LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  February 2008

ARSCLIST February 2008

Subject:

Re: Collection for sale

From:

carlstephen koto <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:36:54 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

Tom, I agree completely regarding the dismal sound found on most  
factory produced r2r tapes. It's a real shame since the few that were  
produced following the items you've listed, reveal a texture  
(particularly with orchestral recording) to the sound that's absent  
on most lp's. I've got a number of Mercury 1/2 tracks and a few RCAs  
that are spectacular. Some of the Verve 1/4 track jazz titles are  
really something to hear also. BTW I almost never buy tapes from  
online auctions. That's a sure formula for disappointment!
Steve
On Feb 23, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Tom Fine wrote:

> The craziest thing in all of this is, mass-duped tapes generally  
> are TERRIBLE, I mean awful. If you understand anything about how  
> they were made, you'd understand why they generally sound  
> terrible.  A few specifics:
>
> 1. 4x to 8x and later 16x duplication speeds. Generally on Ampex  
> 3200-type transports, which were hardly stable at 60IPS or later  
> 120IPS.
>
> 2. duper masters generally made by low-skill personnel from many- 
> generations-removed copies sent to the duper plants. The duper  
> plants would get a 15IPS safety (second generation from master,  
> which could be a generation or more from the session tapes,  
> particularly in the multi-track era), it would be a safety that  
> close to the master if they were lucky because one common practice  
> was the keep the safety at a studio and run series of duper masters  
> from it for popular titles. Then this 15IPS tape would be reduced  
> and combined to make a 4-track usually 7.5IPS dupe master. If  
> someone decided to make a 15IPS dupe master that meant the duper's  
> playback transport would be running twice as fast as the record  
> transports, adding still more variables to the system. This all got  
> even worse with 8-track carts and 3.75IPS duped reels. Those  
> formats are such dog-doo, I won't even discuss them.
>
> 3. the tape stock used by dupers varied and was usually lousy. By  
> the mid to late 60's, Ampex in Illinois was the biggest duper. I  
> think even then RCA and CBS did their own duping (generally with  
> better results). Ampex used their own tape, which is notoriously  
> bad. They never perfected slitting so the tape "country lanes" and  
> at high speed duping that leads to severe azimuth instability.  
> Plus, the Ampex tape is notorious for warping, so most of those 40+  
> year-old tapes on eBay are badly curled or warped and full of left- 
> channel dropouts. Any acetate tape will warp with the way most of  
> these were stored by consumers, so I probably shouldn't single out  
> Ampex.
>
> 4. Azimuth varies widely from tape to tape and even on parts of the  
> same reel (and sometimes different sides of the same reel since  
> some dupers used different record heads for each side of a quarter- 
> track reel -- the heads were offset and would run at the same time  
> but early 3200 systems didn't accomodate 4 tracks on one record  
> head). Unless you check azimuth with a scope for each side of each  
> tape (sometimes difficult since of course there are no alignment  
> tones on these tapes), you're only somewhere in the neighborhood  
> (and often outside the ballpark).
>
> 5. maintenance of the duper equipment varied from day to day, line  
> to line and worker to worker. Sometimes there's hum in a channel.  
> Sometimes level is all wrong. Sometimes channels are reversed. And  
> remember that this junk sold at a premium to LPs.
>
> 6. finally, the hiss and wow/flutter level on most duped tapes I've  
> heard is unacceptable. Unless you like digital artifacts better  
> than hiss, there is no digifilter that satisfactorally cleans this  
> up. I don't even think something like Plangent that locks to bias  
> would help since the wow and flutter could date back any generation  
> between the studio tapes and the duped tape and the bias recovered  
> would only be the duper bias on the final duped tape.
>
> Meanwhile, in contrast, a properly done LP was mastered right from  
> the master tape and if it was mastered and pressed properly, it is  
> much closer to the source than a duped reel. Also, I should mention  
> that some dupers were better than others. Ampex was particularly  
> bad in my experience. So was Bel-Canto. And early 2-track duped  
> tapes are a whole other matter and often sound better than the  
> early stereo LPs, if you can find one that's not completely worn  
> out from age nowadays.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "carlstephen koto"  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Collection for sale
>
>
>> Speaking of crazy,.. I collect reel to reel tapes (in a minor  
>> way)  and an auction of one came to my attention a couple of weeks  
>> ago. It  was a Japanese 7" 7.5 ips 1/4 track issue of Pink Floyd's  
>> "Adam Heart  Mother".  The reason this auction attracted the  
>> interest of several  tape collectors was that it had already  
>> reached a bid of over $400  with two days left. By the next day,  
>> it was over $700. At that point,  I speculated that it would go  
>> for over $1k. I guess that's why I usually lose bidding wars. The  
>> final price was over $1800! We were  flabbergasted. Luckily, I  
>> suggested some reasons why a single 7" tape  could be worth that  
>> much to someone when one of the regular posters  let us know that  
>> he'd bid $1600 on the tape.
>> BTW reel to reel tapes have had a dramatic upswing in prices the  
>> last  year or so. But nothing like that!
>> Steve Koto
>> On Feb 22, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Roger and Allison Kulp wrote:
>>

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
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