My First R2R

[Nak_novice]

At last I got lucky on eBay, just won my first R2R deck:

Teac X-2000M + Dust Cover For Reels + Remote + Manual & Schematics + 10 x Maxell XLII 35-180 Tapes + Teac Take-Up Spool all for $924.

Seems a fair price if the deck is as represented.

Wont get my hands on it for a few weeks yet though - excited!!

[Des-Lab]

Congrats! Very nice purchase. If the deck is in good shape, then you should be happy with it. Now just two words of caution I should throw out at you.

1. You KNOW this is a half-track deck, right? You can PLAY (but not record) quarter track tapes. This deck records the full entire physical side of the tape. There is no "side 1 or side 2" to listen to. That's going to immediately mean that you will require twice the amount of tape that someone like me who does record in quarter track stereo (i.e. on both 'sides' of the tape).

2. You will find your tapes to be compatible with essentially no other deck. Recording on XLII "EE" tape at half track mode all but assures you that no one will be able to listen to your tapes. No other deck I'm aware of has both EE ability AND half track heads. I suppose this does lend a certain air of 'security' to your recordings. Downside is that if that deck ever goes down the crapper, you are in a world of trouble. Because of the unique tape/recording combination, you will need to either fix your deck or find another one at whatever the cost should you want to listen to them again.

I would strongly recommend that you either sell or trade the XLII's for conventional oxide. OR make cassette and/or CD 'safety' backup copies of everything you make on those tapes.

[Nak_novice]

Hi Matt, thanks for your message.

So the deck plays 1/4 track recorded on other machines but only in one direction as its not a reverse play deck?

Obviously being a half track deck it records using all the tape, should this then perhaps be of higher quality sound than a quarter track recording at the same speed given the additional area of tape used?

Could you explain the reason for trading the tapes for normal oxide tape please?

What does EE mean?

[Doug_Olitsky]

a big congrats! My first was an Otari MX-5050 I'm hooked

[Des-Lab]

1. Correct. The X-2000M records and plays in one direction only. If this deck had the ability to play back its own tapes in "reverse" mode, you'd be hearing the entire program being played backwards! Incidentally, that's exactly what will happen if you were to take a half track tape (either made by you or someone else) and 'flip it over' to play the [nonexistant] side two. The quarter track head was [presumably] provided for convenience only to play back OTHER such tapes. But you can not make them.

2. In theory, yes. This point is hotly debated in audio circles. On paper, it should be a no brainer: wider track width, more oxide used, higher speed, yes. All of that does point to higher quality sound. But here is where the argument comes into play: as you get into the [exponentially] higher tape speeds and used surface area, a point of diminishing returns begins to be reached. The 'more is more' argument only holds up to maybe 7 1/2 ips. After that, any improvement probably becomes incremental at best. Ergo; one could say that 7 1/2 is twice as good as 3 3/4 [as it's double the speed]. But is 15 twice as good as 7 1/2 for the same reason?

Probably not. Maybe 50% better if it was a pure recording in a good setup. Certainly no crosstalk to worry about. But any other value added benefit, I don't know. And here is where the debate goes from 'paper' to the real world and the listening room.

A good tape, made on a good machine by a competent operator played back on a GOOD system WILL sound good even at 7 1/2. But the thing is. By going from 7 1/2 quarter track to 15 at half track, the amount of tape you need to maintain minute-per minute continuity has skyrocketed by 400% (do the math yourself).

Does a 400% increase in tape need justify an at best 50% improvement in sound-when in all actuality, is probably likely to be no more than 25%?

And what about going to 30 ips?

Are you going to say that 30 ips sounds 200% better than 7 1/2 because it represents two [exponential] doublings in speed?

And so it goes. You have to increase your user 'fuel' (if you will) to gain ever smaller and smaller increments in sound improvement. Eventually this becomes an exercise in futility: Doubling, tripling, and quadrupling your setup costs and size to chase those ever elusive one and two dB's in "improvement". Sometimes it becomes such an irrational pursuit that any MEASURABLE improvement becomes moot anyway if we are talking about frequencies that are imperceptible to the human ear anyway. All of this can often be argued based on subjective testing. This is why many high-end 'audiophiles' (think the ones that use Theta CD players or Krell amps) absolutely DESPISE blind testing. Imagine the blow to your ego if you were to find out that a $500 Denon CD player were to sound almost, as good, or even better than your five THOUSAND dollar Theta.

I only suggested trading the EE tapes for conventional because of the compatibility with other decks. Suppose down the road you want to upgrade to another deck. Say an Otari for example. Otari decks are not set up to play EE tape. So they would, in essence, be a loss.

EE stands for "Extra Efficiency". In simple and practical terms, it was the reel to reel equivalent of High Bias Type II. It's main strength is at the lower speeds; maintaining quality at an economy speed. But at 7 1/2 and higher, any decent conventional tape does [in my opinion] sound better than EE, which I found to have a rather low saturation threshold. This in addition to it being nearly impossible to erase. Even on my X-2000R, which is also EE equipped, I have to do a blank dead-head erase and then record again in order to completely reuse the tape.

[Nak_novice]

What a FANTASTIC reply, thanks Matt. You surely do help a whole lot with your explanations. I did a bit of research and just found the EE details and also that the M stands for Master or Mastering.

With my cassette decks, although superbly aligned and maintained etc, I always play back the tapes on the deck that recorded them and would continue to do this on the R2R decks too, the flexibility issue would not then be a problem to me. Having to rewind the tape though doesn't feel good though, but time will tell how much stretch or other issues it causes - if any.

I totally agree with your suggested sort of reverse logarithmic effect of spec improvements, certainly in relation to those frequencies that you cant even hear. Whether those frequencies cause any sort of resonance to frequencies you can hear, who knows.

I find that there are so many basic things that need to be set up properly before you worry about those other improvements that many people don't bother with, that optimum results will never be attained.

Transport Cleaning / Alignment / Demagnetisation
Bias adjustment for the tape in use.
Input level optimisation without distortion at any frequency.
ETC ETC

The EE tapes will probably go then in favour of new tapes once I have had a play and fiddled about for a while. (And found a supplier!)

[Nak_novice]

[QUOTE=Doug_Olitsky;104]a big congrats! My first was an Otari MX-5050 I'm hooked[/QUOTE

Thanks Doug, The MX-5050 is a half track deck too is it not? Any problems with tape stretch or anything due to the fast rewind or do you always leave the tape played then rewind before use to allow the slow play speed to apply a lesser / consistent tension which is how the tape stays while being stored?

[Doug_Olitsky]

Ben;


my otari is rather kind to tape, I do try to store tape tails out.

It is a half track machine(record and play) but will also play 1/4 trk tapes due to the 4 trk play head it also has!

[braxus]

In some ways I agree with Matt on the tape speed thing and in other ways I don't. If you are recording from say Vinyl or other tapes, then 7 1/2 IPS is fine whether 2 or 4 track heads. But if recording a live program using mikes, then you need every inch of quality you can get and that calls for 15 IPS 2 track tapes. Its that extra little bit that will turn a good recording into a great one. I've used 15 IPS strictly on all the reel to reel tapes I have ever used, and I will stick with that speed on live stuff in the future. My thoughts are that what is the point of using reel to reel in the first place over say cassettes, if you are not going to use its full potential?

[Nak_novice]

Braxus, you too talk a lot of sense. The best sound is what I will be after, but if there is no improvement at the faster speed in some situations then the additional tape length will be a bonus on this deck. There are no doubt different and preferred set ups for different situations and I suppose its horses for courses. What I do know is that its going to be a whole lot of fun trying out all the options. Will definitely be trying out live recording one day once I have gained more experience. Oh, and a mic or two!

[TheReeler]

Did you finally got the X2000M or changed by a 4 tracks deck?.

The basic an daudible difference from recording in a half track or quater track stereo is the NR. I've done some tests in the past with a Revox B77 and a Grundig TS1000 (the first is a half track and the second one is a quater track), both at slow speed (1 7/8 ips) and the Revox produced less hiss. Somewhere I readed that the difference is +3dB for the half track.

For me the ideal speed for domestic purposes is 7.5 ips in quater track format, but is just MHO.