• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Best auto-reverse R2R for pre-recorded 4-track tapes ?

david winter

david winter

Classical music lover.
Hi,

I wanted to know what 4-track auto-reverse R2R machine would replace my Revox A77 ?
What I would like is:
- Best sound (ok, hard question there, but something that would equal or beat my A77)
- Better record/play quality at 3 3/4 ips (9.5cm/s) just in case I start enjoying that speed on pre-recored tapes (pop/rock but hardly classical unless someone recommends it.....)
- The possibility to record the auto-reversse signal at the end of a pre-recorded tape that doesn't have it yet
- If possible, an auto-load signal to automatically skip a silent section at the begining of Side 1. I read that Ampex used that signal but not sure what decks featured it (probably Ampex :scratch2:).

I'm not planing to get rid of my A77, but if I could find something better I would consider it.

Thanks !
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I cant answer all the questions off the top of my head but the 6 head decks eliminate rube goldberg mechanics in most of the AR machines. Other than that - a professionally restored machine isnt a bad choice if you can score one.
 
david winter said:
Hi,

I wanted to know what 4-track auto-reverse R2R machine would replace my Revox A77 ?
What I would like is:
- Best sound (ok, hard question there, but something that would equal or beat my A77)
- Better record/play quality at 3 3/4 ips (9.5cm/s) just in case I start enjoying that speed on pre-recored tapes (pop/rock but hardly classical unless someone recommends it.....)
- The possibility to record the auto-reversse signal at the end of a pre-recorded tape that doesn't have it yet
- If possible, an auto-load signal to automatically skip a silent section at the begining of Side 1. I read that Ampex used that signal but not sure what decks featured it (probably Ampex :scratch2:).

I'm not planing to get rid of my A77, but if I could find something better I would consider it.

Thanks !
Click to expand...
The A77 is a pretty high bar sound-wise. IMO the best-sounding auto-reverse R2Rs that I know-of which have similar sonics to the Revox are the Sony TC-558 and the TC-758. Both have some minor mechanical issues though. The 558 has problems with its pinch-roller, and the 758 uses "roto-bilateral" heads which is an added complexity to the mechanism.
 
Thanks for your answers.
I forgot to say that I restore old gear (tube & transistor, it's my job) so I can of course get an unrestored deck and get it to work.
I don't need to have the "revox" sound (I don't even know what "revox sound" means as I never took several decks to test them with a same tape.
What I want is the best sound for classical music, and:
- long life heads which can be replaced by equaly good ones (if not originals)
- least cross-talk / diaphony between channels
- least WOW / flutter
- Not too much tape tension in playback and fast rewind/forward
- Most even spooling in fast rewind/forward

I mostly listen to piano, piano/violin/cello concertos, chamber, and orchestral works, but hardly opera/lyric.
My preferred tape brand is of course Barclay Crocker, but I also really enjoy DGG, London, Columbia, etc. It's only a matter of what's on the tape, not the brand itself as long as I know that the recording worth having, and that it's not an economic pack recorded at 3 3/4ips (once again, I really got very disappointed on my A77; at that speed I hear no real dynamics).
 
As I mentioned on your post on the UKVRR forum, the TC-758. I also have an Akai x355 which performs extremely well at 3.75 ips (cross field head) but these units will need a lot of work to get fully up to spec by now.
 
Hi Ben,
I read a TC-758 thread with pros & cons. Among the cons, the rotary head system (well, I won't mind if it performs ok and doesn't add mistracking or misaligning which involves a VERY precise mecanism, especially for low speed tapes). I also read that Sony decks have some cross-talk which I don't really want. Otherwise they look great and very well made.
Regarding your x355: what does it need other than a full recap, cleaninig/lubing, and possible alignment ? Does it have the features I'm looking for ?

Gamez: I have seen a picture of the 747 and always liked how it looks. However I don't know how it performs. Does it have cross-talk as well ? What if I have to replace the playback heads someday ? What I don't understand with this deck is why they had to wear two head sets at once. Couldn't they have allowed only one set of heads to be in contact with the tape while playing ? Same question with Technics decks. Unless the heads used there are really long life and hardly wear.

I must specify that I only have a few 3.75ips tapes so far. Almost all of my tapes run at 7.5ips. The question regarding high performance at lower speed is just in case I can get great sound from factory recorded tapes. *IF* these tapes are known not to play great, then I'll not consider that speed and stay with 7.5ips tapes.

Thanks for your feedback, any other info welcome.

David.
 
Last edited:
You're pushing it a bit ...... asking for advice to find a autoreverse deck, that sound better than a Revox, but involves a lot of fancy features like autoreverse, low tension, no crosstalk, low wow & flutter .... and now you're bitching about why a autoreverse deck like 747 is using all the heads at the same time ...

ARGHHHHHH !!!!!


mount your tape on a Revox - and flip the bloody tape once a while !

or..... maybe take a look at Akai's GX-260D - Autoreverse, capable of recording in both directions, Glass&Xtal ferrite heads, would need a set of transistors and a handfull of caps - and it's up and running.

Time are past the one, where you could make a wish list, and pick a deck from the catalogue :)
 
Regarding the 747 tape path I'm only curious, I know it's a great deck but I found a bit strange that they let the unused heads be in contact with the tape. Anyhow, no big deal.
I also know that those glass/crystal heads are hard to wear (unless you fancy abrasive tapes a la pyral).
I'm only thinking about whether an auto-reverse deck would advantageously replace my A77, but if not, I'll stay with it. I use it every day so I don't really mind flipping tapes every 30 minutes or so.
 
david winter said:
.....I'm only thinking about whether an auto-reverse deck would advantageously replace my A77, but if not, I'll stay with it. I use it every day so I don't really mind flipping tapes every 30 minutes or so.
Click to expand...

I can't see any deck that has a sound good enough to beat a well setup A77

( ok - that was not true - A Sony 765 is a really nasty fellow at this point )
 
I notice no crosstalk on my 747, also akai heads whould be about the last thing on the planet you should worry about wearing out. they fall somewhere between keith richards and cockroaches in terms of what will still be around at the end of the world, in other words unless you use very abrasive tape, they will take forever to wear out, and i just priced replacements at currently 39.99 from reelprosoundguys as of two weeks ago, so they are available and affordable somehow too.

all auto reverse decks i am aware of that have two sets of heads wear all the heads at once. its a built in flaw i suppose but it would be somewhat dificult to divert the tape path from the heads in reverse.

does the x1000r have contact on all heads in both directions?
 
jan_stevns said:
I can't see any deck that has a sound good enough to beat a well setup A77

( ok - that was not true - A Sony 765 is a really nasty fellow at this point )
Click to expand...
The Sony 758 is capable of equally superb sonics, its just not quite as versatile when recording (since it only has a 4-way bias/eq selectors VS the 9-way bias/eq selectors on the 765). And every single one of the 10.5" F&F Sonys will easily surpass the W&F performance of an A77. I have extremely flutter sensitive ears but cannot hear ANY W&F on any of the big Sonys, but I can hear some on my Revoxes.

Some people dislike the roto-blateral heads in principle, but in practice they seem to hold their azimuth adjustments very well.

Regarding cross-talk: I don't know what you are concerned about here. The Sonys throw a great big and wide sound-stage and image superbly. Who cares about a cross-talk spec when it really tells you so little about how a piece will actually sound?
 
Last edited:
goldear said:
And every single one of the 10.5" F&F Sonys will easily surpass the W&F performance of an A77. I have extremely flutter sensitive ears but cannot hear ANY W&F on any of the big Sonys, but I can hear some on my Revoxes.

Some people dislike the roto-blateral heads in principle, but in practice they seem to hold their azimuth adjustments very well.

Regarding cross-talk: I don't know what you are concerned about here. The Sonys throw a great big and wide sound-stage and image superbly. Who cares about a cross-talk spec when it really tells you so little about how a piece will actually sound?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just look at the tape path for a start, those 10.5" sonys have dual capstan and rotary guides, extremely good handling and excellent W&F specs as a result. I've never encountered any crosstalk problems either.
 
eclectik said:
Agreed. Just look at the tape path for a start, those 10.5" sonys have dual capstan and rotary guides, extremely good handling and excellent W&F specs as a result. I've never encountered any crosstalk problems either.
Click to expand...

the main thing i dont like about those particular decks is the dual capstan, I dislike reel to reel decks with dual capstan, I think it was a waste of time that the end result could have been better implemented in other ways.

NO, professional machine I am aware of uses dual capstans, why teac decided to overcomplicate things with two capstans I dont understand, sonys reasoning I understand a bit more, as with the flip heads it is more sensible.
but all the people I know who are into reel prefer single capstan, including a few i know that have a X-1000R.
 
captaingamez said:
the main thing i dont like about those particular decks is the dual capstan, I dislike reel to reel decks with dual capstan, I think it was a waste of time that the end result could have been better implemented in other ways.

NO, professional machine I am aware of uses dual capstans, why teac decided to overcomplicate things with two capstans I dont understand, sonys reasoning I understand a bit more, as with the flip heads it is more sensible.
but all the people I know who are into reel prefer single capstan, including a few i know that have a X-1000R.
Click to expand...
They did it to improve W&F performance. And it worked. The Sony TC-766-2 has about the lowest recorded W&F of any deck ever made, and this includes most pro machines. At 15 ips it spec's at 0.018% and measures about 0.01% WRMS! I believe the the TC-880-2 achieved similar levels of performance, but I don't have the specs at my fingertips at this moment to confirm this.

The reason that pro machines never used this arrangement is because it was less reliable than was a single capstan. But even 3M recognized that a closed-loop design was superior to an open loop transport when they invented the Omega loop transport (which Technics later copied).
 
I would look for one of the closed loop Drive Technics, RS-1700, I believe. If the heads and rollers are in good shape, you may be just amazed at its performance.. They used to outperform A-77 all the time and gave a HS B-77 a real run for the money. The wow and flutter is extremely low, tape tension is no problem and frequency response and signal to noise are more than adequate. I think the Revox has better LF linearity because of the head design and its much easier to calibrate and work on. But the Technics doesn't have the brake issues A-77 or B-77 can have.
 
I am aware of the low wow and flutter of closed loop transports, and i think that the omega transport was a great innovation, which technics copied, very well. the omega transport is simple however, dual capstan is not as simple, I like it on cassette decks, again not better than single, but it is usually my preference cause it is more tolerant when running propperly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom