How Good Are Ferrographs?

[MeanDumpsterCat]

Hello everybody!
I've been looking into getting myself a machine that is capable of making some good recordings with that lovely warm valve sound so absent in today's recordings. I've been looking into valve based reel to reel decks and of course the first machines I run into are the Ferrograph series 2 to series 6 machines.

I have seen a few in person and they really do look solidly built but I have never heard the sound from them nor do I know how reliable they are so is anybody out there able to give me some idea of the sound quality and reliability of these machines. Are they worth the amount they sell for on eBay? (The prices for fully working or serviced ones seem steep to me).

Many thanks
-Dan

[RojDW48]

I had a good 2 track mono one of those back in the 80s and it was very reliable. The fast wind motors tend to wear out so it's worth checking they will make it to the end of a full large reel without slowing significantly.

[Craig Sawyers]

I have a 4A, half track mono machine. Mostly it just needed externally cleaning up. Valves all measured just fine.

Built like a battleship around a Wearite deck. Sounds very nice indeed from a bunch of pre-recorded tapes I came by.

eBay prices for a 4A is about £100. I bought mine from someone on this forum for rather less, but it is the only one I think I've seen for sale here.

[Ted Kendall]

They work and go on working forever given reasonable care. The choice at the time would have been between a Ferro, a Tandberg 6 or a Revox 36. There isn't a vast amount to choose between them in terms of pure performance, but the Revox is the most refined design by far in terms of tape handling, lack of pressure pads, vanishingly small wow and flutter, and so on. That said, a Ferro is probably easier to fix...

[MeanDumpsterCat]

Originally Posted by Craig Sawyers

eBay prices for a 4A is about £100. I bought mine from someone on this forum for rather less, but it is the only one I think I've seen for sale here.

Yeah I saw a stereo series 4 at about £125. Not like I have enough money at the moment but it's the first stereo one i've seen. Not really too bothered if it's stereo or mono though since I only have a mono microphone

[dseymo1]

I think I understand what you're trying to achieve, but "lovely warm valve sound" and (good) sound quality is a contradiction in terms.

[MeanDumpsterCat]

Oh yes I know what you mean. The valve sound is a matter of personal preference. If I want a perfect recording i'll go to one of my more modern recorders or even my computer. I'm just after something that can produce that vintage sound for better or for worse. Not to mention i've been wanting to add a Ferrograph to my collection for a long time anyway. I just love the look of them!

[Lucien Nunes]

Vintage sound can mean a whole lot of different things. To be brutally honest, the sound of a vintage middle-of-the-road tape deck using average tape is a combination of hiss, hum, distortion, a curtailed frequency response and more or less flutter. Many of the deficiencies come from the tape, heads and transport rather than the electronics, so I don't think one could really classify it as the 'valve sound', but it's definitely the 'old tape recorder sound'. Whatever kind of sound you like, you will agree that there is nothing enjoyable or attractive about flutter.

Of course, studio quality tape recording can in principle avoid most of these pitfalls, while still offering the unique compression and audible signature of magnetic tape if you turn the right knobs. You might like this aspect of the sound but without the flutter that makes pianos sound seasick and without the EF86 microphony picking up the motor vibration that ruins your quiet passages, etc. In which case a good-quality solid-state machine with more modern engineering might achieve the same benefits; it's still the tape at its heart and what goes on in that tiny head gap that makes it what it is.

OTOH if you like and want a Ferrograph, go for it. I have a couple of different models and a Vortexion or two that also use the Wearite deck. I would never use one for any 'proper' recording but they have a lasting appeal.

[MeanDumpsterCat]

Thanks for the input. I know what you mean by the sound of these older mid range machines. If ever I want a 'perfect' tape recording I usually turn to my Akai 1721 L or a metal cassette. I wanted to add a Ferrograph because they really do seem like nice machines to have around even if they dont have the best sound in the world. As a side note I do a lot of experimentation with my recordings for example I ran a tape across two machines and connected the output of the second machine into the recorder thus creating a long delay so it could be likely that some day I want that 'old tape recorder' sound for one of my projects.

The idea I get is that these Ferrographs are kind of like old portable record players from the 60s (i.e. early BSR changers). They have their imperfections in sound but it does not stop them from being a nice thing to have around for when you want it.

[Radio Wrangler]

Old portable record players from the fifties and sixties were built as cheaply as possible to be sold in huge quantities to consumers. There was a big change going on in the music people listened to. The 45rpm single and the portable player were all part of a popular revolution (pun intended)

The Ferrograph recorders were certainly not built to a price, not built in large quantities and only wound up in the homes of well-to-do enthusiasts. Most wound up in schools, hospital radio, theatres etc. When new, they didn't have intrusive flutter, unlike some of the consumer type machines of the era. Their amplifiers were designed for low distortion. Almost all of that came from the B-H curve of the tape. The heads of the day didn't have the narrow gap of later machines, and so the machines got a wooly sound from limited frequency response of their heads. It was a matter of the narrowness of the gap and the straightness of the edges of the replay head, as well as the straightness of the edges of the recording head. The internal speakers have limited bass response and treble response, there are no tweeters. These contributed more to the sound of the machine than the tape or heads did if you used 7.5ips.

The Ferrograph was well enough designed to engineer-out most of the 'valve sound', especially if you're taking the signal out of it from a low level output rather than the speaker. It gives you a fair amount of the 'tape sound', though.

A lot of recording artists pay extra to have their material finished on an 'analogue' tape machine so most studios have something like an 800 series Studer available. The gentle roll-off at the extremes of the frequency response, and the degree of compression may have their charms, but a bit of flutter and a 50Hz hum remain unloved.

I used a series 5 back in the day. They were and they remain a delightful piece of engineering and have that special factor that makes me smile.

David

[Viewmaster]

I have a model 2A in a beautiful glass topped oak floor standing cabinet a carpenter made back in 1950's !

Never had a single fault in all that time, except I have to dust it from time to time.

[Craig Sawyers]

The 4A was over £90 new, with another £33 for a "stere-ad" unit to convert it to stereo.

This was around 1960. RPI has done about x18 since then, so in today's money that is £1600 and £600 respectively.

Put another way, those prices were well over a month's (gross) average salary in 1960.

[lesmw0sec]

"A lot of recording artists pay extra to have their material finished on an 'analogue' tape machine so most studios have something like an 800 series Studer available. The gentle roll-off at the extremes of the frequency response, and the degree of compression may have their charms, but a bit of flutter and a 50Hz hum remain unloved."


That made me smile. When the new digital was all the rage, a friend who ran a studio confessed that he did all his recordings in the conventional analogue way down to a multi-track Ampex. The finished product was then transferred to a digital recording to satisfy the 'fad' of the day!

Incidentally, I always liked Ferro's, but could never afford one at the time. Ended up with a home-brewed job based on a Brennel deck which made some excellent recordings which I still have.

Les.

[brenellic2000]

You need to decide first if you want 1/2 or 1/4 track; then mono or stereo... at least 1/4 track records/replays 1/2 track, but 1/4 track has a lesser quality.

Which Ferrograph? Go for the late Series 6 for valves. The Series 7 is transistor and not as nice to use as a 6... these are all 8-1/4" decks; the superb Logic 7 is 10-1/2" - your choice. Ferrographs are easy to service and repair...

However for pure sound quality, Brenell has the edge but while the early Mk.5 gold had indestructible Brenell heads and AEI/BT-H motors, the best Mk.5 Srs 3 had Bogen heads and Papst motors both of which are prone to going open-circuit! Brenells are available in 10-1/2". These are all over 40years old... and a Ted says frankly your best bet is a Revox A77... once you've decided which format!

[MeanDumpsterCat]

Originally Posted by lesmw0sec

That made me smile. When the new digital was all the rage, a friend who ran a studio confessed that he did all his recordings in the conventional analogue way down to a multi-track Ampex. The finished product was then transferred to a digital recording to satisfy the 'fad' of the day!

I do think a lot of studios are using the tape recorders as a fad. I have not seen any vinyl come out recently that was done entirely the old fashioned way (Multitrack to master tape). Recording analogue sound to a digital format and using the digital file to cut the record is kind of pointless. If you're going to record an album using analogue technology then just cut the vinyl from the master tape.

[Radio Wrangler]

Recording studios are businesses and quite mercenary about things. Without some sort of analogue tape machine there are is some work they'd never get and they'd get paid less by some of the ones they'd still get.

I like the word "Headology" that Terry Pratchett coined. It's very useful in the audio business.

Some people believe that just by being passed through one valve, signals will be improved in some way. They don't even seem bothered about what the valve is doing. They certainly don't appreciate that the effects soon become vanishingly small as signal levels become less taxing. A signal to them is either charmed or uncharmed.

I just think an old Ferrograph is just a likeable hunk of engineering and a sort of shrine to people who tried to do it right. That said, the machine I've kept for 40 years is an A77. They tried to do it right, too.

David

[PsychMan]

Originally Posted by MeanDumpsterCat

I do think a lot of studios are using the tape recorders as a fad. I have not seen any vinyl come out recently that was done entirely the old fashioned way (Multitrack to master tape). Recording analogue sound to a digital format and using the digital file to cut the record is kind of pointless. If you're going to record an album using analogue technology then just cut the vinyl from the master tape.

Some artists still like analog. There is in fact a COMPLETELY analog studio in London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_Rag_Studios

I know the underground doom band Electric Wizard recorded there a few years ago, and apparently that album made it to vinyl without any digital involvement whatsoever.

[SteveCG]

Having used a Ferrograph 7 and a Ferrograph 2 or 4 (Never did quite work out which it was!!) I think the useful thing about a 2 to 6 is that the internal idler wheels will not turn to goo as the later Ferrograph 7s did. I do realise that since a F7 is transistor machine it is not of interest to you - but they performed well. Critically though, the paper capacitors used in the model 2 to 6 machines will be electrically leaky by now just due to age and if you get such a machine then it is almost essential to replace them. I suspect that other makes of valve tape-recorders will be in a similar situation.

I would say the real challenge will be for you to find some suitable tape to use on these lower-bias-era machines...

[P.Pilcher]

When I was a student in 1965 - 8 I went without meals to save up £120 for my Brenell STB2. For stage work we had a Ferrograph to use and, although a bit more solid than my Brenell the audio performance of the latter was slightly better. It is still working well today, but if I did not still possess it I would be happy to be using a Ferrograph - it is the other well engineered semi-professional machine which is well respected as has been stated above. If you get a good one or restore one it should serve you well for many years.

P.P.

[Nuvistor]

Originally Posted by PsychMan

I know the underground doom band Electric Wizard recorded there a few years ago, and apparently that album made it to vinyl without any digital involvement whatsoever.

Probably listened more on phones and MP3 players than vynl though. Many listeners, including myself, perhaps would not be able to tell the difference.

Frank