 |
 |
Very interesting discussion. Fred, what are your opinions on which machines are the "great reproducers"? Thanks, John Haley On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Fred Thal <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hello Tom Fine, > > Let me comment on some of your good observations, which I have pasted-in > below. > > > The idea of "playing vintage tapes on vintage tape machines" is a mute > point nowadays. > > I wish this were so, but sadly it isn't. Witness that a fragile (and > obviously irreplaceable) Sinatra master was destroyed just last year, > simply by being played back on the wrong equipment. The machine in > question is regarded by some as being very modern, in relative terms. > > Sadly, there are many such cases, although understandably not widely > reported. > > By the way, couldn't we argue that all analog tape machines could be > termed vintage today? > > Wouldn't it be more useful to define some of the basic tape transport > architecture classes that distinguish these machines from one another, > and then classify the various machines accordingly? For example: > Recorder/reproducer or reproducer? Servo constant-tension or constant > torque? Servo-capstan or hysteresis synchronous capstan? Force-guided > or precision guided transport path? Pin lifter or roller lifter at > headblock? > > For practical examples of what these differing machine architectures > might mean in historic transfer work today, consider an acetate master > that has the oxide layer falling off. Or a mylar master that is > exhibiting soft binder syndrome. > > Would mounting either of those master reels and re-winding on a > transport with fixed pin lifters be responsible practice? > > What about edge-forced guidance through a headblock? Or needlessly > pulling the fragile tape over an erase and then a record head? First, > do no harm. > > > By the time of all the later-generation professional tape machines, > > things like speed stability and scrape-flutter were well understood, > > so playback was more precise. > > Yes, achieving satisfactory speed stability was in many cases > accomplished by adopting constant-tension and servo capstan designs. > > But as I see it, the matter of scrape flutter is not so simple. > > The project leader for the Ampex ATR-100 certainly understood scrape > flutter, but he knew that precision guidance through the transport > would add tremendously to the manufacturing cost. Further, he > correctly understood that you could not insist that customers use only > certain brands of tape. (Especially if these were tapes not > manufactured by Ampex!) So forced guidance through the headblock was > designed in. It was a huge scrape flutter generator, yet regarded as a > necessity. And it remains difficult to argue that his approach was > wrong. > > > It adds up and it's audible. > > Correct. Scrape flutter is audible and the components of flutter add > vectorially. This makes the choice of the reproducer quite important, > exactly as you have observed. We have been saying (for about 20 years > now) that ideally, the reproducer's flutter contributions should be > lower than the recorded flutter on the tape, by an order of magnitude. > > I hope that re-issue producers always first listen to a historic > master played back on an ultra-low flutter reproducer, before > committing to trying to fix something with subsequent processing in > the digital domain. People are often surprised at what can be > retrieved from an old tape when it's played back on a great > reproducer. > > Fred Thal > ataestuder.com >