Running your tracks through a tape machine, minus the tape???

[Phil Cibley]

The only benefit I would see from doing this is if the I/O on the tape
machine had tubes and/or transformers. Then you would get coloration.
Usually the TAPE is the reason to run a signal through a tape machine.

[dbbubba]

I have seen people use Ampex 351 electronics as just a unity gain device to add coloration.

Like the other post said, the tubes, transformers and characteristics of the electronics will add coloration.
It won't be as much as adding the actual tape into the equation, but it will add a degree of coloration.
The simple way is to run the signal into the unit's input and set the unit to input or source and the signal will come out of the output.
In this scenario only the record electronics are used and the repro electronics are not utilized.

To get the benefit of both the record and repro electronics you would use a flux loop that would serve the purpose of the actual tape.
The flux loop picks up the signal from the record head and gives it directly to the repro head.
The electronics don't know the difference, but the characteristic that the actual tape would introduce are eliminated.

They could have also bee using the MIC pre-amp in an older (Ampex I bet) deck's electronics.

[bitman]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I have seen people use Ampex 351 electronics as just a unity gain device to add coloration.

Like the other post said, the tubes, transformers and characteristics of the electronics will add coloration.
It won't be as much as adding the actual tape into the equation, but it will add a degree of coloration.
The simple way is to run the signal into the unit's input and set the unit to input or source and the signal will come out of the output.
In this scenario only the record electronics are used and the repro electronics are not utilized.

To get the benefit of both the record and repro electronics you would use a flux loop that would serve the purpose of the actual tape.
The flux loop picks up the signal from the record head and gives it directly to the repro head.
The electronics don't know the difference, but the characteristic that the actual tape would introduce are eliminated.

They could have also bee using the MIC pre-amp in an older (Ampex I bet) deck's electronics.

Do you make a flux loop by wiring the record and repro heads or by some other way? The reason I ask is that I have a REVOX PR99 strapped across my 2 bus and run the tape to get a DIY portico going. I've thought of splicing up a loop tape instead of running reels of tape (Then rewinding when exhusted). But now I've learned a new word "Flux-Loop". I have my soldering iron warming. Stop me before I start jumping heads to heads!

:Ron

[dbbubba]

Dale Manquen probably has the very best info obtainable on flux loops anywhere around.

M A N Q U E N . N E T - A U D I O

BTW, Dale designed the 3M 16 track machines, Flying Faders and was hired to work at 3M by Jack Mullins himself back in the early '50s.
You can't get a better resume than that!

A flux loop WILL NOT completely replace tape, but it is as close as you can get to what you describe with an actual tape loop.

I was just reading the article referenced above and it doesn't describe how you would build a flux loop that would completely replace tape.
The info might be in other places on his website.

I am going to contact him about building a device that will do this.

[Kris]

I think that's what the Portico 5042 does right? Regardless it sounds nice

[bitman]

You guys Rock!

[DSD_Mastering]

Originally Posted by Kris

I think that's what the Portico 5042 does right? Regardless it sounds nice

I know my Neve Masterpiece II does this.

Regards,
Bruce

[dbbubba]

I talked with Dale Manquen about doing this and he said that a flux loop would work BUT... you would have to build in a circuit that matched the record head's output to the repro head's expected signal.
In other words you would have to emulate the tape with a circuit.
He said that he has tables that would show what the circuit would need to do.
It sounds like a silly idea now that I have talked with him.

Mr. manquen said even talked with Rupert Neve at a trade show about flux loops and stuff when Rupert was designing the Portico device.
He said has never dissected one of the Porticos, but he assumes it is doing close to what we are talking about here.

Dale also told me that he counted 61 things that the circuitry and tape of an analog tape deck imposes on the original signal.

[Mike Caffrey]

Why not just buy the Anamod tape simulator?

[bitman]

Thanks ever so much Danny.

:Ron

[dbbubba]

It is an intriguing idea, but after talking to Mr. Manquen it seems like too much of a hassle for the effort.

I envisioned a nifty apparatus with a flux loop for both the record and play heads and a circuit that would let you dial in the tape formula.

You could probably actually build such a beast, but I'm gonna' mix to tape anyways, so...

I don't have time to research and build such a device.
I think the market would be small for a device like this, too.

[bitman]

Yea, I envisioned that as well. It's too easy and authentic to just load up some tape and go. Thanks for all you footwork and enlightenment as well.

:Ron

[Bob Olhsson]

Lots of broadcast gear such as pro tape machines and broadcast limiters have much more powerful line stages than many recording consoles. I've been told about lots of folks using them to boost the output of a console so they can run the console at a lower level with more headroom.

In fact here in Nashville it used to be common practice to pull the gain reduction tube out so that a broadcast limiter would only function as a line stage.

[dbbubba]

Not a bad idea.
The guys I saw using the Ampex 351 electronics were using an SSL.
This was at Kiva in Memphis back in 1989.

Still, it is an amplifier stage and wouldn't the added 4db gained by using +8db (broadcast level) be attained by amplifiers add noise along with the added gain?

I could see doing this if your console had limited output gain problems.

[Fleaman]

The Anamod with the 351 Ampex tape machine card was my deciding factor in keeping it.

I was on the fence with the Studer/3m machine cards....good, nice, but for me at least, $3k was a lot for 2 channels of 'nice'.

OTOH, the 351 Ampex card sealed the deal! I don't think I'll ever use the Studer/3m cards as long as the 351 machine card is in the Anamod. Driven hard-medium or light, I preferred the 351 card every time, easily.

[Chaellus]

ive done this with my tape machine a couple of times and gives some nice color due to the transformers that may be a reason why you saw the guy doing what he did..or as a gain volume as well..my unit is from the 50's or 60's i belive.. gives me a fat sound regardless tape or not.