I retired 7 years ago and decided I wanted a B77 Mk II. I already had a worn out A77 that I'd bought way back in the mists of time but my mate got a brand new B77 Mk II around about 1980 and I'd always been very envious. I know audiophiles will hate my machine because it's quarter track and only has a top speed of seven and a half inches per second, but this is still a serious upgrade from a cassette with half the width tape and a running speed of one and seven eighth inches per second. It was refurbished, although not by Revox, and the power was changed to a C13 socket, which is much more convenient. It came with a metal take up reel, a reel of tape, two NAB adaptors, cleaning fluid, cotton buds and a CD with the operating and service manuals on it. It set me back £600 but I think it may well cost a little bit more now. I was able to buy tapes from, as far as I could tell, the last hifi shop in England that still stocked them which is fortunately only a ten minute drive from my house. They used to get the RTM tapes in from Cologne. They stopped selling them after the pandemic so now I have to get them direct from Recording The Masters. To keep the costs down I have occasionally bought pancakes and put the tape onto second hand metal reels that I've picked up on eBay. Being a hobbyist and not a professional, I have used LPR tape. I've not had any problem with the winding and as I get older and my hearing loses some of the top frequencies it really sounds pretty damn good to me. Sorry this has turned into a bit of a Tolstoy novel. Well done if you've read this far.
id cräkk this am düdes äh cä$hpöxx ´4 ünn-säcd- well rötelljänn hdcd ^?^ people häd öll sehr Fifi lives to büy ´reel täpe vvätt guts a few disc gönnä dö em növv ^$^?? this blänett nevväh hät decent täyp xxP ör änni Förnnät v..v ´i vvänt a single cyded tayp ^??^ siemess id räthörr häve 4k rt in 1 Fähn zen unLouZ€€´ öddjöh XP
I have never in 50 years of recording and re-recording albums never stopped using revox/studer machines. Used in conjunction with two Nakamichi cassette decks anything can be done
There is a third type of consumer user: The senior one who has never stopped using reels and has a huge collection of tapes that he wants to keep playing.
Not only that, I have friends that buy these things with music already on them. Just like if you bought a record or cassette. I'm not really into tapes like this so I can't tell you where they get them from, but apparently there's still sources for them. They also use them for rare recordings. If they have a rare, expensive record that can't be replaced without spending a fortune, they record it to tape and listen to that instead of putting wear on the record. I've lent them a few records that can't be found anymore. I make it a point not to listen to them when I'm at a friends house because I don't want to get sucked in. The last thing I need is another expensive piece of audio gear.
@@052RC I buy used reel to reel tapes and sometimes find something that I really like on them. I do not pay a lot of an "unknown" tape, so if it turns out to be unusable (bad recording and the tape cannot really be reused) no big loss for me. I prefer the older style (acetate) tapes for this, because those are very likely 2 track mono and can be played on my tube R2R deck, but also I like the music those tapes may contain. I sometimes find cool stuff on there (not necessarily music). When I buy a brand new record, I record it to a R2R tape, so I can listen to it without wearing the record out (also, a tape is more convenient than a record). I have a few tape decks, but I repair and maintain them myself. If I had to hire a professional to do it, it would become expensive. I recently got a "real studio" deck - had to ask my friend to help transport it because it would not fit in my car and it's ~70kg.
@@052RC If your whole point is to preserve the original by not directly playing it, digital will be cheaper than tape _and_ more convenient, even if you believe you have superhuman hearing and run at 192kHz and 24 bit depth. Reel to reel is just the best commonly available _analog_ tool for the job.
Long time open reel tape collector here. I have almost 2,000 pre recorded open reel tapes. I have been selling a few off. Space was getting to be a problem. I have 14 open reel decks and they all work. I make it a point to have them serviced every few years. I was lucky to have been raised on open reel tapes. I bought my Teac X-2000R new in 1990 for $1,100.00. I was only 18 back then! The machine is still in great shape and sounds wonderful!
@ZAKEMPLEX I believe I would run into copyright problems. It's unfortunate because I have some super rare 2 track jazz tapes, like Oscar Pettiford on ABC records. This tape has never been properly re-issued. It sounds wonderful too.
@@brianwilliams9408 Consider uploading a few and see what happens. They may request you not monetize the video. I had a few blocked in certain countries etc. 🎵🎵
I have been playing with Reel to Reel since the 70's Basic Grundig's, a few Philips, Sony, Akai and a Teac 8 - 80 from a studieo in Cornwall. Unfortunately tape speeds were slow due to budget and track formats were 2,4, 8, 4 x s. Anyway I have yet to sort things out but I like to see the spools going around it is very relaxing. 1/2 tape gives me a few hours of stereo on salvaged Amp 456. Enjoy your machines and well done for holding on to them,
I used tape for a long time for mastering and especially for cutting and splicing. The pieces of tape that you cut out go in the trash. From a 30 minute tape usually 20 minutes remained, if you worked a bit efficiently. Not only for the sound quality but also for accurate cutting and splicing I always used the highest speed. That cutting and splicing was a skill in itself. Cutting exactly where was very accurate. Sticking it back together was also a challenge. Grasping the tape in the right way was also a skill in itself. Not touching the side with the magnetic layer with your fingers. And .... first do all the art and then hear the result. Not good, tape in the trash and try again. That is completely different from what we can do now in a DAW. For me tape is a nostalgia. I count myself lucky that I still experienced it, but I am very happy that it is now much easier and faster, with a better result.
I was born in the mid/late 1960s, was a kid during the 1970s, and a teen during the first half of the 1980s. I became interested in electronics in general during elementary school, and audio in particular starting in the late 1970s. A close friend (19 years my senior) gave me my first open reel machine in 1980, when I was 13 years old: a 1961 Voice of Music 722: a "portable" (luggable!) vacuum tube machine. It had problems (that I didn't know how to fix at the time), but I was hooked! The next year, I saved my pennies and purchased a brand-new Realistic TR-3000 (a TEAC X-3 in different clothes). I loved that machine! I mostly used it to record mixtapes from my father's (well worn!) collection of 1950s - 1970s vinyl records (mostly 7-inch 45 RPM singles). I also did some live recording of school concerts and a local garage band. Those live recordings turned out remarkably well! I still have all the tapes that I recorded during those years. After high school, I attended Carnegie Mellon University and earned a degree in electrical/computer engineering. For a couple of decades, I took a hiatus from audio to feed a car hobby, then I got married, bought a house, raised two sons, and eventually ended up divorced... It took me a few years to recover from my divorce, both emotionally and financially. Around 2018-2019, I got back into audio. And I've gone particularly crazy with collecting open reel tape machines! I now own somewhere around 70 different machines! I have a well-equipped home electronics lab, so I repair and service my own audio gear. I have a diverse range of open reel tape machines from across the years and across the consumer-to-pro spectrum. My earliest machines are monophonic vacuum tube AMPEX and Berlant Concertone machines from the 1950s. My newest machines are from across the 1980s. My best machines are a Studer B67 Mk1 7.5/15/30-ips machine, a TASCAM 42B, an Otari MX-5050BII-2, and a Technics RS-1500US. I also have a Revox E36, G36, A77 Mk1, A77 Mk2, A77 Mk3, and B77 Mk2. And various other TEAC, TASCAM, Akai, etc. machines. I will soon add a pair of 1960s AMPEX studio machines to my collection. Eventually, my sights are set on a Studer A80! I'm not chasing audio nirvana. I'm an electronics engineer who loves music and loves the engineering that went into all of these machines. I love listening to, using, and maintaining these wonderful machines. ❤
@@daviddrake6875 I'll try again. I'm not opposed to Tandberg. It's just that the right moment/opportunity just hasn't presented itself yet. I do have one humble Tandberg: a 3000X. It's waiting patiently for me to finally dig it out someday and see what kind of TLC it needs. 👍
Love to hear this. I got to do some engineering in a 16-track, MCI equipped studio in the early-to-mid '70s. We mixed down to an Ampex 1/2 track. What a joy.
Best sound I have ever heard, and that was 45 yrs ago and still remember. Never heard 15 IPS, however have heard the difference between 33/4 and 71/2 and was incredible difference. 1 of these days will make the purchase, must take 10" Reels.
Back around 1970 (when I was 16) my local electrical shop got a joblot of basic reel to reel tape machines in stock. They were custom builds and part of a cancelled order for some company or other. They were 1/4 in machines running at 3.3/4 or 7.1/2 speeds. I snapped one up as they were cheap and used it for many years. Not relevant to this video but it just brought back some memories.
I never used these back in the day but found a Sony TC-366 in more-or-less working order for free. I refurbed it for 70 quid and am very pleased with it. I've bought some used pre-recorded tape and got 2 more machines and a shedload of old reels (again for free) from an old friend. I gave the excess tape machines to the tape repair shop since I only need one and had no appetite for renovating more of them. The format is cool, real cool - the looks! And even less practical than vinyl. You need to swap place on the reels to listen to side B and its a hassle. Not a simle flip of the disc. And yes, I had to look up on youtube how to thread the tape. :)
Still recording Mellotron 3 track tapes for the world on bespoke 3/8" width tape at 7 1/2" per second. I split the tape from 1" stock and record at an odd 'off azimuth' setting!
In 1977 - at the age of 15 - and onwards, I had some serious fun with my dad's then new Norwegian Tandberg TD 10X reel-to-reel tapedeck. It had 4 heads, 3 motors, 3 speeds (up to 38cm/s - studio speed, they said :) ) and Dolby. At the highest recording speed, I couldn't hear any difference between the original and the recording. Loved it, but it wasn't very practical anymore in more recent decades. Nowadays I regret I didn't acquire it after my dad had passed away.. My mother sold it. At least it wasn't thrown away and it probably is still providing pleasure to someone somewhere who appreciates it's qualities - I hope.
I had lower end fun with my Dad's 3500X, copying recording the top 40 and editing down to cassette. When my dad died I lent it to one of his friends who denied all knowledge of it a couple of years later ☹️
@nicksmith4507 I did the exact same thing: recording the new entries in the national hitparade (magazine with the list of entries in my hand) because those would be played entirely without the dj talking through the in- and outros. The receiver used was a Tandberg TR 1040 receiver. From my pocket money as a teenager I could only afford some TDK SA C60/90 cassettes and a new album every now and then. So we had to 'steal' our music this way, and exchange/lent albums with friends. :)
I have that same deck now. Tandberg made the foolish decision to drive a big heavy flywheel with a tiny DC Hall-effect motor. And now the motors are completely unobtainium. The motors were very poor in material and construction quality. They killed these very GREAT decks. For those of us in the USA, there has been no 'fix' other than Soundsmiths' AC motor replacement 'kit' which is around $800.
this blänett nevväh hät decent täyp xxP ör änni Förnnät v..v ´i vvänt a single cyded tayp ^??^ siemess id räthörr häve 4k rt in 1 Fähn zen unLouZ€€´ öddjöh XP
Same here, if it was €4,000 it's already out of most people's reach, €8,000 and it's a distant dream, but €15,950 !! It's now just a luxury boutique product for the wealthy.
Just replaced the rubber wheel driving the tape on my B77. My old tapes from the eighties survived after baking them but lost treble and leave a lot of dust, tape material. Stil sound good through my old B&W dm2a speakers. Need to find new tape just to experience the fun of recording. Some buttons are not always working even after having it serviced by someone, paid 500€ 7 years ago because the speed was off.
Reel to reel is real and really expensive! My father had a reel to reel tape recorder way back in the day. He had a "studio" turntable too. Vinyl records were never my thing and I'm not a collector. Cassettes were convenient and inexpensive, but in 1986 I heard a CD for the first time. It was connected to a basic Sony tabletop system. There was no hiss, static, pops, clicks, or anything but music. The track was Michael Manring's "Welcoming" on a Windham Hill Sampler CD. I found it transformational. I love the CD format. Is it perfect? Of course not! It is, however, very very good. We still have Dad's vintage (1954-55) JBl speakers. It's amazing how well they work with CD's and solid state electronics. I appreciate your perspective and British sense of humor. Paul H. Huntington beach, CA USA
@@dubdoodle7191 There are a lot of poorly recorded CD's. That's a fact. However, properly recorded CD's can sound great. Note the Windham Hill recording I mentioned above. Reel to reel tape is fantastic and fragile. Heck even the Type 2 cassettes I used to record were fairly good for a format intended for dictation.
I have two reel to reel tape recorders. An Akai, and a Tascam. They are both sliver and shiny and make me feel like I work for the Radiophonic Workshop... back in the day. And yes... I was blown away how good "tape" can be.
If I wanted a reel-to-reel machine, I'd look for a refurbished Nagra. When I ran a studio in the early 70s my production machines were 4-track Ampex, but for the master recordings I usually used our stereo Nagra. Not only was the recording sound quality outstanding, it was such a mechanical marvel that I loved handling it. For classical stereo recording I paired it with the Neumann SM 69 mic. It was a bit awkward to use in the field, but the sounds of nature that I recorded were magical. During playback, the studio walls just evaporated.
With regard to your question(s) about "thin" vs "standard" mag tape: I used both way back then. Scotch, Audiotape, Irish, Ampex, Memorex, ... Let me be specific: 1-1/2 mil vs 1 mil vs 1/2 mil, then thinner tapes ostensible benefit being extended record time per reel. First, with regard to quality: The thicker tapes were that way mostly because of the thickness of the backing, but also because of the thickness of the oxide layer. A thicker oxide layer allows for higher levels of magnetic force and storage per unit length, and so thicker layers tended to have superior dynamic range, lower dynamic range, but not necessarily differing frequency response. Of course, a thicker layer might be met by a higher bias level which in turn would have a suppresive effect on the treble, but that's getting into this further than I think necessary. Now, here's the other part: Backings came in two basic flavors: acetate and mylar. Acetate tape broke quickly and cleanly upon tensile stress; mylar was tougher and tended to stretch instead. The thinner the mylar tape, the more likely the stretched tape became a worthless plastic string. Usually, Acetate only came in 1-1/2 mil thickness. Mylar came in all three, but 1-1/2 mil mylar was expensive. The pros and more experienced amateurs mastered to acetate so that a break was repairable with a simple butt splice. Over time, acetate dried out, became brittle, broke upon being looked at funny, and curled in bad ways. Mylar was more stable as a storage media, but one bad stretch and the advantage was seriously questioned. Also, thinner tape was more prone to print-through. Ugly. Digital recording, of course, avoids all of this nonsense. On a good day, tape's dynamic range (without Dolby or dBX) ran 55 to 65 dB (depending on speed, track width, ...). Digital? 115 to 120+ dB is easy peasy. Now I'm up to 6 cents.
Ah, yes, the classic debate of "thin" vs "standard" mag tape-a conversation for the ages, and one that clearly brings back fond memories of your days working with Scotch, Ampex, and the like. Your trip down memory lane is appreciated, but let's refine some of these points with a bit more technical precision, shall we? First, I must commend you for touching on the basic tape thicknesses-1-1/2 mil, 1 mil, and 1/2 mil. It's adorable when people still think of tape as just a simple “storage medium” instead of the intricate balance of materials science, physics, and signal processing that it truly is. Yes, thicker tapes did allow for greater storage density and a superior magnetic flux-congratulations on remembering that! But I do believe you may have glossed over the real reason why the oxide layer’s thickness mattered: it wasn't just about "magnetic force" in a vague sense, but rather about optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range within the limitations of the tape’s mechanical properties. You mentioned dynamic range in passing-let me take a moment to clarify that for you. While thicker tapes did theoretically allow for better dynamic range (due to the increased amount of oxide), that doesn't automatically mean they were always superior. The trade-offs, as you vaguely touched upon, involved tape speed, bias settings, and, of course, frequency response limitations. After all, there's only so much you can do with 1 mil of Mylar before the laws of physics start laughing at your attempts to get the highest possible performance out of a plastic spool. Now, about your charming little mention of acetate vs Mylar. It’s clear you’ve worked with both, but perhaps you've forgotten a few minor details that only the truly discerning tape aficionado would recognize. Acetate, as you so correctly pointed out, was prone to breakage and curl, but it did have its moments in history-specifically for those who had a fetish for "proper" tape splicing. Mylar, on the other hand, wasn't just "tougher"; it was a game-changer for longevity, unless, of course, you failed to follow proper storage protocols (which, let’s face it, most of us did in the early days). Mylar had the added benefit of being far more stable in the long term-unless, of course, you decided to stretch it past its elastic limits, in which case it would reward you with the joy of "plastic string syndrome." But, hey, who hasn't had a reel of tape spontaneously unravel in a cacophony of despair? As for your brief mention of print-through, it’s adorable that you brought that up. It seems like you’re remembering a time when 1/2 mil tapes were the only thing that could truly ruin an afternoon’s recording session. Yes, thinner tapes were indeed prone to print-through, and it’s almost endearing how you’ve hinted at this without addressing the full extent of the issue. The real kicker, of course, is that the “solution” to this problem-higher speeds, special tape formulations-wasn't just a matter of putting a band-aid on the issue; it was about recognizing that every choice came with a compromise. A bit of a balancing act, wouldn’t you say? Now, for the pièce de résistance: digital recording. I’m glad you brought it up, because it’s always fun to remind folks that while analog tape was the "gold standard" for a brief moment in history, digital recording rendered those limitations utterly quaint. Yes, digital-where the dynamic range isn’t a matter of tape chemistry, but rather, signal processing and precision engineering. With digital, we easily surpass the 115-120 dB mark, something that’s laughable in comparison to the 55-65 dB achievable with analog, even with your beloved Dolby or dbx noise reduction systems. Sure, analog tape had its "charm" (if you like distortion, hiss, and a healthy dose of mechanical degradation), but let's not pretend that digital didn’t put it in the dustbin of history, where it belongs. In conclusion, I appreciate your nostalgic musings about magnetic tape, but perhaps it's time to admit that the medium had its limitations-many limitations-that even the most experienced of us couldn't escape. After all, we both know that the future of audio fidelity isn't found in oxide coatings, tape heads, or Mylar backings, but rather in the perfect precision of digital recording. Still, nice try.
Wow! This brings back happy memories of my old 1965 stereo 1/4" half-track Brenell STB-2. It had great performance for its day at 15 IPS when you chucked a spool of "modern" Maxell XLII at it. I remember the original spec for high frequency response was 15kHz -2dB at 15 IPS, but that must have been limited by the tape stock available in the mid-60s as it was over twice that with 1980s tape. When I acquired it for peanuts in 1983, it had spent the first 18 years of its life sitting in a cupboard as an emergency backup for another STB-2, so the heads had close to zero hours on them. I had great fun experimenting with a DBX noise reduction system I made for it using NE571 compandor ICs.
Before the boss reminds me how awful DBX was, I went for a compandor ratio of 1.5:1 instead of the more conventional 2:1. This significantly reduced the horrible "breathing" effect DBX is infamous for, although it did limit signal-to-noise ratio to around 75dB instead of 100dB. That made it slightly more effective than Dolby C on a Nakamichi Dragon (although totally incompatible with anything else), and that was plenty good enough for me.
I've used R2R for years. I bought a TEAC X2000M in 1986 and it's still going strong, properly calibrated and works flawlessly. In 2001 I bought a new Tascam BR20 and I use that in addition to the TEAC. I had loads of Ampex 456 go bad, and so after junking the tape, I re-used the empty reels and filled them with RTM468 pancakes. 468 is my favourite formulation, so I'm rather sad that RTM has discontinued its production. I have the proper calibration tapes for reference level and equalisation [320nWb/m], and I can say that in most cases, 7.5ips is fine if it's properly calibrated. It is all but the most dynamic music where 15 ips really shines. At 15 ips I use IEC EQ and at 7.5 ips I prefer NAB EQ as it's a tad quieter. Just don't hit the levels too hard.
I grew up with RtoR tape. My mother did language studies and used a Tandberg with joy stick and MagicEye. Don't remember the model. In the mid 60's we had a Sony 355. When I started working and had my own money I bought a used Revox A77 Mk3 in 1973. I still have it, having had it refurbished ca. 1983.
It sounds like a joke I know. But there are people who have so much money they don’t know how to spend it. In a very real sense, this is why we poor people can have nice things.
@@AudioMasterclass Not sure of the logic there: there are indeed people out there with tons of disposable income, but how does that help "we" poor people have nice things?
Airline passengers who turn left when they board pay for the plane, the crew, and everything. Those who turn right are the profit. Also in the arts such as opera and ballet, those in the premium seats fund the stage, the performers, and the production; those in the cheap seats fill the house and bring the applause.
If you are recording a live performance, you will need a backup recorder, if the musicians play for longer than a reel of tape lasts as you said you need two machine to do a tape swap. Thus you will need 4 machines to ensure you capture it. You could get away with 3, if you start the 3rd one, before stopping one of the other two, change tape & set it recording before the first one’s tape runs out. We always had duplicate machines running in BBC Radio OBs, in fact one truck was built to take 4 x Sony PCM3348, so it could do dual 96track recording. At well over £120,000 each!
Started in my teens with a mid-grade sony reel to reel. Impressive specs for the day. A few years later moved to cassette. Stunned that my new Nakamichi deck had much better specs at 1 7/8 ips than my reel to reel at 7.5 ips. Still have the Nakamichi for my old collection.
I own three RTR that I found locally at different thrift stores. Pioneer RT707, Akai GX4000D and Teac 4010s. I learned to restore them myself. I found some NOS Maxell tape on Ebay, made some old school R&B recordings and they sound so nice!!
You use FM radio for source material? I was chief engineer of 94.7 The Wave. Even with the fidelity I managed to achieve, it is not decent source material.
Your memory seems to be different from mine. I enjoyed good quality FM radio from the BBC from 1977 when I bought my Pioneer TX-9500II tuner. That's my memory and I'm very happy to have it.
Quite interesting to take a look on past and present situation of open reel tape decks and recordings. I used to work in the professional media business for more than three decades. So I accompanied the change from analogue to digital recording professionally and also privately. I used to own several tape machines like the ASC-6002S, various Sonys (758, 765, 788, 880-2), a Telefunken M15, Revox A700 and still got a Revox B77 MK2. But my memory tells me that the best ever recordings I did were with PCM processors in combination with Sony Betamax and Betacam recorders. To be honest I don't use my current Revox often enough to keeping it on a long term. And I agree with my wife that the machine should not be integrated into my living room hifi setup. So it is placed in my study together with my Sony 80s HiFi units and Klipsch Heresy speaker.
As a teen in the 70s i had friends with a beautiful Teac.and couple more who had Roberts reversing head reel to reels.a few hours of quality sound per reel.
This takes me back to music school days where the electronic music studios included Revox and Tascam machines, splicing blocks and various hardwire synths such as the VCS3. The main studio had a Fairlight! Heady times.
Trust me. At those prices, tape is not back. I have a reel to reel and I love the nostalgia and romance of it. Sounds great. Better than CD’s, maybe. For tape to come back we need new machines at $3000.00 US and new pre-recorded tapes at $30.00 to $50.00 US. I hope so, but I doubt it. Forty year olds in their spending peak are using Iphones and earbuds. One can hope. Thanks for the video!
It's not going to be possible at that price point, unfortunately. $15K+ is a total niche market thing. I wouldn't be surprised if only one lot of these new Revox decks were made and then production stopped. It's an insane amount of money to get into reel-to-reel with what amounts to a prosumer deck. There just aren't that many newbies willing to carry it. For that money, you could buy a refurbished studio deck like an Ampex iteration......the real deal(no pun intended).
@@TheReal1953 They'll probably sell a few of them, there are rich people who would prefer a brand new tape deck with warranty instead of a refurbished one. Before Revox, IIRC there were a few other companies selling brand new tape decks for about the same price. If I had that much money, I would buy a Studer, but then I can also repair/maintain it myself so it would not bother me as much that the deck was old.
These B77's are not being newly mfg'd. The so called ReVox in Lerzenstrasse Germany is not the original ReVox/ Studer Co, they're simply rebranding products mfg's abroad. These B77's are merely a low volume resto-mod based product relying on acquiring second hand used B77's abroad.
You are right. Beyond the fact that it is impractical, it does not sound better. Tape hiss is an undesireable by product of the medium, and while you may "like" the sound of a tape being hit into saturation and softly compressing, that' snot what the musicians sounded like when they were recording the material. So by that reality, the sound of tape is a form of "distortion" that differs from the original content. In a professional recording studio, some recordings exceeded the number of tracks available on a Studer 48 track, etc. At that point , some of those tracks would be bounced, then on mixing the final result, it is then all bounced to a two track machine (half track). So every time that you re record the material, you introduce more tape hiss, and further degrade the original recording. The bounces didn't end there because for radio stations, a third bounce would occur so that tapes could be distributed to various outlets. The same was tru for end user retail copies. Nobody will convince me that a cassette tape will outperform a CD. In realty, that goes for a copy of the materila on a pro Revox, or ampex, or Tascam, etc. It's pure nostalgia, the big turning reels, vu meters, and knobs ...the entire aesthetic feeds the mythology of it all.
I have two, a B77mk1 high speed 15/7.5ips and a Mk2 3 3/4 7 1/2 with varispeed. I like to watch the reels go round and also play 4 sides of and LP in one go. At home there is little discernable difference between 7.5 and 15. There's a small difference between 7.5 and 3 3/4 but it's perfectly adequate and perfect for bg music when guests come round with the benefit of showing off the Revox I serviced both mine with the help of a guy in AUS who shipped parts over and I had them recalibrated by a engineer in Guildford. They sound amazing!
Oh, what fun to watch this: my last dalliance with open-reel was pricey and fierce: late-1980s through early-aughts. And my poison of choice hailed not from Switzerland/Germany, but Norway, by way of a pair of Tandberg TD20A SE decks-the first a 1/4-track, 7.5ips example, shortly replaced by one spec'd 1/2-track/15ips. As far as "how to afford all this?", that was simple: in addition to my then-day job selling high-end audio, I moonlighted as an amateur location recording engineer for solo musicians, small ensembles, and the occasional orchestra. Probably the *best* education I ever got in terms of what makes a difference in terms of sound quality in the service of music. It also gave me a chance to really exercise the TD20A SE's wide dynamic range, which, for the analog realm, was rather astounding. It also made for demo tapes that impressed more than a few people who'd become jaded with the usual rote "audiophile" recordings of the day. I'd also say this moonlighting pretty much covered the not-insignificant costs of a machine that was the audio equivalent of a Mercedes SLR. Dragging that thing from location to location (In NYC, via the subway, no less) was, to put it in its best light, "character-building", but if given the chance, I'd absolutely do it again, given the music I was exposed to, the bonds made with the people creating it, and the thrill of sharing the incredible listening experience when it all went right-which, thankfully, was more often than not!
I love the fact that other people are keeping the old ways alive. Tape definitely adds coloration to sound, which is why modern recording studios use tape emulator plugins. I find this entertaining - we invent a new recording medium (digital) and spend years improving the converter quality so that we can get rid of the issues of tape (wow, hiss, etc), and then we use some computer code to add the issues back in again.
This is because we want the coloration, _but only once,_ which limits how analog tape can be used. It stops sounding so great when you have to ping pong the signal through the recording process multiple times because you ran out of tracks. If it was as easy to run multiple analog tape machines in parallel as it is to run a stack of ADAT machines, then this wouldn't be much of an issue, just like the 8 tracks of ADAT aren't limiting. In any case, being able to push the coloration step out to the end of the chain makes it much easier to manage.
In 1965 I bought a Brenell Mk V Series II three speed including 15IPS. Electronics home brew hybrid valve/tube and transistors. The problem with LP tape, in addition to fragility, was Print Through when the recorded signal could magnetise adjacent layers and this was audible. I was glad to see the back of tape and vinyl, but whatever floats your boat.
It can be nice to get hands on with the hardware when using tape for effects. Tom Scholz (of Boston) would interact directly with the speed of his recorder to produce some of the effects coming out of the Hammond organ, which has no pitch bend capability without studio trickery like manipulating tape speed (or signal processing, now). I doubt very much that he still does it "the hard way".
In 1977 I worked for Public Radio station WFSU-FM in Tallahassee, Fl. There we had a couple of A77s for remote recording. I was fortunate enough to be able to do a wide variety of live recordings of music and speech programs. Once properly biased I was pleased with the results. My only complaint was the plastic front panel, clad in a metal faceplate. The panel tended to warp and the reels would rub. Not a nice thing if you happen to be in the same room as the subject of the recording.
I still have my acai gx747dbx reel to reel tape deck that I bought in 1984. It is absolutely pristine in the same condition that it was when it was new. I have been thinking about selling it I have watched the prices on eBay go past the $4,000 mark.
I just got myself a reconditioned B77 Mk1 and it is great! Only a few minor scuffs on the case, but it runs perfectly. And my old home recordings from the 70's still play fine.
Good to know that reel to reel is making a comeback. I own the Grundig TS-1000 and The Pioneer RT-1020L. Both are great machines, but I prefer the Grundig TS-1000. There is something about looking at the reel to reel decks. What I do with my decks, I use each one for half a year. Then I switch them out.
LOVE IT !!! Great video, very informative. I've digitized and uploaded several reels ( 50 years old ) using my TEAC. The tapes degraded terribly, but I did manage to salvage some interesting artifacts from the past. I encourage reel to reel owners to keep a look out for used reels and digitize the content on the first pass, you may not get a second chance, there are alot of gems out there to be found. 🎵🎵
Have started utilizing my X-1000R again. Having fun with ebay purchased commercial tapes. But today my machine started doing some odd things in reverse play. OH boy... if I can't figure it out these things cost big money to send out. I got one tape that is a copy of a 15 IPS master I mixed down in a class in 1976. The copy was made on a Revox in the studio. I waited decades too long wanting a Revox as now they probably make my Teac look budget in comparison. Lot of people just use RTR to copy their LPs. OK that is fine but I would just play the LP, at the cost of tape now.
I have a nice Philips N4522 ( 2 track 3 speed) which occasionally "rescues" old tapes that people on the local Facebook group have found in a house clearance. I am happy to dump them to a digital format for the price of a bottle of wine. On an other unrelated note, I find it bizarre that the likes of Studer, Dolby etc strove to reduce the inherent defects of analog tape, but people seem to want them all back again!
I have a Teac-A3300 SX machine and I love sitting in my man cave watching the reels turning, cost me £500, reels and decent quality tape easily available 😊😊😊
I have a Teac A2300S, a Pioneer 707, a Sony TC788-4, a Technics 1500US an Akai GX365D and a Teac A-1500 The one that i am using lately is the Teac A-1500
Boy, do I wish I had a spare $15k lying around. That new Revox looks like an engineering masterpiece. So modern and technical looking! It likely has all the bells and whistle for casual recording and playback. Being a technical nerd of anything and everything electronic, including audio stuff since I was about 7 (nerd wasn't even a word in 1959!), tape recorders have always fascinated me. My first was a Wollensak. Forget the model, but it was one you'd likely see in an elementary or high school in the early 60's. I bought it used when I was about 13. What fun I had recording the radio and the few LPs I had. I would fall asleep at night listening to Cousin Brucie that I could pick via AM on WABC out of NYC. BTW, he is still alive today at 89yrs old. I upgraded to a new RTR from Lafayette Radio. Sadly it was only mono, but I hadn't graduated to stereo quite yet. I had a couple other tape machines in the early 80's, but I can't remember what they were. Life and career happened as I traveled during the week for over 15yrs! Fast forward about 40 some odd yrs. When I started collecting a few vintage pieces in the late 00s, I came across a working Pioneer RT-1020 that I purchased. That one I still have, but since our last move, it's been wrapped in foam and sitting on my office/listening room floor. Shame. I'm retired now and pretty much all digital/streaming nowadays, and I build my amps, pre-amps and DAC/streamers. I do have a vintage JVC turntable and a modest LP coillection. Life is good and I enjoy dabbling in the audio hobby. BTW, I love your videos - keep them coming.
Great video. Informed and informative with a dash of sarcasm thrown in. Nice. I’ve been a fan of tape since my first experience of true high end hi-fi lit a fire in me in 1979. In the last two years I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to lavish my hard earned money on starting a new record collection and building a turntable in stages to something approaching high end quality. Think Merc S class for used C Class money. Your video has confirmed that I will never own a new Revox B77, but I love that it’s back and I’m sure its standard of replay will be more than justifiable against a good quality turntable. After all it’s only half the price of a Linn Klimax.
I don't know about the rest of the country but in my area (Florida) the machines and the tapes are almost cost-prohibitive.That along with a limited number of repair facilities means it is no longer an option for me.I do still believe that it is the best recording media of my lifetime.I have researched and found new machines in the 30K range. Well beyond my means.
In 1973 I bought a Swiss version of the Revox A77- 7.5/15-ips briefcase model with lid and NAB reel holders The Swiss models had a wider capstan motor spindle and two four watt amplifiers connected to four 4 ohm speakers, two set either side of the case covered in a textured grey vinyl. It cost £349. The London studio I was working at, at the time used Revox units supplied and modified by a company called Turnkey and supplied various specialist models such as three speed and vari-pitch models or had the main tape deck area completely flat for easier editing. We used them mainly for copy mastering tapes in volume. I still own my Revox and it has had work done on it including new heads, motor maintenance and some board components replaced. I preferred using BASF Pro 50 or Agfa PEM 368 Pro but the last tape reels I bought were Quantegy 456. One is still sealed in it's packaging. Originally the studio had Leevers Rich mastering units but later went across to Studer machines.
Not a Revox enthousiast. Tandberg and TEAC. I bought an AD 2300 SD, so with Dolby when I was 21 having various Akai's before. I am now 68 and the TEAC still works! ❤
Hobbyist here. I used to use a Tascam TSR-8 (8 track 1/2" tape) to capture the premix inputs on the mixer (Yamaha RM804) before it got mixed down to stereo on a Sony A8 DAT. I didn't find the sound on the Tascam to be that remarkable compared to DAT (when I tried to remix from the A8 later). However some caveats. The TASCAM was purchased used and probably needed calibration. I also was using old tape. (Ampex 456). Since returning to the US, I bought another Tascam, though I haven't set anything up yet to use it with. I did some more recording in a live setup in a large church. A choir member was there and worked as an engineer with the local FM station. He told me *NOT* to give up the tascam because there are some nuances of what he called saturation that are unique to analog recorders that are more dynamic (his words) thatn what DAT could accomplish. My DAT was the Semi-Pro line (20 bit super-bit mapping). I pretty much "retired" from this kind of thing, but one day will probably get into it again (along with my ancient Wollensak 1500's). Thanks for the video!
I have one! Working in radio for decades, I still have reels of my programs, and can play them. Before CDs and digital, I preferred the high quality sound for music, and still occasionally use the RTR for that. Cassette tape sound is nowhere near as good. Unlike with turntables and vinyl, which made a comeback, you unfortunately cannot buy a new RTR, unless it's a high-end professional model costing near 10 grand. However, because they were built very solid, like everything else in the day, they are still serviceable. And, if you have a popular brand like Pioneer or Teac, there are parts still available.
you can't buy a new cassette player equivalent to units from the 90s or earlier, either. current units are all based around a common heavily cost-optimized cassette mechanism.
I still have my A-77 run into a tube power amplifier into studio monitors with 15 inch woofers. Superior to CD into tube. I've got a few others that I cannot remember?
Love all your videos, Always informative and amusing. I find it that discussions seem to focused on "performance" not enjoying the music. Seems to me the music should be the most important consideration. Although it is obviously nice to have the best sound production possible it really doesn't change the original music, if you can get the music in a source that is enjoyable for you that is probably all that matters. If you buy a thousand dollar cable - how much does that improve your listening experience? If it does I have no quarrel that is a personal choice. I would suggest room placement or treatment would have a far larger effect. As to systems they all color the sound, far above what audio 'tweaks " do. I mostly listen on desktop studio monitors in spite of having a hybrid electrostatic system in the same room as it is convenient, My kids listen on their ipads which I find unlistenable but they get their music via their medium of choice, Audio is about music not about audio one ups.
The resurgence of RTR has been going on for a long while now. Good friend of mine has some very nice players in his listening space. Otari - ReVox and others, some on studio roll about stands. He also has bought into the PRE-records in the $400 - $500 each range. I have been in the R to R camp for many a year and even got on the DISCRETE quad wagon. But, LETS NOT FORGET, most vinyl was produced from TAPE. Why listen to a second generation when you can have tape right from the source, have better channel separation, dynamic range AND NO clicks, ticks and pops. Some of my pre-records at 7 1/2 IPS still sound amazing on my old TEAC A-6010 machine 👍!
Back in the day. Late 1980s thru mid/late 1990's. Pro. Royal Shakespeare Company based in Barbican Theatre, London. Initially used Ampex 406 and 456. B77 mk1, mkii. At some point we switched to BASF 911. Superior winding and reduced print thru. Interesting that you mentioned RTM SM 9.11 as 'modern' encarnation of Ampex 456. Splendid video. Thank you lots. ❤
I really miss my Sony TC-377. No Revox, but I was just a kid. I coupled it with a standalone Dolby NR box (all that Dolby did back then) that eliminated tape hiss, and I think 7.5 was top speed. But those turning reels had a hypnotic pull to them that I sincerely miss. The physicality of of that steady turning. The tape I bought was cheap because I was cheap, and it ran through a Sansui to stacked Advents. Miss those days.
If you want a "fairly hi-fi blast from the past"....search for pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes from the mid-to-late 1950s. These were produced in the professional 2-track stereo format, not the inferior quarter-track (also called 4-track) format that appeared in about 1960. And these early tapes were usually recorded at 7.5ips, not 3.75ips as were tapes from the 60s and 70s. I have a few from OmegaTape (Hollywood, CA) that sound quite decent. There's a bit of tape hiss, but it's not objectionable. I know, a 7.5ips dupe isn't as good as a 15ips master copy, but it's a whole lot better than many LPs from the same era. Stereo LPs didn't exist prior to 1959 but stereo tapes were produced beginning in about 1955. Enjoy!
I think I'm slightly younger than you but still firmly in the era of Reel-to-reel and I own three of them, all Teac or Tascam. If I was recording a band, I'd use Scotch 226 (1.5 mil tape or 2400-feet...and suffers from SSS) at 15 ips. For all "consumer" recording I would use 1 mill tape or 3600-feet and Maxell UDXL (does not suffer from SSS). Depending on the source, I would record at 7.5 or 15ips (or, possibly 3.75ips). If I was duping a fresh record that I wanted to make a fresh copy and be able to dupe to cassette, I would record at 15ips. For anything off of the radio, there is no point in going faster than 7.5ips and for those tapes, I was just looking for a lengthy collection of music (what you would use spotify in a random seek, now but without the recording part). Again, depending on what I'm recording (length, potential quality), I would go down to 3.75ips. The slower speeds normally affected top-end frequency response, which is why, from radio, it just didn't matter. You'd also take a minor hit in S/N ratio. It would also shift the timbre of the "hiss." Other factors would include the tape itself and what it was capable of handling, flux-wise. If you can record at 320nW/m (a professional tape), you are going to get a stronger and less-noisy recording than if you are on a tape that really has to be calibrated around 185nW/m, which is most consumer stuff using ¼-track (aka 4-track). Revox was too-rich for my blood, back in the day (hence my Teac/Tascam collection instead of Revox/Studer...or even Otari). Personally, I think a person that is wanting to play these new "master tapes" is going to be better served by obtaining a good used Technics, Revox, Otari or even Studer deck and having it serviced. Also, if playing these pre-recorded tapes is their goal, remember, all of the ones I've seen are recorded using the IEC recording EQ, not NAB so one has to ensure that their deck is set up for that response curve. US born decks are normally NAB or are selectable. $16K sounds like a lot but, given what it would cause to bring a product like that to market, support it, pay the engineers and people to ramp up for production and how small a market it is bound to be, they aren't going to be making a fortune off of it. And, considering what I'm seeing some audiophile speakers going for, even small ones, $16K is in line with that sort of customer.
weird - I commented and posted then it was gone a little later! Anyhoo - have a PR99 that I rebuilt. Its helped me get back into listening to music for pleasure as an event considering I do it day in day out. Sounds great, cheers
This is great. I (believe it or not) have my first r-t-r given to me as a kid. Panasonic 3" reel ac, capstan and 1 7/8 ips, It still works. Never quit reel to reel, as it died out long ago folks were selling for next to nothing. I noticed tapes called. In line or for stacked heads. My goodness 2 track factory and the quality was is insane. I suppose when the cheapest machine was around 700.00 usd they had to be good probably a show off thing for audiophiles. No rock only great artists and the tapes seem to never wear out.
I was using these things well into the late 90s. I'm a millenial though, I only did it because I could get reels cheaper than casettes. When I was 8 years old I bought these tapes for like 1 zł off a kid who said it's from his dad's junk collection, it turned out he just nicked it from the drawers in school. The class room for language lessons had lots of these reels in shelves but absolutely none of the teachers knew what they are and never used them (because they used casettes) therefore they never noticed any missing. It's the same story with mechanical projectors and reels of film, once video casettes became a thing the schools just shelved all of the film reels and never played them. Unfortunately you can't erase film like you can magnetic tape :)
I have an original B77 bought in 1979 around £800 as far as I recall. It was the complete lack of background hiss that impressed me, even at 71/2. Mine played 15 and 71/2 IPS. If you wanted an even hiss - less sound you could purchase Dolby B or C noise reduction units. Very expensive format compared with vinyl. And bare in mind that unless the tapes are stored very well when not in use, they will stretch, distorting your crystalline recordings. I have my B77 now as a cosmetic touch. It certainly does look impressive but I rarely use it. Another pain of course is having to rewind the tape. All in all - a bit of a faff.
I probably have a couple few more years on my clock than you but this gives some measure of perspective on how much the world has changed and then the old ways are revived
I'm probably quite as old, but what I find amazing is we went from CD to MP-3, which is terrible in comparison. Now it seems like everyone is trying to get back to lossless, and consider something like CD or 16/44 as hi res. This is a standard that was first introduced in 1978 on laser disk, then again in 1982 on CD. This is a perfect example of how you can ruin an entire industry with poor marketing. In every other aspect of digital consumer electronics (Video, Computers, Gaming, Photo, etc..), the marketing was always, newer tech = higher quality, and the increase in price buys you something better than the last generation. With iPods and MP-3, the marketing was lower quality, lower price but more features. It wrecked the whole industry.
@ I never joined the MP-3 bandwagon I went from vinyl to CDs and did not do anything digital other than CDs/Blu-ray until the last couple years with streaming I am also vinyl adjacent now with classical music primarily as I sold all my records over 30 years ago except for one really nice Roxy Music double live bootleg album. Buying vinyl is spendy for me so I have to be judicious Of course I had cassettes and 8 Track tapes like everyone else
Perhaps many are no longer aware of the Direct To Disc efforts to bypass the ill effects of tape. Witness Sheffield Labs and countless others producing truly astonishing results. I did many experiments myself dubbing direct to disc material to mag tape and trying my best to mitigate against the obvious drawbacks in the dubbing. Yes, of course, countless recordings were mastered to tape and all we have. But proper digital recordings, free of wow and flutter, modulation noise and mountains of dynamic range - well, there it is. Far better, far less costly, far easier to edit and further process. Now it’s 4 cents.
I know someone who claims his reel to reel recordings from vinyl and cd sound better than the vinyl and the cds he recorded from. What do you say to this claim?
@ Anyone may claim anything. I don’t dismiss the importance of mag tape recording entirely. There is so much wonderful material that began as mag tape recording. That was the method then. But now there is an abundance of controlled side by side recording comparison testing between tape, direct to disc and ultimately digital recording that answer questions of superiority in objective if not scientific terms.
Have the A77mkIV & B77mkII both working very well . Old Maxell tapes & RTM , all of them longplay. Record on 3,3/4 lowest and that gives me over 6 hours of music in total on 1 reel . Hardly hear a difference with 7,5 speed also because most of the time I play music never loud. Nabs : Aliexpress and for 99% as good as the orginals , metal reels also. Every year I make a new compilation tape of new bought vinyls. Often those tapes sound better than the vinyl itself which I recorded and that beats me to understand how that is possible. I use all the stuff : old vinyl , new vinyl , TDK MA-R cassettes , downloads , RTR , cd , bluray , SACD , DVD-A .....only streamin' I still have to get into.
A new reVox eh. I'll buy one with my upcoming lotto win. I have a long history with open reel tape too but not quite as long as you. I started with an Akai 4000DS MK2 in 1984 along with a Studiomaster four track cassette machine and a Roland Juno6. I then progressed to multitrack tape and used a Tascam MSR16 for many years prior to switching to two ADAT machines and then Protools at the end of the 90s. I still have several open reel decks in my studio, including two reVox machines (a PR99 MK1 and a C270), a Teac A3300 SX-2T, an Akai 4000DS MK2 and a pair of Sony TC 352D decks. I've owned one of those Sony decks since the early 80s. These days, my studio recording system is based on two RME Fireface UFX interfaces but I do still have somewhat of a nostalgic passion for analog tape. I love using it for tape delays and also sometimes for its character when pushed. The SM911 stock is good even if it is expensive. Hopefully it doesn't suffer the same sticky shed as most of my 456 has.
Ha! Yeah, there's some truth to that. The main issue with the earlier silver face models was audible clicks where tape drop outs were present. They fixed that in the XT models. Honestly though, I didn't use ADATs for long enough for it to be too much of an issue. I moved to Protools not long after that (at the end of 1999). Protools was great at the time but I moved to REAPER with RME interfaces in 2007 and haven't looked back.
Reel to reel days of recording are the best. I remember when cd come out and all the masters come from reel to reel and sounded great. Recording now sound like rubbish and we lost are way in music sounding now.
Get a Tandberg TD20A SE. I know, as a Factory Service for Revox and Tandberg. For my own use I sold my A-77 for a TD20 SE. with modding I consider it to be the best PERIOD!
It is like a car. New price and all the expensive service to add. Thanks for a great video. I will fix my old Tandberg and be happy. 60's music damaged on CD sounds best on the 4,75 speed. LOL I am old and broke to even drean of a Revox from any age.
First Vinyal makes a comeback, then Compact Cassetes and now reel to reel? Honestly I always found them to bee just too fumbly to use. I‘ll stay with Vinyl 😅
I was super excited when I heard about the new B77, then I saw the price! Back in the days I alway used “pancakes” but that was at radio stations where a) you got to be fast loading tapes and b) most of the recordings are short. One of the stations was a community one and couldn’t afford cart machines so we had a lot of 30 seconds tapes on pancakes and only 3 tape machines (B77). Regarding tape thickness, I remember an embarrassing moment when an international pop star came for a radio concert and his team provided a backing track. In the middle of his performance, the tape machine (a Studer… A807, A810 or A820) suddenly stopped. I was standing right next to the machine so everyone looked at me… turns out the Studer was calibrated for broadcast tape that needs to be much stronger as we often edit tapes and move/play them often. PS: for the rest of the world, even if you’re British, you’re still European… and it’s technically true :p
Very briefly, connect the outputs of the tape recorder to an audio interface that is connected to your computer. You can then copy your tapes into digital audio workstation software like Audacity.
THE THING TAPE ENTHUSIASTS FAIL TO REALIZE OR UNDERSTAND IS THAT EVEN HIGH QUALITY REEL TO REEL TAPE IS GOING TO SHRED AND DETERIORATE OVER TIME. REPEATED PLAYBACK. ITS THE NATURE OF THE FORMAT TO DEGRADE AFTER REPEATED PLAYBACK. LIKE VINYL. HIGH QUALITY TAPE USED IN RECORDING LP MASTERS WAS ONLY MEANT TO BE USED TO RECORD AN LP THEN TO BE STORED. SOME STUDIO RECORDING TAPE WAS WIPED CLEAN AND RECORDED OVER BUT MOST HIGH QUALITY STUDIO TAPE WAS ONLY MEANT TO GET THE PERFORMANCE RECORDED AND THEN TRANSFERRED TO VINYL. THEN STORED. THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT WHEN REFERRING TO THE MASTER TAPES. NOT TO BE CONTINUALLY PLAYED BACK. NO MATTER HOW HIGH QUALITY REEL TO REEL IS, OR HOW GREAT IT SOUNDS,REPEATED PLAYBACK OF THIS OR ANY TAPE WILL EVENTUALLY DEGRADE. ITS THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. HIGH QUALITY REEL TO REEL,CASSETTE,OR 8 TRACK. ITS ALL TAPE.
The solution is to set your machine up to give the best performance it can, and the transfer all your tapes onto your computer through a high quality audio interface. Then even if the tapes deteriorate, you still have a decent copy on your computer (use WAV or FLAC format, never MP3 !)
I do regret not keeping my A77 and Akai GX (man, I don't even remember the model😢) in good order. I'm reluctant to put my tapes through either machine now. The electronics are quite hissy as well, so need redoing. I recorded many a concert off the FM radio back in the day. I also have quite a few commercially released reels. Most of my tapes were bought used from the Music and Video Exchange in Notting Hill. For every 10 tapes I bought, I would only overwrite 1. There was so much good stuff from post production houses, recording studios, even a bunch of tiny reels from German national radio!
Like Charlie Drake's boomerang, reel to reel will not come back. The way we can now record digitally onto memory chips with no moving parts is just brilliant.
@@ianz9916 ...usual non-understanding of fidelity and relationship with the rest of the sound system including the room... The digital media itself is way better than your ears (and any analog media whatever the price), so with a proper DAC (as low as 99$ for SMSL SU-1), look at the source material (there are so many bad records) or the rest of your system. This "no life" argument is complete fallacy and parroting peddlers' crap...
@@ginaorsini3312 Complete BS... The digital media is not "harsh", the sound recording and the mix can be if done by incompetents, sound system can be low-fi (even if some company charging big money want you to think otherwise...), your room can have unpleasant resonances, etc etc etc The digital media is by far the highest fidelity medium from source to your ears and it's a very well mastered technology in electrical engineering. You can't beat it: It's now commodity level. As an example, an SMSL SU-1 @ 99$ DAC is better than your ears and any analog gear, whatever the price. If you don't understand why then i suggest to go study and stop parroting BS... You just showed that you don't have a clue and know nothing about basic undergrad notions in electrical engineering... Just parroting BS from peddlers...
I used to frequently bid on the Canadian Government Surplus auction site, and in 2008 I won a bid for Audio Equipment that was used in a Park Interpretation Centre. I bid for the whole package about 500$, which included a Revox PR99(not functioning and parts missin), a Revox A77, 2 Revox B77, a Uher Report Monitor, all in working condition. There were also included several Beyer mics, Headphones etc, etc. I was thinking to at least keep one of the B77s, but decided against it because I had gone all digital in the meantime, storing all my cds on Harddrive (about 1.8TB, in flac format), but had kept the records and my 2 turntables, as it was too time consuming to tranfer those in real time. I sold everything for about 3500$ on ebay, on of the B77s went to South Korea, the other to New York. That one had a minor problem with a crack in the VU meter driver board, which cost about 80$ to fix.
I retired 7 years ago and decided I wanted a B77 Mk II. I already had a worn out A77 that I'd bought way back in the mists of time but my mate got a brand new B77 Mk II around about 1980 and I'd always been very envious. I know audiophiles will hate my machine because it's quarter track and only has a top speed of seven and a half inches per second, but this is still a serious upgrade from a cassette with half the width tape and a running speed of one and seven eighth inches per second. It was refurbished, although not by Revox, and the power was changed to a C13 socket, which is much more convenient. It came with a metal take up reel, a reel of tape, two NAB adaptors, cleaning fluid, cotton buds and a CD with the operating and service manuals on it. It set me back £600 but I think it may well cost a little bit more now. I was able to buy tapes from, as far as I could tell, the last hifi shop in England that still stocked them which is fortunately only a ten minute drive from my house. They used to get the RTM tapes in from Cologne. They stopped selling them after the pandemic so now I have to get them direct from Recording The Masters. To keep the costs down I have occasionally bought pancakes and put the tape onto second hand metal reels that I've picked up on eBay. Being a hobbyist and not a professional, I have used LPR tape. I've not had any problem with the winding and as I get older and my hearing loses some of the top frequencies it really sounds pretty damn good to me. Sorry this has turned into a bit of a Tolstoy novel. Well done if you've read this far.
how exactly did you wear out your A77 ? Your post resembles a google search lol
id cräkk this am düdes äh cä$hpöxx ´4 ünn-säcd- well rötelljänn hdcd ^?^
people häd öll sehr Fifi lives to büy ´reel täpe vvätt guts a few disc gönnä dö em növv ^$^??
this blänett nevväh hät decent täyp xxP ör änni Förnnät v..v
´i vvänt a single cyded tayp ^??^ siemess id räthörr häve 4k rt in 1 Fähn zen unLouZ€€´ öddjöh XP
My calculator says that quarter-track, 7.5 ips is eight times better than cassette. TLDR you win!
I have never in 50 years of recording and re-recording albums never stopped using revox/studer machines. Used in conjunction with two Nakamichi cassette decks anything can be done
There is a third type of consumer user: The senior one who has never stopped using reels and has a huge collection of tapes that he wants to keep playing.
Not only that, I have friends that buy these things with music already on them. Just like if you bought a record or cassette. I'm not really into tapes like this so I can't tell you where they get them from, but apparently there's still sources for them. They also use them for rare recordings. If they have a rare, expensive record that can't be replaced without spending a fortune, they record it to tape and listen to that instead of putting wear on the record. I've lent them a few records that can't be found anymore.
I make it a point not to listen to them when I'm at a friends house because I don't want to get sucked in. The last thing I need is another expensive piece of audio gear.
True, but not enough in numbers and pocketbooks to keep these Revox machines flying off the shelves.
@@052RC I buy used reel to reel tapes and sometimes find something that I really like on them. I do not pay a lot of an "unknown" tape, so if it turns out to be unusable (bad recording and the tape cannot really be reused) no big loss for me. I prefer the older style (acetate) tapes for this, because those are very likely 2 track mono and can be played on my tube R2R deck, but also I like the music those tapes may contain.
I sometimes find cool stuff on there (not necessarily music).
When I buy a brand new record, I record it to a R2R tape, so I can listen to it without wearing the record out (also, a tape is more convenient than a record).
I have a few tape decks, but I repair and maintain them myself. If I had to hire a professional to do it, it would become expensive. I recently got a "real studio" deck - had to ask my friend to help transport it because it would not fit in my car and it's ~70kg.
@@052RC If your whole point is to preserve the original by not directly playing it, digital will be cheaper than tape _and_ more convenient, even if you believe you have superhuman hearing and run at 192kHz and 24 bit depth. Reel to reel is just the best commonly available _analog_ tool for the job.
I'm also one of them. Grew up with RTR's from the 70's.
Long time open reel tape collector here. I have almost 2,000 pre recorded open reel tapes. I have been selling a few off. Space was getting to be a problem. I have 14 open reel decks and they all work. I make it a point to have them serviced every few years. I was lucky to have been raised on open reel tapes. I bought my Teac X-2000R new in 1990 for $1,100.00. I was only 18 back then! The machine is still in great shape and sounds wonderful!
Would be cool to hear some of those tapes, you should upload a few. 🎵🎵
@ZAKEMPLEX I believe I would run into copyright problems. It's unfortunate because I have some super rare 2 track jazz tapes, like Oscar Pettiford on ABC records. This tape has never been properly re-issued. It sounds wonderful too.
@@brianwilliams9408 Consider uploading a few and see what happens. They may request you not monetize the video. I had a few blocked in certain countries etc. 🎵🎵
I have been playing with Reel to Reel since the 70's Basic Grundig's, a few Philips, Sony, Akai and a Teac 8 - 80 from a studieo in Cornwall. Unfortunately tape speeds were slow due to budget and track formats were 2,4, 8, 4 x s. Anyway I have yet to sort things out but I like to see the spools going around it is very relaxing. 1/2 tape gives me a few hours of stereo on salvaged Amp 456. Enjoy your machines and well done for holding on to them,
Interesting video👍 Former studio assistant engineer here. I go back to 3M M79 and Studer A800 24-track, Ampex ATR 100 2-tracks, Scotch 250, Ampex 456.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Old guy here, I have two Sony 777's don't those things ever break? Funny thing on one the meters say Sansui!
@AudioMasterclass You have one hell of a sense of humor attached to your practical and vintage engineering.
I used tape for a long time for mastering and especially for cutting and splicing. The pieces of tape that you cut out go in the trash. From a 30 minute tape usually 20 minutes remained, if you worked a bit efficiently. Not only for the sound quality but also for accurate cutting and splicing I always used the highest speed.
That cutting and splicing was a skill in itself. Cutting exactly where was very accurate. Sticking it back together was also a challenge. Grasping the tape in the right way was also a skill in itself. Not touching the side with the magnetic layer with your fingers. And .... first do all the art and then hear the result. Not good, tape in the trash and try again.
That is completely different from what we can do now in a DAW. For me tape is a nostalgia. I count myself lucky that I still experienced it, but I am very happy that it is now much easier and faster, with a better result.
Exactly so. Nostalgia is a powerful drug, apparently.
What is DAW?
@@SDsailor7 Digital Audio Workstation.
@@timn5008 Thank you
Yes, old school editing with scotch tape and a razor blade, very dangerous by today's standards..🎵🎵
I was born in the mid/late 1960s, was a kid during the 1970s, and a teen during the first half of the 1980s. I became interested in electronics in general during elementary school, and audio in particular starting in the late 1970s. A close friend (19 years my senior) gave me my first open reel machine in 1980, when I was 13 years old: a 1961 Voice of Music 722: a "portable" (luggable!) vacuum tube machine. It had problems (that I didn't know how to fix at the time), but I was hooked! The next year, I saved my pennies and purchased a brand-new Realistic TR-3000 (a TEAC X-3 in different clothes). I loved that machine! I mostly used it to record mixtapes from my father's (well worn!) collection of 1950s - 1970s vinyl records (mostly 7-inch 45 RPM singles). I also did some live recording of school concerts and a local garage band. Those live recordings turned out remarkably well! I still have all the tapes that I recorded during those years.
After high school, I attended Carnegie Mellon University and earned a degree in electrical/computer engineering.
For a couple of decades, I took a hiatus from audio to feed a car hobby, then I got married, bought a house, raised two sons, and eventually ended up divorced... It took me a few years to recover from my divorce, both emotionally and financially.
Around 2018-2019, I got back into audio. And I've gone particularly crazy with collecting open reel tape machines! I now own somewhere around 70 different machines! I have a well-equipped home electronics lab, so I repair and service my own audio gear. I have a diverse range of open reel tape machines from across the years and across the consumer-to-pro spectrum. My earliest machines are monophonic vacuum tube AMPEX and Berlant Concertone machines from the 1950s. My newest machines are from across the 1980s. My best machines are a Studer B67 Mk1 7.5/15/30-ips machine, a TASCAM 42B, an Otari MX-5050BII-2, and a Technics RS-1500US. I also have a Revox E36, G36, A77 Mk1, A77 Mk2, A77 Mk3, and B77 Mk2. And various other TEAC, TASCAM, Akai, etc. machines. I will soon add a pair of 1960s AMPEX studio machines to my collection. Eventually, my sights are set on a Studer A80!
I'm not chasing audio nirvana. I'm an electronics engineer who loves music and loves the engineering that went into all of these machines. I love listening to, using, and maintaining these wonderful machines.
❤
What? No Tandberg?
@@daviddrake6875
Well, I answered this, but RUclips, something, or someone seems to have deleted my reply. Oh well.
@@daviddrake6875 I have a bunch of Tandberg's including a TD20-A
Great story ! 🎵🎵
@@daviddrake6875
I'll try again. I'm not opposed to Tandberg. It's just that the right moment/opportunity just hasn't presented itself yet. I do have one humble Tandberg: a 3000X. It's waiting patiently for me to finally dig it out someday and see what kind of TLC it needs.
👍
Love to hear this. I got to do some engineering in a 16-track, MCI equipped studio in the early-to-mid '70s. We mixed down to an Ampex 1/2 track. What a joy.
Best sound I have ever heard, and that was 45 yrs ago and still remember. Never heard 15 IPS, however have heard the difference between 33/4 and 71/2 and was incredible difference. 1 of these days will make the purchase, must take 10" Reels.
Back around 1970 (when I was 16) my local electrical shop got a joblot of basic reel to reel tape machines in stock. They were custom builds and part of a cancelled order for some company or other. They were 1/4 in machines running at 3.3/4 or 7.1/2 speeds. I snapped one up as they were cheap and used it for many years. Not relevant to this video but it just brought back some memories.
Great story ! 🎵🎵
I never used these back in the day but found a Sony TC-366 in more-or-less working order for free. I refurbed it for 70 quid and am very pleased with it. I've bought some used pre-recorded tape and got 2 more machines and a shedload of old reels (again for free) from an old friend. I gave the excess tape machines to the tape repair shop since I only need one and had no appetite for renovating more of them. The format is cool, real cool - the looks! And even less practical than vinyl. You need to swap place on the reels to listen to side B and its a hassle. Not a simle flip of the disc. And yes, I had to look up on youtube how to thread the tape. :)
Still recording Mellotron 3 track tapes for the world on bespoke 3/8" width tape at 7 1/2" per second. I split the tape from 1" stock and record at an odd 'off azimuth' setting!
@martinsmith1573 You are doing the Lord’s work, Martin. Thank you for keeping that historic instrument alive!
In 1977 - at the age of 15 - and onwards, I had some serious fun with my dad's then new Norwegian Tandberg TD 10X reel-to-reel tapedeck. It had 4 heads, 3 motors, 3 speeds (up to 38cm/s - studio speed, they said :) ) and Dolby. At the highest recording speed, I couldn't hear any difference between the original and the recording. Loved it, but it wasn't very practical anymore in more recent decades. Nowadays I regret I didn't acquire it after my dad had passed away.. My mother sold it. At least it wasn't thrown away and it probably is still providing pleasure to someone somewhere who appreciates it's qualities - I hope.
An amazing machine! Greetings from Norway🇳🇴
I had lower end fun with my Dad's 3500X, copying recording the top 40 and editing down to cassette. When my dad died I lent it to one of his friends who denied all knowledge of it a couple of years later ☹️
@nicksmith4507
I did the exact same thing: recording the new entries in the national hitparade (magazine with the list of entries in my hand) because those would be played entirely without the dj talking through the in- and outros. The receiver used was a Tandberg TR 1040 receiver.
From my pocket money as a teenager I could only afford some TDK SA C60/90 cassettes and a new album every now and then. So we had to 'steal' our music this way, and exchange/lent albums with friends. :)
@@Wuppie62 Nice receiver. This was the one I used: ruclips.net/video/r4nUkIe7oVw/видео.html
I have that same deck now. Tandberg made the foolish decision to drive a big heavy flywheel with a tiny DC Hall-effect motor. And now the motors are completely unobtainium. The motors were very poor in material and construction quality. They killed these very GREAT decks. For those of us in the USA, there has been no 'fix' other than Soundsmiths' AC motor replacement 'kit' which is around $800.
I got very exited and started watching. Then I looked up the price and left.
this blänett nevväh hät decent täyp xxP ör änni Förnnät v..v
´i vvänt a single cyded tayp ^??^ siemess id räthörr häve 4k rt in 1 Fähn zen unLouZ€€´ öddjöh XP
Same here, if it was €4,000 it's already out of most people's reach, €8,000 and it's a distant dream, but €15,950 !! It's now just a luxury boutique product for the wealthy.
Just replaced the rubber wheel driving the tape on my B77. My old tapes from the eighties survived after baking them but lost treble and leave a lot of dust, tape material. Stil sound good through my old B&W dm2a speakers. Need to find new tape just to experience the fun of recording. Some buttons are not always working even after having it serviced by someone, paid 500€ 7 years ago because the speed was off.
Still have my DM2a speakers.
Reel to reel is real and really expensive! My father had a reel to reel tape recorder way back in the day. He had a "studio" turntable too. Vinyl records were never my thing and I'm not a collector. Cassettes were convenient and inexpensive, but in 1986 I heard a CD for the first time. It was connected to a basic Sony tabletop system. There was no hiss, static, pops, clicks, or anything but music. The track was Michael Manring's "Welcoming" on a Windham Hill Sampler CD. I found it transformational. I love the CD format. Is it perfect? Of course not! It is, however, very very good. We still have Dad's vintage (1954-55) JBl speakers. It's amazing how well they work with CD's and solid state electronics. I appreciate your perspective and British sense of humor.
Paul H.
Huntington beach, CA USA
Try driving across Beach blvd to Buena Park and hear a properly aligned ReVox B77 and you'll realize the CD format is absolutely crap vs 1/4" tape.
@@dubdoodle7191 There are a lot of poorly recorded CD's. That's a fact. However, properly recorded CD's can sound great. Note the Windham Hill recording I mentioned above. Reel to reel tape is fantastic and fragile. Heck even the Type 2 cassettes I used to record were fairly good for a format intended for dictation.
I have two reel to reel tape recorders. An Akai, and a Tascam. They are both sliver and shiny and make me feel like I work for the Radiophonic Workshop... back in the day.
And yes... I was blown away how good "tape" can be.
If I wanted a reel-to-reel machine, I'd look for a refurbished Nagra. When I ran a studio in the early 70s my production machines were 4-track Ampex, but for the master recordings I usually used our stereo Nagra. Not only was the recording sound quality outstanding, it was such a mechanical marvel that I loved handling it. For classical stereo recording I paired it with the Neumann SM 69 mic. It was a bit awkward to use in the field, but the sounds of nature that I recorded were magical. During playback, the studio walls just evaporated.
With regard to your question(s) about "thin" vs "standard" mag tape: I used both way back then. Scotch, Audiotape, Irish, Ampex, Memorex, ... Let me be specific: 1-1/2 mil vs 1 mil vs 1/2 mil, then thinner tapes ostensible benefit being extended record time per reel. First, with regard to quality: The thicker tapes were that way mostly because of the thickness of the backing, but also because of the thickness of the oxide layer. A thicker oxide layer allows for higher levels of magnetic force and storage per unit length, and so thicker layers tended to have superior dynamic range, lower dynamic range, but not necessarily differing frequency response. Of course, a thicker layer might be met by a higher bias level which in turn would have a suppresive effect on the treble, but that's getting into this further than I think necessary. Now, here's the other part: Backings came in two basic flavors: acetate and mylar. Acetate tape broke quickly and cleanly upon tensile stress; mylar was tougher and tended to stretch instead. The thinner the mylar tape, the more likely the stretched tape became a worthless plastic string. Usually, Acetate only came in 1-1/2 mil thickness. Mylar came in all three, but 1-1/2 mil mylar was expensive. The pros and more experienced amateurs mastered to acetate so that a break was repairable with a simple butt splice. Over time, acetate dried out, became brittle, broke upon being looked at funny, and curled in bad ways. Mylar was more stable as a storage media, but one bad stretch and the advantage was seriously questioned. Also, thinner tape was more prone to print-through. Ugly. Digital recording, of course, avoids all of this nonsense. On a good day, tape's dynamic range (without Dolby or dBX) ran 55 to 65 dB (depending on speed, track width, ...). Digital? 115 to 120+ dB is easy peasy. Now I'm up to 6 cents.
Ah, yes, the classic debate of "thin" vs "standard" mag tape-a conversation for the ages, and one that clearly brings back fond memories of your days working with Scotch, Ampex, and the like. Your trip down memory lane is appreciated, but let's refine some of these points with a bit more technical precision, shall we?
First, I must commend you for touching on the basic tape thicknesses-1-1/2 mil, 1 mil, and 1/2 mil. It's adorable when people still think of tape as just a simple “storage medium” instead of the intricate balance of materials science, physics, and signal processing that it truly is. Yes, thicker tapes did allow for greater storage density and a superior magnetic flux-congratulations on remembering that! But I do believe you may have glossed over the real reason why the oxide layer’s thickness mattered: it wasn't just about "magnetic force" in a vague sense, but rather about optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range within the limitations of the tape’s mechanical properties.
You mentioned dynamic range in passing-let me take a moment to clarify that for you. While thicker tapes did theoretically allow for better dynamic range (due to the increased amount of oxide), that doesn't automatically mean they were always superior. The trade-offs, as you vaguely touched upon, involved tape speed, bias settings, and, of course, frequency response limitations. After all, there's only so much you can do with 1 mil of Mylar before the laws of physics start laughing at your attempts to get the highest possible performance out of a plastic spool.
Now, about your charming little mention of acetate vs Mylar. It’s clear you’ve worked with both, but perhaps you've forgotten a few minor details that only the truly discerning tape aficionado would recognize. Acetate, as you so correctly pointed out, was prone to breakage and curl, but it did have its moments in history-specifically for those who had a fetish for "proper" tape splicing. Mylar, on the other hand, wasn't just "tougher"; it was a game-changer for longevity, unless, of course, you failed to follow proper storage protocols (which, let’s face it, most of us did in the early days). Mylar had the added benefit of being far more stable in the long term-unless, of course, you decided to stretch it past its elastic limits, in which case it would reward you with the joy of "plastic string syndrome." But, hey, who hasn't had a reel of tape spontaneously unravel in a cacophony of despair?
As for your brief mention of print-through, it’s adorable that you brought that up. It seems like you’re remembering a time when 1/2 mil tapes were the only thing that could truly ruin an afternoon’s recording session. Yes, thinner tapes were indeed prone to print-through, and it’s almost endearing how you’ve hinted at this without addressing the full extent of the issue. The real kicker, of course, is that the “solution” to this problem-higher speeds, special tape formulations-wasn't just a matter of putting a band-aid on the issue; it was about recognizing that every choice came with a compromise. A bit of a balancing act, wouldn’t you say?
Now, for the pièce de résistance: digital recording. I’m glad you brought it up, because it’s always fun to remind folks that while analog tape was the "gold standard" for a brief moment in history, digital recording rendered those limitations utterly quaint. Yes, digital-where the dynamic range isn’t a matter of tape chemistry, but rather, signal processing and precision engineering. With digital, we easily surpass the 115-120 dB mark, something that’s laughable in comparison to the 55-65 dB achievable with analog, even with your beloved Dolby or dbx noise reduction systems. Sure, analog tape had its "charm" (if you like distortion, hiss, and a healthy dose of mechanical degradation), but let's not pretend that digital didn’t put it in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
In conclusion, I appreciate your nostalgic musings about magnetic tape, but perhaps it's time to admit that the medium had its limitations-many limitations-that even the most experienced of us couldn't escape. After all, we both know that the future of audio fidelity isn't found in oxide coatings, tape heads, or Mylar backings, but rather in the perfect precision of digital recording. Still, nice try.
@@ajv802 Charming? Adorable? I think not. But thanks for adding your thoughts.
Wow! This brings back happy memories of my old 1965 stereo 1/4" half-track Brenell STB-2. It had great performance for its day at 15 IPS when you chucked a spool of "modern" Maxell XLII at it. I remember the original spec for high frequency response was 15kHz -2dB at 15 IPS, but that must have been limited by the tape stock available in the mid-60s as it was over twice that with 1980s tape. When I acquired it for peanuts in 1983, it had spent the first 18 years of its life sitting in a cupboard as an emergency backup for another STB-2, so the heads had close to zero hours on them. I had great fun experimenting with a DBX noise reduction system I made for it using NE571 compandor ICs.
I too had a Brenell in 1965;:,
Before the boss reminds me how awful DBX was, I went for a compandor ratio of 1.5:1 instead of the more conventional 2:1. This significantly reduced the horrible "breathing" effect DBX is infamous for, although it did limit signal-to-noise ratio to around 75dB instead of 100dB. That made it slightly more effective than Dolby C on a Nakamichi Dragon (although totally incompatible with anything else), and that was plenty good enough for me.
I've used R2R for years. I bought a TEAC X2000M in 1986 and it's still going strong, properly calibrated and works flawlessly. In 2001 I bought a new Tascam BR20 and I use that in addition to the TEAC. I had loads of Ampex 456 go bad, and so after junking the tape, I re-used the empty reels and filled them with RTM468 pancakes. 468 is my favourite formulation, so I'm rather sad that RTM has discontinued its production. I have the proper calibration tapes for reference level and equalisation [320nWb/m], and I can say that in most cases, 7.5ips is fine if it's properly calibrated. It is all but the most dynamic music where 15 ips really shines. At 15 ips I use IEC EQ and at 7.5 ips I prefer NAB EQ as it's a tad quieter. Just don't hit the levels too hard.
468 used to be Agfa unless I’ve misremembered. 456 sound quality but with smooth winding.
I grew up with RtoR tape. My mother did language studies and used a Tandberg with joy stick and MagicEye. Don't remember the model. In the mid 60's we had a Sony 355. When I started working and had my own money I bought a used Revox A77 Mk3 in 1973. I still have it, having had it refurbished ca. 1983.
"But surely if your hobby doesn't cost a lot, it's not worth having." A hit, a very palpable hit.
It sounds like a joke I know. But there are people who have so much money they don’t know how to spend it. In a very real sense, this is why we poor people can have nice things.
@@AudioMasterclass Not sure of the logic there: there are indeed people out there with tons of disposable income, but how does that help "we" poor people have nice things?
Airline passengers who turn left when they board pay for the plane, the crew, and everything. Those who turn right are the profit. Also in the arts such as opera and ballet, those in the premium seats fund the stage, the performers, and the production; those in the cheap seats fill the house and bring the applause.
If you are recording a live performance, you will need a backup recorder, if the musicians play for longer than a reel of tape lasts as you said you need two machine to do a tape swap. Thus you will need 4 machines to ensure you capture it. You could get away with 3, if you start the 3rd one, before stopping one of the other two, change tape & set it recording before the first one’s tape runs out.
We always had duplicate machines running in BBC Radio OBs, in fact one truck was built to take 4 x Sony PCM3348, so it could do dual 96track recording. At well over £120,000 each!
Started in my teens with a mid-grade sony reel to reel. Impressive specs for the day. A few years later moved to cassette. Stunned that my new Nakamichi deck had much better specs at 1 7/8 ips than my reel to reel at 7.5 ips. Still have the Nakamichi for my old collection.
I own three RTR that I found locally at different thrift stores. Pioneer RT707, Akai GX4000D and Teac 4010s. I learned to restore them myself. I found some NOS Maxell tape on Ebay, made some old school R&B recordings and they sound so nice!!
You use FM radio for source material? I was chief engineer of 94.7 The Wave. Even with the fidelity I managed to achieve, it is not decent source material.
Your memory seems to be different from mine. I enjoyed good quality FM radio from the BBC from 1977 when I bought my Pioneer TX-9500II tuner. That's my memory and I'm very happy to have it.
Used a couple of those back in the day working news/talk in the 90's. Built like tanks.
Thanks!
Quite interesting to take a look on past and present situation of open reel tape decks and recordings. I used to work in the professional media business for more than three decades. So I accompanied the change from analogue to digital recording professionally and also privately. I used to own several tape machines like the ASC-6002S, various Sonys (758, 765, 788, 880-2), a Telefunken M15, Revox A700 and still got a Revox B77 MK2. But my memory tells me that the best ever recordings I did were with PCM processors in combination with Sony Betamax and Betacam recorders. To be honest I don't use my current Revox often enough to keeping it on a long term. And I agree with my wife that the machine should not be integrated into my living room hifi setup. So it is placed in my study together with my Sony 80s HiFi units and Klipsch Heresy speaker.
As a teen in the 70s i had friends with a beautiful Teac.and couple more who had Roberts reversing head reel to reels.a few hours of quality sound per reel.
This takes me back to music school days where the electronic music studios included Revox and Tascam machines, splicing blocks and various hardwire synths such as the VCS3. The main studio had a Fairlight! Heady times.
VCS3 !! I got to touch one once.
Trust me. At those prices, tape is not back. I have a reel to reel and I love the nostalgia and romance of it. Sounds great. Better than CD’s, maybe. For tape to come back we need new machines at $3000.00 US and new pre-recorded tapes at $30.00 to $50.00 US. I hope so, but I doubt it. Forty year olds in their spending peak are using Iphones and earbuds. One can hope. Thanks for the video!
It's not going to be possible at that price point, unfortunately. $15K+ is a total niche market thing. I wouldn't be surprised if only one lot of these new Revox decks were made and then production stopped. It's an insane amount of money to get into reel-to-reel with what amounts to a prosumer deck. There just aren't that many newbies willing to carry it. For that money, you could buy a refurbished studio deck like an Ampex iteration......the real deal(no pun intended).
@@TheReal1953 They'll probably sell a few of them, there are rich people who would prefer a brand new tape deck with warranty instead of a refurbished one. Before Revox, IIRC there were a few other companies selling brand new tape decks for about the same price.
If I had that much money, I would buy a Studer, but then I can also repair/maintain it myself so it would not bother me as much that the deck was old.
We never go back. Streming is now love it or hate is not matter. The next thing we dont see what it is . But you can make Streming is back😂
These B77's are not being newly mfg'd. The so called ReVox in Lerzenstrasse Germany is not the original ReVox/ Studer Co, they're simply rebranding products mfg's abroad. These B77's are merely a low volume resto-mod based product relying on acquiring second hand used B77's abroad.
You are right. Beyond the fact that it is impractical, it does not sound better. Tape hiss is an undesireable by product of the medium, and while you may "like" the sound of a tape being hit into saturation and softly compressing, that' snot what the musicians sounded like when they were recording the material. So by that reality, the sound of tape is a form of "distortion" that differs from the original content.
In a professional recording studio, some recordings exceeded the number of tracks available on a Studer 48 track, etc. At that point , some of those tracks would be bounced, then on mixing the final result, it is then all bounced to a two track machine (half track). So every time that you re record the material, you introduce more tape hiss, and further degrade the original recording. The bounces didn't end there because for radio stations, a third bounce would occur so that tapes could be distributed to various outlets. The same was tru for end user retail copies. Nobody will convince me that a cassette tape will outperform a CD. In realty, that goes for a copy of the materila on a pro Revox, or ampex, or Tascam, etc. It's pure nostalgia, the big turning reels, vu meters, and knobs ...the entire aesthetic feeds the mythology of it all.
I have two, a B77mk1 high speed 15/7.5ips and a Mk2 3 3/4 7 1/2 with varispeed. I like to watch the reels go round and also play 4 sides of and LP in one go. At home there is little discernable difference between 7.5 and 15. There's a small difference between 7.5 and 3 3/4 but it's perfectly adequate and perfect for bg music when guests come round with the benefit of showing off the Revox I serviced both mine with the help of a guy in AUS who shipped parts over and I had them recalibrated by a engineer in Guildford. They sound amazing!
Oh, what fun to watch this: my last dalliance with open-reel was pricey and fierce: late-1980s through early-aughts. And my poison of choice hailed not from Switzerland/Germany, but Norway, by way of a pair of Tandberg TD20A SE decks-the first a 1/4-track, 7.5ips example, shortly replaced by one spec'd 1/2-track/15ips. As far as "how to afford all this?", that was simple: in addition to my then-day job selling high-end audio, I moonlighted as an amateur location recording engineer for solo musicians, small ensembles, and the occasional orchestra. Probably the *best* education I ever got in terms of what makes a difference in terms of sound quality in the service of music. It also gave me a chance to really exercise the TD20A SE's wide dynamic range, which, for the analog realm, was rather astounding. It also made for demo tapes that impressed more than a few people who'd become jaded with the usual rote "audiophile" recordings of the day. I'd also say this moonlighting pretty much covered the not-insignificant costs of a machine that was the audio equivalent of a Mercedes SLR. Dragging that thing from location to location (In NYC, via the subway, no less) was, to put it in its best light, "character-building", but if given the chance, I'd absolutely do it again, given the music I was exposed to, the bonds made with the people creating it, and the thrill of sharing the incredible listening experience when it all went right-which, thankfully, was more often than not!
What can I say as a fellow Tandberg enthusiast but Amein.
Love my Tandberg machines..
I love the fact that other people are keeping the old ways alive. Tape definitely adds coloration to sound, which is why modern recording studios use tape emulator plugins. I find this entertaining - we invent a new recording medium (digital) and spend years improving the converter quality so that we can get rid of the issues of tape (wow, hiss, etc), and then we use some computer code to add the issues back in again.
This is because we want the coloration, _but only once,_ which limits how analog tape can be used. It stops sounding so great when you have to ping pong the signal through the recording process multiple times because you ran out of tracks. If it was as easy to run multiple analog tape machines in parallel as it is to run a stack of ADAT machines, then this wouldn't be much of an issue, just like the 8 tracks of ADAT aren't limiting. In any case, being able to push the coloration step out to the end of the chain makes it much easier to manage.
In 1965 I bought a Brenell Mk V Series II three speed including 15IPS. Electronics home brew hybrid valve/tube and transistors.
The problem with LP tape, in addition to fragility, was Print Through when the recorded signal could magnetise adjacent layers and this was audible.
I was glad to see the back of tape and vinyl, but whatever floats your boat.
It can be nice to get hands on with the hardware when using tape for effects. Tom Scholz (of Boston) would interact directly with the speed of his recorder to produce some of the effects coming out of the Hammond organ, which has no pitch bend capability without studio trickery like manipulating tape speed (or signal processing, now). I doubt very much that he still does it "the hard way".
In 1977 I worked for Public Radio station WFSU-FM in Tallahassee, Fl. There we had a couple of A77s for remote recording. I was fortunate enough to be able to do a wide variety of live recordings of music and speech programs. Once properly biased I was pleased with the results. My only complaint was the plastic front panel, clad in a metal faceplate. The panel tended to warp and the reels would rub. Not a nice thing if you happen to be in the same room as the subject of the recording.
I still have my acai gx747dbx reel to reel tape deck that I bought in 1984. It is absolutely pristine in the same condition that it was when it was new. I have been thinking about selling it I have watched the prices on eBay go past the $4,000 mark.
I just got myself a reconditioned B77 Mk1 and it is great! Only a few minor scuffs on the case, but it runs perfectly. And my old home recordings from the 70's still play fine.
Good to know that reel to reel is making a comeback. I own the Grundig TS-1000 and The Pioneer RT-1020L. Both are great machines, but I prefer the Grundig TS-1000. There is something about looking at the reel to reel decks. What I do with my decks, I use each one for half a year. Then I switch them out.
Loving my B77, seldom use it, but my father did, so it will never leave my collection and will receive regular maintenance.
"rose tinted ear-trumpet", har har, I laughed out loud
I'd love to have one. I regularly use an A.N.T. Audio upgraded Pioneer cassette deck. Sounds awesome. Would love to hear a reel-to-reel machine.
Yeeeey! Tape is back!!!! Congrats everyone
LOVE IT !!! Great video, very informative. I've digitized and uploaded several reels ( 50 years old ) using my TEAC.
The tapes degraded terribly, but I did manage to salvage some interesting artifacts from the past.
I encourage reel to reel owners to keep a look out for used reels and digitize the content on the first pass,
you may not get a second chance, there are alot of gems out there to be found. 🎵🎵
Yes you are qualified!!
I have owned a few. I had 2 Tascam ATR-80 24 track 2” recorders a few years ago and many more 1/4 “ machines! 😂
Have started utilizing my X-1000R again. Having fun with ebay purchased commercial tapes. But today my machine started doing some odd things in reverse play. OH boy... if I can't figure it out these things cost big money to send out. I got one tape that is a copy of a 15 IPS master I mixed down in a class in 1976. The copy was made on a Revox in the studio. I waited decades too long wanting a Revox as now they probably make my Teac look budget in comparison. Lot of people just use RTR to copy their LPs. OK that is fine but I would just play the LP, at the cost of tape now.
I only have 24 reel to reel machines including a Revox A-77.
The Audio industry blessing the return of analog tape proves they are completely off their rockers - Willi Studer soul agree.
I have a nice Philips N4522 ( 2 track 3 speed) which occasionally "rescues" old tapes that people on the local Facebook group have found in a house clearance. I am happy to dump them to a digital format for the price of a bottle of wine. On an other unrelated note, I find it bizarre that the likes of Studer, Dolby etc strove to reduce the inherent defects of analog tape, but people seem to want them all back again!
I have a Teac-A3300 SX machine and I love sitting in my man cave watching the reels turning, cost me £500, reels and decent quality tape easily available 😊😊😊
I have a Teac A2300S, a Pioneer 707, a Sony TC788-4, a Technics 1500US an Akai GX365D and a Teac A-1500
The one that i am using lately is the Teac A-1500
Same here, just sitting there watching the wheels go round and round. 🎵🎵
Boy, do I wish I had a spare $15k lying around. That new Revox looks like an engineering masterpiece. So modern and technical looking! It likely has all the bells and whistle for casual recording and playback. Being a technical nerd of anything and everything electronic, including audio stuff since I was about 7 (nerd wasn't even a word in 1959!), tape recorders have always fascinated me. My first was a Wollensak. Forget the model, but it was one you'd likely see in an elementary or high school in the early 60's. I bought it used when I was about 13. What fun I had recording the radio and the few LPs I had. I would fall asleep at night listening to Cousin Brucie that I could pick via AM on WABC out of NYC. BTW, he is still alive today at 89yrs old. I upgraded to a new RTR from Lafayette Radio. Sadly it was only mono, but I hadn't graduated to stereo quite yet. I had a couple other tape machines in the early 80's, but I can't remember what they were. Life and career happened as I traveled during the week for over 15yrs! Fast forward about 40 some odd yrs. When I started collecting a few vintage pieces in the late 00s, I came across a working Pioneer RT-1020 that I purchased. That one I still have, but since our last move, it's been wrapped in foam and sitting on my office/listening room floor. Shame. I'm retired now and pretty much all digital/streaming nowadays, and I build my amps, pre-amps and DAC/streamers. I do have a vintage JVC turntable and a modest LP coillection. Life is good and I enjoy dabbling in the audio hobby. BTW, I love your videos - keep them coming.
Great video. Informed and informative with a dash of sarcasm thrown in. Nice.
I’ve been a fan of tape since my first experience of true high end hi-fi lit a fire in me in 1979. In the last two years I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to lavish my hard earned money on starting a new record collection and building a turntable in stages to something approaching high end quality. Think Merc S class for used C Class money.
Your video has confirmed that I will never own a new Revox B77, but I love that it’s back and I’m sure its standard of replay will be more than justifiable against a good quality turntable. After all it’s only half the price of a Linn Klimax.
I don't know about the rest of the country but in my area (Florida) the machines and the tapes are almost cost-prohibitive.That along with a limited number of repair facilities means it is no longer an option for me.I do still believe that it is the best recording media of my lifetime.I have researched and found new machines in the 30K range. Well beyond my means.
True. Lost my repair guy during the pandemic, luckily was able to digitze my tape collection before that. 🎵🎵
In 1973 I bought a Swiss version of the Revox A77- 7.5/15-ips briefcase model with lid and NAB reel holders The Swiss models had a wider capstan motor spindle and two four watt amplifiers connected to four 4 ohm speakers, two set either side of the case covered in a textured grey vinyl. It cost £349. The London studio I was working at, at the time used Revox units supplied and modified by a company called Turnkey and supplied various specialist models such as three speed and vari-pitch models or had the main tape deck area completely flat for easier editing. We used them mainly for copy mastering tapes in volume. I still own my Revox and it has had work done on it including new heads, motor maintenance and some board components replaced. I preferred using BASF Pro 50 or Agfa PEM 368 Pro but the last tape reels I bought were Quantegy 456. One is still sealed in it's packaging. Originally the studio had Leevers Rich mastering units but later went across to Studer machines.
Not a Revox enthousiast. Tandberg and TEAC. I bought an AD 2300 SD, so with Dolby when I was 21 having various Akai's before. I am now 68 and the TEAC still works! ❤
Very nice ! 🎵🎵
Hobbyist here. I used to use a Tascam TSR-8 (8 track 1/2" tape) to capture the premix inputs on the mixer (Yamaha RM804) before it got mixed down to stereo on a Sony A8 DAT. I didn't find the sound on the Tascam to be that remarkable compared to DAT (when I tried to remix from the A8 later). However some caveats. The TASCAM was purchased used and probably needed calibration. I also was using old tape. (Ampex 456). Since returning to the US, I bought another Tascam, though I haven't set anything up yet to use it with.
I did some more recording in a live setup in a large church. A choir member was there and worked as an engineer with the local FM station. He told me *NOT* to give up the tascam because there are some nuances of what he called saturation that are unique to analog recorders that are more dynamic (his words) thatn what DAT could accomplish. My DAT was the Semi-Pro line (20 bit super-bit mapping).
I pretty much "retired" from this kind of thing, but one day will probably get into it again (along with my ancient Wollensak 1500's).
Thanks for the video!
I have been fixing reel to reel for years now and 8 track and tape players and I play all my reels on sony
I have one! Working in radio for decades, I still have reels of my programs, and can play them. Before CDs and digital, I preferred the high quality sound for music, and still occasionally use the RTR for that. Cassette tape sound is nowhere near as good. Unlike with turntables and vinyl, which made a comeback, you unfortunately cannot buy a new RTR, unless it's a high-end professional model costing near 10 grand. However, because they were built very solid, like everything else in the day, they are still serviceable. And, if you have a popular brand like Pioneer or Teac, there are parts still available.
you can't buy a new cassette player equivalent to units from the 90s or earlier, either. current units are all based around a common heavily cost-optimized cassette mechanism.
For some of us, reels never went away. Sansu qd5500, Akia gx77 + 30 miles of tape, give or take a mile or two.
I still have my A-77 run into a tube power amplifier into studio monitors with 15 inch woofers. Superior to CD into tube.
I've got a few others that I cannot remember?
Love all your videos, Always informative and amusing. I find it that discussions seem to focused on "performance" not enjoying the music. Seems to me the music should be the most important consideration. Although it is obviously nice to have the best sound production possible it really doesn't change the original music, if you can get the music in a source that is enjoyable for you that is probably all that matters. If you buy a thousand dollar cable - how much does that improve your listening experience? If it does I have no quarrel that is a personal choice. I would suggest room placement or treatment would have a far larger effect. As to systems they all color the sound, far above what audio 'tweaks " do. I mostly listen on desktop studio monitors in spite of having a hybrid electrostatic system in the same room as it is convenient, My kids listen on their ipads which I find unlistenable but they get their music via their medium of choice, Audio is about music not about audio one ups.
The resurgence of RTR has been going on for a long while now. Good friend of mine has some very nice players in his listening space. Otari - ReVox and others, some on studio roll about stands. He also has bought into the PRE-records in the $400 - $500 each range.
I have been in the R to R camp for many a year and even got on the DISCRETE quad wagon. But, LETS NOT FORGET, most vinyl was produced from TAPE. Why listen to a second generation when you can have tape right from the source, have better channel separation, dynamic range AND NO clicks, ticks and pops. Some of my pre-records at 7 1/2 IPS still sound amazing on my old TEAC A-6010 machine 👍!
Back in the day. Late 1980s thru mid/late 1990's. Pro. Royal Shakespeare Company based in Barbican Theatre, London. Initially used Ampex 406 and 456. B77 mk1, mkii. At some point we switched to BASF 911. Superior winding and reduced print thru. Interesting that you mentioned RTM SM 9.11 as 'modern' encarnation of Ampex 456. Splendid video. Thank you lots. ❤
I really miss my Sony TC-377. No Revox, but I was just a kid. I coupled it with a standalone Dolby NR box (all that Dolby did back then) that eliminated tape hiss, and I think 7.5 was top speed. But those turning reels had a hypnotic pull to them that I sincerely miss. The physicality of of that steady turning. The tape I bought was cheap because I was cheap, and it ran through a Sansui to stacked Advents. Miss those days.
If you want a "fairly hi-fi blast from the past"....search for pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes from the mid-to-late 1950s. These were produced in the professional 2-track stereo format, not the inferior quarter-track (also called 4-track) format that appeared in about 1960. And these early tapes were usually recorded at 7.5ips, not 3.75ips as were tapes from the 60s and 70s. I have a few from OmegaTape (Hollywood, CA) that sound quite decent. There's a bit of tape hiss, but it's not objectionable. I know, a 7.5ips dupe isn't as good as a 15ips master copy, but it's a whole lot better than many LPs from the same era. Stereo LPs didn't exist prior to 1959 but stereo tapes were produced beginning in about 1955. Enjoy!
I think I'm slightly younger than you but still firmly in the era of Reel-to-reel and I own three of them, all Teac or Tascam. If I was recording a band, I'd use Scotch 226 (1.5 mil tape or 2400-feet...and suffers from SSS) at 15 ips. For all "consumer" recording I would use 1 mill tape or 3600-feet and Maxell UDXL (does not suffer from SSS). Depending on the source, I would record at 7.5 or 15ips (or, possibly 3.75ips). If I was duping a fresh record that I wanted to make a fresh copy and be able to dupe to cassette, I would record at 15ips. For anything off of the radio, there is no point in going faster than 7.5ips and for those tapes, I was just looking for a lengthy collection of music (what you would use spotify in a random seek, now but without the recording part). Again, depending on what I'm recording (length, potential quality), I would go down to 3.75ips.
The slower speeds normally affected top-end frequency response, which is why, from radio, it just didn't matter. You'd also take a minor hit in S/N ratio. It would also shift the timbre of the "hiss."
Other factors would include the tape itself and what it was capable of handling, flux-wise. If you can record at 320nW/m (a professional tape), you are going to get a stronger and less-noisy recording than if you are on a tape that really has to be calibrated around 185nW/m, which is most consumer stuff using ¼-track (aka 4-track).
Revox was too-rich for my blood, back in the day (hence my Teac/Tascam collection instead of Revox/Studer...or even Otari).
Personally, I think a person that is wanting to play these new "master tapes" is going to be better served by obtaining a good used Technics, Revox, Otari or even Studer deck and having it serviced. Also, if playing these pre-recorded tapes is their goal, remember, all of the ones I've seen are recorded using the IEC recording EQ, not NAB so one has to ensure that their deck is set up for that response curve. US born decks are normally NAB or are selectable.
$16K sounds like a lot but, given what it would cause to bring a product like that to market, support it, pay the engineers and people to ramp up for production and how small a market it is bound to be, they aren't going to be making a fortune off of it. And, considering what I'm seeing some audiophile speakers going for, even small ones, $16K is in line with that sort of customer.
weird - I commented and posted then it was gone a little later!
Anyhoo - have a PR99 that I rebuilt. Its helped me get back into listening to music for pleasure as an event considering I do it day in day out. Sounds great, cheers
This is great. I (believe it or not) have my first r-t-r given to me as a kid. Panasonic 3" reel ac, capstan and 1 7/8 ips, It still works. Never quit reel to reel, as it died out long ago folks were selling for next to nothing. I noticed tapes called. In line or for stacked heads. My goodness 2 track factory and the quality was is insane. I suppose when the cheapest machine was around 700.00 usd they had to be good probably a show off thing for audiophiles. No rock only great artists and the tapes seem to never wear out.
I was using these things well into the late 90s. I'm a millenial though, I only did it because I could get reels cheaper than casettes. When I was 8 years old I bought these tapes for like 1 zł off a kid who said it's from his dad's junk collection, it turned out he just nicked it from the drawers in school. The class room for language lessons had lots of these reels in shelves but absolutely none of the teachers knew what they are and never used them (because they used casettes) therefore they never noticed any missing. It's the same story with mechanical projectors and reels of film, once video casettes became a thing the schools just shelved all of the film reels and never played them. Unfortunately you can't erase film like you can magnetic tape :)
I have an original B77 bought in 1979 around £800 as far as I recall. It was the complete lack of background hiss that impressed me,
even at 71/2. Mine played 15 and 71/2 IPS. If you wanted an even hiss - less sound you could purchase Dolby B or C noise reduction units.
Very expensive format compared with vinyl. And bare in mind that unless the tapes are stored very well when not in use, they will stretch,
distorting your crystalline recordings. I have my B77 now as a cosmetic touch. It certainly does look impressive but I rarely use it. Another pain of course is having
to rewind the tape. All in all - a bit of a faff.
I probably have a couple few more years on my clock than you but this gives some measure of perspective on how much the world has changed and then the old ways are revived
I'm probably quite as old, but what I find amazing is we went from CD to MP-3, which is terrible in comparison. Now it seems like everyone is trying to get back to lossless, and consider something like CD or 16/44 as hi res. This is a standard that was first introduced in 1978 on laser disk, then again in 1982 on CD.
This is a perfect example of how you can ruin an entire industry with poor marketing. In every other aspect of digital consumer electronics (Video, Computers, Gaming, Photo, etc..), the marketing was always, newer tech = higher quality, and the increase in price buys you something better than the last generation. With iPods and MP-3, the marketing was lower quality, lower price but more features. It wrecked the whole industry.
@ I never joined the MP-3 bandwagon
I went from vinyl to CDs and did not do anything digital other than CDs/Blu-ray until the last couple years with streaming
I am also vinyl adjacent now with classical music primarily as I sold all my records over 30 years ago except for one really nice Roxy Music double live bootleg album. Buying vinyl is spendy for me so I have to be judicious
Of course I had cassettes and 8 Track tapes like everyone else
Stupd question what does increased width do decrease tape hiss or increase dynamic range?
This video brought back a lot of memories!
Fortunately, memories are free.
Perhaps many are no longer aware of the Direct To Disc efforts to bypass the ill effects of tape. Witness Sheffield Labs and countless others producing truly astonishing results. I did many experiments myself dubbing direct to disc material to mag tape and trying my best to mitigate against the obvious drawbacks in the dubbing. Yes, of course, countless recordings were mastered to tape and all we have. But proper digital recordings, free of wow and flutter, modulation noise and mountains of dynamic range - well, there it is. Far better, far less costly, far easier to edit and further process. Now it’s 4 cents.
If I ever use the expression ‘mountains of dynamic range’ in a future video you’ll know where I got it from.
I know someone who claims his reel to reel recordings from vinyl and cd sound better than the vinyl and the cds he recorded from. What do you say to this claim?
@ Anyone may claim anything. I don’t dismiss the importance of mag tape recording entirely. There is so much wonderful material that began as mag tape recording. That was the method then. But now there is an abundance of controlled side by side recording comparison testing between tape, direct to disc and ultimately digital recording that answer questions of superiority in objective if not scientific terms.
Tape. Bring back memories.
Back in the problem solving
Days. Thanks. 🐵
Have the A77mkIV & B77mkII both working very well .
Old Maxell tapes & RTM , all of them longplay.
Record on 3,3/4 lowest and that gives me over 6 hours of music in total on 1 reel .
Hardly hear a difference with 7,5 speed also because most of the time I play music never loud.
Nabs : Aliexpress and for 99% as good as the orginals , metal reels also.
Every year I make a new compilation tape of new bought vinyls. Often those tapes sound better than the vinyl itself which I recorded and that beats me to understand how that is possible.
I use all the stuff : old vinyl , new vinyl , TDK MA-R cassettes , downloads , RTR , cd , bluray , SACD , DVD-A .....only streamin' I still have to get into.
A new reVox eh. I'll buy one with my upcoming lotto win.
I have a long history with open reel tape too but not quite as long as you. I started with an Akai 4000DS MK2 in 1984 along with a Studiomaster four track cassette machine and a Roland Juno6.
I then progressed to multitrack tape and used a Tascam MSR16 for many years prior to switching to two ADAT machines and then Protools at the end of the 90s.
I still have several open reel decks in my studio, including two reVox machines (a PR99 MK1 and a C270), a Teac A3300 SX-2T, an Akai 4000DS MK2 and a pair of Sony TC 352D decks. I've owned one of those Sony decks since the early 80s.
These days, my studio recording system is based on two RME Fireface UFX interfaces but I do still have somewhat of a nostalgic passion for analog tape. I love using it for tape delays and also sometimes for its character when pushed. The SM911 stock is good even if it is expensive. Hopefully it doesn't suffer the same sticky shed as most of my 456 has.
Here's a short video I made testing my 4000DS. My other decks are visible here too.
ruclips.net/video/13svHIeS1pg/видео.htmlsi=dXV0LcLUzCTHntQV
I suspect you actually had three ADATs. That’s what was needed to run two because one would always be on the service bench.
Ha! Yeah, there's some truth to that. The main issue with the earlier silver face models was audible clicks where tape drop outs were present. They fixed that in the XT models.
Honestly though, I didn't use ADATs for long enough for it to be too much of an issue. I moved to Protools not long after that (at the end of 1999).
Protools was great at the time but I moved to REAPER with RME interfaces in 2007 and haven't looked back.
Reel to reel days of recording are the best. I remember when cd come out and all the masters come from reel to reel and sounded great. Recording now sound like rubbish and we lost are way in music sounding now.
👍 In 1974 I remember having Ferrograph Seven, high speed, with Dolby B, "portable", with built in speakers. It was amazing.
Anyone have an idea where I can find a new reproduce head for my Ampex AG-440B?
If I want better quality I just turn the volume knob clockwise a bit!
If you have a digital volume control, you really are getting better quality. (Bit stripping)
Wow I'm 68 and remember all this stuff. (Musician here)
Yeah it's nostalgic but really don't miss editing with a razor blade
Comment readers may advise single-sided.
Yes, young people never got to experience the joys of splicing with scotch tape and a razor blade. 🎵🎵
you convinced me - i need one now! :):):)
Get a Tandberg TD20A SE. I know, as a Factory Service for Revox and Tandberg. For my own use I sold my A-77 for a TD20 SE. with modding I consider it to be the best PERIOD!
It is like a car. New price and all the expensive service to add. Thanks for a great video. I will fix my old Tandberg and be happy. 60's music damaged on CD sounds best on the 4,75 speed. LOL I am old and broke to even drean of a Revox from any age.
One of the most inspired video's you made so far, good man! And even without IUM (Irritating Unboxing Music). Added to my favourites list right away!
When ReVox sends me one for free I'll record a whole irritating symphony. On tape.
Is the studer revox, or evertz studer? Also, still one issue, where to get tape?
Hello. What do you think about old sony r2r ? LikeTC 377?
First Vinyal makes a comeback, then Compact Cassetes and now reel to reel? Honestly I always found them to bee just too fumbly to use. I‘ll stay with Vinyl 😅
Did they bring the Revox B77 back to help make new LP’s?
Other than cost and time there's no reason why someone who is so inclined shouldn't do it.
Long play has bleed through problems where the recorded oxide bleeds through to the lower layers because of the thinness of the Mylar base.
I was super excited when I heard about the new B77, then I saw the price!
Back in the days I alway used “pancakes” but that was at radio stations where a) you got to be fast loading tapes and b) most of the recordings are short. One of the stations was a community one and couldn’t afford cart machines so we had a lot of 30 seconds tapes on pancakes and only 3 tape machines (B77).
Regarding tape thickness, I remember an embarrassing moment when an international pop star came for a radio concert and his team provided a backing track. In the middle of his performance, the tape machine (a Studer… A807, A810 or A820) suddenly stopped. I was standing right next to the machine so everyone looked at me… turns out the Studer was calibrated for broadcast tape that needs to be much stronger as we often edit tapes and move/play them often.
PS: for the rest of the world, even if you’re British, you’re still European… and it’s technically true :p
Hello Sir. How do I transfer recordings from tape to digital. If I was to bring this into my home studio? Thank you for sharing.
Very briefly, connect the outputs of the tape recorder to an audio interface that is connected to your computer. You can then copy your tapes into digital audio workstation software like Audacity.
Where does one find second hand Revox equipment these days? eBay I guess but anywhere else?
I have a Tandberg TD20A with IR remote control! I love the sound, but goto admit I don't use it often anymore.
THE THING TAPE ENTHUSIASTS FAIL TO REALIZE OR UNDERSTAND IS THAT EVEN HIGH QUALITY REEL TO REEL TAPE IS GOING TO SHRED AND DETERIORATE OVER TIME. REPEATED PLAYBACK. ITS THE NATURE OF THE FORMAT TO DEGRADE AFTER REPEATED PLAYBACK. LIKE VINYL. HIGH QUALITY TAPE USED IN RECORDING LP MASTERS WAS ONLY MEANT TO BE USED TO RECORD AN LP THEN TO BE STORED. SOME STUDIO RECORDING TAPE WAS WIPED CLEAN AND RECORDED OVER BUT MOST HIGH QUALITY STUDIO TAPE WAS ONLY MEANT TO GET THE PERFORMANCE RECORDED AND THEN TRANSFERRED TO VINYL. THEN STORED. THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT WHEN REFERRING TO THE MASTER TAPES. NOT TO BE CONTINUALLY PLAYED BACK. NO MATTER HOW HIGH QUALITY REEL TO REEL IS, OR HOW GREAT IT SOUNDS,REPEATED PLAYBACK OF THIS OR ANY TAPE WILL EVENTUALLY DEGRADE. ITS THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. HIGH QUALITY REEL TO REEL,CASSETTE,OR 8 TRACK. ITS ALL TAPE.
The solution is to set your machine up to give the best performance it can, and the transfer all your tapes onto your computer through a high quality audio interface. Then even if the tapes deteriorate, you still have a decent copy on your computer (use WAV or FLAC format, never MP3 !)
I do regret not keeping my A77 and Akai GX (man, I don't even remember the model😢) in good order. I'm reluctant to put my tapes through either machine now.
The electronics are quite hissy as well, so need redoing.
I recorded many a concert off the FM radio back in the day. I also have quite a few commercially released reels.
Most of my tapes were bought used from the Music and Video Exchange in Notting Hill.
For every 10 tapes I bought, I would only overwrite 1.
There was so much good stuff from post production houses, recording studios, even a bunch of tiny reels from German national radio!
Like Charlie Drake's boomerang, reel to reel will not come back.
The way we can now record digitally onto memory chips with no moving parts is just brilliant.
...and of higher fidelity ...
@@guyboisvert66 But harsh and with no warmth and completely devoid of any personality. It's a metaphor for the modern world.
@@ianz9916 ...usual non-understanding of fidelity and relationship with the rest of the sound system including the room... The digital media itself is way better than your ears (and any analog media whatever the price), so with a proper DAC (as low as 99$ for SMSL SU-1), look at the source material (there are so many bad records) or the rest of your system. This "no life" argument is complete fallacy and parroting peddlers' crap...
Alot of studios have that option and record digital first then master to analog reel to reel takes the harshness out and sounds awesome.
@@ginaorsini3312 Complete BS... The digital media is not "harsh", the sound recording and the mix can be if done by incompetents, sound system can be low-fi (even if some company charging big money want you to think otherwise...), your room can have unpleasant resonances, etc etc etc
The digital media is by far the highest fidelity medium from source to your ears and it's a very well mastered technology in electrical engineering. You can't beat it: It's now commodity level. As an example, an SMSL SU-1 @ 99$ DAC is better than your ears and any analog gear, whatever the price. If you don't understand why then i suggest to go study and stop parroting BS...
You just showed that you don't have a clue and know nothing about basic undergrad notions in electrical engineering... Just parroting BS from peddlers...
I used to frequently bid on the Canadian Government Surplus auction site, and in 2008 I won a bid for Audio Equipment that was used in a Park Interpretation Centre. I bid for the whole package about 500$, which included a Revox PR99(not functioning and parts missin), a Revox A77, 2 Revox B77, a Uher Report Monitor, all in working condition. There were also included several Beyer mics, Headphones etc, etc. I was thinking to at least keep one of the B77s, but decided against it because I had gone all digital in the meantime, storing all my cds on Harddrive (about 1.8TB, in flac format), but had kept the records and my 2 turntables, as it was too time consuming to tranfer those in real time. I sold everything for about 3500$ on ebay, on of the B77s went to South Korea, the other to New York. That one had a minor problem with a crack in the VU meter driver board, which cost about 80$ to fix.
Success!