But reviewing even better, on the dynamics of recorded music, consider evaluate your live experience...("attack and decay...")

Then let's analyze those 450 USD vs the 35.

Thank you,

Thanks Gregor, it was a fun review!

Thank you for your feedback Rammis. I wrote an article on how to get started in tape 11 or 12 years ago for PF. And no, most don’t buy from a boutique shop. I do suggest you do a little more investigating because there’s a lot more going on than you know about.

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue46/tape_project.htm

I have with along with others like Chad Kassem, Nick Doshi, Dan Labrie, Chris Mara, Greg Beron and many others put together tape seminars at RMAF and Axpona for people interested in getting into tape. (As well as other topics.) Those seminars were recorded and are available for free to consumers on line. There are also a number of sites like Audionirvana.org (mine) as well as TapeProject.com and others where not only is this freely information available but many tape heads with considerable knowledge frequent and help newbies get started. I also maintain on Audionirvana.org a list (now over 30) of companies selling prerecorded 15 ips tapes. I also have a list on Audionirvana.org of recommended 15 ips tapes. On average lately i’ve been helping around four people a month get started in tape.

So I think you are inventing an issue that doesn’t exist any more. Maybe 15 years ago but no longer.

Apparently the situation with reel to reel today (such as it exists) is that of a walled garden where everything is strictly controlled. That is actually fine such as it is, as it ensures everybody gets an optimum result.

However, unless an end user who doesn't know better purchases a refurbished (and they are ALL refurbished) tape machine from one of the few channels which know how to competently change a machine from IEC 2 to IEC 1, that consumer will get a very degraded performance.

My problem with all this is that real information on the esoteric aspect that is equalization has been inadequately covered, considering how important it is. I wasn't aware of the article you linked to - and I'm sure most people aren't either.

Given that I'm happy to see these analog formats making a comeback, I truly believe the industry is doing a terrible job at education. The simple fact is that essentially EVERY reel to reel recorder used in this country aside from some narrow gauge multi-tracks from Tascam and Fostex have been NAB. CCIR (IEC-1) is and has always been better, but NAB has been the standard in the USA, and every recorder was built that way. Every master tape made in the USA has been recorded with NAB equalization with the exception of those made with AME.

To play CCIR (IEC-1) tapes, these machines need to be modified, and don't assume that everybody is going to purchase a refurbished machine from a "boutique" shop!

For the record, I do know a bit about this topic; I owned a recording studio for several years in the 70s, and from there worked several more as a recording engineer at Sound City (that Sound City). I did sound and music for feature films for 20 years, and currently work as a design engineer at a high end audio manufacturer in CA.

Thanks for your post. The question of IEC vs NAB for tapes is really old news. Only Groove Note uses NAB (I think a few tapes are available in either format) and the rest of today’s tapes are IEC. There are both prosumer (and obviously Pro machines) that have IEC as well as NAB EQ. I suspect you are thinking more of prosumer machines that weren’t even high speed. In addition, many tapeheads use outboard electronics that makes the question of IEC vs NAB moot.

This link should answer question #2: http://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/doshi-audio-v3-0-tapestage/

For the future. PF reviewer’s systems are available if you click on the author’s name at the top of each review.

The main problem (aside from it not being optimum), is the fact that the low frequencies are actually boosted during recording, reaching as much as 5dB at very low frequencies. This of course makes tape very susceptible to overloading and excessive distortion in the low frequency region, especially during loud orchestral passages, and most especially when that includes a whack on a bass drum. The problem has been written about here: http://www.mrltapes.com/equaliz.html

The European CCIR (IEC 1) equalization curve does not have any boost in the low frequencies, and nicely avoids the low frequency problem with NAB equalization. It also provides a bit more reduction of noise in the high frequencies.

Now none of this has anything directly to to with the recording which is the topic of this column, but if these recordings had less demands in the low frequency region which weren't aggravated by the NAB equalization curve, the overall sound would be cleaner. Of course AME equalization had its own problems since it boosted the upper mid-range during recording. This made that region more susceptible to overload, and on top of that, the low frequency boost was retained from the NAB curve which made the low frequencies likely to overload. Recipe for a sonic mess!

Now I must bring something up in regard to the tape which is the subject of this review. According to Acoustic Sounds, these tapes are recorded with the IEC 1 equalization curve; that's actually good except for the fact that essentially all tape machines made in the USA use NAB equalization! On playback using a machine with the NAB curve of a tape which was recorded with the IEC 1 curve, the result will be attenuated low frequencies (since the low frequencies weren't boosted in recording to compensate), and a slightly bright high end. This would give the impression of a "cleaner" low end and more "definition" in the high end resulting from the mis-match of equalization curves.

The reviewer does not mention specifically what equalization the machine he is using has. Could this be clarified?