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 2014

ARSCLIST October 2014

Subject:

Re: Mass-market tape duplication's roots

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 6 Oct 2014 06:51:51 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

I never said 8-tracks WEREN'T the nadir of duped tapes. They were. Program material was sometimes 
split mid-piece (especially for classical). Tapes were large and prone to develop problems like 
melted pressure rollers or warped stick-on labelling that then jammed them and/or damaged the car 
players. The sound quality was awful because no car player could handle road vibrations and keeping 
a moving playback head properly aligned. Muntz cartridges were no better but at least the 
pinchroller was of consistent quality (good or bad) since it was built into the player.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass-market tape duplication's roots


>I agree with your comments about 8 track.  It was a format with no virtues over the cassette and 
>lots of disadvantages.  I remember an audio expert trying to explain to me that 8 track had to be 
>better because it was quarter inch tape instead of eighth inch tape; he couldn't understand that 
>twice the width with twice the number of tracks = zero advantage.
>
> I was, however, impressed with some of the 3 3/4 inch R2R tapes that were issued.  I had a capitol 
> one that had a variety of their Big Band recreations and the brass bite was impressive and the 
> bass even richer that 7 1/2 inch tapes, (to my ears at least), but, of course, I never had the 
> same recording in both speeds to make a comparison.
>
> db
>
>
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 10:19 PM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just some personal recollections to add to Tom's comments, for whatever
> they are worth.  When I was in high school and college, I loved the clarity
> of 7 1/2 IPS pre-recorded tapes, despite some audible hiss, and I can
> recall losing interest in commercially produced R2R tapes altogether once
> they became 3 3/4 IPS in the mid or late 60's.  Those tapes were VERY noisy
> and had lost the clarity of sound I liked.   I just couldn't believe that
> the record companies would cheapen an excellent format like that.  Could
> blank tape really be all that expensive?  Of course not.  Today I still
> can't understand why they did that.  It just didn't make any sense,
> wrecking what was previously a fine format.
> The commercially produced cassette era was basically sonic hell, with only
> a rare one sounding really good.  They never approached the sound of a well
> pressed LP, and many of them just sounded plain awful.  And most consumer
> playback decks weren't great either.
>
> I will disagree on one point--I think the absolute nadir was the 8-track
> format, not cassettes.  They warbled like crazy, and the graphite coming
> off the tape (necessary so it would pull off the center of the single reel)
> fouled the heads almost immediately, dulling the sound and wearing the
> heads.  What a dreadful format that was.
>
> Best,
> John Haley
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Goran:
>>
>> The results you describe were definitely NOT what was being spewed out of
>> U.S. duplication plants. I think the only duped cassettes in the U.S. that
>> anyone I ever knew with decent playback equipment ever said sounded any
>> good were the Mobile Fidelity, duped at 1x speed. If we ever meet in
>> person, I'd love to hear one of your plant's cassettes. When I was in
>> college, I had the opportunity to play many different duped cassettes on
>> several decks I had (my Teac 3-head machine, a NAD that belonged to my
>> roomate and a Nak owned by a friend). I never heard one that sounded
>> remotely as good as the LP records (and the 1980s were the nadir of U.S.
>> record pressing, so the LPs weren't any great shakes either).
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "[log in to unmask]" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 6:56 PM
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Mass-market tape duplication's roots
>>
>>
>>  Tom Fine:
>>>
>>>  typical cassettes were duped at 16x, and they
>>>> sounded every bit as terrible as that would indicate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was the technical director of a cassette duplicator from 1974-1989.
>>>
>>> The company started duplication in 1972 using the Ampex BLM200.
>>>
>>> This ran at 32X duplication speed.
>>>
>>> Then we added the Gauss 1200 system running at 64X duplicating speed.
>>>
>>> I rebuilt the Ampex BLM200 to run at 64X speed.
>>>
>>> We also had Lyrec equipment running at 64X speed.
>>>
>>> The frequency response using a modified 3M79 - Binloop - slaves was
>>> within +- 1 dB from 30 Hz to 16 kHz.
>>>
>>> Using a calibrated Studer A80 QC as the cassette tape reference.
>>>
>>> Most people was unable to hear the difference between the 1/4" master
>>> tape and the cassette tape playback using A/B testing at matched
>>> levels.
>>>
>>> The cassette player used was the Nakamichi 700
>>>
>>> It can be done.
>>>
>>> But the playback in the home of the buyer could be all over the place
>>> unless his cassette deck strictly followed correct azimuth and the
>>> relevant playback EQ,120 猶, which is anybodys guess......
>
>>>
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> I was part time helping out Lyrec doing service calls over the whole of
>>> Europe.
>>>
>>> The Lyrec P4400 cassette duplicator running at 80X duplicating speed
>>> was flat within +- 0.5 dB 30 Hz to 18 kHz when setup correctly.
>>>
>>> As was the Gauss 2400 running at 80X too.
>>>
>>> Almost all of the duplicators, Gauss, Electrosound,Tapematic etc later
>>> on went to digital loop bins giving no loss of quality no matter how
>>> many copies sent off to the slaves.
>>>
>>> The earlier tape based loop bins was the biggest source of sound
>>> quality losses as the loop bin master tape got worse after a few
>>> hundred laps in the loop bin due to mechanical wear of the tape.
>>>
>>> The equipment could do a very good job if used and setup correctly
>>> unfortunately that was not always the case.
>>>
>>> But this is a problem everywhere in mass production.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Goran Finnberg
>>> The Mastering Room AB
>>> Goteborg
>>> Sweden
>>>
>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
>>> make them all yourself. - John Luther
>>>
>>> (\__/)
>>> (='.'=)
>>> (")_(") Smurfen:RIP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> 

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