thanks again folks

 

[Tim Gillett]

Whatever you're trying to say here, digital is not an exact replication of it's recorded source, if that's what you're saying. And I have no technical way to back this up and I'm not interested in trying to, but there are alot of factors that go into reproducing a sound and there is no "exact" replication. Digital changes the sound as much as tape and all of us here favor the sound of tape replication over the digital replication. You can't argue with someones preference, why do you try?

SteveMac, I said (in agreement with probably the majority on this Analog Only site) that the "sound" of tape is not fixed in stone but depends upon how you drive it. You can make it as transparent or as untransparent as you like. And those two "sounds" are miles apart. Saying I "prefer" the "sound" of analog tape is like saying I prefer the "color" of icecream. It's a meaningless statement.
If you dont know how to make a transparent recording and then a saturated recording on the one reel of analog tape, you dont know much about analog tape. If you do know that difference, you should have had no trouble understanding my post.
If you stick with analog tape, because you like and use its sound when saturated, then I can understand that. But if you stick with it because you think its transparent sound is superior to the transparency of digital recordings then I suggest a reality check might be a good idea. At best there is VERY little difference between the two.
There is a HUGE difference between saturated and unsaturated analog tape recordings. Any fool can hear it.

Best wishes,
Tim G

 

[The Ghost of FM]

wow, thanks so much for the thoughtful replies people.
I've only just read them, so I'll do a little more reading on the models you recommended & post back with my thoughts.

I need to clarify something tho, $300 is not the budget....but it is more than I am willing to spend -without knowing what it is I'm buying- .... if those reel 2 reels were changing hands for $100, I'd probably take a chance and buy one without so much as asking here or anywhere else for advice....sounds wreckless, but as Tim Gillett pointed out I am really looking to use tape as FX.

If there was a reel 2 reel which was capable of 'dirty, colorful, characteristic' sounds as well as 'transparent, archive quality' sounds which retailed for $600 I'd go for it.....and maybe I'd go as far as $900+. Things like being able to get tape, or in the event of it breaking or needing new parts - are pretty important too.

maybe such a unit doesnt exist? and its either 'dirty & colorful' , or 'high quality' ....in such a case, I would totally appreciate your recommendations for each - now that you know what I'm willing to spend. I guess the dirty and colorful models are probably the cheaper ones ?

As I said, I have a nice ad/da so I'm confident I can soak up alot of the nuances I'm looking for...(metric halo if anyone's curious)

thanks again folks

Thanks for clarifying how wide of a net you are capable of throwing to snag the right machine.

To keep it simple, a top end machine, run at nominal levels can sound very clean and run 24/7 with little to no maintenance other then cleaning the heads and guides. Top end machines tend to offer direct drive transports that don't rely on belts that can wear out and cause headaches replacing them. Top end machines tend to offer better quality electronics and power supplies so that they can be very finely tuned by a competent engineer to sound as flat or as fat and dirty as he requires.

Lower end machines will need to be nursed a bit more into achieving truly faithful recording but will easily overload and distort when you push them over their shorter edges.

From everything you've said and haven't said, I still feel confident in my original recommendation of the TASCAM's in that they're cheap and cheerful, decent parts inventories and the technicians to work on them still exist and walk the earth.

While the Revox and Studer decks definitely offer a higher "BMW" kind of appeal, sometimes an F-150 is more suited to the road ahead.

Cheers!

 

[Dr ZEE]

What's the difference between a faithful analog tape recording and a faithful digital recording? In practice, nothing.

One can conclude so, but the conclusion depends on what one practices. People who one way or the other get involved in recording of sound practice different things and thus have different goals, different sets of criteria for and methods of judgement.

Both are faithful.

Neither are.
Neither tell "the truth" (assumingly there is such thing to begin with ). But they don't tell the truth differently.
"Digital" does not do it like a skillful politician, while "Analog" does not do it like a gifted novelist.
People (any fool is included ) don't hear that difference not necessarily due to their inability, but rather due to their carelessness ).

/respects

 

[SteveMac]

SteveMac, I said (in agreement with probably the majority on this Analog Only site) that the "sound" of tape is not fixed in stone but depends upon how you drive it. You can make it as transparent or as untransparent as you like. And those two "sounds" are miles apart. Saying I "prefer" the "sound" of analog tape is like saying I prefer the "color" of icecream. It's a meaningless statement.
If you dont know how to make a transparent recording and then a saturated recording on the one reel of analog tape, you dont know much about analog tape. If you do know that difference, you should have had no trouble understanding my post.
If you stick with analog tape, because you like and use its sound when saturated, then I can understand that. But if you stick with it because you think its transparent sound is superior to the transparency of digital recordings then I suggest a reality check might be a good idea. At best there is VERY little difference between the two.
There is a HUGE difference between saturated and unsaturated analog tape recordings. Any fool can hear it.

Best wishes,
Tim G

Of course there is a difference between a saturated and unsaturated tape. But, this whole point of view of yours about transparency is transparent. You are saying that undriven analog tape sound is no different than undriven digital, which is foolish. If that was the case then why aren't we all recording digital? The sounds are different even though you apparently can't hear it.

Analog preference is meaningless statement? The color of ice cream?

 

[The Ghost of FM]

Gentlemen,

It would seem that we are veering off the road here with the current path of discussing our understanding and appreciation of the finer scholarly fine points of what our varying technologies can and can not do and we're also making things a bit too personal which I'm sure won't help bOunce make a rational, informed decision.

Is it asking too much to stay closer to the paved lanes of the highway or must we wipe out on the soft shoulder?

Cheers!

 

[Tim Gillett]

Of course there is a difference between a saturated and unsaturated tape. But, this whole point of view of yours about transparency is transparent. You are saying that undriven analog tape sound is no different than undriven digital, which is foolish. If that was the case then why aren't we all recording digital? The sounds are different even though you apparently can't hear it.

Analog preference is meaningless statement? The color of ice cream?

I said there is very little difference between undriven analog tape and digital recording, both at their best of course. That's not foolish, it's the way it is, for most people in a fair listening test.
Only when analog tape starts to saturate do you hear a noticeable difference between it and the source or, if you like, it and a digital recording. How can I be any clearer?
I tried to be fair by bringing in that staunchly unbiased umpire, the unrecorded source material going into either recorder. No one seems to want to run with this comparison but isnt it just commonsense?

In saying that unsaturated analog recordings can be virtually indistinguishable from digital ones, I'm already speaking heresy amongst some digital audio freaks who will not have a bar of analog tape as a serious recording medium.

I think people stick with analog tape for a variety of reasons, some informed and some not so informed.
If you want to stay with analog tape, do so for whatever reason you like -maybe for some just because they like watching the big reels go around. But talk about sound issues and I too will talk about the sound issues. Is that fair?

Tim G

 

[Beck]

Gentlemen,

It would seem that we are veering off the road here with the current path of discussing our understanding and appreciation of the finer scholarly fine points of what our varying technologies can and can not do and we're also making things a bit too personal which I'm sure won't help bOunce make a rational, informed decision.

Is it asking too much to stay closer to the paved lanes of the highway or must we wipe out on the soft shoulder?

Cheers!

Jeff is right. Another thread is in order. So here...

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=2254697#post2254697

 

[Dr ZEE]

...discussing our understanding and appreciation of the finer scholarly fine points of what our varying technologies can and can not ....... won't help bOunce make a rational, informed decision.

Jeff, the point is clear and taken, but I kind of disagree
It may or may not help bOunce to make a rational informed decision. I'd say you never know.
Do you mean, that pointing out a couple of brands/models combined with some of their basic features description is all he needs to make the "right" decision? I don't think so. In bOunce's case/situation, as I see it, any specific machine you point out may end up as a "poor wrong decission". But then again, how do you know?

IMO, bOunce's question can't be clearly answered in a simple (ala, buy tascam 32, as example) manner. He wants a "clean recorder" and an effect processor in a one "assumingly, easy to use" package in a form of a used piece of gear (ranging from rusty vintage through almost new, yet pretty old discontinued). Plus the "clean recorder"-part preferably would be able to provide some "mystery warmth" and the "effect"-part of it is being referred to as "dirt" and "character". And on top of this a note: "I know NOTHING about tape"
So, my point is, Jeff, that the question by itself naturally and unavoidably leads to a discussion that has emerged here.
that's imho...
But, then again, if to ignore all those complicated "nuances" and just to point out some not so old, no so toy-like yet not so advanced, not so so whatever machine and say: "Here, get Tascam 1/2 track, or some teac 4 track or something like that, make sure it's in good working condition (duh , like, there's such thing as a way to do so ..heh heh. You never know what you get - you take a chance, there's no warranty and no customer service to complain to). Well, maybe that's all bOunce needs to do? Which simply means: "Get some OK machine and start walking away from "knowing nothing about tape" And! while doing so, hopefully you'll spend more time walking away from knowing nothing about tape recording instead of walking away from knowing nothing about the recorder's guts and all the crap that associates with it.
I'm not sure if such decission would qualify as rational or informed, but it sounds reasonable to me
/respects

 

[b0unce]

jesus...
you people have much too much time to talk shit...I cant believe you're even trying to suggest you're rambling was in someway relevant to my question - of course you had to dismiss my query in order to do so, like a petty pedant is duty bound to do.

I wont even waste time addressing that last post,

thanks ghost FM, you're a worthy forum member. You answer queries, and dont engage in some ego-wank argue-for-the-sake-of-it BS

BYE BYE HOMERECORDING.COM

 

[Dr ZEE]

Hey, b0unce, you are welcome
also, good luck to you capturing with your really transparent ad/da all the nuances that tape will introduce to your signal.

/BYE