 |
 |
A few years ago, I transferred a couple of 3" & some 5" reel-to-reel tapes that had me really chasing my tail. The tapes were used as mailers for communication between a soldier & his parents during the Viet Nam era. All of the recording was done consertively at 3-3/4 IPS so, it was impossible to read with a magnetic viewer. Turns out that the soldier bought a deck overseas that was 1/4 track & his parents had a deck that was half track mono. So, the tapes had both formats recorded on them. Whew! CB Corey Bailey Audio Engineering www.baileyzone.net ------ Original Message ------ From: "Tim Gillett" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: 11/22/2021 4:20:53 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Brittle Acetate Tapes (was 220V/50Hz 1/4" Open Reel Audio Playback Decks) >Hi Abhi and Richard, > >Abhi, with your Lafayette tape recordings have you tried looking >at the recorded magnetic patterns using a suitable magnetic reader or >viewer? > >Richard, another machine, the Sony 521 had a small lever at the front >labelled "4 track/2 track" which altered (only) the head height to >allow a compromise playback of half track stereo tapes. Seemingly >like the Wollensak, it places the quarter track stereo head pole >pieces in the centre of the half track stereo position. Like the >Wollensak it didnt correspondingly alter erase head height so there >was potential to accidentally leave the lever in the wrong position >when making a recording. > >Cheers, > >Tim > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List" ><[log in to unmask]> >To:<[log in to unmask]> >Cc: >Sent:Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:42:24 -0500 >Subject:Re: [ARSCLIST] Brittle Acetate Tapes (was 220V/50Hz 1/4" Open >Reel Audio Playback Decks) > > Hi, Corey and Abhi, > > In late 1962 or early 1963 (I recorded hours of JFK's funeral audio >on > it 58 years ago this week), I bought a Wollensak T-1616-4. It was a > really odd duck, but worked reasonably well. > > It had a quarter track stereo combo record/play head made by Shure. I > > don't recall the erase head. It had one complete channel of >record/play > electronics from mic in to 10 W power amp. There was an add-in >one-tube > chassis that was the head preamp which needed to feed a separate > amp-speaker combination. While there was a small power transformer, >the > 10 W power amplifier was modeled after the AC/DC table radios and had > > the whole power amp run directly off the mains. > > This shows some pictures of the 1616-4 >https://www.ebay.com/itm/313588550900 (not my auction) > and I've collected a few things that I have here: > <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7wvowq62e9o5d17/AADOA9TqRJCej268l9wmj1kUa?dl=0> > > The T-1515-4 manual shows at the end the track alignments, and the >eBay > photos above show the track wheel. Other manuals in the folder might > provide a better exploded view of the head assembly. > > While there are differences between the 1500 and the 1600 it is >mostly > in the transport control. The 1600 was solenoid controlled for more > remote control and a lighter touch on the keys The 1600 could also >(with > the help of 1/8-inch foil tape) do auto repeat. > The 1500 was introduced in 1959 and the 1600 in 1960 > > I started to go thru the math of the head height adjustment to see >how > it worked out. It does work. So if you want to get caught up with >mils > (thousandths of an inch), have at it. Otherwise look at the pictures >in > the manual at the Dropbox link. > > In the head assembly, there was an "elevator" arrangement (hence I >knew > that was possible when I had John French make one for my APR-5000 >with > an 8-track four-channel head). The Wollensak elevator was run by a > Delrin disk which protruded out of the side of the head assembly and >was > marked A 2TR B. In the A position, the quarter track R/P head (and > presumably the erase head) was positioned so that the left head >channel > aligned with track 1 and the right head channel aligned with track 3. >In > 2TR, the head was lowered slightly, presumably just enough so that >the > two quarter track head channels were completely on the professional 2 > > track tracks. This would probably have been adjusted for 75 mil >tracks, > since Ampex sort of ruled the roost in that era. > > One can check if this was even possible by looking at >https://www.richardhess.com/tape/quarterinch_lrg.gif > > Quarter track has 43 mil tracks and centre-to-centre of the 1/3 >stereo > pair at 134 mils. That implies 24 mil guard bands... > Checking that math, 43x4+24x3 = 244 mils out to out. > > Doing the same with the Ampex format, the two tracks are on 156 mil > centres and the track is 75 mils, so the guard band is 81 mils. This > gives an out-to-out dimension of 231 mils. > > Normally, the top of the quarter track right channel head would be >137 > mils from the top edge of a 250 mil tape, and the bottom of the left > channel would be 46 mils below the top of the tape. > > The Ampex 2-track tape would have the bottom of the left channel 84.5 > > mils below the top of the tape and the top of the right channel 165.5 > > mils below the top of the tape. > > So depressing the quarter track head assembly by 28.5 mils would just > > put the top of the right head at the top of the Ampex two track right > > channel. > > This would put the bottom of the quarter track left channel at 74.5 >mils > below the top of the tape, which allows a 10 mil window, so the ideal > > depression for the 2 TR position would be 33.5 mils. > > Continuing on, in order to go to the B position, the full 134 mil > centre-to-centre spacing of the quarter track stereo pair would have >to > be covered, or the distance between 2 TR and B would be 100.5 mil > > Roughly, the A-2TR is roughly 1/4 of the total depression and the >2TR-B > depression is 3/4 of the total which is in keeping with what I > recall--it was harder to go to B as you were fighting a spring. > > The actual elevator mechanism was a ramp molded into the bottom face >of > the Delrin wheel and a small ball that ran in a cup at the top of a >post > on the head assembly. > > Being a fully mechanical assembly, this would not reset on power on >so > you'd record in the position that it was left in, and I suspect that > this little assembly wasn't stable after many uses. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > On 2021-11-22 2:31 p.m., CBAUDIO wrote: > > I have about 90 tapes in the studio that were recorded on a >Wollensak > > model 1500. That particular model was 1/2 track, mono. > > > > Best, > > CB > > Corey Bailey Audio Engineering > > www.baileyzone.net > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Abhimonyu Deb" ><[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: 11/22/2021 2:00:44 AM > > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Brittle Acetate Tapes (was 220V/50Hz 1/4" >Open > > Reel Audio Playback Decks) > > > >> Hi Tim and Richard, > >> Tim, the Lafayette tapes were recorded on a Wollensak recorder. >I'm > >> afraid I don't know much more than that. However, I suspect that >the > >> tracks 2 and 3 vs. tracks 1 and 4 issue is due to lack of >maintenance > >> of the recorder during the 4 or 5 years that the recordings were >made > >> rather than any compatibility issue between different formats. > >> That's because the tracks issue isn't consistent across all of the >tapes. > >> There's another factor that might be significant. Like I said, I >am of > >> Indian origin. My uncle (father's brother) went to the U.S. as a > >> graduate student in 1958 and came back to India in 1960, bringing >the > >> Wollensak and 12 Lafayette blank tapes with him. At the time, it >was > >> almost as if he brought a spaceship from Mars! > >> My father says that they never demagnetized the heads. They did >clean > >> the heads regularly but sometimes it was with aftershave lotion > >> (gasp!) or something similar. > >> The tapes are numbered 1 to 12 and were recorded mostly in that >sequence. > >> If I had to find a pattern, it would be that the earlier recorded > >> tapes are generally better on track 1 and later tapes are >generally > >> better on track 2. > >> Richard, I had read about your experience with the carbonyl iron >tape > >> in one of your papers a year or two ago (or maybe on your blog?). >I > >> tried your solution myself more than once, also with varying >degrees > >> of success. > >> From my experience, I can't find any pattern to the cupping >problem. > >> Could it be a maintenance issue? There was no cupping problem at >all > >> with the EMI acetates in Gramophone Company of India's archive. > >> On the other hand, I have seen this problem consistently on tapes >from > >> other sources and of varying brands that were not well maintained. >My > >> Lafayette tapes have no cupping problem at all. They were just >kept on > >> a bookshelf (in their boxes) for the past 50 years. > >> The whole subject is really mysterious and so much fun! > >> Best wishes, > >> Abhi > >> -------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> Abhimonyu DebAudio Consultant and Digitization > >> Specialisthttps://www.linkedin.com/in/abhimonyudeb > >> > >> > >> On Sunday, 21 November, 2021, 11:48:43 pm IST, Richard L. >Hess > >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, Abhi and Tim, > >> > >> Great discussion. The cupping is a real issue, but so is edge >waviness. > >> > >> On the suggestion of Friedrich Engel (retired BASF Historian), I >once > >> reviewed the only carbonyl iron tape I've ever seen. This was one >of the > >> first Magnetophon experimental tapes from circa 1935. It was so >badly > >> cupped that it was like a carpenter's steel tape and could support > >> itself extending from the reel. > >> > >> Hydration was Herr Engel's suggestion, I tried about 24 hours with >the > >> tape in a pancake form on a support over about an inch of water in >a > >> sealed container. It ran beautifully and was more like a satin >ribbon > >> than a tape measure. > >> > >> HOWEVER, I have repeated that once or twice since with far less >success. > >> The hydration probably reduces the strength of the tape. > >> > >> The worst over-hydration I've ever seen was a damp 1-inch Scotch >201 > >> acetate tape. The acetate had swollen so much that the first half >inch > >> at the hub had been deformed and the closest layers had been >forced > >> through the slot of the hub, causing a bump. Of course it was >worse on > >> the track one side (which was recorded while only about five >tracks had > >> been used) and the tape had been wound tails out so the pack was >tight > >> and the first song of the album was most damaged! > >> > >> I put a pressure pad hard against the head (while adding extra >pressure > >> to the pinch roller to keep the tape on speed). My hands were very > >> cramped a half hour later. Then Paul MacDonald from Cape Breton >Island, > >> Nova Scotia who is a musician and excellent recording/mastering > >> engineer, spent days with it picking out a similar piece of music >to > >> cover the bumps using Sound Blade software. It turned out >beautifully. > >> > >> If the edges are wavy, then certainly tracks 2 and 3 would be a >better > >> choice, if the cupping is tamable. > >> > >> It is such a difficult line to draw between doing no harm to the > >> original and capturing the best possible transfer which will >likely be > >> the last transfer made (unless you really miss the mark). If you >are > >> doing risky procedures, it is important to inform the clients >about the > >> problems and risks before proceeding. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Richard > >> > >> > >> On 2021-11-21 4:55 a.m., Tim Gillett wrote: > >>> Hi Abhi, > >>> > >>> I suspect your experience with the old acetates is common. When > >>> brittle they can break easily but at least they break cleanly >and > >>> can be spliced back together again. The other issue which is >common > >>> is "cupping" on the oxide side. The top and bottom edges of the >tape > >>> are OK on the tape head but the centre section doesnt want to >sit flat > >>> so the sound is often muffled or weak. We can increase the tape > >>> tension across the head but it risks breaking the tape. >Sometimes > >>> a temporary felt pressure pad, or small artist's brush, or even >a > >>> fingertip as you did can be used to press the centre section >against > >>> the head. > >>> > >>> The problem you mentioned with the Lafayette acetates could be >that > >>> they were recorded on a Brush Soundmirror machine which only >recorded > >>> in the centre of the tape, leaving the top and bottom edges > >>> unrecorded. A "cupped" acetate tape is the worst for this as it >keeps > >>> that most important part of the tape off the head. The reason >the > >>> Studer machine didnt play them well is probably that it was an >NAB > >>> half track machine which would have missed the centre part of >the > >>> tape. You're right that tracks 2 and 3 of a quarter track >machine > >>> would read it much better. Actually a very good playback >can be > >>> obtained from a Soundmirror tape with a four track (four >channel) 1/4" > >>> head using tracks 2 and 3. > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> > >>> Tim Gillett > >>> > >>> Perth, Western Australia > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List" > >>> <[log in to unmask]> > >>> To:<[log in to unmask]> > >>> Cc: > >>> Sent:Sun, 21 Nov 2021 04:58:17 +0000 > >>> Subject:Re: [ARSCLIST] 220V/50Hz 1/4" Open Reel Audio Playback >Decks > >>> > >>> Hi Richard, > >>> Wow! You have no idea what it means for a little guy like me >to > >>> contribute to this forum! > >>> First, just a very quick background. Although I was born and >brought > >>> up in the U.S., I spent all of my adult and professional life >in India > >>> (I am of Indian origin). > >>> I used to work in the recording studio of the Gramophone >Company of > >>> India. It used to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the GC of UK. >Later > >>> it became independent. > >>> GC of India has a tape archive with acetates starting from >around > >>> 1955. They are almost entirely EMI tapes and are in excellent > >>> condition. There’s no problem of brittleness and they play >fine on > >>> A80’s and 807’s. > >>> > >>> Now I work independently, usually with smaller archives or >individual > >>> collections. The name brand tapes that I get, e.g. Scotch 111 >or > >>> 141, usually play fine on my A807. However, given the tropical > >>> climate in India and the lack of maintenance of the tapes, >warping is > >>> a frequent problem. > >>> A few years ago, I inherited a dozen Lafayette brand tapes >from my > >>> uncle. The tapes were purchased in 1960 and recorded between >1961 to > >>> 1965. > >>> These tapes are mostly brittle. Instead of A807, for most of >these > >>> tapes I had to use an Akai GX-4000D quarter track deck to play >half > >>> track recordings. Yes, I know I broke every rule in the book >but I > >>> couldn't think of any other way. > >>> Interestingly, for some of these tapes played on the Akai, I >got a > >>> better playback from tracks 2 and 3 compared to tracks 1 and 4. >Of > >>> course, I had to reverse them on my DAW. > >>> A few years ago I got an acetate similar to your Vermont tape. >I > >>> actually had to unwind several hundred feet of tape from the >reel, > >>> somehow thread the tape onto my Akai without any reels on >either side, > >>> and hold my index finger softly against the playback head while > >>> playing. > >>> So, basically, the brittle acetates that I've encountered are >due to > >>> lack of maintenance or a cheap brand of tape. > >>> Coming back to Dave's original post, I was thinking to myself >when I > >>> first read it that it might be nearly impossible to find a >machine > >>> that can satisfy all of his conditions. But, then, I don't have >any > >>> experience with the ATR 100 or APR-5000. > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> Abhi (short for Abhimonyu) > >>> ------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Abhimonyu DebAudio Consultant and Digitization > >>> Specialisthttps://www.linkedin.com/in/abhimonyudeb > >>> > >>> On Saturday, 20 November, 2021, 09:53:59 pm IST, Richard L. >Hess > >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, Abbimonyu, > >>> > >>> This issue comes up in regard to many different machines. When >I had > >>> my > >>> A80s, I used them for acetate tapes on a regular basis. I >haven't > >>> used > >>> an A807 for a long time (as I preferred the A810 over the A807 >for > >>> many > >>> reasons, and the A80 over the A810). > >>> > >>> In many respects, I think that the Sony APR-5000 is the >gentlest of > >>> the > >>> list I posted. On the other hand, I had no bad feedback from >the > >>> two > >>> A807s (refurbished by Roger Ginsley) that were sold into an >archiving > >>> > >>> project in Pakistan to use alongside their Tascam BR-20s >(which I did > >>> > >>> not suggest for the current project because many versions were >not > >>> made > >>> with power supply voltage selection). > >>> > >>> However, to answer Tim Gillette's rephrasing of the question, >we > >>> might > >>> consider machines that start the capstan motor when going into >play > >>> so > >>> you are not banging the stopped tape into the full-speed >capstan. The > >>> > >>> Sony APR-5000 works that way and mutes the audio for a short >period > >>> of > >>> time at startup. > >>> > >>> You weren't missing something and it is good that you posted. >Perhaps > >>> I > >>> didn't provide enough weight to that criteria. > >>> > >>> I'd be interested in hearing more about the fragile acetate >tapes > >>> that > >>> you encounter as I've been surprised at how well the Scotch >111 and > >>> Audio Devices acetate tapes have held up. I've even been >pleased with > >>> > >>> the paper tapes I've transferred as well. The only really >fragile > >>> acetate tape I've come across was one that sat behind a wood >stove > >>> through several Vermont winters. One face was welded together >and > >>> broke > >>> on ever rotation of the supply reel. > >>> > >>> The one thing that seems to fail for me are splices onto paper > >>> leader. I > >>> have to remake all those splices after baking in many >instances, but > >>> that's with back-coated polyester tapes. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Richard > >>> > >>> On 2021-11-19 8:41 p.m., Abhimonyu Deb wrote: > >>> > Given the notable list of people who have replied so far, >normally > >>> I would keep my mouth shut. > >>> > However, I do think everyone is missing an important point. > >>> > > >>> > Dave mentions that the machine should be able to play >fragile > >>> acetate tapes. The A80’s, 807’s and Otari 5050’s that >I’ve > >>> worked with would fail miserably here unless I’m missing >something. > >>> > Abhimonyu Debhttp://linkedin.com/in/abhimonyudeb > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021, 6:42 AM, James Perrett > >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 00:55, Richard L. Hess > >>> <[log in to unmask]> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> Long ago, a company I think called > >>> >> "DarkLab" in Germany made EIA to DIN adapters out of >plastic. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > They still make them and sell them on Ebay. I bought some a >few > >>> months ago > >>> > but haven't used them yet. > >>> > > >>> > James. > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Richard L. Hess email: > >>> [log in to unmask] > >>> Aurora, Ontario, >Canada 647 > >>> 479 2800 > >>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm > >>> Track Format - Speed - Equalization - Azimuth - Noise >Reduction > >>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. > >>> > >>> ------------------------- > >>> Email sent using Optus Webmail > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Richard L. Hess email: >[log in to unmask] > >> Aurora, Ontario, >Canada 647 479 >2800 > >> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm > >> Track Format - Speed - Equalization - Azimuth - Noise Reduction > >> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. > >> > > -- > Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] > Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800 >http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm > Track Format - Speed - Equalization - Azimuth - Noise Reduction > Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. > >------------------------- >Email sent using Optus Webmail