Tape recommendation, tips for older Teac 2340/3340?
Ken Nelson
For purely sentimental, non-professional reasons I've dug out my old
Teac 2340SX to play with. The machine was initially set up for AMPEX
456, and I still have a small stockpile of pancakes, but they're about
17 years old, possibly of the same vintage that has the stiction and
shed problems, so I don't think I want to use this tape stock.
To anyone who still uses their old Teac 4-track... what tape would you
recommend? I have heard that the old Teac's don't have the bias or drive
to properly record onto the new supertapes like 3M 996... is this true?
Also, does anyone have any modifications or tips for squeezing the last
dB of performance from these beasts?
The stock play preamplifiers seem fairly noisy by themselves, before
running tape. I'm thinking of whipping up a simple equalised tape
preamplifier around a decent op-amp to see if this performs better. Has
anyone tried this... and with what result?
As I mentioned, I'm just doing this to indulge a whim... just to see
what the old girl is capable of. Besides I really miss the spinning
reels and that Teac 'snap' of the transport as it changes modes...
Thanks for any answers or tips.
ken
Rick Ruskin
wrote:
Stick with 456.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
hank alrich
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:04:11 +0100, Peter Larsen <pl...@get2net.dk>
> wrote:
> >
> >Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >
> >> Stick with 456.
> >
> >He said 2340, i. e. small reels. Also a standard tape is traditionally
> >not a good choice for quarter track recording. I still say Fuji,
> >extrapolating from my experience with analog recording back in what is
> >now the "old days".
>
> Which runs @ 7.5 ips and should work fine with 456. What do you mean
> by "standard" tape. What is your definition of non-standars?
5/16"?
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
Peter Larsen
Ken Nelson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> For purely sentimental, non-professional reasons I've dug out my old
> Teac 2340SX to play with. The machine was initially set up for AMPEX
> 456, and I still have a small stockpile of pancakes, but they're about
> 17 years old, possibly of the same vintage that has the stiction and
> shed problems, so I don't think I want to use this tape stock.
Amen to that, you are quite right, you do not want to use that tape
stock. The only brand I have not heard about problems with - except of
course the apparently actually archive safe PER525, but I do not think
your 2340SX has the capacity to get decent performance from it, it is
not the most sensitive tape around, so you could end up clipping record
amps prior to the tape saturating, just something I vaguely remember
something about, I might be wrong - are BASF.
> To anyone who still uses their old Teac 4-track... what tape would you
> recommend? I have heard that the old Teac's don't have the bias or drive
> to properly record onto the new supertapes like 3M 996... is this true?
IF it still exists, I'd go for Fuji's copy of Agfa 369. My old Fuji's
are failing, as are old 369's by the way, but they stood the test of
time much better than my old Ampex's.
> Also, does anyone have any modifications or tips for squeezing the last
> dB of performance from these beasts?
Only 2 dB overbias at 15 15 IPS, i. e. bias up to linear and then beyond
to a drop of 2 dB at 10 kHz, and then fix that with the record EQ. Check
the playback curve for compliance with a standard test tape, such as
BASF (it will cost ya!), others may have other favorites, but the DIN
standard tape happens to be a BASF as far as I know (anecdotal) ... so
their tapes just might comply. Replacing components in the playback amps
may be required for compliance with the chosen standard. Go for DIN EQ
at 15 IPS and NAB at 7.5 IPS, it should according to what I have partly
forgotten all about be the best compromise in terms of dynamic range.
Align the VU meters for 0 dB to correspond to 320 nW actual flux on
tape, and be careful, i. e. don't let them bang against the mechanical
stops. You might underuse a modern tape at the standard VU meter
alignment that corresponds to 185 nW.
> The stock play preamplifiers seem fairly noisy by themselves, before
> running tape. I'm thinking of whipping up a simple equalised tape
> preamplifier around a decent op-amp to see if this performs better. Has
> anyone tried this... and with what result?
Check the conformance with standards first. I am aware of people having
ripped the entire signal electronics out of Revox A700's because of the
miserable sound quality of whatever is in them ex works, so it can be
done. As for whether you can do it, and get away with it, that is a
different question, they ended up with a much cleaner sound, but also
with a record amp that clipped at +8 VU, at least on some of the
modified machines, clipping recorded on tape sounds - ahem - less good
than tape saturation, I think it was eventually fixed on some machines.
IF it does not decide to become an AM transmitter because of a possible
reactive load, then the BB2604 really shines performance wise when it
comes to an opamp that will do good when handling pre-emphasized signal.
> As I mentioned, I'm just doing this to indulge a whim... just to see
> what the old girl is capable of. Besides I really miss the spinning
> reels and that Teac 'snap' of the transport as it changes modes...
You don't even mention the distinctive, brand different, smell of a
brand new tape. 15 IPS taping can sound really good. It takes a very
well optimized DAT or other digital implement to beat a very well
optimized analog tape recorder. The problems with analog tape are not
primarily in the first few replays of the first generation tape. But it
could be an expensive venture to actually use the machine.
> Thanks for any answers or tips.
Wish I could be more exact, hopefully I have been of some inspiration.
> ken
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
--
******************************************************************
* This posting handcrafted by Peter Larsen, pla...@teliamail.dk *
* My homepage is at: http://w1.1358.telia.com/~u135801844/ *
******************************************************************
Peter Larsen
Rick Ruskin wrote:
> Stick with 456.
He said 2340, i. e. small reels. Also a standard tape is traditionally
not a good choice for quarter track recording. I still say Fuji,
extrapolating from my experience with analog recording back in what is
now the "old days".
> Rick Ruskin
Rick Ruskin
wrote:
>
>
>Rick Ruskin wrote:
>
>> Stick with 456.
>
>He said 2340, i. e. small reels. Also a standard tape is traditionally
>not a good choice for quarter track recording. I still say Fuji,
>extrapolating from my experience with analog recording back in what is
>now the "old days".
Which runs @ 7.5 ips and should work fine with 456. What do you mean
by "standard" tape. What is your definition of non-standars?
Scott Dorsey
>
>IF it still exists, I'd go for Fuji's copy of Agfa 369. My old Fuji's
>are failing, as are old 369's by the way, but they stood the test of
>time much better than my old Ampex's.
Ain't no Fuji any more. No TDK or Sony either. The only Japanese 1/4"
tape that I know of is Maxell.
The Japanese tapes always had stiffer bases than the American and European
stuff.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
>
>Which runs @ 7.5 ips and should work fine with 456. What do you mean
>by "standard" tape. What is your definition of non-standars?
A standard tape is primarily red oxide and runs at 185 nW/m.
High Output tapes have a darker coating and may run as high as 250 nW/m.
Extra Energy tapes have a chromium dioxide coating and nobody ever
used them except the Japanese consumer machines, really, although you
could bias them up on an ATR-102.
Most modern tapes that we talk about here, like 456, are mastering tapes
that have a lot more range than standard tapes.
Ken Nelson
dumpster, and the few tapes I wish to transcribe are scheduled for the
Easy-Bake oven (to bake according to online recipes from Eddie Ciletti, Mike
Rivers and others). For new stock I will either get some new 456, or try some
AGFA or BASF. I was afraid to set it up for as high a reference as 320nW, but
I'll give it a shot, and avoid banging the meters.
Before I had put the 2340SX in mothballs (about 9 years ago), I went to the
trouble of converting it to a 15ips machine, by putting in the bigger capstan
from a 3300. This mod also required shifting the whole headblock down, as well
as guides, and repositioning the pinch roller solenoid. Only a few mods were
required to get the electronics to work at the higher speeds, since they are
almost identical to the 3340SX electronics. Through patience and luck, I
ended up with a decent 15ips machine, but it was too much work. Oh well, it's
unique... I still also want to try a custom playback preamp, something that
has self-noise that's lower than the tape noise, unlike the stock preamps...
Yes, I am now inspired... it's a nice winter project. Again, thanks.
Best Regards,
ken
Peter Larsen wrote:
> Ken Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > For purely sentimental, non-professional reasons I've dug out my old
> > Teac 2340SX to play with. The machine was initially set up for AMPEX
> > 456, and I still have a small stockpile of pancakes, but they're about
> > 17 years old, possibly of the same vintage that has the stiction and
> > shed problems, so I don't think I want to use this tape stock.
>
> Amen to that, you are quite right, you do not want to use that tape
> stock. The only brand I have not heard about problems with - except of
> course the apparently actually archive safe PER525, but I do not think
> your 2340SX has the capacity to get decent performance from it, it is
> not the most sensitive tape around, so you could end up clipping record
> amps prior to the tape saturating, just something I vaguely remember
> something about, I might be wrong - are BASF.
>
> > To anyone who still uses their old Teac 4-track... what tape would you
> > recommend? I have heard that the old Teac's don't have the bias or drive
> > to properly record onto the new supertapes like 3M 996... is this true?
>
> IF it still exists, I'd go for Fuji's copy of Agfa 369. My old Fuji's
> are failing, as are old 369's by the way, but they stood the test of
> time much better than my old Ampex's.
>
Peter Larsen
Rick Ruskin wrote:
> >He said 2340, i. e. small reels. Also a standard tape is traditionally
> >not a good choice for quarter track recording. I still say Fuji,
> >extrapolating from my experience with analog recording back in what is
> >now the "old days".
>
> Which runs @ 7.5 ips and should work fine with 456. What do you mean
> by "standard" tape. What is your definition of non-standars?
I have a feeling - i. e. don't ask for exact knowledge to substantiate
it - that using a tape optimized for 15 and 30 IPS at 7.5 IPS is hardly
the way to get optimum treble performance. A standard tape is a standard
length tape, for 1/4 track recordings the general advice back in the old
days was to use long play length tapes because of the better mechanical
behavior of the thinner tape around the heads. Another problem with
standard tapes is that not all consumer type tape recorders, and the
Teacs generally are just that, can be expected to have the ability to
deliver enough signal to the heads to actually saturate the tape.
> Rick Ruskin
Peter Larsen
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ain't no Fuji any more. No TDK or Sony either. The only Japanese 1/4"
> tape that I know of is Maxell.
OK, nice to know.
> The Japanese tapes always had stiffer bases than the American and European
> stuff.
What was in my mind when suggesting a japanese tape was something else,
in fact I didn't know this, but what I do know is that when it comes to
cassette recorders, then there does tend to be a local dialect of the
IEC standards that makes it easiest to get the machines linear in
record-replay by using a japanese tape if one does not want to solder
too much on the pcb's. This may or may not still be so, and it may or
may not be wrong to extrapolate that backwards in time to apply to an
open reel recorder. My impression is that they bent the standards to fit
some improvements that their tape manufacturers came up with. None of
this constitutes fact.
> --scott
Scott Dorsey
>
>What was in my mind when suggesting a japanese tape was something else,
>in fact I didn't know this, but what I do know is that when it comes to
>cassette recorders, then there does tend to be a local dialect of the
>IEC standards that makes it easiest to get the machines linear in
>record-replay by using a japanese tape if one does not want to solder
>too much on the pcb's. This may or may not still be so, and it may or
>may not be wrong to extrapolate that backwards in time to apply to an
>open reel recorder. My impression is that they bent the standards to fit
>some improvements that their tape manufacturers came up with. None of
>this constitutes fact.
Yes, the Japanese tapes mostly fit a JIS standard for bias and level,
the idea being that for consumer tapes you could use them interchangeably
without having to realign.
However, for a machine that old, it should probably be realigned anyway.
Peter Larsen
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> My impression is that they bent the standards to fit
> >some improvements that their tape manufacturers came up with. None of
> >this constitutes fact.
>
> Yes, the Japanese tapes mostly fit a JIS standard for bias and level,
> the idea being that for consumer tapes you could use them interchangeably
> without having to realign.
That was not my point,
> However, for a machine that old, it should probably be realigned anyway.
of course, but it might be easier to achieve the last 0.3 dB of
linearity with a tape type that was in the rec-replay amp designers mind
- without soldering that is - , and THAT was my point ... O;-)
kingart88
Ken Nelson <n...@here.please> wrote:
> Thanks all for your comments.
>
After following this thread, I too am inspired to gently wake my Tascam
38 and 32 machines from an 8-year nap and indulge in some analog
debauchery!
Thanks!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scott Dorsey
>
>of course, but it might be easier to achieve the last 0.3 dB of
>linearity with a tape type that was in the rec-replay amp designers mind
>- without soldering that is - , and THAT was my point ... O;-)
Why would that be?
An old 350 is way more linear with a modern mastering tape than it ever
was with Scotch 111.
Auplater
>
> In article <389703C2...@here.please>,
> Ken Nelson <n...@here.please> wrote:
> >
>
> 38 and 32 machines from an 8-year nap and indulge in some analog
> debauchery!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
heck.. I've been taping multi hundreds of hours of all
sorts of digital sourced stuff on 456 and 499 (and Maxell
UD)on both of my restored virgin X2000R's now... and I've
got them tweaked to flat response at 3.75 ips out to 19khz
@ -5dB, all with >75 dB s/n... who knows what they'll do at
7 1/2 ips :-).
auplater
John Lichtenberger
Peter Larsen
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Peter Larsen <pla...@teliamail.dk> wrote:
> >
> >of course, but it might be easier to achieve the last 0.3 dB of
> >linearity with a tape type that was in the rec-replay amp designers mind
> >- without soldering that is - , and THAT was my point ... O;-)
>
> Why would that be?
>
> An old 350 is way more linear with a modern mastering tape than it ever
> was with Scotch 111.
As I said previously in the context, I am extrapolating, and such
extrapolations may give incorrect results. Getting the upper midrange
AND the upper treble linear is not always easy when adjusting a tape
recorder, my guess simply is that it may be easier to achieve that with
a japanese taperecorder when using a japanese tape. I may well be wrong,
but I may also be on less loose turf than you with your extrapolation
from a professional tape machine to what is essentially a consumer
machine. My gut feeling is that I would go for a japanese LP tape with
that machine, but I have nothing to substantiate it with, so strictly
speaking, I will have to leave your question unreplied.