Tom Fine wrote:
> I think another factor is that few Scully machines survived.
> I've never used one so I can't comment
> on their reliability or durability. I've only seen two
> working, and one of them is Steve's.
> Question for Steve P -- do you have any idea how many
> 12-track session tapes there are out there?
No idea. Figure roughly 60 machines x 18 months in their short period as
trendsetting (and therefore making lots of masters). Then many were
downsized to 1" 8-track and/or sold to minor league studios.
Scully 2-tracks and 1" 8-tracks were their best sellers. It seems that
Tom Dowd had those machines installed in practically every studio he
worked in or consulted for.
> How many studios actually used 12-tracks?
Again, don't know but same concept applies: 60 machines x 18 months and
then the trickle down effect.
> It was actually a
> forward-looking format (precursor to
> 24-track with roughly same specs), but didn't have time to
> catch on before 16-track appeared.
At the time, engineers complained a lot about the S/N of 1" 12-track.
Yet, its only a slightly different track width than 2" 24-track which,
when it arrived, took off.
My take on it is, had the Scotch 206 (3 db quieter than Scotch 202, then
current) arrived *with* the Scully 12-track instead of two years later,
the format would have caught on and the 12-track machines that survived
would not have become recycled into 1" 8-tracks. Of course, 2" 16-track
would have eventually rolled over it anyway, but probably not nearly as
Sonicraft A2DX Lab - Ultimate A_nalog 2 D_igital X_fers