Hi Richard,
We had to replace our Sigma MV-95 viewer last summer (we were on the same
group purchase circa 2007, right?), and the cost wasn't outwardly
expensive. It wasn't cheap, cheap, but for professional use, it was fairly
priced. Comparable to what we paid in 2007.
Jim
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi, Corey,
>
> Thank you so much for the information. I miss the original Sigma viewer
> which was the source of my excitement. The 2011 one is quite disappointing.
> I'm not certain I wish to buy a third as I hear that the newer ones are
> optimized for the credit card industry and not audio. The minimum order,
> I've been told, for audio ones are way outside of what we could generate on
> this list.
>
> I'm going to think about Nigel's suggestion, but do it within the APR-5000
> line. In that way, it's not a dedicated recorder, just a special head
> assembly that could work on any one or two recorders.
>
> Two recorders because I use them in pairs for 3- and 4-channel playback.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-07-10 2:09 AM, Corey Bailey wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I use both Kyread and the Arnold viewer. For anything recorded below -10
>> or so, neither works well. My complaint about Kyread is that it is
>> useless on any oxide that is not rust color due to its base color. Plus,
>> it can be messy. The Arnold works well on anything recorded at 185 nWb/m
>> or greater. Both would be ineffective on the low level recording you
>> mentioned.
>>
>> Sorry to learn of your disappointment with the Sigma viewer. I've been
>> considering one.
>>
>>
>> Corey
>> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
>> www.baileyzone.net
>>
>> On 7/9/2015 2:39 PM, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>>
>>> QUESTION TO THE GROUP:
>>>
>>> Other than the Sigma MV-95, Arnold/Flexmag (Ex 3M) 1022, Kyread and
>>> related iron suspensions, and the uber-expensive European electronic
>>> viewers, what other options are there to visualize the tracks on a tape?
>>>
>>> BACKGROUND:
>>>
>>> As a long-time fan of the Sigma MV-95 viewer, I was disappointed when
>>> I started using my 2011 copy as my 2007 copy had lost its liquid after
>>> almost 8 years of use. The 2011 copy seemed less sensitive, had less
>>> of a "load" of magnetic particles, and would not show typical audio
>>> tracks nearly as well.
>>>
>>> In fact, I was so disappointed that I am in the process of ordering an
>>> Arnold (ex 3M) 1022 viewer. I had never actually had a new one, so I
>>> don't know how the new ones perform. I should have it in a week or
>>> two. The ones they are selling are not NOS but are NEW.
>>>
>>> This quest was started as I had a tape that was recorded at about -20
>>> dB relative to let's say 250 nWb/m. I did not attempt an exact
>>> measurement, but the VU meters were not moving very much until I added
>>> some "uncal" repro gain on an APR-5000.
>>>
>>> It was difficult to get a sense of the track format and the conditions
>>> of recording did not suggest a big chance that it was a full-track
>>> recording, but that possibility was there.
>>>
>>> My Kyread did not develop the tape, either.
>>>
>>> I ended up mounting the quadraphonic 8-track elevator head and slowly
>>> swept the entire width of the tape and discovered there were no
>>> obvious guard bands. I would think that a 10 mil guard band would be
>>> very noticeable with the approximately 21 mil wide tracks that the
>>> head reads. There was no significant drop in level at any position.
>>>
>>> So, I used a full-track head and it sounded reasonably good. Glad I
>>> had all that surface area considering the low level.
>>>
>>> This is a time-consuming work-around, but it works well. It is,
>>> however, auralization not visualization.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
> 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.
>
|