Hi Rod,
Small world!
I knew your Brother John. I visited the factory
in Burbank several times. The first time I
visited the factory (1971) at John's invitation,
I noticed a pair of "Sweet 16" speakers that John
had built and were still in use. I had built a
pair in the early 60's so John & I bonded immediately.
I've had hands-on experience with all of the tape
formats that Stephens Electronics made including
Johns' custom built consoles and I agree whole
heartedly with the comment regarding Johns'
custom built electronics. I can't say the same
however when it came to the 32 & 40 track 2 inch
formats regardless of who built the machine
(Telefunken also made a 32 track 2"). The laws of
physics take their toll and the resulting loss of
fidelity was very noticeable, even with the use
of noise reduction. The Telefunken 32 track
shipped with their proprietary Telcom noise
reduction and the end result was "almost"
acceptable however the machine was ridiculously expensive.
John Stephens' tape decks originally used the
transport from the 3M 56 & 64 Series machines. He
removed the capstan & pinch rollers and built a
reel servo system to maintain speed not unlike
the Ampex ATR series decks built years later. The
later series Stephens decks had a custom built
transport but used the same tape path & reel
servo system. Stephens decks worked surprisingly
well and trouble free except for that dammed LOAD
button. There was a button labeled "Load" in
between the Fast-forward & Rewind buttons that
energized the reel servos once tape was threaded.
The real danger in the early series machines was
that tapping the Load button a second time turned
off the reel servos and this could be disastrous
if the deck were in Fast-forward or Rewind and
the button was hit by mistake. The second time I
witnessed this happening (at different studios) I
contacted John and discussed the idea of
disabling this switch once the deck was in
motion, a modification that he added and
subsequently offered to owners of earlier models.
IMHO, 2" multitrack fidelity went downhill after
16 track. Noise reduction was only a band-aid
that did nothing, for example, about the
increased crosstalk or decreased low frequency
response that was clearly noticeable. With 16
track running at 30IPS, you didn't need noise
reduction and I recorded numerous live concerts
running a 16 track at 15IPS where the ambience easily masked tape hiss.
Cheers!
Corey
Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
PS:
Thanks for the link on Flickr. A short walk down memory lane.
At 10:37 PM 10/6/2010, you wrote:
>Hello,
>The 40 track ATR manufactured by my brother,
>John Stephens, came out of the various prior
>clients of his 16 and 24 tracks who wanted more
>and more (more is better in America) tracks. Â I
>forget who, but one of them locked up two of his
>for the rocking and rolling of 80 tracks together.Â
>Michael Blackmer of Blackmer Sound wrote this
>about the 40 track, "Also listen to the
>background voices in Queen's "Bohemian Rapsody".
>There is a sparkling breathy cloud around them.
>I believe that this is Roy Thomas Baker's
>Stephens 40 track at work. The Stephens has so
>much headroom in the electronics that it is
>virtually impossible to make it clip. At
>Synchrosound I witnessed guitar solos where the
>needle went to the right peg of the meter and
>just stayed there, that sounded perfectly amazing." Â Â
>And, "As an aside, John French, of JRF
>Magnetics, who worked on building the original
>heads, told me that the 40 track head was almost
>impossible to make, and that they had to make
>several for each one that worked. Track height
>and azimuth alignment is so critical that
>generally one mixes off of the record (sync)
>head to make things come into focus. The repro
>head is mainly used for alignment of the bias."
>I would guess that John French would be the guy
>to add to this discussion, since he has supplied
>heads for all the major multitrack
>manufacturers. Â I'd be interesting for him to
>comment on track widths, cross talk and the
>importance of signal to noise. Â My brother
>mentioned to me once that his lack of cross talk
>and signal to noise was better than the Ampex 24
>track, but maybe someone can verify it or not. Â
>John designed his heads himself, and that's why
>the tolerances were so tight and demanding and hard to achieve.
>This is where you can see and read more about
>them, but thanks, Mark Hood, for
>remembering.http://www.flickr.com/photos/savecal/sets/72157601891062292/with/1901904794/
>Rod Stephens
>
>--- On Wed, 10/6/10, Hood, Mark <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>From: Hood, Mark <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] interesting factoid for the rabid analog rockers
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 3:37 PM
>
>Let’s not forget the Stephens 40-track across
>2” format. There weren’t many of them
>made, but they appear to have been great
>machines that produced a number of important
>records. I believe Roy Thomas Baker used a
>Stephens 40-track on his productions with The
>Cars and Queen. Those were some pretty narrow tracks...
>
>I also seem to recall a prototype MCI machine
>that used 3” tape, I believe for 32
>tracks. I never saw one except the display model on the AES floor.
>
>Mark Hood
>Project Audio Engineer
>Sound Directions
>IU Archives of Traditional Music
>
>On 10/6/10 6:29 PM, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>To my thinking, 16-track was the logical format
>for 2", but the successful execution of 1" 12-track
>by Scully opened the door for 24-track 2".
>12-track never caught on, but it was an acceptable format
>for professional multitrack recording, so
>doubling it was acceptable. 16-track retains a similar
>specification and performance expectation from 2-track.
>
>-- Tom Fine
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Scott" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] interesting factoid for the rabid analog rockers
>
>
> > Yes it is, and the difference is very noticeable. 'Punchier' and quieter,
> > and doesn't suffer as much from lots of passes as 24 track due to partial
> > erasure from heads that slowly pick up som flux and start to self-erase
> > things...
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aaron Levinson
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 1:12 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] interesting factoid for the rabid analog rockers
> >
> > Tom-
> >
> > That is why so many analog die hards love the 16 track 2" format! More real
> > estate...
> >
> >
> > On 10/6/10 1:19 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> >> I noted the following in reading Robert K. Morrison's excellent
> >> "Standard Tape Manual." Some who are big fans of albums produced on
> >> 24-track analog tape decks might find this interesting. Did you know
> >> that 24-track 2" tape has the same track size, 0.043", as
> >> quarter-track mass-duped reels, or quarter-track reels made by
> >> "amateurs" at home. Of course most 2" decks run at 15 or 30IPS, so you
> >> get sound-quality boost from the higher speed, but there's no denying
> >> it, skinny tracks is skinny tracks. Another advantage in the 2" format
> >> is a larger guard band between tracks, 0.041" vs 0.025" for
> >> quarter-track quarter-inch format, so less crosstalk.
> >>
> >> Some comparisons:
> >>
> >> Full-track quarter-inch tracks are almost a full quarter-inch wide,
> >> 0.234"
> >>
> >> Two-track quarter-inch tracks are 0.075" wide with 0.084" guard band
> >>
> >> Four-track 1/2" and Eight-track 1" tracks are 0.070" wide with 0.060"
> >> guard bands
> >>
> >> 16-track 2" tracks are 0.070" wide and the guard bands are 0.057" wide
> >>
> >> Interestingly, Morrison's book, published in the 70's, had no data for
> >> 3-track 1/2" tracks, the format was totally out of use by then.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that a mono cassette track is 0.060" wide, but moving a
> >> much slower speed and generally using very thin tape.
> >>
> >> Obviously, there are plenty of good-sounding recordings that were made
> >> on 24-track 2" machines, so the skinny tracks don't compromise the
> >> format in all cases. And I'm not sure how much any of this matters if
> >> you are using tape as compression effect or a harmonic-distortion
> >> effect to "warm up the tracks."
> >>
> >> -- Tom Fine
> >
|