Reel-to-reel tape is the new vinyl

You do realize this is nerd and geek land right? comic con ain't got nothin on this place.

It is and always should be about the music but if quality didn't matter, every member here would be spinning on a Crosley Cruiser. Or better yet, streaming off YouTube. Because it's all about the tunes, bruh.


A lot of us here clearly do prioritize quality a bit more than the majority of music listeners. Nothing wrong with that.

I've invested thousands into tape over the years and I definitely wouldn't consider myself particularly well off. It's an experience unlike anything else and for some the chance to hear some material in a home setting at that level of quality is worth the expense, even if choice is limited and cost prohibitive. It's a way of getting closer to the music we love. Everything we do is.

 

Mr. Rom

Your situation appears to be a bit different as you say you have been collecting for years - how many years? I knew a guy who bought 3000 laser discs. Had a huge home theater in the mid 1980s and so for him looking for a good quality Laser Disc Player and having it fixed up makes a lot of sense - even if DVD or Blu-Ray is better (DVD wasn't always).

But it makes no sense for anyone today to start buying LD players (and there are a lot more LDs I'm sure that are available (heck even just music LDs) than there are tapes. You can get LDs for $2 and the players for $15.

Of course I'm not talking about quality here - but rather the lack of content and cost. As people have noted - the sound quality of what is available second hand on the tape market is often poor - bested by vinyl or cd. There is only a certain percentage of tape that will sound elite (like the Tape Project) or one or second dub R2R and the rest is not likely to sound "superior" enough to warrant the price of entry.

Perhaps I need to see a catalog of what is currently available for purchase on R2R - If some of my favorites are there - then it would be worth it to Geek out on it - but not second tier Jazz musicians or third rate classical renditions.

I can be convinced - but nothing the Tape Project put out made me say - wow I have to have that album. Don't get me wrong though - both times I have heard Tape it has blown everything else away sonically. I just wish there was some music available by people who are alive - other than Diana Krall and Patricia Barber.

 

There should be no definition for why we should own stereo equipment or listen to music. If one man only likes live performances, fine. Another may like soft background music 24 hours a day... ok. If I enjoy music MUCH more when it sounds impressive to me, so what. And if someone else just loves the equipment itself, with no taste or particular interest in music, that is his perogative.

 

I figured I should at least have some kind of taping equipment on hand and bought a TOTL Pioneer cassette deck when one came my way. Fun for playing and making approx. one tape. It's sitting on my rack gathering dust. I should just get rid of it, nostalgia be damned. A reel to reel would present the same scratched itch, I'd play with it for a week and then it would become a paperweight. There will NEVER be a reel to reel revival. When Barnes and Noble starts touting their new reel to reel stock, I'll eat my hat.

 

No, it's not "the new vinyl". Vinyl succeeded as a format because it was cheap to manufacture, you could play it on just about anything, and it sounds good. Reels fail the first two properties. It is expensive to manufacture and can only be played on specialized machines. No artist ever sold a million reels. Vinyl is vinyl. Period. There is no "new vinyl". Just new formats and ways to deliver music from point A to point B. When they started making shellacs, nobody said it was "the new cylinder".

 

I've been into reel-to-reel tapes for over 20 years, but long after the last factory pre-recorded tapes were made. My main interest in the distant past was in recording my own tapes from various sources and recording live performances by friends, as I had been doing with cassettes and CD's after that. About 10 years ago I started seeking and buying factory pre-recorded tapes of popular albums. About 5 years ago I upgraded to a 4-track quadraphonic tape deck and then my searches turned to quadraphonic reel-to-reel tapes. Most of the tapes have been fairly easy to come by and reasonably priced. The quad tapes were fairly easy to find early on, but not now. The prices began escalating rapidly. Right now I am sitting next to six legal letter sized storage boxes full of the r2r tapes. In my entertainment room, I've got a shelf almost filled with about 40 quad r2r tapes. Sure wish I'd gotten into r2r back in the format's heyday. At that time I was just using r2r tapes at radio stations.

Now, there are a few things that you need to consider before getting into r2r tapes:
1). The factory pre-recorded tapes didn't use even close to the best tapes available, just like cassettes.
2). Magnetic recording tape consists of magnetic particles bonded to a polyester of mylar base with a lubricating agent on top of the particles.
3). Over the years, the lubricant breaks down and the bonding agent dries out, causing the magnetic particles to fall off.
4). Old tapes need to be baked before playing or the magnetic particles will end up sticking to the heads.
5). Some types of the base backing tape becomes brittle over time and the tape will break.
6). The sound quality of factory pre-recorded tapes will never equal the sound of a clean vinyl record.
7). If you buy factory pre-recorded tapes, only get the ones where the speed is 7 1/2ips. The faster the tape speed the better the sound quality.
Most original studio recordings were done at 15ips but usually 30ips. In the radio station, our carts(similar to a 4-track cartridge) ran at 7 1/2ips
and we found that if we recorded tracks from records on r2r tapes, doing them at 15ips actually enhanced the sound quality.
8). With the price of new blank r2r tapes going through the roof, with few choices, and repair parts for the r2r decks also expensive being scarce, now may not be
the time to be getting into tapes at all.

 

These points only apply to SOME types of tape. It's very easy to find out which ones to avoid.

 

The sticky shed syndrome occurs with some major brand backcoated tapes, ie: Ampex 456, 499, some Maxell, Scotch and some TDK. Some backcoated tapes do not develop this problem such as Maxell UDXL 35-180B, and I have no problem with Scotch 206 and 207. The older standard bias tapes generally hold up well. (scotch 150 being the most popular and it's good tape) I've had only a few dry out, however these were purchased used and were likely subjected to heat, perhaps stored for decades in a attic. Even the red oxide acetates hold up well when stored properly in a climate controlled area.

The pre-recorded tapes are subject to good or bad mastering, just as vinyl is. Pre-recorded reels are a viable audiophile format, as they were once considered state of the art. (concurrently issued with vinyl) I agree to look for 7.5 ips tapes, and the earlier releases are generally higher quality. Comparing apples to apples, the pre-recorded tape formulations were the same as any std bias blank tape offered during the 60's era, and carried over into the 70's. I own many older pre-recorded tapes, and all of them are holding up. (the tapes sound fantastic and are physically intact) However all of my band tapes suffer sticky shed, Ampex 456. Only my Maxell 35-180B, and Scotch 206 master tapes play without any problem.

 

I can understand the thought that "tape is the new vinyl" insofar as a few audiophiles claim its the best possible sound. From there (for vinyl), more and more people realized indeed CD and digital is generally lacking, maybe just in cool factor, maybe in sound quality. It caught on for vinyl, starting with the (small in number and generally non-influential) audiophiles. But tape cannot possibly catch on. As good as it can sound, particularly from direct copies of master tapes, it can only appeal to true purists and enthusiasts (like me).

But don't say "because its too expensive". For purists and enthusiasts of ANY hobby, its amazing how much money average income participants can find to buy the gear.

 

Warren - I agree with you when I wear my audiophile/reviewer hat. That part of me wants to get the utmost from my system and would drive me to want R2R - the same way it drove me to vinyl (I grew up on CD) andthe same way it drove me to SE tubes (grew up on SS).

But of course it will never catch on - unlike vinyl and SE tube amps a lot of audiophiles are willing to make the switch from SS and CD - indeed, Vinyl is selling big in Asia and here in Hong Kong all of the CD/DVD chains such as HMV have dedicated rather significant floor space to vinyl (including record cleaning machines, brushes, stylus cleaners and selling ProJect and entry Rega players). This means Vinyl has extended beyond the audiophile niche market and is outright mainstream - with picture discs of the soundtrack from the movie Frozen all over the place here. The same HMV sells a few different tube amplifiers as well.

Personally I would absolutely adore R2R to make a comeback - but what needs to happen is someone needs to be able to make a pretty good quality $500 R2R machine and then some company has to come out with R2R high quality recordings of current popular music (ahem - Frozen soundtrack, Lady Gaga, One Direction, Taylor Swift etc (all of which is available on vinyl ) in order to get the ball rolling.

Because 1) the machines are cool - retro whatever - people like cool retro things but it has to be affordable. 2) Start with the mainstream along with the audiophile music.

Once there is an economy of scale and you're not selling to 50 audiophiles globally you don't have to charge $3000 for some "choose 10 tapes over 3 years" thing like the Tape Project. The price can drop to $50 a tape when you have 300,000 people placing orders.

Heck you never know - maybe there is some rich audiophile out there with a tape fetish and buckets of cash to start up a company - "if you build it, they will come"....with their credit cards.

My friend's dad is in the plastics industry and he makes superior plastic that will thump steel. Make a $500 non resident machine mostly out of plastics and who knows - a $500 machine today could utterly annihilate any old machine from anyone. Gotta be some designer out there someplace - whoever is first in on this scores in a big way.

But I'm not holding my breath.

 

The LD analogy is probably a pretty poor choice to use here, with me in particular. I'll elaborate. I have little to no nostalgia for the format, I never grew up with a player, and they were already phased out within my own childhood. But the fact remains that it is still the best available, or ONLY source for a lot of material. Do I keep a laserdisc player in my home theater setup? You bet. And I've only owned a player for about a year and a month. So I'm a newcomer and yes there was some financial outlay needed to get into what is already a long obsolete format, but for the potential quality of performance, it was worth that cost to me. It makes perfect sense to me to want to watch the real article for that rare material I want, rather than poorly done transfers done by other people and distributed on highly compressed online streaming services or sold on bootleg DVDs. It made a lot of sense for me to get into the format in 2014.


For tapes, I've been into them for maybe about 10 years at this point, if even that. It started maybe as a nostalgia-tinged interest (for something which was never a consumer format at any point within my lifetime) and maybe wanting a taste of something that was once considered high end. But it came to wanting better and wanting more. It turned into buying a quad machine. Then a 2 track machine. Buying more tapes. Buying better tapes. Heck, it led me here - the reason I even joined the forum was to discuss tape track formats in the very audio hardware section we're in right now.


My interest has led me to some great stories, some neat adventures, meeting some awesome people, learning more about the recordings I already loved, gaining appreciation for recordings and musicians which were new to me, learning more about the science and technicalities behind the format, and becoming more interested in and ultimately involved with pro-audio. I'll even be at the AES convention later this month, hopefully I'll even see some of you guys there. I wouldn't have it any other way. My investment into what most consider a "pointless" format brought me a lot more than just musical enjoyment.




Nowadays my interest in anything commercially pre-recorded is slim to none. I do have a nice selection of 1950's era pre-recorded two tracks but as far as interesting titles go, there isn't much of anything. the classical selection is nice and I could go for more of those but at 7 1/2 ips only, and on 50's era tape stock, not particularly worth the cost of entry to me. One of these days I may splurge on some of the Sinatra z-reels.

My interest is mainly in the professionally recorded tapes. Masters or low generation copies of them. Again, as you've mentioned, selection is low, prices are high, and often it's not even so much of a selection as much as whatever happens to come onto the market at any particular time. You won't see a catalogue for anything besides commercially licensed dubs, ie. Tape Project titles.
I have noticed an increased interest in the format from the high end market over the years and I wouldn't be surprised to see more labels try to break out and produced licensed offerings (in fact I know of some which are doing just that) but selection will always be limited. But again, for the opportunity to have the ultimate in performance in the home, this is worth the cost of entry and makes sense to a lot of people regardless of selection or cost - which, all things considered, really doesn't have to be all that much, so long as you're smart about it and vigilant. I keep my selection small, well curated and I try to limit my purchases to the absolute essentials that I won't be able to live without.


You just can't do better than the original tape. It's impossible, can't be done. To have the original recording is the most direct way of hearing anything.
It also shouldn't go without mention that to hear anything that is unreleased or uncirculated, it's really the only option.


I've seen the interest in tape become extended to the point where newly made 7" reels are being mass produced, in different colors even. This wouldn't be done if someone didn't think it would be profitable. There's even been some talk about one of the Swiss manufacturers introducing a newly designed high-end playback unit. That's a healthy sign of things. So long as the market is strong enough to support the few enthusiasts who will stick with it, then that's as good as it needs to be. It doesn't need to be popular or mainstream. It never was and most people aren't even aware of it as a format or know what it is, but here we are today, talking about it. I'd say it's done pretty well for itself.

 

Of the approx. 70 reels I own, about 45 are MAXELL UD 35-90 (1 is backcoated), 10 QUANTEGY 457, (1) 407, and the balance SCOTCH 207, TDK Audua, and a few AMPEX 631 (spooled from some metal 10.5" reels onto empty 7" reels). None of the above have dropouts nor SSS, however I did have (3) SCOTCH Classic and 212 formula tapes plus (1) AMPEX 457 develop the problem.

I didn't try to save the tape and simply unspooled them and re-used the empty reels for the AMPEX 631 formulas I referenced above.

All the best,
GT

 

Reel to reel decks were very popular and plentiful 40 plus years ago and I, and most of my friends who were into music and stereo gear, would record our new albums and then put them on the shelf to keep the pristine. This was a pretty popular practice back in those days. I never did buy a pre-recorded reel to reel tape though. Records ( aka vinyl in 2015 ) ruled the roost.

 

I think cost is a major factor that works against reel-to-reel (R2R). Despite how good R2R is, is it good enough compared to CD and vinyl to justify the cost? Also, could a better option be to invest in something that will provide an improvement in another format (vinyl = a better turntable/cartridge/stylus, CD = a player with a better DAC, Digital Audio Players = better headphones and files in a better codec)?

 

People often underestimate the power of the Internet to make even the most niche of markets viable.

 

There are currently 389 R2R recorders on Ebay @ 20 to 100 Dollars those will fuel the "resurgence" for the next couple of weeks. Buyers will marvel at the "quality sound" once they figure out how to get one connected to their Crosley.

 

If R2R is what turns your gears the costs of the machines really can't be that much of an issue for a die hard hobbyist.. An averaage vinyl setup will cost easily as much. Heck there's at least 2 turntables listed on Stereophiles recommended list at over $200,000 each! And with good equipment the sound of 1 to 1 copies of first or second gen tapes can have amazing sound. Mark Waldrep of AIX records just did a VERY limited run of tapes from his original master recordings for the collectors, though I don't know what might be still available, contact him for more info.
Only issue is that for all the money spent, a High Def digital download (24/96 or better) for around $20 will both measurably and sound quality wise, blow either analog media releases away.

 

Love this thread. Cool video I just found of the Tape Project:

 

What makes you think us "SACD/DSD/Computer Audio Guys"( you left out DVD-A & Blu-ray) haven't heard vinyl and R2R systems that surpass anything you've heard?
Trust me, over the last umpteen years I've heard some incredible\astounding analog based playback systems including R2R.
The entry level for superb analog source system is just too damn high for a technology that has so many limitations that are easily quantifiable.
Vinyl and tapes both involve physical contact with the translation device I'll call it, i.e., a tape head or a stylus.
Where there is physical contact there is wear and other things as well.
Listen I'm not saying that vinyl and R2R don't sound stunning, they can and do sound magical.
There are other options that achieve the same and greater accuracy for gobs less money, accessibility, available content and plain just don't have to F around with.
Different strokes...

 

I believe R2R is at the top of the audiophile food chain, just not for consumer use though. Could be wrong though.

 

Back in my radio station days, eventhough we had Ampex decks, the engineers would only allow Scotch recording tape to be used. Having experience outside of commercial usage, I found that Ampex wasn't the best tapes to use. The key is that the older tapes,pre-70's, held up much better. Of what I have seen in other areas, the ban of sperm whale oil use along with just plain cheaping out was the pivotal factor.

Having a large r2r pre-recorded collection covering many years, it is easy to see that many different kinds of recording tape was used. Knowing that the manufacturers pursued the cheapest path possible, I can almost guarantee you that they never used as high a quality tape as a consumer could buy blank tape. Pre-recorded tape production was often subbed out by the major labels. Ampex did a lot of pre-recorded tape production, so that shows you right there the quality and longevity factor.
My Scotch recording tapes from my radio past have held up pretty good. Of the blanks that I purchased, outside of 1 or 2 Radio Shack Supertapes, they are all the Maxell UD and UDXLI, 1800 feet reels. I stil have a few sealed in shrinkwrap.

But, no, when it comes down to it, r2r consumer tapes were not really a viable audiophile format, unless you can put up with the tape hiss. For pre-recorded tapes, 7.5ips is the only way to go if you want comparable sound quality to an LP. If you are making live recordings, you would want to use something like my Pioneer RT-909 and record at 15 ips, but it is only a 2-channel deck. There are other 10.5" 4-channel decks out the which will record at 15ips, which would be better suited for making a master recording.

 

Right. As we all know about the problematic Ampex tapes, and that probably half the pre-recorded tapes were done using Ampex, we know that our choices are very narrow. As with any other pre-recorded tape, we never had a choice of what brand of tape was used in making them. At least with vinyl records, sometimes several different plants manufactured a single record. I would always seek out a Columbia Santa Maria vinyl pressing over a Monarch styrene or poor quality vinyl pressing.

 

Yep, that's the truth of it.
I've been into High Fidelity for over 50 years now and watched the industry and my equipment progress technology wise just like everything else in that time period. I've had it all from 78s to 45/33 vinyl, reel to reel tape, etc. They were all good in their day but time marches on and today's State Of The Art in High Fidelity music reproduction is in the digital domain.
I'd really love to have a 1963 Split Window Couple Vette, they're IMHO the absolute height of KOOL But if it was SOTA automotive performance I was really after a new 2016 C7 Z06 is the way to go. That progress can't be argued either

 

The problem is that - I have heard virtually all of the class A+ computer audio machines in Stereophile - all of which sounds vastly worse that what I heard from R2R or the Audio Note TT3 or for that matter the old TT3 based on the Voyd - and it's not been particularly close. The particular R2Rs though I don't recall so they could themselves have been ungodly expensive for all I know.

But I have also never been impressed with SACD - and I have heard a lot of machines from the first top end Sony all the way to the new OPPO which to me is pretty lousy for music IMO. There is an outfit here who tube modifies them for added dollars - but that actually didn't seem to help at all - made it worse.

I have a nice little computer audio DAC that has some good buzz in the Line Magnetic 502DAC - but it sounds better playing redbook. Computer Audio is good - I like the features and the ease of use and all that but that's the selling point - not the sound quality - and I have downloaded enough hi-res deemed well recorded files.

I dunno but I am not in a tiny minority here. Something sounds not quite right about it.

 

Sorry but those are just ridiculous conclusions created by a mental bias. Technology has advanced tremendously in the last 50+ years if some chose to admit it or not. But I guess you would rather be watching your 1963 21" Black and White CRT analog television too, don't you just miss playing with the tin foil on the rabbit ears and looking through all the snow, it's just like listening through the analog hiss, wow and flutter, clicks and pops, surface noise, etc, etc etc.
LOL, Enjoy