TP-027, Jerry Garcia / David Grisman wins a Writer's Choice Award from Myles Astor of Positive Feedback Online

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lance Lawson

Pages: [1] 2
1
Raw Tape / Beta Testing The New 1mil ATR MDS-36
« on: February 06, 2016, 08:45:15 AM »
I was selected to Beta Test the new tape from ATR.  My reel of ATR MDS-36 arrived this morning and I wasted no time getting it ready for testing.  After unboxing the 10.5” metal reel I transferred half of it’s contents onto a 7” reel as I do not have the capacity to run 10.5” reels at this time.  However this is a true consumer test done on quality consumer ¼ track decks that are representative of the vast majority of consumer machines.  I am using the TR-3000 (TEAC X3) as the primary audio test rig since it is virtually in new condition and was recently serviced and rebelted.

Prior to getting the ATR I made test recordings of what I feel is a suitably universal quality recording that will be musically appealing to the most people.  The track is Bruce Hornsby’s Hot House Ball.  It features a selection of instruments and musical textures and is sophisticated enough in sound to give a good cross reference of how the tapes perform.  The tracks were recorded directly off of the heads during recording and all tapes were set to peak at +3db  The tapes used were Quantegy 457, Pyrol LPR-35, ATR Master Tape and ATR MDS-36.  The tracks have been given the same playback volume which did not vary appreciably.  Forced normalization was not employed.  The digital recording sample rate was 44/24 and the sample track was recorded from CD to tape to SONAR through a Focusrite Scarlett audio interface.

Accompanying the tape was a letter explaining the new tape and giving a very nice explanation for how the nomenclature of the tape was arrived at and   I agree 100% with it’s designation. 

Physically the tape has the finest surfaces I have ever seen on reel to reel tape.  The phenomenal quality of both the oxide surface and the back coat.surfaces rival and in some cases surpass high grade cassette tape! In fact when I first saw the sheen of the polished back coat I did a double take as I thought for a moment that the tape was not back coated!   In this age head wear and difficult replacement the quality of this tape comes at a most opportune time.  I had a conversation at length about the candling process with ATR this week BTW.  Right now as I type this my little studio is awash in the fragrance of the MDS-36.  It smells good a bit sweet and not at all like crayons the way RMGI 468 and AMPEX 357 can smell.  This tape is truly new and is a virtual started from scratch product.  In comparing it to the color of the tapes I tested it with I noticed the following.  ATR is the darkest least ruddy in color, followed by the MDS-36, followed by the Quantegy 457 followed by the Pyrol LPR-35.  After spooling the tape onto the smaller reel I snipped a bit and gave it a pull test.  The oxide and back coat stayed firmly in place in spite of the tape being heavily stretched.  I couldn’t do that with most of my older AMPEX now that is for certain.  After running the tape for the full side of the reel I swabbed the transport.  As expected it came up perfectly clean.  With tape candled this well there is little friction to create deposits.

Now as for the sound that speaks for itself.  But it is easily the equal to it’s “big brother”  ATR Master Tape and none of the tapes I tested it against had anything better going for them.  IMO the MDS-36 is like a fine studio microphone.  It gives you back exactly what

you put into it which is what great tape is supposed to do.  I didn’t include an example of how Quantey 407 performs against it because the 407 was decidedly not up to the
standard of the tapes I tested.  MDS-36 has been a long time coming and it’s pretty much surpasses everything in it’s class.





This youtube video  will let you hear the full ATR MDS-36 track and the full LPR-35 track.  The MDS-36 plays first followed by the LPR-35


https://youtu.be/qO3_YCewElM

















2
Raw Tape / Re: Tape Woes
« on: August 09, 2011, 10:01:39 PM »
Never had a problem with 468 myself (at least none that couldn't be traced back,..to ME!).
Glad to hear that you're happy with the LPR-35.

Regarding sticky tapes, ever tried cold playing them (it crossed my mind a few years back that maybe the band got their name from that process,..I kinda doubt it.).

I'm stunned at how nice the LPR-35 is.  It's the clearest crispest sounding tape I've ever used.  I find myself rolling off the highs a bit even.  I eventually got most of my 468 to run well but it took a lot of running in.  It's just a bit too wide for my transport. Couple that with it's thickness and you get strange issues.  Once it shaved itself to fit my transport it sounds just fine.  I'm told LPR-35 is very much like the old Ampex Grand Master 357/407 and that was my tape of choice when those tapes were current.

3
Raw Tape / Re: Tape Woes
« on: August 09, 2011, 08:55:31 PM »
RMGI 468 almost lead me to suicide!  Had grief with that stuff!  LPR-35 is as sweet as can be though.  But sss is no longer and issue or problem as a great easy inexpensive and non baking method has surfaced.  A lot of formerly bad tape may get anew lease on life and some old favorites might be rolling again.

4
Raw Tape / Re: Lawson's Show No Mercy RMGI LPR-35 Test
« on: July 20, 2011, 05:46:43 AM »
Ironbut very interesting concerning the exercising of the tape and the effects it has on the signal early on.  Nearly all of the tape I've used since the mid 70's has been 1.5 mil thick.    Handling the 1mil LPR-35 required being mindful of it's thinness.  Print through I've found is no worse than any other backcoated tape and at least on my machine is on par with the RMGI 468 I have. 

Not long ago I experienced major coating failure on some older 1mil  tape.  Its true that the thicker tapes are more robust across the board.  But I too am glad RMGI came out with LPR-35 as it seems to track perfectly in my TEAC which is something the 468 wouldn't due due to due to the slitting width.

5
Raw Tape / Lawson's Show No Mercy RMGI LPR-35 Test
« on: July 19, 2011, 08:12:55 PM »
At last I saw clear to run some tests on RMGI?s LPR-35.  The recent threads concerning some issues with it did indeed prompt me to run this test.  Now before I go into the test itself I will say that I have had an uneasy relationship with RMGI tape since my first purchases of it in 2009.  But that is water under the bridge at this point.

For the test I used a 5? reel with just under 300? feet spooled onto it.  This gives an actual test length of 600? for recording but as the tape is always being run through the transport all the tracks receive wear whether the tape is in record mode or not.  Leader was attached to both ends and for the most part the tape was recorded from side A to side B without rewinding but the recordings were monitored off of the heads as the recordings were made.  I used a variety of CD?s of various genres as a means to determine the character of the tape.  Sometimes the tape was stopped and playback was carefully listened to for quality and flaws.   I found that running the tape through three cycles of recording both sides was about the limit of my concentration to actually listen critically to the results.  So when I felt ear fatigue was setting in I took a break.  Whenever I went back and listened to the last playback the tape always sounded better than when I broke for rest but this is expected.

For the test I used my TEAC A-2300SD.  The machine was cleaned and demagnetized before starting the test.  Speed was set at 7.5ips and Dolby was engaged.  Both bias and EQ switches were set in the #1 positions.  A white piece of paper was placed below the transport to show up any shed or shaving particles.  Listening was done through Sennheiser HD 280 headphones.

The tape itself is a typical back coated type that is a deep rusty brown in color on the head side and a matt black on the backside.  Noticeable to me was the thinness of the LPR-35 as its 1 mil thick.  I?ve been working with 1.5 mil thick Ampex and RMGI for two years now.  When handling 1 mil tape it pays to be mindful that it?s much easier to damage it than its thicker counterparts.

The testing schedule went as follows.

Friday 7/1/11:  Five full passes of recording were achieved and one dedicated listening pass at the end of the fifth pass.  This totaled 3000? of tape travel.  Recorded music was Dion?s Son of Skip James.  All five recording passes were perfect.  Peak db was allowed to go as high as +4db without distortion of any type.  Upon dedicated listen pass the tape was confirmed to have recorded perfectly.  At session?s end the heads and transport were cleaned and showed what was minor and typical tape deposits.  There was no particle shedding and no edge shaving observed at all.

Saturday 7/2/11:  Taping began with Goo Goo Dolls Dizzy Up The Girl.  Specifically the tracks Slide, Broadway and Black Balloon.  This was followed by Marshall Crenshaw?s  Marshall Crenshaw CD and the tracks Cynical Girl, There She Goes and Rockin Around In NYC.  Next was Gin Blossoms New Miserable Experience and the tracks Lost Horizons, Hey Jealousy and Allison Road.  These selections were chosen for the bright jangley nature of the music. The recordings were and monitored directly off the heads in real time.  This amounted to 5,400? of tape travel through the transport for a total of 8,400? of tape travel.   The response and performance of the tape was perfect throughout and captured all of the intended  brightness of the selected tracks.  The heads and transport were swabbed with denatured alcohol using the same swab as I used in the beginning of the test.  Oxide and tape particulates were nil.  Overall impression was very positive in all respects.

Saturday 7/2/11 Second Session:  Anita Baker?s Rapture CD was chosen and was run without specifically selecting tracks due to the very ?signature? sound of this CD.   Next came Bruce Hornsby?s Hot House and the tracks Spider Fingers, Tango King and Hot House were chosen.  From there I  went to Patty Griffins Flaming Red and the tracks Mary, Tony and Peter Pan..  All selections were run through 3 recording passes.   These selections have a smooth rich texture with abundant little sonic details.  By sessions end the tape had acquired another 5,400? of travel for a total of 13,800 of travel and still no discernible drop off in sound quality and still no dropouts or physical signs of tape wear/failure.  I had the distinct impression that I could have continued the tests further with continued success but I sensed that it would be pointless at this stage.  So I prepared to conclude the test.

Sunday 7/3/11:  I used for the final session 3 selections of my own original music.  These tracks are mixed very brightly and feature lots of acoustic guitar.  I Degaussed the heads again and cleaned the transport.  Then I rolled tape.  The LPR-35 performed flawlessly and was still able to capture the intended brightness of  these tracks.  These recordings were taken directly off of the 96/24 SONAR digital master tracks and represent the most detailed and brightest recordings of the test which is why I saved them for last.  If anything the transfer to tape achieved the desirable effects of tape compression and analog warmth  while retaining the detail of the digital masters.   I was impressed, very impressed..

Now I had intended to make a lot more passes over this reel of tape and I may yet.  However I realized mid way through that I was running my TEAC harder than I?d ever run it before.    More importantly though I had run the RMGI LPR-35 harder than any tape I?d ever run.  While my intent was to run this reel to death it became clear as the test went on that I perhaps would have run my TEAC to death before making the tape quit.  The tape didn?t quit nor did it exhibit any weaknesses.

If I am to compare RMGI LPR-35 to the tapes I used when my TEAC was new I can say that it exceeds them all, some by a very wide margin too.  Granted that this is only a short section of a large pancake of tape but the potential is outstanding and I?ve reason to believe that the rest of the tape is as perfect as this section.  There for me only remains now the question of longevity.  But my LPR-35 seems to run clean, in fact cleaner than Ampex Grand Master that I used regularly when it was current.  So at last I think I?ve come home and will have my venerable A-2300SD  biased to accept LPR-35.  I have a pancake of ATR on the way but somehow I don?t think I?ll require it except as a the option of having choice.  But I firmly believe that at least on my TEAC the LPR-35 is going to be a tough act to follow.




6
Raw Tape / Re: Petition For MAXELL To Reintroduce Reel To Reel Tape!
« on: December 21, 2010, 12:35:24 AM »
Once again I'll say that I'm not looking for cheaper tape.  That said I'm reminded of something my engineer told me in 1980.  We were discussing tape during a break and I asked him what the best tape of the day was for my TEAC.  He replied Maxell UD XL.  Unfortunately I lived just a couple of hundred yards from a nice audio story that had great prices on Ampex.  So most of the time I went to that store in support of local business and because the Ampex was great tape while it lasted.  However I managed to buy a fair share of Maxell and my Maxell's, BASF and 3M are all that have survived.  30+ reels of Ampex got tossed before the treatment for sticky tape shed was discovered.

Clearly ATR is interested in the pro market and that's great for the pro market.  RMGI is mostly for the pro market.  If Maxell was not considered a pro market brand well that's OK because they made excellent tape of all types anyway.  BTW the studio I mentioned used Ampex and Maxell Cassettes for cassette use.  Mostly Maxell.  But the 3 Ampex cassettes I have from from that period are all unplayable from you guessed it STS.  Maxells are fine still. 

It has been brought up before that consumer tapes may actually  see more use per reel than pro reels.  For instance I have 8- 2" 16 & 24 track masters.  They were perhaps run 5 times each and once mixed to 1/4" haven't been run in almost 30 years.  The 1/4" mixed masters have been run about a dozen times but haven't been run in almost 30 years either.  However my "consumer tapes" were run dozens of times and recorded over many times also.  Many more times than would have been deemed prudent in the studio setting too.   So in many ways consumer tape needs to be more robust.   

I'm glad RMGI is making LPR 35 as it seems like its a possible  choice for me.  But the slitting bothers me and if there's a chance Maxell will agree to produce tape and its sized well and made well than we have 3 makers to choose from.  And what's wrong with choice?

7
Raw Tape / Re: Petition For MAXELL To Reintroduce Reel To Reel Tape!
« on: December 15, 2010, 09:18:57 PM »
From what I see on that petition you guys seem to think that Maxell could charge less than the current manufacturers. How did you come to that conclusion?

I won't speak for other forum members there but whether or not Maxell can cost less is not the issue with me.  I simply realized that one of the two reel to reel tape manufacturers makes tape that is slit too wide for my deck.  The other manufacturer has come under recent scrutiny with shedding issues. 

It was suggested to me after I contacted the tape manufacturer of the tape I bought that I re-lap my entire transport to accommodate their "exacting slitting standards".  What got me thinking is that the exacting slitting standard employed by that company is supposedly the same as another famous former maker.  However I used the tape of the famous brand many times and it ran though my deck without issue and still does.  Seems to me the advice they gave me was the tail wagging the dog.  My deck is in great shape and has low time on it, and will run everything except the modern tape offered by that company.  The other current maker suggests that users run the tape through the deck a few times to dislodge any loose oxide or manufacturing debris.  To that I say why should the consumer have to put added time on this already old equipment just to get a tape to hopefully work.  We never had to resort to this kind of operating when 3M, Ampex, Maxell and BASF were still in the game.

In short I feel I shouldn't have to relap an entire tape path in order to utilize a certain brands tape.  And I certainly don't want to put added wear on my deck to clear manufacturing debris.  Nobody should have to either as  reel to reel tape is expensive!

If Maxell costs less great.  If it costs the same not bad.  If it's more expensive and runs without issue then its worth the upcharge. 

8
Raw Tape / Petition For MAXELL To Reintroduce Reel To Reel Tape!
« on: December 15, 2010, 12:14:07 AM »
Tapeheads.net has started a petition for Maxell to reintroduce reel to reel tape.  Please support this effort!

http://www.tapeheads.net/petition.htm

Thanks
Lance

9
Reel to Reel Tape Machines / Re: Let dream about designing a new machine!
« on: September 30, 2009, 05:43:45 PM »
Since reel to reel machines exist and one could be retro engineered in order to produce a new one (if such a demand arose) a newly built one off reel to reel while an elegant concept I don't see it as having a practical use.

However this does not rule out the possibility of an entirely new style tape recording device.  Along with my recent reel to reel excursions I've also investigated recording into a hi fi stereo VCR and with excellent results.  Results that perhaps exceed my TEAC A 2300 SD.  I'd like to see a purely audio recording device based on the VHS format but with perhaps 6-8 tracks.  Such a machine with on board effects like a modern digital work station and  a USB  interface for communication with digital sources would be an interesting device.

Keep in mind however that VHS HiFi is not a stationary recording medium. The audio is FM modulated to 1.3mhz (left) and 1.7mhz (right) and applied to the video heads. You aren't going to record 1.3 or 1.7mhz with stationary heads running at 0.5ips such as in VHS EP mode. Also FM recording is not the holy grail. As we know the signal quality is a product of the deviation. In VHS HiFi it is rather narrrow hence they use a DBX type compander to get around that. You have the FM video carrier at roughly 3mhz and the AM chroma at 629khz there as well so intermodulation is a serious issue. But as the frequency responce is still very flat across the audio band being recorded andf played back the companding works much better than with straight analog recording but still pumps. Then we have the achiles heel of FM video recording. The head switching. The tape is only wrapped half way around the head drum so they switch between two heads to maintain continous tape contact. this produces a strong 60hz DC offset in the recovered signal due to tension differences in the tape. So to minimize that there is usally a 60hz notch filter employes.

No, VHS HiFi really isn't HiFi by our standards here.

You know they did come up with a solution to all these issues - it's called RDAT!

When I refer to a VHS format I'm not saying that the entire audio signal chain be that of VHS format.  I'm thinking more on the lines of the tape cartridge, rotating head and transport layout.  The tape speed could run at a faster than VHS speed perhaps double giving 1 hour tape time per cartridge.  As it would not be concerned with a video signal all of the engineering could be devoted to audio only.  Considering that Hi Fi 1/8" cassettes are fairly capable devices the device I envision should be able to exceed that quite easily.

10
Reel to Reel Tape Machines / Re: Let dream about designing a new machine!
« on: September 07, 2009, 06:16:09 PM »
Since reel to reel machines exist and one could be retro engineered in order to produce a new one (if such a demand arose) a newly built one off reel to reel while an elegant concept I don't see it as having a practical use.

However this does not rule out the possibility of an entirely new style tape recording device.  Along with my recent reel to reel excursions I've also investigated recording into a hi fi stereo VCR and with excellent results.  Results that perhaps exceed my TEAC A 2300 SD.  I'd like to see a purely audio recording device based on the VHS format but with perhaps 6-8 tracks.  Such a machine with on board effects like a modern digital work station and  a USB  interface for communication with digital sources would be an interesting device.

11
Reel to Reel Tape Machines / Hot Rodding TEAC RTR?
« on: August 14, 2009, 04:36:59 PM »
Years ago I had an inexpensive mono RTR that could run at 2 speeds.  I believe it was 3.5 and 7.50 ips.  The method of changing speed was quite novel and worked well all things considered.  To change from low to high speed you simply placed an engineered sleeve over the capstan which increased the diameter  of the capstan and increased the transport speed.

My TEAC A-2300 SD runs at 3.5 and 7.50 ips.  I'm considering having a friend who is an experimental machinist turn me a sleeve from brass that will slip over the capstan of my A-2300 to allow it to run a faster tape transport speed.  This in effect would turn the TEAC into a 4 speed machine.  While I'm not looking to run at 15ips as it only takes 7" reels I'm thinking that a speed of 10-12 ips would improve sound and still not be an absolute tape eater.  I'm not overly concerned that recordings made at 10-12ips would only be playable on my modified deck as I'm looking for a method of recording high quality 2 track live performances and perhaps some special digital to analog mastering.

Anybody know if this has been tired in modern times.  The little recorder I had with the speed sleeve was made in the very early 1960's and was not a major make.

12
Raw Tape / Re: Shedding RMG. Is this excessive?
« on: July 30, 2009, 11:24:12 PM »
Thanks everyone.  Interesting about sticky shed stopping a machine dead.  It did this on my TEAC and the mess on the heads and guides was a task to remove. 

I took all the shedding particles and dropped them into an alcohol bath and they didn't dissolve.  More than anything else they look like shavings.  Some of the larger ones have a sheen not unlike the working surface of the tape itself.  I watched the take up reel swing arm carefully as the tape played through and every now and then it "judders" and pulses.  It'll run that way for maybe 20 seconds then it steadies again.  So it seems that the take up swing arm has a tight edged groove. 

13
Raw Tape / Re: Shedding RMG. Is this excessive?
« on: July 30, 2009, 09:40:04 PM »
I'm not sure if this is some of our scrap tape that you purchased or if you have purchased new tape from a jobber. If it's scrap from us send it back and we will be happy to refund your money. If it's not scrap from us I guess the next thing to do would be to take the issue up with RMGI or the distributor you bought it from. There's not much we can do in that case beyond sharing our own experience, which has been quite positive.

I purchased the tape from Full Compass Systems.  I've dealt with them many times for many things and they are a first rate outfit.  I haven't approached them about it yet but I'm confident that they'll refund or exchange the unused tape. 

I wonder is baking the tape would help?

14
Raw Tape / Re: Shedding RMG. Is this excessive?
« on: July 30, 2009, 08:51:06 PM »
Before starting the second side of the tape I cleaned the heads, tape guides and capstan of all deposits.  The recording time on the second side consists of 4 takes of a 3 minute song and I estimate the tape ran nonstop for 15 minutes.  Recording quality was fine.  After listening to the playbacks I cleaned the heads and guides again and while cleaning the swing arm on the take up side I did remove this rather large piece of debris.  Also the rest of the Qtip is fairly brown.  I took these photos of the Qtip and the pile of shedding from the recordings just made.  The previous shedding was removed so what is visible is from the recording time stated above.  I'm debating sending the two unused tapes back and trying ATR.  IMO I seem to have gotten a bad batch, or worse.

15
Raw Tape / Re: Shedding RMG. Is this excessive?
« on: July 30, 2009, 06:55:59 PM »
Hmmm, that long strand sounds like the tape is being shaved. We see that sometimes on RS1500s when the top set of fixed guides is off center with the tape path. From your photo it doesn't looks like the rounded edges of the swing arm guide would cause it. I'm feeling a little dumb as I don't recognize what machine this is. At least I can blame the heat - only 91 today, after 101 yesterday - are there maybe fixed guides with sharper edges near the heads?

The machine is my TEAC A-2300 SD.  While there is a "moderate" amount of time on this machine the heads and general transport are in excellent condition.  BTW when I began using the deck again I was running a BASF tape and there were no shedding issues at all just normal oxide residue.  My prerecorded in 1979 Memorex Blonde On Blonde tape runs through perfectly.  I suspect I have a "wide" tape with this batch of RMG.  I'm about to run the second side so we'll see what happens then.

Pages: [1] 2