Ampex 1100 found a craigslist

[David Gravereaux]

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/msg/1353309782.html

asking is too high, but pretty cool to see one.
--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqdbpYACgkQlZadkQh/RmFmxwCgulgeSeCAZSUUztBXR4Xhfi6+
Wq8AoMX1/YFW7DZwr8zAfMFW93ROrxRS
=mmCw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Frank Stearns]

David Gravereaux > writes:

>This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
>--------------enig9B331825741F125023B4ECEC
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/msg/1353309782.html

>asking is too high, but pretty cool to see one.
>--=20

Been a loooong time and those who are more current can tell any would-be buyer the
full scoop, but wasn't the 1100 plagued with problems -- so much so that the 1200
came out not all that much later? (And then I seem to recall some serious factory
mods to the 1200 as well... Seems like the older 1000 was a more bullet-proof
machine, though somewhat more crud in some ways...)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 1, 9:39 pm, Frank Stearns >
wrote:

> wasn't the 1100 plagued with problems -- so much so that the 1200
> came out not all that much later? (And then I seem to recall some serious factory
> mods to the 1200 as well...

There were a lot of modifications, both factory and field, with both
models, but in the mid-1970s, studios (who were the only ones who
bought these things) had real engineers and technicians on staff and
modifications were just one of the things you did to make your studio
better than the guy's down the street. And most of the mods that
worked well were freely shared. It's something that you can't do with
your ProTools system. <g>

The two main problems with the MM1100 were with tension control and
the Molex connectors that were used all over the chassis. Some
extremists replaced the plastic-and-tin connectors with MS connectors,
but most just knew where to spray the Cramolin. Same for the record-
ready switches. The tension control manifests itself in variation in
absolute speed from the beginning to the end of the reel, so it was
often impossible to splice together two takes, one from near the top
of the reel and the other from near the tail. The 1200 had a different
tension control card, and a pretty common "mod" was to install this
card in an 1100. There was also an aftermarket tension modification.

The 1200 had a different record switch arrangement that provided auto
monitor switching for punch-ins. There was a common mod for the 1100
that implemented this. but the 1200 switches were more reliable and
used LED indicators instead of hard-to-find incandescent bulbs. The
1200 had a digital position counter with a search-to-cue as compared
to the mechanical counter on the 1100, but the 1200 search-to-cue was
a common update for the 1100.

The MM-1000 was a different beast entirely, and quite a kludge, but a
real thing of beauty. Of the lot, overall, I think the 1200 is the
more desirable machine, but for someone who wants to use an analog
tape deck as a signal processor, an MM-1100 at scrap metal price is a
great deal. At a boutique price, it's a bad deal for any application.

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>Been a loooong time and those who are more current can tell any would-be buyer the
>full scoop, but wasn't the 1100 plagued with problems -- so much so that the 1200
>came out not all that much later? (And then I seem to recall some serious factory
>mods to the 1200 as well... Seems like the older 1000 was a more bullet-proof
>machine, though somewhat more crud in some ways...)

The MM-1100 and MM-1200 electronics are very similar, and there are a whole
lot of ECOs and refinements to the MM-1100 that brought it up to specs. None
of these machines are bad, really. They were all built very solidly, are
very reliable and easy to work on, and like most other tape machinese these
days they are worth whatever the heads are worth. The MM-1200 is the best
of the set, but most of the bugs have been worked out of the MM-1100 these
days. It's not like an Aces or something horrible, although I might pay a
little more for the MM-1200.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> There were a lot of modifications, both factory and field, with both
> models, but in the mid-1970s, studios (who were the only ones who
> bought these things) had real engineers and technicians on staff and
> modifications were just one of the things you did to make your studio
> better than the guy's down the street. And most of the mods that
> worked well were freely shared. It's something that you can't do with
> your ProTools system. <g>

Not at all. Ever heard of open-source and freeware software?
There is much more free exchange now than "back in the day".

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 2, 10:25 am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> Not at all. Ever heard of open-source and freeware software?
> There is much more free exchange now than "back in the day".

Open source versions of ProTools that have been modified? I'm sure
Digidesign hopes not. If you're referring to free plug-ins, that's not
really comparable to modifying hardware, it's more like buying a new
signal processor for the rack.

There are open source DAWs, but they're not really used by the
majority of the working stiffs. If you buy a Harrison system, you'll
get plenty of open source Linux software that Harrison supports. And
if you download that awkward do-everything Linux DAW whose name I've
banished from my memory, you can modify it any way you want. But
ProTools, or a popular WORKING tool, it ain't.

It would be interesting to compare the number of working Ardour
systems that are actually doing productive work today with the number
of MM-1100s and MM-1200s actually doing productive work in their day.
And also, comparing the income produced by each.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>The two main problems with the MM1100 were with tension control and
>the Molex connectors that were used all over the chassis. Some
>extremists replaced the plastic-and-tin connectors with MS connectors,
>but most just knew where to spray the Cramolin. Same for the record-
>ready switches. The tension control manifests itself in variation in
>absolute speed from the beginning to the end of the reel, so it was
>often impossible to splice together two takes, one from near the top
>of the reel and the other from near the tail. The 1200 had a different
>tension control card, and a pretty common "mod" was to install this
>card in an 1100. There was also an aftermarket tension modification.

The Molex connector problems have to be fixed before they occur, if
possible. The GOOD way of doing it is to replace all of the connectors
with the Molex replacements that have silver-plated contacts. These
don't fail. The CHEESY way of doing it is to pack all the connectors
with dielectric grease from the auto parts store.

Unlike the MCI machines, the only issues with the Molex connectors were
the contacts. You don't have to resolder the things to prevent cracking
the way you do with the MCIs.
>
>The MM-1000 was a different beast entirely, and quite a kludge, but a
>real thing of beauty. Of the lot, overall, I think the 1200 is the
>more desirable machine, but for someone who wants to use an analog
>tape deck as a signal processor, an MM-1100 at scrap metal price is a
>great deal. At a boutique price, it's a bad deal for any application.

The MM-1000 is actually a great-sounding machine... the 440 electronics
are bulky but really very clean sounding. Won't handle elevated levels
but that's fine. The problem is that it's as big as a house and most
folks don't have seperate machine rooms with machine operators on duty
any more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

-snips-

>The MM-1000 is actually a great-sounding machine... the 440 electronics
>are bulky but really very clean sounding. Won't handle elevated levels
>but that's fine. The problem is that it's as big as a house and most

And nearly as heavy.

I remember running a simple distortion test with a HP oscillator and HP distortion
analyzer on the MM1000-8 and MM1200-16 I used way back when.

At +3 operating level (260 nW? Can't remember the exact relationship) on Ampex 456,
the MM1200 barely met spec at 1.0% distorsion on most channels. I seem to recall a
few got down to 0.9% or so.

The MM1000, worst case, was 0.5%, and few channels got down to 0.35% or so. It was a
fine sounding machine. The 1200 was good, but there was magic in that 1000.

(Kinda funny now to think of distortion at that order of magnitude when some folks
these days are bitching about op amps and ADCs down around 0.001% or so; and then
they want to route their audio though a tape-based "fx box".)

That particular 1200 was a problem child from the get-go. At times is had serious
flutter out of nowhere that would then go away. Using search-to-cue would blow one
or the other MDA transistors the moment the cue point was found, and often the
companion zener went with it. (During one session I was stealing transistors from
non-critical power amps just to keep the damn thing running, after the tape op
disregarded the "DON'T USE" label on the search button.)

Can't remember if Ampex finally sent a mod'd MDA or what... I knew they were tired
of hearing from us. :)

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 3, 5:30 pm, Frank Stearns >
wrote:

> I remember running a simple distortion test with a HP oscillator and HP distortion
> analyzer on the MM1000-8 and MM1200-16 I used way back when.
>
> At +3 operating level (260 nW? Can't remember the exact relationship) on Ampex 456,
> the MM1200 barely met spec at 1.0% distorsion on most channels. I seem to recall a
> few got down to 0.9% or so.
>
> The MM1000, worst case, was 0.5%, and few channels got down to 0.35% or so. It was a
> fine sounding machine. The 1200 was good, but there was magic in that 1000.

That's really a trivial difference in the distortion measurements, and
I suppose it's what people like about that warm analog tape sound. I
can't remember if the MM-1000 used the same heads as the 1100/1200. I
think it might have, which may account for a little difference in
sound. But they all use the same AG-440 cards, only the packaging and
switching are different. And of course the transport. The MM-1000 used
a modified VR-1000 transport, but the transport design of the MM-1100
was completely new.

> (Kinda funny now to think of distortion at that order of magnitude when some folks
> these days are bitching about op amps and ADCs down around 0.001%

That's a different kind of distortion, and much smaller numerical
levels are audible and can be objectionable.

[Tobiah]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:57:16 -0700, David Gravereaux wrote:

> http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/msg/1353309782.html
>
> asking is too high, but pretty cool to see one.

Must have been glorious in its day, but I wouldn't
take it as a gift now except with the hope of reselling
it.

Did this thing have 24 separate inputs?

[Mike Rivers]

Tobiah wrote:

> Did this thing have 24 separate inputs?

Yes, and 24 separate outputs, and true zero latency monitoring.
No built-in mixer or plug-in processing though.

[Scott Dorsey]

Tobiah > wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:57:16 -0700, David Gravereaux wrote:
>
>> http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/msg/1353309782.html
>>
>> asking is too high, but pretty cool to see one.
>
>Must have been glorious in its day, but I wouldn't
>take it as a gift now except with the hope of reselling
>it.

It's still a fine-sounding machine and it's still billable.

>Did this thing have 24 separate inputs?

If it is a 24-track model. These machines could be ordered as 16 or 24
track models with different track widths. Most folks took the 24 track
option in spite of the poorer S/N.

I think there was also a 1" 8-track version available, like there was for
the MM-1200, but they weren't so popular.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."