From what I've read here it seems most members only use their R2R's for playback, which would suggest most others do as well. Could costs not be reduced significantly, and make it more affordable for audiophiles to consider jumping into this format?
I have a modified Technics 1506 (done by Bottlehead) which puts dummy recording and erase heads into the machine and bypasses the electronics, replacing them with Bottlehead's tape prepro which is playback only. I have a second machine, an Otari MX5050 BIII, which has its record and playback elements intact.
Not sure how much savings can be made from eliminating the record/erase function. I would guess it may be most determined by the sales volume. If the volume is large enough to warrant a complete new design and manufacture, then there could be some substantial savings. If not, and the playback machine is built or modified from an existing machine, then the difference in cost would primarily come from the playback only electronics and the dummy heads replacing the real record and erase heads.
Currently, one can buy a used prosumer or low end pro model (like the Otari) for a fraction of the cost of a new machine, much less, I am sure, than any newly built playback only machine.
UHA makes playback only machines that are less expensive than their Top Dog.
JT mentioned last yaar (or was it 2yr ago) that he was designing/building a SOTA tape machine!
Most costly is the transport electronic amp just is a small part, if you looking at those price of hi end turn tables and tone-arm in to-day's make even of very simple in mechanism compare to a tape deck transport then you can imagine what price they will ask for a new design product even play back only. tape as a input source is the best source compare to others in same quality recording, when more high quality soft wear is coming out to the market at the same time those price of pro machine will keep on fly away
tony ma
From what I've read here it seems most members only use their R2R's for playback, which would suggest most others do as well. Could costs not be reduced significantly, and make it more affordable for audiophiles to consider jumping into this format?
We had a thread on this subject in WBF some years ago. IMHO , considering the small market and the regular availabilty of machines such as the Revox's or some Studer's at cheap prices it would be cheaper re-using an existing quality chassis.
We had a thread on this subject in WBF some years ago. IMHO , considering the small market and the regular availabilty of machines such as the Revox's or some Studer's at cheap prices it would be cheaper re-using an existing quality chassis.
No i think it makes more sense to make a record and repro R2R the extra head and record amp will not affect the cost that much , plus one can target the recording industry which is a large market
The Studer A807a 'archival' machine was a factory built playback only machine. There is a dummy blank in the recording head position. I own 2 of them, it seems the CBC jettisoned their tape equipment a few years ago and there were quite a few of these machines 'out there'
I use them as transports with custom outboard preamps.
I'd love to restore the onboard electronics but I think it would be cost prohibitive.
From what I've read here it seems most members only use their R2R's for playback, which would suggest most others do as well. Could costs not be reduced significantly, and make it more affordable for audiophiles to consider jumping into this format?
Unless your mixing different electronics with a transport...yes. I have Ampex 350's mated to a AG440 transport and it is playback only. The unit still has the full headstack though,so I can convert it to R&P mode. If the deck is original I would think it has more value as working as intended. The playback only format is mainly because using a custom playback head and custom electronics many experience better sound quality.
