Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FS: Reasonable - NOS Scully parts
Hi --
Recently, I picked up a box of NOS Scully parts in a deal. I ended up with more of some items than I'll ever need to keep my facility's Scully 284 1" 12-track running indefinitely. I'm not interested in going into the parts business. I'm just hoping to find homes for some of these parts with folks who also want to keep their old Scully recorders running. A little reimbursement for my time, the parts and shipping will be sufficient. There are no heads, transformers, motors, etc. I've got mostly transport switches and buttons for 280, 284, 280B and 284B, some unusual plugs and sockets, etc. but there may be other things in this box of parts you need. Please contact me at this email address: Let me know what your needs are and I'll try to help out.You might have to take a digital picture of your broken part to help me find one for you. If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully 12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html Just scroll down until you get to it. Cheers, --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:23:03 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote: If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully 12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html snip Forget the Scully...get a load of that MR-70! Holy CRAPOLA! I think I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now. There's a lot of perfection going on in this house, for certain. Bravo! dB |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:23:03 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote: If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully 12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html snip Forget the Scully...get a load of that MR-70! Holy CRAPOLA! I think I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now. There's a lot of perfection going on in this house, for certain. Bravo! dB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hi --
"DeserTBoB" wrote in message ... On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:23:03 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo" wrote: If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully 12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html snip Forget the Scully...get a load of that MR-70! Holy CRAPOLA! Thanks. Recovering that machine from a pile of parts (none of which worked) was a LOT of work. I'm glad you like it. BTW, It sounds awesome -- proof that as far back as 1964, we had all of the knowledge we needed to build an incredible sounding analog tape recorder. I think the most significant improvements since then may have been in the tape itself. I think I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now. 300-3SS? Help me decode that. Are you saying you have a 3-track Ampex 300 (Solid State?) That sounds interesting. Please pull it out of the dumpster and give us more detail. g There's a lot of perfection going on in this house, for certain. Bravo! Thanks. --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hi --
"Kevin Kelly" wrote in message ... Steve, WOW! I had no idea that there was any facilicty on face of the earth that had honed the archiving and reclamation of a myriad of analog formats to a science. ...and of course there needs to be! It's been a bit of a mission. I felt that a facility like this was really needed. Finding the 12-track Scully (with the 1" 4-track heads that also came with it) was a real breakthrough towards making it possible to provide transfers of every professional analog format. I'm still looking for a Stephens 40-track. Anyone know where I can find one? g I may just sell my little PC Richards convection oven at a garage sale, push my MCI JH110 down a flight of stairs (after dousing the analog torque board in gasoline and lighting it), drop an anvil on the damn PuMpInG dbx's and hissing Dolby 361's and book some time. You'd be very welcome here, of course. g I would also love to include a link to your website in my syllabus as additional info for the ever-shrinking analog tape unit in one of my audio classes. I'd be honored. If there's anything else I can do to help, please let me know. Best, --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:37:33 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote: Thanks. Recovering that machine from a pile of parts (none of which worked) was a LOT of work. I'm glad you like it. snip Like it? Well, the MR-70 was one of THE best tape machines ever built, so I'd be loony NOT to like it! Willi Studer supposedly said he could build a machine AS good as an MR-70, but not better. That's a mouthful in itself. BTW, It sounds awesome -- proof that as far back as 1964, we had all of the knowledge we needed to build an incredible sounding analog tape recorder. I think the most significant improvements since then may have been in the tape itself. snip No doubt. From this point on, Ampex concentrated on completely penetrating the industry with "workhorses," like the 440. Except for the ATR-100, I don't think they ever got as good as the MR-70 ever again. Analog tape technology was the vanguard, not the machines. Ampex 406, and later 456, opened the door to what was really possible with analog. I think I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now. 300-3SS? Help me decode that. Are you saying you have a 3-track Ampex 300 (Solid State?) That sounds interesting. Please pull it out of the dumpster and give us more detail. g snip OK, if you insist. 300-3SS denotes a Model 300, 3 track ½" format with the SelSync panel factory installed. On factory delivered machines, there was also rack space in which to install an MX-10, but mine's not so equipped. This machine came as part of a deal that included this machine and a ¼" 351-2. This 300 is a later machine, and uses the 30960-11 chasses, which were standard with SelSync installations. They use a different bias circuit than did real 351s, using a transformer tap for feedback, similar to the older 300s. They have hi/lo/"Ampex Mastering" EQ. The 351-2 is just a garden variety 351-2 with 30950-1 and -3 chasses. I got these two in LA many moons ago. The 300 was rumored to be the one that Richard Vaughn owned and had at his home to record those George Wright sessions on Vaughn's home installation of the Chicago Paradise Wurlitzer for his HIFIRecords label. However, there's no way to verify this. It was with the SelSync panel that Wright learned the joys of overdubbing, which he later did to the extreme during his Dot contract, where he had 8 track at his disposal. It wound up changing hands a few times in Hollywood amongst aspiring wannabe stars, since 3 track was dead by then. By the time I got it, it was in not bad shape, and the original heads only needed a light lapping to bring back proper contour. However, as with all 300s, the capstan drive was a mess, needing both bearings and rubber. Flutter was horrid at 15, and worse at 7½, so I decided to tear down the entire transport and replace every bearing that revolved. By this time (1982) parts were getting tougher to come by, but I wound up replacing every bearing, guide and roller in the machine. What I wound up with was a machine good enough for flutter, but not so good with speed accuracy, another character flaw of the breed. It was frustrating. I don't know why I acquired and rebuilt the 300-3, other than I kept thinking, "You know, there is a lot of 3 track stuff in vaults around town, and someday, they'll need something to dub off of...", and indeed I wound up doing a few of those, going from 3 track mixing down to a Studer B-67 ½" 2 trk., a nice machine in its own right, onto the then-new 499. What was interesting on those projects was that the Studer on 499 was transparent; you could've sworn you were monitoring the live mixdown of 3 track on Scotch 111 because its relative noise floor was so low. When two white noise sources are disparate by 10 dB total power or more, the lesser noise source just goes away to the ear and the meter, and that's indeed what was happening. Of course, at the time I was completely ignorant of PCM except for telephone carrier work, so a 90-100 dB noise floor just didn't enter into my mind then. Soundstream had their thing going with Telarc, but I never paid much attention to digital recording developments except from blurbs from AES, much to my distress in later years. At that time, the labels weren't interested in doing much of this work at all, and I moved the machine home, where it sits in the back room with a dust cover over it, except for routine fire-ups to keep things going. Since then, all chasses have had a thorough cap/resistor change-out and I've kept the transport duly lubricated and healthy. The capstan drive, though, is a perennial PITA, and now parts are "unobtainium." The original Ampex cabinet was stripped down and refinished as close to original as possible, and emotes 1957 quite well. I got a job about 12 years ago transcribing some ½"-3 track stuff, and at that time, the capstan drive was still quite up to the job. That was when I encountered the ATR-100...wow, a great machine. But now, the nagging flutter problems are peaking up again, as they always do. At least I know the bearings are not at fault now. But the audio performance, minus flutter and drifty speed, is about as good as I've ever heard from Ampex tube electronics, EXCEPT for the MR-70, which completely blew me away. Which one's better overall...MR-70 or ATR-100...would keep me busy for days. I do know one thing. If I got a call to dub some classic 3 track to digital, I wouldn't do it on my machine...I'd refer them to you. There's just no way a transfer could get any better with a finely tuned MR-70 handling the playback. Besides, I'd rather not deal with finnicky reels of ultra fragile 111 anymore (it was bad enough 20 years ago), and you seem to be well equipped to handle that chore! OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good 440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads. TTFN dB |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hi --
Wow. What a post! "DeserTBoB" wrote in message ... On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:37:33 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo" wrote: Thanks. Recovering that machine from a pile of parts (none of which worked) was a LOT of work. I'm glad you like it. snip Like it? Well, the MR-70 was one of THE best tape machines ever built, so I'd be loony NOT to like it! Willi Studer supposedly said he could build a machine AS good as an MR-70, but not better. That's a mouthful in itself. That's a fun story. It's been challenged and there's a big question as to whether it's really true. However, regardless of how Herr Studer viewed the MR70, it remains an amazing machine. I think Studer machines are a classier build than Ampexes, but then there's that "Ampex sound". BTW, It sounds awesome -- proof that as far back as 1964, we had all of the knowledge we needed to build an incredible sounding analog tape recorder. I think the most significant improvements since then may have been in the tape itself. snip No doubt. From this point on, Ampex concentrated on completely penetrating the industry with "workhorses," like the 440. Except for the ATR-100, I don't think they ever got as good as the MR-70 ever again. Analog tape technology was the vanguard, not the machines. Ampex 406, and later 456, opened the door to what was really possible with analog. I'm not sure exactly when the capability of the machines overtook the tape. In fact, I'm not sure that the capability of the machines hasn't *always* been greater than that of the tape (of the day). I sat down for an hour or so one evening with several of the different manuals for different analog tape recorders and noticed that with each new machine the S/N figure would climb. Then I started trying to translate them all so that I could compare apples to apples. Due to the different types of weighting and the moving target of how much distortion they took their measurements at, I could only approximate my results. But I was amazed to find that what was really changing was the tape. Safety tip: Don't try to tell a stock ATR100 owner that its S/N is little if any better than that of a stock 440C. I think I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now. 300-3SS? Help me decode that. Are you saying you have a 3-track Ampex 300 (Solid State?) That sounds interesting. Please pull it out of the dumpster and give us more detail. g snip OK, if you insist. 300-3SS denotes a Model 300, 3 track ½" format with the SelSync panel factory installed. On factory delivered machines, there was also rack space in which to install an MX-10, but mine's not so equipped. Got it. When I saw the "SS" I thought "solid state" and figured maybe you had an AG-300. This machine came as part of a deal that included this machine and a ¼" 351-2. This 300 is a later machine, and uses the 30960-11 chasses, which were standard with SelSync installations. They use a different bias circuit than did real 351s, using a transformer tap for feedback, similar to the older 300s. They have hi/lo/"Ampex Mastering" EQ. That machine has AME in it? Wow. This is really an unusual 300. Are the 351 electronics grey chassis or gold chassis? What color PC boards? If it's really late, they will be blue. Can you bypass the AME curve if you want to? The 351-2 is just a garden variety 351-2 with 30950-1 and -3 chasses. There are a lot of folks who like those machines. I got these two in LA many moons ago. The 300 was rumored to be the one that Richard Vaughn owned and had at his home to record those George Wright sessions on Vaughn's home installation of the Chicago Paradise Wurlitzer for his HIFIRecords label. However, there's no way to verify this. It was with the SelSync panel that Wright learned the joys of overdubbing, which he later did to the extreme during his Dot contract, where he had 8 track at his disposal. It wound up changing hands a few times in Hollywood amongst aspiring wannabe stars, since 3 track was dead by then. By the time I got it, it was in not bad shape, and the original heads only needed a light lapping to bring back proper contour. However, as with all 300s, the capstan drive was a mess, needing both bearings and rubber. Flutter was horrid at 15, and worse at 7½, so I decided to tear down the entire transport and replace every bearing that revolved. By this time (1982) parts were getting tougher to come by, but I wound up replacing every bearing, guide and roller in the machine. Nice feeling, isn't it . . . What I wound up with was a machine good enough for flutter, but not so good with speed accuracy, another character flaw of the breed. It was frustrating. Some folks have added Tentrols to those machines for that reason. You're hip to Tentrols, right? I don't know why I acquired and rebuilt the 300-3, other than I kept thinking, "You know, there is a lot of 3 track stuff in vaults around town, and someday, they'll need something to dub off of...", and indeed I wound up doing a few of those, going from 3 track mixing down to a Studer B-67 ½" 2 trk., a nice machine in its own right, onto the then-new 499. What was interesting on those projects was that the Studer on 499 was transparent; you could've sworn you were monitoring the live mixdown of 3 track on Scotch 111 because its relative noise floor was so low. When two white noise sources are disparate by 10 dB total power or more, the lesser noise source just goes away to the ear and the meter, and that's indeed what was happening. Right, the source noise swamps the noise level of the target machine. So, are you saying you found the B-67 sonically pure or just that it didn't seem to add noise. At that time, the labels weren't interested in doing much of this work at all, and I moved the machine home, where it sits in the back room with a dust cover over it, except for routine fire-ups to keep things going. Since then, all chasses have had a thorough cap/resistor change-out and I've kept the transport duly lubricated and healthy. The capstan drive, though, is a perennial PITA, and now parts are "unobtainium." The original Ampex cabinet was stripped down and refinished as close to original as possible, and emotes 1957 quite well. I'll bet! I got a job about 12 years ago transcribing some ½"-3 track stuff, and at that time, the capstan drive was still quite up to the job. That was when I encountered the ATR-100...wow, a great machine. Yes, so long as you're running new tape on it. But now, the nagging flutter problems are peaking up again, as they always do. At least I know the bearings are not at fault now. But the audio performance, minus flutter and drifty speed, is about as good as I've ever heard from Ampex tube electronics, EXCEPT for the MR-70, which completely blew me away. Which one's better overall...MR-70 or ATR-100...would keep me busy for days. I can't make a 100% reliable direct comparison because I can only record/play 1/2" 3-track tapes on the MR70 and I can only configure the ATR100 for either 1/4" or 1/2" 2-track. Additionally, the ATR heads are Flux Magnetics which have the advantage of computer-assisted design and the higher permiability of alloys available for today's heads. But, taking all of that into consideration, in a head-to-head comparision, it is very difficult to choose between them. IMHO, there's no clear winner. I do know one thing. If I got a call to dub some classic 3 track to digital, I wouldn't do it on my machine...I'd refer them to you. There's just no way a transfer could get any better with a finely tuned MR-70 handling the playback. Besides, I'd rather not deal with finnicky reels of ultra fragile 111 anymore (it was bad enough 20 years ago), and you seem to be well equipped to handle that chore! Thanks! OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good 440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads. I think they're cheap because they are abundant. Anyone who really wants one can have one. It's screwy to say this, but I think that if Ampex had sold fewer of them, they would be more popular today. It's too bad they're not more highly regarded. We discovered here that with a bit of money and effort, a 440 can be very significantly upgraded from stock performance. If you get a chance, go back to the tech info web page that started this discussion (www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html) and check out the info on the Flux ME heads and RTZ repro amps used in the MM1200s here. We're using the same technology in the 440-2/3/4/8 machine (along with class-A transformerless output and some other mods to the transport and electronics) and the results are (I feel) outstanding. I'm constantly doing listening tests. In a shootout between a modded out AG440C configured for 2-track, a Scully 280, Scully 280B, MR70 and ATR102, the modded 440C came the closest to "truth" (input = output). And, it did this in a very musical way. Of course, you might like certain things about the sonic signature of the other machines better, but none of them was as truthful. Unfortunately, results with a stock 440B will fall quite far short of what we heard here after taking advantage of the mods and alterations to signal path we did. I'm hoping to do another head-to-head with our modded 440C, ATR102, MR70, Studer A820 and Sony APR5000 (which is supposed to be a sleeper). OK, so how was that for payback? BTW, have you considered joining the Ampex List? I think you'd enjoy it. We have guys on the list that worked for Ampex on the 300-8, the MR70, AG300/350, the 440, the 1100 and the 440C. http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html There's also a really excellent Studer list available through recordist.com. Cheers, --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DeserTBoB wrote:
OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good 440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads. Damned if I know. I recently sold a 440-4 with four-track 1/2" stacks, four-track and half-track 1/4" stacks, and spare parts kits for $350 on Ebay. It wouldn't go over $350. New bearings in the motors, full maintenance log since it was purchased, recent recapping of all the electronics cards, and it went for $350. Another serious sleeper is the MCI JH-110, which people don't seem to be able to give away. And that is also a very respectable broadcast-grade machine that, like the 440, deserves more respect than it gets. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Puntolillo wrote:
Safety tip: Don't try to tell a stock ATR100 owner that its S/N is little if any better than that of a stock 440C. You know, I had the 440B and the ATR-100 sitting next to one another for several years, and sometimes I liked the sound of one and sometimes I liked the sound of the other more. The flutter on the ATR was noticeably lower, though, in spite of a lot of fiddling with the idlers on the 440. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Puntolillo wrote:
I'm still looking for a Stephens 40-track. Anyone know where I can find one? g No, but I know a couple people who can make 40-track heads that you could put on an existing machine. There are a bunch of guys who used to make those things for logging machines, and it would be a matter of having them make some with wider gaps for 15 ips use. Right now, the head market is dead and there are a lot of head manufacturers still sort of struggling along.... they won't be around too much longer I fear so now is the time to get any custom stuff built. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:02:46 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote: That machine has AME in it? Wow. This is really an unusual 300. Are the 351 electronics grey chassis or gold chassis? snip The old cadmium washed grey. I've seen a few of the later gold anodized later chassis on 351s, but never on a stock 300. What color PC boards? If it's really late, they will be blue. snip No "blue" boards on any...they're all "grey" fiberglas. My 351 has the later gold chasses with "blue" boards, though, making it a late production 351. I went on and on about the 300, but my 351's a pretty competent machine in its own right. At least I can run without all that flutter and screwing around with speed control! I recently got a pair of Inovonics 375s for just about free, and, just as an experiment, used them on the 351 transport. As my other posts suggest, they REALLY suck sonically, but for what particular reason, I'm still not sure. Static R/P distortion measurements are stellar with the linearizer in, but once you put program material through them, things get bad really quickly, especially on hot levels. Cutting the lin circuit out actually makes things even worse! I'm still investigating, but the problem with these seems to be that they use the 748 op-amp, known for its really lousy slew rate. Functionally, they're perfect, but I sure wouldn't want to listen to them for any length of time. Can you bypass the AME curve if you want to? snip Yes. There's a three position EQ switch for low and high NAB, and a single AME position. I understand that there was a factory option on these for IEC EQ in lieu of NAB, but I've never seen one. I used AME on one job for playback, and they were right...it DOES work. More about that later. Of course, as tape improved, the slight benefits of AME disappeared, so having it now is basically a tool to use for tapes cut with it back in the days of Scotch 111...which actually got me a job once! Some folks have added Tentrols to those machines for that reason. You're hip to Tentrols, right? snip I've been told that Tentrol will help the speed drift problem, but won't eliminate it. I've noted that, even with tape at the same relative reel position, speed on the 300 increases proportionately with operating time in a session, as if the rubber gets "grabbier." I know it's not bearings, since I'm pretty meticulous about those. Supposedly, Tentrol will eliminate the tendency to increase speed at different points on the reel, but won't do much to change the "increase with time" problem. Right, the source noise swamps the noise level of the target machine. So, are you saying you found the B-67 sonically pure or just that it didn't seem to add noise. snip Well, the noise issue is obvious; the effective noise floor on the Studer using 499 was a good 15 dB lower referenced to MOL than what I'd measured it to be on the original program on 111, so, in reality, there WAS no additive noise power on the dub, save for a teensy bit at the extreme top end, since the noise spectrum for 111 vis vis 499 shows a bit of a roll-up above 10 KHz. Even though I have pretty darned good ears, I honestly couldn't hear the difference in noise floor. Aside from noise, the dub as recorded on the Studer came off with about the same "signature" as it did on the Ampex; it was clearly the "Ampex sound", and the Studer didn't seem to add anything noticeable in terms of its own artifacts. Mind you, I hit the tape on the Studer probably a little lighter than I could have, my goal being to provide at least a 10 dB spread in noise floor, but keep out of the MOL vicinity as much as possible to keep harmonic distortion at an absolute minimum. This required two runs, since I hadn't hit the 2 track hard enough on the first try, and there was some audibly evident noise addition. I boosted the record power 3 dB on the second run, and it just simply went away and I didn't hear any obvious addition of third harmonic. It worked out fine, and the client was ecstatic. Thus, I'd judge the Studer, in this project, to be pretty sonically "neutral." It was a nice machine! Yes, so long as you're running new tape on it. snip I used 499 for that job, too, and was pleased with the outcome. Whether the ATR-100 or the A-67 were "better" than each other on this very similar job is a matter of extreme nit-picking and conjecture. Again, the primary goal was to maintain a 10 dB difference in noise floor from the originating tape and the dub to prevent generational degradation due to additive noise power, and the ATR-100 did this fine, although I do remember having to hit the tape about 2 dB harder on the Ampex than I did years earlier with that Studer to achieve the same result. It was a lot tougher to use metrics to get answers on this project, since the 3 track had no pad tones at all (!), so I had to guesstimate where the original engineer had set his OPL. I was still happy with the results, but not as happy as I was using the Studer, mainly because I had to completely rely on my ears. I'm an engineering type; I like metrics to back up suppositions, and in this case, I really didn't have any fixed point of reference like I did previously. One interesting facet was that the first job I did had a meticulous log sheet (done at Warner's/Burbank, by the way), and they had used AME EQ, which I had on my 300-3. This other job used NAB, so one could conclude that, back in the 300/111 days, AME WAS a superior choice for providing somewhat better noise floor. I remember I got that first job mainly because my machine was set up for AME; no one else in town had it on a 3 track machine at the time, and operable 3 track machines were as rare as hen's teeth by this time, as they are now. I think they're cheap because they are abundant. Anyone who really wants one can have one. It's screwy to say this, but I think that if Ampex had sold fewer of them, they would be more popular today. snip I agree. 440s were cranked out by the tons in their day, and I believe they outsold 300s and 351s combined by the time they were through. Not sure about that, but I remember "back in the day", 440s were everywhere. What struck me about the 440 from my exposure to them was that they were, for a highly mass produced machine, reliably repeatable in performance. You could walk into a strange room, get on a 440, and know pretty much exactly what you were going to get. Scullys? Hmmmm... MCIs? I didn't have much time on those, but hmmmm again. What's funny is I can buy a complete, operating 440 in either ¼" or ½", any format, for about the price a piece of crap 350 chassis would go for. For some time now, 300/350/351 chasses have been scooped up basically as "effects boxes" for "toob soundz" by the unwashed, thus driving their prices through the roof, and thus making it hard to get really good rebuildable examples. More than once I've located a 30960-various chassis for $300, only to find it was missing a transformer, had be screwed with by someone obviously with no clue and so on, making them basically a lump of parts of questionable worth. If you get a chance, go back to the tech info web page that started this discussion (www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html) and check out the info on the Flux ME heads and RTZ repro amps used in the MM1200s here. We're using the same technology in the 440-2/3/4/8 machine (along with class-A transformerless output and some other mods to the transport and electronics) and the results are (I feel) outstanding. snip Thanks for that tip. I'd like to do a "hot rodded" 440 project myself, since I believe the potential of these machines far outpaces what was available in stock form. I'm constantly doing listening tests. In a shootout between a modded out AG440C configured for 2-track, a Scully 280, Scully 280B, MR70 and ATR102, the modded 440C came the closest to "truth" (input = output). And, it did this in a very musical way. Of course, you might like certain things about the sonic signature of the other machines better, but none of them was as truthful. snip I never liked Scullys, and I just don't know why. It seemed there was a lumped package of artifacts they'd introduce...nothing in particular, but a lot of tiny things...that just didn't sound right to me. I know many monster hits were cut on Scullys, and many people love that sound, but it just doesn't do it for me, especially on critical material. Unfortunately, results with a stock 440B will fall quite far short of what we heard here after taking advantage of the mods and alterations to signal path we did. snip That's why I'd like to mod one myself. I'd hazard to guess that, with these mods, a 440 could give the ATR-100 a run for its money, and that's not bad at all. I'm hoping to do another head-to-head with our modded 440C, ATR102, MR70, Studer A820 and Sony APR5000 (which is supposed to be a sleeper). snip I have an aversion to Sony anything. The Japanese always say, "Sony no breakee!" Oh yeah? Ever try to keep one running?? OK, so how was that for payback? snip More than I bargained for, and good discussion, and thanks! BTW, have you considered joining the Ampex List? I think you'd enjoy it. We have guys on the list that worked for Ampex on the 300-8, the MR70, AG300/350, the 440, the 1100 and the 440C. http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html snip I shall join, although mail lists tend to drive me nuts after awhile, and thanks for the invite. dB |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hi, Scott --
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Steve Puntolillo wrote: Safety tip: Don't try to tell a stock ATR100 owner that its S/N is little if any better than that of a stock 440C. You know, I had the 440B and the ATR-100 sitting next to one another for several years, and sometimes I liked the sound of one and sometimes I liked the sound of the other more. The flutter on the ATR was noticeably lower, though, in spite of a lot of fiddling with the idlers on the 440. Slapping an Ampex servo capstan helps to close the gap considerably. A TS10 constant tension kit (or Inovonics Tentrol) for the supply side doesn't hurt either. Cheers, --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Hi, Scott --
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... DeserTBoB wrote: OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good 440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads. Damned if I know. I recently sold a 440-4 with four-track 1/2" stacks, four-track and half-track 1/4" stacks, and spare parts kits for $350 on Ebay. It wouldn't go over $350. New bearings in the motors, full maintenance log since it was purchased, recent recapping of all the electronics cards, and it went for $350. How did I miss that? Another serious sleeper is the MCI JH-110, which people don't seem to be able to give away. And that is also a very respectable broadcast-grade machine that, like the 440, deserves more respect than it gets. They have a very bad reputation for poor reliability. Did you ever own one? I bought one once from Sony's NYC studios. Before I left, one of the techs whispered to me: "Once you get it running, don't move it." This was a Sony-maintained machine. I brought it home, aligned it, played some tapes on it and within two days it had blown two channels of electronics. I sold it VERY cheap right after that. I'm told that if you hand-resolder every single molex connector (of which there are many) and pull the ICs out of the sockets and solder them in place, these machines will settle down and run reliably. So, apparently they were well-designed. Just not well-executed. They sound OK, no? Cheers, --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hi, Scott --
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Steve Puntolillo wrote: I'm still looking for a Stephens 40-track. Anyone know where I can find one? g No, but I know a couple people who can make 40-track heads that you could put on an existing machine. There are a bunch of guys who used to make those things for logging machines, and it would be a matter of having them make some with wider gaps for 15 ips use. Right now, the head market is dead and there are a lot of head manufacturers still sort of struggling along.... they won't be around too much longer I fear so now is the time to get any custom stuff built. John French tells me the 2" 40-track Stephens heads were murder to make. I guess I could beg Greg Orton of Flux Magnetics to make one for me. Or get John French to get one made by the folks who made them for Stephens. I guess I could run a very well-shielded cable to the second MM1200 to get the 25th-40th tracks to play back. But I think it would be a whole lot simpler and cleaner to just find a Stephens. Cheers, --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hi --
"DeserTBoB" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:02:46 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo" wrote: That machine has AME in it? Wow. This is really an unusual 300. Are the 351 electronics grey chassis or gold chassis? snip The old cadmium washed grey. I've seen a few of the later gold anodized later chassis on 351s, but never on a stock 300. What color PC boards? If it's really late, they will be blue. snip No "blue" boards on any...they're all "grey" fiberglas. The actual Ampex engineers I've spoken to liked those the best. My 351 has the later gold chasses with "blue" boards, though, making it a late production 351. I went on and on about the 300, but my 351's a pretty competent machine in its own right. At least I can run without all that flutter and screwing around with speed control! Right. I recently got a pair of Inovonics 375s for just about free, and, just as an experiment, used them on the 351 transport. As my other posts suggest, they REALLY suck sonically, but for what particular reason, I'm still not sure. I read those posts with interest because I find the subject of phase compensation interesting and those electronics incorporated a phase compensation circuit. Static R/P distortion measurements are stellar with the linearizer in, but once you put program material through them, things get bad really quickly, especially on hot levels. Cutting the lin circuit out actually makes things even worse! I'm still investigating, but the problem with these seems to be that they use the 748 op-amp, known for its really lousy slew rate. Functionally, they're perfect, but I sure wouldn't want to listen to them for any length of time. How about updating the opamps? Can you bypass the AME curve if you want to? snip Yes. There's a three position EQ switch for low and high NAB, and a single AME position. I understand that there was a factory option on these for IEC EQ in lieu of NAB, but I've never seen one. I used AME on one job for playback, and they were right...it DOES work. More about that later. Of course, as tape improved, the slight benefits of AME disappeared, so having it now is basically a tool to use for tapes cut with it back in the days of Scotch 111...which actually got me a job once! I'm hoping that will also work for me on occasion.. Some folks have added Tentrols to those machines for that reason. You're hip to Tentrols, right? snip I've been told that Tentrol will help the speed drift problem, but won't eliminate it. If you put them on supply and takeup, it will *provided* the capstan stays on speed -- which you're about to talk about next. I've noted that, even with tape at the same relative reel position, speed on the 300 increases proportionately with operating time in a session, as if the rubber gets "grabbier." I know it's not bearings, since I'm pretty meticulous about those. Supposedly, Tentrol will eliminate the tendency to increase speed at different points on the reel, but won't do much to change the "increase with time" problem. The Tentrols are no match for an off-speed capstan. In the MR70 restoration, the 300-style capstan was replaced with a direct drive servo capstan. Sure makes my life a lot easier. I wonder if anyone has tried this with a 300. You'd have to be pretty devoted to the machine to go through what that would take to do. If you get a chance, go back to the tech info web page that started this discussion (www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html) and check out the info on the Flux ME heads and RTZ repro amps used in the MM1200s here. We're using the same technology in the 440-2/3/4/8 machine (along with class-A transformerless output and some other mods to the transport and electronics) and the results are (I feel) outstanding. snip Thanks for that tip. I'd like to do a "hot rodded" 440 project myself, since I believe the potential of these machines far outpaces what was available in stock form. I'm constantly doing listening tests. In a shootout between a modded out AG440C configured for 2-track, a Scully 280, Scully 280B, MR70 and ATR102, the modded 440C came the closest to "truth" (input = output). And, it did this in a very musical way. Of course, you might like certain things about the sonic signature of the other machines better, but none of them was as truthful. snip I never liked Scullys, and I just don't know why. It seemed there was a lumped package of artifacts they'd introduce...nothing in particular, but a lot of tiny things...that just didn't sound right to me. I know many monster hits were cut on Scullys, and many people love that sound, but it just doesn't do it for me, especially on critical material. The culprit was probably the linearizer in them. You have to turn that thing off. Then the machine sounds just fine. Having a totally restored one here has allowed me to do some interesting A/B comparisons. I understand why they were popular. (1) They were less expensive than Ampex' machines. (Note that the Scully 284-8 is what killed the Ampex MR70. Who, in those days, would buy a 2-track MR70 when the same amount of money would buy them an 8-track Scully? If what you wanted was business, you "went 8-track" and bought the Scully.) (2) They sounded good to people. Unfortunately, results with a stock 440B will fall quite far short of what we heard here after taking advantage of the mods and alterations to signal path we did. snip That's why I'd like to mod one myself. I'd hazard to guess that, with these mods, a 440 could give the ATR-100 a run for its money, and that's not bad at all. Well, the ATR100 does this cool little twist to the sound that people like. You won't get that, but you can certainly upgrade the performance of the 440 to an astonishing extent. I'm hoping to do another head-to-head with our modded 440C, ATR102, MR70, Studer A820 and Sony APR5000 (which is supposed to be a sleeper). snip I have an aversion to Sony anything. The Japanese always say, "Sony no breakee!" Oh yeah? Ever try to keep one running?? No. And I have a reluctance to use Japanese tape machines in general because of how some of them sound. But, I feel that (as long as the machine is suitable to the task and can be kept operational long-term) I owe it to my clients to leave no stone unturned, so I make an effort to evaluate anything I can -- just in case . . . And, I do this via critical listening tests. I like test gear, but I don't trust it to tell me the whole story. Your Inovonics electronics are a perfect example of this -- measure great, sound awful. BTW, have you considered joining the Ampex List? I think you'd enjoy it. We have guys on the list that worked for Ampex on the 300-8, the MR70, AG300/350, the 440, the 1100 and the 440C. http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html snip I shall join, although mail lists tend to drive me nuts after awhile, and thanks for the invite. See you there! Cheers, --Steve ================================================= Steve Puntolillo Sonicraft A2DX Lab Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx ================================================= |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Puntolillo wrote:
John French tells me the 2" 40-track Stephens heads were murder to make. I guess I could beg Greg Orton of Flux Magnetics to make one for me. Or get John French to get one made by the folks who made them for Stephens. I guess I could run a very well-shielded cable to the second MM1200 to get the 25th-40th tracks to play back. Maybe, but I was thinking about talking to guys like Lipps, Data Recording Products, or Brush, all of which made the narrowtrack heads for logging recorders and which might have the correct laminations around and wouldn't have to make them. I know Lipps and Brush are still around, although I have not talked to DRP for a couple years and they may have gone the way of the rest of the industry. But I think it would be a whole lot simpler and cleaner to just find a Stephens. I know someone who has a 24-track Stephens that he might be selling, but the 40-track heads... there weren't many of them made. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: Reasonable - NOS Scully parts | Marketplace | |||
FS Scully power supplies and parts | Pro Audio | |||
FS Scully power supplies and parts | Pro Audio | |||
FS Scully power supplies and parts | Marketplace | |||
Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions |