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  June 2014

ARSCLIST June 2014

Subject:

Re: Playback of Full-track mono tapes (was Odd warble)

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:17:15 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (76 lines)

Hi, Tom,

I agree with your frustrations--it's one of mine.

To answer your questions about FT playback, I noticed the worst problems 
with a FT head on Studer A810s. I had better luck with the APR-5000s, 
but the A80RCs are the best of all. I have transferred tapes that were 
unusable when transferred on a B77 or MX5050 with NAB 2T heads that were 
gorgeous from the A80 FT head. The tape path and guidance deals with the 
country laning and the cupping very nicely...no accessories needed.

I had always thought that 7.5 in/s country-laning tapes would not work 
with a FT repro head because of azimuth error based "combing." This was 
mostly researched on the A810. I have not done many FT 7.5 in/s tapes on 
the APRs -- most of the FT stuff I did on those were 30 in/s. However, 
the tape mentioned in the previous paragraph was a 7.5 in/s tape and the 
combing appears to be less of an issue on that transport.

I do have about a 200-mil centre swath head mounted on the APR platform 
which I rarely used even before the A80s and have not used it since. The 
one time I did a centre swath on the APR within the last few years, I 
used the 82-mil right channel of a PR&E Tomcat cart machine format head 
which is more towards the centre as the narrow cue track and a guard 
band are below it. The guard band between left and right is reduced from 
a normal NAB 2T head. It worked fine. I think I used it as there was 
1/4-track record damage on a FT tape.

Cheers,

Richard



On 2014-06-04 6:13 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> By the way, 2T playback of FT tapes is fairly rampant in the music
> remastering world. I hear it on a lot of mono jazz CDs. Even if you get
> the azimuth perfect, there will still be channel differences on 50+ year
> old tapes because of dropouts, warps, splices, etc. I can't understand
> why every professional player-back of reel tapes doesn't have a FT head.
> There are lots of mono tapes out there. The problem with summing 2T
> channels (another common practice) is that 50+ year old tapes rarely
> travel the tape path perfectly, so there ends up being "country
> lane-ing" and thus azimuth shifts and flange/phase artifacts.
>
> The latest flagrant example of all of these problems is the Record Store
> Day special issue "Gems
>> From Sun Records Vol 1." All of the content is MONO, but try summing a
>> stereo playback or playing
> the record with a mono cartridge. You will not be happy with the
> results. Listen especially to the middle cuts on each side, which seems
> to have been made from the worst warped/damaged tapes. Also the Charlie
> Rich cut. For most cuts, summing to mono produces pumping phase/flange
> problems, indicating the master tapes are badly warped, probably from
> vinegar syndrome, and aren't passing over the 2T play head smoothly.
> When played back in stereo, it's not annoying because the anomolies are
> out on the sides and the high-spl content is in the middle.
>
> I think Richard Hess and maybe others use special thinner FT heads,
> which just read the center half of the track. I very much agree with
> this method and would definitely purchase such a head if I were about to
> undertake a large job of 50+ year old FT tapes. I'm wondering about the
> ideal head-track width, would it be akin to 1 track of a 2-track head
> but in the middle of the head, or more akin to 1 track of a 1/2" 3-track
> head (about half again as large), in the middle of the head? The goal
> would be to read the "meat" of the track but not the edges, where
> warpage and shrinkage leave less signal and more artifacts. I think
> you'd still have country-laneing problems, but could the head itself be
> "cupped" to allow warped top and bottom to just hang in space while the
> unwarped center passed over the gap? Could guidance be made to allow
> that through the tape path?
-- 
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.

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

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