how to ID / play back 1970's reel-to-reel tapes?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes (More info?)

i have some reel to reel tapes found in the attic of a family member
that i'd like to play back, and i'm trying to figure out what kind of
player unit i need.

the tapes were recorded in the late 1970's or early 1980's. they are in
the original boxes, which are marked:

Scotch recording tape
with "Superlife" coating
3M company
Dynarange Series extra length
1/4" x 1800 ft, 7" reel
silicone lubricated
1.0 mil polyester backing

there is a hand-written notation on the box that says "TEAC counter",
with counter values and content notes, so i assume the recordings were
made with a TEAC reel-to-reel unit. the owner seems to recall that it
as a consumer-type unit that lay flat, and not a stand-up unit; probably
mono or stereo.

any suggestions on how i might determine what equipment i need to play
these back?


thanks!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes (More info?)

"mike" wrote...
> any suggestions on how i might determine what equipment
> i need to play these back?

Likely 50% chance that they are "4-track stereo" and ~25%
that they may be "2-track stereo". Other (lesser) possibilities
are full-width mono, or 8-track. If you knew something more
about them you might be able to make a better guess. You can
likely find recording studios that can copy them to CD (or what-
ever). Equipment to play them back may be becoming more
scarce, but you need to establish the track format before buying
(or renting) anything.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes (More info?)

In <6iaQd.10178$SO.5058@fe06.lga>, on 02/14/05
at 06:09 PM, mike <ng01.spamguard@icewater.org> said:

>i have some reel to reel tapes found in the attic of a family member
>that i'd like to play back, and i'm trying to figure out what kind of
>player unit i need.

>the tapes were recorded in the late 1970's or early 1980's. they are
>in the original boxes, which are marked:
[ ... ]

>there is a hand-written notation on the box that says "TEAC counter",
>with counter values and content notes, so i assume the recordings were
> made with a TEAC reel-to-reel unit. the owner seems to recall that
>it as a consumer-type unit that lay flat, and not a stand-up unit;
>probably mono or stereo.

We'll all be guessing to some extent, but most TEAC machines were
quarter track stereo dual speed (3 3/4 and 7 1/2ips [inches per
second]).

They were not very common but TEAC did build some 7 1/2 - 15ips
machines. All of the machines were dual speed.

There are three possible track configurations and a variation. A
"track" is a path on the tape that is the recording of one channel.

1): "Full track": One channel is recorded that occupies almost the full
width of the tape. These tapes would be monophonic. I don't recall TEAC
making any full track machines. Typically, full track tapes are
recorded at 15ips (for maximum quality). 15ips is used mostly for
professional work.

2): "Half track": Two channels, each occupying almost half of the tape
width. These tapes could be monophonic, but would usually be stereo. In
the era quoted, half track tended to be used mostly for professional
work and mostly at 15ips (but I would not be shocked if I came across a
7 1/2ips half track tape).

3): "Quarter track stereo": Four tracks, each occupying almost a
quarter of the tape width. These were stereo machines. The left channel
is along the top edge and the right channel is just below center. One
could reverse the tape (end to end) and play the other two stereo
channels. Quarter track 3 3/4 - 7 1/2ips machines were the norm for
TEAC, they sold tons of them. Most likely this is the format of your
tapes.

3a): "Quarter track 4 channel": Some TEACs were outfitted with
4-channel heads and could simultaneously record four independent
channels. These machines were more likely 15ips, used 10 1/2" reels,
were used for live recording or semi-professional work (advanced
amateurs or pro's on a very very tight budget), and were most often
used in the stand-up position.

Examine the notes and try to determine if there are two "sides" (there
may be mention of "A" and "B" sides) to the tapes. If so, then you most
likely have quarter track stereo tapes. If your relative was a quality
nut, the tapes would have been recorded at 7 1/2 or 15ips. If he was
cheap, then they were recorded at 3 3/4ips.

---

My best guess, and it is only a guess, is that the tapes are quarter
track stereo recorded at 3 3/4 or 7 1/2 ips.

If you have only a few tapes, I recommend taking them to a pro and
having them transferred to CD. 30 years is pushing your luck with
magnetic tape, especially when it has not been stored properly. The
cost for professional transcription will probably be similar to the
cost of a machine you'd buy on the internet and you won't have to go
through "sweating palms" hoping that the machine you purchase will
actually work as advertised or that it might be the wrong format.
(Mostly, the online sellers don't know the true condition of the
machine and may not know its track configuration. The machine has been
sitting, unused in a closet for 20 years and they decided to sell it. A
tape machine that's been sitting for years and years, usually has some
sort of problem.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

Archived from groups: rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes (More info?)

> i have some reel to reel tapes found in the attic of a family member

How hot was that attic? You may have some trouble with the tape if it's
been exposed to high heat for too long.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes (More info?)

mike wrote:
> i have some reel to reel tapes found in the attic of a family member
> that i'd like to play back, and i'm trying to figure out what kind of

> player unit i need.
>
> the tapes were recorded in the late 1970's or early 1980's. they are
in
> the original boxes, which are marked:
>
> Scotch recording tape
> with "Superlife" coating
> 3M company
> Dynarange Series extra length
> 1/4" x 1800 ft, 7" reel
> silicone lubricated
> 1.0 mil polyester backing
(snip)

Hate to bring you down but I have a number of scotch tapes of that
vintage suffering from the dreaded squealing and jamming in playback.
Tape is "hydrolised" I think thats the term, as the compaines used
whale oil in manufacture, and the binder absorbs moisture from the air.

That is curable in the short term by "baking " (google it or go to
yahoo groups reel to reel)
I would recommend looking in your local paper's small ads, or posting
an ad yourself, to try and find a cheap second hand reel recorder. Akai
and Sony are probably the easiest Hi Fi models to come across. try
your luck but dont spend a fortune; see the deck in use before parting
with the cash!

good luck ,Ben

Archived from groups: rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes (More info?)

Dave Platt wrote:
(snip)
> The story I've heard (and it's of uncertain reliability) is that the
> older tapes (before the mid-1970s) often did use whale oil as one
> component, and don't suffer from sticky shed. The manufacturers
> reportedly stopped using binders incorporating whale oil, and
switched
> over to a purely synthetic tape binder in the mid-1970s, and it's
this
> "polyester urethane" binder which tends to absorb moisture and become
> sticky and sheddy.

that is entirely possible. It's been a while since I read up on the
phenomena, so my assumption on the use whale oil may be incorrect.

One thing is for sure, the tapes I have, from the same manufacturer
(and from most others), from before about 1974 seem fine, and I have
never had any kind of problems at all with most 1960s tape such as
brown EMItape. It seems to be a mid 70s cut off point for reliability.

I bought a few RadioShack tapes in the early 90s and had no trouble
with them - yet! ;-)

regards, Ben