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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
|