Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: lrb@rrivax.rri.uwo.ca (Lance R. Bailey)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: comments on lrb's comments on ReVox B77 Mk II
Message-ID: <6281@uwm.edu>
Date: 13 Sep 90 13:20:43 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 41
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <6221@uwm.edu>, Steve_Graham@ub.cc.umich.edu writes...
>I too use my dbx only when I need the wide dynamic range.  But why use it
>when the original source is noisy?  It doesn't reduce noise from the original.

sorry, to explain- if the original pressing has a lot of noise [from original
tape master] i use dbx to reduce what i am adding to this. George Winston's
_Autumn_ (Windham Hill WD-101? i think) is a good example. when the
tape hiss of my machine is added to that on the pressing, I find it too
annoying. The _December_ album is quieter and so i do not have it encoded.

>I don't understand why Revox told you 4 tracks will not track correctly at
>15 ips.

I believe a lot has to do with crosstalk. I do not have a lot of experience
with 7.5 ips, but at 15 ips 4 track, I tend to get some tracks wandering. 
This is on both my Teac 3340 and the AKAI. 4 tracks in the same direction
are probabaly less of a problem than 2 one way, 2 the other. Since the b77
is only a 2 channel machine....
Tanbergs used to only come as 2 track in the high speed as well, I can
not remember the motor type so i cannot remember if it post-sale
configurable. i do not think so.

>The business you mention about the meters not being tied to the volume knob
> ... relates to differences between European and U.S. philosophies  ...
thank you. it actually does not surprise me that i fell into the european camp.

>About demagnetizing: ...
again, thank you, that explains it, although reVox makes a big deal about 
explaining the NAB standard w.r.t. tail-out, wound-even so it surprised me 
that they made no mention at all about magnitizing, maybe i missed it.

Yes, the Revox is very good, and is surpasses every thing i have seen 
so far, including some Fostex. You are completely correct in saying that
it lacks compared to _some_ of the better pro line (after all isn't
that why God gave us a Studer line too? :-)
_________________________________
Lance R. Bailey, Systems Manager | Robarts Research Institute
email: lrb@rri.uwo.ca            | Clinical Trials Resources Group
  vox: 519-663-3787 ext. 4108    | P.O. Box 5015, 100 Perth Dr.
  fax: 519-663-3789              | London, Canada N6A 5K8