I own a B77 II, hardly use it, but it does have a prominent place and gets regular maintenance. My dad bought it and used it a lot. So it will never leave my listening room, even listening to other sources, my dad is there with me.
Revox B 77 Mk III Open Reel Tape Deck. This is great news about this machine! I am happy to hear about it as i am a fan since a long time. 😊 I wish i can have it, but the sad thing is that it is quite out of my budget of affordability. But for those who can afford it, this is some happy news! So go for it! Thank you for the video!
I've got a Mark 1 high speed 2 track which I recapped new bearings etc. Cost £600. One can buy new boards from boutique companies for upgrading the cards. There's a guy in the Netherlands that does top notch boards that have all the Eq's for a lot less than the price of a Mark3!
Absolutely, buying an old unit and restoring it is a great idea, and until recently was pretty much the only option as there were no newly manufactured machines. Of course a brand new machine will cost far more than a 40 + year old one....
My 24 tracks were each only twice that number in 1977. This is a vanity product as pros already have much more practical mix recorders. Nobody mixes to 1/4” tape. Revox put a number on the total project cost and divided by anticipated sales to moneyed audiophiles. What a world…
Check out how many £10k+ and even £100k+ turntables there are on the market... There is a small but significant market for extreme high end audio. Myself I purchased a couple of old studio recorders and had them restored. Whilst this was quite costly, the ultimate cost of one of these was around the price of a high end tonearm or cartridge (not far from the price of this new Revox). So, for those that do care about, and enjoy phenomenal sound, adding tape to the system is not that expensive... Just consider how much a new Ferrari costs (well over £100k), yet you can buy a new car from around £10k...
@ Some strange values you propose here. Going backwards, the most common street Ferrari ranges from $240k for ‘comfort’ models to $400k for sports models. Brand new special editions are $1m to $3m. Compare this often appreciating asset that will get you around for decades to a ‘high end’ turntable designed solely to announce the thickness of the owner’s wallet, and sounds worse than a Nakamichi cassette recorder. That harsh judgement is simple fact, not my opinion. Vinyl has been a bad joke of the audio quality crowd for a half century. Kind of a silly place to spend your money. Analog tape can sound truly excellent and sound that way every time you play it. It doesn’t develop dropouts, skips, loud pops, ticks or other stone-age anomalies common to vinyl. There is a wealth of analog tape recorders available on the used and refurbished market since almost no one makes them anymore. As many were for professional use, they are super easy to repair and maintain. If that’s your thing, by all means go for it. I am intimately familiar with all the pro recorders and can recommend ones at every cost. There is also a healthy supply of semipro recorders, many of which have equal sound quality but differ in reel size capability and input/output connectors. Harder to repair, they need very little maintenance to sound absolutely glorious. Other than my mini-rant here, I don’t even talk about ‘high end’ or audiophile, neither of which deserve my time and breath. That you think a Ferrari costs £100k and you mention turntables of the same cost with no irony at all is telling. Even if the numbers were correct, I’d prefer spending that amount of money on a car to take me wherever I go than on a brick sitting on my shelf that no one actually wants to hear working.
This is great news. It's nice to see the inclusion of XLR connectors and a +4dbu operating level for more professional applications. I would consider this deck "semi pro" however. That doesn't mean it doesn't sound great, just that 1/2 inch tape and being capable of 30ips is more the pro standard for a mixdown deck. That being said, this is a very welcome new addition and hopefully it will spur interest from other manufactures to produce machines. The more options, the merrier.
I was about to post that if it comes out, it'll cost something stupid like 10 grand or something. I was wrong, it costs 16k€ with VAT (about 17k$) or about 13.5k without VAT (a bit over 14k$). Offering master tape copies is obviously a masterful (excuse the pun) marketing move, however, with only 22 samples available and and at 480€ each, it'll just be a hobby for a select few. The real issue is whether we will have a tape manufacturer resurface in the near future and produce an economical tape that will be guaranteed to last at least a hundred years. The other pertinent question is whether someone will come up with a method of mass-copying existing master tapes to new tape formulations with minimal loss of audio quality. Copying master tapes on a one by one basis is obviously a not viable business prospect or, at least, it is not for very long.
Hi Stelios, the fact of the matter is, back in the 60s / 70s / 80s, reel to reel was THE high end format, a good reel to reel machine cost far more than a high end turntable, for the very good reason that there's far more in a reel to reel recorder than in a turntable, both in terms of mechanical engineering, and electronics... So, it's no surprise that they cost over £10k really. On top of that you've got to factor in the limited market, so tape was always niche; the top end of the market, expensive. Extend that up to master quality and it should not be a surprise that is costs what it does. It is not the same thing at all as a mass market medium, not in sound quality, nor in cost to produce. As far as the catalogue of recordings go. Between Horch House and Revox there are well over 200 titles (Revox has just acquired Horch House thus becoming a much more significant supplier of master tape copies). Add to that the fifty plus other small labels producing master tape copies - there are well over 500 titles available, the least costly being under £200 for a tape, the most expensive approaching £2k (but that would be for a four reel album). As far as 'mass copying' goes: most of the tape labels will duplicate perhaps 4 - 6 tapes at once. This is still done in real time, and obviously would need 5 (or 7) master quality machines, all set up and aligned perfectly, along with master studio quality distribution amplifiers to ensure correct impedance matching.
@@DaveDenyerHi Dave, thank you for the very detailed reply. Regarding the cost of reel-to-reel audio, a better indicator is the average salary or the GDP per capita perhaps minus the cost of living vs. cost of a machine/tape. Then we would be comparing like with like because 10k for a new machine today sounds a lot more than 3k in today's money for a brand new machine in 1970. I think if we do this exercise, we will still find a price discrepancy because today a reel-to-reel deck (to be used as a functional piece rather than a collection item) is a far more niche product than it was in 1970. Before that, in the 60's, the open reel deck was probably the only hi-fi device an upper middle class consumer could afford but it was far from what was considered hi-fi in the 70s or later. So open reel decks back then, as a consumer item class, was not that niche overall. On the subject of record player vs. open reel deck, I'd go as far as saying that the open reel deck probably enjoyed a good decade of clear supremacy near the 80s when the really high end record players we have had after the demise of vinyl were not available. Today, for the average consumer it is impossible to get the same quantity of recordings in tape as one can in vinyl, so vinyl is the more dominant medium even if ultimately, in terms of sound quality, tape would still be superior. But master copies on tapes are not and never were a mass consumption good -- they are more like numbered and signed copies of works of art such as prints. This will keep being the case until a machine is invented that can make say 20 or more copies of a tape at once. I do not see why that would not be feasible in the peak of reel-to-reel tapes' popularity, if there was ever such an era, as it would simply be a question of staggering a number of heads parallel to each other with automatic independent alignment mechanisms perhaps and then just skewering the tape reels on one long axle. But maybe someone will put together a solution now, if there is money to be made. Buying a few dozen master tape decks to use as tape copiers is not economically viable in my opinion nor is it scalable.
The scintillate excitement is all over the place Dave! Really love your passion and now a good reason to buy a New Year lottery🙂 As always, great fun, THX!
Many people think spending £150 - £200 on a MOFI or UHQR (not to mention an ERC) is completely mad. In comparison, for what you get, physically and sonically, these Copy Master Tapes are actually quite cheap.
@@DaveDenyer I get what you are saying completely. I admire the UHQR and One Steps from afar but I have a self imposed ceiling when it comes to LP pricing and those products are above that line. If you do have the finances then you are most welcome to collect these pinnacles of the vinyl art. I am sure you are correct that a good 1:1 tape master is an even better investment from an SQ perspective and in comparison to these UHQRs & etc. I would love to have a new Revox B77 mk3 and a few dozen ultra quality tapes but it would be a dream only. The other thing is I am not seeing many of these new ultra tapes in the Soul music genre.
Actually this prompted me to do a quick Discogs search for Soul music on tape. Sadly all I could find were tapes at 3.75 ips on 4 track, which were from back in the day and most probably not from the master tape. How would such a tape rank vs a 15 ips 1:1 master copy or even an ultra quality LP? I'm not being rude or controversial I am asking because I don't have the experience of this to answer.
@@ianmelville452the 3.75ips 4-tracks are good: different to LP & CD notably better than cassette. However I’d say not superior. 7.5ips is where tape really starts to leave vinyl in the shade.
That's pretty cool, the tape player and the music.I appreciate what they're doing here. My father had reel to reel at one time, though none of his tapes seem to have survived. I think I'll stick to vinyl records (which we have quite a few of in the family), and cheaper transistor amps and turntables for my analog music needs -- maybe I'll upgrade speakers some point. What I remember from old days, that this was the thing that mattered most.
This is a fantastic news! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and other information on this Reel. Would love to see you review the New B77. I hope they send you one. I am definitely interested and perhaps they will be in Axpona 2025?
Unless you are recording some sort of live or studio performance and specifically want it on analog tape there is absolutely no point in tape nowadays. I have an Ampex 351 studio machine/351 tube preamps and DO use it for live recording and it sounds fabulous and I get constant requests from performers to record with it. But I can't think of other reason to buy a tape machine nowadays UNLESS the goal is to have a "display" item in your system.
What a great review! Its a smart move by the Revox owners to get the new version of the B77 out there in combination with the master tape copies from Horch House. For new adopters of the media, its important a source of recordings is also available rather than just the machines. Although I've been into HiFi for 40 years, open reel is a relatively new media I have accepted...some might say rather too late but c'est la vie. I'm sure the B77 MKIII will get a decent tranch of sales but although I can afford the 16000 euro price tag, I won't be buying it. That's because the vast majority of consumers would rather spend 1600 euro (or less) on a second-hand refurbished deck and spend the rest of the money on the music tapes. The other feature that I find dissapointing in today's world is the opportunity to record. These machines were designed for recording! It was one of the freedoms that a consumer could partake alongside the professional usage story. It's a shame most of the YT videos out there just talk about playback. On that note it would be nice for you to demonstrate (perhaps on your A80) a recording test even if its just from a digital source and compare perhaps against an LP?
In the 70s, we bought cassette tape recorders to minimize wear on our vinyl. I bought an Akai R2R in the early 80s for some improvement in playback quality (tape hiss). Running 15 ips tape speeds produced the best results, and the highest cost/ least practicality. I really enjoyed the third head monitoring capability of recording level, noise, over saturation, etc. I am confident this new machine improves upon all of this, but still, the issue of practicality…. Today I prefer the digital medium for practicality. Maybe not the utmost audio reproduction quality, but still a good compromise.
Thanks for the breakdown Dave! Looking forward to the review when you get around to it. FWIW; there are a lot of ATRs out there in studios as well, most specifically Chris Bellman at Sterling, and of course all of the tape project titles are done on ATRs as well as Woodside Studios. Overall the machine looks super promising. Switchable EQ is VERY desirable of course. The +250 / +512 seems a little gimicky, simply because it’s simple enough to change repro levels manually without realigning the machine. Still convenient AF. I just got a Studer A810 with the switchable output levels, so I may sing a different tune after using it a while. Thanks!
@@JeffersonDD I’m looking forward to trying it too. If I was starting all over again would I have bought this machine? Maybe. Ok it costs more than any of the four R2Rs I have owned, but add in the restoration and servicing costs, that’s another story. Oh, and having an A812 and an A80 in my (can’t really call it a living room anymore), well, well, this thing is smaller and neater than my Technics (which sits there looking pretty but is hardly ever used anymore).
@@DaveDenyerI suspect that the new Revox won’t get close to either the A812 or the A80 in terms of sound quality, but would certainly add some convenience. Cheers!
@@JeffersonDD I wouldn't expect so, but I would expect it to outperforms an old B77 or PR99 etc. I'll be able to pitch it against my Technics as well as the two Studers.
Sadly, I heard the formula or machines is lost or cannot be produced any longer, as the Chrome or better tapes have things in it that are not allowed any longer. I guess the stupid Type 1 tape that remained will be the only "new" tape that we will get - or use the old Type II, III, IV tapes as long as they work.
There are at least two companies making new open reel tape....ATR Magnetics and Recording The Masters. ATR's master tape is the best tape I've ever used.
Good question Owen: I honestly can't say for sure having not heard the B77 MKIII, however I would very much doubt it will sound as good as an A80 in good health.
There are no currently manufactured NR units available, that I'm aware of, but with modern tape formulations these are not as relevant as they once were. I use Recording the Masters tape (this is the current trading name / brand of the old AGFA / BASF / EMTEC, RMGI tape. A 7" reel costs around £35, a 10.5" reel costs from £55 to £80.
@@DaveDenyer That's what I thought. Given sufficient time and energy, professional Dolby noise-reduction electronics must be available. (I'm recalling Dolby SR. Am I remembering correctly?
Very interesting video. Will you be joining the waiting list to buy one?. I have a mk11 which caught fire last time I switched it on. I intend to get it repaired and serviced. Has anybody got suggestions about who to take my machine to? I live in London.I used to be able to take reels home from the B.B.C archives and copy them onto chrome or metal cassette. The B77 mk 11 seemed to have it,s own acoustic and the sound was amazing.
Maybe… I’ve already got two Studers, so don’t really need another machine. I bet you’ve got an interesting cassette collection. The Audiophiles Clinic are near London. Should be able to sort your mk2.
I think its a better idea to invest 1000EUR in an old B77 in good shape and perfectly restore it for about 2000EUR. = 3000EUR for a perfect machine. Thats how we do it here in Austria.
That’s certainly one approach. It’s what I’ve done with the four machines I’ve had. The Technics was around that money, the three Studers far more, and the bills keep coming. Also, consider for this approach to work at all, someone back in the 70s/80s had to buy that B77 new, and if Revox didn’t build them to last they’d not be easily restorable in 2024.
@@DaveDenyer Thanks for replying Dave! You are absolutely right. I just mentioned this because for most of us spending 18k on a new machine is not possible. So for ordinary people restoring an old machine is the only way to get it „cheap“. Personally I prefer the A77 MKIII anyway. Its cheaper to buy and easy to restore and reduced to the essentials.
Aaaargh. Everything I wanted, but no 4 track. In the real world you either listen to vintage 1/4 inch 4 track 71/2ips NAB commercial tapes or contemporary “studio master” 1/4inch 2 track 15ips IEC commercial (high cost) tapes. I have mostly 4 track 71/2ips tapes and only a handful of expensive “”studio masters” and realistically only space for one tape deck. So I might have stumped up nearly €17000 for a new Revox, but only if it does 4 track as well. Some 4 track 71/2ips tapes such as Time Out by Dave Brubeck are really good. Right now my solution is to take my 2 track, high speed B77Mk11, swap the record head for a 4 track replay head and wire both the replay reads to an external home-made head amplifier with switchable eq and output level. (I paid a tape tech to fit the new head, align it, then wire both heads to external RCA connectors.) Result is a bit fiddly, but for a lot less than 17 grand. Or I could buy a used Otari. So Revox, good news, but no cigar.
Hi Nick, I fully appreciate why Revox have chosen the 2-track route. It is current, is is the better format (by some margin). However I also agree with you about 4-track, and funnily enough, it was a 4 track 7.5ips Dave Brubeck tape that first caught my ear; Jazz Impressions of Japan... That was the first time I ever heard anything sound better than a good vinyl system... Your two replay head solution sounds like a good one!
Wow . But I will for sure stick to my A77mkIV & B77mkII . Only last week received new tape from Recording the Masters and that tape is already full with 90 tracks going from 1955 to today. They could have changed a bit how it looks , seems to me that ReVox was either very lazy in terms of designchanges or went the nostalgic way.
@@DaveDenyer Unfortunately they don't have a frequency response listed, anywhere I could see, anyway. I would be very interested to know what that spec is.
At the time of me making this video (no more than a week after pre-sales started), they'd sold out of the first two months' production (ie. 40 units)...
@@Abruzzo333 maybe you've seen the very recent news that Revox have purchased Horch House? That gives Revox a huge catalogue and gives the renaissance of tape a huge boost. I certainly wish them success.
Great video! Vinyl for me, for cost reasons at a minimum. But it's good to know what's out there. I'm toying with the idea of getting a SME 15 (UK)... any experience or thoughts?
Hi Austin, There's no doubt a SME 15 is a very very nice turntable. Whether its for you is really down to your personal tastes. I do have a few friends with SME turntables (generally Model 10s or 15s) although the only SME product I've actually owned myself was a Series V tonearm. In each of these cases there's no doubting SME's quality but to my ears the Series V (and SME sound generally) is leaning towards 'dark, solid and controlled' rather than 'light and boogie factor'. I would really suggest a listen if you can arrange one, preferably at home etc. What's your current turntable?
@@DaveDenyer Thanks Dave! Fluance RT85 with a Hana ML and Dynavector DV-75 MK 4 preamp. To be honest, the RT85 is an absolutely incredible value tt and I really haven't discovered its limitations yet. But I do realize my collection and equipment may have outgrown it and I'm starting to look at its upgrade. When I buy, it'll likely be in the SME 15 (with 309 tonearm) price range.
@@austinhunt4260 ok, to be honest I've not heard the Fluence. However I'd expect the SME to be a big upgrade in many, if not all, ways... When the time comes I'd still advise a decent home demo.
@@DaveDenyer It better be a MASSIVE upgrade in every way for 1,600% more money! Just want to make sure there isn't a clearly superior alternative to the SME 15 in the price range. I have to admit, it's design has me.
If you dont mind of course, but at such price range I would start with Technics SL1200G then Rega 10 then Thorens DD 124 and of course SME 15. This way you get pretty good impression of differ and very HQ TT's. Also whatever the jump from EUR 5k - EUR 8k to EUR 15k is worth it. Good luck!
A few years ago Technics softly surveyed the market to see if they could sell a modern version of the RS1500 for $30k!!!! Clearly they did not get very far. $15K is not outrageous considering NOS Technics are selling in that range and we all know even the NOS machines will soo require maintenance.
@@Roudaki677 I believe that Technics, and Teac / Tascam have at least considered making a new machine. It may still happen. This market is certainly niche, but it has been steadily growing over the last few years. I believe this move by Revox is the most significant step yet!
At the end of the 80's, just before DAT became available for consumers, some audio recording studios began using ED Beta vcr recorders because they had a superior signal to noise ratio over reel to reel tape decks. I had spent most of the 70's and 80's recording music on a Teac, then Sony, then Tandberg reel to reel tape decks. I never liked the "tape hiss that was present a loud volumes. Although I owned an ED Beta, I had never considered the idea of using it as unit for audio only recordings. The improvement was substantial. At this price, I'd want an exact copy. I'll pass.
I generally buy Recording The Masters tape from Thomann, based in Germany. Or I think Recording the Masters do sell direct, it all depends on where you are...
First: so becouse the b77 came out that year it is called the 77 ? what about the A77 then ? so you don't know much about revox/studer except for some wikipedia/google. Second: tape shedding has nothing to do with the IEC or NAB levels, its just tape badly made like most Ampex , Scotch etc. Third: where are the specs ? not ONE word everywhere not by you, not by Revox ... becouse it is NOT that much better than the old versions, just trying to make (alot) money of old stock with some minor improvements
Hi Peter, regarding the 1977 naming thing. That thought occurred to me in the moment. Of course I’d forgotten about the A77 at that moment… Regarding specs… I’m sure once Revox have these in production we’ll see. Tape shed? I know this is due to the binders used (by Ampex and dome others), not sure why you think I think it’s got anything to do with EQ curves.
Hey Joe, Good question. I don't have exact details of the circuitry and componentry, but Revox build things to last decades, so I very much doubt they have decided to throw that pedigree out of the window with this new flagship machine.
Just a new lick of paint, no real improvement over previous b77, best to buy a MK1 or 2 for about £900-1200 , a little bit of servicing maybe & just as good ! Love my mk 1.
@@uncled39some parts might be similar : some parts might even be the same as those used on the mk2, but all of them are new parts. Not used (refurbed) as is commonly suggested.
Your loudspeaker cones still have to move, as do your eardrums… music, sound, it’s an analogue thing. Somewhere along the line, if using digital, it needs to be converted, then converted back again.
Lemme see now: less bandwidth, less s/n ratio and dynamic range, generational loss, sourced from digital, expensive media, alignment for different stock expensive., Sure, THAT'S the ticket.
Is a good thing someone wants to make new tape machines. The thing is The MKII was not a good machine, I never liked it. The Akai gx series have way better fidelity and very easy to repair, and excellent price point. My Akai GX-620 fidelity is so close to the DAC. I can't imagine why you need to spend that much money on a Revox.
This video is for a very select view with a big wallet! Not many of us folks who enjoy a good sound system are going to go down this rabbit hole You are talking thousands of dollars and tape machines that are very finicky I have thousands of dollars in my system and I don’t think you’re going to hear much difference in the sound of these expensive machines and tapes costing 500 dollars
It certainly is a very small niche, but there are people who can afford it, or make that choice to. The difference is actually huge Dave. Once heard you don’t forget it.
@@DaveDenyer Totally agree.Had never heard R2R until a couple of years ago.I was slack jawed at how amazing it sounded,even though it is a pain in the arse to use,comparatively.My rating goes R2R,vinyl,closely followed by cd,with streaming in last place
I agree completely, especially with the last part. There are many vintage tape decks that sound every bit as good as a studer/revox for a fraction of the price.
I own a B77 II, hardly use it, but it does have a prominent place and gets regular maintenance. My dad bought it and used it a lot. So it will never leave my listening room, even listening to other sources, my dad is there with me.
Nice! Thanks for sharing your story! 🙏
@DaveDenyer thnx for the review, I do like the black version, maybe give my 3 y.o. a sharpie 😇
Revox B 77 Mk III Open Reel Tape Deck. This is great news about this machine!
I am happy to hear about it as i am a fan since a long time. 😊 I wish i can have it, but the sad thing is that it is quite out of my budget of affordability. But for those who can afford it, this is some happy news! So go for it!
Thank you for the video!
Thanks for your comments, I agree!
@DaveDenyer I appreciate your reply!
You still have two kidneys? 😈
I've got a Mark 1 high speed 2 track which I recapped new bearings etc. Cost £600. One can buy new boards from boutique companies for upgrading the cards. There's a guy in the Netherlands that does top notch boards that have all the Eq's for a lot less than the price of a Mark3!
Absolutely, buying an old unit and restoring it is a great idea, and until recently was pretty much the only option as there were no newly manufactured machines. Of course a brand new machine will cost far more than a 40 + year old one....
Germany had tape and wire pre 40's - electronic to disc came in the 20's - not shouting down the trumpet.
Thanks for this information Ben.
@@BenPrevo Germany was in the lead at that time, in the main due to the addition on Bias to the signal.
My 24 tracks were each only twice that number in 1977. This is a vanity product as pros already have much more practical mix recorders. Nobody mixes to 1/4” tape. Revox put a number on the total project cost and divided by anticipated sales to moneyed audiophiles. What a world…
Check out how many £10k+ and even £100k+ turntables there are on the market... There is a small but significant market for extreme high end audio. Myself I purchased a couple of old studio recorders and had them restored. Whilst this was quite costly, the ultimate cost of one of these was around the price of a high end tonearm or cartridge (not far from the price of this new Revox). So, for those that do care about, and enjoy phenomenal sound, adding tape to the system is not that expensive...
Just consider how much a new Ferrari costs (well over £100k), yet you can buy a new car from around £10k...
@ Some strange values you propose here. Going backwards, the most common street Ferrari ranges from $240k for ‘comfort’ models to $400k for sports models. Brand new special editions are $1m to $3m. Compare this often appreciating asset that will get you around for decades to a ‘high end’ turntable designed solely to announce the thickness of the owner’s wallet, and sounds worse than a Nakamichi cassette recorder. That harsh judgement is simple fact, not my opinion. Vinyl has been a bad joke of the audio quality crowd for a half century. Kind of a silly place to spend your money.
Analog tape can sound truly excellent and sound that way every time you play it. It doesn’t develop dropouts, skips, loud pops, ticks or other stone-age anomalies common to vinyl. There is a wealth of analog tape recorders available on the used and refurbished market since almost no one makes them anymore. As many were for professional use, they are super easy to repair and maintain. If that’s your thing, by all means go for it. I am intimately familiar with all the pro recorders and can recommend ones at every cost. There is also a healthy supply of semipro recorders, many of which have equal sound quality but differ in reel size capability and input/output connectors. Harder to repair, they need very little maintenance to sound absolutely glorious.
Other than my mini-rant here, I don’t even talk about ‘high end’ or audiophile, neither of which deserve my time and breath. That you think a Ferrari costs £100k and you mention turntables of the same cost with no irony at all is telling. Even if the numbers were correct, I’d prefer spending that amount of money on a car to take me wherever I go than on a brick sitting on my shelf that no one actually wants to hear working.
This is great news. It's nice to see the inclusion of XLR connectors and a +4dbu operating level for more professional applications. I would consider this deck "semi pro" however. That doesn't mean it doesn't sound great, just that 1/2 inch tape and being capable of 30ips is more the pro standard for a mixdown deck. That being said, this is a very welcome new addition and hopefully it will spur interest from other manufactures to produce machines. The more options, the merrier.
Hi John, Thanks for your feedback. I couldn't agree more.
At that price, it is a vanity purchase. The price tag should be left dangling from it forever.
This is fantastic news!
Absolutely!
@@DaveDenyer No 16.000€uro this is absolutely not fantastic.
I was about to post that if it comes out, it'll cost something stupid like 10 grand or something. I was wrong, it costs 16k€ with VAT (about 17k$) or about 13.5k without VAT (a bit over 14k$). Offering master tape copies is obviously a masterful (excuse the pun) marketing move, however, with only 22 samples available and and at 480€ each, it'll just be a hobby for a select few. The real issue is whether we will have a tape manufacturer resurface in the near future and produce an economical tape that will be guaranteed to last at least a hundred years.
The other pertinent question is whether someone will come up with a method of mass-copying existing master tapes to new tape formulations with minimal loss of audio quality. Copying master tapes on a one by one basis is obviously a not viable business prospect or, at least, it is not for very long.
Hi Stelios, the fact of the matter is, back in the 60s / 70s / 80s, reel to reel was THE high end format, a good reel to reel machine cost far more than a high end turntable, for the very good reason that there's far more in a reel to reel recorder than in a turntable, both in terms of mechanical engineering, and electronics...
So, it's no surprise that they cost over £10k really. On top of that you've got to factor in the limited market, so tape was always niche; the top end of the market, expensive. Extend that up to master quality and it should not be a surprise that is costs what it does. It is not the same thing at all as a mass market medium, not in sound quality, nor in cost to produce.
As far as the catalogue of recordings go. Between Horch House and Revox there are well over 200 titles (Revox has just acquired Horch House thus becoming a much more significant supplier of master tape copies). Add to that the fifty plus other small labels producing master tape copies - there are well over 500 titles available, the least costly being under £200 for a tape, the most expensive approaching £2k (but that would be for a four reel album).
As far as 'mass copying' goes: most of the tape labels will duplicate perhaps 4 - 6 tapes at once. This is still done in real time, and obviously would need 5 (or 7) master quality machines, all set up and aligned perfectly, along with master studio quality distribution amplifiers to ensure correct impedance matching.
@@DaveDenyerHi Dave, thank you for the very detailed reply.
Regarding the cost of reel-to-reel audio, a better indicator is the average salary or the GDP per capita perhaps minus the cost of living vs. cost of a machine/tape. Then we would be comparing like with like because 10k for a new machine today sounds a lot more than 3k in today's money for a brand new machine in 1970. I think if we do this exercise, we will still find a price discrepancy because today a reel-to-reel deck (to be used as a functional piece rather than a collection item) is a far more niche product than it was in 1970. Before that, in the 60's, the open reel deck was probably the only hi-fi device an upper middle class consumer could afford but it was far from what was considered hi-fi in the 70s or later. So open reel decks back then, as a consumer item class, was not that niche overall.
On the subject of record player vs. open reel deck, I'd go as far as saying that the open reel deck probably enjoyed a good decade of clear supremacy near the 80s when the really high end record players we have had after the demise of vinyl were not available. Today, for the average consumer it is impossible to get the same quantity of recordings in tape as one can in vinyl, so vinyl is the more dominant medium even if ultimately, in terms of sound quality, tape would still be superior. But master copies on tapes are not and never were a mass consumption good -- they are more like numbered and signed copies of works of art such as prints. This will keep being the case until a machine is invented that can make say 20 or more copies of a tape at once. I do not see why that would not be feasible in the peak of reel-to-reel tapes' popularity, if there was ever such an era, as it would simply be a question of staggering a number of heads parallel to each other with automatic independent alignment mechanisms perhaps and then just skewering the tape reels on one long axle. But maybe someone will put together a solution now, if there is money to be made. Buying a few dozen master tape decks to use as tape copiers is not economically viable in my opinion nor is it scalable.
The scintillate excitement is all over the place Dave! Really love your passion and now a good reason to buy a New Year lottery🙂 As always, great fun, THX!
Thank you!
Excellent news. I think if you have the capacity and funding it is wonderful. I envy them deeply and profoundly.
Many people think spending £150 - £200 on a MOFI or UHQR (not to mention an ERC) is completely mad. In comparison, for what you get, physically and sonically, these Copy Master Tapes are actually quite cheap.
@@DaveDenyer I get what you are saying completely. I admire the UHQR and One Steps from afar but I have a self imposed ceiling when it comes to LP pricing and those products are above that line. If you do have the finances then you are most welcome to collect these pinnacles of the vinyl art. I am sure you are correct that a good 1:1 tape master is an even better investment from an SQ perspective and in comparison to these UHQRs & etc. I would love to have a new Revox B77 mk3 and a few dozen ultra quality tapes but it would be a dream only. The other thing is I am not seeing many of these new ultra tapes in the Soul music genre.
Actually this prompted me to do a quick Discogs search for Soul music on tape. Sadly all I could find were tapes at 3.75 ips on 4 track, which were from back in the day and most probably not from the master tape. How would such a tape rank vs a 15 ips 1:1 master copy or even an ultra quality LP? I'm not being rude or controversial I am asking because I don't have the experience of this to answer.
@@ianmelville452the 3.75ips 4-tracks are good: different to LP & CD notably better than cassette. However I’d say not superior. 7.5ips is where tape really starts to leave vinyl in the shade.
@@DaveDenyer Thanks Dave. Just need to have another look at Discogs and see if any 7.5ips tapes for soul exist!!!
That's pretty cool, the tape player and the music.I appreciate what they're doing here. My father had reel to reel at one time, though none of his tapes seem to have survived. I think I'll stick to vinyl records (which we have quite a few of in the family), and cheaper transistor amps and turntables for my analog music needs -- maybe I'll upgrade speakers some point. What I remember from old days, that this was the thing that mattered most.
Thanks for the feedback Cathryn!
I have am old reel to reel
Unfortunately I'm an audiophile on a fixed income, I can barely afford "decent" vinyl playback! Maybe one day, but those of you who can, go for it!😊
Studio quality Reel to reel (even the old consumer 4-track version) was always ‘high-end’. But I’m glad it is available for those that can afford it.
@analoguecity3454 Yes, it's same here with me! I agree......😊
This is a fantastic news! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and other information on this Reel. Would love to see you review the New B77. I hope they send you one. I am definitely interested and perhaps they will be in Axpona 2025?
Glad to be of help. Watch this space…
Unless you are recording some sort of live or studio performance and specifically want it on analog tape there is absolutely no point in tape nowadays. I have an Ampex 351 studio machine/351 tube preamps and DO use it for live recording and it sounds fabulous and I get constant requests from performers to record with it. But I can't think of other reason to buy a tape machine nowadays UNLESS the goal is to have a "display" item in your system.
“It sounds fabulous and I get constant requests…” I think says it all… to many people, tape (analogue) sounds fundamentally superior to DACs & ADCs.
I think, the used Market for Tape Machines will grow.
Agreed, I think this will encourage all aspects of the tape market.
What a great review! Its a smart move by the Revox owners to get the new version of the B77 out there in combination with the master tape copies from Horch House. For new adopters of the media, its important a source of recordings is also available rather than just the machines. Although I've been into HiFi for 40 years, open reel is a relatively new media I have accepted...some might say rather too late but c'est la vie. I'm sure the B77 MKIII will get a decent tranch of sales but although I can afford the 16000 euro price tag, I won't be buying it. That's because the vast majority of consumers would rather spend 1600 euro (or less) on a second-hand refurbished deck and spend the rest of the money on the music tapes. The other feature that I find dissapointing in today's world is the opportunity to record. These machines were designed for recording! It was one of the freedoms that a consumer could partake alongside the professional usage story. It's a shame most of the YT videos out there just talk about playback. On that note it would be nice for you to demonstrate (perhaps on your A80) a recording test even if its just from a digital source and compare perhaps against an LP?
Thanks for your comments. I agree that recording is a valuable feature. Of course in reality it is the format’s raison d’être…
In the 70s, we bought cassette tape recorders to minimize wear on our vinyl. I bought an Akai R2R in the early 80s for some improvement in playback quality (tape hiss). Running 15 ips tape speeds produced the best results, and the highest cost/ least practicality. I really enjoyed the third head monitoring capability of recording level, noise, over saturation, etc. I am confident this new machine improves upon all of this, but still, the issue of practicality…. Today I prefer the digital medium for practicality. Maybe not the utmost audio reproduction quality, but still a good compromise.
That's exactly what i did: buy an LP and record it to cassette, at least for the first few years of my 'journey'.
It is nice to make your own compromises. There is no perfect medium.
Quite fascinating as usual Dave but currently out of my price range.
Thanks Nick, hopefully one day.
@nickbitten9910 Yes, for me too!....
Thanks for the breakdown Dave! Looking forward to the review when you get around to it. FWIW; there are a lot of ATRs out there in studios as well, most specifically Chris Bellman at Sterling, and of course all of the tape project titles are done on ATRs as well as Woodside Studios.
Overall the machine looks super promising. Switchable EQ is VERY desirable of course. The +250 / +512 seems a little gimicky, simply because it’s simple enough to change repro levels manually without realigning the machine. Still convenient AF. I just got a Studer A810 with the switchable output levels, so I may sing a different tune after using it a while.
Thanks!
@@JeffersonDD I’m looking forward to trying it too. If I was starting all over again would I have bought this machine? Maybe. Ok it costs more than any of the four R2Rs I have owned, but add in the restoration and servicing costs, that’s another story.
Oh, and having an A812 and an A80 in my (can’t really call it a living room anymore), well, well, this thing is smaller and neater than my Technics (which sits there looking pretty but is hardly ever used anymore).
@@DaveDenyerI suspect that the new Revox won’t get close to either the A812 or the A80 in terms of sound quality, but would certainly add some convenience. Cheers!
@@JeffersonDD I wouldn't expect so, but I would expect it to outperforms an old B77 or PR99 etc. I'll be able to pitch it against my Technics as well as the two Studers.
Cool news. Figured the related tape recording market was limited to Ballfinger.
Couldn't agree more. Thanks for the feedback William.
I have still got a B77 Mk II and currently considering to sell it. Recently I played it more and more often. It's still a lot of fun.
I love tape. IMHO the absolute best sounding music format.
Want to sell it?
@@stevenherkomer possibly.
As long TDK and MAXELL won't restart magnetic tape production, there will be no cassette or R2R revival
☝️😏
Remember that virtually no studios used tdk or maxell tapes. This is about master quality tapes for the discerning music lover.
Sadly, I heard the formula or machines is lost or cannot be produced any longer, as the Chrome or better tapes have things in it that are not allowed any longer. I guess the stupid Type 1 tape that remained will be the only "new" tape that we will get - or use the old Type II, III, IV tapes as long as they work.
There are at least two companies making new open reel tape....ATR Magnetics and Recording The Masters. ATR's master tape is the best tape I've ever used.
@@Abruzzo333 I think there's a third: Capture, based (I think) in Australia. I do agree ATR's 'Master' tape is superb, as are RTM's offerings.
Will this beat the quality and sound of the high end Studer a80?
Good question Owen: I honestly can't say for sure having not heard the B77 MKIII, however I would very much doubt it will sound as good as an A80 in good health.
Love the Zappa T-shirt !
Cool, thanks!
Two concerns: How available is noise reduction (dolby?), and how available is tape, at what price?
There are no currently manufactured NR units available, that I'm aware of, but with modern tape formulations these are not as relevant as they once were. I use Recording the Masters tape (this is the current trading name / brand of the old AGFA / BASF / EMTEC, RMGI tape. A 7" reel costs around £35, a 10.5" reel costs from £55 to £80.
@@DaveDenyer That's what I thought. Given sufficient time and energy, professional Dolby noise-reduction electronics must be available. (I'm recalling Dolby SR. Am I remembering correctly?
I rarely need to use it but I’ve got an old studio Dolby unit with switchable Dolby A / SR. They are about and too pricey.
BIG news. Personally, I would only want playback only.
Thanks for the feedback Ken.
Very interesting video. Will you be joining the waiting list to buy one?. I have a mk11 which caught fire last time I switched it on. I intend to get it repaired and serviced. Has anybody got suggestions about who to take my machine to? I live in London.I used to be able to take reels home from the B.B.C archives and copy them onto chrome or metal cassette. The B77 mk 11 seemed to have it,s own acoustic and the sound was amazing.
Maybe… I’ve already got two Studers, so don’t really need another machine.
I bet you’ve got an interesting cassette collection.
The Audiophiles Clinic are near London. Should be able to sort your mk2.
I think its a better idea to invest 1000EUR in an old B77 in good shape and perfectly restore it for about 2000EUR. = 3000EUR for a perfect machine. Thats how we do it here in Austria.
That’s certainly one approach. It’s what I’ve done with the four machines I’ve had. The Technics was around that money, the three Studers far more, and the bills keep coming.
Also, consider for this approach to work at all, someone back in the 70s/80s had to buy that B77 new, and if Revox didn’t build them to last they’d not be easily restorable in 2024.
@@DaveDenyer Thanks for replying Dave! You are absolutely right. I just mentioned this because for most of us spending 18k on a new machine is not possible. So for ordinary people restoring an old machine is the only way to get it „cheap“. Personally I prefer the A77 MKIII anyway. Its cheaper to buy and easy to restore and reduced to the essentials.
Aaaargh. Everything I wanted, but no 4 track.
In the real world you either listen to vintage 1/4 inch 4 track 71/2ips NAB commercial tapes or contemporary “studio master” 1/4inch 2 track 15ips IEC commercial (high cost) tapes.
I have mostly 4 track 71/2ips tapes and only a handful of expensive “”studio masters” and realistically only space for one tape deck.
So I might have stumped up nearly €17000 for a new Revox, but only if it does 4 track as well. Some 4 track 71/2ips tapes such as Time Out by Dave Brubeck are really good.
Right now my solution is to take my 2 track, high speed B77Mk11, swap the record head for a 4 track replay head and wire both the replay reads to an external home-made head amplifier with switchable eq and output level. (I paid a tape tech to fit the new head, align it, then wire both heads to external RCA connectors.)
Result is a bit fiddly, but for a lot less than 17 grand.
Or I could buy a used Otari.
So Revox, good news, but no cigar.
Hi Nick, I fully appreciate why Revox have chosen the 2-track route. It is current, is is the better format (by some margin). However I also agree with you about 4-track, and funnily enough, it was a 4 track 7.5ips Dave Brubeck tape that first caught my ear; Jazz Impressions of Japan... That was the first time I ever heard anything sound better than a good vinyl system...
Your two replay head solution sounds like a good one!
Wow .
But I will for sure stick to my A77mkIV & B77mkII .
Only last week received new tape from Recording the Masters and that tape is already full with 90 tracks going from 1955 to today.
They could have changed a bit how it looks , seems to me that ReVox was either very lazy in terms of designchanges or went the nostalgic way.
Proof indeed that Revox truly can live long and prosper! 😁
Very good video - excellent information and organization. I cannot find the specification information. Can you kindly tell me where it is? thanks.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the video.
Here at the links:
revox.com/intro-b77/
revox.com/world/music-shop-master-tapes/
@@DaveDenyer Unfortunately they don't have a frequency response listed, anywhere I could see, anyway. I would be very interested to know what that spec is.
@@cnagorka you're right, I can't find any technical performance specs, however I have no doubt whatsoever that this will not be a problem.
15,950 Euros, they're going to sell about 2 units LOL.
At the time of me making this video (no more than a week after pre-sales started), they'd sold out of the first two months' production (ie. 40 units)...
@@DaveDenyer Proof? I'll wager within 3-5 years, they'll announce that it's no longer in production.
@@Abruzzo333 maybe you've seen the very recent news that Revox have purchased Horch House? That gives Revox a huge catalogue and gives the renaissance of tape a huge boost. I certainly wish them success.
@@DaveDenyerhadn't heard that news, now it even makes more sense
16 Grand? I think not.
Same here, but in a few years time on the used market, maybe...
Great video! Vinyl for me, for cost reasons at a minimum. But it's good to know what's out there. I'm toying with the idea of getting a SME 15 (UK)... any experience or thoughts?
Hi Austin, There's no doubt a SME 15 is a very very nice turntable. Whether its for you is really down to your personal tastes. I do have a few friends with SME turntables (generally Model 10s or 15s) although the only SME product I've actually owned myself was a Series V tonearm. In each of these cases there's no doubting SME's quality but to my ears the Series V (and SME sound generally) is leaning towards 'dark, solid and controlled' rather than 'light and boogie factor'. I would really suggest a listen if you can arrange one, preferably at home etc.
What's your current turntable?
@@DaveDenyer Thanks Dave! Fluance RT85 with a Hana ML and Dynavector DV-75 MK 4 preamp. To be honest, the RT85 is an absolutely incredible value tt and I really haven't discovered its limitations yet. But I do realize my collection and equipment may have outgrown it and I'm starting to look at its upgrade. When I buy, it'll likely be in the SME 15 (with 309 tonearm) price range.
@@austinhunt4260 ok, to be honest I've not heard the Fluence. However I'd expect the SME to be a big upgrade in many, if not all, ways... When the time comes I'd still advise a decent home demo.
@@DaveDenyer It better be a MASSIVE upgrade in every way for 1,600% more money! Just want to make sure there isn't a clearly superior alternative to the SME 15 in the price range. I have to admit, it's design has me.
If you dont mind of course, but at such price range I would start with Technics SL1200G then Rega 10 then Thorens DD 124 and of course SME 15. This way you get pretty good impression of differ and very HQ TT's. Also whatever the jump from EUR 5k - EUR 8k to EUR 15k is worth it. Good luck!
B77 because released 1977?
And the A77?
Whatever - I might sell my liver.
Very good point! I hadn’t thought about the A77…
15,590 euros = right at $17,000 U.S. dollars........I'll pass.
The price of the machine is 15.950 Euro with German sales tax
15.950,00 USD in USA
13.403,36 € without sales tax Europe
A few years ago Technics softly surveyed the market to see if they could sell a modern version of the RS1500 for $30k!!!! Clearly they did not get very far. $15K is not outrageous considering NOS Technics are selling in that range and we all know even the NOS machines will soo require maintenance.
@@Roudaki677 I believe that Technics, and Teac / Tascam have at least considered making a new machine. It may still happen. This market is certainly niche, but it has been steadily growing over the last few years. I believe this move by Revox is the most significant step yet!
At the end of the 80's, just before DAT became available for consumers, some audio recording studios began using ED Beta vcr recorders because they had a superior signal to noise ratio over reel to reel tape decks. I had spent most of the 70's and 80's recording music on a Teac, then Sony, then Tandberg reel to reel tape decks. I never liked the "tape hiss that was present a loud volumes. Although I owned an ED Beta, I had never considered the idea of using it as unit for audio only recordings. The improvement was substantial. At this price, I'd want an exact copy. I'll pass.
@@stevet7487 interesting stuff. Thanks for the feedback.
goody goody... but where to buy high quality blank tapes,,, we want to record analog,, with our analog mixers
I generally buy Recording The Masters tape from Thomann, based in Germany. Or I think Recording the Masters do sell direct, it all depends on where you are...
If you're in the US, ATR Magnetics has been quite good for me
First: so becouse the b77 came out that year it is called the 77 ? what about the A77 then ? so you don't know much about revox/studer except for some wikipedia/google. Second: tape shedding has nothing to do with the IEC or NAB levels, its just tape badly made like most Ampex , Scotch etc. Third: where are the specs ? not ONE word everywhere not by you, not by Revox ... becouse it is NOT that much better than the old versions, just trying to make (alot) money of old stock with some minor improvements
Hi Peter, regarding the 1977 naming thing. That thought occurred to me in the moment. Of course I’d forgotten about the A77 at that moment…
Regarding specs… I’m sure once Revox have these in production we’ll see.
Tape shed? I know this is due to the binders used (by Ampex and dome others), not sure why you think I think it’s got anything to do with EQ curves.
Hope it has decent electronics inside and NOT the cheapo laptop type found in most stuff today.
Hey Joe, Good question. I don't have exact details of the circuitry and componentry, but Revox build things to last decades, so I very much doubt they have decided to throw that pedigree out of the window with this new flagship machine.
Car or R2R basically. R2R sounds good but a car is a necessity
R2R never was and never is going to be cheap. That’s why consumer formats were invented… I like that it’s available, for those that can afford it.
Add a speed and head modified 8track home recorder and player to a car, and you can have both, lol.
Who is actually making these and where?
Revox, in their factory near Stuttgart.
I can buy a restored MKII for 1k, why would I pay 16K for a MKIII?
So that in 44 years’ time you have a machine that was so well built that it can be restored and sold to someone who couldn’t afford to buy a new one.
Well warranty and XLR of course 😂
Old design, old technology at 20 times the price of the MKII is cheating for me.
Thanks for the feedback.
£16,000
👍
Just a new lick of paint, no real improvement over previous b77, best to buy a MK1 or 2 for about £900-1200 , a little bit of servicing maybe & just as good ! Love my mk 1.
That’s certainly the cheapest way. Fortunately people did pay the price back in the day, so we can enjoy these fifty year old machines…
They are taking a secondhand mkii, tarting it up and charging 16K, what's not to like?
That’s not at all what they’re doing!
So they aren't using parts of old Revoxes?@DaveDenyer
@@uncled39some parts might be similar : some parts might even be the same as those used on the mk2, but all of them are new parts. Not used (refurbed) as is commonly suggested.
Too expensive...this's only the Elites !...
I don’t believe it would be possible to build a brand new reel to reel recorder of this quality any cheaper.
Plenty successful musicians around and way too many with money to burn
What a rig that cuts a master record? Or a even a cylinder? Or a spool of wire? I pass. I prefer modern machine with no moving parts!
Your loudspeaker cones still have to move, as do your eardrums… music, sound, it’s an analogue thing. Somewhere along the line, if using digital, it needs to be converted, then converted back again.
So you prefer your brain 😂
Lemme see now: less bandwidth, less s/n ratio and dynamic range, generational loss, sourced from digital, expensive media, alignment for different stock expensive., Sure, THAT'S the ticket.
‘Sourced from digital’… we’re talking about an analogue tape recorder here…
Is a good thing someone wants to make new tape machines. The thing is The MKII was not a good machine, I never liked it. The Akai gx series have way better fidelity and very easy to repair, and excellent price point. My Akai GX-620 fidelity is so close to the DAC. I can't imagine why you need to spend that much money on a Revox.
Interesting, thanks for your comments.
This video is for a very select view with a big wallet! Not many of us folks who enjoy a good sound system are going to go down this rabbit hole You are talking thousands of dollars and tape machines that are very finicky I have thousands of dollars in my system and I don’t think you’re going to hear much difference in the sound of these expensive machines and tapes costing 500 dollars
It certainly is a very small niche, but there are people who can afford it, or make that choice to. The difference is actually huge Dave. Once heard you don’t forget it.
@@DaveDenyer Totally agree.Had never heard R2R until a couple of years ago.I was slack jawed at how amazing it sounded,even though it is a pain in the arse to use,comparatively.My rating goes R2R,vinyl,closely followed by cd,with streaming in last place
@@Baldieman1I agree:
1. Tape
2. Vinyl
3. CD / locally stored files
4. Streaming
I agree completely, especially with the last part. There are many vintage tape decks that sound every bit as good as a studer/revox for a fraction of the price.