Opitimum Record Level for Reel Tape?

Friends,

I have been recording on Reel tape since I was 15 years old. Of course, over the years the "tape" has changed drastically. I began recording on Scotch 111 in 1966 and I now use EMTEC 900. "900" is a professional grade, high output formula tape.

For the most part, my recording skills have been self-taught as a hobbyist. I have been re-thinking my recording and mastering techniques as result of this Forum and the resultant subtle changes have enhanced the sound quality of my recordings.

Question: What is the proper record levels for professional quality, high output formula tape? With the "900", I have been recording with the highest peaks levels at +10 VU. Through trial and error, I discovered this record level produces powerful recordings while keeping the noise floor less noticeable on playback. I never use any type of noise reduction.

I am now questioning the wisdom of this approach. Any input from those who use a Reel deck either as a hobbyist or as a professional is much appreciated.

Thank you.

Bob

 

Steve,

Thanks - I know! - you would think after all the recording that I have done that I *should* know the answer to this question readily. I suppose the answer is actually more complex. I am not an Engineer - just a "guy" who loves music and recording. I do get a bit confused. The VU meters go to +20 VU. In my naivety, I thought at +10 VU, I was showing some prudent restraint!

I will follow your advise and simply "go forward" with that approach. At some point, I must obtain a *real* machine. Ultimately, that acquisition is my goal.

A BIG thanks!

Bob

 

Steve,

My VU meters show RED from 0 VU to + 20 VU. I have been recording with my highest peaks at + 10 VU. EMTEC (BASF) *says* that with the "900" high output tape that you can drive it hard up to + 12 VU, hence my choice of peak level. However, I was recording "River Deep, Mountain High" by Ike & Tina Turner last night at +10 VU peaks and I was not happy with the sound during monitoring while recording and it struck me that I should ask about record level here!

Bob

 

The Nashville standard is +6/250nWb/m.

I think LA and NY use 200nWb/m as their reference. Is that right Steve? Does that mean they record at +9/200nWb/m?

 

Which means?

Bob

 

Oy Vey!
We can learn a lot about people from how they give expression to feelings of shock or sorrow. Different cultures have formulated a variety of quasi-verbal ways of instinctively reacting to distressing situations. In some cases it will be through an obscenity or blasphemy. Among Jews however there are two expressions which are most familiar to us. Ashkenazic Jews will cry "Oy vey!" whereas Sepharadim will blurt out the very similar-sounding "Way, way!"
The "vey" component of "oy vey" exists in German as well ("weh"), and might have entered Yiddish from there--though, as we shall observe below, this is not necessarily so. The "oy" however does not seem traceable to any outside source. This seems to hold true as well of the "Way" of North African Jews, which does not (insofar as my inquiries have revealed so far) show up in the vernacular languages of their Muslim neighbours. These facts invite further investigation.

"Oy" is actually an old and authentic Hebrew word. It appears with some frequency in the Bible, where it is usually rendered in English as "woe!" It is not always spoken by Jews, and hence we find such scenes as that in 1 Samuel 4:7-8, in which the Philistines are depicted as crying "Oy!" in confused anticipation of an Israelite attack.

In the book of Ecclesiastes we find a variant of this interjection, pronounced "Ee!" as in: "Ee to him that is alone when he falls" (4:10). This form seems to have become the prevalent one by the time we get to the era which produced the Mishnah (1st to 3rd centuries C.E.), and appears in such phrases as "Ee to me whether I speak or remain silent!" and "Ee to the wicked and to his neighbour!" [By the way, you won't find this form in the normal printed editions of the Mishnah, which replaced the strange-sounding "ee" with the more familiar "oy." The quotations listed above are from reliable manuscripts].



It is when we reach the period of the Talmud and Midrash (3rd to 6th centuries) that Jews begin using a new expression in order to give vent to their pain and tribulation: the familiar "vay' or "way!" This word appears in dozens of passages in rabbinic literature, as the equivalent of its older cousins "oy" and "ee." "Vay" (or "way") was apparently not considered a distinctively Jewish expression at the time, since the same word was in use in both Greek ("ouai") and Latin ("vae"), carrying precisely the same meanings as their Hebrew counterparts.
Thus for example, the midrash relates the following charming anecdote about Rabban Gamaliel who blessed his daughter on the birth of her first child with the rather upsetting prayer "May the word `vay" never budge from your lips." When his daughter voiced her dismay at receiving such a "blessing," the doting zeydeh explained his real intention: His wish was that she might have many occasions to lament about such domestic "troubles" as "Vay, my baby won't eat! Vay, my baby doesn't want to go to school!" Rabban Gamaliel astutely perceived that there are certain types of parental torments that we learn to prefer over the alternatives.

And just so that you should not be mistaken into supposing that Jews only knew how to suffer, we should make it clear that talmudic literature knows also of an appropriate interjection for joyous occasions: "Wah!" The similarity between the sounds of way and wah often furnished occasions for elaborate word-plays, which hinted subtly at just how fragile the borderline between sorrow and joy often is.

 

Angel,

Thanks - very interesting! Thanks for sharing. As to how this expession pertains to my "situation" here, in this thread, I am as dense as a metal doorknob.

Bob

 

Ding! - I get it!

Life is filled with revelations. I am glad I asked.

Well, going forward, no more than +3 VU peak it is.

Steve, thanks for the class!

Humbled,

Bob

 

In Ireland they tend to say Feck

All the best - Andrew

 

See

http://www.local.ie/content/41103.shtml/about_ireland/society/language

All the best - Andrew

 

Bob,

If your meters go up to +20 they are not real VU meters. They may be some sort of peak reading meters, but on the other hand they may not. Settings for PPMs (peak meters) are quite different from those for VU meters. That being the case it's impossible to guess at what the proper levels are. Anyway, your ear is always the best judge. And anyway VU meters only give an indication of average loudness so you need to know what kinds of sounds you can get away with pushing and what kinds you need to back off with. (VUs will largely ignore large, fast transients.)

In my experience the super-high-output tapes can really be slammed in the midrange, but not in the bass. And not as much in the treble.

 

Steve,

Thanks - I know that you have a lot of experience with Reel machines. Not *real* VU meters, eh? Well, that is distressing to hear after all these years since I purchased the deck. They are labeled as "VU" but, that may be an inaccuracy.

Here is a a link to a pic and specs of my machine:

http://www.retroaudio.ru/others/decks/Teac X-1000R.shtml

I appreciate your advise, insights and experiences!

Bob

 

Or more food for thought--is the deck calibrated properly? Could the meters be under-reading the actual level, and therefore the 10dB doesn't sound as distorted as it usually would?

I also wonder how many meters marked "VU" are actually true VU meters. VU meters are weighted to respond a certain way, more of an average reading vs. a peak-reading meter.

 

Rudy,

I will tell you that my recorder has been over-hauled twice by a local guy who is a legend with Reel machines in this area. He set the bias to match the tape I use as well. The pinch rollers have been replaced twice as well.

My recorder was designed to use both conventional and "EE" tape (a short-lived tape formula). I recorded test recordings last night deploying (3) different peak level settings on (2) test tracks. I will post the results of the test here shortly.

Bob

 

Peak Level Test

Friends,

Last night I decided to record some tests deploying different record levels. I decided to record (2) different tracks at (3) different peak level settings. Because I am presently recording vintage tracks on my project, I choose (2) tracks from the early 60's - one compressed and one more dynamic:

1) The Loco-motion - Little Eva (underdub) 1962
2) Torquay - Fireballs (Stereo) 1963

I recorded each track (3) times with the very highest peaks during recording hitting the following levels: +3, +6, & +10 on the VU meters. I did not re-master either track - I recorded them straight, as is.

Again, these tracks were recorded on EMTEC 900 - a professional, high output tape.

Results: On my recorder the most pleasing sonic results were +6 on the "The Loco-motion" and +10 on "Torquay". The differences on "The Loco-motion" between +6 and +10 were nearly indistinguishable. At either level (the +6 or +10 peak level setting), this track simply "cooks". Both tracks sounded "wimpy" at +3 and I could hear just a "tad" more tape hiss during playback. "Torquay" really cooks at +10 (highest peaks). This is a very high fidelity recording with deep bass, great mid-range and impressive dynamic range.

In my experience, Reel tape has a "sweet spot" that is just below the record level of tape saturation and compression. Record too far below this "spot" and the recording has less life and power. The real trick on Reel tape recording is understanding that each track has a "sweet spot" on tape as you record it that is unique to the track. One great quality about recording on Reel tape is that if you do not like the result you can simply record the track over.

Bob

 

A guide to the Twin Cities that my sister got when she moved there described some of the locals' language oddities, most of which are equally applicable to this part of Wisconsin. One of my favorite lines in the whole book was about the upper Midwestern phrase "Uff da!" It was aptly described in the book as "Norwegian for 'oy vey!'"

 

Steve,

Thanks for your comments. What have you never heard before?

I did mean to expess that the tape on my machine liked +6 and +10 but not +3. I should also add that on my machine, I have decided, going forward to record with my highest peaks at +6 v. +10. I think this is a wise decision....

Bob

 

I see!

When I first recorded on this machine, I used regular formula tape and I recorded with the peaks in the +3 range. With Super High Output tape, I noticed through some tests that you can drive it harder. In fact, it almost demands it based on my tests from last night.

However, I have decided to "back-off" the levels going forward to a more modest +6 highest peaks. I would never record that high on conventional formula tape.

I learned a valuable lesson by starting this thread!

Thank you,

Bob