Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
My client looking for Ampex 300/350/351 series 4 tk...anyone? anyone?Gotta be one out there someplace...
-- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article et,
Stephen Anderson wrote: For rental or sale? I think there were a few 350-series 4-tracks made. The guys on the Ampex list will know who currently owns all of the remaining ones, if there are any. The 300 transport would be no fun with 1/2" tape. The thing is that 4-track was a popular format only for a very short period of time. When 8-track came along, most of the 4-track machines were converted down to 2-track mixdown decks. The 4-track 1/2" machines that turn up today are mostly later machines used in the video industry. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article et,
Stephen Anderson wrote: For rental or sale? I think there were a few 350-series 4-tracks made. The guys on the Ampex list will know who currently owns all of the remaining ones, if there are any. The 300 transport would be no fun with 1/2" tape. The thing is that 4-track was a popular format only for a very short period of time. When 8-track came along, most of the 4-track machines were converted down to 2-track mixdown decks. The 4-track 1/2" machines that turn up today are mostly later machines used in the video industry. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a
440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. Scott Dorsey wrote: In article et, Stephen Anderson wrote: For rental or sale? I think there were a few 350-series 4-tracks made. The guys on the Ampex list will know who currently owns all of the remaining ones, if there are any. The 300 transport would be no fun with 1/2" tape. The thing is that 4-track was a popular format only for a very short period of time. When 8-track came along, most of the 4-track machines were converted down to 2-track mixdown decks. The 4-track 1/2" machines that turn up today are mostly later machines used in the video industry. --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a
440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. Scott Dorsey wrote: In article et, Stephen Anderson wrote: For rental or sale? I think there were a few 350-series 4-tracks made. The guys on the Ampex list will know who currently owns all of the remaining ones, if there are any. The 300 transport would be no fun with 1/2" tape. The thing is that 4-track was a popular format only for a very short period of time. When 8-track came along, most of the 4-track machines were converted down to 2-track mixdown decks. The 4-track 1/2" machines that turn up today are mostly later machines used in the video industry. --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Anderson wrote:
I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a 440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. 440C with 351 electronics is going to require custom heads and a custom cable assembly. Or step-up transformers mounted behind the electronics units in order to deal with the low-Z heads. Playback would not be too hard but record is going to be a problem. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Anderson wrote:
I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a 440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. 440C with 351 electronics is going to require custom heads and a custom cable assembly. Or step-up transformers mounted behind the electronics units in order to deal with the low-Z heads. Playback would not be too hard but record is going to be a problem. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to
match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. Scott Dorsey wrote: Stephen Anderson wrote: I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a 440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. 440C with 351 electronics is going to require custom heads and a custom cable assembly. Or step-up transformers mounted behind the electronics units in order to deal with the low-Z heads. Playback would not be too hard but record is going to be a problem. --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to
match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. Scott Dorsey wrote: Stephen Anderson wrote: I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a 440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. 440C with 351 electronics is going to require custom heads and a custom cable assembly. Or step-up transformers mounted behind the electronics units in order to deal with the low-Z heads. Playback would not be too hard but record is going to be a problem. --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, there is SOME sort of 350-class 4-track on Ebay right now. The Ampex
mailing list guys are mostly laughing at it but it may be worth looking for. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, there is SOME sort of 350-class 4-track on Ebay right now. The Ampex
mailing list guys are mostly laughing at it but it may be worth looking for. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Anderson wrote: I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a 440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. Ho ho ho. A tube nut eh ? When I worked on 350/351s we considered modding them to solid state ! Graham |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Anderson wrote: I completely agree, that's why I'm trying to talk him into either a 440-4, or a 440C transport with 351 electronics. Ho ho ho. A tube nut eh ? When I worked on 350/351s we considered modding them to solid state ! Graham |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. --scott Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? Graham |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. --scott Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? Graham |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
And an ATR with my friend Dave Hill's Electronics, like Mike Spitz
sells, is pretty stellar as well, but this client wants the tube thing. He's got a zillion input SSL, ProTools HD rig, tons of old analog processors, and I just did a bunch of work on his MM1200, including making it 16 tk, and connecting it to a Lynx synchronizer as well as to SSL machine control. But now he wants some tubes to record through as well. Keeps me busy! And yes, the idea of an ATR transport with the tube electronics is a good one as well. Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
And an ATR with my friend Dave Hill's Electronics, like Mike Spitz
sells, is pretty stellar as well, but this client wants the tube thing. He's got a zillion input SSL, ProTools HD rig, tons of old analog processors, and I just did a bunch of work on his MM1200, including making it 16 tk, and connecting it to a Lynx synchronizer as well as to SSL machine control. But now he wants some tubes to record through as well. Keeps me busy! And yes, the idea of an ATR transport with the tube electronics is a good one as well. Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
When I worked on 350/351s we considered modding them to solid state ! A lot of folks did this, and it seemed like a good idea at the time. The Inovonics electronics, which seemed so wonderful and quiet, actually sound really godawful in retrospect. Surprisingly the Ampex AG-350 electronics, which were the first solid state electronics Ampex came up with, actually sound pretty good. Dropping the AG electronics into a 350 was actually not such a bad thing (although you had to change the heads). The problem is that a lot of the multitrack 350-class machines were built with the 354 electronics. And while the 351 electronics actually sound great (if you don't use the mike preamps and you are very careful about setting the bias oscillator up for lowest second harmonic), the 354 electronics are really flaky. The 354 packages save a huge amount of rack space, though, which was a plus at the time (especially with four channels). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
When I worked on 350/351s we considered modding them to solid state ! A lot of folks did this, and it seemed like a good idea at the time. The Inovonics electronics, which seemed so wonderful and quiet, actually sound really godawful in retrospect. Surprisingly the Ampex AG-350 electronics, which were the first solid state electronics Ampex came up with, actually sound pretty good. Dropping the AG electronics into a 350 was actually not such a bad thing (although you had to change the heads). The problem is that a lot of the multitrack 350-class machines were built with the 354 electronics. And while the 351 electronics actually sound great (if you don't use the mike preamps and you are very careful about setting the bias oscillator up for lowest second harmonic), the 354 electronics are really flaky. The 354 packages save a huge amount of rack space, though, which was a plus at the time (especially with four channels). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Nowhere near low enough capacitance. The original cable is basically an air dielectric thing. It's really scary to look at... huge cable with hair-fine center conductor. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! No, he's talking about dropping 350 electronics packages onto a 440 transport, so as to get low scrape flutter and the tube electronics. It might not be a bad configuration, but it sure isn't a standard one, and it sure isn't going to be cheap to set up. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? I wouldn't call the ATR-100 clean. The fact that there's such a significant difference between using the unbalanced output before the I/O modules and using the balanced output from the I/O modules is worrisome enough. The ATR-100 has really the best transport I have ever used, but the electronics aren't any better than just "very good" to my mind. This is part of why there is such an aftermarket of electronics packages for them, like the Steelhead and the units that Crane Song builds for ATR Services. And doesn't Millennia also make a playback-only package that will work on them? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Nowhere near low enough capacitance. The original cable is basically an air dielectric thing. It's really scary to look at... huge cable with hair-fine center conductor. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! No, he's talking about dropping 350 electronics packages onto a 440 transport, so as to get low scrape flutter and the tube electronics. It might not be a bad configuration, but it sure isn't a standard one, and it sure isn't going to be cheap to set up. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? I wouldn't call the ATR-100 clean. The fact that there's such a significant difference between using the unbalanced output before the I/O modules and using the balanced output from the I/O modules is worrisome enough. The ATR-100 has really the best transport I have ever used, but the electronics aren't any better than just "very good" to my mind. This is part of why there is such an aftermarket of electronics packages for them, like the Steelhead and the units that Crane Song builds for ATR Services. And doesn't Millennia also make a playback-only package that will work on them? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Anderson wrote:
And an ATR with my friend Dave Hill's Electronics, like Mike Spitz sells, is pretty stellar as well, but this client wants the tube thing. He's got a zillion input SSL, ProTools HD rig, tons of old analog processors, and I just did a bunch of work on his MM1200, including making it 16 tk, and connecting it to a Lynx synchronizer as well as to SSL machine control. But now he wants some tubes to record through as well. Keeps me busy! Get him a stock 2-track 350 for a while and see how he likes it. They are nice sounding machines in spite of the transport issues. If he wants more channels, you can make him up a custom rig. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Anderson wrote:
And an ATR with my friend Dave Hill's Electronics, like Mike Spitz sells, is pretty stellar as well, but this client wants the tube thing. He's got a zillion input SSL, ProTools HD rig, tons of old analog processors, and I just did a bunch of work on his MM1200, including making it 16 tk, and connecting it to a Lynx synchronizer as well as to SSL machine control. But now he wants some tubes to record through as well. Keeps me busy! Get him a stock 2-track 350 for a while and see how he likes it. They are nice sounding machines in spite of the transport issues. If he wants more channels, you can make him up a custom rig. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ditto Scott on the 350's
Those were the first machines I worked with (we had three at the radio station where I started. I have two of the mono ones. On 18 Nov 2004 09:34:59 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Stephen Anderson wrote: And an ATR with my friend Dave Hill's Electronics, like Mike Spitz sells, is pretty stellar as well, but this client wants the tube thing. He's got a zillion input SSL, ProTools HD rig, tons of old analog processors, and I just did a bunch of work on his MM1200, including making it 16 tk, and connecting it to a Lynx synchronizer as well as to SSL machine control. But now he wants some tubes to record through as well. Keeps me busy! Get him a stock 2-track 350 for a while and see how he likes it. They are nice sounding machines in spite of the transport issues. If he wants more channels, you can make him up a custom rig. --scott Mike Cleaver Broadcast Services Voice-overs, Newscaster, Engineering and Consulting Vancouver, BC, Canada |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Nowhere near low enough capacitance. The original cable is basically an air dielectric thing. It's really scary to look at... huge cable with hair-fine center conductor. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! No, he's talking about dropping 350 electronics packages onto a 440 transport, so as to get low scrape flutter and the tube electronics. It might not be a bad configuration, but it sure isn't a standard one, and it sure isn't going to be cheap to set up. I was pulling your leg - as in the motor servo doesn't use toobs. Thefore it can't sound as good. ;-) It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? I wouldn't call the ATR-100 clean. The fact that there's such a significant difference between using the unbalanced output before the I/O modules and using the balanced output from the I/O modules is worrisome enough. The ATR-100 has really the best transport I have ever used, but the electronics aren't any better than just "very good" to my mind. This is part of why there is such an aftermarket of electronics packages for them, like the Steelhead and the units that Crane Song builds for ATR Services. And doesn't Millennia also make a playback-only package that will work on them? --scott Agreed about the transport. Funny how they didn't get better out of the audio electronics. I seem to recall being unimpressed in that respect by Otari too. Graham |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Nowhere near low enough capacitance. The original cable is basically an air dielectric thing. It's really scary to look at... huge cable with hair-fine center conductor. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! No, he's talking about dropping 350 electronics packages onto a 440 transport, so as to get low scrape flutter and the tube electronics. It might not be a bad configuration, but it sure isn't a standard one, and it sure isn't going to be cheap to set up. I was pulling your leg - as in the motor servo doesn't use toobs. Thefore it can't sound as good. ;-) It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? I wouldn't call the ATR-100 clean. The fact that there's such a significant difference between using the unbalanced output before the I/O modules and using the balanced output from the I/O modules is worrisome enough. The ATR-100 has really the best transport I have ever used, but the electronics aren't any better than just "very good" to my mind. This is part of why there is such an aftermarket of electronics packages for them, like the Steelhead and the units that Crane Song builds for ATR Services. And doesn't Millennia also make a playback-only package that will work on them? --scott Agreed about the transport. Funny how they didn't get better out of the audio electronics. I seem to recall being unimpressed in that respect by Otari too. Graham |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Regarding that pesky Ampex cable, Studer finally solved that issue with
the head preamps on the 800. Now, the unbuffered [playback signal only had to go a few inches to be buffered, thus enabling longer cables to the actual electronics. While the ATR is a wonderful transport, there is a certain aesthetic about the older, more conventional transports that many people today find "charming." Right now my guy is looking at the 4 tk on eBay, so we'll see... Scott Dorsey wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Nowhere near low enough capacitance. The original cable is basically an air dielectric thing. It's really scary to look at... huge cable with hair-fine center conductor. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! No, he's talking about dropping 350 electronics packages onto a 440 transport, so as to get low scrape flutter and the tube electronics. It might not be a bad configuration, but it sure isn't a standard one, and it sure isn't going to be cheap to set up. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? I wouldn't call the ATR-100 clean. The fact that there's such a significant difference between using the unbalanced output before the I/O modules and using the balanced output from the I/O modules is worrisome enough. The ATR-100 has really the best transport I have ever used, but the electronics aren't any better than just "very good" to my mind. This is part of why there is such an aftermarket of electronics packages for them, like the Steelhead and the units that Crane Song builds for ATR Services. And doesn't Millennia also make a playback-only package that will work on them? --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Regarding that pesky Ampex cable, Studer finally solved that issue with
the head preamps on the 800. Now, the unbuffered [playback signal only had to go a few inches to be buffered, thus enabling longer cables to the actual electronics. While the ATR is a wonderful transport, there is a certain aesthetic about the older, more conventional transports that many people today find "charming." Right now my guy is looking at the 4 tk on eBay, so we'll see... Scott Dorsey wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: In article k.net, Stephen Anderson wrote: Flux Magnetics can make heads with the much higher inductance needed to match the tube electronics. Assuming I can get original cables, which are (sadly) pretty critical for 351 operation, then I just might have to change connectors at the head end. Oh, you can make up cables. Tektronix scope probe cable has capacitance that is low enough for the job, I bet. And the original stuff for the 350 (I want to say RG-416?) is still available although it isn't cheap. I'm thinking low capacitance miniature video cable. It does exist. Dunno any RG number for it though. Nowhere near low enough capacitance. The original cable is basically an air dielectric thing. It's really scary to look at... huge cable with hair-fine center conductor. Flux Magnetics should have no problem making up the heads.... it's just that they're going to charge you an outrageous amount for them. Contrast this with ATR-104 heads, which you can probably pick up used for under a hundred bucks each. My feeling is that the heads will cost you enough that you could have just bought an ATR-104 flat and been done with it. The 440C would be my favorite candidate for a transport because of the DC capstan motor, thus enabling synchronization and possibly even locating with a synchronizer. But it's not driven by *toobs* ! Therefore *can't* sound the same. It's a well known fact ! No, he's talking about dropping 350 electronics packages onto a 440 transport, so as to get low scrape flutter and the tube electronics. It might not be a bad configuration, but it sure isn't a standard one, and it sure isn't going to be cheap to set up. It's clean, but again if you're going to go that far, you might as well just go all the way to the ATR-100 transport. Hey... How about an ATR-104 with the Manley Steelhead tube playback electronics? Those will beat the 350 electronics hands down. Play only, though. Heck, why not just a stock ATR 100 series ? Too clean maybe ? I wouldn't call the ATR-100 clean. The fact that there's such a significant difference between using the unbalanced output before the I/O modules and using the balanced output from the I/O modules is worrisome enough. The ATR-100 has really the best transport I have ever used, but the electronics aren't any better than just "very good" to my mind. This is part of why there is such an aftermarket of electronics packages for them, like the Steelhead and the units that Crane Song builds for ATR Services. And doesn't Millennia also make a playback-only package that will work on them? --scott -- Stephen Anderson ~At the end of the day, it's all about the music |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
I was pulling your leg - as in the motor servo doesn't use toobs. Thefore it can't sound as good. ;-) Hey, I had a Fairchild turntable that way! Well, it wasn't a real servo, just a relaxation oscillator made with a pair of 6L6es that drove the motor, for very precise speed control. Well, not really all that precise, but sort of precise. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
I was pulling your leg - as in the motor servo doesn't use toobs. Thefore it can't sound as good. ;-) Hey, I had a Fairchild turntable that way! Well, it wasn't a real servo, just a relaxation oscillator made with a pair of 6L6es that drove the motor, for very precise speed control. Well, not really all that precise, but sort of precise. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: I was pulling your leg - as in the motor servo doesn't use toobs. Thefore it can't sound as good. ;-) Hey, I had a Fairchild turntable that way! Well, it wasn't a real servo, just a relaxation oscillator made with a pair of 6L6es that drove the motor, for very precise speed control. Well, not really all that precise, but sort of precise. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Pas très précis! |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: I was pulling your leg - as in the motor servo doesn't use toobs. Thefore it can't sound as good. ;-) Hey, I had a Fairchild turntable that way! Well, it wasn't a real servo, just a relaxation oscillator made with a pair of 6L6es that drove the motor, for very precise speed control. Well, not really all that precise, but sort of precise. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Pas très précis! |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Orban wrote:
I have a 4-track 1/2" Ampex AG-300 in my basement, which was a stock Ampex model using the 300 transport and solid state electronics. It still works, more or less, although it needs a tune-up and some lubrication. I admit that I have not measured flutter or speed stability on it. But tape-to-head contact seems fine (based on reproduction of 15 kHz alignment tapes). My worry would indeed be flutter, mostly from the indirect drive but also scrape flutter. It gets worse when the rubber surface on the transfer wheel thing goes.... you can replace or recap the pinch roller but the big wheel is a problem. Words can't express how much time I have wasted trying to get flutter on those transports down to something reasonable, and using reels that are twice as heavy doesn't seem like a way to reduce flutter (although you do get twice the contact area on the capstan). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |