Played My First 3 3/4 IPS Tape Today

[braxus]

Well I switched the pinch roller and spindle to the larger unit for playing slower speed tapes. This is a Panasonic R2R that can do all three speeds with only a small change in rollers. Anyway I wanted to hear a 3 3/4 tape I had out. I was trying to see how this lowly speed sounds compared to the better speeds. I had my Ebay win of "Fantasia" which was a digital recording done in 1982. It was based off the classical works used in the movie from the 40s. I think it was the 40s anyway. Put the tape on and the first thing I noticed was how much hiss this speed produces. Wow cassettes aren't even this bad. Then the music came and the high end was rolled off quite a bit. Sort of what a cassette sounds like recorded on a mono portable unit. Bass was still decent though. I can hear why many people avoid tapes at this speed. The fact this tape was a Columbia House special probably didn't help. I also have the CD of this recording, so I know what is missing on the tape. I might end up getting a 10 inch reel of tape and recording this soundtrack off the CD for better results. Of course that will have to wait till I get an Otari deck to do so. But I guess I was hoping this tape would still impress since the tape itself is a lot wider then cassettes and the speed is double them as well. But it didn't happen in this case.

[TheReeler]

It's possible that the tape is not so good and/or the duplication process was bad. All 3.75 ips prerecorded tapes were low quality, all.

Also, Panasonic didn't produced really good sounding reel to reel machines.

I've made tests recording at 3.75 ips using good tape and the result was perfect. The best sounding machine I've ever heared at 3.75 ips is the Pioneer RT-909. The result is perfect. There's no noticeable W&F nor lost of audible frequences.

After that tests, I even did some using sweep tones and analyzing them with the computer and the result was really fantastic.

But if you use a "common" machine or a bad tape, the result will be... bad!

You can't compare the sound of a r2r with the sound of a cassette if you mix the tapes itselfs. Make a comparison using ferro tapes in both cases. For low speeds, CrO2 is better, but for high speeds, ferro is the best.

[niklasthedolphin]

It's possible that the tape is not so good and/or the duplication process was bad. All 3.75 ips prerecorded tapes were low quality, all.

Also, Panasonic didn't produced really good sounding reel to reel machines.

I've made tests recording at 3.75 ips using good tape and the result was perfect. The best sounding machine I've ever heared at 3.75 ips is the Pioneer RT-909. The result is perfect. There's no noticeable W&F nor lost of audible frequences.

After that tests, I even did some using sweep tones and analyzing them with the computer and the result was really fantastic.

But if you use a "common" machine or a bad tape, the result will be... bad!

You can't compare the sound of a r2r with the sound of a cassette if you mix the tapes itselfs. Make a comparison using ferro tapes in both cases. For low speeds, CrO2 is better, but for high speeds, ferro is the best.

I would guess that Chrome tapes are better than ferro no matter the speed unless some faulty storage of the chrome tapes in use or some badly manufactured chrome tapes are in use here.

That is if you happen to have calibration options for chrome on your deck.

"dolph"

[TheReeler]

I would guess that Chrome tapes are better than ferro no matter the speed unless some faulty storage of the chrome tapes in use or some badly manufactured chrome tapes are in use here.

Studer/Revox did a serious studio test about it and they said that ferro tapes are better for open reel recorders when the speed is at least 7.5 ips. They included data, of course.

I've that test somewhere inside any deep place of a CD-R *reelspin*

Chrome tapes have more dissav. than av. Just record some music with high and low frequences and after that, rewind and try to erase it recording over without input signal. After that, listen the tape and maybe there's something audible... I remember this with TDK SA tapes in the past using Pioneer CT-F decks.

Chrome tapes, in open reel recorders weren't used by professionals. In fact, there were less than ten recorders that can handle "EE" tape and none were pro machines.

[Fast Forward]

I played Verdi,s Rigeletto from a pre-recorded at 3 3/4 had to clean the heads and pinch rollers when it was over

[Acoustic]

I've bought a bunch of used tapes-all brands and both 7 and 10 in... in lots or with machines. And I was *amazed* how many of those tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips. Not only was the fidelity not there but they mainly were taped at low levels. On some the VU meters barely moved.

Back when... I had a few pre-recorded tapes recorded at 3 3/4's and just wondered, what bean counter made this decision? It definitely wasn't about the music.:-/->

[TheReeler]

In the early years, prerecorded open reel tapes were all 2 track @ 7.5 ips. They sounded fantastic.

After that, came 4 track @ 7.5 ips and they still sounded very well. Have about 30 of them and most are very very good quality, even have some in vinyl too, and the tape sound as minimum, as well as vinyl.

Once the production went to 4 track @ 3.75 ips... bye bye to the quality, the same that occured always with prerecorded cassette tapes, that most sounded worse than a home made copy from vinyl or CD.

Why to record at 3.75 ips instead at 7.5 ips?... to save tape, so the fabrication cost is less.

[braxus]

I played Verdi,s Rigeletto from a pre-recorded at 3 3/4 had to clean the heads and pinch rollers when it was over

Me too. Playing all these tapes from Ebay seem to be junking up the rollers in no time. I don't know how much sticky shed these tapes have, but they do get everything dirty by the end of one side play.

[niklasthedolphin]

Studer/Revox did a serious studio test about it and they said that ferro tapes are better for open reel recorders when the speed is at least 7.5 ips. They included data, of course.

I've that test somewhere inside any deep place of a CD-R *reelspin*

Chrome tapes have more dissav. than av. Just record some music with high and low frequences and after that, rewind and try to erase it recording over without input signal. After that, listen the tape and maybe there's something audible... I remember this with TDK SA tapes in the past using Pioneer CT-F decks.

Chrome tapes, in open reel recorders weren't used by professionals. In fact, there were less than ten recorders that can handle "EE" tape and none were pro machines.

I wouldn't know about that.
Never realy had any EE R2R tapes to play on my Lyrec.

Maybe other machines perform different than Studer when it comes to Chrome tapes.
Studer is not the only and not the best one even though some of them are nice nice.

I just asumed that when Chrome performs better (when alligned) on a cassette deck, it would so on R2R.

Anyway, I never play or record in less than 7,5 ips ½ track.

If I get a chrome reel tape, I will do the experiment and let you know.

I have bias and rec level calibration options, seperated for each channel and seperated for each speed as well as Eq calibration on my open R2R deck.
It goes for Chrome and any other specialized mixture of tapes.

But no other tapes for R2R other than Fe & Cr were realy made, were they?

"dolph"

[TheReeler]

Open reel tape was produced in ferro, ferrochrome and chrome.

About Studer, it's true that is not the only one top pro machine, but neither Ampex, 3M, Telefunken, Tascam... produced machines to record on "EE" tape, maybe because most of them were high speed machines (7.5, 15 and 30 ips).

I was looking for the document I was talking about, but I haven't found it yet *eyepop*


I don't know how much sticky shed these tapes have, but they do get everything dirty by the end of one side play.

I think none prerecorded open reel tape was backcoated, so no SSS was present because it's produced only (maybe I'm wrong?) in backcoated tapes, as Ampex 406, 478 and 456.

[ferriteman]

Me too. Playing all these tapes from Ebay seem to be junking up the rollers in no time. I don't know how much sticky shed these tapes have, but they do get everything dirty by the end of one side play.

Hi Braxus...these pre-recorded R2R tapes that you have...are they marked AMPEX by any chance? I have purchased some 7.5 IPS prerecorded tapes myself...haven't played them yet. I just wondered if this was more the the "Ampex Sticky Tape" problem...

Let me know...thanks.


Regarding the Ampex stick tape problem, there are ways around it, namely you have to "bake" the tapes before playing them. This allows them to be played again for a number of years before baking them again. If you google this subject, it is amazing the number of hits you get...this is a subject for discussion in itself!

[braxus]

No it doesn't say what tape manufacturer it is made by.

[Jay Pemberton]

I have a few pre-recorded 3 3/4 ips reels and they all sound as lousy as pre-recorded cassette tapes of the late 1960s through at least the early 1970s.

Dull, fuzzy highs, poor overall s/n ratio....the lot.

OTOH, many machines, when properly calibrated and using suitable tape, can produce remarkably good recordings at this speed.

[Fast Forward]

I played Verdi,s Rigeletto from a pre-recorded at 3 3/4 had to clean the heads and pinch rollers when it was overOh yea to top it off ,I couldn,t understand a word of it