Found some old tapes

[david gourley[_5_]]

As I began with my quote request to Sonicraft (thanks Scott Dorsey for the
referral here), I just discovered some tape reels from around 1962-1963 in
my mom's home office. They were all recorded on the same Webcor model
(maybe a Regent). They've never been in a shed or garage, usually in a
dark, lower bookshelf corner and home environment.


They are all acetate as it turns out.


Ampex / Irish 311 (1) 7" reel & (1) 5" reel


Ampex 611 (1) 7" reel


Scotch 111 (1) 7" reel


I've read some good things about Scotch 111, but don't know how the Ampex
compares.

I suspect that are some great family memories there that are worth the
recovery effort. It was certainly very fascinating to me at the time and
fueled my life-long interest in recording, audio, and electronics.

For my own edification, what's the generally prescribed handling for
acetates? The potential good news is that at least visually, they're in
great condition having been relatively undisturbed for about 50years. I'd
still not use that as an excuse to just play them. I'd like to know more
about that process. If this is largely covered in the FAQ I just need a
refersher on the link.

Thanks for any info,
david

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

david gourley > wrote:
> As I began with my quote request to Sonicraft (thanks Scott Dorsey for
> the referral here), I just discovered some tape reels from around
> 1962-1963 in my mom's home office. They were all recorded on the same
> Webcor model (maybe a Regent). They've never been in a shed or garage,
> usually in a dark, lower bookshelf corner and home environment.
>
> They are all acetate as it turns out.
>
> Ampex / Irish 311 (1) 7" reel & (1) 5" reel
>
> Ampex 611 (1) 7" reel
>
> Scotch 111 (1) 7" reel
>
> I've read some good things about Scotch 111, but don't know how the Ampex
> compares.
>
> I suspect that are some great family memories there that are worth the
> recovery effort. It was certainly very fascinating to me at the time and
> fueled my life-long interest in recording, audio, and electronics.
>
> For my own edification, what's the generally prescribed handling for
> acetates? The potential good news is that at least visually, they're in
> great condition having been relatively undisturbed for about 50years.
> I'd still not use that as an excuse to just play them. I'd like to know
> more about that process. If this is largely covered in the FAQ I just
> need a refersher on the link.
>
> Thanks for any info,
> david

Play 'em! I have Scotch 111 tapes from the '50s and '60s. They've been
stored on a high shelf next to a fireplace. They are in better shape than
the later Ampex 406 reels because they don't have a backing that turns into
gum. I always preferred acetate to mylar because it would simply break and
could be spliced back together. The mylar tapes would stretch and become
unsalvageable.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[mcp6453[_2_]]

Dave:

Please send me an email. I can't unmunge your email address.

mcp

On 5/13/2014 11:41 AM, david gourley wrote:
> As I began with my quote request to Sonicraft (thanks Scott Dorsey for the
> referral here), I just discovered some tape reels from around 1962-1963 in
> my mom's home office. They were all recorded on the same Webcor model
> (maybe a Regent). They've never been in a shed or garage, usually in a
> dark, lower bookshelf corner and home environment.
>
>
> They are all acetate as it turns out.
>
>
> Ampex / Irish 311 (1) 7" reel & (1) 5" reel
>
>
> Ampex 611 (1) 7" reel
>
>
> Scotch 111 (1) 7" reel
>
>
> I've read some good things about Scotch 111, but don't know how the Ampex
> compares.
>
> I suspect that are some great family memories there that are worth the
> recovery effort. It was certainly very fascinating to me at the time and
> fueled my life-long interest in recording, audio, and electronics.
>
> For my own edification, what's the generally prescribed handling for
> acetates? The potential good news is that at least visually, they're in
> great condition having been relatively undisturbed for about 50years. I'd
> still not use that as an excuse to just play them. I'd like to know more
> about that process. If this is largely covered in the FAQ I just need a
> refersher on the link.
>
> Thanks for any info,
> david
>

[david gourley[_2_]]

Roy W. Rising >
:

> david gourley > wrote:
>> As I began with my quote request to Sonicraft (thanks Scott Dorsey for
>> the referral here), I just discovered some tape reels from around
>> 1962-1963 in my mom's home office. They were all recorded on the same
>> Webcor model (maybe a Regent). They've never been in a shed or garage,
>> usually in a dark, lower bookshelf corner and home environment.
>>
>> They are all acetate as it turns out.
>>
>> Ampex / Irish 311 (1) 7" reel & (1) 5" reel
>>
>> Ampex 611 (1) 7" reel
>>
>> Scotch 111 (1) 7" reel
>>
>> I've read some good things about Scotch 111, but don't know how the
Ampex
>> compares.
>>
>> I suspect that are some great family memories there that are worth the
>> recovery effort. It was certainly very fascinating to me at the time
and
>> fueled my life-long interest in recording, audio, and electronics.
>>
>> For my own edification, what's the generally prescribed handling for
>> acetates? The potential good news is that at least visually, they're in
>> great condition having been relatively undisturbed for about 50years.
>> I'd still not use that as an excuse to just play them. I'd like to know
>> more about that process. If this is largely covered in the FAQ I just
>> need a refersher on the link.
>>
>> Thanks for any info,
>> david
>
> Play 'em! I have Scotch 111 tapes from the '50s and '60s. They've been
> stored on a high shelf next to a fireplace. They are in better shape
than
> the later Ampex 406 reels because they don't have a backing that turns
into
> gum. I always preferred acetate to mylar because it would simply break
and
> could be spliced back together. The mylar tapes would stretch and become
> unsalvageable.
>

Thanks, I forgot to mention that they're all mono with no splices. There's
no vinegar smell, either so I'll retrive them soon on my next visit.

david

[david gourley[_2_]]

mcp6453 > said...news:NuudnS_liIF6X-
:

> Dave:
>
> Please send me an email. I can't unmunge your email address.
>
> mcp

You've got mail
david

[Inyo]

"david gourley" > wrote in message
...

> As I began with my quote request to Sonicraft (thanks Scott Dorsey for the
> referral here), I just discovered some tape reels from around 1962-1963 in
> my mom's home office. They were all recorded on the same Webcor model
> (maybe a Regent). They've never been in a shed or garage, usually in a
> dark, lower bookshelf corner and home environment.
> They are all acetate as it turns out.
> Scotch 111 (1) 7" reel
> I've read some good things about Scotch 111, but don't know how the Ampex
> compares.
> I suspect that are some great family memories there that are worth the
> recovery effort.

As a youngster, my earliest recordings on the guitar (and ukulele, and even
banjo--OK, chortle if one must at this point) happened with a Webcor reel to
reel during occasional, impromptu musical sessions with my parents. Years
later, before the easy availability of home computers and digital audio, I
was able to recover all the music off of both acetate tapes (Scotch) by
re-recording them using a Teac reel to reel (by that time, the Webcor had
ceased to function, unfortunately), then transferring the results to
cassette tape--although, in retrospect I did manage to turn this into a much
more complicated dubbing process than was necessary. But the end result
pretty much speaks for itself--personally priceless early recordings with my
parents preserved for family posterity, particularly after I finally
digitally re-mastered the tapes a few years ago.

http://inyo.coffeecup.com/site/acoustic/allinyoallthetime.html
Links to all of my acoustic 6 and 12-string guitar playing available on the
Net.

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>Play 'em! I have Scotch 111 tapes from the '50s and '60s. They've been
>stored on a high shelf next to a fireplace. They are in better shape than
>the later Ampex 406 reels because they don't have a backing that turns into
>gum. I always preferred acetate to mylar because it would simply break and
>could be spliced back together. The mylar tapes would stretch and become
>unsalvageable.

And I didn't like the acetate because it broke too easily! To each his own.

Anyway, I agree with Roy... take the tapes. If they don't smell like vinegar,
if they aren't visibly curled, and if the beginning of the tape unrolls easily
by hand without the layers sticking together, then put them on a tape machine
and play them. I suggest a machine that is gentle on tape rather than a 440
or something. You may find they are half-track, you may find they are quarter
track, you may find they are at crazy low speeds or varying speeds. Give them
a listen!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Roy W. Rising > wrote:

>> Play 'em! I have Scotch 111 tapes from the '50s and '60s. They've
>> been stored on a high shelf next to a fireplace. They are in better
>> shape than the later Ampex 406 reels because they don't have a
>> backing that turns into gum. I always preferred acetate to mylar
>> because it would simply break and could be spliced back together.
>> The mylar tapes would stretch and become unsalvageable.

> And I didn't like the acetate because it broke too easily! To each
> his own.

> Anyway, I agree with Roy... take the tapes. If they don't smell like
> vinegar, if they aren't visibly curled, and if the beginning of the
> tape unrolls easily by hand without the layers sticking together,
> then put them on a tape machine and play them. I suggest a machine
> that is gentle on tape rather than a 440 or something. You may find
> they are half-track, you may find they are quarter track, you may
> find they are at crazy low speeds or varying speeds. Give them a
> listen! --scott

And digitize on first go. Do not evaluate first and digitize later. Because
you do not know how many plays you're gonna get.

Don't mess with levels, just align clip levels and go, for instance by
aligning so that playing back 320 nW puts you at - 10 dB re. digital zero.
Very few tapes will be able to be magnetized beyond that, and that old tapes
most certainly not.

Keeping digitizing level constant makes you life in post easier, also
applies to grammophone records - those should be digitized so that the
loudest cracksplutterabang doesn't clip.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[david gourley[_2_]]

"Peter Larsen" > said...news:53736c7f$0$23218
:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>>> Play 'em! I have Scotch 111 tapes from the '50s and '60s. They've
>>> been stored on a high shelf next to a fireplace. They are in better
>>> shape than the later Ampex 406 reels because they don't have a
>>> backing that turns into gum. I always preferred acetate to mylar
>>> because it would simply break and could be spliced back together.
>>> The mylar tapes would stretch and become unsalvageable.
>
>> And I didn't like the acetate because it broke too easily! To each
>> his own.
>
>> Anyway, I agree with Roy... take the tapes. If they don't smell like
>> vinegar, if they aren't visibly curled, and if the beginning of the
>> tape unrolls easily by hand without the layers sticking together,
>> then put them on a tape machine and play them. I suggest a machine
>> that is gentle on tape rather than a 440 or something. You may find
>> they are half-track, you may find they are quarter track, you may
>> find they are at crazy low speeds or varying speeds. Give them a
>> listen! --scott
>
> And digitize on first go. Do not evaluate first and digitize later. Because
> you do not know how many plays you're gonna get.
>
> Don't mess with levels, just align clip levels and go, for instance by
> aligning so that playing back 320 nW puts you at - 10 dB re. digital zero.
> Very few tapes will be able to be magnetized beyond that, and that old
tapes
> most certainly not.
>
> Keeping digitizing level constant makes you life in post easier, also
> applies to grammophone records - those should be digitized so that the
> loudest cracksplutterabang doesn't clip.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>

Thanks, all.

I did plan on capturing right off without auditioning anything. I agree that
there's no telling how much subsequent play I can get from them. They're
still in original (exc condition) boxes, look great, and no smell.

I was already searching for a machine that would be gentle with the tape, all
things considered.

I have no idea about the tape speed that was used other than it being a mono
(tube) Webcor. It was very new at the time, so it should have been pretty
stable.

david

[Inyo]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

>You may find they are half-track, you may find they are quarter
> track, you may find they are at crazy low speeds or varying speeds.

The speed of the stereo music I discovered preserved on the Webcor acetates,
recovered using a Teac reel to reel (before home-computer digital
technology--mentioned in my earlier post in this thread) was definitely of
the odd-ball "crazy low speeds" variety--not the standardized speeds
compatible with that then "modern" analog Teac. Needless to report, after
some home-brewed audio analysis, I managed to formulate a dubbing resolution
procedure that brought back to life the original acetate music in normal
speed.

http://inyo.coffeecup.com/site/acoustic/allinyoallthetime.html
Links to all of my acoustic 6 and 12-string guitar playing available on the
Net.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

david gourley > wrote:

> Thanks, all.
>
> I did plan on capturing right off without auditioning anything. I agree
> that there's no telling how much subsequent play I can get from them.
> They're still in original (exc condition) boxes, look great, and no
> smell.
>
> I was already searching for a machine that would be gentle with the tape,
> all things considered.
>
> I have no idea about the tape speed that was used other than it being a
> mono (tube) Webcor. It was very new at the time, so it should have been
> pretty stable.
>
> david

The tapes are likely to be half-track mono, 3.75 ips and/or 7.5 ips. Let
us know where you are located. Perhaps someone here has a suitable machine
you could borrow.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[david gourley[_2_]]

Roy W. Rising > said...news:20140514195410.854
:

> david gourley > wrote:
>
>> Thanks, all.
>>
>> I did plan on capturing right off without auditioning anything. I agree
>> that there's no telling how much subsequent play I can get from them.
>> They're still in original (exc condition) boxes, look great, and no
>> smell.
>>
>> I was already searching for a machine that would be gentle with the tape,
>> all things considered.
>>
>> I have no idea about the tape speed that was used other than it being a
>> mono (tube) Webcor. It was very new at the time, so it should have been
>> pretty stable.
>>
>> david
>
> The tapes are likely to be half-track mono, 3.75 ips and/or 7.5 ips. Let
> us know where you are located. Perhaps someone here has a suitable machine
> you could borrow.
>

Thanks, I'm checking a few places around my area near Raleigh NC.

david

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 5/14/2014 8:50 PM, david gourley wrote:
> Roy W. Rising > said...news:20140514195410.854
> :
>
>> The tapes are likely to be half-track mono, 3.75 ips and/or 7.5 ips. Let
>> us know where you are located. Perhaps someone here has a suitable machine
>> you could borrow.
>
> Thanks, I'm checking a few places around my area near Raleigh NC.

Bluefield Mastering has an ATR-102, among others, but they are expensive.

http://www.bluefieldmastering.com/equipment.html

[david gourley[_2_]]

mcp6453 >
said...news:3sednadRrNCJBunOnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@gigan ews.com:

> On 5/14/2014 8:50 PM, david gourley wrote:
>> Roy W. Rising >
said...news:20140514195410.854
>> :
>>
>>> The tapes are likely to be half-track mono, 3.75 ips and/or 7.5 ips.
Let
>>> us know where you are located. Perhaps someone here has a suitable
machine
>>> you could borrow.
>>
>> Thanks, I'm checking a few places around my area near Raleigh NC.
>
> Bluefield Mastering has an ATR-102, among others, but they are expensive.
>
> http://www.bluefieldmastering.com/equipment.html
>
>
>

Thanks Mike, I knew about Jeff and was going to call him soon. There's
also Kitchen Mastering in Chapel Hill, and Brent is good. Having access to
an ATR-102 would be worth it.

david

[Scott Dorsey]

david gourley > wrote:
>mcp6453 >
>said...news:3sednadRrNCJBunOnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@gigan ews.com:
>> On 5/14/2014 8:50 PM, david gourley wrote:
>>> Roy W. Rising >
>said...news:20140514195410.854
>>> :
>>>
>>>> The tapes are likely to be half-track mono, 3.75 ips and/or 7.5 ips.
>Let
>>>> us know where you are located. Perhaps someone here has a suitable
>machine
>>>> you could borrow.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I'm checking a few places around my area near Raleigh NC.
>>
>> Bluefield Mastering has an ATR-102, among others, but they are expensive.
>>
>> http://www.bluefieldmastering.com/equipment.html
>>
>
>Thanks Mike, I knew about Jeff and was going to call him soon. There's
>also Kitchen Mastering in Chapel Hill, and Brent is good. Having access to
>an ATR-102 would be worth it.

ATR-102 is light on tape, and a good choice. BUT, they may need quarter track
heads, and they may charge time or a recal fee to go to 3 3/4 ips.

You can't do any slower speeds without a VS-20 either.

I'm only a couple hours away but I have the same machine (and I don't have
stable varispeed either, sadly). I do have a quarter track headstack (and
I will rent it out).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Edi Zubovic]

On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:41:37 +0000 (UTC), david gourley
> wrote:

>As I began with my quote request to Sonicraft (thanks Scott Dorsey for the
>referral here), I just discovered some tape reels from around 1962-1963 in
>my mom's home office. They were all recorded on the same Webcor model
>(maybe a Regent). They've never been in a shed or garage, usually in a
>dark, lower bookshelf corner and home environment.
>
>
>They are all acetate as it turns out.
>
>
>Ampex / Irish 311 (1) 7" reel & (1) 5" reel
>
>
>Ampex 611 (1) 7" reel
>
>
>Scotch 111 (1) 7" reel

--Recently I've managed to transfer a pair of family tames made in
mid-sixties, on 12,5 cm reels. I think one was Agfa and the another
East-German Orwo. The Orwo tape was brittle so I had to splice it
several times. They were quarter-track and recorded at 1 7/8 ips
(4.75cm/s). For that, I added enough (ca. 250 mm) of lead-in tape to
tape ends and reproduced it on a Revox B77 quarter-track machine, tape
reel selector to "small reels". The tape speed was 3 3/4 ips (9,5
cm/s).

I recorded it to Sound Forge at 96 ksamples/sec. After the recording
has been done, I've set the sampling rate to 44,1 ksamples/sec,
without resampling. Thus I've got the right speed instantly. I only
checked whether the original line frequency hum was around 50 Hz, it
was. Now this method is away of any working points for reproduction
at proper recorded speed, but nevertheless the result has been good
enough.

It was fun to see that family enjoying some details of their life so
long ago.

All the best,
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Trevor]

"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
> --Recently I've managed to transfer a pair of family tames made in
> mid-sixties, on 12,5 cm reels. I think one was Agfa and the another
> East-German Orwo. The Orwo tape was brittle so I had to splice it
> several times. They were quarter-track and recorded at 1 7/8 ips
> (4.75cm/s). For that, I added enough (ca. 250 mm) of lead-in tape to
> tape ends and reproduced it on a Revox B77 quarter-track machine, tape
> reel selector to "small reels". The tape speed was 3 3/4 ips (9,5
> cm/s).
>
> I recorded it to Sound Forge at 96 ksamples/sec. After the recording
> has been done, I've set the sampling rate to 44,1 ksamples/sec,
> without resampling. Thus I've got the right speed instantly.

You do realise 44.1k is *NOT* half of 96k right?

Trevor.

[Edi Zubovic]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:21:41 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:

>
>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
>> --Recently I've managed to transfer a pair of family tames made in
>> mid-sixties, on 12,5 cm reels. I think one was Agfa and the another
>> East-German Orwo. The Orwo tape was brittle so I had to splice it
>> several times. They were quarter-track and recorded at 1 7/8 ips
>> (4.75cm/s). For that, I added enough (ca. 250 mm) of lead-in tape to
>> tape ends and reproduced it on a Revox B77 quarter-track machine, tape
>> reel selector to "small reels". The tape speed was 3 3/4 ips (9,5
>> cm/s).
>>
>> I recorded it to Sound Forge at 96 ksamples/sec. After the recording
>> has been done, I've set the sampling rate to 44,1 ksamples/sec,
>> without resampling. Thus I've got the right speed instantly.
>
>You do realise 44.1k is *NOT* half of 96k right?
>
>Trevor.
>
- Of course it isn't. You have always possibilities to shift
pitch/speed uneventfully to a desired degree, though.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Trevor]

"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:21:41 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:
>>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
>>> --Recently I've managed to transfer a pair of family tames made in
>>> mid-sixties, on 12,5 cm reels. I think one was Agfa and the another
>>> East-German Orwo. The Orwo tape was brittle so I had to splice it
>>> several times. They were quarter-track and recorded at 1 7/8 ips
>>> (4.75cm/s). For that, I added enough (ca. 250 mm) of lead-in tape to
>>> tape ends and reproduced it on a Revox B77 quarter-track machine, tape
>>> reel selector to "small reels". The tape speed was 3 3/4 ips (9,5
>>> cm/s).
>>>
>>> I recorded it to Sound Forge at 96 ksamples/sec. After the recording
>>> has been done, I've set the sampling rate to 44,1 ksamples/sec,
>>> without resampling. Thus I've got the right speed instantly.
>>
>>You do realise 44.1k is *NOT* half of 96k right?
>>
>>
> - Of course it isn't. You have always possibilities to shift
> pitch/speed uneventfully to a desired degree, though.

So why did you say "Thus I've got the right speed instantly"?

Trevor.

[Edi Zubovic]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 16:31:09 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:

>
>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:21:41 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:
>>>"Edi Zubovic" <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote in message
...
>>>> --Recently I've managed to transfer a pair of family tames made in
>>>> mid-sixties, on 12,5 cm reels. I think one was Agfa and the another
>>>> East-German Orwo. The Orwo tape was brittle so I had to splice it
>>>> several times. They were quarter-track and recorded at 1 7/8 ips
>>>> (4.75cm/s). For that, I added enough (ca. 250 mm) of lead-in tape to
>>>> tape ends and reproduced it on a Revox B77 quarter-track machine, tape
>>>> reel selector to "small reels". The tape speed was 3 3/4 ips (9,5
>>>> cm/s).
>>>>
>>>> I recorded it to Sound Forge at 96 ksamples/sec. After the recording
>>>> has been done, I've set the sampling rate to 44,1 ksamples/sec,
>>>> without resampling. Thus I've got the right speed instantly.
>>>
>>>You do realise 44.1k is *NOT* half of 96k right?
>>>
>>>
>> - Of course it isn't. You have always possibilities to shift
>> pitch/speed uneventfully to a desired degree, though.
>
>So why did you say "Thus I've got the right speed instantly"?
>
>Trevor.
>
-Oh, forget it it, please, I tweaked it a little beforehand.

Edi Zubovic