advertisement


Calling Reel-2-Reel Tape experts - TEAC A3440 15ips speed problems

there is something special about listening to a well set up r2r. i have a bulk demagnetiser that i use which does the trick with a quick head clean before record/play
 
rich46 said:
there is something special about listening to a well set up r2r. i have a bulk demagnetiser that i use which does the trick with a quick head clean before record/play
Click to expand...
Does a bulk eraser generally do a better job at erasing content and noise than an erase head, or does it depend on the quality/model of the bulk eraser? What model is yours?
 
A good bulk eraser (I have a 30 kg Weircliffe monster), properly operated on a matching tape type returns it to its magnetic virgin state, something an AC erase head cannot do. But this is only of use for tapes recorded slightly off track, i.e. where the deck’s erase head does not reach, or sometimes on tapes with ‘hard domains’, i.e. with permanently magnetised particles holding ghosts of an older recording that return louder after each attempt to erase them with a head.

With normal recordings on healthy tape on a decent deck external erasure is not needed at all. This said, a bulk eraser is handy, and in case of the Weircliffe has a high mad professor factor.
 
337alant said:
Richard
All noise should be erased during a fresh record ( the erase efficiency is stated as -65dB @1k )
So it should be silent, but new bias noise could be present if the Bias is not set correctly for the tape type in use.
Magnetised tape heads can also increase background noise.
Alan
Click to expand...
I don't have it to hand right now but I'm 99% sure my A3440 hard copy owner manual says it was setup for Maxell UD. However the manual I downloaded online says "Factory adjusted for ScotchMaster Tape 10R-3600 but can also be used with Scotch 250, Maxell UD, Maxell UDXL, Maxell LN, Sony DUAD, Sony SLH, TDK AUDUA L, TDK AUDUA T".
My dad spent about 10 minutes degaussing the heads and guides, - maybe he overdid it?!
I don't really have any other reference for noise so probably ought to wait till I have the B77 back, then I'll be able to compare.
 
For clarity: bias noise is caused by recording with AC bias and cannot be avoided.

On top of that there can be noise caused by a bad or distorting bias oscillator, by the record amplifier, and by magnetised parts in the tape path. But none of these are called bias noise.

Going back to your first observation: did you compare the noise at the end of the recording with the noise of a part of factory-fresh or bulk-erased tape, or with head-erased tape?
 
Werner said:
did you compare the noise at the end of the recording with the noise of a part of factory-fresh or bulk-erased tape, or with head-erased tape?
Click to expand...

To clarify, I was recording on the 'B-side' of a brand new Maxell UD tape that I had only previously recorded music and test tones on the 'A-side'.
I could hear the 'A-side' content bleeding through onto the 'B-side' a little, but during sections where there was no bleed the noise floor of the virgin 'B-side' tape was very low. After I recorded on the B-side and played it back, the noise floor was much higher.

I didn't try recording silence with the input knobs set to zero, would this help to narrow down the cause of the increased noise floor?

Regarding bulk eraser, I'm thinking of getting one to erase tapes that have been previously recorded on to ensure 100% erasure of all tracks on the tape to avoid cross-track bleed, so that it doesn't matter if the tape was previously used on a 2-track or 4-track deck.
 
I can't say I've even noticed any problems whatsoever with erasure or noise on erased tape with a correctly functioning machine.
 
I didn't try recording silence with the input knobs set to zero, would this help to narrow down the cause of the increased noise floor?
Click to expand...

Yes.

And if you could record the playback of a virgin tape into a computer, and then again a tape erased by recording with input knobs at 0, so that we can compare the two noise levels.

Or you could simply await the arrival of the B-77 and use that to establish what is normal.
 
Richard when you say A side and B side are you flipping the tape over ?, you shouldn't be as the the 3440 is meant to be a 4 track all in the same direction for musician doing a multi track recording
 
337alant said:
Richard when you say A side and B side are you flipping the tape over ?, you shouldn't be as the the 3440 is meant to be a 4 track all in the same direction for musician doing a multi track recording
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought I could essentially treat the deck as a 2-channel quarter track machine, flipping the tape over to record on tracks 1 and 3 on each side. Did I mess up?

This is actually the only tape I've done this with, the rest of the recordings I made on the A3440 are one-side of the tape only (tracks 1 and 3) to avoid bleed-through.

I'm curious what the difference is between recording all four tracks in the same direction vs recording on tracks 1 and 3 only and then flipping the tape over? Wouldn't the amount of cross-channel bleed-through be the same?
 
If you recorded 1&2 as one channel and 2&4 as the other you should have something fairly close to a half-track. Bleed shouldn’t be an issue, there is plenty of room on quarter inch tape for four tracks. The problems came with the later quarter inch 8 tracks.
 
Tony L said:
If you recorded 1&2 as one channel and 2&4 as the other you should have something fairly close to a half-track. Bleed shouldn’t be an issue, there is plenty of room on quarter inch tape for four tracks. The problems came with the later quarter inch 8 tracks.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting splitting the amp's output so that the left channel goes to inputs 1&2 on the deck and the right channel goes to inputs 3&4 on the deck? If I did that then I'd need to play the deck through a mixer to mix it back down to 2-channels before outputting that to my amp?
 
Or you could use "Y" pieces
I did have a problem with track bleed on my 3440, but before I could get to the bottom of it I bought my first Tascam BR20 which worked perfectly so the 3440 got pushed to one side
Alan
 
ToTo Man said:
Does a bulk eraser generally do a better job at erasing content and noise than an erase head, or does it depend on the quality/model of the bulk eraser? What model is yours?
Click to expand...
HAD it since the early 70s and it was 2nd hand, made by Osmabet its worked perfect since then. ive replaced the mains cable, in todays market of old tapes etc the difference can be heard. i also have 2 from ferrograph one is smaller labelled defluxer by wright and weaire. use ferrograph for the heads
 
This doesn't relate to the A3440 but thought this thread would be an appropriate place to discuss Rick Beato's demonstration of drums recorded directly to ProTools -vs- onto tape. The whole video is very interesting and well worth watching in full, but for those who don't have time, jump forward to 11 mins and 12 secs:


If the tape does indeed compress and elongate transients to such an extent, wouldn't this happen each time the master tape was copied down a generation and mean that the 'production effects' on an Xth gen. master tape would sound significantly different to the 1st gen. master?

I knew that with each generation you lost SNR and dynamics but I didn't think other aspects of the sound would change much. Does it depend on the levels the tape is recorded at? It's not entirely clear from that excerpt how 'hot' the tape was hit when recording those drums, but in the section immediately preceding that the engineer says he tries not to let levels go above 0dB. Is it reasonable to assume that when making copies of the 1st gen. master, levels would be set lower to minimise the effect of tape compression on the copy, or would it happen to some extent regardless?
 
Does it depend on the levels the tape is recorded at?
Click to expand...

Yes. Very much so.

It's not entirely clear from that excerpt how 'hot' the tape was hit when recording those drums, but in the section immediately preceding that the engineer says he tries not to let levels go above 0dB.
Click to expand...

But that is likely on VU meters, which show the average, and not the peaks. The peaks from uncompressed, raw drums are very very very much louder than the average. Once recorded, and thus compressed, these peaks are gone, and will compress no more, or at least much less, when copied a second time to tape.
 
Out of interest, what would happen if you played back a 2-track stereo tape recorded on a 2-track stereo deck on a "4 tracks all in the same direction" 4-channel deck, and vice versa?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top