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:
>>
|