Otari MX-5050 Questions (1/4" 2-track)

[pootkao]

Hey folks
So, I'm pulling our little studio's old 5050 out of the back room and am determined to get her fired up again and rolling on all cylinders. Its time to start mixing OTB to tape, y'know? Enough DAW ******y. I haven't alligned or biased a machine since recording school 7 years ago, so I'm a little rusty here... and I know a bunch of you work on tape regularly, so I could use a little guidance just to make sure I don't feck it up too bad. I'm pretty clear on most stuff, but have a few remaining questions.

Here are my questions, after reading the manual twice through:

1) IEC vs NAB EQ. What is the difference? Are they noticeably different?

2) Test tape. What kind? Where to purchase?
(I'll be running at 15 ips, and assume the Medium recording level option is most prudent?)

3) Tape itself. Brand/model suggestions? Sonic differences? Where to purchase?

4) Cleaning the heads. Is specific head-cleaner truly required or will isopropyl alcohol do just fine?

Thanks so much!

Oh, and we also have a 4-track 5050 that I believe is expendable if anyone's interested in buying one. (Shipping will probably be a kicker though...)

[Goreski]

use NAB - it's the standard. can be played back on almost any machine anywhere.

Buy the Test Tape from me for about a 10% discount (new MRL test tapes)

Use Quantegy 456 - good sounding tape and it's still available most places. 5050's run best with 456 and they'll bias and align well with 456. 499 is fine too, but I would hesitate to go GP9. Use 456 while you can still get it. Buy more than what you need now!

use Isopropyl Alcohol to clean the heads and guides.... and a demagger. Check that your pinch roller is still good - many are 'sticky' and going bad. You CANNOT use a 'sticky' pinch roller - it will grab tape and could destroy tapes. New pinch rollers are available.

look at my pages on alignement and tape deck upkeep on my web site - Analog Rules!!! Pro-Audio Parts and Service

the manual is available for free download at my site as well... and there are a ton of tips and a hell of a lot of information on tape recording and recorders there too...

glad you're going back to using analog tape!

regards,

Goreski

[kingsley]

Why noy GP9?

[brianroth]

Contrarian here <g>.

NAB (more correctly called IEC2 in Moderne Tymes) was concocted when tape was young, men were men, and sheep were nervous. <G!>

IMHO, it's an obsolete EQ for modern tape since it was intended for long-gone oxide formulas.

I assuming "pootkao" will be sending out his tapes for mastering, and any mastering room worth it's salt can handle IEC1.

We can think about USA (ie, NAB/IEC2) EQ'ed tapes being "usable anywhere" but let's not ignore the rest of the world.

For MANY years, I've been encouraging all of my "guys who ask" to move away from a 55-year-old/obsolete EQ curve to something that is "only" 30 years old or so <g>. That includes everything from 2" 24 track down to full track mono on 1/4". Hence, IEC1.

Of course..of course, it "may not be rock and roll as we recall it...." ;-)

But, sometimes I believe that "output = input", hence my thoughts here in this thread, vs using an analog tape machine *purely* as an effects unit (and believe me, how many times have I slammed a bass guitar track onto the peg.......)

Output=Input....an interesting concept in This Day And Age....

It's not just me...read what the TapeGod himself (Jay McKnight, one of the smartest tape scientists on the planet, and the president of the MRL alignment tape company), has to say in his various tech papers:

MRL Calibration Tapes

(which also includes Jay's well-thought-out, but seldom used EQ alternatives).

Onwards...

AFAIK, we have only one current choice for an alignment tape, and that *is* from MRL. I like Jay's "chromatic sweep" test tapes, which can save a few bucks vs. the older multi-frequency tapes, and I LIKE the closer-spaced tones.

Now my rant....

Run, do not walk away from "new" 456 tape. The last production runs (yes, Quantegy has shut down production, apparently for the last time) were all over the map in terms of quality...as in...suck! One of my clients here bought a case or 2 of "recent" 456 1/4" and a lot of it was junky...as in that he asked me "Why did I ever go away from the Masterlink?" junky, which was a very sad time for me and my friend/client.

Hmmm...but that's not to say that you might not find a "sweet batch" of used 456 tape, however. That was my mainstay for many many many years.

But, look at:

RMGI - RMGI Studio Tape

...which is what Jay has been using the past few years for his alignment tapes, and "so far, so good" with music recording in my world. That is the Tape Formerly Known As Prince......uhhhhhhh.... Emtec <g>. Good stuff, at least recentlly.

I'm curious if Mike Spitz will ever get around to slitting-down some 1/4" as well....

Goreski...maybe we can "agree to disagree" on some of these nuances...sometimes? <G!>

Now pinch rollers........THOSE are what I would call an "expendable" item on any tape machine...like drive belts on the "antiques", etc.

I would like to swap ideas on this topic, including "re-rubbering" etc, as well as your experiences with urethanes (sp???). I used the latter (Athan) with some good results on several Otari MTR-90's, which had the orignal rubber "drool" off the aluminum roller.

Best Regards, as they say in the UK, and lets keep up these conversations! I learn something new everyday, and I respect your comments to the max.

Bri (living in "fly-over" country, as opposed to the coasts...but I mean well)

[Brian M. Boykin]

My Otari mtr-10 is IEC at 30ips, as are all machines that run 30ips. Just as Brian said, NAB is the older eq, 30ips was not around when NAB was created. At 15 ips and 7.5 ips I have the option, NAB or IEC. I've read MRL's websight several times and their are other eq's. Ampex had a few back in the day before my 33 year old rear was around. I'm about to switch to RMGI and I will be looking into switching to IEC at 15 ips, solely because of the point Brian just made.

Brian

[Goreski]

I still recommend the NAB EQ for all 2 tracks - and multi-tracks - it's the USA standard still - yes it's old - but there are just too many tapes out there previously recorded using NAB eq... and NAB sounds great anyway. I've never had a problem recording with NAB eq, and personally I like the way it sounds. But then I've been recording since the 60's...

By the way NAB is now also called 'IEC-2" eq as well as NAB for same strange reason!

Now I don't want to get into a debate of NAB vs. IEC-1 eqs vs. a proposed better eq... but here are some of the reasons I HIGHLY recomend using NAB eq over IEC-1.... for 2 track tape recorders.

Most machines require different play and record cards to do proper IEC-1 eq or mods made to the NAB cards to convert them over to proper IEC-1 eq (time-constants are different between NAB and IEC-1 thus to do a 'correct IEC-1 eq you must either mod your existing cards or install correct EQ cards, or if you're lucky the flip an eq switch) -
most Studers, revoxes, all Ampexes except the ATR 100 series, Scullys, Tascam/Teacs, Fostexs, 3M's (haven't seen a 3M 2 track in studio use for years!), many Otari's, and others need mods to their existing cards in order to go proper IEC-1 at 15 ips, or new EQ cards - which are not available.

In theory yes, you can align one to the other using a conversion chart and setting the levels on various tones to the correct conversion level... but the time-constants are different so just by adjusting the NAB eq to the conversion levels you still are not at the completely 'correct' IEC-1 eq - NAB uses 3150uS and 50uS, while IEC-1 uses only 35uS.

Any Mastering Room of quality will of course do the correct swap of cards or settings to get a true correct NAB or IEC-1 eq.... and if they don't do it, or if the can't do it, they should get the hell of out that business.

I'd say over 95% of my clients here in the SF Bay Area are using NAB for 15 ips 2 track work.... and multi-track work... and a bunch of engineers will mix cuts in 2 or more studios, so I still recommend using NAB eq for 15 ips. It sounds good, it's the US standard, it allows you to play back older tapes correctly. Is it a perfect eq? - hell no..... but 95% of the tape machines are set for NAB eq.

I used to work as a Disk Mastering Engineer at CBS Records here in San Francisco in the 70's and 80's... 100% of the records I Mastered were NAB eq when the 2 track tapes were recorded at 15ips.... and yes, we had 30ips way back then, and about 25% of the Master Tapes were recorded at 30ips.

Also right now there are a whole bunch of folks going into studios and transferring old tapes to (gasp!) digital, and anyone with a 2 track and even multi-tracks should have it set-up to accommodate this transferring and the income it can bring in. Odds are just about 100% those old tapes are NAB eq if they're recorded at 15 ips.

finally I called up Chuck Booye today at MRL and asked what was the percentage of NAB Test Tapes vs. IEC-1 test tapes they sell and he told me they sell 90 - 95+% NAB, with the IEC-1 sold mainly to Europe. So everyone is using NAB for 15ips, and it's the standard, so I HIGHLY suggest NAB eq for 15 ips!

When would I recommend using IEC1?
1) if the client will be using their machine ONLY for in-house projects, and the tapes are not going to be used at another studio - <U>and if they don't like the sound of NAB eq.</U> In this case they can align their machines to any EQ they desire, since the tapes will not be played on another machine.

2) if the client is Mixing and has the knowledge and ability to reset and correctly align both NAB and IEC-1 eqs with the approiatly correct EQ cards - and again if they don't 'like' the sound of NAB eq.

3) if you like the sound of the IEC-1 eq

Yes you get a little less noise with IEC-1 eq.

We're stuck with NAB eq for 15 ips as being universal, with a very small percentage of studios using IEC-1. if I could change the standards for tape eq I would - but that should have been done ages ago!

I agree with you that NAB is NOT the ideal eq to use, and yes it's very old, but trying to get folks to adapt to a newer eq and buck the standard isn't something I recommend.

PS: for those that want the conversion charts they are at MRL's website - http://home.flash.net/~mrltapes/choo&u.pdf

All the above is said in a mode of friendship among brothers who love analog recording... so don't take it the wrong way - it's just my opinion!


re: 456 tape - there's still a bunch of the older Quantegy tape around this area, so I haven't run into batches of bad tape yet.... ATR Tape will be making 1/4 inch tape in early 2008. The RMGi tape is fine and sounds very good. I still recommend 456 for the older machines if it's available.... but not for the newer machines of course.

regards,
goreski

[Brian M. Boykin]

That was a bunch of good info!

By the way, a 2" is in my future, pat yourself on the back, Ive been reading your pages for years now.

Brian

[themaidsroom]

here lately it's:
ccir 2" 16 track 15 ips + 9
lots of transients
lots of air
never slamming the tape
only the kick and snare get
1 red light



be well


- jack

[brianroth]

Hello, Goreski, and thanks for the excellent observations.

As I mentioned, I was being as "contrarian" with my remarks <g>.

After doing some listening experiments a number of moons ago, I decided I slightly preferred IEC-1 over NAB with a lot of material on mixdowns, while it was a bit more of a toss-up on a multitrack.

In my little universe these days, 99% of the time, the ONLY time a tape leaves the studio would be a stereo mix which was heading to a mastering room. The multitrack is used as an "intake" before the basics are dumped into a DAW, so in that situation, just about anything would be fair game in terms of EQ. Hardly anyone "finishes" the tracking on a multitrack...anything that is moved from one room to another is on a hard drive. But, that may just be a "regional thing", with different workflows in other parts of the country.

I agree that with many recorders (multitrack or stereo), it's a PITA to move from NAB (IEC-2) to IEC-1 ("CCIR") equalization. But in the context of the original posting, I assumed the machine in question was a late-model Otari 5050 (MK 3 was that series, as I recall) which did have a user switch on the front (rear??) panel to select between the two EQ curves. The Studer A-80VU multitracks also had an accessable switch for the EQ choices as well.

It was just my 2 cents!

Now about those pinch rollers.......

Bri

[Goreski]

Yeah...

I grew up in the 'old' studio world (CBS studios here in SF then over to Fantasy Records Studios in Bezerkeley before going independent as a tech in the early 80's) and thus often run up against my old ways of doing things and still keep thinking (and hoping) that recorders will be used as they used to be.... but it ain't just gonna be so anymore...

There is a guy in my area who had me align then miss-align his 24 track... he wanted groups of 4 tracks set up correctly, then another 4 way underbiased, another 4 way overbiased, a set with eq wacked out, and so on. I set it up as wierdly as I've ever seen or ever done.... and he loves it. He never used the machine as one would normally - it was just an 'effect box' for him, and he does make some damn interesting sounds with it!

Had a client in today talking about his Studer A-827 - and how wonderful it sounds compaired to his Pro Twels HD rig. But he still does a lot of work on the damn digital platform anyway... sigh...

keep up the good work!

Best regards,

Goreski

[brianroth]

I recently heard about a "possible" project in my area where the band is going to (gasp!) do the entire album project with a Studer A800 and NO DAW!

No autotune, no plugs, and any comping will be (GASP!) done via punch-ins.

<g> What a novel concept....the same workflow I used with from 1972 until some point in the mid 1990's...LOL. I guess it's like keeping old clothing in the closet, cuz it will come back into fashion at some later time. I shoulda kept those bellbottom jeans.

Bri

[Dave Slevin]

You do get out of practise doing "punch ins", I perfer to call 'em drop ins btw.

[sonicdefault]

Originally Posted by brianroth

I recently heard about a "possible" project in my area where the band is going to (gasp!) do the entire album project with a Studer A800 and NO DAW!

No autotune, no plugs, and any comping will be (GASP!) done via punch-ins.

<g> What a novel concept....the same workflow I used with from 1972 until some point in the mid 1990's...LOL. I guess it's like keeping old clothing in the closet, cuz it will come back into fashion at some later time. I shoulda kept those bellbottom jeans.

Bri

-SD

[Dave Slevin]

Ah Yes!
The smell of Ampex in the morning!
I got an old pair of Studer A-80's that are gonna see the light of day, someday.
D.

[SteveyDubs]

[QUOTE=Goreski;1516662]use NAB - it's the standard. can be played back on almost any machine anywhere.

Buy the Test Tape from me for about a 10% discount (new MRL test tapes)

Use Quantegy 456 - good sounding tape and it's still available most places. 5050's run best with 456 and they'll bias and align well with 456. 499 is fine too, but I would hesitate to go GP9. Use 456 while you can still get it. Buy more than what you need now!



Im using 3m 996 tape which is the same formula as gp9 and am getting very good recordings on the same machine . Have not had any problems yet.