"Basic" R2R Tape Recorders

[ben]

Like many, I started with TD2 decks, inheriting a Playmaster in the early 80s. That didn't last long (usual rectifier trouble) but sadly I lacked the knowledge then to sort it out. Not long after, I picked up a Baird model with the same deck at an attic sale. I had nothing else to compare these decks to for several years, so they were ideal for a youngster - durable, simple and cheap. I still have very clear recordings made on it to this day.

I think the next one I got was a Grundig TK5 whose sound quality was quite a bit better but the input selectors were noisy and gave trouble.

Over the years a few more TD2s passed through my hands. The main problems seem to me to be the noise (the motor drives the capstan permanently, and if the idler is even slightly hard they vibrate), slow wind speed, the limited reel size capacity and the heads always seemed to wear. If you aren't used to them, seeing the reel shifting left and right for fast wind can be a bit of a sight I suppose! The mechanics as mentioned just go on and on.

[terrykc]

The only real (reel?) problem I recall with the BSR deck was that the toggle spring would break so that the selector just moved freely in its inverted 'T' slot but not latch into any of the operating positions.

[Andrew2]

In 1969, my birthday present was a Ferguson 3224 half-track recorder. It was a very good machine for its intended market, using BRC's own sturdy piano-key deck rather than plumping for the ubiquitous BSR TD2. Before long my mates had them and we played at multi-tracking, phasing and so on. The performance was excellent, and hooked up to an external amp & speaker the sound was surprisingly good. I recently renovated my mate's 3224, all it needed was the congealed grease removing, a set of belts and a lube and off it went!

[AndiiT]

Hi, speaking from my own experience of the BSR TD2 deck I have to say that the mechanical performace of the deck seemed adequate for most of the "budget" machines that it was fitted to at the time.
Over the years I have had a number of machines fitted with the TD2 deck and have certainly noticed that the overall perfomance is attributed to the amplifier design of a particular manufacturers machine.

My first experience of a reel to reel machine which used a TD2 deck was the Fidelity Playmaster, these used quite a basic amplifier (IMO) and due to the amount of plastic used in the casing the motor could be heard quite audibly during operation.

Some years later I used Ekco, Elizabethan and Defiant branded machines fitted with TD2 decks and found the audio performance of the Elizabethan and Defiant machines much better than the Fidelity. I did also encounter a Fidelity Argyll minor which was the predecessor to the Playmaster and found that although still experiencing a degree of motor noise the audio quality appeared better than that of the Playmaster possibly due to the use of a more solid wooden cabinet.

A transtorised Playmaster did cross my path many years ago and from memory the sound quality was worse than a cheap cassette recorder, I believe that there is a review on the "Get Reel" site/cd which is quite scathing of the transitorised Playmaster.

Andrew

[Gulliver]

In the 80s I had a few TD-2 equipped machines pass through my hands including a Fidelity Playmaster, Fidelity Argyll Minor 4 and an Alba. None was as good as the mono Grundig machines I've used but they all did their job acceptably. I'd say the Fidelity Argyll Minor 4 was actually quite good, probably on a par with many 70s mono cassette recorders. the Playmaster was all plastic and vibrated so it didn't sound as good. the Alba sounded very tinny, as did recordings made on it.

For anyone who couldn't afford a stereo machine, and let's face it these things were far from cheap in the 60s, they were reliable and good enough for recording off MW/LW radio, recording family celebrations and perhaps the odd LP. One could also play the common twin track 3 3/4ips pre-recorded tapes that EMI and others put out on these machines.

[crackle]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

I had a KB TD2 based recorder in the mid / late 60s,

Hi Paul was that the KB RT20/2

My first R2R tape recorder was not much more than a toy. It used 2.5 inch spools (I think they were 2.5 inch, they were smaller than 3 inch) it had no drive capstan, the tape was driven by a single motor which tilted so that one end of the double ended motor spindle ran along the rim of the take up spool.
Rewind was performed by the motor tilting and engaging on the rim of the left hand spool. Rewind was made slightly faster than play by the virtue the double ended motor spindle had a larger diameter brass bush on the left hand side. Erase was performed by a small leaver which moved a magnet forward to rub along the tape.
The wow and flutter was very noticeable.
I eventually fitted a small home made reflex tuner into the case and was able to switch to record from the radio or play the radio directly through the amplifier. It is amazing how much fun we had from these simple things which seemed so good back in the day.

My next tape recorder was this Philips EL3542A /15E the actual one seen in the Radio Museum as I still have the same one. It belonged to my elder sister who used it at teacher training college. I spent hours playing with this, it was a real quality machine, or at least I thought so.

All this was put aside with the arrival of a Compact Cassette tape recorder, what a fantastic invention, and how clever those Japanese were. My one was a Crown, one of these or similar.
This stayed with me for years until it fell apart or was lost, I cant remember which. But by then I had got one of these. Which I have also now lost. D'oh

Mike

Mike

[dazzlevision]

The Compact Cassette format was a Philips (Dutch) invention. They freely licenced the format to other manufacturers

[julie_m]

Cheap, basic tape recorders found a niche to fill. The ability to choose for yourself exactly what comes out of the speaker, including your own voice the way other people hear it, was a novelty; and if the sound quality was not exactly the highest of fidelity, it was still no worse than anyone was used to. It was fairly obvious how to use a tape recorder just from looking at it, and the simple controls of the TD2 kept things that way.

A tape recorder was a versatile instrument that ensured no sound need ever be forgotten: anything that could be heard could be captured forever, and listened to again anytime in future. You could make a simple connection to the loudspeaker terminals already fitted to most radios (or easily and cheaply added by any radio and TV repair shop; in those days, people had their home entertainment equipment repaired rather than replacing it if it went wrong) and record music as it was broadcast, without the need to use a microphone and thus introduce noise, and omitting the DJ's chat. It was possible to splice together just the songs you wanted in the order you wanted. You could build a collection, not of physical objects to look at, but of sounds to listen to -- birdsong, performances of various pieces of music on a particular instrument, sports commentary on a favourite team, or almost anything that could be linked by a common theme. Some people found a tape recorder useful for learning to play an instrument, speak a foreign language, rehearse plays, write shorthand or transcribe Morse code. Family members living in different countries, literally oceans apart, could hear one another's voices more clearly and without the expense of setting up a long-distance phone call. A reel of tape slipped into a cardboard box with some stamps and sent through the post was the Skype of its day!

It was also a time when the idea of borrowing money and repaying by instalments was becoming more socially acceptable, banks began lending to married women without the need for permission from their husbands (yes, really; that was still happening only the last century, within living memory) and department stores introduced their own credit cards.

The combination of cool new stuff to buy and other people's money to pay for it with proved to be an irresistible one; and for awhile, there seemed to be a tape recorder in every home. Later, the Compact Cassette would take its place -- though really, of course, that was essentially the same beast; only smaller and even easier to use.

[TonyDuell]

I guess in some ways these tape recorders are similar to the 'snapshot' cameras (Originally things like the Box Brownie, then later the Instamatics, etc). The quality was not that good but it was certainly adequate and it provided a record. You got great pleasure from listening to the recordings due to the memories they brought back.

My father had a reasonably high-end tape recorder that he mostly used for copying sets of records onto a single spool so he could listen to an opera without having to get up very 20 minutes to change the record. But I can remember as a child recording my voice on that machine and listening to it. I found it amazing. A little later I got a simple cassette recorder as a birthday present. Of course the quality was not as good but I still found it amazing to record my voice, the cat, music off the radio, etc.

I would recomend reading 'The Philips Tape Recorder Book' (Fredrick Purves, Focal Press, I think) which suggests uses for the Philips machines of the time. I find it much better than the companion 'Grundig Book'. It's non-technical, but it suggests how tape recorders (even simple ones) could give a lot of pleasure.

[julie_m]

Originally Posted by TonyDuell

I guess in some ways these tape recorders are similar to the 'snapshot' cameras (Originally things like the Box Brownie, then later the Instamatics, etc). The quality was not that good but it was certainly adequate and it provided a record. You got great pleasure from listening to the recordings due to the memories they brought back.

Yes, exactly so. Human memory works associatively: when you remember anything or anyone, you remember a whole slew of other things that go with it or things about them. That's why you can never find anything that someone else has moved, even only a short distance; because it is no longer next to the thing you remember putting it with! You aren't actually looking for the thing you think you are looking for, but the thing you remember it being next to.

Just as a grainy, slightly out-of-focus monochrome photograph of the sea can evoke many related memories, like the fish and chips you ate on the way home after taking it, and the rain hammering down on the caravan roof that night; so a faint, slightly distorted but still quite recognisable recording of a familiar voice can evoke memories of the person speaking. I only have to listen to a recording of my late Grandad, talking in his Staffordshire accent about a career in the police force, and I can see him, feel his presence, remember his mannerisms, all the things that made him uniquely him. (Though, my mother is turning into him as she gets older .....)

[crackle]

Sounds and especially music are exceptional for triggering old memories.

Mike

[Studio263]

Originally Posted by ricard

I believe Bang & Olufsen took the TD2 chassis and married it with well designed electronics and possibly even some improved mechanical parts to create the respectable 'Belcanto' machine.

I think you may believe wrongly. I Have a Beocord Belcanto, it is absolutely dreadful. The deck is largely unaltered (changes are confined to a magic eye where the tape counter should be, different heads and a B&O badge on the head cover). The design of the electronics is appalling, as I will now share with you.

Apart from the deck the right ingredients are all there, Bogen heads, big loudspeaker, push-pull output with two ECL86s, separate bias oscillator, transistor pre-amplifier stages made by B&O's professional division BOFA etc, however after that its all down hill.

Its a clumsy and difficult machine to use. For a start, there are two mains switches, one for the amplifier and one for the motor. There are also two record switches, the lever on the deck and a knob on the amplifier. On play back you have to choose between 'best quality' and 'maximum volume' with a two position switch, surely the designer's job?. The TD2 deck is also inadequate, being its usual noisy, messy spooling self. However, the very worst of the Belcanto is experienced during recording. When doing this, the recording head is wired across the speaker winding of the output transformer, the result of which is that you get a tinny, loud version of whatever you are recording coming out of the loudspeaker all the time! How they managed to get that so wrong is anyone's guess, especially as the circuit is not short of components (2 ECL86s, an ECC81 for the bias oscillator, a magic eye, 4 transistors in the pre-amplifier and a contact cooled rectifier). Honestly, a basic machine like a Grundig TK120 (two valves and a magic eye) is far better in every respect.

Sound quality is generally poor, with wide ranging tone controls seemingly substituting for the designer having the get the equalisation right (which, by the sound of the thing, they didn't).

The sad thing is that B&O have been designing and making magnetic recorders in Europe for longer than anyone else (the Beocord 48 wire recorder was their first, 1948) and already had the pretty decent 'Beocord Correct' range out a long time before the Belcanto.

It must have been an aberration though, only a few years later the came out with the excellent Beocord 2000 and all its many derivatives. I have a 2000T Deluxe and its the best open reel recorder I've ever used - less noisy than a Sony and (much) more reliable than any Revox...

[Welsh Anorak]

But doesn't the joystick on the B&O 2000 series remind you of anything Mind you, that's where the similarity ends, and the slider controls are, for once, a great advantage and could be used as a basic audio mixer. I'm only surprised they didn't use three motors. Sadly, the one I had as a teenager (and used to death) eventually succumbed to the Bogen head syndrome.
I agree the TD2 was a reasonable deck in the same way a tractor is a reasonable form of transport - solid, reliable, but will never be a car.

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by Welsh Anorak

But doesn't the joystick on the B&O 2000 series remind you of anything

Any tape deck with a joystick is arguably derived from the original Soundmirror - BSR varied the formula by not having it pivot around a point, but run on sliders. Tandberg, B&O, Walter(!)...but not Revox who, having started with a modified Soundmirror, left the joystick behind as soon as decently possible.

Originally Posted by Welsh Anorak

I agree the TD2 was a reasonable deck in the same way a tractor is a reasonable form of transport...

Well, the point is well made. It never pretended to be anything but basic, but did the job well. Compared to some of the horrors of a few years earlier (Vespa, Lane, Qualtape) it was really rather accomplished.

[Welsh Anorak]

I suppose mechanically speaking a joystick is a logical approach - pushing the pinchroller forward, engaging the idlers and so on, and the 'left to go left, right to go right' is pretty intuitive. But then 'piano key' control became the one to have with complex levers and sliders. Three motors, solenoids and logic control soon made things much easier and elegant from a mechanical point of view.
I must say that Tandberg and B&O's joystick models were more refined than BSR's.

[McMurdo]

I have some early 60's 'Which? magazines (a 5-year subscription was an unwanted wedding present to my parents in 1964 and Dad just threw them all unopened into the loft).

There are a couple of tape recorder tests and quite a few of the budget ones failed safety tests, assembly faults, head alignment and even miswired mains leads.

Worth checking for this sort of thing if you're into car boot buys!

[david freeman]

Re the appalling Tutchings review of the transistorised Fidelity Playmaster, mentioned earlier in this thread, it may surprise many to learn that the Playmaster Major with its BSR TD10 and switched equalisation for each speed(!) received an excellent review from Mr Tutchings in Tape Recorder magazine, and another similarly voiced review in Tape Recording Magazine in 1964. Alec Tutchings went as far as calling it an ‘excellent design’ using the new CCIR standard replay characteristic and praising its sound quality.
One wonders why Fidelity, having proved they could design a good tape recorder, ever released one which so blatantly poor?

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by Welsh Anorak

I must say that Tandberg and B&O's joystick models were more refined than BSR's.

My comment on this point was modded out - it was to the effect that the BSR never pretended to be anything but a cheap, basic and effective tape transport, but that it achieved that aim almost perfectly.

[AC/HL]

My mistake sorry, I misread it but have now reinstated it.

[ricard]

Originally Posted by Welsh Anorak

I suppose mechanically speaking a joystick is a logical approach - pushing the pinchroller forward, engaging the idlers and so on, and the 'left to go left, right to go right' is pretty intuitive. But then 'piano key' control became the one to have with complex levers and sliders. Three motors, solenoids and logic control soon made things much easier and elegant from a mechanical point of view.
I must say that Tandberg and B&O's joystick models were more refined than BSR's.

Yes, joystick control is of course very logical from an operating point of view, and also obliviates the need to have any interlocking between the various functions, as required when using the eminently more elegant piano key system to avoid tape spillage.

I always thought it an interesting coincidence that BSR aside, the three major Scandiavian manufacturers - Tandberg (well known), B&O (reasonably well known) and Luxor (not so much) all opted for joystick control on they reel-to-reel machines. Especially Tandberg (the first to use joystick control of the three) seems very much inspired by the joystick-operated Soundmirorrs, down to the figure-8 belt. Luxor had a similar design initially although the belt only made contact with the motor pulley at one rather than two points, later to abandon the figure-8 paradigm in favor of a design more like the Philips EL3541 and EL3542, with an additional idler allowing the belt to go in the opposite direction for rewind. Finally, B&O as far as I know didn't use belts, only idlers.

Going back to the original topic, it has always struck me that again the Scandinavian manufacturers had the same basic design for their whole range of machines. For instance, the basic ubiquitous dual speed mono Tandberg model 8 has basically the same mechanical design as the considerably more sophisticated three (or four in the case of the cross-field version) stereo model 6, rather than, as with many other manufacturers, for instance Grundig, have a different and simpler design for their most basic machines. It wasn't until the early 1970s when Tandberg actually had a slightly different mechanical design for their single speed 1700 and 1800 models, although outwardly they were identical, still with joystick control. I think to a large extent it comes down to the size of the company - the effort in both designing and supporting the manufacture of a range of completely different mechanical solutions must be considerable.

Thanks Studio263 for the excellent review of the Belcanto - I obviously stand corrected, never having worked on one myself, only read about it.