LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  March 2003

ARSCLIST March 2003

Subject:

Re: Space Shuttle Recorder - Link to NY Times article

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:15:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (115 lines)

Actually, those Ampex 350s (ansd 300s) changed speed as the weight of the
tape shifted from the feed to the take-up reel. It was common to them all,
unless modified.

In cases where a master was edited from different parts of the same reel or
from multiple reels, there's a whole lot of shifting going on.

You can get away with a shift of a few or more cents in choral music and
massed strings, but flashing lights go off in your ear if you have a splice
in the woodwind section.

Solution? A machine with variable speed, patience and a fine selection of
naughty words.

Steve Smolian
=========================
Steven Smolian 301-694-5134
Smolian Sound Studios
---------------------------------------------------
CDs made from old recordings,
Five or one or lifetime hoardings,
Made at home or concert hall,
Text and pics explain it all.
at www.soundsaver.com
=========================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Stephens" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Space Shuttle Recorder - Link to NY Times article


> In all this discussion of playing back various forms of magnetic
> recordings using older used decks, I wonder if very many people ran into
> my problem?
>
> At my company's location in Hollywood, they originally had an Ampex reel
> to reel recorder/reproducer (a 350, I think), but gave it away before I
> came to work as their archivist. By the way, an excellent web site
> showing many generations and manufacturers of such decks is:
>
> http://www.phantomprod.com/vintage.html
>
> Anyway, in order to digitize their radio broadcast library for mastering
> to CD, I had to find a replacement deck that could handle 10 1/2" reels
> at 15 IPS. I found a Scully 280 with plugin head stacks (1/2" four
> track and 1/4" two track) at a small local studio, and had it checked
> out by an audio firm who said it recorded and reproduced perfectly.
>
> So, I started on my merry way, digitizing away with excellent audio
> coming out on my system sounding clean and as if the tapes (direct feed
> KHJ radio masters) and the shows had been recorded yesterday (actually,
> they were recorded from 1952 to 1967). By chance, I did some A/B
> comparisons with some shows that were reruns made from transcriptions,
> and when I tried to edit some music from one version to the other, the
> pitches didn't match. I finally realized that the Scully was running
> slow compared to the original transcription which I knew was "on" by the
> strobe on the side of the turntable. Unless a person has perfect pitch
> (I don't, although I read music and have sung, professionally), you can
> be fooled by what sounds to be an accurate reproduction. The speed
> dropped the pitch about a half-step, and over a half-hour show added
> about twenty seconds.to the running time.
>
> The overall problem is a common one, I would guess, since many of the
> machines used for archiving today are not in their first youths, and
> wear of the various transport parts will cause changes in speed. I
> thought this should give others food for thought in checking out their
> analog decks, and I hope my experience will be of help to others.
>
> The irony here is that I'm sure the vendor from whom I purchased the
> Scully wasn't aware of any problem, since he was doing "in house"
> recordings, and, as long as the recordings were played back on the same
> deck, they would be relatively "perfect", playing at the same speed they
> were recorded.
>
> I have gone back and remastered the offending recordings. I have also
> in some cases used my digital software to resample the .wav files using
> the "time/pitch" tools in Cool Edit Pro, since I have now found that
> some of the library's 1/4" tape masters were not recorded perfectly on
> pitch, either, due to the machines they were using back in the '50's and
> '60's.
>
> So, the moral of the story is: "Nothing Is Perfect".
>
> Rod Stephens, Archivist
> Family Theater Productions, Hollywood
>
>
> phirsch wrote:
>
> >Though I realize that the recorder in question is dealing with data and
not
> >sound and therefore could be considered OT, we do spend a fair amount of
> >time discussing very similar recording, storage and playback issues. So,
if
> >you are interested, take a look at:
> >
> >http://nytimes.com/2003/03/21/national/nationalspecial/21SHUT.html
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Peter Hirsch
> >
> >Head Archivist for Music and Recorded Sound
> >Wilson Processing Project
> >The New York Public Library
> >[log in to unmask]
> >521 West 43rd Street
> >New York, New York 10036
> >(212) 714-8570
> >(212) 714-8508 - fax
> >
> >
> >

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager