Let's talk about pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes
Milton Finks
David A. Pearlman wrote:
>
> Let's discuss pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes. These are nearly-forgotten
> in the current digital marketplace, except among a small number of
> collectors. But in their day, they were THE choice of many die-hard
> audiophiles...
>
> At any rate, I have a few questions that perhaps someone out there knows
> the answers to...
>
>
> 3) What's the concensus about who made the best-quality reel-to-reels.
> Ampex? Magtec? GRT? Certainly not CBS!!!
Almost everything CBS did for years was shrill and had NO bass. Capitol
had the best tapes because they had the best masters. AND they were
releasing a few stereo mixes in the late 55 time frame. They STILL
sound glorious! AND those same titles on CD sound like brand new
recordings! I still think Bob Norberg is a magician!!
>
>
>You forgot the quad reel to reel craze of the early 70s. I have loads of those!
David A. Pearlman
Let's discuss pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes. These are nearly-forgotten
in the current digital marketplace, except among a small number of
collectors. But in their day, they were THE choice of many die-hard
audiophiles...
At any rate, I have a few questions that perhaps someone out there knows
the answers to...
1) Generally speaking, how many copies of a title would initially be generated
on reel-to-reel, for a title that got a reel-to-reel release? 500?
1000? What would be the sales numbers in the reel configuration for
a hit album? I can't imagine very large, seeing as how most titles
were deleted quite quickly in the reel configuration, even when the album
was a hit.
2) What was the last non-record club reel-to-reel title? What year?
I have seen a scattered few very late pre-club reel popular titles
that are Dolby encoded (e.g. Fleetwood Mac's Rumors). Did the major
duplicators go exclusively to Dolby encoding at some point?
3) What's the concensus about who made the best-quality reel-to-reels.
Ampex? Magtec? GRT? Certainly not CBS!!!
4) Was there generally a price differential between 7.5 ips and 3.75 ips
speed reels? Were the two ever produced for the same title simultaneously?
Or did the speed change only when the title was re-pressed (if it
ever changed)? How did the labels/duplicators decide on speeds?
You'll find 3.75 and 7.5 ips reels from the same label and duplicator,
for releases that came out very close to one another. Who made the
decision?
5) Did the record clubs offer reels in the '60's and early '70's? If so,
were they record club issues, or did the clubs merely distribute
standard reels at this point?
6) What was the last record club issued reel-to-reel? What year?
(I think the latest one I have is the Police' "Synchonicity" from
1983). Why did the Columbia House reels all sound so lousy!! :-)
7) It seems that the early 2-track reel-to-reels from the '50's were
duplicated in reel time. This would explain, in part, why they sound
so good. Were the early 4-tracs also duplicated in real time, or
had the manufacturers gone to high speed duplication by then.
When were the last 2-track tapes produced (1961?)
8) Does anyone recall stores having good, deep inventories of reel-to-reel
tapes. My only recollections of reel-to-reels were modest selections
tucked in a corner of the store. But this was in the mid '70's.
Well, that'll do for a start!
dap
Doug McDonald
David A. Pearlman wrote:
>
> Let's discuss pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes. These are nearly-forgotten
> in the current digital marketplace, except among a small number of
> collectors. But in their day, they were THE choice of many die-hard
> audiophiles...
>
> At any rate, I have a few questions that perhaps someone out there knows
> the answers to...
>
> 1) Generally speaking, how many copies of a title would initially be generated
> on reel-to-reel,
Don't know.
>
> 2) What was the last non-record club reel-to-reel title?
Well, I was buying Barclay-Crocker open reel tapes
for a few months after the CD came out. They were very smart
people, and saw that CD would do them and all else in,
and got out while the getting was good.
> 3) What's the concensus about who made the best-quality reel-to-reels.
> Ampex? Magtec? GRT? Certainly not CBS!!!
Barclay-Crocker, absolutely no doubt. They used top-quality,
absolute top, ferrous tape, and used Dolby B, properly.
All 7.5 ips. All with full frequency response and zero
crapping up of the master tape. They claimed to reproduce
master tapes as well as 7.5 ips could. They produced
many releases from digital original, with 15 ips analog
intermediates, and these were subperb. All my tapes from them
are still playable, and sound great. All my tapes from
all other sources (admittedly much older, like 1963-1968)
are seriously degraded, as the crap companies like CBS, London,
RCA, etc, all used crappy acetate tape, not first rate mylar.
>
> 4) Was there generally a price differential between 7.5 ips and 3.75 ips
> speed reels?
I only saw 3.75 for titles that would not fit on a 1200 foot
7.5 ips reel. They sounded like crap.
> 5) Did the record clubs offer reels in the '60's and early '70's?
Don't remember.
>
> 7) It seems that the early 2-track reel-to-reels from the '50's were
> duplicated in reel time. This would explain, in part, why they sound
> so good. Were the early 4-tracs also duplicated in real time, or
> had the manufacturers gone to high speed duplication by then.
> When were the last 2-track tapes produced (1961?)
The BArclay-Crocker ones were high speed (x4).
They were mail order only. Some of my most cherished recordings
are from them, including a Gliere 3rd symphony on Unicorn.
A CD of this was issued, but it was not as good, lacking bass,
which can be fixed perfectly with an equilizer.
Doug McDonald
Rob Reedijk
: >You forgot the quad reel to reel craze of the early 70s. I have loads of those!
On a somewhat related topic, can anyone remember DBX noise reduction for
vinyl? How did those DBX encoded LPs sound? Maybe one of you old farts
slobbering over EveAnna can put it in your pants for a moment and
reminisce about these...
Rob
David A. Pearlman
In article <352506B4...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> Doug McDonald <mcdo...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> writes:
>David A. Pearlman wrote:
>> 3) What's the concensus about who made the best-quality reel-to-reels.
>> Ampex? Magtec? GRT? Certainly not CBS!!!
>
>Barclay-Crocker, absolutely no doubt. They used top-quality,
>absolute top, ferrous tape, and used Dolby B, properly.
>All 7.5 ips. All with full frequency response and zero
>crapping up of the master tape. They claimed to reproduce
>master tapes as well as 7.5 ips could. They produced
>many releases from digital original, with 15 ips analog
>intermediates, and these were subperb. All my tapes from them
>are still playable, and sound great. All my tapes from
>all other sources (admittedly much older, like 1963-1968)
>are seriously degraded, as the crap companies like CBS, London,
>RCA, etc, all used crappy acetate tape, not first rate mylar.
BUT...Some of the '50's 2-track tapes on RCA sound fantastic...
A lot of it has to do with how well they were stored, how they
were (mis)handled when they were originally played, etc. But some
of those old 2-track 7.5ips RCA tapes are unbelievable for pre-recorded
tapes. Yes, they have some hiss (this was the pre-noise-reduction '50's),
but so did the master tapes.
I assume the Barclay-Crocker tapes were 4-track. If that's true,
then they weren't really as good as 7.5ips could do. They were as
good as 7.5ips 4-track could do...2-track sounds a lot better than
4-track.Industry standard for 2-track master tapes is 15ips. However,
a professionally dubbed 7.5ips 2-track tape off the master can sound
99% as good. I have such a copy of Bread's "Guitar Man" album. The tape
was dubbed in the studio, off the master, right after the master was
produced. It was never used after that. A while ago, I dubbed the
sub-master onto a Minidisc and then A/B'd the result with some of the
commercially released (CD) tracks from the album...and my Minidisc
copy won. Slightly better dynamic range, at least one dropout on the CD
not on this copy, etc. The point? Tapes degrade--slowly but surely--with
usage. The 7.5ips sub-master was close enough to the real master and the
real master was used enough that in the interim the 7.5ips copy now beats
the master. (Yeah yeah I know to anyone who wants to comment about minidisc
compression scheme or the possibility that the CD wasn't produced from
the true master...)
>> 4) Was there generally a price differential between 7.5 ips and 3.75 ips
>> speed reels?
>
>I only saw 3.75 for titles that would not fit on a 1200 foot
>7.5 ips reel. They sounded like crap.
Now you're talking primarily about classical tapes. Popular tapes
frequently appeared at 3.75 ips for no reason other than it was cheaper
to duplicate them at that speed. Space limitations on a pre-recorded
reel were only really a limitation (for 4-track tapes) in cases
of double albums. And even then, a lot of double albums could fit
one a single tape at 7.5 ips.
dap
Scott Dorsey
In article <6g5ua4$n...@news1.chem.utoronto.ca> ree...@hera.med.utoronto.ca (Rob Reedijk) writes:
>
>On a somewhat related topic, can anyone remember DBX noise reduction for
>vinyl? How did those DBX encoded LPs sound? Maybe one of you old farts
>slobbering over EveAnna can put it in your pants for a moment and
>reminisce about these...
It did reduce the surface noise by quite a bit, but loud clicks and pops
often caused the thing to mistrack. On top of that, rumble would just
drive the decoder out of its mind.
This is another example of a system which solves a severe problem
on low-end systems without providing much benefit on high-end systems,
while being hard enough to do properly that it didn't work on low-end
systems very well.
Resquiat in pace.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Doug McDonald
Rob Reedijk wrote:
>
> : >You forgot the quad reel to reel craze of the early 70s. I have loads of those!
>
> vinyl? How did those DBX encoded LPs sound?
Pretty good. Actually very good. You needed a good decoder: the
ones they sold for this specially were not as good as some
of their more general ones, useable also as tape encoders/decoders.
I have one of those. DBX, unlike consumer Dolby, was full range.
It relieved most of the problems of the LP, including S/N
and mistracking at high levels. Still, the LP was and is
basically garbage due to ticks and pops. It didn't help those
very much. Open reel tape was and is far superior.
Doug McDonald
Milton Finks
Another curious thing too is the stereo aspect. When the Verve CD of
"Ella and Louis Again" was released I was sad to see it was mono. I
wrote Polygram and they informed me it wasn't recorded in stereo. I
sent them a cassette dub of my stereo reel to reel tape of that session.
They answered that it was the first they knew of it and they only had a
mono master. My tape is stereo/2 track/71/2ips.
Milton Finks
Frank Y
Subject:
Let's talk about pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes
Date:
3 Apr 1998 03:39:37 GMT
From:
d...@cgl.ucsf.edu (David A. Pearlman)
Organization:
Computer Graphics Laboratory, UCSF
Newsgroups:
alt.collecting.8-track-tapes, rec.music.collecting.misc,
rec.music.misc, rec.audio.misc, rec.audio.pro
Let's discuss pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes. These are
nearly-forgotten
in the current digital marketplace, except among a small number of
collectors. But in their day, they were THE choice of many die-hard
audiophiles...
At any rate, I have a few questions that perhaps someone out there knows
the answers to...
1) Generally speaking, how many copies of a title would initially be
generated
on reel-to-reel, for a title that got a reel-to-reel release? 500?
1000? What would be the sales numbers in the reel configuration for
a hit album? I can't imagine very large, seeing as how most titles
were deleted quite quickly in the reel configuration, even when the
album
was a hit.
I have no answer to this question.
2) What was the last non-record club reel-to-reel title? What year?
I have seen a scattered few very late pre-club reel popular titles
that are Dolby encoded (e.g. Fleetwood Mac's Rumors). Did the major
duplicators go exclusively to Dolby encoding at some point?
Reel Society tapes, early 80s (forget which year). Last tapes were
Sessions label tapes with
music by 3 Dog Night and a few others. Sessions tapes were also sold
on TV in 8 track/LP/cassette
versions. Last quad reel I know of: Reel Society’s release of Kosmos
by Tomita (sold mine for $75)
3) What's the concensus about who made the best-quality reel-to-reels.
Ampex? Magtec? GRT? Certainly not CBS!!!
This must be a trick question because Magtec made GRTs tapes. I used
to live about a half mile from Magtec
in No. Hollywood CA, so thats how I know. The best tapes were the
dolby reels like Fleetwood Mac Rumours,
and I happen to like Columbia’s 7.5 ips from 1969. Also RCAs 7.5 ips
tape were excellent. Columbia switched to 3.75ips
beginning with Simon and Garfunkels Bridge Over Troubled Water tape.
What a foul surprise that was. Never did buy that tape either. The
worst tapes
were made by Decca (later on Magtec took over these titles).
4) Was there generally a price differential between 7.5 ips and 3.75 ips
speed reels? Were the two ever produced for the same title
simultaneously?
Or did the speed change only when the title was re-pressed (if it
ever changed)? How did the labels/duplicators decide on speeds?
You'll find 3.75 and 7.5 ips reels from the same label and
duplicator,
for releases that came out very close to one another. Who made the
decision?
With some ABC/Dunhill titles, GRT put out a 3.75ips, and Ampex put out
a 7.5ips version simultaneously.
The GRT was 5.98 list, the Ampex was 6.98 list. I always chose the
Ampex ones, hating 3.75ips. People with
cheap machines like those with builtin amps / speakers probably bought
the 3.75ips since they would not notice
the diff. in sound quality. Beginning in 1969/1970 most stuff starting
coming out a 3.75ips (RCA/Columbia)..
probably what killed the format.
5) Did the record clubs offer reels in the '60's and early '70's? If so,
were they record club issues, or did the clubs merely distribute
standard reels at this point?
Both. Some Ampex tapes sold thru Columbia House said (made by Ampex
for Columbia House, or something like that, on
at sticker on the back of the tape box). Magtec tapes also were sold
thru Columbia House. Columbia House would frequently
make the tapes themselves and put them in a box identical to a Magtec
box, but with the made by Magtec statement deleted
from the bottom of the box.
6) What was the last record club issued reel-to-reel? What year?
(I think the latest one I have is the Police' "Synchonicity" from
1983). Why did the Columbia House reels all sound so lousy!! :-)
The tape was lousy (on the gray reels), and of course the 3.75ips was
the major cause. Later on some clear reel
tapes were sold thru Columbia House. These tapes were made by Magtec,
but to Columbia Houses’s 3.75ips
specifications. Some sounded quite good though. Boston Don’t Look Back
for example. I even got one that they
accidently made at 7.5 ips (Tony Orlando and Dawn New Ragtime
Follies). That tape kicks ass!
7) It seems that the early 2-track reel-to-reels from the '50's were
duplicated in reel time. This would explain, in part, why they sound
so good. Were the early 4-tracs also duplicated in real time, or
had the manufacturers gone to high speed duplication by then.
When were the last 2-track tapes produced (1961?)
They were still in a Feb. 1962 RCA catalog that I have. They were
high speed duplicated. This was stated on an insert
in a Capitol 2 track I have. Many of the Capitol 2 tracks were on 1.5
mil tape, which provided better bass. The RCA ones
were always on 1 mil tape far as I know (at least the ones I have are)
8) Does anyone recall stores having good, deep inventories of
reel-to-reel
tapes. My only recollections of reel-to-reels were modest selections
tucked in a corner of the store. But this was in the mid '70's.
Yes, Tower Records in Hollywood had a huge selection of them in the
mid 70s.
Larry Blumenfeld
Frank Y wrote:
> 3) What's the concensus about who made the best-quality reel-to-reels.
> Ampex? Magtec? GRT? Certainly not CBS!!!
>
> This must be a trick question because Magtec made GRTs tapes. I used
> to live about a half mile from Magtec
> in No. Hollywood CA, so thats how I know.
Are you referring to reel tapes only, or all of GRT's stuff? Didn't they
have their own duplicating facility for 8's and cassettes? While we're at
it, have you ever seen a _four_track GRT cartridge?
> The best tapes were the
> dolby reels like Fleetwood Mac Rumours,
7.5 ips with Dolby on a well-engineered album like Rumours....must have been
phenomenal!
> and I happen to like Columbia’s 7.5 ips from 1969. Also RCAs 7.5 ips
> tape were excellent.
Part of the problem with CBS may have been when they bought Reeves
Soundcraft about that time...don't know whose tape they used before that,
but it was better than the Reeves... RCA's tape, with that distinctive
dark-red oxide, was originally made by Sarkes-Tarzian in Indiana, so I'm
told.
> I even got one that they
> accidently made at 7.5 ips (Tony Orlando and Dawn New Ragtime
> Follies). That tape kicks ass!
Accidentally how? Box and label say 3-3/4 but it's actually 7.5??
Happy trails,
Larry B.
David A. Pearlman
In article <352811...@compuserve.com> Frank Y <10310...@compuserve.com> writes:
)3) What's the concensus about who made the best-quality reel-to-reels.
) Ampex? Magtec? GRT? Certainly not CBS!!!
)
) This must be a trick question because Magtec made GRTs tapes. I used
)to live about a half mile from Magtec
) in No. Hollywood CA, so thats how I know. The best tapes were the
)dolby reels like Fleetwood Mac Rumours,
) and I happen to like Columbia’s 7.5 ips from 1969. Also RCAs 7.5 ips
)tape were excellent. Columbia switched to 3.75ips
) beginning with Simon and Garfunkels Bridge Over Troubled Water tape.
) What a foul surprise that was. Never did buy that tape either. The
)worst tapes
) were made by Decca (later on Magtec took over these titles).
Coincidentally, I was just listening to the Chambers Brothers'
"Time Has Come" album on Columbia reel last night. This was a 1968
7.5ips release and it sounds INCREDIBLE!! The sound on this Columbia
reel makes it all the more tragic that Columbia went to lousy
3.75ips speed after '69 for their pop reels.
Did RCA offer any pop titles in 7.5ips after the early '60's? All the
RCA-duplicated reels (with the colored reels) of the mid'60's-early'70's
that I've seen have been 3 3/4ips. After that, they handed over
duplication of their reels to Magtec, and _some_ of the reels
were reissued in 7.5ips (e.g. Guess Who's greatest hits, a Jefferson
Airplane release or two, etc.)
)4) Was there generally a price differential between 7.5 ips and 3.75 ips
) speed reels? Were the two ever produced for the same title
)simultaneously?
) Or did the speed change only when the title was re-pressed (if it
) ever changed)? How did the labels/duplicators decide on speeds?
) You'll find 3.75 and 7.5 ips reels from the same label and
)duplicator,
) for releases that came out very close to one another. Who made the
) decision?
)
) With some ABC/Dunhill titles, GRT put out a 3.75ips, and Ampex put out
)a 7.5ips version simultaneously.
Weird. I have two copies of the Turtles first album on reel-to-reel.
Both are 3.75ips. One is on Ampex, and features the original artwork
on the back (in black & white). The other is on GRT, and it features
a generic titles list on the back. The Ampex tape retains the LP
running order. The GRT tape rearranges the tracks for some reason (probably
to use less tape). The Ampex front color photo is much
crisper than the one on the GRT tape. And the Ampex tape sounds
better than the GRT tape. Bottom line: The GRT tape is an inferior
product.
) The GRT was 5.98 list, the Ampex was 6.98 list. I always chose the
)Ampex ones, hating 3.75ips. People with
) cheap machines like those with builtin amps / speakers probably bought
)the 3.75ips since they would not notice
) the diff. in sound quality. Beginning in 1969/1970 most stuff starting
)coming out a 3.75ips (RCA/Columbia)..
) probably what killed the format.
I have lots of Ampex 3.75ips tapes, though. Some sound good, some sound
OK, a small number sound lousy.
)6) What was the last record club issued reel-to-reel? What year?
) (I think the latest one I have is the Police' "Synchonicity" from
) 1983). Why did the Columbia House reels all sound so lousy!! :-)
)
) The tape was lousy (on the gray reels), and of course the 3.75ips was
)the major cause. Later on some clear reel
) tapes were sold thru Columbia House. These tapes were made by Magtec,
)but to Columbia Houses’s 3.75ips
) specifications. Some sounded quite good though. Boston Don’t Look Back
)for example. I even got one that they
) accidently made at 7.5 ips (Tony Orlando and Dawn New Ragtime
)Follies). That tape kicks ass!
Really? Those cleer reel tapes that Columbia House sold from around
1978-on where made by Magtec? I though Magtec was out of business
by then! Some of those late era record club tapes are really
lousy. I will check out my Boston "Don't Look Back" though, on your
recommendation.
)8) Does anyone recall stores having good, deep inventories of
)reel-to-reel
) tapes. My only recollections of reel-to-reels were modest selections
) tucked in a corner of the store. But this was in the mid '70's.
)
) Yes, Tower Records in Hollywood had a huge selection of them in the
)mid 70s.
Wow...Wish I'd been interested in them at that time...Did they
ultimately just sell down their inventory when the labels stopped
issuing new titles, or did they toss them in a cutout bin, or did
the labels take them back and grind them up?
best,
dap
Frank Y
>dap wrote:
>
>Wow...Wish I'd been interested in them at that time...Did they
>ultimately just sell down their inventory when the labels stopped
>issuing new titles, or did they toss them in a cutout bin, or did
>the labels take them back and grind them up?
No, Tower just eventually ran out of them. Tower also stocked the
cutouts including all the Beatles Ampex reels which were 2.99 each.
I am not aware of any tapes being destroyed... that was more common
with vinyl which they could recycle into new crunchy sounding LPs.