Tape vs Digital vs Tape Simulation Blind Test [Archive]

dwoz

December 11th, 2006, 04:16 AM

I'm reading that guy and can't make heads or tails of what the hell he's talking about.

For his test, he seems to be saying that he does one mix, entirely ITB, to which he applies tape sim plugins as he normally would. Then for mix two, he runs his inputs from tape. For mix three, he uses tape sim plugins on everything.

So how exactly are mix one and three going to be different?

Also, if I get it right, he's applying saturation and compression on two mixes, then removing it for the "tape" mix. oops, test invalidated.

Of course, this is a "test" that would show very different results on different types of program material. One song will give you a very narrow result that could not be generalized.

If I were on the committee evaluating this guy's final project, I might give him a nice grade for his execution, but a big fat EFF for his design and interpretation.

Its kind of like designing an experiment to determine if one of several types of car windshield washer fluid was better at removing bug splats from the windshield than the others...and conducting the experiment during the dead of winter.

dwoz

otek

December 11th, 2006, 05:04 AM

Probably....maybe someone capable should redo it any volenteers?

To prove what exactly?

Someone told me that in order to produce satisfactory scientific results, one must first determine what the objective is.

If the objective is to prove that tape sounds different fron ITB and/or tape simulators, I don't need a test. I already know it does. If I want to prove that tape is superior to emulations of tape sound, I must first come up with a definition of the term "superior". I can also argue the point that nothing will sound more like tape than tape. If I still find that tape simulations sound better, then based on the above rationale, what I am looking for is not tape to begin with.

chrisj

December 11th, 2006, 05:27 AM

A while back Bob Katz did a comparison between tape, a good clean ADC and Crane Song HEDD tape imitation. People were supposed to guess which was which- after that, I tried to code software to duplicate what the real tape entry was doing. I did very well, long after everybody forgot the thread :)

I found what was happening wasn't so much peak limiting (the source music was VERY low-level), it was a tendency of the tape to put on a 'smiley curve' on low-level sounds. I attribute this to the machines being calibrated to do 10K tones at a given level when this is stressing out the tape a bit- the pre-and-deemphasis seemed to have that effect. Compression in the highs and make-up gain- head bump and make-up gain. Or something...

It had nothing to do with slamming the tape, but of course you can do that too :)

This was Bob Katz fussing with the tape machine to make it sound as clean as digital, and he did a pretty good job of it. Poorly set up tape machines will have other characteristics, such as lots of HF roll-off, which has its own qualities (it'll behave the same way, be somewhat amplitude-dependent even if it's rolled off)

Can't focus only on clipping behavior...

malice

December 11th, 2006, 09:38 AM

lebouche

December 11th, 2006, 10:38 AM

To prove what exactly?

Someone told me that in order to produce satisfactory scientific results, one must first determine what the objective is.

I agree...

If the objective is to prove that tape sounds different fron ITB and/or tape simulators, I don't need a test. I already know it does. If I want to prove that tape is superior to emulations of tape sound, I must first come up with a definition of the term "superior". I can also argue the point that nothing will sound more like tape than tape. If I still find that tape simulations sound better, then based on the above rationale, what I am looking for is not tape to begin with.

I thought you might take this stance...bear in mind I have never used tape and thought it would be interesting to find out how close the emulations were considering the grief involved in razor blade editing, head alignment etc.. in recent blind tests experts chose old red wine from California over the finest Vintage reds from France, another panel of 'experts' chose supermarket champagne over all the others.

malice

December 11th, 2006, 10:53 AM

I in recent blind tests experts chose old red wine from California over the finest Vintage reds from France,

watch out son :grin:

malice

Grapestomper

December 11th, 2006, 10:59 AM

watch out son :grin:

malice

Hehehe...

(not sayin' nothin')
M

mousdrvr

December 11th, 2006, 11:55 AM

I thought you might take this stance...bear in mind I have never used tape and thought it would be interesting to find out how close the emulations were considering the grief involved in razor blade editing, head alignment etc.. in recent blind tests experts chose old red wine from California over the finest Vintage reds from France, another panel of 'experts' chose supermarket champagne over all the others.

Lebouche,

I liked what you put up in the critic forum. I liked it very much so respect for that.

However, I still can't decide if you're trolling here. I will assume that all your posts have been straight up. So that means I'm also assuming that you aren't hurting for scratch as you can afford to pick up 2 of those liquid channels sound unheard and you have a 1/4" deck. If you are curious, why not buy or rent a Hedd. take the next thing you mix and run the 2 to the head and to the 1/4" both and just see what YOU like?

Seriously, I can't think of a single person in here who wouldn't do that if it was practical and they were at all curious. Hell many of these cats DO do it all the time. I'd love it if you did. You could post the results up here and we could all check it out in it's mp3ified glory. Personally I've come to believe this is a really silly question. It's like trying to prove that teal accessorizes better than rust or Islay is better than Highland. In the end, you're going to drink what you like, what you can afford and what is actually available to you.

Besides, your point seems to be that experts are frequently morons who can't tell Night Train from Veuve Clicquot, if that's true why would you actively solicit their opinions?

-mous

malice

December 11th, 2006, 12:13 PM

mousdrvr,

I don't think Lebouche is trolling. Thinking that experts are full of shit is a quiet common opinion.

The thing with audio blind tests is that they should be performed by professionals of "testing" and not professionals of the audio field.

I have encountered this problem on numerous occasions.

You have then people arguing endlessly about wether preamp A is better for vocal than peamp B over two mp3 files that are not even at the same loudness level.

That's the worse case scenario. The best is people making a trip to Chicago and standing, all the 30 of them, to judge about critical audio listening when nobady is even at the sweet spot to judge anything, and everybody is talking.

None of these test should be judged serious enough to make an educated opinion.

Aardy presented me with a real expert of audio blind tests running a serious company that have years of experience in that field. Every test about that kind of subject that is not ran by such people are not to be taken as definitive if you are looking for truth reading a white paper.

The much more simpler way is always to try by yourself and make your own opinion.

malice

Mixerman

December 11th, 2006, 12:50 PM

Lebouche,

I've mixed every kind of music, from every kind of medium, through just about every high end board I can think of. It is far easier and faster to mix a song off 2" than it is any other medium.

Period.

Put a digital recorder or DAW into the same console, with the same recording, and you can add a minimum of 1-2 hours to the mix. EVEN WITHOUT NEEDING TO REWIND.

Which sounds better? That's up to you.

If I'm recording on 2", I tailor my sounds on 2" while listening through the playback head. This means, upon playback of a recording, my tones come up EXACTLY as I designed them. When I'm recording to a digital medium, I tailor my tones based on what it sounds like through the converters. This way when I play my tones, they come up EXACLTY as I designed them.

None of this changes the fact that it is far easier and faster to mix a song off of 2".

If you open up all the channels on a quiet part of a 2" recording, the noise floor can be horrific. If you mix it using automation, and you mute channels when you're not using them, your noise floor won't be an issue.

Plug-ins that imitate what tape does, will always be a poor substitute for what tape does. The reason why I say this is the fact that no one can figure out exactly what tape does, other than to know it is easier and faster to mix a song from the medium.

The only way that I could prove the majority of the above statements, is for you to spend the next 10-20 years, mixing every kind of music there is, using every recorder known to man, through every high-end console I can think of. Then we can talk. Even after all that, it's possible you won't agree.

So, as my good friend Slipperman says "Waddawe got?"

Basically, a bogus test by someone way too inexperienced to understand what he's testing.

Mixerman

P.S. In the grand scheme of things, tape machines are relatively trouble free (so long as you keep on top of them). The difference is now, people have no problems replacing their computer and entire DAW system every few years. Whereas tape machines from 30+ years ago are still operational. It is highly unlikely, your current computer and DAW setup will be operational in 5 years.

otek

December 11th, 2006, 01:45 PM

in recent blind tests experts chose old red wine from California over the finest Vintage reds from France...

Uh oh. You really stepped in it now. :D

bear in mind I have never used tape and thought it would be interesting to find out how close the emulations were

Forgive me for sounding like a grumpy old bastard here. But I do feel the need to point out that the above reasoning is flawed - the only way for you to find out how close the emulations are is by extensive usage of tape, first and foremost. Otherwise you have no true frame of reference.

considering the grief involved in razor blade editing, head alignment etc...

Yes, those skills are harder to learn and master, and there are things that are mush easier to do in the digital domain. But musically, I can't say that the records I mixed on analog tape and a console came out any worse, or took more time to do. I used to be able to turn out an album mix in two or three days, with DAW:s I routinely spend upwards of five.

So I think it's safe to say that DAW:s introduce a different kind of grief.

lebouche

December 11th, 2006, 04:40 PM

myrtlebacker

December 11th, 2006, 06:48 PM

I used to be able to turn out an album mix in two or three days, with DAW:s I routinely spend upwards of five.

I find it hard to believe, that this is typical, because that would mean analog has a hell of a business case....

malice

December 11th, 2006, 07:10 PM

Wow!!
Thankgod you dont know where I live! I might get bricks through my window. I am no troll,

Relax,

As I stated, I don't think you are a troll.

It is only very difficult to explain the differences between tapes and digital because not only that it change your sound, it change your ways of working (see the thread I started about recording vocal methodology).

The thing is that for a very starnge reason this subject became a can of worms because, I guess, it is very difficult for professionals who migrated to a very expensive digital system to admit they did it to the detriment of the sound quality.

Of course, this aspect was more vivid in the earlier days of digital recordings, but still, tape has many advantages soundwise.

Now these aspect are difficult to point out with test, because you DON'T WORK the same way with the two media.

In other words, you better take the system you feel comfortable with and record good music with what you have.

I have heard great albums recorded with ADATs, so there is no excuse and no whining to fuck things up because of your tools.

peace

malice

malice

December 11th, 2006, 07:12 PM

I find it hard to believe, that this is typical, because that would mean analog has a hell of a business case....

A lot of things are quicker with analog.

ever tried to punch in/out with protools without checking the fades ?

malice

Aardvark

December 11th, 2006, 07:37 PM

I find it hard to believe, that this is typical, because that would mean analog has a hell of a business case....

Not really. The business base is a poor part of the equation anyway...if tape were ten cents a roll it is still going to loose out to the majority of folks who want endless tracks and non-linear editing....just to start with.

....

The day we automated our faders we realised we had just doubled the average mix time. This came to be true. Every Producer was soon trying get his hands on the desk and more and more alt mixes were getting printed...to half inch...ooops...that gets expensive...let's get out the dat tapes!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Now we are really eating up the clock. Which alt mixes get to be saved to analogue? Which ones get dat only and why are printing them if they won't sound like the 1/2 inch mixes??

The day we introduced the possibility endless tracks and non-linear editing we knew what was next.

Same thing.

The digital world introduced the idea of keeping six bed tracks...all in need of listening to and then the debate over editing the parts instead of playing it again...the time to review the edits...

Same thing with overdubs.

Six versions of the solo.

Who knows how many vocal tracks.

Endless extra and useless parts played because the tracks were there.

All of this to be edited, comp'ed and compared.

The beauty of the 2-inch, besides the sound, was the fact that anytime you threw up the faders everything was there and ready...usually 22 tracks. (smtpe on tk 24 and tk 23 was the buffer/slash try and sneak something on that won't corrupt the time-code or the time-code it...hehehehe.)

Cheers,
Aardvark

P.S. Keep in mind that a 2-inch machine meant your clients could not go home and muck about with their parts...many today expect nothing less than that...ergo the business case is again dismissed from the equation.

mousdrvr

December 11th, 2006, 08:46 PM

Wow!!
Thankgod you dont know where I live! I might get bricks through my window. I am no troll, I have no tape experience so no point of referance. I have no 20 years of experience. I have respect for your expert opinions...very much so. I just wanted to know if the difference was minimal. Obviously it is not so its time to buy some reels! When I worked in Turnkey selling guitars I noticed that the difference between the £100 guitars and the £350 guitars was massive and that the difference between the £350 and the 1g was less an d the difference between the 1g and the 6g was very small mostly glitz. So there my curiosity lay. I will use tape before Jan 2007 is out and thank you all for it I am sure.
If I run on to tape eg my drum tracks, post DAW will it add flavour or do I need to track direct. I would also need to run it back in to DAW as I have no idea how else I would bounce.
P.S I am often short of scratch as I spend it all on gear. This week I bought a digital patchbay, a rack mount tuner and a rackmount DI. I didnt even know you shouldnt record bass directly in to a compressor!
Less troll, more green...

Ahh! Now I get it, You're trying to find the sweet part in the price performance curve. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to want to know, so I fully retract my Troll aspersions and apologize to you for casting them.

Personally, I rarely find the asymptote of these curves. I have only ever done so for Scotch ($35/bottle) and for Acoustic Guitars ($3,000 an axe) and that's completely personal and subject to changes in my taste and the size of my wallet. Moreover, it's obviously meaningless to anyone else. As far as gear? I still have no idea , but I will tell you that finally, I no longer think it's anywhere near as important in nurturing a good song as a good arrangement and a great performance in a good space. People up in here have been telling me this for the last 4 years. I hope you're not as slow :lol:

Do you honestly feel that your choice of medium is the single biggest factor limiting the effectiveness of your work? For me it's certainly not but YMMV.

Anyway, someone has to start this up every 6 months or so, might as well have been you. But all that said, I am still very curious about the Hedd . If you get a hold of one please let us know your opinions.

regards,

-mous

Mixerman

December 11th, 2006, 10:53 PM

The thing is that for a very starnge reason this subject became a can of worms because, I guess, it is very difficult for professionals who migrated to a very expensive digital system to admit they did it to the detriment of the sound quality.

As far as true recording quality is concerned, even a 24 track 2" machine was offering conenience with a hit on sound quality. Take the same machine and put on 16 track head stacks, and the machine will sound better. So, it's more a question of optimizing sound quality with convenience.

Frankly, as much as I care about sound quality, I don't care about sound quality. As a mixer, I want to use what gets me in and out of the mix session the fastest with the best results. I don't know WHY the 2" is so much easier as a mixer, but it is. DAW companies try to tell us there is minimal difference in sound quality, but on a pure emotional level--and NOT and audiophile level, because a great song, productiion and mix should work together to manipulate the listener's emotions--on a pure emotional level, nothing compares to a good analog recording.

But you can't measure that. And the listener can't measure that, not consciously. A great song, and a great production should still manipulate the listeners emotions, but I contend that this aspect has taken a HIT in the digital domain.

How big a hit? Well, not as big a hit as the loudness wars. But it's taken a hit. And I know this, because as a mixer who is trying to bring a song and production to it's fullest emotional potential, I am extremely sensitive to it. The difference between myself and the average listener? I can verbalize it.

The listener either turns it down, or just turns it off. And there has been more and more of that going around lately.

Mixerman

Brendo

December 11th, 2006, 11:11 PM

Its kind of like designing an experiment to determine if one of several types of car windshield washer fluid was better at removing bug splats from the windshield than the others...and conducting the experiment during the dead of winter.

dwoz

On a car, bicycle and truck.

Mixerpuppet

December 12th, 2006, 01:32 AM

I don't know WHY the 2" is so much easier as a mixer, but it is.
Mixerman

Maybe because the methodology to track to tape require some cranial input before the bid red button is pushed. Sometimes I think the DAW as a methodology, subliminally prevents people from caring as much to get it right in a minimalistic way. If you have 24 to 48 tracks of something, it will be easier to thin out the herd if required to accomplish the mix, if your on a DAW auditioning 72 tracks of guitars, the she love me, she loves me not process gets to be a drag.

Don't take too long to say more than you should....

Too many flavors in a pot of stew makes it tastes like dog vomit...

Etc Etc...

1 track of killer guitar will kick the ass of 100 mediocre guitar tracks...

lebouche

December 12th, 2006, 05:39 AM

This I have learnt the hard way....however when I don't have the takes I need I might as well polish the turd to the best of my abilities so that next time round I will be able to do that killer guitar take some justice.
:Razz:
Shit its bedtime...I'm wonderin if I'm making sense.
Still got loads o Bobs corner pages to read...this place is making me study for hours every day!
Fanfucintastic:grin:

lebouche

March 9th, 2007, 01:11 AM

Ok...so I vowed to try tape by January in one post.
Havent done suprise suprise BUT I wheeled in my tape machine today from my office to my studio. Its a REVOX pr99 asc version.
I have been trying to find out some info on the net. This one came from the bbc and is in good nic. For a moment I thought it was mono but it has two xlrs in and out...phewf!!
ANy ideas anyone?? And is 1/4 inch going to be any good for anything? I was thinking of bouncing my finished tracks on to it and then back on to my DAW. 1 last question... if agaoinst all odds I can find a use. How many times can I record over the same piece of tape or should that never be done?
Thanks

archtop

March 9th, 2007, 01:28 AM

till the cows come home

otek

March 9th, 2007, 04:07 AM

is 1/4 inch going to be any good for anything?

Most definitely. I've gotten great results with 1/4", my fave was probably a modified Ampex 440. I also got some great sounds on a Lyrec 1/4".

I was thinking of bouncing my finished tracks on to it and then back on to my DAW.

If it's been sitting around for some time you should definitely check your cal (or have it checked by someone who does that). Also don't forget to print tones, so you know you can get any playback machine to the same spec later.

How many times can I record over the same piece of tape or should that never be done?

It's not too critical, though of course the tape will wear out gradually. You could probably record 200 times to a reel though. Of course, it's recommended to use a fresh reel for an important master.

Jason Phair

March 9th, 2007, 04:23 AM

This digital vs. tape debate is so silly.

Get the best of both worlds!

DASH, baby, DASH!

:Twisted:

Bob Olhsson

March 11th, 2007, 12:10 AM

...Take the same machine and put on 16 track head stacks, and the machine will sound better. So, it's more a question of optimizing sound quality with convenience.... I don't know WHY the 2" is so much easier as a mixer, but it is. DAW companies try to tell us there is minimal difference in sound quality, but on a pure emotional level--and NOT and audiophile level, because a great song, productiion and mix should work together to manipulate the listener's emotions--on a pure emotional level, nothing compares to a good analog recording.

I was so pissed the first time I did a 16 track session after 20 years of screwing around with 24 track.

I will say that the analog circuitry of most pro analog machines has way more headroom than most digital gear does and this translates directly into balls. If you record low levels that won't tax the crappy power supplies of the digital gear, the results sound a lot more like tape to me than any of the common band-aids. The problem is that most consoles and outboard gear aren't set up optimally for low levels.

slabrock

March 11th, 2007, 01:37 AM

And is 1/4 inch going to be any good for anything? I was thinking of bouncing my finished tracks on to it and then back on to my DAW. 1 last question... if agaoinst all odds I can find a use. How many times can I record over the same piece of tape or should that never be done?

Congratulations!

Now it's time to learn all about washing the heads daily with isopropyl alcohol, learning to use a demagnetizer gun, and get you some aligning tape to get the alignment and BIAS (for your preferred tape) right. You can probably find all the advice in the Net.

Bouncing thru a tape recorder is something i do all the time, and the way to do that is you drive stuff in the record heads and take it out thru the repro heads at the same time so the tape doesn't have time to "print through".

Printing through is something that happens in the reels, a slight echo of the next round of tape in the reel. If you save your tapes "tail out" it'll be less noticeable. You should check out both options, tail in and tail out, to see which you prefer.

You'll see when the tape wears out. It doesn't happen fast. The tape sounds best when you have recorded a new tape a couple of times and then erased it, either with a bulk eraser or by recording silence in all tracks.

Peace,

Slabrock

pounce

March 11th, 2007, 01:40 AM

Most definitely. I've gotten great results with 1/4", my fave was probably a modified Ampex 440. I also got some great sounds on a Lyrec 1/4".

i've got a 440c here. sure, it's a sad replacement for most of what we are talking about in this thread. it is a totally decent 1/4" machine.

thing is, in the same way this thread is suggesting, things i print to it sound different than the same mix printed to another DAW track. no plug ins sound the same. it's vexing. i have trouble articulating the difference, but there is something to it.

and no doubt if i were talking about mixing from 2" the difference might be more staggering. but the difference does present itself when printing mixes in the same general way, so at least having that one tape deck around has allowed me to fully understand this discussion.

reading these kinds of discussions on various audio boards around the net, i'm inclined to believe that many people joining in on the discussion haven't kicked a mix of thier own two both analog and digital formats in a single studio to compare. it doesn't mean you would prefer the same thing i prefer, but the audible difference is so apparent that i doubt there could be much debate!

lebouche

March 11th, 2007, 02:08 AM

So what you saying?? Better to record single tracks?
I'm a little braindead today.
Congratulations!

Now it's time to learn all about washing the heads daily with isopropyl alcohol, learning to use a demagnetizer gun, and get you some aligning tape to get the alignment and BIAS (for your preferred tape) right. You can probably find all the advice in the Net.

Bouncing thru a tape recorder is something i do all the time, and the way to do that is you drive stuff in the record heads and take it out thru the repro heads at the same time so the tape doesn't have time to "print through".

Printing through is something that happens in the reels, a slight echo of previous round of tape in the reel. If you save your tapes "tail out" it'll be less noticeable, because then the echo will happen before the sound - but it can also warn the listener of what's to come. You should check out both options, tail in and tail out, to see which you prefer.

You'll see when the tape wears out. It doesn't happen fast. The tape sounds best when you have recorded a new tape a couple of times and then erased it, either with a bulk eraser or by recording silence in all tracks.

Peace,

Slabrock
Ok now I'm nervous. I have been trying to find out where to get this stuff...any tips would be most welcome. I only want one roll to start with.

slabrock

March 11th, 2007, 03:17 AM

Ok now I'm nervous. I have been trying to find out where to get this stuff...any tips would be most welcome. I only want one roll to start with.

Easy.

Get some tape in a right size and type of reel that suits your machine. Ampex 456 or BASF/Agfa 468, they sound about the same. 469 you can also use, but it sounds little brighter if your machine is adjusted to 468.

Isopropyl alcohol you get from Pharmacist or Apothecary. Also buy some cotton wads. Don't get the alcohol to rubber parts but polish all metal from vicinity of tape with it. Careful with the heads. Don't dilute the liquid.

There's three heads in your tape machine. From right to left they are: playback head, record head and eraser head. Learn them. First one erases the tape, second one records (in multitrack environments you can also listen thru a record head while recording overdubs by selecting "cue listen") and playback head is for best possible playback.

Using a demagnetizer gun is easy. Just check that there is no tapes anywhere near, say, closer than 6ft / 2m from the area where you are about to use it. Sit down in a chair in front of the tape machine so that your hand (and the gun) will travel clear in front of the heads with your arm straight. Now, keep your arm straight behind your back the furthest it can be from the machine, turn the gun on, and very evenly move it past the heads in one smooth movement twice. When the gun is back behind you and farthest from the recorder, turn it off.

Alignment (the pro way): follow the instructions that come with your aligning tape. You'll need a precision screwdriver kit and some nail polish to seal the screws after you've done with the aligning.
Alignment (the ordinary way): record a signal and adjust the repro head until it's loudest. You'll still need a precision screwdriver kit and some nail polish to seal the screws after you've done with the aligning.

Biasing - this is probably easiest done by somebody else. If your machine came from a pro environment, it's probably adjusted to use 456/468 already.

Remember, that many tape recorders made right after the WWII are still in use. They don't break very easily.

Have fun,

Slabrock

PS. Take it as a custom to record a test tone in the beginning of each reel. An 440Hz A from a keyboard is good enough for most problems.

eagan

March 11th, 2007, 05:38 AM

Any ideas?

Get some tape, find a takeup reel, and record some stuff.

(Oy!)

People have already mentioned some important stuff.

It dawned on me that if you really haven't ever touched a tape machine before (good god, am I feeling like an old fart pondering this), that maybe it needed to be pointed out that you thread the stuff on so that you end up with the tape tails out.

Yeah, I know when you finish recording and run out of tape it will be tails out. I mean you throw the empty reel on the supply side, then rewind your blank tape on to that, and when you finish up roll through to the end of the tape and pull it off and store the tape tails out.

Besides keeping you from looking like a royal doofus should you ever take something you've recorded and hand it over to somebody else, there's the stuff regarding print through that's been mentioned already.

So just a reminder so it doesn't get lost in the new information.

Tails out.

Another thing if you ever consider passing anything off to anybody else in the world. Test tones.

Aside from machine alignment jobs for your own tape beastie, there is another point to test tones.

You need reference level tones at a range of frequencies, because, now that you have so boldly stepped into the world o' tape, you have to consider a new bag of stuff.

Different tape brands/formulations and different tape machines can actually have <gasp!> different frequency response! Somebody threading up your tape to do something serious with it needs tones for reference levels at frequencies through the audible range so that they can make sure (and adjust as needed ) what they get coming off the tape is what you think you had on there.

(and just in case this isn't obvious too..... write what these are on the box)

Clean, clean, clean, clean. Pure isopropyl alcohol. Anything the tape touches, not just the heads.

And remember this is a machine, moving parts and everything. Mechanical stuff wears out.

But, anyway. Have fun. Just get ahold of a few reels of Ampex 456 or something and just start firing shit in there.

JLE

otek

March 11th, 2007, 07:31 AM

Also buy some cotton wads.

Actually, a word of caution:

Do not use cotton wads or Q tips, because small particles of cotton lint can get caught in the headstacks. You should use Texwipes (http://www.2spi.com/catalog/supp/05050.shtml#2) or other similar products.

Don't get the alcohol to rubber parts but polish all metal from vicinity of tape with it. Careful with the heads. Don't dilute the liquid.

What Slabrock said, and remember to screw the cap back on, or the alcohol will dilute itself! :)

some nail polish to seal the screws after you've done with the aligning.

Uh.... sorry, why would you want to use nail polish on the screws?

The machine being out of cal is not because the screws have been moved (or moved by themselves), its because electronic components drift over time. So calibration will have to be done continuously - with a 2-track, it's a reasonably fast operation once you learn the steps and get used to them.

Also if he aligns the machine, he should do azimuth, tones and bias in one go. Though I would certainly not recommend a beginner to do that himself the first few times, better to hire a pro to show you how.

Cheers,

otek

slabrock

March 11th, 2007, 12:01 PM

Uh.... sorry, why would you want to use nail polish on the screws?

Nail varnish. Nagellack.

Because it's a cheap and common way to lock the adjusting screws against vibration which will loosen them. The varnish breaks if you need it to, but otherwise it'll keep the screws nicely from un-screwing themselves.

The cotton wad / q-tip reminder from Otek was very valid stuff also. With cotton you really have to check for loose hairs and bits, so it's better to use what he recommends.

But hey, if Lebouche has never used a reel-to-reel, maybe the first thing is just to load a tape and start having fun. He can fine-tune everything when he puts the machine in real work. Of course it can be somewhat difficult to hear when the machine needs maintenance if you've never used one before, so the complete overhaul (bias, alignment, all that) is in order anyway.

Remember to use a de-magnetic (or de-magneticized) blade and the correct tape (no, Scotch Magic won't do) when splicing tape. Splicing is fun and it's the best way to get into the feel of tape.

Peace,

Slabrock

otek

March 11th, 2007, 03:21 PM

it's a cheap and common way to lock the adjusting screws against vibration which will loosen them.

Interesting.

I've actually never seen this done, nor did I know that vibration would be a serious factor in tape machines drifting out of cal.

You learn something every day.

DaveC

March 11th, 2007, 03:39 PM

ummm - if your machine is vibrating enough to loosen the alignment screws, won't it be introducing a lot of flutter into your recordings? Get a heavier table to put your machine on or something!

eagan

March 11th, 2007, 08:18 PM

This might seem like a trivial thing to pick on, but I'd say just forget the nail polish.

(Just in case tape virgins are reading and might have been confused, a reminder that slabrock was talking about just the screws for mechanical positioning alignment of the tape heads, not any trimpots for electronic calibration/adjustments, i.e., bias/EQ).

First (might sound dumb, but, hey..) why even have the chance of simple human clumsiness and splotting blobs of nail polish where they don't belong and then trying to deal with that.

Next. It's not like this is something bolted on to a car engine or something. The idea that vibration will loosen up the screws involved and move the heads and throw off the tape to head alignment is a little unrealistic. If there is any sort of mechanical vibration or shock that's going to do anything there, there's something very weird going on. (I mean, what are you going to do, strap the thing into a car running the Baja 1000 to get audio for film or something?)

Then if for some reason you ever have to touch it again, you have to start by cracking that loose.

Really, pretty much any time you find nail polish on some sort of adjustment in a device, it's more down to being a way of making it clear to anybody turning their attention to it: "hey! you! we adjusted this, it's set, it should not need to be touched, and if you fiddle with this you'll probably just fuck things up! leave this alone!".

Just using a tape machine isn't going to vibrate stuff all out of whack. Maybe somebody with years of experience maintaining serious tape machines will chime in and tell me different, but generally that stuff seems to only be any issue when machines have been moved around and bounced around some, and somebody thinks "we'd better make sure". Or it was adjusted and fucked up before and needs correction (which is always possible when you encounter a machine new to you and don't know its story).

If anything is likely to be way off it's from somebody in a machine's past life, from somebody going all Mad Scientist on the electronics adjustments with some sort of idea of hot-rodding the thing somehow.

Incidentally, my memory is pretty dim on this, but somewhere in the cobwebs of my tiny little brain I seem to recall reading something about a manufacturer (I THINK it was Ampex, but not sure now) having made some multitrack machines that didn't have any user adjustments for head alignment, based on the thought that they could lock things down solidly enough at the factory that it wasn't going to go out of whack from the machine getting bumped around now and then, and this was something that would only give people the opportunity to fuck things up.

JLE

HOOK

March 11th, 2007, 09:14 PM

Maybe it whould look nicer with some coloured nailpollish!!??:Roll eyes:

B O T: Isn´t this a typical "ifyoulikethesoundofsomething,useITanddonttrytorepl icateit"
thingie!!??
If you like tape, the sound and/or the way it makes you work, use tape, not the replica.
If you like the sound of the violin, use a violin, not a sample or a synth.
If you like tubes etc etc etc etc

enjoying the discussion though....:)

HOOK

lebouche

March 11th, 2007, 10:23 PM

yep..it was one of my first ever posts. Pretty dumb really but yaknow.
However we've moved on from the debate to moi actually having a tape machine. Now I got to learn how to get it up and running... and I'm going to have to go against this piece of advice
Also if he aligns the machine, he should do azimuth, tones and bias in one go. Though I would certainly not recommend a beginner to do that himself the first few times, better to hire a pro to show you how.

cos I just blew my money on firewire drives...new locks and doors and a new website.
So I'll heed your warning Otek and fuckin study my ass off before I touch the thing.

otek

March 12th, 2007, 11:44 AM

So I'll heed your warning Otek and fuckin study my ass off before I touch the thing.

On the other hand.....

I just read that post of mine and realized there's a possible alternative:

Borrow (or purchase when you can afford it) the equipment necessary, read a manual and start learning how to do it yourself. It's not like the tape machine is gonna blow up because you start fiddling with it. If you are really interested in learning this, it would be a cool challenge.

You need:

An MRL (Magnetic Reference Laboratories) 1/4" tape

A regular reel of 1/4" tape of your choice

A tone generator capable of producing 5 Hz to 16KHz.

An oscilloscope (preferrably one that does a lissajous pattern)

Isopropyl alcohol and Texwipes

Turpentine (for rubber parts)

A demagnetizing tool

A set of miniature screwdrivers

A tantalometer (if you really want to go to town with it)

oh, and

Nail polish (Max Factor works best, but any brand will do)

:D

slabrock

March 12th, 2007, 10:23 PM

oh, and

Nail polish (Max Factor works best, but any brand will do)

:D

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I've been thinking long and hard, where i learned to put nail polish in adjusting screws. Apparently it's a habit that has followed me very long and without a reason other than "i always do this".

Skip the nail polish. Instead letter with a marker pen (in BIG letters: "adjusted mm/dd/yy" and as bold a signature the space allows. That's also a very professional thing to do.

C'mon, if it ain't pro, why do they do it?

Yes they do. "Inspected by J Hancock, 1776":lol: :lol: :lol:

Peace,

Slabrock

lebouche

March 12th, 2007, 10:36 PM

It depends on which 'pro' you learnt it from...
If some kid sees me in my studio doing that...he might take it as gospel. Little would he know I picked it up from some freak on the net....who picked it up from some other freak.
:Roll eyes: er not that you are a freak...if you are ...your prob a v nice freak....:icon_eek: ohhhhkay. I'm the freak, just remembered but you get my point.:lol: :lol:
How many people that work with tape have heard about this..sounds like it makes sense. Maybe we should ask at tapeop?
BTW thank you all ...for such imformative posts...
Otek your last one was v helpful.