My client looking for Ampex 300/350/351 series 4 tk...anyone? anyone?Gotta be one out there someplace...

[Stephen Anderson]

--
Stephen Anderson

>
~At the end of the day, it's all about
the music

[Scott Dorsey]

In article t>,
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."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article t>,
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."

[Stephen Anderson]

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 t>,
> 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

[Stephen Anderson]

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 t>,
> 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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Stephen Anderson]

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

[Stephen Anderson]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article .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."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article .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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Pooh Bear]

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

[Pooh Bear]

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

[Pooh Bear]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article .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

[Pooh Bear]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article .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

[Stephen Anderson]

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 .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

[Stephen Anderson]

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 .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

[Mike Rivers]

In article .net> writes:

> 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!

Eccentric clients will always be with us. No point in reasoning with
them, just find them what they want and keep track of your time.

> And yes, the idea of an ATR transport with the tube electronics is a
> good one as well.

On a visit to Nakamichi's place in the LA area several years ago, I
saw an ATR-100 with home-built tube electronics (playback only, I
believe) in their listening room.



--
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 .net> writes:

> 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!

Eccentric clients will always be with us. No point in reasoning with
them, just find them what they want and keep track of your time.

> And yes, the idea of an ATR transport with the tube electronics is a
> good one as well.

On a visit to Nakamichi's place in the LA area several years ago, I
saw an ATR-100 with home-built tube electronics (playback only, I
believe) in their listening room.



--
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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

Pooh Bear > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> In article .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."

[Scott Dorsey]

Pooh Bear > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> In article .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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Mike Cleaver]

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

[Mike Cleaver]

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

[Pooh Bear]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote:
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >> In article .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

[Pooh Bear]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote:
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >> In article .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

[Stephen Anderson]

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 .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

[Stephen Anderson]

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 .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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Bryson]

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!

[Bryson]

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!

[Robert Orban]

In article >, says...
>
>
>In article t>,
>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.

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).

[Robert Orban]

In article >, says...
>
>
>In article t>,
>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.

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).

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[DeserTBoB]

On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>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 <snip>

Despite all the hype about the "greatness" of the 300, they were
really a PITA for flutter and speed. Back when you could get new
rubber, you could spend hours rebuilding the capstan drive and at
least get "as manufactured" flutter, but that only lasts so long. You
still wind up with the speed accuracy issue, as well. Even when
everything's in top notch shape...rubber, bearings, capstan finish...a
350 would still beat a 300 by almost half on a flutter bridge.

dB

[DeserTBoB]

On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>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 <snip>

Despite all the hype about the "greatness" of the 300, they were
really a PITA for flutter and speed. Back when you could get new
rubber, you could spend hours rebuilding the capstan drive and at
least get "as manufactured" flutter, but that only lasts so long. You
still wind up with the speed accuracy issue, as well. Even when
everything's in top notch shape...rubber, bearings, capstan finish...a
350 would still beat a 300 by almost half on a flutter bridge.

dB

[DeserTBoB]

On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>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. <snip>

The whole capstan drive system is a nightmare...bearings,
rubber...it's just NEVER good on a 300, despite heroic ministrations
of new bearings and rubber (when you could even get it), setup and
lubrication. It's no wonder so many 300s were replaced by 350s and
351s so quickly back in the day; the 300 was just a horrid deck to
master upon. Flutter isn't the only headache on a 300, though. Put a
strobe disk on the capstan and watch speed increase as you work your
way through 2500' of tape as the rubber warms up due to friction!
Take the head bridge off a 300, put it on a good 350/351 or 440
transport...problem solved.

dB

[DeserTBoB]

On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>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. <snip>

The whole capstan drive system is a nightmare...bearings,
rubber...it's just NEVER good on a 300, despite heroic ministrations
of new bearings and rubber (when you could even get it), setup and
lubrication. It's no wonder so many 300s were replaced by 350s and
351s so quickly back in the day; the 300 was just a horrid deck to
master upon. Flutter isn't the only headache on a 300, though. Put a
strobe disk on the capstan and watch speed increase as you work your
way through 2500' of tape as the rubber warms up due to friction!
Take the head bridge off a 300, put it on a good 350/351 or 440
transport...problem solved.

dB

[Scott Dorsey]

DeserTBoB > wrote:
>On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>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 <snip>
>
>Despite all the hype about the "greatness" of the 300, they were
>really a PITA for flutter and speed. Back when you could get new
>rubber, you could spend hours rebuilding the capstan drive and at
>least get "as manufactured" flutter, but that only lasts so long. You
>still wind up with the speed accuracy issue, as well. Even when
>everything's in top notch shape...rubber, bearings, capstan finish...a
>350 would still beat a 300 by almost half on a flutter bridge.

What hype is there? I remember everybody upgrading their 300 transports
to 350s as soon as they could afford to!

And then... what were those aftermarket tension control units? Was that
an Innovonics thing too? Tentrol?
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

DeserTBoB > wrote:
>On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>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 <snip>
>
>Despite all the hype about the "greatness" of the 300, they were
>really a PITA for flutter and speed. Back when you could get new
>rubber, you could spend hours rebuilding the capstan drive and at
>least get "as manufactured" flutter, but that only lasts so long. You
>still wind up with the speed accuracy issue, as well. Even when
>everything's in top notch shape...rubber, bearings, capstan finish...a
>350 would still beat a 300 by almost half on a flutter bridge.

What hype is there? I remember everybody upgrading their 300 transports
to 350s as soon as they could afford to!

And then... what were those aftermarket tension control units? Was that
an Innovonics thing too? Tentrol?
--scott

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

[DeserTBoB]

On 4 Dec 2004 10:11:25 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>What hype is there? I remember everybody upgrading their 300 transports
>to 350s as soon as they could afford to! <snip>

Not so much back then, and you're right. For some reason, some people
seem to diefy the 300 these days, when it t'ain't necessarily so.

>And then... what were those aftermarket tension control units? Was that
>an Innovonics thing too? Tentrol? <snip>

That was the one! Ask 5 different people, get 5 different opinions
about Tentrol. I generally thought it was a great idea, but was
something else to go awry when you least needed it to do so.

dB

[DeserTBoB]

On 4 Dec 2004 10:11:25 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>What hype is there? I remember everybody upgrading their 300 transports
>to 350s as soon as they could afford to! <snip>

Not so much back then, and you're right. For some reason, some people
seem to diefy the 300 these days, when it t'ain't necessarily so.

>And then... what were those aftermarket tension control units? Was that
>an Innovonics thing too? Tentrol? <snip>

That was the one! Ask 5 different people, get 5 different opinions
about Tentrol. I generally thought it was a great idea, but was
something else to go awry when you least needed it to do so.

dB