A New Reel to Reel Tape Deck?

I think it would be great to see RTR make a comeback, but, I would expect that its appeal will always be limited to a small group of truly dedicated connoisseurs.  I don't think the price can ever come down enough for tape to have mass appeal, certainly, not without major compromise in quality.  To do a really nice job, the dub would have to be at normal speed, not something where the production master is playing at twice (or more) regular playback speed.  Both the machine playing the production master and the machine producing the dubbed tape would have to be of high quality; even if there is enough demand to run several machines doing the dubbing per run of the production master, the cost would still be high.

I recently saw a new release of an album on RTR that I think would be worth owning--"Garcia and Grisman"--and the asking price for that reissue was $450. 

larryi,

Back in the late 70's early 80's when I was working in a studio we would have to run second generation masters.  The mixed down master was almost always done at 15ips.  To save time, we would take the 15ips tape and then play it back at 30ips.  The machine making the recording was also running at 30ips.  Honestly, there was no loss of information whatsoever.  We did this regularly using either Scully's or Ampex machines.  

I am pretty certain that many of those companies making second generation masters are doing the exact same thing as we did.  Running and recording at 30 and playing back at 15.

This would certainly be necessary to play into the economics of mass producing second generation master tapes.  I don't know of any machine capable of 30ips that is less than stellar in performance.  

Studer, Sony, MCI, Telefunken, Scully, Ampex were all common place in various studios and dubbing banks.

When we think about the cost of two metal reels, tape, packaging, and the labor to record and package the item, $450.00 is still a bit on the high side.  If they could cut that cost to just under $200.00 per title, I think they would have a hard time keeping them on the shelf.

We should also consider some master dubs at 7.5 ips  I have heard some of these and I must say in most instances that I absolutely cannot tell the difference between a 15ips half track and it's 7.5ips half track copy. If we were talking quarter track then it would be very obvious, but half track is a different story.  Just think what that would do to the cost of second generation masters?

Norman

Norman,

Thanks for your interesting description of your personal experience.  I agree that 7.5 ips can sound very good and I take your word for it that 2x copying can be essentially perfect.  The issue there is whether the hyper-critical audiophile market would accept anything that appears to be a compromise.  Several of the premium reissue labels claim that they do regular speed one-to-one dubbing (i.e., only one slave) which means that, if volume increases, some cost savings could be achieved by making more than one copy per pass of the production master (save wear on the master too).  Given how much some people are willing to pay for nice rare vinyl discs, I think you are right about $200 being a cost point that may attract some interest.  But, it still would probably be a niche market, certainly much smaller than the market for $50 premium 45 rpm vinyl reissues.

larryi,

"The issue there is whether the hyper-critical audiophile market would accept anything that appears to be a compromise."

What hyper-critical audiophiles don't understand is that everything is a compromise!  Compromises are made every time a recording is created. Every component, cable, speaker etc., they are all compromises.  

I have never heard anything that sounds 'live'.  Ever.  I've heard close, but never live.  One can always distinguish a live performance from a recording.  It's the same in a studio as well.  Step into the live room then step into the sound booth.  You'd be deaf not to hear the difference.

These hyper-critical purist audiophiles would upchuck if they knew what processes took place in the recording loop. However, when it comes to playing back that same recording, they treat it as a ceremonial  experience that 'can't be altered'.  Yet they alter it anyway, using room treatments, esoteric cables, LOMC cartridges with a tipped high end curve, and any sonic enhancing tweak they can come up with.  

When we prefer one component over another we are altering what we hear, and there is nothing wrong with that.  It has however become ridiculous when I go to a friends house and he is auditioning power cables, and A/C receptacles.  Really?

But I do suppose your are correct, they would never accept a 7.5ips half track recording regardless of how good it sounded.  I would welcome them however, as for me it's the music that matters.  

Norman


   




  

I’ve mixed live shows as a "small venue sound man" (rarely record them these days, although I have had things that I simply "dumped" from the board mix on to media come out fine), mostly jazz and acoustic "folkie" (current meaning: singer songwriters) performers, often and for many years…last weekend even. I find that live musicians (other than myself, since I’m already wherever I am all the time) are harder to rewind, tend to play whatever they want, and unless I had them living at my house it’s way harder to simply dial them up instantly to play something. They do sound more live though…