Tape/tapemachine noise , how low can you go ?

andromedaaudio · Jan 14, 2015

Rolling my first tape , on the new speakers .

But the question remains as far as noise on a tapesource ,how low can one get the noise floor down ??
The meterbridge knobs dont feel to solid either and one light has to be repaired as well , the restauration isnt 100 % so that may be a factor also in the noise department , it helps a lot by putting the gain high on the pre and a low 3 on the studer , the machine itself (drive system) isnt 100 % quit either , it surely is acceptable but i am just wondering ??
As i come from a enginering background i know it should be possible to get the noise floor down on a drivesystem like this , hence the reference tapemachine thread

DSC_0252 by andromeda61, on Flickr

amirm · Jan 14, 2015

You mean just the noise from electronics sans the tape noise itself?

andromedaaudio · Jan 14, 2015

No basically everything , if one starts with a ultra quit drive system and electronics i assume taperecording noise would be reduced as well, less noise would be put on the tape , its hard for me to say how much inherent noise the tape itself has , i am no expert

Mike Lavigne · Jan 14, 2015

andromedaaudio said:
No basically everything , if one starts with a ultra quit drive system and electronics i assume taperecording noise would be reduced as well, less noise would be put on the tape , its hard for me to say how much inherent noise the tape itself has , i am no expert

I had a friend over on Sunday morning....my wife calls him my 'drug dealer'. last month I did pay the moon for 5 'uber iconic' super great master dubs from him. but this session was more for him to hear his tapes on my system to find out how they sounded.

he brought over 10 master tapes. we would play a couple of minutes from a reel, and then I would play my best vinyl pressing of that tape. some of my vinyl was better or as good; others were quite a bit better than my vinyl. I had 8 out of 10 of the titles covered by vinyl.

some of the reels had some 'tape hiss' during the low level quiet sections. but most are essentially 'dead quiet'. understand that with tape, you always hear into the ambient noise floor of the venue.....it's never 'zero' below the artificial cutoff of digital. analog does not do zero.

my system is extremely quiet. my tape decks, a pair of Studer A820's, are likely the very most quiet tape transport, and are designed to not need a fan. if you sit within 3-4 feet of the Studer's you do hear some low level mechanical noise; but in the middle of the room in the sweet spot you do not hear any mechanical noise. typically the only noise I hear is if a reel is warped and there is a rub which does sometimes occur mostly on the 1/2" reels, rarely on 1/4".

so potentially there can be zero noise.

most tape decks are somewhat noisy mechanically in operation. but a top condition A820 is quiet. I've not spent enough time with A80's to be able to tell you whether they can be as quiet as the A820.

Bruce B · Jan 14, 2015

Without running tape, my machines are dead quiet. I've changed out all the bearings, have new heads and rollers. Using the outboard pre I can say it's almost as quiet as digital.
Different tape formulations will vary in noise levels. Also the slower you go, the more noise you get. The quietest tape I've found is RMGI SM900. I get the most noise from 468 tape.

Great looking machine.

DonH50 · Jan 14, 2015

I have seen numerous graphs over the years, might want to search some of the tape machine sites and such. IIRC about 80 dB SINAD was the best I ever saw (on a 1" or 2" two-track mastering machine in tip-top condition using metal tape and high bias), with 70 dB more typical for 1/2" tape and a good machine. A lot of recordings were closer to 60 dB. It also depends upon tape speed. I have a vague memory of 90+ dB claims but I can't recall I ever saw any actual measurements that high on the machines I used or had access to back in the 70's and 80's. There are theoretical limits (that I do not recall) related to how much bias and signal you can put on a realizable tape formulation. Seems like Maxell, BASF, or one of those (probably all) did the research and presented the results at an AES meeting.

andromedaaudio · Jan 14, 2015

Thanks for all the info good to know, , rare and nice machines those A 820 s .

andromedaaudio · Jan 14, 2015

One of the more quit tapes i have and very good sounding winona zelenka playing the cello from ultra analogue , i ve ordered two of their latest tapes as well
Tape machines and tape are so cool,definetively my topformat

DSC_0253 by andromeda61, on Flickr

Don Hills · Jan 14, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
... understand that with tape, you always hear into the ambient noise floor of the venue.....it's never 'zero' below the artificial cutoff of digital. analog does not do zero.
...
most tape decks are somewhat noisy mechanically in operation. ...

Mike,
Nice machine. What's the WAF ?

You understand incorrectly about digital. Done right, there is no cutoff. You hear into the noise floor exactly as you do with analogue.

Regarding mechanical noise, less is better. Vibration in the transport can couple to the head block and modulate the signal being read from the tape. Accurate playback depends on the tape being moved past the head at a constant rate. If the head vibrates, the effect will be like the tape speeding up and slowing down. It is the equivalent of jitter in digital.

Mike Lavigne · Jan 14, 2015

Don Hills said:
Mike,
Nice machine. What's the WAF ?

fini--right_side__King-Cello__twin_A-820_S_(1_of_1).jpg

You understand incorrectly about digital. Done right, there is no cutoff. You hear into the noise floor exactly as you do with analogue.

yes and no. when the recording starts, but before the first note, most analog recordings pressurize the room with a rich ambient bed of air and reality. then the music comes from that 'head start' with lots more depth and detail.

with digital, even 2xdsd (which I have 5 terabytes of), you don't get nearly the same effect and consequence.

so I suppose you can make a case for digital depending on how you define noise floor. but reality tells us differently.

Regarding mechanical noise, less is better. Vibration in the transport can couple to the head block and modulate the signal being read from the tape. Accurate playback depends on the tape being moved past the head at a constant rate. If the head vibrates, the effect will be like the tape speeding up and slowing down. It is the equivalent of jitter in digital.

totally agree. there are a few good reasons that the most well built RTR master recorders sound the best. if you simply remove the top covers from the A820 you will see a massive honeycomb casting unlike any other audio product. every part is designed into this ultra stiff chassis to be precise mechanically. then just observe the elegance of the tape path. and that the chassis is designed so that it pulls air thru and a fan is not needed.

this tape deck sold for around $30k in 1979. i'd guess it would be over $200k today. maybe there would be efficiencies in the control/software side, but the build and mechanical complexity is amazing.

Don Hills · Jan 15, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
... (RTR porn picture redacted) ...

Mmmmm... sorry, where was I?

Mike Lavigne said:
... yes and no. when the recording starts, but before the first note, most analog recordings pressurize the room with a rich ambient bed of air and reality. then the music comes from that 'head start' with lots more depth and detail.

with digital, even 2xdsd (which I have 5 terabytes of), you don't get nearly the same effect and consequence.

so I suppose you can make a case for digital depending on how you define noise floor. but reality tells us differently. ...

Interesting. Do you think this "air and reality" is actual content from the recording venue, or just the noise floor of the analogue medium?
I grew up with analogue sources, and I took for granted the noise level before the music, because it matched my experiences listening to live performances where it was never perfectly silent before the music started. The ability of digital to provide an inaudible noise floor (*) took a bit of getting used to.

Something you can try: Obtain / borrow an audio signal generator - an old analogue one, not a modern digital synthesised one. Record a section of 1 KHz sine wave. Play it back and compare it with the direct output of the generator (level matched, of course). See which one has more "air".

(*) That is, only the venue noise, no tape hiss etc. Or true "fade to black".

Don Hills · Jan 15, 2015

... wrong button.

Mike Lavigne · Jan 15, 2015

Don Hills said:
Interesting. Do you think this "air and reality" is actual content from the recording venue, or just the noise floor of the analogue medium?
I grew up with analogue sources, and I took for granted the noise level before the music, because it matched my experiences listening to live performances where it was never perfectly silent before the music started. The ability of digital to provide an inaudible noise floor (*) took a bit of getting used to.

Something you can try: Obtain / borrow an audio signal generator - an old analogue one, not a modern digital synthesised one. Record a section of 1 KHz sine wave. Play it back and compare it with the direct output of the generator (level matched, of course). See which one has more "air".

(*) That is, only the venue noise, no tape hiss etc. Or true "fade to black".

my system speakers are rated -3db at 7hz, and -6db at 3hz. needless to say they can capture pretty much whatever ambient info the recording media has. my room is quite large and is exceptional at rendering space and breath of any recording. so I really do hear differences in how different formats can render real venue information.

with all due respect; the whole audio signal generator thing is not going to happen. I don't need any proof of what I hear every day for hours and hours. these are not subtle differences.

Don Hills · Jan 15, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
... with all due respect; the whole audio signal generator thing is not going to happen. I don't need any proof of what I hear every day for hours and hours. these are not subtle differences.

... so when you compare an analogue chain to a digital chain, the analogue chain provides more "air and reality". And you believe that this more accurately represents what was present in the original venue / studio. Do I understand correctly? (I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just looking to understand your viewpoint.)

Edward Pong · Jan 15, 2015

Don Hills said:
Mmmmm... sorry, where was I?

Interesting. Do you think this "air and reality" is actual content from the recording venue, or just the noise floor of the analogue medium?
I grew up with analogue sources, and I took for granted the noise level before the music, because it matched my experiences listening to live performances where it was never perfectly silent before the music started. The ability of digital to provide an inaudible noise floor (*) took a bit of getting used to.

Something you can try: Obtain / borrow an audio signal generator - an old analogue one, not a modern digital synthesised one. Record a section of 1 KHz sine wave. Play it back and compare it with the direct output of the generator (level matched, of course). See which one has more "air".

(*) That is, only the venue noise, no tape hiss etc. Or true "fade to black".

Certainly when I do the recordings of classical chamber music, there is definitely a level of "background sound" from the "silent" room that is not a digital zero. The air & energy in that room, if your recording chain is sensitive enough will record it as the "sounds of silence" Totally agree with Mike on this. When the music stops, there is still the background "sound" present. I would not call this noise... if I splice some blank tape to the end of the track, it drops to be silent & if there is any sound, this would be tape hiss & maybe one could call this the "noise" floor for tape..

Mike Lavigne · Jan 15, 2015

Don Hills said:
... so when you compare an analogue chain to a digital chain, the analogue chain provides more "air and reality". And you believe that this more accurately represents what was present in the original venue / studio. Do I understand correctly? (I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just looking to understand your viewpoint.)

yes; I do believe that generally analog (the better the analog the more the advantage) represents a more 'complete' picture of the original event. the word I'm using is more 'complete', not more 'accurate' at particular points. I believe our ears and bodies are more concerned with complete than strictly accurate. it's the missing 'stuff' in between the accurate moments that is what holds digital back from matching analog in this area.

I'm not saying that digital is not wonderful in terms of ambient information, it's simply noticeably less wonderful than good analog at this.

Mike Lavigne · Jan 15, 2015

another point I will make is that when I go into a completely dark room and walk around I can tell how close I get to a wall by how the room sounds to me. how the ambient noise floor changes relative to where I am in the room. this happens without any conscious realization that it is happening. it's part of reality. this familiar part of the sound of space is something that analog captures in a way digital cannot quite accomplish. just this sense of reality of venue and space. what is noise, and what is ambience? who knows? but our senses do know and recognize that and then we relax in this feeling.

so this completeness of the sound has much value in how it makes the music more involving and real and less a thing over there.

Don Hills · Jan 16, 2015

Thank you. I don't agree with your position, but I understand it.

Edward Pong · Jan 16, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
another point I will make is that when I go into a completely dark room and walk around I can tell how close I get to a wall by how the room sounds to me. how the ambient noise floor changes relative to where I am in the room. this happens without any conscious realization that it is happening. it's part of reality. this familiar part of the sound of space is something that analog captures in a way digital cannot quite accomplish. just this sense of reality of venue and space. what is noise, and what is ambience? who knows? but our senses do know and recognize that and then we relax in this feeling.

so this completeness of the sound has much value in how it makes the music more involving and real and less a thing over there.

I believe it's these very low level sounds (details) where the real music lives & this is what gives us the information where we perceive a sound as live (real) or reproduced. The more of this extreme low level detail that can come thru in a recording - the more it will sound real & you'll have the feeling "you are there".... IMHO

tony ky ma · Jan 16, 2015

I do believe that those frequencies which outside of human can hear range like lower 20 HZ and higher 20 KHZ should be recorded too in recording, because they exist in the real sound combination and need to combine with the main frequency in the air to formed the repro sound like real. I think this is more important than the noise level
tony ma

Tape/tapemachine noise , how low can you go ?

VIP/Donor

Banned

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

Industry Expert

Similar threads