Reel to Reels of the 70's

[jamesperrett]

I think I have some 99 minute CD-R's somewhere but I've no idea whether they will work or not as I've never dared use them. If 80 minute CD's are marginal on your system, 90 or 99 minute CD's will be even worse.

James.

[scottie_UK]

Ok so another related question. How would consumer reel to reels of say 1972-75 compare with consumer hifi separates compact cassette tape decks from the 1990s?

[ricard]

My experiences with a Tandberg 9141X and some Yamaha cassette deck from the 90s or late 80s that I can't remember the name of was this: At 3 3/4 the Tandberg and Yamaha were comparable, but the noise floor without noise reduction was higher on the cassette deck. At 7 1/2 the Tandberg outperformed the Yamaha, I don't know if I could pinpoint a difference, but it sounded more spacious and open.

I always felt Dolby B and C resulted in a 'cramped' sound for want of a better word so I rarely used them, I preferred to live with the higher noise floor, but then again I rarely recorded on cassette anyway except when making recordings for other people, or for listening to in my walkman or in the car.

One big minus with reel-to-reel was the tendency for dropouts. I hate to admit it being a reel-to-reel fan, but the cassette medium never had this problem in my opinion. Even if the sound didn't completely disappear during the dropout, there would be a tendency for the highest frequencies to fluctuate.

[TIMTAPE]

Originally Posted by ricard

One big minus with reel-to-reel was the tendency for dropouts. I hate to admit it being a reel-to-reel fan, but the cassette medium never had this problem in my opinion. Even if the sound didn't completely disappear during the dropout, there would be a tendency for the highest frequencies to fluctuate.

Ricard, I'll have to disagree with you on this point. It was the reverse. All things being equal, dropout frequency is inversely proportional to the tape area used. So the cassette's narrow tracks and slow speeds compared to the reel to reel made them vulnerable in this respect. Especially apparent when listening to a stereo cassette through headphones where the image can bounce around from left to right in a very annoying fashion.

The only sense in which reel to reel tapes were more vulnerable to dropouts was their being more exposed to dust and pollutants in the atmosphere as well as to handling damage such as from touching the tape surface or crushing the tape edges due to squeezing the reel flanges together.

Dolby , dbx or any similar compansion system has an inherent weakness in that it exaggerates dropouts, being level dependent for its decoding cues. Cassettes were especially problematic with NR because of their bigger dropout vulnerability.
Contrary to the advertising hype of the time, cassettes never really bridged the fidelity gap between themselves and reel to reel but they were a mightily practical format for many years, and if everything was set up carefully, they could acquit themselves very well in the fidelity department too.

Tim

[mrmagnetophon]

Bad reel to reel tape had dropout, but i've never had anything less than superb quality with good tape. No noise or hiss, like the cassette typically had.
-Chris

[ricard]

Originally Posted by TIMTAPE

Ricard, I'll have to disagree with you on this point. It was the reverse. All things being equal, dropout frequency is inversely proportional to the tape area used. So the cassette's narrow tracks and slow speeds compared to the reel to reel made them vulnerable in this respect. Especially apparent when listening to a stereo cassette through headphones where the image can bounce around from left to right in a very annoying fashion.

The only sense in which reel to reel tapes were more vulnerable to dropouts was their being more exposed to dust and pollutants in the atmosphere

Well, I think we'll remain in disagreement because I have the opposite experience ... I agree with your reasoning though. On the other hand, I do believe that the way reel-to-reel tape is completely exposed to the air greatly adds to the amount of dust that can settle on the tape. Also, while the track width is wider, the tapes are generally stiffer, most people recording on LP or at the most DP tape, whereas C60 cassettes I believe are TP (and longer tapes even thinner), which would follow the contour of the head better and minimize the impact of any dropouts.

One issue though is that I've never owned a brand new reel-to-reel, whereas the cassette recorders that my parents owned over the years and which I did the comparisons with were always bought new. That said, I didn't notice any degradation over their lifespan, whereas when I eventually got the heads relapped on my Tandberg it brought about a small but not terribly significant difference.

[TIMTAPE]

Ricard,
Yes cassettes are very thin based stock. A C90 is actually Quadruple Play in reel to reel speak. But dropouts or general lack of uniformity in the high frequency output due solely to poor head to tape contact, including the stiffness of the tape stock, shouldnt enter into it. Beyond a certain amount of pressure of the tape onto the tape head gap there is no more advantage in terms of freedom from dropouts. You just get premature head wear. With a properly set up machine, either reel to reel or cassette, the dropouts should be solely due to the remaining lack of uniformity in the tape oxide coating and any tiny amounts of dust or dirt there which cant be avoided.

With head wear, obviously, it's proportional to tape speed and so normally you'd expect a reel to reel machine running at say 7.5ips to wear its head down quicker than at cassette speed of 1.875ips.
But then there's the factor on most cassette machines of the dreaded pressure pad. At first, and with a new head, the pressure pad works really well, concentrating even pressure at the head gap right where it's needed. But after much tape has passed through, the pad gets dirty and worn itself and can imprint some bad wear patterns into the head face including little craters due to small, hard particles trapped in the pad.
Then when the cassette head gets grooved due to many tape passes, the ridges left above the wear groove actually lift the pad proud of the groove so that there is no longer proper tape to head pressure where it's needed, right in the tape path in that grooved area.
Nakamichi and did the best they could by designing a pressure pad lifter and using dual capstan to create proper reel to reel like back tension for tape to head gap contact even with a somewhat grooved head.

The audio archive fraternity sometimes uses both methods on folded or crinkled cassette or reel to reel tapes. That is, a dual capstan machine plus a pressure pad to try to force the tape to sit flat onto the head gap. Sometimes a custom made pressure pad is manually placed onto the play head gap and manipulated until the best sound is obtained.

I do remember as a kid encountering terrible dropouts on my little 3" reel to reel tapes. But then I was only a kid and hadnt come appreciate the physics or develop good habits. I left the little reels sitting on the machine for days or lying on the bedroom floor in the dust, and rarely thought to put the reels back in their protective boxes. What a slob I was!

Cheers Tim

[brenellic2000]

Hmmm - I must admit that I have never knowingly had drop-out from a cassette player (poor quality sound, horrible wow and flutter by the ton, though!) but often suffer drop-out on my reel to reels (both newly bought and old) from Brenells to Marconiphones to Revoxes and Sonys but that is usually due to old tape and natural erosion of the oxide coating from frictional heat as it passes the rigid tape guides - the wider the tape the higher the drag factor and associated heat. The Revox A77 has a roller bearing tape guide, but that still suffers drop out from oxide build up.

A cassette tape is far norrower, so any frictional heat at the fewer rigid tape guides is a lot lower and more easily dissipated... so oxide build up is far less. Well that's my theory.

Scottie asks about the difference between 1970s tape decks and 1990s cassette decks. Early 1970s domestic tape decks had reached the peak in economic development as cassette decks had finally reached an acceptable standard of hi-fidelity for the wider domestic user buyer. Even blind testing panels in the 1970s detected little appeciable difference between a good quality cassette versus a good quality domestic tape deck. Those who noticed the difference were the professional audio engineers and reviewers. There was no British Standard 'ear' as everyone has a different taste and age-related level of hearing range. But that said, in old age I can easily detect a difference between 1970s high-fidelity of reproducion and today's 'digital' interpetation of "what it should sound like hi-fi". Much has to do with loud speakers of course.

Post mid-1970s, open reel decks were aimed at the semi-pro and professional user who better appreciated the finer nuances of open reel's wider band width, s:n and undistorted (unassisted anti-distortion/Dolby electronic correction), but at far higher price than the domestic user would pay.

Today's cassette players and tapes are infinitely 'superior' to domestic tape decks of the 1970s and 1980s.

Barry