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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2008

ARSCLIST January 2008

Subject:

Re: Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:52:04 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

I'll second a lot of Richard's thoughts. If I did commercial-master quality music tape transfers 
often enough, I'd own an ATR for sure, and I'd be getting enough $$ from that kind of work to afford 
a professional tech to keep it running. They're not necessarily fragile machines, and not really 
finicky at least as I've noted in the limited time I've spent using them, but when they break, it's 
a complex electrical-mechanical system that is not for the basement tinkerer to fix.

My pro-grade platform of choice is the Ampex AG-440B, with plenty of tweaks to make it run very 
quiet and sound very smoothly. One major tweak for older Ampex decks, by the way, is simply putting 
in better heads. For instance, Ampex stock AG-440 era full-track head has a bass "bump" and a slight 
"presence bump" typical of Ampex heads. Replace it with a Nortonics or more exotic flavor and 
suddenly you can garner almost ruler-flat frequency response. There are other tweaks. Anyway, 
AG-440's are cheap and plentiful and a decent basement tinker CAN make one run very well, thus 
saving the pennies for a JRF or IEM headblock restoration/alignment, which I consider mandatory for 
a professional-grade machine restoration.

I also sing the praises of the Technics 1500 series decks. These are gentle on tape, steady on 
speed, offer a variety of playback options and are of fine sound quality (not commercial-music 
master grade but good enough for just about any other content). I had one of these decks converted 
to full-track because I get a surprising number of old brown-oxide 7.5IPS full-track spoken-word 
reels to do. Few machines treat an old tape more gently than the Technics transport.

In the end, though, I think a good transfer/restoration man or woman has to rely on their ears and 
judgement much more than their equipment. Talking up one's gear has been the age-old marketing dodge 
for audio folks, and really tells a client very little about how good a job you'll do. An excellent 
body of work can be done on what's considered adequate gear and a terrible body of work can be done 
on state-of-the-art ultra-tweaked gear. What you get when you engage Richard's services is not 
really the roomful of APR's and Studers. It's his experience and judgement and proven track record 
(and, in Richard's case in particular, his willingness to freely share all kinds of important 
information and advice). Same with me and anyone else who does good work on this list. Something to 
keep in mind ... experience and good references beat gear lists as a barometer of good work any day 
of the week.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators


> Hello, Mr. Fritz,
>
> An ATR-102, especially one refurbished my ATR Services in York, PA,  is held in high esteem by 
> many. There are some who are concerned about its use on sticky archival tapes, but it is my 
> understanding it can be properly set up for those tapes and sticky tapes should be rendered 
> temporarily non-sticky prior to playing by baking.
>
> I got into this business slowly and began adopting a variety of tape machines that appeared to 
> meet my needs.
>
> It is my goal to do an excellent job with as few different platforms as possible. My current 
> mainstay in reel-to-reel machines are the Studer A80 and the Sony APR-5000.
>
> ATR-102s are very expensive in good condition and while they are superb, I have been able to find 
> refurbishable A80s and excellent condition APRs at much lower prices. My goal is to minimize 
> expenses so
>    (a) I can keep more of the money to run my household
>    (b) keep my pricing competitive and reasonably affordable
>    (c) have some money to feed my location recording, photography, and travel hobbies
>
> The APRs are my machine of choice for most formats as they adapt to different formats much easier 
> than most machines. The A80s are my machine of choice for NAB and DIN (Euro) stereo and full-track 
> mono formats of high-quality material as they sound slightly better than the APRs. They are more 
> difficult to change formats on. In fact, I keep one dedicated as NAB playback and a second 
> switches between full-track mono and DIN playback, as needed. I am in the process of transforming 
> a third machine into a 15/30 machine to handle the few 30 in/s masters I'm currently seeing.
>
> At the very high end, I think the choice of AVAILABLE and MAINTAINABLE machines comes down to: 
> Ampex ATR-100, Studer A80RC, Studer A820/2CH in alpha-numeric order. Each machine has its 
> proponents. I do not lust after the other two as I'm not sure what owning them will provide that 
> the A80RC doesn't. The A80 is perhaps the most maintainable longest term as it is a relatively 
> simple machine and all but one of its 31 bearings are stock, standard metric ball bearings.
>
> There are several more esoteric machines, including the Nagra T-Audio, Stellavox, and perhaps some 
> other German (Telefunken?) machines that are not commonly available in North America. The Nagra 
> would be probably the most common of these.
>
> While the difference between the APR and the A80 RC is noticeable, I'm not sure any potential 
> further improvement that MIGHT be made by the A820/2CH, the ATR-100, and the others is worth it or 
> could be justified by my client base.
>
> I do find the Studer A810 close to the APR, but in a single blind test that I've run by several 
> people the end result repeatedly is A80, APR-5000, A810 from best to good. I do have specific 
> tasks that I continue to use A810s for as they do certain "stupid tape recorder tricks" better (at 
> least as I have them accessorized) than the APRs. The A80s are not accessorized for many "tricks". 
> I am planning on having varispeed available for them.
>
> I handle half-inch tapes on both the APR-5000s and the APR-16. Some 1/4-inch tapes (specifically 
> 8-channel ones) may be handled in the future by a "FrankenSony" combination of an APR-5000 
> transport and the APR-16 electronics. Four-channel 1/4-inch tapes are handled by two "FrankenSony" 
> pairs of APR-5000s. 1-inch tapes are handled on the APR-16. I do not handle 2-inch tapes.
>
> As I said, having a "stable" of different machines is not the mainstay of my equipment strategy. I 
> would rather have one of the best models supported in depth than one each of the three best. I 
> have enough indecision in my life. For 0.150-inch tape, my mainstay is the Nakamichi Dragon, of 
> which I have six, all currently up and running in the studio to do 6x ingest. I also have one each 
> Tascam 234 and 238 machines to handle 4- and 8-track cassettes and other oddball formats.
>
> While I have a specially configured A807 for tape prep, it's infrequently used today, and I 
> happily traded my A807 MK II for an A80RC. Despite the photos on my website, the current 
> reel-to-reel machines in the studio are the APR-16, five APR-5000s, two A80RCs, and a Racal Store 
> 4DS and please read all the notes about that machine in my blog before purchasing one.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> At 09:20 PM 2008-01-19, Ken Fritz wrote:
>>    Mr. Hess,
>>
>>     Being an  audiophile, who is  contributing as  much as possible $ $$ to the music industry, I 
>> have one question I'm sure you can address.
>>
>>   I've  navigated your web site with particular attention to your
>>stable of RTR machines. I realize that you need a variety of machines
>>to accommodate the variety of material supplied to you for
>>restoration. I've not seen an Ampex ATR machine. It is apparent to me
>>that  you need more than a  "machine for all seasons"  and that may
>>be why the ATR isn't in your studio, if it is that.  May I have your
>>opinion on that machine.
>>
>>   Regards, Ken Fritz --- an audiophile addict.
>
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. 

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

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