OPEN REEL---To EQ or not to EQ...that is my question!

[joeljoel1947]

I want to know what others think about this subject.

I have 3 open reel decks now and have been thinking deeply about the recording process. 2 of them are Otari's and I have played around with the NAB and IEC EQ settings on the back of the deck. Some recordings sound better with one or the other, obviously.

That said, if one gets their deck properly calibrated, they must get it calibrated to a specific tape on a specific curve (NAB or IEC) and stick with that tape and curve perhaps forever. And what is correct for that one deck, will not be correct for other decks. Like the 3 I have....

That said, in the state we are in (i.e. using a variety of different blank tapes and formulas from NOS tapes and new tapes) I'm finding it difficult NOT to justify adding an EQ to the open reel mix for recording purposes. This would be used to "flatten" the NAB/IEC curve in the upper treble and deep bass relative to the myriad of tapes out there in todays market.

If you think about it, there is an EQ already going on INSIDE the deck bringing the frequency response to either the NAB or IEC curves. So what's the harm in adding another to ensure you get the best possible recording (or even playback) for each tape formulation that as a byproduct would sound best to you?

Anyone play with external EQ's to offset the issues I adressed? Or do you just live with the fact that there are going to be slight variations between tapes and decks used?

[Doug_Olitsky]

Joel-

Good points. I'm currently having my otari cal'd for sm900 as that will be my main tape @ NAB

thats what I stick to. I do have some sm911 and my hand into atr. I will play w/ these tapes knowing optimum is sm900. and while I can play w/ IEC and REF flux I will not touch the bias.

we dont always have control over cassette decks.

my suggestion is try some new tape find the one you like and try to stick w/ it.

[Des-Lab]

I'd be hard pressed to also find any point that I disagree with. In most cases, having an outboard EQ is not only a plus, but encouraged. Now I'm not talking about people who buy them to boost the bass up to absurd highs to where all you hear is "boom boom boom" nor the people that set the curve because it looks 'neat' (and I've dealt with plenty of both).

Sure we all strive for having as flat and natural sound as possible. But eq's do serve a purpose: all speakers are different, accoustics are different, bias/deck matching varies, different records/albums/sources all sound different, and so forth. And yes. I have an EQ as well. Sometimes (but not often) I do use it when recording. The only downside to that is that you can't really use the decks live monitoring ability when doing that. Otherwise you'll hear a (for lack of a better word) 'double dose' eq: It's going through the curve in the source *AND* through the playback as well. For instance, if you decide to boost the 60 htz band by 10% on the source, and play it back, the eq is boosting the boost. The PLAYBACK is getting an ADDITIONAL 10% boost so that what you hear is twice is much [de]emphasis on any given cycle range. Is this making sense? So you have to be real careful with that.

[Nak_novice]

Is there a resource that shows how tapes match up together?

What I would envisage is that 2 or 3 tapes MAY be acceptable on a single deck if the deck is set up for the mid point of the 3 tapes if you can see what I mean?

How do Maxell UD and XLI match up?
Are all the XL1 tapes the same formulation throughout the 25+ year production run - do they sound similar?

If not, I would err towards Doug's advice and try to dedicate each deck to one tape, or the complexities Matt highlighted would be too much aggrovation for me.

[Des-Lab]

I don't know if there is a manual or cheat sheet out there that shows the "proper" tapes and decks or not. Because I don't care. I believe that when you get right down to it, the only opinion that matters is your own. Some people will go through extensive lengths, constructing these elaborate arguments and concocting graph charts, sine wave printouts, and all of that hocus pocus.

You should ask yourself a simple question: DOES IT SOUND GOOD TO *MY* EARS?

Anyone who is honest with you (like yours truly), they will tell you that there are very seldom absolutes in sound and audio. There are simply too many variables including, but not limited to mix of equipment, type of material, speakers, accoustics of the room, and your own hearing condition. Just to illustrate my point. One piece of music, will sound very different to a 16 year old female and a 66 year old male. Even if they were standing side by side in the same room at the same time, listening to the same sound through the same speakers. One person enjoyed the sound and the other didn't. So who was "right" in that situation?

How do you write an airtight be-all, end-all manual and guide for something like that? I mean you can't. We can all give tips and suggestions based on *OUR* experiences but sound IS subjective.

I guess what I'm getting at is that if you want to know what's best for you, you're going to have to experiment and find out for yourself. That means test recordings and setup and sampling different tapes, and so forth.

[Nak_novice]

Matt,
You are absolutely correct as you know, but as a total idiot, I would find it useful to hear yours and other opinions here too to avoid potentially falling down the same holes. For example if such a list of tapes were so different from another two ot three perhaps? Then those of us who will be experimenting can fast track to half a dozen variants perhaps which may not all be great sounding but shouldn't be an absolute disaster either. There must be some tapes that are just not worth trying out first if you like.

[joeljoel1947]

Doug--thanks for the input. yes, I was going to go out and get my Otari's calibrated for the 900 Tape as well, but on the IEC curve which seems less limiting then NAB. But then, I found a hardcore Otari guy who preached to me that Ampex 632 was God's greatest gift to the Otari heritage, so I bought 10 10.5" pancakes of it. More then likely, this will happen over and over again---people recommending 1 tape or another to me. It seems to be an exercise in futility to calibrate to 1 tape at 1 speed on 1 curve. Especially given the volitility of open-reel at this stage of the game. 900 could be wiped off the planet in a year or 5.

So far, I am getting VASTLY different results and sounds when recording to different brand tapes. So I think the best approach may be to EQ it. Otherwise, you would need to calibrate the machine daily to keep it aligned with the tape/speed/curve at hand! This is just my thinking right now.

Matt--that's good to know you feel the same way I do. It is after all what sounds good to us!

Since my "main system" is all-tube, I'd like to seek out a tube EQ. No doubt they may be an expensive find. I have an old 10-band Fisher EQ at my moms house with the cool-blue graphic EQ bars in the middle that bounce. I may do some tests with that to see what happens. I do NOT have an EQ phobia nor should any other "audiophile". For one, what do you think the RIAA curve is on vinyl? Just an EQ. Same as NAB/IEC on tape. Also the resurgence of the politically correct called "room correction" circuits in all the hi-end receivers and home-theater products. Those are?? Yes, EQ's again.

I already use parametric EQ's on the bass-bins in 2 of my systems. There is no other way to integrate a sub (or 8 subs as I have in 1 system) to a room properly without one if you are after accurate bass!!

[Doug_Olitsky]

point taken-

I decided that all the tape I'm going to use will be pretty hot +6, +9 and +10 so I cal'd for the middle.

plus... the evidence shows that my machine was most likely cal'd for 456, which I dont plan to use, or any old stock for that matter.

Plus getting it cal'd gets the meters to read in the correct range and bias for the hotter tapes and its probably a good thing to have it benched as it has not seen a tech in years, studio machines are cal'd daily, I'm no studio but I figured what the heck.

In 5 years we could be looking at new formulas or no tape at all, but the machine should see some servicings at that point anyway.

I say have fun and when you have your criteria established then cal., for me I wanted to spend my time recoeding and listening to some good tape and I let the pro's be my guide.

A glass of old vine zin helps :cool:

[Des-Lab]

And Joel hits the nail squarely on the head, which takes us full circle: Why outboard equalizers can be a Godsend and vital part of any system. The days of setting up for, and sticking with just one tape, are pretty much over. It would be good advice to be able to use two or even three different tapes to their full potential.

[braxus]

EQ may be useful for some taping, but I guess Im oldschool. I refuse to buy an EQ for my home stereo because it most cases it will degrade the signal by a degree which takes away of the experience of a clean true signal. Things like the soundstage starts to collapse and losing depth in recordings are examples.

[vinyldavid]

Is it possible to have someone build a custom R/P unit for a deck like the Otari and have infinitely adjustable bias and EQ settings, and peak levels and such?

then you can bias it for whatever tape you are using at that moment. :confused:

I'ma tape n00b, but is that possible, or am I dreaming?

[Nak_novice]

It's unlikely to be beyond the whit of man to achieve this. After all, cassette decks have been doing this since 1980. Whether it is within the budget that one would be prepared to pay, that's an entirely different problem.