Last Manufacturer of Pro Analog Audio Tape Closes

goosman writes "Quantegy, the last manufacturer of professional reel-to-reel analog audio tape in the world has closed their plant in Opelika, AL leaving a reported 250 workers without jobs, according to the Opelika-Auburn News. Emtec (the former BASF, which used to be AGFA) was the last European manufacturer and ceased manufacuring in 2002. An audio account of the closing can be heard at NPR."

Comments

Great story

[SIGALRM]

Almost 60 years ago, the story was different. "In 1945, after capturing several German 'Magnetophon' tape recorders from Radio Luxembourg, the American Signal Corps recorded a speech by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower to be played to the people of occupied Germany. Due to a shortage of recording tape, the speech had to be recorded on a reel of used German tape. Due to a problem with the German tape recorder, the tape was not completely erased and the voice of Adolph Hitler was intermittently heard along with Eisenhower's voice. This caused a great deal of fear and confusion among the German people

Wouldn't you have loved to be there for that little mishap? Here's a little more info on that story in case you're interested.

Re:Irony

[xjerky]

Well, at least it recursively explains why they had to shut down.

Re:Irony

[jaavaaguru]

My soundcard's not working. Does anyone have a copy of this story on reel to reel tape?

Market demands

[fishbowl]

If there is a market for 1/4", Maxell will reintroduce XL. Or some Chinese plant will start making it.

Pro tape, especially 2", is staggeringly expensive. And it still offers some qualities of sound which take a significant effort to duplicate with digital. Yes, this is aberration, but it's a desirable *analog* aberration, and studios that use tape contribute sort of a gestalt to the overall product, an organic quality.

I'm a big fan of digital, and I don't really care about analog tape, but I do sympathize with the folks still using 1" and 2" decks.

Digital recording is only *just now* getting to the point where it can truly take over. (It's been there for playback for decades, sure, but production is another story.)

But it's always been expensive to do 2". In the day, we'd get tapes that had been used once in a voiceover studio and bulk erase them.

Oh well... I feel sorry for the plant workers and anybody still using an ampex console. Somewhere I think i still have a Teac 4-track 1/4", and boxes of unused, or only partly used, tapes. Ebay time?

This is horrible, tape is the only archival medium

[tentimestwenty]

Now that there are so many digital recording formats, with various numbers of tracks, it is essentially impossible to create legacy recordings. Many programs we use today won't even run in 5 years let alone 100 and all we will have is basic 2 track mixdown masters of many records.

With tape you could use whatever you wanted to record a record, it all got put to the same tape and in most cases the tape lasted a very long time, 50 years plus. Better yet, often times the recording equipment was better than the tape playback so as time went on you could get better sound off the same tape because technology had advanced. Digital is locked in stone forever, never to reveal any improvements. Even as a crude 2nd step backup there is the potential to bounce your multi-track masters to multi-track tape for preservation.

Steve Albini, one of the world's best recording engineers has a good lecture about the importance of tape here

Where 2" reel-to-reel is used

[algae]

To those of you who are saying "BFD, nobody uses analog tape anymore", have a good look at the liner notes of one of your audio CDs (and don't you dare say "BFD, nobody uses audio CDs anymore."

Somewhere in those notes, there'll be a logo that says either AAD, ADD, or DDD. If your CD is either one of the first two, then the original instruments were recorded to 2" tape. If it's the second, then the 2" tape was mastered to 1/2" tape.

A LOT of professional recording studios still use this technology. For one thing, if you send too much signal into an analog tape, you get a nice sounding tape compression, whereas if you send too much signal into a ADC, you get really horrible sounding digital clipping.

\/me wonders what several hundred recording studios in L.A. are gonna do now.

Re:Damn

[Jeffrey Baker]

Cheap studio gear can write "24/96" all over the package but achieving that accuracy digitally is very difficult and expensive. Most low-end equipment I've managed to peek inside of contain poorly implemented clocks. In a digital system the timebase is the most important factor, but Edirol and that crowd spend $0.10 on the clock. A good clock would make "96kHz" closer to the truth, but then it wouldn't be $199 anymore.

An actual 24-bit system has a theoretical Dynamic range of around 140dB but you'll be hard pressed to get better than 80dB with most gear. With analog recording there are at least two well-known foolproof methods to improve dynamic range and SNR: get a bigger tape, and run the tape faster. The dynamic range and SNR on 2", 32ips tape is amazing.

And of course tape can be driven to +9dB recording levels in some cases, but a digital system will clip hard at 0dB.

Digital is definitely the future but right digital recording has its problems. Next time you go to the record store notice how many High Resolution DVD-Audio recordings are being mastered from tapes.

Re:Irony

[tuxter]

I find it ironic that you use the word irony in relation to a metal oxide storage medium.....

Re:250 people lost their jobs?

[ThJ]

Much more happens in a tape recorder than just the addition of noise. There is something called warping, that is inaccuracies in the speed the tape passes the playback/recording heads. There is crosstalk, that is mixing of audio across several channels. There is also the fact that the signal is being recorded with a bias to bring it into the most linear part of the tape. And then there's the most noticable effect: Compression. When you over-record a tape, you get compression, that is reduction in audio levels compared to the original levels. A digital recorder will just clip, sounding horrible. A tape recorder will do it more gently. Modern musicians and technicians are very fond of what's described as vintage sound. I need just mention the UREI LA-2A compressor, an opto-electric tube compressor, used on numerous recordings. I dare bet anyone who has ever listened to recorded music has heard the handywork of that machine, or it's digital emulations. I love the sound of warping, especially when it comes from record players. It's what I call a becoming untunedness or unstability in pitch. Creates a warm fuzzy feeling inside of me, at least. Tube equipment is popular for grunching things up a bit, the newest Korg synthesizer model, a purely digital machine in all other aspects, has a tube stage for adding an edge to the sound. Guitarists unanamously agree that tube amplifiers give the best sound... I can go on and on... But it's a part of musicians' culture, basically.

Re:Damn

[puetzk]

Yep. And sampling @96kHz gives you response up to 48kHz (in theory, though in principal it the last parts suffer from intonation problems if there's any jitter at all to your sampling or reproduction clock.

Frequency distribution is a nice sharp spike at n Hz...
| |
| |
|_______|__
n

So we'll sample at 2n Hz

_ _
/ \ / \ - forgive the ascii art and
\_/ \_/ pretend that was a sine wave

_|__ __|__ - sampled at 2n Hz
| |

We'll even pretend that the studio gear sampled it perfectly (no clock jitter) since that gear
is likely pretty damned good. So our digital signal is +1,-1,+1,-1 just like it should be

But now we play it back on a cheapo walkman that doesn't have a perfect clock, so what it synthesizes is

_|_ ___|_ _
| |

and after filtering, the analog signal it produces now looks like this
_ _
/ | _/ | - again, forgive the ascii art,
|_/ |_/ but clearly it has steeper
sections and shallower ones
so it's no longer a pure tone

So the frequency distribution now looks like

|
| |
|_____|_|_|
n

it has some frequency content to both sides of the 'real' signal (how much and how far depends on the amount of jitter present). Obviously, the signals very close to the nyquist limit suffer most from this - the lower pitches get to average the wave-shape out over multiple samples, so they will not spread out as much in the freuency domain if a point is a little off in time. But this is why the nyquist limit is not the whole story. Along with the fact that no filter is a completely sharp dropoff, this is why CD's lowpass filter to <20kHz, not at the 22050Hz Nyquist limit).

Sampling beyond 96kHz is not (yet, anyway) mainstream gear. So I think the grandparen't claim that digital equipment works to 48kHz, but has a hard time as that limit is approached is pretty fair - that's the theoretical limit (for prosumer-grade stuff), and in practice it will have trouble near the edge.

Alas, poor Analog...

[ktakki]

...I knew ye well.

Having spent most of my teens, twenties, and thirties in recording studios (as a musician, engineer, producer, and owner), there's a lot I'm going to miss about analog recording on tape.

• First of all, there's the act of opening a fresh reel of Ampex 456 tape -- the polymer scent, akin to the smell of a new car. You'd place the reel on the deck, thread it carefully, and then fast-forward to the end and rewind to the beginning. This would "seat" the tape so it would align with the transport. But it was almost a ritual act, the first step in recording a new project.
• After each take, the tape would have to be rewound, either to the top of the track or to the punch point. It was an enforced pause, a chance to let your ears cool off for a few seconds or a minute, maybe take a sip of coffee or beer. I'm not the only engineer who missed this.
• Flipping the reel: maybe once in a blue moon I'd lay a backwards guitar or piano track, or record some backwards reverb (one of my favorite effects). But when one of the channels on an old Ampex 24-track deck went south, flipping the tape and copying the track over to another track was our quick and dirty workaround (it was only a reference track anyway, and the deck was fixed the next day). Of course, nowadays we have hard drives and we all know that they never ever fail.
• Splicing: okay, I'll readily admit that in the early '90s Digidesign Sound Designer made me hang up my razor blade and splicing block forever, but it was a hell of a useful skill at the time. I had a lot of fun in the pre-sampler days making 1/4" tape loops (some of them were 20 or 30 feet long and ran around the room, using microphone stands as tensioners).
• The essential qualities of analog tape: head bump and tape compression. The first is really a quality of analog decks, a low-frequency emphasis between 60 and 200 Hz, where the belly of a kick drum sound lies. Tape compression allows you to selectively saturate certain tracks, like snare drum, where the effects of distortion actually work in your favor. Attempting the same thing with digital only leads to madness. Note that there's a DSP plug-in available for ProTools that simulates these qualities.
• Longevity: properly stored and cared for, analog tape lasts decades. Perhaps even a century or more. Sure, there was that problem with 3M reels and flaking back in the '80s, but that was nothing that an hour in a convection oven at 200 degrees couldn't cure (heh). I have reels from the '70s that I can still listen to. Compare this with my own personal dead media problem: I have to keep a Mac 512K running if I want to be able to access MIDI sequences I wrote back in the mid-'80s. The software won't run on anything past System 3.2, and the file format is proprietary and not published anywhere (Opcode Sequencer 1.5). I've done straight-through conversions to a standard MIDI file format, but you lose certain features that way (named tracks, loops, etc.). Without a standard multi-track digital audio format that works across platforms and software packages, one that can be perpetuated for decades, musicians, producers, and record labels will find themselves in the same conundrum. Remember that a tape recorded on an Ampex deck will (theoretically) work on a Studer, an MCI, a Tascam, or an Otari. Think 20, 50, 100 years from now. Think reissue, remaster, box set.

I'm not about to start the analog vs. digital flamefest. I see more good about digital than bad, but there are a few qualities of analog (particularly the last point above) that are worth preserving.

k.