Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I have a Teac 3340 (4 track reel to reel) granted it's older but...
    
    I also have a Tascam 234 (4 track cassette) the 234 is an awesome
    deck, great specs (20-20K etc.)
    
    the 3340 is a great deck with better specs (20-22k etc.)
       
    Specs are not the end answer. I find that the reel deck has a greater
    depth (warmth pick yer fav phrase) then the cassette. I find that
    the cost of tape for reels is significantly higher han casettes.
    Since a 4 track system is not going to get you on vynal or CD (at
    least usually) I prefer the cassette for it's ease of use and it's
    low operating costs. however, lately I've been using both, mastering
    off one to the other and adding tracks. The reel does better bouncing
    than the cassette but the difference is not that astounding.
    
    If you've got the money why not look into 8 tracks? If budget
    constraints are a concern cassettes might be better.        
    
    dbii

    I'll probably end up with an 8-track in a year or two, but right
    now its out of my budget (unless I find a *great* deal on used
    equipment)
    
    It's good to know that the 234 is great, as I've never heard one...
    
    

    "Better" - you'd have to tell me what that means in this context.
    
    One thing is that most 4-tracks cassette decks come with an INTEGRATED
    4 or 6 channel mixer, often with effects sends, EQ, line-level
    adjustments, etc.
    
    I believe that most 4-track- reel-to-reels do not have the same
    level of mixing functions as the cassette decks.  You'd almost
    certainly need to buy a board with your reel-to-reel.  On the
    other hand, I found that I needed a board in ADDITION to the one I
    get with my 4-track cassette.  The one that came with the board
    is fine if you only have one external effect, and are not doing
    TAPE SYNC type things.
    
    I think the bottom line is that those integrated mixers are sufficient for
    "putting ideas" together, but if you're going for ultimate high
    quality, you need something else.  Most would consider that an
    obvious statement.
    
    	db

    the 234 does not come with an intergral mixer, this was one of the
    things that sold me on it as I have the option of getting as simple
    or as sophisotcated a mixer as I need/afford/desire
    
    dbii

	RE .0

	Funny you should ask...

	Last weekend I decided to do some hard comparisons of the various decks 
I had on hand to determine how I ought to do my next taping.  It turns out that
I have been in the market for a reel to reel mixdown deck and I was doing this 
mainly on things I've heard (that wider tracks and higher speeds promote higher
fidelity).

	It also turns out that I had in my posession a reel-to-reel deck that
my brother had bought back in the early seventies (Westinghouse).  Now, having 
tried this deck once before, I somehow had decided that it was unsuitable for
my purposes.  After all, it was only a Westinghouse!  But, I wanted to confirm
my suspicions once and for all so as to pack my brother's deck away for good.

	I used both a cassette deck and the RTR to copy a song from a tape I had
bought.  (The RTR was set to record at 7� ips).  I then set the RTR into an 
auxilliary input of my stereo and started them both off relatively in synch.  
Using the tape monitor (which was monitoring the cassette deck) switch I was 
able to instantly go back and forth between the two.

	The first thing I noticed was that the RTR was VERY bassy.  I turned its
single tone knob all the way up.  Surprizingly, it STILL had more bass than the
cassette!  Next I listened for the high end.  The RTR had much crisper cymbals
than the cassette deck.  In fact, the casette deck seemed to reproduce well only
the midrange, which the RTR didn't seem to shine as well in.  Switching back and
forth between the two seemed almost like separately displaying two pieces of a
puzzle.  On the RTR, the vocals (male) didn't come out very clearly, on the
cassette, the vocals were the best thing to come out of the mix.

	This shocked me quite a bit, because I figured the RTR had a number of 
strikes against it - it was old, it was not a well-respected brand (at least for
RTR decks), and the heads were considerably worn.  I thought the cassette deck,
although it is no great model (Akai HX-1C) would benefit from newer head
technology.  But, as it appears, I will probably be using the RTR for my 
recording from now on.  All I need to do is remember to boost the midrange some
to make up for its lack in that range.

	Incidently, I tried the comparison with my TEAC A-103 deck as well.  
There was hardly any percievable distinction between the Akai and the TEAC.  I
then compared the ORIGINAL to the RTR recording and found them to be quite 
close, or at least a great deal closer than the original to the cassette copy.

	Now for my own question...  Is it any big deal to replace a head on this
Westinghouse unit?  Can I put a better head on it (based on the notion that 
heads have improved over the years)?  Any idea how much it would cost?  Can I 
install it myself?  Where can I get the alignment test tapes?

	Dan

    
    I would take it to Stereo Shops of Mass., in Newton (just over the
    Needham line on Highland Ave.) who work on lots of old decks.  They
    will probably tell you it's not cost effective but they also would
    have a good idea if heads can be had for it (I saw them working
    on a 20 year old KLH reel to reel in there once).
    
    As for the poor midrange, it may be that the biasing is not properly
    set.  If it's an old unit and you used modern tape, it's most likely
    biased too low, which will give an accentuated treble (at the expense
    of higher distortion).  The bassiness may be due to head bumping,
    a phenomenon of all tape heads.
    
    In general, I find reel to reel decks have more transparent high
    end than most lower priced (under $400, say) cassette decks made
    today.  The physics is against the cassette, half the track width
    running at a quarter of the speed makes it an uphill battle.
    
    I think most folks who hate mastering to cassette would be pleasantly
    surprised if they picked up an old reel machine for $100 or so,
    and put $100 into it for a cleaning and alignment.  Plus, you can
    do splicing.....an art lost in today's sequencer age!!!

    
    Question - If you've recorded on a 4-track cassette, will you actually
    	gain anything by mastering to a rtr? Especially since you'll
    	probably end up duping the rtr master to a cassette yet again?
    
    	I have an 18 year old Akai rtr that when last operated was in
    	pretty good condition. I've already warned my wife that the
    	studio/music room/kid refuge will most likely see it as the
    	next bit of clutter. However, before i retrieve it from the
    	attic, i wonder - will i really gain anything in the long run,
    	since the goal is to produce a fairly decent quality cassette
    	that'll get played on boats in Sausalito CA and St John's in
    	the virgin islands?
    
    	Does 1.5 ips to 7 ips to 1.5 ips really improve anything over
    	1.5 ips * 3?
    
    					bs
    
    	ps: already tried the vcr - but my fisher is definitely lo-fi.
    	I got more freq response on both ends - but even more hiss!

RE < Note 1837.6 by AQUA::ROST "Marshall rules but Fender controls" >

	I just tried Stereo Shops and they acted like I had three heads.  They
refered me to a place in Norwood - The Service Bench.  I'm currently trying to 
get through to them.

	Can I adjust the biasing manually?  There's nothing marked for that
purpose on the deck.  Is that just adjusting the tilt and such of the platform 
that the head is mounted on?  Is that a difficult thing to do?

	What is head bumping?
    

RE < Note 1837.7 by NAC::SCHUCHARD "PC Arcade" >

	I think you'd gain a good deal from using a RTR in the mastering 
process.  You would be holding on to a lot more of the sound quality to
transfer into the copies you make on cassette.

	Dan

Bias is an electronic adjustment.  On most consumer decks the pot for this
is *inside* the case.

Tilting the head is the "azimuth" adjustment.

RE < Note 1837.10 by DFLAT::DICKSON "Plan data flows first" >

	Thanks.

    Nortronics Corporation of Chicago, Ill. makes/made replacement record
    and playback heads for many many different tape dex..

    
    I was gonna say Nortronics but didn't know if they were still in
    business.
    
    Don't know if Service Bench can help you but they have a top-notch
    service department and I have had work done there on my decks. Ask for
    Russell. 
    
    617-769-4337
    
    

    'Nuther endorsement for Service Bench.  I've had doings with them
    for a wide screen TV.  Nice bunch o' guys ...
    
    Steve

  I use a 4 track cassette for mastering (Tascam 234, running at double speed
  with dbx). Since I'm making a stereo master, I'm only using 2 of the 4 tracks.
  It occurred to me that there's no reason I couldn't mix the left channel down
  to tracks 1 AND 2, and the right to 3 and 4, and merge them the same way when
  I make copies from the master. Should there be any benefit to this, in theory?
  Am I doubling my tape width, or just doubling the amount of noise I'm likely
  to introduce? I haven't made the experiment, but I don't think there will be
  a benefit.  One thing I probably should do is mix to tracks 1 and 3, rather
  than 1 and 2, to make it less likely that there will be leakage between the
  channels (though it hasn't been a problem).

  Tom

    re .15, using 2 tracks for each channel.. I did some experiments
    with my TEAC 3340A on this, using a white-noise generator.  My
    conclusion is that since you have twice the tape width and twice
    the signal, at 15 IPS you MAY get some slight improvement 
    in reproduction.. in my A/B/C tests, 2-track stereo compared to
    source, 4-track stereo compared to source, I couldn't tell the
    difference.  Remember this was without any noise reduction..
    
    I also went back and ran the same tests at 7 1/2IPS.. noticeably
    noisier using 4-track stereo than 2-track stereo.. the noise factor
    seemed to be tapespeed-related.  As I don't own a 4trk cassette deck
    with NR, your mileage WILL vary.
    
    karl

    I like the Yam MT2X.  If you do need a mixer (like I did) it gives
    you six input channels to play with which you can then mix down
    to four recordable tracks.  It has AUX Sends and Returns so I can
    use my MIDIverbII and besides running at 2 speeds (twice and quad-
    ruple cassette speed(?)) it has dbx noise reduction.  Two of the
    channels can accept MIC as well as LINE inputs, and all recordable
    channels are equalized.
    
    What does it sound like?  I think it sounds very good, better than
    most run of the mill stereo decks (probably because of the speed).
    As I mentioned in another note, I am usually pretty bowled over
    by how good things sound on my main stereo downstairs, EVEN THOUGH
    THESE HAVE BEEN MIXED DOWN FROM THE 4-TRACK MASTER. (ie They have
    lost one generation).  It is very obvious that the high frequencies
    are being rolled and and "exciter" may add some of this back. In
    theory, a RTR should be able to give me back these highs also but
    not at a price or level of convenience I am willing to live with.
    
    Clusters,
    Bill Allen @MPO
    

    re .15, .16 - uncorrelated random noise doesn't add linearly, so
    increasing the tape area causes the signal to go up faster than
    the noise, improving the signal to noise ratio.  So yes, you should
    see (I think) a 3db S/N increase for each doubling of tape area,
    which can be gotten by doubling the tape width (number of tracks
    carrying the same signal) or doubling the tape speed.
    
    len.
    

    
    	well, i went to the attic, and instead of finding an old Akai,
    i found a teac ar-405(its been a while). And my does it make nice
    master tapes. I do not have any noise reduction for the teac, however
    everything else folks have said have come true - smoother bass,
    clearer highs, and at least with this deck, very decent mid-range!
    
    	Another question - if my fostex x-15 uses dolby-b when creating
    the original, should i also be using some sort of noise reduction
    on the input leg when creating the master? I tried making a copy
    of the master using my fostex (instead of the cheap RS dubbing deck)
    and all things considered (3rd generation etc), it came out pretty
    clean (there's too much treble, but was a mixing problem). What's
    the real scoop with outboard noise redux?
    
    					Bob

RE < Note 1837.19 by NAC::SCHUCHARD "PC Arcade" >

	It is not necessary to add noise reduction on the RTR, but it may help.
The fostex cannot shut off its internal noise reduction on the input or output
(since dolby is a double-ended noise reduction scheme).

	Where there any maintenance problems with the old TEAC?  How much work
was it getting it into condition?

	Dan

    I have an old Dokorder 1140, you know, the one that looks like a
    real studio deck with upright VUs and 4 tracks. Problem is the heads
    are knacked and I seem to be spending more time in the guts of the
    thing to solve all sorts of logic problems. When it works it is
    a real fine machine and I've figured out which tracks are most affected
    by the worn heads. I would like to renovate it somehow but they
    stopped making these things years ago so I have no source of parts.
    Does anyone out there know somewhere I could get heads for it (I'm
    in Canada), or maybe someone has one thats even more broke than
    mine but with good heads?
    Any ideas?
    
    Ken
    

    
    sound wise, the teac was fine - i gave it a good cleaning and
    de-magnitized it. Mechanically, it seems the forward play is stuck-ON.
    The only was i can get it to pause is by slacking the tape enough
    to relax tension on the (u-name it) tension sensing arm or whatever
    you'd like to call it. 
    
    It was interesting to remember how to pilot the thing - especially
    when doing ff or rw. Once it gets up to speed, it reall cranks and
    you have to reverse direction to slow it down before you stop it.
    BUT, the vu meters, line in, playback etc worked real good. It had
    been packed in its original casing and never really suffered much
    abuse. My brother picked it up in quam around '69 or '70. As i
    now properly recall, - well no i'm not sure now which component
    was Akai come to think of it.
    
    re 20. glad to hear about no NR needed. As it was i over mixed
    the high's in anticipation of too much NR when i finally get back
    to cassette. Fortunately, with the fostex and i can compensate yet
    again. Live and learn...
    
    				bob

    Original multitrack recording:  4track, Dolby ON
    
    playback for mixdown:                 record          
        4trk, Dolby OFF  =======>  stereo RTR,Dolby N/A        ====>
        (NO decode!)                     (NO decode)
    
    ====> record              ==========> playback
     stereo cassette                    stereo cassette
     Dolby OFF (NO decode)              Dolby ON (decode!)

    anybody ever de-mag thier video cassette decks?
    
    I assume you just spin the heads and do it?
    
    dbii

    Demagnetizing videos is not quite the same as doing audio heads.
    I've been told that the field generated by most audio head demaggers
    can blow away a set of video heads.  I don't know if this just an
    old tech's wives tale or fact, but it may be worthy of more discussion
    before you try to fix something that may not be broken.  The video
    techs here in our Meida Services group couldn't remeber that last
    time they demagged the heads on their production decks when I asked.
    Apparrently for them it's a non-issue, because they don't do it!
    
    Has anyone ever done any comparisons to find out if the permanent
    magnet cassette demaggers such as the "Discwasher" brand unit work
    well compared to the old standby hand unit?  
    
    ...........................................Jon.........................

    Another issue is you should *NEVER* demagnetize a head with the
    playback electronics powered up.  The induced signal in the heads
    will fry the electronics.  Since I doubt you can separately power
    up the head motor and the video amplifiers in a VCR, demagging a
    running VCR seems like a very dangerous proposition.
    
    len.