- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 625
- Likes
- 1,046
"... has a frequency range of 50-12,000 cps ..."
CPS?
(After a Google search I presume...)
CPS = Cycles Per Second = Hertz
"... has a frequency range of 50-12,000 cps ..."
Whoops. Gives away how long I spent Googling for that cheap shot...That's a good one ;-)
I read 528Hz though
I'd love to see a Walkman Pro cassette deck tested, as used by countless bootleggers (and Andy Kershaw in his early "kitchen" recordings, some of which you can hear at <https://andykershaw.co.uk/category/podcast/>).This is a review and detailed measurements of the Sony Tapecorder Model 101 vintage Reel to Reel tape recorder. My brother found it for me at a Goodwill store. The 101 was released in 1959 and retailed for 29,800 Japanese Yen (today's conversion and adjusted for inflation: $2,377).
View attachment 196894
I must stay it looks absolutely cute! It has a lid that covers it all. With it on, it would fit right in inside any fashion store. You can get a sense of that with a side shot:
View attachment 196895
The thing weighs a ton by the way for its size. There is a fan on the back and cute little door which exposes the AC cord connection inside it.
I have been anxious to measure it but took me a long time to find a test tape. Eventually I found one that has an odd tone of 315 Hz.
Sony Tapecorder Model 101 Measurements
I must say, I was not prepared for this level of performance out of this slow running, ancient deck:
View attachment 196896
OK, it is not a CD but compare it to my modern Otari Reel to Reel:
SINAD is just 4 dB lower! If I am not mistake, distortion is actually lower on the Sony than the Otari. I am just stunned by this. Were these vintage decks all this good???
Alas, I have no other test tones to show you more measurements. I will see if I can record some and post them later.
Conclusions
I don't usually get excited with testing vintage stuff as with some exceptions, performance is not there. And most look and smell old. Not here. The Sony 101 looks practically new and performs almost at the same level of a modern Reel to Reel deck. I see one advertised on ebay in worse shape for $70. If it works, it would be worth every dollar based on this testing.
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
Tapers! Curiously they aren't mentioned here often. I am also curious to see what sort of fidelity they would be capable to achieve with their crazy setups. But Amir never tests microphones, does he?I'd love to see a Walkman Pro cassette deck tested, as used by countless bootleggers (and Andy Kershaw in his early "kitchen" recordings, some of which you can hear at <https://andykershaw.co.uk/category/podcast/>.
And, of course the obvious ReVox and TEAC top-end stuff.
The most recorded band must've been The Dead. There's lots of free stuff at archive.org <https://archive.org/details/etree>Tapers! Curiously they aren't mentioned here often. I am also curious to see what sort of fidelity they would be capable to achieve with their crazy setups. But Amir never tests microphones, does he?
I always wanted one of those machines. I have a TC-660 which is the same vintage. It still works.
Magnetic recording is mostly limited by the tape, not the machine. Actually recording tapes are still being made and are at least at the quality level or higher than they were in their heyday. I doubt this machine or any reel to reel machine could be modified to give significantly better overall performance because ultimately performance is limited by the tape not the machine.I'd be interested to know if relatively inexpensive modifications could make significant measurable improvements now that we have the benefit of modern measurement/test equipment. Though, I would think it's difficult to evaluate tape machines since there are different variables such as tape types that are no longer manufactured etc.
I remember Tom Scholz of the band Boston, made extensive mods to the record/playback electronics of the tape machines he used.
Dolby noise reduction was a big improvement.Magnetic recording is mostly limited by the tape, not the machine. Actually recording tapes are still being made and are at least at the quality level or higher than they were in their heyday. I doubt this machine or any reel to reel machine could be modified to give significantly better overall performance because ultimately performance is limited by the tape not the machine.
I did an AB test and it was very hard to tell the difference with a CD, sans a bit of tape noise.How is the performance of this compared to a CD player? Seems to me reel to reel is the equivalent of a tube amplifier compared to Aiyima A07
In hiss reduction, yes, but it wasn't a free ride as other parameters suffered, although with professional 4 band systems (type A) the tradeoffs were relatively minor. Dolby B for consumer use was OK for cassette but not really worth the tradeoffs with reel to reel. Commercial pre-recorded tapes were hissy because they were mass duplicated, usually at 60ips. Dolby B was applied for awhile to these reel to reel tapes, but never caught on significantly.Dolby noise reduction was a big improvement.
The 777 family were pretty cool -- and ahead of their time, I suppose. Sony made them for quite a few years.I always wanted one of those machines. I have a TC-660 which is the same vintage. It still works.
umm, there is that mono/stereo thing, too...I did an AB test and it was very hard to tell the difference with a CD, sans a bit of tape noise.
The 777 strikes me styling wise as the zillionth squeezing of the Ampex 600 series grapes. Many (most?) consumer machines back in the day tried to look either like the Ampex 600 (Roberts) or the Ampex 350 (Teac, Concertone etc etc).The 777 family were pretty cool -- and ahead of their time, I suppose. Sony made them for quite a few years.