By Julian (152.163.188.68) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:57 am:

If you are recording from 40 year old reel tapes, what playback speed of the reel deck would be optimum? From what I have heard, I may have only one shot at successfully capturing their content.

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:12 am:

Logic would suggest transferring at the speed the tape was recorded at - presumably 7 1/2 or 15 ips, but I'm assuming you're asking if a faster or slower speed would be a better option. I guess Kevin would be the best person to answer this...

By Soulpuss (24.102.217.36) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:37 am:

Call up some mastering facilities. try a high profile one like Frankford-Wayne in Philly.You can try Rainbo Records pressing plant in Santa Monica (310)829-3476. Even take a stab at studios, they have tech guys and gals there.

By PhillyGroove (205.188.209.38) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:56 am:

Hi Julian, I have been involved in a project to build a website spotlighting the heyday of a college radio station from 70's. We've transcribed tons of 30 year old r-t-r aircheck tapes and have been amazed by their durability after all these years. We run them at the original speeds from 3 4/4 up to 15 i.p.s. (The big problem was finding a deck that could deliver a 3 3/4 speed!)

The advice in the threads above is good since we are not pros at re-mastering or pressing. You might get the studio to output to digital.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:42 pm:

Julian:
First of all, because of the age of the tapes, baking would be first thing I would do. You would need to go to a professional studio to have that done.

Second, have an engineer assess the quality of each reel. Some tapes may have oxide build-up that need cleaning and baking.

Third, the standard speed for mastering music was 15 ips (inches per second). Dubs & tapes for broadcasting were recorded at 7 1/2 ips. Tapes for home use were recorded at 3 3/4. It's much easier to find a reel to reel machine that has the 7 1/2 and 15 (check your radio station). But if these tapes have the 3 3/4 speed, you would have to find a machine (go on ebay) that plays at that speed.

I would definitely reach out to Ralph Terrana and the engieering gang for further help.
Good luck.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:18 pm:

Try a pawn-shop. Old home reel to reel units shouldn't be that hard to find (a used stereo dealer up here has about a half dozen of them), and the price should be resonable. I mean, who uses 1/4 inch tape anymore? Besides me, I mean. Now, where did I put that spicing block?

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:29 pm:

Juilan, it might help if you gave an idea of the origin of the tapes - whether home or studio recordings. If home recordings (3 3/4 or 7 1/2 ips), a domestic machine would probably suffice - but studio masters (or copymasters) would obviously be better transferred from a professional machine. Also, a domestic machine probably wouldn't offer 15 ips playback, assuming the tapes were studio-recorded.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 01:51 pm:

Good point, Richie. I think I've only had 1 home machine that would play at 15 ips. The other problem that comes to mind is reel size. It hasn't been mentioned so I assume we're dealing with 7" reels, but you'd run into a problem with the bigger transcription reels (14"?). I don't think I've ever had a home machine that would accept them.
ALSO, are these single track tapes, and if so, would the quality suffer dubbing them onto 4 track stereo equipment? I don't think so, but I'M NOT SURE.

By Ritchie (62.254.0.7) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 02:02 pm:

At the moment there are unanswered questions... (By the way, the large metal reels - NAB reels - are 10 1/2" in diameter, and no way will a domestic machine accomodate those! You'd get away with a Revox.)

If they're studio recordings, they'll either be half-track or full-track. If stereo, they'll be half-track - two channels, each taking up half the width of the tape. Mono half-tracks are the same but both tracks are identical, or it'll be just the "top" track of the tape. Full-track mono is - well, pretty self-explanatory!

Without knowing the exact format of the tapes, it's just a lot of guesswork.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 02:32 pm:

Richie....
.....I re-read Julian's original post, and it hints at the idea of high speed dubbing. Would, for example, dubing a tape recorded at 3 3/4 at 7 1/2 or 15 ips cause a quality problem?

By Livonia Ken (136.1.1.33) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 02:34 pm:

I didn't think there were any tape formulations that would require "baking" until the use of synthetic lubricants became popular in the 1970s. If this tape dates back to the early 60s, it seems highly unlikely that it would require it.

Regards,
Ken

By M.McLeanTech (66.159.217.115) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 09:55 pm:

It is amazing how much attention a stupid question can raise.

By Julian (205.188.209.38) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 02:59 am:

They are home recordings that I want to transfer to hard disk. I have two reel decks that I haven't paid much attention to and access to two more so i'll find out their speed and the speed that the tapes were recorded at and get back with you guys. I would take them up to the studio but I figure they will want a lot of bucks for something I can do myself. I've read about baking (but maybe I won't have to like you guys said), got a book around here somewhere by Mike's old mentor Bob Dennis that talks about it. I'll get back with you all on this when I get the particulars.

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 06:28 am:

Hopefully our stupid answers will help resolve the stupid question ;o)

By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.97) on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 11:21 pm:

Ahh! Your Mother drives a pickle wagon!

By Vickie (205.188.209.38) on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 12:10 am:

awe Mikie's back

By Julian (205.188.209.38) on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 01:38 am:

Now I know why they kept Mike in the basement at Hitsville!