After some experiments with a Ricoh gel printer, I bought a used Kyocera DS-6970DN laser printer. It can print double-sided A3 formats. This works very well with Dorico booklet printing.
I’ve used an HP Laserjet 5200 for several years. I bought it cheap from a company that refurbishes bankrupt office stock. It’s quite old now, but these things were built like tanks. I use a company that provides free call-out servicing, while I buy third-party toner from them. The toner is excellent, and I get around 7000 pages per £100 cart. So, under 1.5p per page. (Not entirely sure if it counts A3 and A4 differently: at worst that’s under 3p per A3 side.)
I dare say there are newer models of similar robustness and capability that can be picked up 2nd-hand.
I have done some further testing on my Brother MFC-J6710DW (which is now discontinued.) Brother says the following about their OEM inks for this printer:
The black ink … is pigment based.
The color ink (cyan, yellow, and magenta) … cartridges are water based.
I compared the printing with my AP2610 laser under a magnifying glass. The inkjet is only slightly more grainy than the laser. I wouldn’t say the AP2610 is the clearest laser printing I have seen. I expect there would be a more visible difference when comparing to an HP 5200 or HP Enterprise 700 M712dn. But the difference is hard to see.
I soaked a printout from the MFC-J6710DW in Windex. There really is no visible bleeding after 5 minutes, even on the color sections which are supposed to be water-based inks. If I rub the soaked printouts vigorously, I get a faint amount of ink to rub off, but it is actually still very clear. This is completely surprising to me because my recollection was that the slightest moisture was enough to get the inks to bleed. It is possible my recollection is based on a prior generation printer. I have been using a “compatible” ink branded as “G&G”, so it may be more resilient than OEM Brother ink.
This test was on regular 18# paper. After 20 minutes, if I flip the paper over, the color ink has bled through to the back side and the colors have become fuzzy on the front side. But there is no bleeding at all with the black.
I am not concerned about print speed as I rarely am in a rush for the printouts, and this printer is actually pretty fast anyway. And I wouldn’t normally use any color on any of my music printouts. So I don’t see any reason to buy a new laser printer. I’m sending the Ricoh to the recycling service and bidding it farewell for many years of good service.
I have enough ink to last me several years. I figure the MFC-J6710DW will be wearing out by then and I’ll buy the Epson or whatever inkjet has the best combination of print quality and archival characteristics. I guess this is why almost nobody is making wide format laser printers for the SOHO market anymore.
I think it depends on what your idea of “wide format” is. I did some cursory googling yesterday and there are many more cheap A3-capable printers than Tabloid-capable printers available.
That’s interesting. We rarely encounter A3 paper in the States.
I also note that some people order custom 13"x19" stock, which gives you a page size of 9.5" x 13", which is more traditional in the music publishing business. The HP 700 M712dn laser can handle that, but I’m not aware of any other lasers under $4000 that can. There are a few $300 inkjets that can print 13"x19", even with zero margin.
To put it simply, A3 is about an inch longer and about an inch narrower than Tabloid (yeah, those figures are slightly off but they’re close enough for these purposes). Just to give an idea of the range of models available over here, see https://www.printerland.co.uk/printers/laser/a3
Plenty of choice for under £1000 (that’s about $1320).
Wow, and they are all COLOUR laser printers at that price.
Truly two different worlds.
Some of those will actually handle tabloid as well - aka RA3 (12 x 16.9 inches) or SRA3 (12.6 x 17.7 inches)
Just like many “A4” printers will also handle letter paper, even though it is a bit wider. It doesn’t make sense for a printer manufacturer to make two print systems almost exactly the same size!
I know that’s an old post but it wasn’t correct last year either so permit me to laugh but it depends on the inkjet printer.
The Brother Inkvestment printer pages are waterproof once the ink has dried. It’s not advertised as a feature and I didn’t know that till someone asked me. So I wet a page—ink didn’t run. ?!?! I soaked the pages for a couple of hours and then let the paper dry (run of the mill HP 20W all-purpose). Paper didn’t look so good but the inks didn’t run. I tried B&W music and full color. My wife prints 200–300 pages per week. I just bought my 2nd set of color tanks and have gone through four black cartridges in that time.
Downside: Although there’s a way to print larger sizes using the back feeder, it does not scan 13 x 19. The trays, like the scanner, are limited to 11 x 17.
Mine is an older version of this and I’ve had it about 2 1/2 years.
https://www.pcmag.com/review/365131/brother-mfc-j6945dw-inkvestment-tank-color-inkjet-all-in-one
It is a big’un and I found this AV cart perfect.
By way of comparison, my HP c309a went through around $500 worth of ink a year and the inks would run if you breathed hard on the paper. It prints directly to CD which is the only reason I keep it.
Can the HP 700 M712dn really do 13 x 19 in.? The HP website says that printer only goes up to 12.3 x 18.5 in.
(https://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-laserjet-enterprise-700-printer-m712dn)
I thought I had seen that somewhere, but all the references I can find match yours, so I think you are correct.
That’s too bad — if this printer could handle the larger size, it would be a good modern improvement on the HP Laserjet 5200 series.
Be fair: your example is the exception. Standard inkjet ink from any major manufacturer definitely runs. I’d argue Leo’s statement stands as the rule, not the exception.
I’m not so sure about that. The Epson inks that I mentioned above have been on the market over 10 years. The Brother pigment-based black ink has been out there quite awhile, and I bet most of the Brother inkjets sold today have black ink that does not run.
I’m not trying to be pedantic here. To me, this was a real revelation. I had been wondering why it was so difficult to find an affordable wide-format laser printer in the USA. I had assumed that all “everyday” inkjets (not the expensive photo & art quality inkjets) had the ink running problem. I was completely wrong about that, and consequently I have determined that I simply don’t need a laser printer because a $200 inkjet meets my monochrome needs as as well as a $2000 laser printer (other than the slower speed). Evidently most people figured this out long before I did, which is why there just aren’t many practical laser options under the $5,000 level in the USA.
Regarding the inks, I don’t know where HP and Canon stand in the desktop market. But Brother and Epson make up a really big chunk of the low-end market – maybe as much as 50%. Page 3 of this report has some interesting summaries:
If I were a music publishing house (with high volume) or the librarian of a major symphony (with frequent urgent deadlines), I’d certainly go for a “print shop class” laser printer (probably $10,000 or above). But for most of us, it surely seems like the $200 inkjet is hard to beat.
Regarding inkjet vs. laser: I think there’s one other issue here besides ink quality and whether it runs or not, namely paper handling capability, not in terms of size but in terms of thickness.
Standard twenty pound paper, or even 24 pound paper, is too see-through for double sided printing to be usable for music purposes in my opinion. I use a special 60-pound paper that a local printer sells me. Any inkjet printer I have tried simply can’t cope. It’s too thick for the rollers to pick up and handle. Almost every sheet jams. Whereas most laser printers I have tried have no problem at all with it, not even in the duplexer section, which my inkjet didn’t have. (Had to print each side separately.)
My main inkjet was a Canon photo-quality one, so maybe that has something to do with the problem, but for sure the laser ones I’ve tried (and now have) handle it fine. Only problem is, no color, not that that usually matters when printing music. (I can’t afford a comparable color laser.)
Just to share my two cents and offer another idea that I think is well worth considering when making a substantial investment/purchase like a printer, I opted (in my non-Steinberg capacity as a copyist) for a Kyocera Ecosys laser printer - partly for many of the reasons already discussed (lasers print faster, have better ink efficiency therefore lower cost per page etc) but actually, primarily, because I like the Kyocera environmental ethos.
Obviously, a large mechanical device that runs on electricity will never be truly “environmentally-friendly”, but they have designed their ink cartridges to have only a few parts, and offer a free returns scheme for empty cartridges. They also say (and one must hope this is accurate as it must be hard to verify yourself!) that their toner can fuse at a lower temperature, reducing energy consumption, and their parts are long-lasting. Having owned mine for just over 3 years now with no problems (apart from a few chewed pages when printing during particularly hot weather), I can confirm that the machine is durable and ink cartridges last a long time (quoted at 15,000 sheets of A4, which tallies with my experience).
I also liked that solar panels are amongst the products Kyocera manufacture.
My current laser printer is the Ricoh SP 6330n. It’s successor, the 6430, is available on Amazon for just under $1K. Honestly, the 6330n has been pretty great printer for music and I know several other copyists/composers in the NYC area that have one as there’s not a ton of competition at that price point. It supports 11x17 and A3, bypass tray easily handles thicker paper, and I picked up a duplexer for cheap on eBay once it was discontinued. Obviously 11x17 printers are large and require some space, so I use an Apple Airport Express as a wireless print server to keep it in another room. My main paper I use for parts is 9.5x12.5 100lb Text weight (remember paper weights are not equivalent across categories) off-white paper that about 20 or so of us custom order in bulk, and it handles it easily. There is the occasional jam, but not enough to really have to ever worry about when printing on a deadline.
Anyway, just another option to consider if anyone is looking for an oversize laser printer under $1K.
Your point is well taken. I have been on a long journey to find the “right” paper. I did use 80# card stock for awhile. Often the initial reaction from musicians was “Wow, this is really sturdy paper.” It had the advantage of not blowing so easily if there is a breeze. But before long, books became unmanageable in their bulk and weight. Also, these stocks do not fold well if printed on 2-page size.
To cut to the chase, I have settled on 28# text paper (Hammermill Digital Copy), which I believe is just a little bit lighter than the specialized 60# cover stock that you mentioned. (The nomenclature for paper is very confusing.) That Hammermill paper looks great, folds well has a nice finish, is 'just right" in thickness and stiffness, and is readily available, at least in the US. It goes through my Brother inkjet without a problem, even when using the duplex unit. The only drawback is that the finish is so smooth it doesn’t look like music printed by lithograph. But I don’t think any of my clients care about that.
Regardless of what paper one prefers, we should be aware that the musician’s first impression is very important. It the print is fuzzy or the paper is flimsy, they may have a lesser opinion of the composition/arrangement before they even play it. I do think that 28# Hammermill gives a consistently good first impression. Musicians often say “Nice paper” or something similar, mainly because they are accustomed to getting something printed on flimsy 18# or 20# paper.
Coda: I did use a Cougar paper that is just a little bit heavier (65# cover) and was available in a buff color. That was harder to find and a little more expensive. Eventually I decided the buff color really didn’t add anything. I still keep some of that on hand. I might use it if there are some special circumstances where the bright white paper is a bad idea. I haven’t actually tried this in the Brother inkjet. I expect it would run OK one-sided. I’m not sure it would work 100% well in duplex mode.
A nice buff (aka “natural smooth”) paper is Cougar Digital 70# text (= 28# writing). In letter size, that is item 7701. In ledger size, 7707. In 12x18, 3386. It is also available in 80/32# weight if you want it a little heavier. That runs about 10 cents a sheet for ledger size, so I just go with the Hammermill (product codes 102467, 102541, 106125 for letter, ledger & 12x18 respectively) which is about 5 cents per ledger sheet.
The USA nomenclature for paper weights is very confusing.
The system used by the rest of the world is very simple - the weight 1 square meter of paper, regardless of the shape of the actual sheets.
Of course it helps that the “A” paper sizes are all nice fractions of a square meter. So 16 sheets of A4 90gsm paper or 8 sheets of A3 both weigh 90 grams.
Hey, we got all that from the Brits. It isn’t fair for you to dump this on us and then move to the metric system. 
But seriously, the metric system for papers in eminently sensible. it eliminates most of the ambiguities about weight/thickness about the stock. That still leaves us with variations in stiffness, texture, finish, color. But for me, weight is the starting point.
For those who live in countries that don’t use the metric paper sizes, here are a few tidbits:
- Paper is quoted in “pounds”, but within several completely independent ranges. It is seemingly contradictory, or at least confusing to the max.
- These ranges are “text”, “index”, “writing”, “bond”, “cad”, “cover” and probably a few others.
- The everyday paper you see in reams at the office supply are mostly from the “writing” series. The “bond” series seems to be an overlap of the “writing” series. 18# and 20# writing/bond is common for everyday business use. This is not suitable for any music production except maybe rough drafts. It is too flimsy to be stable on a music stand, subject to curling or scattering at the lightest breeze, and may bleed through with some inks.
- You might find 28# writing paper in your office supply, although that is becoming less common. The Hammermill Digital Copy paper I mentioned above is available in 28# and 32# writing weights. I use the 28# writing for just about everything now. 32# writing is not too heavy. It folds OK, but I just think it is unnecessary. If you are spiral binding, then maybe 32# writing will hold up to the binding a little better. Something in this range is good.
- What gets really confusing is the “text” series. This overlaps the weights of the “writing” series, but the pound numbers are completely different. 70# text is about the same as 28# writing. 80# text is about the same as 32# writing. Go figure.
- “Cover” is even heavier. 60# cover is a bit heavier than 32# writing and probably the upper end of what you would use for normal music publication. You might have special circumstances where you might want to use something heavier, but I’d say 60# cover is the top of the regular publication range.
- “Card” adds even more to the confusion. “Card” isn’t actually its own series of weights. “Card” is more of an adjective describing usage, and that term is often used when talking about the heavier weights of the “cover” series. These would only be used for specialty purposes in music production, such as the first or last page of a bound score. “Card” and “Cover” generally use the same weights and are mostly used interchangeably. E.G. 100# card stock is the same as 100# cover.
In the metric system, the weights that correspond to 28# writing through 60# cover are 104-163 G/M2.