+6 dB on Calibration Tape?

[emooney]

I am setting up my first tape machine, a Teac 80-8, and I'm in the process of purchasing a calibration tape for it. The Teac 80-8 is 1/2 inch, and records at 15 ip/s and has a reference fluxivity of 250 nWb/m. The catalog # 341-673-482-103 (four-frequency) at MRL seems to be the right one to get for this machine.

I've had a few people suggest that I set this up at +6 dB and I wanted to get some opinions from people who have actually set up machines this way and find out what to (generally) expect in terms of differences in sound. Should I expect to hear a dirtier more saturated sound on every recording even if the meter isn't peaking at all times for example?

I know that setting the machine up at +6 would lead to hitting the tape harder when tracking which seems like what I would want the majority of the time but I haven't personally heard the results side by side. What if I were to record a jazz band or something classical for example though, would it be fairly easy to use a calibration tape that was set up at a level of +6 dB to set up one particular session at 0 dB if I wanted a cleaner sound for that session?

Any and all opinions in general for setting up at +6 or +3 dB versus 0 dB are appreciated.

Eric

[drumsound]

The Ampex standard for 0Vu was 185nW/m. Often when someone says +6 they are using that standard. So if you had a 250nW/m tape you are already +3.

Then you must also consider what the machine can handle and what tape you'll be using. I usually use tape that can handle +p over 185nW/m but calibrate to +6 giving myself all kinds of headroom.

[emooney]

The Ampex standard for 0Vu was 185nW/m. Often when someone says +6 they are using that standard. So if you had a 250nW/m tape you are already +3.

Thanks for the response. Man, I really had no idea how much of a "shortcut" I was taking when I started my recording career on Pro Tools. It seems that a lot more goes into setting up a tape machine and the learning curve to an all analog recording setup is a steep one if you've only worked with digital. I think I might understand what you're saying though.

So, if I did actually order a calibration tape that was set to +6 and I used that to calibrate with then really my machine would actually be at +9 because the Teac 80-8 is already at +3 because of it's reference fluxivity of 250nW/m?

If that's the case then it sounds like ordering a tape at +3 would get me to +6 for my machine, if I decide to do that. So, are they any reasons to order, or to not order, at tape at +3 dB (if my previous sentence is correct)? Is it easier, for example, to just calibrate using a 0 dB tape regardless of what level you're trying to get to?

Eric

[drumsound]

The Ampex standard for 0Vu was 185nW/m. Often when someone says +6 they are using that standard. So if you had a 250nW/m tape you are already +3.

Thanks for the response. Man, I really had no idea how much of a "shortcut" I was taking when I started my recording career on Pro Tools. It seems that a lot more goes into setting up a tape machine and the learning curve to an all analog recording setup is a steep one if you've only worked with digital. I think I might understand what you're saying though.

So, if I did actually order a calibration tape that was set to +6 and I used that to calibrate with then really my machine would actually be at +9 because the Teac 80-8 is already at +3 because of it's reference fluxivity of 250nW/m?

If that's the case then it sounds like ordering a tape at +3 would get me to +6 for my machine, if I decide to do that. So, are they any reasons to order, or to not order, at tape at +3 dB (if my previous sentence is correct)? Is it easier, for example, to just calibrate using a 0 dB tape regardless of what level you're trying to get to?

Eric

The machine records at whatever reference fluxivity that it was last calibrated for. Of course there is drift and other things that make the cal change. YOu can use any reference level tape to set up any reference level. If a 250nW/m tape=+3 and you want the machine to record at +6 (355nW/m I think) you run the tape and calibrate reproduce for -3dB (yes minus three), then calibrate record for 0VU.

Overbias is a whole other thing...

[cgarges]

It seems that a lot more goes into setting up a tape machine and the learning curve to an all analog recording setup is a steep one if you've only worked with digital.

This is totally true, but as someone who has spent the majority of the last ten years making digital recordings, I've learned and AWFUL lot about how to make digital recording sound a certain way. As someone who LOVES the sound of analog, I'm just not that good at it anymore and I think I'm finally willing to say that I'm more comfortable making an exciting-sounding digital recording than an exciting-sounding analog one, just because I haven't put the same amount of time into analog recording (and making it sound a certain way) as I have with digital in recent years. With digital, there's less time involved in the general setup and maintenence of the machinery, but there's still setup, maintenence, and pletny of trickery worth learning to make digital sound a certain way.

Sorry for the off-topicness!

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[xonlocust]

also, don't confuse your reference levels (+6, +3, etc. which as tony mentioned are clearer to talk about in terms of nwb/m) with a reading on your VU meter while tracking. once set up, you still look at your meters the same. hard transients like percussion (generally) keep at a sane level (i hover round -20/bout 1/3 way up the meter). the reference level is related to the tape stock you're using on that session, and what your machine can output. if you just do what you're supposed to do - match the recommended ref level with tape stock, it's pretty much the same as digital. high output tapes (520 nwb/m - GP9, 499, 900 etc - aka +9) are going to have higher signal/noise ratio/less tape hiss generally speaking than your 350nwb/m - 456, 911 etc 0 aka +6) tapes will. think of your +6/+9 designatinos as a relative number. you can fit 3db more of info on a +9 tape than a +6. therefore you can print relatively higher, so lower noise floor. again, this is just as a baseline - and not accounting for how hard you push the signal in past the ideal/sane/proper settings. once set up, each of those will react slightly different as you hit it harder - but i usually only do that for 'effect' as needed. i think the perception that tape sounds great when hit hard is more of a perception than reality. those levels were defined by the manufactuers as an optimum place for things to sound good for a reason. as you hit harder you lose definition/transients/start to mush up and add distortion. if that's an effect you're shooting for cool - but i don't want it on all my drum tracks.

yeah, setup is something to consider if you're doing something more than just for yourself. (and can do it once, and leave it be) it generally takes me about an hour to set up the 2" for a session, 20-30 min for 1/4". whenever possible i try and do this before the band gets there.

at the same time - you probably didn't know anything about bit depth or sample rates or clocking or any of that crap the first time you pressed record on a computer, you just pressed record and some shit came back. same's true on tape. there's tons of stuff to know when you really get into it, but don't get scared of the machine/process. throw a reel up and press record. it may be slightly fucked up from a technical precision standpoint, but don't let that stop you - i certainly didn't understand all this stuff on my first sessions.

sidebar on this same issue, i just finished a session that was all analog, and i ran my console even more conservatively than i usually do, really paying more attention to proper gain staging the whole way through. everything sounded way better.

for your calibration tape, generally a "+6 over 185mwb/m = 350nwb/m" tape is most useful. to calibrate for high output tapes, make the meters read -3db VU on repro/sync head calibration. if you're using 456 etc, then meters read 0. when you do record - it's 0.

[@?,*???&?]

The Ampex standard for 0Vu was 185nW/m. Often when someone says +6 they are using that standard. So if you had a 250nW/m tape you are already +3.

Thanks for the response. Man, I really had no idea how much of a "shortcut" I was taking when I started my recording career on Pro Tools.

Make sure your client doesn't hear you utter this phrase...

[emooney]

The Ampex standard for 0Vu was 185nW/m. Often when someone says +6 they are using that standard. So if you had a 250nW/m tape you are already +3.

Thanks for the response. Man, I really had no idea how much of a "shortcut" I was taking when I started my recording career on Pro Tools.

Make sure your client doesn't hear you utter this phrase...

Yeah, I was skeptical about even writing that...I thought for sure someone would take that the wrong way. Also, I would never say that in front of a client, it was more of a personal note for me because of how much I'm realizing there is to learn about properly setting up and maintaining a tape deck. I really do feel like the process of learning Pro Tools was much easier for me personally.

I think I really didn't have an understanding of what the reference fluxivity actually was. For the last 5 years I've recorded directly to either Pro Tools or Sonar and have only had to concern myself with possible clipping on the pre or board and what either Pro Tools or Sonar read (on the way in) to ensure no digital clipping there. I didn't realize how much more went into it if you weren't using a DAW and I definitely have a new respect for everyone recording to tape! I just got my calibration tape and will be going through the process in the next couple days. Thanks again to everyone for the responses.

Eric

[trodden]

Thanks for the response. Man, I really had no idea how much of a "shortcut" I was taking when I started my recording career on Pro Tools. It seems that a lot more goes into setting up a tape machine and the learning curve to an all analog recording setup is a steep one if you've only worked with digital. I think I might understand what you're saying though.

Eric, man, nail meet hammer... damn. I'm going through the same thing. Even though I started out on tape... all i know is how to load it, record on it, and play it back.. and general head/rubber cleaning... there was always a studio owner around before to worry about all this other stuff. Now that i've acquired a machine of my own.. i feel brand new again.. all the bands that want to get in my place REALLY REALLY want to use tape... so i've got to figure some crap out first before I can start working again... fun, but kinda frustrating as well.

[trodden]

It seems that a lot more goes into setting up a tape machine and the learning curve to an all analog recording setup is a steep one if you've only worked with digital.

This is totally true, but as someone who has spent the majority of the last ten years making digital recordings, I've learned and AWFUL lot about how to make digital recording sound a certain way. As someone who LOVES the sound of analog, I'm just not that good at it anymore and I think I'm finally willing to say that I'm more comfortable making an exciting-sounding digital recording than an exciting-sounding analog one, just because I haven't put the same amount of time into analog recording (and making it sound a certain way) as I have with digital in recent years. With digital, there's less time involved in the general setup and maintenence of the machinery, but there's still setup, maintenence, and pletny of trickery worth learning to make digital sound a certain way.

Sorry for the off-topicness!

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

Duderkhan... totally... i'm actually kinda insecure working with the tape machine... while the PT rig is what i've used everytime the past 8 years.

[trodden]

at the same time - you probably didn't know anything about bit depth or sample rates or clocking or any of that crap the first time you pressed record on a computer, you just pressed record and some shit came back. same's true on tape. there's tons of stuff to know when you really get into it, but don't get scared of the machine/process. throw a reel up and press record. it may be slightly fucked up from a technical precision standpoint, but don't let that stop you - i certainly didn't understand all this stuff on my first sessions.

yep.. and now that i'm wanting to track basics to tape, then dump into protools... i worry about hitting the protools too hard. I'm close to having the money to have my tape machine looked at and someone to teach me how to service it... I'd love to just patch the tape machine right into my converters and all the levels be cool... I hope that is doeable.. not having to attenuate at the console before hitting the converters... cause the digital half sounds a lot better if I keep the levels kinda conservative.