Pioneer RT-707 Capacitor Upgrade and Service

Wise words guys.

I have checked the obvious things like ensuring that the Auto-Stop lever was not applying excessive pressure to the tape, no luck there. In fact I serviced the Auto-Stop mechanism very early in the piece and replaced the spring with a good original one. Gently lifting the Auto-Stop lever off of the tape whilst erasing made no difference at all. As I said in my post above I have double checked the tape path across the heads, particularly the Reverse Playback and Erase Head as they are in such close proximity. I used some clear leader tape and a very large magnifier to watch the tape pass across the heads. Everything seemed fine to me. I will however loosen the erase head securing screws and just ensure that it is as well located as it can be.

I will soon have a tension meter and then I can properly measure the back tension. Until I can do that I will just be plucking at straws.

Cheers.
 
Hi everyone,

I have been investigating my strange issue of tape not sitting flat against the heads today. I first noticed this as a problem when trying to erase a recording, the left channel was not being completely wiped. After some close scrutiny I found that the tape was not sitting perfectly flat against the heads, and that the tiniest bit of extra drag applied to the supply reel would immediately fix it.

I had not previously noticed this issue, so I thought I would try out some different tapes.

Here is some new old stock BASF LP35LH 1800' running across the heads.
If you look carefully you can see that the tape is contacting the heads evenly by the highlight, particularly on the Record Head, and even on the Reverse Playback Head if you look carefully.
index.php


Next I tried some new Mulann (Recording the Masters) LPR35 1800'
Although the Matt black back coating makes it harder to see, you can still see that the tape is following the contour of the heads, particularly across the Record Head.
index.php


I tried recording and erasing on both of these tapes, and they worked correctly! Very strange. I was beginning to suspect however that tape thickness had a role to play in this story. The LPR35 is 1.38 millimeters thick, whilst the old BASF is only 1.03 millimeters thick.

Then I tried some Mulann SM911 1200' tape. This tape is much thicker than either of the two 1800' varieties. In fact according to Mulann it is almost 2 millimeters! 1.97 to be exact. It was using this tape that I had noticed my erasure issue.

So I tried out the SM911 and this is a crop of the Record and Playback heads. If you look closely you can see that the highlight on the curve of the Record Head only seems to extend about half way up the tape from the bottom.
index.php


Whereas in this picture I have applied the slightest amount of additional drag to the supply reel, and now you can see that the highlight on the curve of the Record Head extends all the way up the tape.
index.php


When the SM911 tape is running I can actually see that it is not sitting flat against the head, but as soon as I even brush the supply reel the tape instantly tightens up and sits flat against all the heads.

I wonder is this is an issue with the tape? Although I would not have thought so. Anyway, once I have a decent instrument to measure the back tension adjustments I will be able to hopefully put this problem to bed.

Interesting don't you all think?

Cheers.
 
Interesting, but I'm not surprised. None of my vintage decks like thick tape (the Akai-747 will just spool it onto the floor!). I'm sure none of them were spec'd for 2 mil tape. Why do you suppose the new stuff is made this thick (besides trying to eliminate print-through)?
 
Last edited:
The thicker tape is also more resistant to damage caused by frequent fast winding, stopping and playback which occurs in studio environments. SM911 is advertised as being a studio and archive tape.
 
SM911 is supposed to be the parent material, or formulation, that the longer LPR35 is based on. I purchased a few reels of SM911 as it is 'equivalent' to Quantegy (Ampex) 456 which I have quite a lot of, but the Quantegy tape is not as thick as the SM911 that's for sure! And I don't have any issues with the 456 reels.

Once I am able to measure the back tension on the supply reel I will know where I stand. If the 707 is within spec regarding it's back tension settings then I might just not bother with the SM911.

Mind you a problem like this was about the last thing I would have imagined with these tapes. Oh well, we live and learn!
 
Hi Trevor,

in one of the photos, the tape can be seen to be riding high against the top edge of the exit tape guide. This might imply a backwards tilt to the head block. Check the fixing bolts to make sure that nothing is trapped and twisting the base plate. If the alignment is correct, the thicker 911 should not be a problem. The thicker 911 will highlight a backward tilt as the top edge of the tape will not have the same tension. This is a similar problem with flat drive belts which ride up in one direction.

Also the 911 is the same formulation as the LPR35 (as already mentioned). It just has a thicker backing. The settings of the recorder should be LH in both cases and not STD.

Cheers.

GPS16
 
Ditto what GPS said. Also, which tapes you tried are brand new or at least newish? I know many have success with carefully selected old tapes but i gave up on old stock after many issues. Either way, make sure you are testing and calibrating with a known good tape.

EDIT/PS: is the difference in drag of different tape types much different, compared to the scale of the required tension? I guess not, but your post did make me wonder about that.
 
Last edited:
Hi Trevor,

in one of the photos, the tape can be seen to be riding high against the top edge of the exit tape guide. This might imply a backwards tilt to the head block. Check the fixing bolts to make sure that nothing is trapped and twisting the base plate. If the alignment is correct, the thicker 911 should not be a problem. The thicker 911 will highlight a backward tilt as the top edge of the tape will not have the same tension. This is a similar problem with flat drive belts which ride up in one direction.

Also the 911 is the same formulation as the LPR35 (as already mentioned). It just has a thicker backing. The settings of the recorder should be LH in both cases and not STD.

Cheers.

GPS16

Hi GPS,

Yes, I have also noticed that the tape rides very near, or right at the top of the exit guide. I have carefully checked and watched the tape as it passes this guide and can see no evidence that the tape is actually trying to ride up, or push up, against the top edge of the guide. Also I can see no evidence at all of the base plate being misaligned or twisted. None the less it might be worth trying to loosen the guide to raise it very slightly and just see what happens.

Thanks.
 
Ditto what GPS said. Also, which tapes you tried are brand new or at least newish? I know many have success with carefully selected old tapes but i gave up on old stock after many issues. Either way, make sure you are testing and calibrating with a known good tape.

EDIT/PS: is the difference in drag of different tape types much different, compared to the scale of the required tension? I guess not, but your post did make me wonder about that.

Hi Mate,

Yes the tapes are all new. The BASF LP35LH is old stock tape, but it is new. All of the Mulann tapes (Recording the Masters) are brand new, current production. I do have some Scotch 207 that is old stock and also new, and all my original tapes from the 1970's are Scotch 207 or BASF LP35, but they are all recorded on from back in the day.

I have noticed that if I apply a tiny amount of drag to the supply reel, all of the tapes tried can be seen to tighten up across the heads ever so slightly. It is the SM911 that seems to have particular trouble with this however.

I will be very interested to see just what the back tension measurements really are.

Thanks.
 
Hi Trevor,

the tape guide does not need moving at all. The tape is passing by the guide and if the tape is hard against the top then external means are doing it. The guide illustrates, it is not the problem. Some thing is tilted for the tape to want to wander upwards. The problem with the left erase is also an indicator. The tension at the bottom of the tape not the same as the top. The tape wandering up wards to find equilibrium and the guide is "in the way" so to speak.

Check the tape back tension with a spring gauge. This measures the torque of the relevant motor and as such is not reliant on any other influences to vary it. I still feel that you have a mechanical alignment issue here which needs to be resolved.

Take a very close look at the wear pattern on the Permalloy heads. Is the wear rectangular or trapezoidal with the thin end of the Trapezoid at the top?

I am looking for "signs" here?

GPS16
 
Hi all,

So, following on from GPS16's suggestions about this problem almost certainly being a physical alignment issue, I decided to do some more serious investigation.

First, I had a close look at the heads and the existing wear pattern. I left the heads a bit dirty for this as it helps show the shape of the wear.
index.php


Sure enough, if you look closely you can see that the wear pattern is indeed slightly trapezoidal, with the thin end of the wedge towards the top. This pretty much concluded for me that there is indeed some physical issue here.

So, I got a good straight edge and placed it across the reel tables, and then using a caliper gauge I measured the height of the Head Plate, front and back, both sides, relative to the height of the reel tables. To my amazement there was about a 25 thousandths of an inch fall towards the back of the plate! Sure enough, GPS was right, the head plate, and thereby the heads were tilted backwards very slightly.

So, I carefully removed the head stack from its mountings and investigated. I was certain that when I originally dismantled all this to lube and clean the machine that I did not lose any spacers or washers.
index.php


I had a look at the Service Manual and that confirmed that there were not supposed to be any spacers on the rear mounting posts.
Just the two large nylon washers for the pinch roller pivots, which are all in place.
index.php


I mean, the head plate mounts hard up against those mounting posts, so I'm at a loss to explain how the head plate could be tilted backwards like this. Anyway, I spent some time in my shed and made myself a pair of 20 thousandths on an inch washers that would sit on top of the rear mounting posts and raise the back of the head plate.

Here you can see one of the washers on top of the mounting post.
index.php


In the end I had to lightly glue the washers in place with a little Super Glue as it was so difficult to keep them on top of the posts whilst remounting the head plate. Anyway, after carefully refitting the head stack and making sure everything was correctly located, I tightened it all down. I then measured the heights again, this time there was only a few thousandths of an inch difference front to back. It is very difficult to measure, but I thought the acid test would be to try the machine out.

Here we have some SM911 tape running across the heads. This is the thick tape that alerted me to this issue.
You can see clearly that the highlight on the tape now clearly follows the curve of the heads, and this is with the normal back tension.
index.php


Also, the tape now sits right in the centre of the exit tape guide.
index.php


Whilst on the left, the tape runs a little closer to the bottom of the entry guide, but is not running up against it.
index.php


Better still, when I performed recording and erasure tests, it all worked perfectly and sounded great! The erase head is now clearly making even contact with the tape, top and bottom. I guess my quandary now is trying to determine just why the Head Stack would have been out of alignment in that way. There is no evidence of any damage or of the machine having been dropped or anything like that. Considering the slightly uneven head wear I imagine that the machine has been like this for some time.

Anyway, for now, I shall leave my home made spacers in place whilst doing some more testing.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Hi Trevor,

glad you had some success with that one. Now bear in mind that there will be a running in period for the components on the head plate to "Bed In" again. The HF set up may be a bit iffy for a while but it will get better. Has the head block been replaced at any time I wonder!!??

Before you embark on a Cal Run, ensure you have included the Azimuth adjustment. As you have now physically changed the Head positions, the accuracy will need to verified. Again, if the Azimuth is out of alignment the Electronic Adjustments don't mean diddly!!!

Again, cracking job.

GPS16
 
Hi Trevor,

just had a closer look at the photos expanded. The fifth one looks like the tape is running central in the wear pattern of the Rec Head as well as the exit guide. This should mean much more stable mechanical conditions as the tape is not fighting the guides to get to it's own preferred position.

Cheers.

GPS16
 
Hi Trevor,

just had a closer look at the photos expanded. The fifth one looks like the tape is running central in the wear pattern of the Rec Head as well as the exit guide. This should mean much more stable mechanical conditions as the tape is not fighting the guides to get to it's own preferred position.

Cheers.

GPS16

Thanks mate,

Yes, it certainly looks a lot better, but the question remains as to how it got that way in the first place? Initially I was quite concerned that by raising the rear of the head plate up by 20 thou, which has clearly changed the way the tape runs through the exit guide, that the tape would be running a lot lower down the heads as well. But as you have noticed that does not seem to be the case.

There is no real evidence that I can see that the heads have ever been replaced, other than the fact that none of the alignment screws on the heads on this machine had any of the blue lacquer on them that the genuine heads seem to have. The second hand set of heads that I have have got that blue lacquer on everything.

Anyway, as you rightly point out, I now have to go back to square one and re-check all the alignment settings. But I'm well practiced now, so it should all be OK.

Do you think that placing a couple of 20 thou spacers under the rear mounts was a reasonable thing to do? It does seem to have worked though, so I think I shall leave them there.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Hi Trevor,

The Permalloy Heads would be able to "adjust out" the error. The Erase Head is fixed to the base plate "as is". You may have got away with it, I can't say for certainty.

The adjustment you have done is "Global" as far as the head plate is concerned. It is also done with shims so it is permanent. As I said in a previous post, you have cured the fault with a permanent solution. I would hate to adjust everything on the head plate and then still have a problem with the erase head which is not easily adjustable. Anyway, you have already measured using proper instrumentation that the whole plate was tipped back in the first place. This fix will probably rectify some "horror" in the machines previous life!!!

Unexpected but not out of the realms of refurbishment. When you have sorted faults to this level then the final results are even more special. Your Cheshire Cat grin on completion will now be a little wider!!!! Probably near the point of pain!!! Well earned!!!

GPS16
 
great result on sorting the head alignment! It's funny how the at first daunting calibration process becomes easy after having to redo it a few times :). As GPS says, you may expect a bit of odd or varying behaviour as the tape settles into the new position. Let us know how it goes.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments guy.

It is certainly a strange problem (the head base plate) which has clearly been in effect for some time according to the wear pattern on the heads. Possible even from new? As you say GPS by raising the whole base plate in this way I have avoided having to try and re-align the heads individually, and as you correctly pointed out, that is not so easy with the erase head. This way the head adjustments have all been kept relative to one another.

Anyway, I am slowly chipping away at the machine and when finished I should have quite a nice bit of kit.

Cheers.
 
Hello again everyone,

So, after real life getting in the way of my project, I am back playing with the RT-707.

This time after using some spacers 20 thousandths of an inch thick to raise the rear of the head deck plate, I decided to do some simple recording tests. I had already attempted to perform the Azimuth alignments but was unhappy with how uneven the forward playback head seemed to be. I had a great deal of trouble trying to get the Azimuth set, followed by the EQ calibration. I found that the EQ levels were no longer very flat at the top end, particularly seeing variations between left and right channel which had not been in evidence previously.

I tried three different tape types, recording a 1KHz tone at about -3dB on them and watching and listening for variations in levels. I found that the thin tapes, BASF LP35LH and Mulann LPR35 performed well, but the older Quantegy 456 was a little uneven its levels between left and right channel, with right channel being down on the left. Whilst the Mulann SM911 was really uneven in its levels, this time left channel was strong and right channel was noticeably weaker. This suggested to me that the 20 thou of spacer was actually too much, and so I dismantled it all again, this time making up spacers of some 10 thousandths of an inch.

Here is one of the thinner spacers on the top of the rear head plate mount.
index.php


So after reinstalling the head stack, I then went back and re-performed all the Azimuth alignment and recording EQ adjustments. This time the Azimuth setting was a lot better and more even, and the EQ was also much improved although I still noticed a little left/right channel difference at the very top end at 12.5KHz, 16KHz and 20KHhz with right channel being a little down on level over the left channel. But the level differences were very small in millivolt levels and lets face it, at those frequencies you are not going to hear it. Between 1KHz and 10KHz everything was nice and flat and even, with once again the observed boost in levels at the bottom end below 1KHz, just as before.

I then tried some recording tests with a 1KHz tone at -3dB on the same set of tapes. This time the BASF LP35LH, Mulann LPR35 and the Quantegy 456 all performed well with nice even levels and very little variation between left and right channel. I was pretty happy with this and felt that the 10 thou spacers gave a much better overall alignment that seemed to be verified by the Azimuth, EQ and simple recording tests.

So now it was time to move on to the Recording BIAS and remaining adjustments. Before doing this however I did re-perform the Dummy Coil and BIAS Trap adjustments, and verified that everything was still good there.

First thing I needed to do though was choose what type of tape to setup the bias for. I have no idea what the original Pioneer STD-502 tape was, but presumably it was some form of high bias tape. Originally I had wanted to use the Mulann SM911 as the 'high end' tape for setting up the bias, but in light of the issues I am still having with this tape tracking across my heads I have instead chosen to use Mulann LPR35, which is the same formulation as SM911 but on a thinner tape.

As any of you who have followed Smurfer77's thread will know, he discovered that the manual for the Recording BIAS adjustments seems to contain some errors, or typos perhaps, with regard to the function of the BIAS Adjustment VR's numbered VR303 and VR304. Smurfer discovered that the instructions for dealing with these VR's is back-to-front. He found that when the manual said to turn the VR's Clockwise to increase the BIAS, in actual fact you needed to turn Anti-Clockwise to achieve that outcome. Refer to these posts: here

To ensure that I understood what was happening in this regard on my machine I set up my scope to actually check the function of the BIAS VR's.
index.php


Sure enough, turning the VR's Clockwise does actually DECREASE the bias level. Here you can see that my Left Channel (Yellow Trace) has dropped in level when I turned the VR fully Clockwise. This is opposite to what the manual says!
index.php


So I setup my little Signal Generator.
index.php


And here I have it outputting 1KHz at -10dB (approx 316mV)
index.php


Then you set the Line Input pots to give an output level of -7db (450mV)
index.php


And then set the VR303 and VR304 BIAS Adjusters to give the peak level on each channel whilst Recording and monitoring the Playback with the Millivolt Meter. My left channel peak BIAS was about 480mV with the right channel being about 490mV

I found the Milliolt Meter tricky to read when you are looking for changes of 0.2dB, which is only about 9mV (according to my calculations), so I used to DMM to help out. At 1KHz it is quite accurate.
Here it is showing the peak BIAS level on my left channel.
index.php


So after finding the peak level for each channel I set the overbias on the BIAS VR's by turning them Anti-Clockwise until I got values around 470mV for the left channel and 480mV for the right. These adjustments affect one another so you need to repeat them a few times.

I then setup to perform the Record/Play Frequency Response test. For this test you need to input a 1KHz signal into the machine, followed by adjusting the Line Input pots to give and output level of -7dB (450mV). The manual then says you need to reduce the input level by 20dB without touching the Line Input pots. At first I wondered just how I was going to do that, but closer inspection of my little Signal Generator showed that it had an attenuation switch that would drop the level by 20dB, perfect!

You can see the attenuation switch in this image.
index.php


You then proceed to record the 1KHz signal and take note of the level from the tape output. Then you input a 15KHz signal, still at the -20dB level, and compare the output level. Than manual says that the level deviation from 1KHz to 15KHz should be -3dB +1.5dB or -1.0dB. Now this is where I ran into trouble, at these sort of levels we are only talking about very small millivolt measurements. My 1KHz -20dB output level was about 36mV left channel, and about 40 mV right channel.

Here is the left channel level at 1KHz -20dB.
(You can see that the Millivolt Meter and the DMM agree pretty closely, even at these levels)
index.php


And here I have changed the scale on the Millivolt Meter.
index.php


When I measured the 15KHz -20db output level the Millivolt Meter looked very similar at this scale, but the DMM was clearly out of it's depth at 15KHz and could not be trusted. The DMM said 9mV, which clearly does not match the Millivolt Meter.

As you can see, the Millivolt Meter level looks very similar to the previous image.
index.php


And again with the Millivolt Meter scale changed.
But at this scale we can see that the 15KHz -20dB signal has actually increased!
index.php


At these sorts of levels, just what reading would -3dB be if the 1KHz level was 36mV? I thought that 1db was 44.7mV, and that calculation seemed to work well at the 316mV (-10dB) or 450mV (-7dB) levels. 450 - 316 = 134mV = 3dB so 1dB = 44.7mV. Even when doing the BIAS adjustment I calculated 0.2dB as 9mV, with 44.7mV as 1dB. But am I actually correct here?

But just what should I expect down at levels around 40mV, clearly it can't be a difference of 134mV (3dB), that's crazy, so I have somehow misunderstood just what to expect here.

Also, what should I do about the fact that the 15KHz -20dB signal is stronger on the tape than the 1KHz -20dB signal. The manual says it should be -3dB from the 1KHz -20dB signal, and if not to once again adjust the BIAS VR's. I tried altering the BIAS VR's as they say in the manual, but I was having to move them too far before anything would happen. I then had to go back and re-perform the BIAS adjustment at 1KHz back to the 0.2dB overbias.

So I'm a bit lost now, I have read and re-read Smurfers thread on this subject but am none the wiser. Just what should I expect to see for these readings. I can see that Smurfer just turned his VR's anti-clockwise to get a -1dB deviation, but I am not sure just what to do now.

I would appreciate any input from you guys.

Cheers.

EDIT: OK, so I have just used Google to lookup some info on Decibels. This quote caught my eye:
"Are decibels linear? Decibels express a power ratio, not an amount. They tell how many times more (positive dB) or less (negative dB) but not how much in absolute terms. Decibels are logarithmic, not linear. For example, 20 dB is not twice the power ratio of 10 dB."

So obviously my 'calculations' used in this calibration exercise are probably way off. No doubt I have demonstrated just how much of a novice I am in falling for this, and not realising that dB is a ratio.

I wonder how one can calculate how much difference -0.2dB is from 480mV for example, or how much -3dB is from 36mV. No doubt there are calculators out there, I just need to find one.
 
Last edited:
Hi Trevor,

the 20 thou spacer was probably fine. The uneven wear on the front of the head is now working against you. This is why I said to run it for a while to let it settle down. The front of the head will now have a wear pattern which will try to send the tape in the opposite direction. On the plus side, the thin part of the "Trapezoid" will now have a larger proportion of the tape tension so the wear pattern should change quicker than would normally be the case.

If I was you I would go back to the 20 thou spacers and run it in. From you measurements you have not gotten rid of the error you have now just halved it. When the wear pattern settle in you will still end up with a trapezoid. To get this problem sorted out quickly, the heads would need to be re lapped. As the error was slight, let the wear pattern settle in with the 20 thou washers and then the whole tape path will be stable!!!

You have in effect transferred your troubles from the Left Channel to the Right Channel but now the problem will naturally diminish!!!

As you have new stocks of LPR35 and SM911, set up the record side of the machine using these tapes. As you have the 20 thou washers back in place(?), The left channel should be a breeze. The right channel not so. You have not mentioned the overbias (unless I missed it). With the bias pots giving a minimum bias they are slowly turned to increase the bias until the HF signal peaks. Then you over bias the signal until the level drops by the amount given in the manual. This put you at the correct bias for minimum distortion. This is now the starting point for the HF adjustment. The HF response is very sensitive to the bias level and this is "Tape Formulation Dependent".

The global Recording Equalisation is selected with the networks just after Q303/4. The fine tuning for Tape Type is done with the Bias Setting. If the HF is too high the Bias needs to be increased and Vice Versa!!! No doubt fiddly but there we go.

On a Revox machine the Min Distortion point is found first with a dB over bias drop obtained from a table in the manual. The Eq is then adjusted with pots on the record amp. For later formulations of tape, which are not in the table, the bias has to be tweaked to make the Eq Pots be "in range".

The dB scales on your millivoltmeter should be the one to use. If you notice, 0dB on the scale corresponds to 0.775V on the linear scale. The ranges jump in a 1 and 3 steps. This give a 10dB shift per range change. In the middle of the scale the 600Ohm 0dBm 1mW is pretty much the "Standard".

You may go round a few time with this to get the "hang" of things. Whilst you are doing this the wear pattern will be getting better and better. The improvements will probably be exponential in nature like a half life. Go with it for the moment.

I still hold that you go back to the 20 thou washers. If you don't you are making calibration adjustments with a fault still in place.

Keep going!!! Again, you are taming the beast!!!

GPS16
 
Glad the notes on bias helped. I recommend starting with the VR turned all the way to the right (wound out clockwise) before recording. And during recording/playback then turning counter-clockwise to the peak and then turning further counter clockwise into overbias.

I too had higher audio output at 15kHz than 1kHz after adjust bias, and ended up pushing into overbias a bit further than manual.

gain [dB] = 10*log10 (V/V0)

rearranging gives
V = V0*10^(gain/10)

For example, if you want to calculate -0.2dB of 283mV you can plug the following into your google search bar:

0.283*10^(-0.2/10)

which will give about 270mV. Or to answer you specific question, -0.2dB of 480mV gives 458mV and -3dB of 36mV is 18mV. Note that adding or subtracting 3dB on the log scale is equivalent to doubling or halving of the linear value, hence we could immediately know that -3dB of 36mV is 36/2 = 18mV.

The above is for amplitude; if a dB variation of power is desired then in your formula one of the "10" becomes a "20" due to the square of variable involved in powers. And also be careful reading manuals etc as there are different reference voltages. For example dbv is referenced to 0.775V, where as dbV is references to 1V.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom