FS: 2" 24 track JH24 CHEAP!

[EganMedia]

FS: Excellent condition 1987 (last run!) Sony/MCI JH24 2" analog deck (ser.#
2088) with ALIII, harnesses, MRL test tape and manual. Will Email pics if
interested. Pick up in Vermont. $2700/BO.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Rob Adelman]

EganMedia wrote:

> FS: Excellent condition 1987 (last run!) Sony/MCI JH24 2" analog deck (ser.#
> 2088) with ALIII, harnesses, MRL test tape and manual. Will Email pics if
> interested. Pick up in Vermont. $2700/BO.


Nice deal! If only I had the space for it :(

[Roger W. Norman]

Yeah, well you could get rid of your 16 track 1" machine.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> EganMedia wrote:
>
> > FS: Excellent condition 1987 (last run!) Sony/MCI JH24 2" analog deck
(ser.#
> > 2088) with ALIII, harnesses, MRL test tape and manual. Will Email pics
if
> > interested. Pick up in Vermont. $2700/BO.
>
>
> Nice deal! If only I had the space for it :(
>

[Rob Adelman]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> Yeah, well you could get rid of your 16 track 1" machine.

My 1" machine has 24 tracks, and takes up a fraction of the space of a
2" 24 track.

[Kosmo Joe O]

But sounds only half as good! :)
.....of course, the tape is a lot cheaper too!
-Joe O

[Roger W. Norman]

Whoa, talk about micro heads. Sorry, thought it was a 16 track machine.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > Yeah, well you could get rid of your 16 track 1" machine.
>
> My 1" machine has 24 tracks, and takes up a fraction of the space of a
> 2" 24 track.
>

[EggHd]

<< My 1" machine has 24 tracks, and takes up a fraction of the space of a
2" 24 track. >>

On the tape as well!



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:

> << My 1" machine has 24 tracks, and takes up a fraction of the space of a
> 2" 24 track. >>
>
> On the tape as well!


The tape is easier to quantify. The fraction is 1/2.

[EggHd]

<< The tape is easier to quantify. The fraction is 1/2. >>

What is the word on how long 1" tape will be around?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
><< The tape is easier to quantify. The fraction is 1/2. >>
>
>What is the word on how long 1" tape will be around?

None yet.

BUT, I bet that 1/4" tape and 1/2" tape will outlast 1", and in fact the
1" stuff will be the first to go.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EganMedia]

>BUT, I bet that 1/4" tape and 1/2" tape will outlast 1", and in fact the
>1" stuff will be the first to go.

Agreed. And it's going to be a pain the ass to stack pancakes of 1/4" tape
four deep to record on MX70s and MS16s. Track slipping will be easier though,
albeit in groups of four.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Scott Dorsey]

EganMedia > wrote:
>>BUT, I bet that 1/4" tape and 1/2" tape will outlast 1", and in fact the
>>1" stuff will be the first to go.
>
>Agreed. And it's going to be a pain the ass to stack pancakes of 1/4" tape
>four deep to record on MX70s and MS16s. Track slipping will be easier though,
>albeit in groups of four.

What would it take to graft a 2" stack on those machines? Transports got
enough torque to deal with it?
--scott

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

[Analogeezer]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> EganMedia > wrote:
> >>BUT, I bet that 1/4" tape and 1/2" tape will outlast 1", and in fact the
> >>1" stuff will be the first to go.
> >
> >Agreed. And it's going to be a pain the ass to stack pancakes of 1/4" tape
> >four deep to record on MX70s and MS16s. Track slipping will be easier though,
> >albeit in groups of four.
>
> What would it take to graft a 2" stack on those machines? Transports got
> enough torque to deal with it?
> --scott


While the thought of a 2" 16 track MS-16 is pretty cool, I'd wonder
about if the electronics could deal with it...doubling the track width
would seem to result in a lot more work for the electronics, right?

Analogeezer

p.s. Not to mention you'd spend about 3X the worth of the machine on
such a conversion...I mean I own one and like it but I think I'd
switch to 2" before I put that kinda cash into an MS-16

[Fletcher]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> EganMedia > wrote:
> >>BUT, I bet that 1/4" tape and 1/2" tape will outlast 1", and in fact the
> >>1" stuff will be the first to go.
> >
> >Agreed. And it's going to be a pain the ass to stack pancakes of 1/4"
tape
> >four deep to record on MX70s and MS16s. Track slipping will be easier
though,
> >albeit in groups of four.
>
> What would it take to graft a 2" stack on those machines? Transports got
> enough torque to deal with it?
> --scott


The MX-70 could... they call that an MX-80 [though parts acquisition might
be bit difficult]... the MS-16 can barely handle 1" tape so I think you'd
find that 2" tape wouldn't work too well..
..--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

[Roger W. Norman]

"Analogeezer" > wrote in message
m...
>
> While the thought of a 2" 16 track MS-16 is pretty cool, I'd wonder
> about if the electronics could deal with it...doubling the track width
> would seem to result in a lot more work for the electronics, right?

So how you going to double the track width just because you pancake tapes
together? Unless you change heads.

Looks like if any of us want to continue to use tape of anything more than a
1/4" two track, than we need to go out an buy up the remaining stock because
there are a lot of facilities that have 24 track and less recorders that are
going to be doing the same.

I imagine that quality manufacturers of bulk erasers are going to make a
killing once major acts start wanting tape when there's none available. I
mean, with digital available for a transfer, what's not to degauss a tape
and then use it again, except with the ultimate degradation of the tape
until it can't be used again. At least, perhaps, we'll finally come into
having all those vault archived 2" tapes being transferred to DVD tracks or
DSD mixes and then the tape will be reused. If the BBC reused all those
tapes daily during the reign of the Beatles and Stones, then it's more than
likely to happen now. **** it, I'm tired of format wars. And I have been
an advocate for a hybrid studio for 10 years now.

Still, I feel there's something lacking in digital recording that seems to
come through as part of the recording with good music. It's obvious that
the tape can't get excited about the music, and it's just as obvious that
some groups play with as much enthusiasm as any did, so it must have
something to do with recording to tape.

I wonder if anyone who's history was from the early 1900's actually asked
for wire recordings? I think we're right about at that transition point
right now.

Perhaps what we all should do is grab up on the technology of all the
inventions of recording and use them to some advantage, thereby guaranteeing
that the formats survive. Besides, and excluding plugins, the best
telephone voice is still from a telephone. I mean, we have the same
technology giving us the same level of quality that has been prevalent for a
half century or more.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

[d morrell]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:45:26 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
> wrote:

>I wonder if anyone who's history was from the early 1900's actually asked
>for wire recordings?

Nyuk nyuk... I can hear the argument now: "No, man... not tape! I
want to track on the Magnecord... it's got THE SOUND!"

Don

[Yuri T.]

> The MX-70 could... they call that an MX-80 [though parts acquisition might
> be bit difficult]... the MS-16 can barely handle 1" tape so I think you'd
> find that 2" tape wouldn't work too well..
> .--
> Fletcher
> Mercenary Audio
> TEL: 508-543-0069
> FAX: 508-543-9670
> http://www.mercenary.com
> "this is not a problem"

Hmm. okay. I haven't had any problems with the MS-16 transport. It's
been pretty rock solid @ 15 ips. You think the motors are too weak or
what?

[umbriaco]

in article , Yuri T. at
wrote on 11/17/03 4:13 PM:

>> The MX-70 could... they call that an MX-80 [though parts acquisition might
>> be bit difficult]... the MS-16 can barely handle 1" tape so I think you'd
>> find that 2" tape wouldn't work too well..
>> .--
>> Fletcher
>> Mercenary Audio
>> TEL: 508-543-0069
>> FAX: 508-543-9670
>> http://www.mercenary.com
>> "this is not a problem"
>
> Hmm. okay. I haven't had any problems with the MS-16 transport. It's
> been pretty rock solid @ 15 ips. You think the motors are too weak or
> what?

Why would you want to go to the trouble & expense of building a
Frankenstien's monster with all the unknown variables (will the motors
handle 2" tape, will the record electronics have enough current to drive 2"
erase and record heads, who's gonna supply all the parts and how many tens
of thousands is it gonna cost) when you can buy a JH24 for 3 grand? Too big?
Buy a MX80 for 5 grand and still be on top.