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  March 2011

ARSCLIST March 2011

Subject:

old 2T mass-duped tapes

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:27:49 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (64 lines)

As has been discussed here several times, in many cases the mid-50's 2-track stereo duped reel tapes 
sound and also hold up better than later 1/4-track stereo tapes. In most cases, these were 
small-quantity and premium-priced products, so a certain amount of care and quality control were 
taken. In the early days, record companies did their own duping or out-sourced to a known entity 
such as a larger studio operation. There were one or two indepedent tape-dubber operations dating 
back to the early 50's, Leon Wortman wrote an article about his in an early 50's issue of Radio & TV 
News. In fact, Ampex apparently read that article carefully because a lot of the hand-built features 
of Wortman's dubber chain were included in the Ampex 3200 system that came out in the mid-50's. This 
was then the standard dubbing rig in the US throughout the 2-track era.

I can't speak to how other companies did this, but know a few facts about Mercury's operations. The 
duplicator master was a 15IPS copy of the 3-2 "mixdown master" made at the LP cutting session, so 
the dupes were fourth-generation tapes. They were duped at 4x speed (60IPS for the dupe master and 
30IPS for the slaves). The duping took place at one of Mercury's pressing plants, probably in the 
midwest. Distribution was through the same channels as the top-line new-release records, for 
instance not in supermarket or dime-store racks. The tapes carried a premium price and the early 
ones held less content than the LP records. But, in 1956-57, this was the only way a home listener 
could experience 2-channel stereo.

In the very early days of duped stereo tapes (1954-55), before most of the major record companies 
got into it, there was a small "format war" between Magnecord-style staggered heads and Ampex-style 
"stacked" in-line heads. Once Ampex got heavily into the duping equipment business, and the 
home-playback business, this went away and in-line heads prevailed.

After the stereo LP came out in 1958, Ampex improved their technology so they could mass-produce 
1/4-track heads in the price range for home-playback gear, and also created duplicator heads that 
could handle the narrow track and the high-frequency content of a high-speed dupe. Everyone 
recognized the economy of half the tape stock and half the duping time, and the bone for consumers 
was fitting both sides of any-length LP onto a single reel. Thus 2-track was doomed as a consumer 
format. We've discussed numerous times all the disadvantages to duped 1/4-track tapes, and many old 
tapes are plagued with edge-warp meaning you have left-channel dropouts on top of hissy, 
often-distorted sound. The duper speeds kept increasing through the 60's, which made for even worse 
sonic quality. Late-60's 3.75IPS tapes were duped at 16x, and I've never come across one that sounds 
halfway decent. Another trend in the 60s was big duping operations like Ampex and Bel Canto and GRT 
becoming the outsource factories for the major labels, with lower quality control and cheapo tape 
and reels employed as time went on. Bel Canto Mercury tapes are particularly bad, often with the 
channels reversed and bad level differences between the channels. Mercury must have been sending 4th 
or 5th generation tapes out to be duped, because the hiss level is insane on some of those tapes. 
These kinds of decisions were made by the busines folks, not the music folks.

In the 70's, reel duping seems to have undergone a short renaissance. Quad reels I've transferred 
were made on lower-noise tape stock, and generally are dynamic and low-hiss, and track well as far 
as azimuth goes. Dolby B encoding was employed in some Quad tapes, lowering hiss further. Again, 
reels of this type that I've transferred tracked the Dolby B decoding well and sounded quite 
dynamic. You also had operations like Barclay Crocker doing a better-quality duping and charging a 
premium price. Barclay, despite the text in their reels, was definitely not getting access to 
Mercury master tapes (I don't know what their situation was with other labels), but their dupes were 
superior to earlier-era 1/4-track reels.

In my opinion, there is a cultish attraction to the early 2-tracks with some exceptions. Material of 
high musical quality that wasn't released on CD or that the CD was poorly mastered or not made from 
the original master tape may sound better than the mass-market product currently available. But 
these are the exceptions, especially vis-a-vis the Mercury, RCA and Columbia reel catalogs. Almost 
all of the material in those catalogs originally issued on 2-track tapes has been reissued on CD (or 
SACD) with a good-quality remastering job. I'm speaking only of classical, pop and jazz are 
different matters. Part of the pricing has to do with who's interested -- generally people with the 
means to be customers of the Tape Project and other premium-priced content operations. But I can't 
imagine anything but disappointment at most of these tapes after you've gotten used to a modern 
15IPS tape that is allegedly only 2 generations removed from the master. Believe me, the old 
2-tracks aren't anywhere in that league of quality. Tape-generation loss, noisy old tape stock, the 
inferior quality of high-speed duping and the ravages of time assure that to be fact.

-- 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

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