What's good about tape?

[Paul Stenning]

Originally Posted by Pfraser

Tape recording offers a certain blend of saturation and compression, quite gentle on the ear if set up carefully. Then there's all that great analogue warmth. Plus nostalgia!

The saturation and compression characteristics is something I and probably many others used back in the day without understanding the technicalities.

Setting the recording level so it was in the red most of the time, but not constantly full red, gave a more compressed and louder sound without harsh clipping that was good for low quality car stereos and cheap personal stereos etc.

It varied with different types and brands of cassette, and I remember the old favourite TDK AD cassettes gave good results and were reliable.

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bulgaria

...it was the other way around - the Germans got HF bias sorted by accident, and were able to make broadcasts that fooled the Allies into thinking there were live radio transmissions going on when they were pre-recorded.

Quite so. The DC bias Magnetophon was a frustrating beast, with a usable bandwidth not much more than 5kHz and signal to noise ratio around 35dB, not much better than shellac but more flexible. The story goes that one RRG machine suddenly started sounding much better than this - s/n around 50dB, smooth rather than lumpy tape noise, and an extended top end. It was swiftly removed to the workshop, where an oscillating record amplifier was diagnosed. It was a short step from there to unravelling how HF bias worked in practice.

Prior to this, RRG had been experimenting with a two track system, setting the tracks up differently to improve frequency response and dynamic range. HF bias rendered this unnecessary, but it provided a small stock of stacked heads which were subsequently used for stereo recording in 1943-44.

American manufacturers, notably Brush, were producing wire and steel tape machines for various applications throughout the war, but none used HF bias or plastic tape. The British state of the art machine was the Marconi-Stille, using steel tape at frightening speed with DC bias. The most accessible recording made using this technology is Chamberlain's declaration of war, recorded on the earlier Blattnerphone at Wood Norton.

[Simondm]

Originally Posted by The Philpott

As i understand it, innovative but marginal quality German audio tape technology was scavenged by the US after WWII and the quality and definition of recordings made from developments of said technology were very high quality. (They certainly sounded very good to me.)

Then, as always, we sought to miniaturise things- with predictable results.

Dave

I wouldn't describe these below as miniature

http://www.orbem.co.uk/tapes/btr2.htm
(note: the site isn't using https so browsers may make a security fuss - as far as I know it's quite safe, and I have previously corresponded with the owner, but caveat browser))

I trained on these beasties in the late 1970s, but once on-station only used the version rebuilt as stereo, the RD4/4. Thankfully we only had a single edit pair in a recording channel, otherwise I'd have no skin on my fingertips to this day!

The outriggers made editing reasonably quick, but nothing like as fast as a Studer A80 (they could also have outriggers, but we never had any, and I think Studer's outriggers were only made in extremely small numbers).

Point being that the BTR ("British Tape Recorder") Mks 1 and 2 were pretty much copied from the Magnetophon machines that also went to Ampex in the USA in the latter stages of the war.

The hub clamp/lock system, used until the end of professional tape machine manufacturing on many different brands of machine, was an exact copy of the Magnetophon one (there is/was a captured German example in the Science Museum which has them). The "NAB" reel adaptor and cine, 3-bladed pegs, came later and were very widely but not universally adopted. When I left broadcasting in the late 1980s, continental broadcasters were still using open pancakes--i.e. no flanges to the reels--with the same hubs as in the late 1930s!

Two other oddities about the Magnetophon machine: It originally used paper-backed ("plasticised") tape, rather than cellulose. Secondly, the tape width was 1/4" (6.35mm), although the speed was in cm/s. The Wikipedia page about the early Magnetophons says the tape speed was 100cm/s, but the link below, with much more historical detail, says the speed was variable, as they were initially used for radio interception and decoding tasks.

https://museumofmagneticsoundrecordi...gnetophon.html

I mentioned cellulose above, but German chemistry was such that they might have skipped that era altogether. In film production, the picture stock went from nitrate to cellulose base, and magnetic audio recording from cellulose to polyester base ("sepmag" - same size and shape as 16mm or 35mm film, with sprocket holes, and a magnetic coating). I'm fairly certain I have handled cellulose-base 1/4" archive tape professionally, but at the time I was too busy trying to prevent disintegrating during playback to worry about exactly what it really was. I'm fairly certain it was of North American origin (3M's "Scotch" tape). So cellulose base existed, but it may well be the Germans never used it.

[MurphyNut]

Originally Posted by G6Tanuki

For me, cassette tapes were my go-to for in-car listening between the late 70s and mid 90s (after which I switched to CD). Great for when you were out of range of any decent music stations or you wanted to listen to something a bit obscure that none of the mainstream stations played

I had a great time with cassettes back in the 1970's-80's, I had a decent tuner at home and would record music from Radio 3. I was into obscure Baroque music and amassed quite a catalogue for rarities mostly from concerts. I'd play them back in the car and on my Walkman. Alas the tapes had deteriorated 40 years on and became unpleasant to listen to, so all my hard work gone, Happy days!

[Martin Bush]

I have followed the comments on this thread with interest - I have seen some new perspectives on tape as a result.

From my point of view, for many years, tape was a means to an end. It was just a way to record music I wanted to keep - something people no longer really need to do thanks to streaming.

I also used it to record my own band's stuff and this is a process I'd still like to do if I can manage to get my Fostex working again There is an ease with four tracks on a cassette that I don't find with a DAW. That could be due to my lack of knowledge and patience though...

What I have found more recently is the interest people have in tape types. When I used tape Type 1 was the cheap stuff, Type 2 posh stuff and Metal was something I knew little off but worried that it might wear the heads!

Despite this I always preferred the sounds I got on Type 1 - and this is the type that is still made (and is not so cheap now either).

Bias is another thing - until I got interested in it more recently I had not seen a machine with bias controls beyond the type selectors (which I often used to use wrongly on purpose).

Finally, record levels - I used to think that recording in the red was certain to be distorted.

[Bazz4CQJ]

As an impoverished student in the 1970's , I was limited on what I wanted to spend on a cassette machine. Many people still had the basic Philips model that had been the best-seller for some time. I managed to find something just a bit better made by Schaub Lorenz (ITT) designated "Studio 60". This had one or two nice features including the ability to play chrome tapes and these did indeed sound much better and have less noise than the standard Fe tapes. The best sounding cassette I ever played on it was a BASF "Chrom Dioxid" which was better than the TDK SA, which was very popular at the time. But there was a snag (literally) with those BASF tapes - they so wanted to change in to tape spaghetti. I could never figure out why, but I had to forget them and, when wanting Cr tapes, stick with TDK SA.

I still have the Studio 60, looks pristine and is in it's original package, but is completely dead. My beloved NAD cassette deck died recently but I managed to find a Harmon-Kardon TD392 to replace it.

B

[stevehertz]

Originally Posted by Bazz4CQJ

As an impoverished student in the 1970's , I was limited on what I wanted to spend on a cassette machine. Many people still had the basic Philips model that had been the best-seller for some time. I managed to find something just a bit better made by Schaub Lorenz (ITT) designated "Studio 60". This had one or two nice features including the ability to play chrome tapes and these did indeed sound much better and have less noise than the standard Fe tapes. The best sounding cassette I ever played on it was a BASF "Chrom Dioxid" which was better than the TDK SA, which was very popular at the time. But there was a snag (literally) with those BASF tapes - they so wanted to change in to tape spaghetti. I could never figure out why, but I had to forget them and, when wanting Cr tapes, stick with TDK SA.

I still have the Studio 60, looks pristine and is in it's original package, but is completely dead. My beloved NAD cassette deck died recently but I managed to find a Harmon-Kardon TD392 to replace it.

B

There's no doubt about it, TDK SA (and later, SA-X), together with Maxell UDXLII, were the 'go to' blank tapes for a great price vs performance ratio. In fact, not just price vs performance, they're were great performers in their own right. It was fun going through the ads in hifi mags to find the best price for buying a quantity.

[saxmaniac]

You're all talking as if tape went away, I've used it continuously all this time, great Sony quality tape players almost never chew up tapes, quality is perfectly acceptable, convenient to use and the machines will last far longer than the new digital stuff. I use open reel as well. Thing is you've got total control, you own the storage medium and it's long lasting. (I am of course an old luddite but I say that if a system ain't broken why chuck it out?)

[G6Tanuki]

Yes I used a lot of TDK SA back in the day, they dealt well with 'enthusiastic' drive levels. and seemed to be nicely jam resistant when used in hire car tape players.
Jam resistance was a big thing for cassettes in the 80s, back then you couldn't drive more than a few miles along a motorway without seeing a fluttering remains of a cassette on the centre reservation barriers, cast there by some frustrated driver whose player had munched the tape.

[Martin Bush]

If I may ask a question, without knocking my own thread OT...

Has anyone tried one of the new cassettes? I am thinking of RTM Fox and others that are newly produced (not NOS tape bunged in a new shell)?

I would love to get hold of some but I got to know of them too late to grab some while they were 'cheap'.

[Bazz4CQJ]

Originally Posted by Martin Bush

Has anyone tried one of the new cassettes? .

Well no; I'm still using the pack of TDK SA I bought in the 80's .

B

[G6Tanuki]

Another great thing about cassettes in the 80s was how a lot of the portable ghetto blaster type players had a high-speed dub facility for tape to tape copying. I remember using this to produce loads of copies of recordings of the student band for which I was both a roadie (owning a large car made you Popular) and a Groupie (the guitarist was cute).

[cmjones01]

Originally Posted by Bazz4CQJ

As an impoverished student in the 1970's , I was limited on what I wanted to spend on a cassette machine. Many people still had the basic Philips model that had been the best-seller for some time. I managed to find something just a bit better made by Schaub Lorenz (ITT) designated "Studio 60". This had one or two nice features including the ability to play chrome tapes and these did indeed sound much better and have less noise than the standard Fe tapes. The best sounding cassette I ever played on it was a BASF "Chrom Dioxid" which was better than the TDK SA, which was very popular at the time. But there was a snag (literally) with those BASF tapes - they so wanted to change in to tape spaghetti. I could never figure out why, but I had to forget them and, when wanting Cr tapes, stick with TDK SA.

Being of European origin, the Studio 60 was probably set up for the BASF chrome tape, which is why it sounded good. The bias and (especially) record/playback gain settings for BASF chrome tape and the TDK "pseudochrome" tapes like the SA are entirely different. Most Japanese decks were set up for TDK SA so worked well with them, but a true chrome tape like the BASF would sound quiet and muffled with terrible Dolby tracking problems.

The BASF "SM" mechanism with those two plastic fingers inside the cassette shell has become notorious for chewing up the tape.

Chris

[Bazz4CQJ]

Originally Posted by cmjones01

Being of European origin, the Studio 60 was probably set up for the BASF chrome tape, which is why it sounded good. The bias and (especially) record/playback gain settings for BASF chrome tape and the TDK "pseudochrome" tapes like the SA are entirely different. Most Japanese decks were set up for TDK SA so worked well with them, but a true chrome tape like the BASF would sound quiet and muffled with terrible Dolby tracking problems.

The BASF "SM" mechanism with those two plastic fingers inside the cassette shell has become notorious for chewing up the tape.

Chris

That's very interesting; I'd not heard any of that stuff on the BASF before. I still have one or two of those cassettes, but only C60's, which seemed to behave slightly better. They certainly sounded good on that machine!

B

[Nickthedentist]

Originally Posted by saxmaniac

You're all talking as if tape went away, I've used it continuously all this time, great Sony quality tape players almost never chew up tapes, quality is perfectly acceptable, convenient to use and the machines will last far longer than the new digital stuff. I use open reel as well. Thing is you've got total control, you own the storage medium and it's long lasting. (I am of course an old luddite but I say that if a system ain't broken why chuck it out?)

Here here!

We moved house a month or so ago, and down the back of one of the fitted bookcases was a cassette of the late former owners opening Christmas presents with their kids in 1973. I made an MP3 for their 50-something year-old daughter who's selling the house, and they were amazed and delighted.

That would never happen with a digital file, I suspect.

[emeritus]

I have half a dozen of the early (Olympia) BASF SM cassettes and they have behaved faultlessly in my Philips decks.

Twisted tapes used to happen regularly with the talking books we used to get from the public library to play to the children on long car journeys. I became adept at straightening out the resulting, sometimes almost circular, ribbon by running the tape over the edge of the pocket clip of the cap of a Bic ball point pen, while pressing the tape down on the edge with my thumb.

[Radio Wrangler]

Originally Posted by Simondm

I wouldn't describe these below as miniature
Attachment 267217
http://www.orbem.co.uk/tapes/btr2.htm
(note: the site isn't using https so browsers may make a security fuss - as far as I know it's quite safe, and I have previously corresponded with the owner, but caveat browser))

Nice to see that the Museum of Communication got one of his machines, personally delivered to Harry!

The museum is now in its own premises in Burntisland, and I'm one of the guides, usually on Wednesdays.


David

[knobtwiddler]

From the reports I've seen, sadly, there isn't much point in using the new cassette tapes. All of the real-world performance tests I've seen show that it's noticeably inferior to TDK / Maxell from 30 or 40 years ago, but with a higher price tag if you consider how cheaply SA can be found. The tape firms are doing a good job with reel tapes (Ferric), but the narrow width and slow speed of cassette means that major benefits are to be had with Cr02 / Metal, and none of the new cassettes are high bias. There have been short runs of Cr02 cassettes, but they were made using NOS pseudo-chrome tape.

From what I understand, high-bias tapes are a little akin to making specialist valves, in that to get the best quality, you really want to make the things by the thousand, utilising highly specialised chemicals and metals. If you're running a boutique operation, then you won't have the budget for all the chemistry and personnel that's needed to ensure the best formulation.

NB - only a handful of firms were allowed to make 'real chrome' tapes, as BASF held the patent. TDK and Maxell (for example) are pseudo-chrome, or ferro-cobalt. Ironically, the pseudo-chromes have a distinct advantage over true chrome, in that they maintain their magnetic 'remanence' better down the years. True chromes tend to be a few dB quieter.

I did an amusing test recently, when a friend brought over an Astell + Kern digital player (a costly unit that supports 24-bit and higher sample rates than a dog will need). We put a metal tape in the Nakamichi and recorded a series of records in parallel, at the same time (via an MC cart). I then level matched the output from the Nak against the AK player, blending between the two seemlessly. He couldn't reliably tell which was playing when asked to guess which was which. And he is an acclaimed mixing engineer with major credits. I thought he'd be annoyed that I suckered him with a cassette, but he took it well. We used a pair of PMC monitors. The session wasn't A/B/X standard, but it definitely proved how good Lou Ottens' format could be (even if the man himself wasn't that enthusiastic about his baby!).

[Radio Wrangler]

There could be another reason besides expired patents why chromium dioxide cassettes aren't made nowadays. Chromium can have either one of two valencies and can flip between them. One of the two is banned by ROHS legislation. This could hit the manufacture of the basic material.

This has affected all sorts of industries where chromium is used, intentionally or otherwise. Chromium is not needed in cement, but is often found in it as a hard to remove pollutant. An additive is now used to keep the chromium content in the allowed form, but the additive degrades with time, so this is why cement bags now have best before dates printed on them.

David

[knobtwiddler]

I always wondered about the expiry date on cement!

For those interested, Alex Nikitin kindly hosts various BASF papers on his site: http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/index.php...st&qry=library