Not entirely sure if I understand what you’re seeking but if you’re referring to some people’s talked about trick of hitting a Roland tape echo’s input for its input amp stage sound, ignoring tape/echo/delay all together, you probably won’t have any noticeable change/benefit to the original sound in doing that with a TE-2. The circuit is built to be open and transparent. This unit is also an audio interfacing/adapting tool separate from the tape echo use. It is a set of great neutral sounding pathways at all of the standard audio levels. Also, from my experience with Roland echoes, I can never re-incorporate the dry sound into the total mix because it would be slightly out of phase with the real dry sound on the mixing console. Not 180, more like 50 or something tough to use or correct. But maybe that was just the models I have used. Haven’t used a 501.plainofjars wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:57 pmIs it possible—a la the RE-501—to set the TE-2 to one single echo and record the echo sound while monitoring only the unaffected (and therefore undelayed) input sound?
Ie. I’d like to record through the TE-2 for just tape saturation without echoes but obviously I’d like to be able to monitor without the latency (fine of course if the monitored signal isn’t hitting the tape).
Also, do you have any thoughts about the fidelity of the TE-2 relative to that of the RE-501, even if these are just your hypothetical/theoretical thoughts?
I’ve always been curious about the input stage trick though. Never made the time to try that.
As for comparing an old tape echo to a TE-2, that’s the very first thing to consider. Is the Roland fully restored to new sounding condition? Ala Soundgas restoration/pricing? You can only compare after that happens to the Roland. Otherwise there will be all sorts of fidelity/sonic set backs and it won’t be a very fair competition.