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  October 2010

ARSCLIST October 2010

Subject:

John Stephens (Was) interesting factoid for the rabid analog rockers

From:

Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:54:22 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (211 lines)

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
> >

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