 |
 |
Actually, those Ampex 350s (ansd 300s) changed speed as the weight of the tape shifted from the feed to the take-up reel. It was common to them all, unless modified. In cases where a master was edited from different parts of the same reel or from multiple reels, there's a whole lot of shifting going on. You can get away with a shift of a few or more cents in choral music and massed strings, but flashing lights go off in your ear if you have a splice in the woodwind section. Solution? A machine with variable speed, patience and a fine selection of naughty words. Steve Smolian ========================= Steven Smolian 301-694-5134 Smolian Sound Studios --------------------------------------------------- CDs made from old recordings, Five or one or lifetime hoardings, Made at home or concert hall, Text and pics explain it all. at www.soundsaver.com ========================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Stephens" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Space Shuttle Recorder - Link to NY Times article > In all this discussion of playing back various forms of magnetic > recordings using older used decks, I wonder if very many people ran into > my problem? > > At my company's location in Hollywood, they originally had an Ampex reel > to reel recorder/reproducer (a 350, I think), but gave it away before I > came to work as their archivist. By the way, an excellent web site > showing many generations and manufacturers of such decks is: > > http://www.phantomprod.com/vintage.html > > Anyway, in order to digitize their radio broadcast library for mastering > to CD, I had to find a replacement deck that could handle 10 1/2" reels > at 15 IPS. I found a Scully 280 with plugin head stacks (1/2" four > track and 1/4" two track) at a small local studio, and had it checked > out by an audio firm who said it recorded and reproduced perfectly. > > So, I started on my merry way, digitizing away with excellent audio > coming out on my system sounding clean and as if the tapes (direct feed > KHJ radio masters) and the shows had been recorded yesterday (actually, > they were recorded from 1952 to 1967). By chance, I did some A/B > comparisons with some shows that were reruns made from transcriptions, > and when I tried to edit some music from one version to the other, the > pitches didn't match. I finally realized that the Scully was running > slow compared to the original transcription which I knew was "on" by the > strobe on the side of the turntable. Unless a person has perfect pitch > (I don't, although I read music and have sung, professionally), you can > be fooled by what sounds to be an accurate reproduction. The speed > dropped the pitch about a half-step, and over a half-hour show added > about twenty seconds.to the running time. > > The overall problem is a common one, I would guess, since many of the > machines used for archiving today are not in their first youths, and > wear of the various transport parts will cause changes in speed. I > thought this should give others food for thought in checking out their > analog decks, and I hope my experience will be of help to others. > > The irony here is that I'm sure the vendor from whom I purchased the > Scully wasn't aware of any problem, since he was doing "in house" > recordings, and, as long as the recordings were played back on the same > deck, they would be relatively "perfect", playing at the same speed they > were recorded. > > I have gone back and remastered the offending recordings. I have also > in some cases used my digital software to resample the .wav files using > the "time/pitch" tools in Cool Edit Pro, since I have now found that > some of the library's 1/4" tape masters were not recorded perfectly on > pitch, either, due to the machines they were using back in the '50's and > '60's. > > So, the moral of the story is: "Nothing Is Perfect". > > Rod Stephens, Archivist > Family Theater Productions, Hollywood > > > phirsch wrote: > > >Though I realize that the recorder in question is dealing with data and not > >sound and therefore could be considered OT, we do spend a fair amount of > >time discussing very similar recording, storage and playback issues. So, if > >you are interested, take a look at: > > > >http://nytimes.com/2003/03/21/national/nationalspecial/21SHUT.html > > > >Regards, > > > >Peter Hirsch > > > >Head Archivist for Music and Recorded Sound > >Wilson Processing Project > >The New York Public Library > >[log in to unmask] > >521 West 43rd Street > >New York, New York 10036 > >(212) 714-8570 > >(212) 714-8508 - fax > > > > > >