I havenıt seen any mention of the Crown tape recorders - they were built
like tanks. Or how about the Roberts with the ³cross-field² heads?
On 9/3/17, 11:08 AM, "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List on
behalf of Dennis Rooney" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Having used two PR-10s in the late sixties, I heartily agree with Lou
>Judson's condemnation of it, electronics or no. The failure rate of those
>units matched their poor performance. The model and the almost coeval
>U-Matic mag disc machine were significant players in fatally damaging
>Amex's reputation as professional gear. They were, frankly, regarded as a
>joke.
>
>All Ampex electronics required some modification; An engineer I worked
>with built his own for use in an AG-440. Many famous recordings were made
>with the Ampex 300-2 but no nostalgia for the gear of that vintage,
>please.
>
>DDR
>
>On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Gary A. Galo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> As I said, a problematic transport. Were it not for the fact that David
>> Hancock found the electronics worthy of his own custom tape recorder, I
>> would not have mentioned it. True, he modified the electronics, but
>>David
>> rarely used anything in stock form.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> ____________________________
>>
>> Gary Galo
>> Audio Engineer Emeritus
>> The Crane School of Music
>> SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676
>>
>> "Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
>> Arnold Schoenberg
>>
>> "A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be believed."
>> Igor Markevitch
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Judson
>> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2017 7:57 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Major tape recorder brands
>>
>> Whoo, sorry, but not found in respectable studio! Wow and flutter, one
>> motor bely drive, not a studio machine. We had two in a TV studio in
>>1969,
>> and they were barely serviceable. In a voiceover studio, we could only
>>use
>> it for voice, not music. Not the top of the line, even worse than the
>>Ampxs
>> 600.
>>
>> The electronics are minor compared to the cr*ppy transport.
>>
>> Keep this in mind if you mention it in whatever you are writing. And I'm
>> mildly surprised you need to research this on THIS list! There is a
>>whole
>> internet out there, you know...
>>
>> <L>
>> Lou Judson
>> Intuitive Audio
>> 415-883-2689
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Gary A. Galo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > There was also the Ampex PR-10:
>> >
>> > http://www.historyofrecording.com/AMPEX_PR-10.html
>> >
>> > I understand that it had a problematic transport, but excellent
>> electronics, with a simpler signal path than the 300 and 350. David
>>Hancock
>> used modified PR-10 electronics with a 350-2 transport to make his
>>custom,
>> 14-inch machine. The myriad recording he made with this machine include
>>the
>> famous Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances with Donald Johanos and the Dallas
>> Symphony for Vox/Turnabout.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > ____________________________
>> >
>> > Gary Galo
>> > Audio Engineer Emeritus
>>
>
>
>
>--
>1006 Langer Way
>Delray Beach, FL 33483
>561.265.2976
|
