Re: Ampex 300

[Robert Orban]

In article >, says...
>
>
>Vincent Piette > wrote:
>>> Why a 300?
>>>
>>I want a Ampex 300-3 (1/2" 3 track) or Ampex 300-4 (1/2" 4 track)
>>because of the sound of their recording. I don't need the parts, I
>>want the whole unit.
>
>Okay, wait, that's a different issue.
>
>You don't want a normal 300, you want a 300 configured for 1/2". That
>is an even greater rarity.
>
>Why not a 350? The 350 transport is going to sound a lot better, because
>of the reduced flutter. It doesn't have that horrific isolated capstan
>system that the 300 has. And it'll be a lot more common and a lot cheaper.
>
>The 300 is much more of a museum piece than an actual operating machine.
>There weren't a lot made since they were only a product for a fairly
>short amount of time before the 350 became available and most folks with
>them upgraded to 350s.

I came to this thread very late, but would like to add that the AG-300 was
made with the 300 transport technology well into the late 1960s; the 300
transport was not discontinued in the '50s. (I happen to have a 4-track 1/2"
version of this still sitting in my basement. It was purchased in 1968, and
is not for sale.) Because the electronics are solid state, it does not sound
like the old tube 300s.

I happen to have a ca. 1952 full-track 1/4" 300 also sitting in my basement,
although the playback electronics and head were replaced (a stereo
concersion) and I have no idea if the old mono tube electronics still work;
the machine has not been turned on in some time.

Moreover, I remember from old Harvey Radio catalog that the 300 and 350
coexisted for some time in the Ampex line. The 300 was substantially more
expensive than the 350 (by almost 50% IIRC) and was marketed as "top of the
line."

My old 300 _is_ virtually a museum piece. It was originally owned by Bell
Labs and evidently used for tape delay, as there are custom-machined guides
(to accommodate a tape loop) mounted where several of the transport mounting
screws still go. It was donated to Stanford University in 1968, and I bought
it at the time for $400. The nameplate says "Ampex Electric Company, San
Carlos, California," indicating that the machine was made before Ampex moved
to Redwood City and built their campus near the 101 freeway. This implies
that it was one of the first 300s made.

[GYMusic]

http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm

[GYMusic]

http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm

[Scott Dorsey]

In article utaudio.com>,
GYMusic > wrote:
>http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm

I never heard of anyone retrofitting MCI electronics onto the older Ampex
machines... the head impedances are all wrong and it would take some work to
make it go well.

Those awful Inovonics things were specifically designed to work with the high-Z
heads in order to retrofit the older machines. So you miss out on a lot of
the advantage that you get with solid state (namely low-Z head cabling).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article utaudio.com>,
GYMusic > wrote:
>http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm

I never heard of anyone retrofitting MCI electronics onto the older Ampex
machines... the head impedances are all wrong and it would take some work to
make it go well.

Those awful Inovonics things were specifically designed to work with the high-Z
heads in order to retrofit the older machines. So you miss out on a lot of
the advantage that you get with solid state (namely low-Z head cabling).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eric K. Weber]

They may have made a special version of the MCI electronics, I have used a
350 series with MCI electronics.

Rgds:
Eric


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article
utaudio.com>,
> GYMusic > wrote:
> >http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm
>
> I never heard of anyone retrofitting MCI electronics onto the older Ampex
> machines... the head impedances are all wrong and it would take some work
to
> make it go well.
>
> Those awful Inovonics things were specifically designed to work with the
high-Z
> heads in order to retrofit the older machines. So you miss out on a lot
of
> the advantage that you get with solid state (namely low-Z head cabling).
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eric K. Weber]

They may have made a special version of the MCI electronics, I have used a
350 series with MCI electronics.

Rgds:
Eric


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article
utaudio.com>,
> GYMusic > wrote:
> >http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm
>
> I never heard of anyone retrofitting MCI electronics onto the older Ampex
> machines... the head impedances are all wrong and it would take some work
to
> make it go well.
>
> Those awful Inovonics things were specifically designed to work with the
high-Z
> heads in order to retrofit the older machines. So you miss out on a lot
of
> the advantage that you get with solid state (namely low-Z head cabling).
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Cleaver]

IIRC there were a number of after-market solid state units produced
especially for the 350 series, the Inovonics probably the best known
but there were at least 2 others as well.
As Soctt points out, the Inovonics were not an improvement but that
company did and still does produce some useful equipment.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:49:11 -0500, "Eric K. Weber"
> wrote:

>They may have made a special version of the MCI electronics, I have used a
>350 series with MCI electronics.
>
>Rgds:
>Eric
>
>
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> In article
utaudio.com>,
>> GYMusic > wrote:
>> >http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm
>>
>> I never heard of anyone retrofitting MCI electronics onto the older Ampex
>> machines... the head impedances are all wrong and it would take some work
>to
>> make it go well.
>>
>> Those awful Inovonics things were specifically designed to work with the
>high-Z
>> heads in order to retrofit the older machines. So you miss out on a lot
>of
>> the advantage that you get with solid state (namely low-Z head cabling).
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

Mike Cleaver Broadcast Services
Voice-overs, Newscaster, Engineering and Consulting
Vancouver, BC, Canada

[Mike Cleaver]

IIRC there were a number of after-market solid state units produced
especially for the 350 series, the Inovonics probably the best known
but there were at least 2 others as well.
As Soctt points out, the Inovonics were not an improvement but that
company did and still does produce some useful equipment.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:49:11 -0500, "Eric K. Weber"
> wrote:

>They may have made a special version of the MCI electronics, I have used a
>350 series with MCI electronics.
>
>Rgds:
>Eric
>
>
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> In article
utaudio.com>,
>> GYMusic > wrote:
>> >http://www.gymusic.com/ampex.htm
>>
>> I never heard of anyone retrofitting MCI electronics onto the older Ampex
>> machines... the head impedances are all wrong and it would take some work
>to
>> make it go well.
>>
>> Those awful Inovonics things were specifically designed to work with the
>high-Z
>> heads in order to retrofit the older machines. So you miss out on a lot
>of
>> the advantage that you get with solid state (namely low-Z head cabling).
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

Mike Cleaver Broadcast Services
Voice-overs, Newscaster, Engineering and Consulting
Vancouver, BC, Canada

[Scott Dorsey]

Eric K. Weber > wrote:
>They may have made a special version of the MCI electronics, I have used a
>350 series with MCI electronics.

AG-350 heads would be fine with the MCI electronics, although regular 350
heads would not.

If you didn't care about low end, you could always use Nortronics replacements.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Eric K. Weber > wrote:
>They may have made a special version of the MCI electronics, I have used a
>350 series with MCI electronics.

AG-350 heads would be fine with the MCI electronics, although regular 350
heads would not.

If you didn't care about low end, you could always use Nortronics replacements.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Theron D > wrote:
>
>Sorry that I am joining this conversation so late, I recently picked
>up a Ampex "300-4" with the four 351 pre's. Its all in pretty good
>shape, except one pre is missing the VU meter.

This is bad, because I think the 300 uses the weird 4-terminal Ampex VU
meters. These have additional pins so that the meter can also be used
for bias measurements.

> Was in someones
>basement for years, we slapped on a tape and at the 300 transprot
>works. Didnt try the pre's yet. I can provide a link to my pictures if
>anyone wants to see it. An old bathtub unit, but the pre are not
>located in a rack above, they are a seperate rack. Wonder how rare
>that is?

Not all that rare, although I think the 4-channel 300 units are not
very common. The 350s are much more common.

How well does it work? The problem with the 300 machines is that those
rubber rollers get hard and the flutter goes through the roof. The directly
driven transports like the 350s and later machines don't have this problem.

Thinking about converting it over to a 2 channel 1/2" for
>mastering but it going to cost over $2K alone just for the custom
>heads. Another option is to completely restore as a 4 track that was
>intended for. Another would be to use the pre's for mics, still up in
>arms about which way to go. Honestly what do you guys think its worth
>if it were to be completely restored?

I dunno, ask on the Ampex mailing list. should
get you onto the listserv. Personally I don't think a 300 transport is
worth the trouble of keeping it running, because the flutter specs on them
never were all that good. But I have never seen a 300-4 machine; all of
the four-track units I have seen used the more stable 350 transport or
something still later. A collector may well be interested.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Theron D > wrote:
>
>Sorry that I am joining this conversation so late, I recently picked
>up a Ampex "300-4" with the four 351 pre's. Its all in pretty good
>shape, except one pre is missing the VU meter.

This is bad, because I think the 300 uses the weird 4-terminal Ampex VU
meters. These have additional pins so that the meter can also be used
for bias measurements.

> Was in someones
>basement for years, we slapped on a tape and at the 300 transprot
>works. Didnt try the pre's yet. I can provide a link to my pictures if
>anyone wants to see it. An old bathtub unit, but the pre are not
>located in a rack above, they are a seperate rack. Wonder how rare
>that is?

Not all that rare, although I think the 4-channel 300 units are not
very common. The 350s are much more common.

How well does it work? The problem with the 300 machines is that those
rubber rollers get hard and the flutter goes through the roof. The directly
driven transports like the 350s and later machines don't have this problem.

Thinking about converting it over to a 2 channel 1/2" for
>mastering but it going to cost over $2K alone just for the custom
>heads. Another option is to completely restore as a 4 track that was
>intended for. Another would be to use the pre's for mics, still up in
>arms about which way to go. Honestly what do you guys think its worth
>if it were to be completely restored?

I dunno, ask on the Ampex mailing list. should
get you onto the listserv. Personally I don't think a 300 transport is
worth the trouble of keeping it running, because the flutter specs on them
never were all that good. But I have never seen a 300-4 machine; all of
the four-track units I have seen used the more stable 350 transport or
something still later. A collector may well be interested.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I dunno, ask on the Ampex mailing list. should
> get you onto the listserv.

It's easier than that for people who have web access:

Go to http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html and fill out the form.
It comes as individual messages or a digest. There was a recent
posting about the "four terminal" VU meter from its designer, Jay
McKnight.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I dunno, ask on the Ampex mailing list. should
> get you onto the listserv.

It's easier than that for people who have web access:

Go to http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html and fill out the form.
It comes as individual messages or a digest. There was a recent
posting about the "four terminal" VU meter from its designer, Jay
McKnight.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo