Are 60's tape recorders an important part of the "60's sound?

[veffreak]

Hello,

i'm wondering if there's a "favorite" vintage tape recorder that had set new quality standards in say end of 60's? I think i'd like to try one for recording vocals and maybe some guitar. I'm curious about the effects of a good vintage tape recorder on the tone. Which models would you suggest for this?

Thanks!

veffreak

[SteveCG]

A Revox A77 would be my recommendation. The MK I was introduced in the late '60s - although if I were buying one I would go for the later MK III, IV models. Just bear in mind that any machine of that vintage would benefit from a service.

A half-track stereo version, with the two speeds of 3 3/4 IPS (Inches per Second) and 7 1/2 IPS, would most likely cover your needs.

As for any tone change caused by the recording process - a well adjusted machine working at 7 1/2 IPS will make very little difference to the sound quality of the music. They are very good machines.

[dseymo1]

The Nagra III must be in the running as far as quality standards of both build and reproduction are concerned. As such, the reproduced sound is virtually indistinguishable from the original.
I'm not sure if you're aiming to modify the 'tone' - if so, you don't really need the best quality machine.

[dave walsh]

Hi VF-see the "Which Reel to Reel" Thread on here [3/6/10]. Contains much usefull info and recommendations [a lot re the A77]. Goes into an interesting "To Dolby or not To Dolby" debate further down as well. Very informative I thought! Dave W

[brenellic2000]

... and don't forget that if you are trying to "recreate a 1960's tone" then you ought really use late 1960s tape as modern studio quality tapes have a noticeably different sound. It won't be easy to find good 40 year old second-hand tapes!

As to machines, the British Ferrograph Series 6/7 , Truvox 202/204 and Brenell Mk.5/6 were always rated very highly for sound reproduction; the Brenell used Bogen heads shared by many other high quality semi-professional decks but at the day a Revox A77 is still probably your best bet as the lack of pressure pads means you can use modern matt carbon black backed tapes - which you can't on the above three!

Barry

[veffreak]

Wow, this a very responsive forum! Thanks for the great input guys! I'll digest the suggestions before i bother you with more uneducated questions

All the best

veffreak

[Michael Maurice]

When the Revox A77 came out it was considered revolutionary. for the first time in a domestic recorder and servo controlled direct drive motor was employed for the capstan. 43 years ago this was real cutting edge technology.

[Dave Anderson]

Hi veffreak,

If you had asked for a reel to reel recommendation I might have suggested a Revox A77 as a remarkable piece of engineering from the 1960's. However, you have asked for the 'holy grail' - a sacred object, said to possess miraculous powers. Hmm, this would cost a fair bit more than the easy-to-come-by A77.

I think we are in Nagra territory here and I would have to give my vote to something like the Nagra III. A superb and very special machine.

I suppose it depends on how much you want to pay for the 'holy grail'.

Having looked at your requirements, to record guitar and vocals, something less 'holy' like the Revox would probably be a good starting point. I'd go for a half track high speed (7.5 and 15 ips) stereo machine. I don't think a machine with the lower 3.75 ips speed would do justice to your live recordings.

You will, of course, need to give proper consideration to your choice of microphone in a live recording situation and this could in itself be an opportunity to reproduce that 60's sound you seem to desire. However microphones are another story and would lead us 'off topic'. I just want to emphasise the fact that the microphones you use can have probably more of an influence over the sound of your recordings than the tape recorder itself.

Dave

[askhim8]

........my own machine is the Teac A3340 with 7.5 and 15inps it sounds fabulous......yes, i know it is 1972, but one thing you have to remember is to hear a `60`s machine as it sounded you can use all the original tapes and also recalibrate it to original spec. but you also need your original ears!!!!!....i have just had an ear test and at 62yrs i have already lost some of my higher frequencies.....

[brenellic2000]

My recollection of listening to original live tapes in the 1960s was that my hearing was already shot-up from shooting when in my 'teens!!

The skull bone structure makes a world of difference to sound quality (as we know from listening to or ourselves on tape) - as do suspended wooden floors v concrete floor. But you are quite right, our hearing does degenerate rapidly with age, especially the high frequencies! Thank God I am not a dog!

Don't forget also that each culture has a different opinion of what sounds right. Loudspeaker companies 'tune' loudspeakers for different markets. When the Japanese speaker makers first marketed in the UK, market success came slowly until they had them designed and made in the UK for UK ears.

... and, while many tape recorder companies fine tuned their decks by meter, companies such such as EMI and Truvox had trained 'human ears' for a "perfect" final set up. The irony is that when Which? magazine tested tape recorders, they were often critical of 'human ear' tuned decks for not being correctly set up - yet their ultimate test was - tarr rrrrah! - a listening panel of human ears!

So, what is a "true 1960s" sound? Clearly as Askim8 says, only that possible with 1960s tape, electronics, microphones and speakers!

Barry

[neon indicator]

There are some nice Revox, Akai, Sony reel to reel. (Akai/Sony 1970s not 1960s?)

But Nagra would be the "holy grail". At least the Beeb had some in early 1970s


I only have a Sony TC-377 I got last year when a friend of my Dad died. I don't know much about its quality at all.

[TIMTAPE]

I'm not sure there even is such a thing as a "true 1960's sound".

As already said, a professional tape machine that imparted its own "tone" had something wrong with it. For the ultimate accolade of a tape machine was that it didnt change the essential character of the input signal.

If say The Beatles or Herbert Von Karajan had recorded digitally rather than to analog tape I doubt there would have been a huge difference in the final product, except perhaps a little less noise and distortion, which many members of the buying public might struggle to even pick.

So long as the fidelity is reasonably good, people tend to value the actual words and music, the artists and the performance as paramount.

By all means play around with an old 60's pro tape machine but dont expect that it will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, if you get my meaning...

Tim

[neon indicator]

Well Written.

The Grundig portable reel to reel ( with no capstan!) my Grandparents gave me one Christmas in the 1960s would surely impart a tone

[reel-to-reel-man]

Interesting question, for 1060's, a holy grail machine would be a studio machine such as the Studer C37, Ampex 350 or Philips EL3501 or Pro51, these machines were on the end of the valve age and produced amazing results, the Revox machines had earned themselves a great name though on the domestic market many of these machines did not have the same had room as the industrial machines, From that time, my personal preferred machine would be the C37, it was tuned down to 20-18KHz -+ 1dB at both 7.1/2 and 15 ips (I have tuned mine 20Hz - 22KHz -+1dB at 15), the only downside of a good valve reel to reel is that to get optimum output, you need to leave the machine on 30 minuets prior to use, also the C37 I find works best with pancake tape rather than reels which can rub on the spool motor cover flange. I have owned over 1000 machines and currently own many of the high ends including the Nagras III, IV, IV-s and T, along with a huge range of EMI, ReVox, Technics, Teac, Pioneer, Uher, Ferrograph, Philips, Sony and more, if I was to pick the best recorder out of the lot, the real holy grail, it would be the Studer A820, one of the last machines made, very low distortion values (Thanks to transformerless amplifiers), unbelievable responses from 3.3/4 up to 30ips, the transport is amazing with all sorts of gadgets and tape tension settings, this machine sounds so much sharper than the C37 and any other machine I have owned.

[brenellic2000]

Ageed Tim, but at the end of the day 'the 1960s sound' is that which comes through a set of 1960s amplifiers and speakers - you can't hear music by staring open eyed at a length of tape, no matter how mechancially stable and electronically perfect the analogue or doctored digital recording is!

Rola-Celestion engineers went to great lengths to analyse with lasers the sound emitted from an original, unused 'G12' speaker much used with Marshall amps on stage to replicate the live 'sound of the 60s' in a modern speaker version. Likewise, modern microphones, amps and speakers sound different today due to different technologies and materials.

By 'tone' we are surely talking of 'colouration' inherent in the recording and replaying process - including echos. The only perfect sound is that reproduced in an aneochoic chamber, but pop groups had to reintroduce echos to get 'their' sound of the 60s/70s (hence the growth in Teac 3340/Brenell Mini 8 home studio decks) rather than the sound required by sound engineers in creating master matrices for record produced in the 60s.

Don't forget, 'the 60's sound' we old codgers known is predominantly that on records, replayed at home or recorded off BBC radio (LW or MW!) onto tape. Few amateurs recorded live music direct to tape, in perfect environments - 'Top of the Pops' doesn't count!

By 'Holy Grail' we are surely looking at that to which our wallets could stretch - and we are talking here of pre-credit card days, not of buying professional recorders well beyond our reach and dreams! And yes, with decent tape, the Sony TC366/TC366 could match the best of the rest as a decent domestic recorder.

Few of us have the luxury of an acoustically neutral listening room at home so when most of us listen to music, we listen out for that overall character and those arias, movements and 'bits' which thrill us, regardless of their technical attributes! That's the sound of the 60s - Burly Chassis, Rusty Springboard, Helen Shapiro.... phwarr!! ... 'Erman's 'Ermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers, Skiffle - oh OK, that's a bit OTT....

Must sharpen my old 78 needles and wire brush my heads...

Barry

[TIMTAPE]

Originally Posted by brenellic2000

Ageed Tim, but at the end of the day 'the 1960s sound' is that which comes through a set of 1960s amplifiers and speakers - you can't hear music by staring open eyed at a length of tape, no matter how mechancially stable and electronically perfect the analogue or doctored digital recording is!

Well Barry no one was suggesting you could hear music by staring at a length of tape!

But what was "a set of 1960's amplifiers and speakers"? As with today, people listened to their music in the 60's in all sorts of situations and on all sorts of equipment, from a tinny transistor radio in a train station to studio grade monitors at the BBC, and everything in between.

I think it's more helpful to think in terms of particular musical styles because those styles are identifiable and can be tracked. A 60's "sound" due to recording onto analog tape? I doubt it. It sounds more like misplaced nostalgia.

Tim

[brenellic2000]

True, Tim - a very astute observation! - but I can assure you there is no misplaced nostalgia in fantasising over Dusty Springfield!

Now here is interesting one for you Tim, the legendary Yma Sumac - the Andean singer of the 1950s whose vocal / octave range was regarded as the widest ever heard. Contemporary records of her voice, recorded on tape and replayed on 1970s/80s Garrard decks sound superb, yet today's CD digital compilations sound shrill and truly awful - yet they would have been copied from the same 'Parlophone' master tape!

How come?.. and is it possible to recreate 1950s/60s 'sounds' on digital processes?

Barry

[neon indicator]

But what sort of speakers are you using (x10 more relevant than amp), what sort of room furnishings?

Your ears probably don't work so good Memory may have colouration

Or are you using a direct A-B comparison where you don't know which is playing, but in same amp, speakers and room?

Has Tape changed quality in 40 or 30 years in storage? Heads worn? Tape recorded on different head alignment equalisation?

Yes, it's possible to recreate any kind of historic sound quality (Response, types of noise and distortion/colouration).

[Ted Kendall]

Actually, the machine which first set the hi-fi world on its heels was the Revox G36.This was used in Transcription Service in the 60s, usually double banked with Studer A62s. The Studers ran Scotch 202 (low noise but it printed) and the Revoxes BASF LR56 (high output, grainy tape noise, low print, and the A62 couldn't drive it but the G36 could). The master was selected according to whether the 202 print was objectionable.

The A77 was smaller, lighter, more sophisticated, cooler and just as good in a straight line, provided you didn't want too much level on or off the tape. Standard levels were OK, but at much above 460nW/m the record amp was in danger of cracking.

[Roger13]

Hi.

It seems to me that what we're talking about here is distortion/colouration? This comes in all shapes and sizes and some forms will be perceived by many listeners as an 'improvement'. However, 'great sound' is like single malt whisky - it's a matter of taste.

Getting back to the original post I would question the need for buying a Reel to Reel to obtain the desired effects. I use Sony's 'Sound Forge' software on the PC for my audio work (expensive but far more accurate and flexible than the free packages) and the range of available effects and processing is enormous. Some of it I have yet to get to grips with, and that's without investigating the wealth of plug-ins currently available! With care and a little imagination I am sure that the same results can be obtained without investing in vintage hardware.

Don't misunderstand me here. I have 11 reel/reel's and I love them all, and recording a CD onto tape improves (to me) the listening experience. However, I don't doubt that I could achieve much the same result by passing it through 'Sound Forge'........... Just my humble opinion!

Cheers,
Roger.