|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 21, 2014 23:44:57 GMT -6
I'm fixing up a 2-track... cassette!  needs new belts, the old ones are now liquid goop for some reason... just picked it up for $3 at goodwill... born same year as me 1983 I actually do want to try bouncing things to this, or using the front panel mic inputs sorry maybe this is not so "pro" but I'm excited about this machine  |
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 22, 2014 2:19:53 GMT -6
Heads are just like tires and wheel alignment. It doesn't take very long to ruin them if the tape path isn't well aligned and unfortunately shipping a studio-size machine will frequently throw it out of alignment. The other problem is that I've found I can't count on any currently manufactured 1/4" tape not suffering from dropouts after a few months if not immediately. This is probably less of a problem for tracking than mixing but it's a problem we almost never had to contend with during the '50s-'90s. At our studio we have had good luck sending heads to be relapped at JRF Magnetics. We sign up to Steve Sadler's maintanence service every year, it really helps with the JH24. Highly recommended to anyone with MCI gear. I have been using RMGI and ATR since they became available. I cannot report any problems. Some of our 1/4" tapes get sent to JJ Golden at Golden mastering and he has never mentioned having any problems with the tapes. I'm not saying there aren't any problems in current production tapes, but we do use quite a lot of 1/4" and 2". Lately, because of the state of our economy, we have started renting tape, something I always viewed as less than ideal. Some 2" reels get used on four records. We might have been lucky so far. Which brands and formulations have you encountered drop outs with? I'm interested and concerned at the same time. We haven't used quantegy/ampex or Emtec/basf for a long time. I hope this post doesn't come off sounding antagonistic, I have nothing but respect and admiration for you, mister Olhsson. Everyone of your posts is worth studying. |
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 22, 2014 2:23:56 GMT -6
I'm fixing up a 2-track... cassette! needs new belts, the old ones are now liquid goop for some reason... just picked it up for $3 at goodwill... born same year as me 1983 I actually do want to try bouncing things to this, or using the front panel mic inputs sorry maybe this is not so "pro" but I'm excited about this machine I remember doing tape echo in a studio with a three head cassette deck almost twenty years ago. I was assisting a Welsh engineer producer called Huw Price. I was surprised how good it sounded. |
|
|
|
Post by levon on Jan 22, 2014 2:55:17 GMT -6
I feel like an idiot for not jumping on this!! Sometimes you have to trust your gut feelings and don't question it too long. I lost many good deals in the past because I was too hesitant. Don't. If you feel that it's worth having, go for it immediately. I don't make these mistakes anymore. Well, having said that, there's an LA2A on Ebay right now for €3.500, a vintage unit not the current re-issue, I just don't have the dough right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 22, 2014 9:55:16 GMT -6
Where the dropouts get caught is during the headphone QC pass.
|
|
arny
Full Member
Posts: 39 
|
Post by arny on Jan 22, 2014 22:34:12 GMT -6
The other problem is that I've found I can't count on any currently manufactured 1/4" tape not suffering from dropouts after a few months if not immediately. This is probably less of a problem for tracking than mixing but it's a problem we almost never had to contend with during the '50s-'90s. There is a very good reason and that's due to the soft-coated elevated level tape that has been promoted, over the years, I had one of the very first reels of Ampex 499 when it arrived at Ampex Acre Road Reading, England. It was sent to me by Ampex for my views, as I had spoken with the Head Engineer and expressed my concern as to whether the soft coating could handle the stresses and strains of continued winding, rewinding, dropping in & out p, that we were all doing from the date the first multitrack was introduced When the reel arrived I recorded repeated sweeps 20Hz to 20kHz all through the whole reel without stopping the tape, and at the same time I was recording Brüel & Kjær graphs throughout. I never recorded on the tape thereafter I just set the Autolator to play the tape from one end to the other and rewind and do the same again, now and again anyone passing the very smooth running Ampex ATR-124 were told to stop the machine and put it into the mode of transport the machine was in previous to the stop interruption. After four hours we placed the machine into record again and carried out new recording graphs. At 20kHz there were drop-outs as much as 1.2 dB throughout the reel the next day we carried out the same test with Ampex 456 and on the 2nd graph test there were no drop-outs at all. I have never used an Elevated Level tape since, besides you can work most Ampex Machines at these elevated levels without using soft coated tape, because Ampex 456 was designed to match, the MM1200 and the ATR 102/124 series, and the 440C Since these tests I have been asked by clients, had I tested anything as robust as 456 the only one that was as close as one can get was made by the European Co RMG who I understand have a branch in the USA called RMGI . Kind Regards Tony & www.helios-electronics.com |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 22, 2014 23:42:55 GMT -6
Arny, can you please share your thoughts on Ampex 406 and 499 as well as Scotch 996?
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 22, 2014 23:50:30 GMT -6
Look for a Studer, since you missed this one. Or an Otari.
|
|
|
|
Post by levon on Jan 23, 2014 0:44:52 GMT -6
Look for a Studer, since you missed this one. Or an Otari. Yes. I have a PR99 that I love, my dream is an A80 half-inch. I would love to mix down to that machine. One day, one day... As for tape, I have used RMG 911 the last couple of years and never had any problems. Then again, I don't use it daily. I still have some reels of old Revox tape from the 1970s that play absolutely fine. My father, however, has experienced problems with the same tape from that era. |
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 23, 2014 1:53:49 GMT -6
Where the dropouts get caught is during the headphone QC pass. I understand that this includes ATR Master tape as well, not just RMGI 900 and 911, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 23, 2014 1:58:12 GMT -6
The other problem is that I've found I can't count on any currently manufactured 1/4" tape not suffering from dropouts after a few months if not immediately. This is probably less of a problem for tracking than mixing but it's a problem we almost never had to contend with during the '50s-'90s. There is a very good reason and that's due to the soft-coated elevated level tape that has been promoted, over the years, I had one of the very first reels of Ampex 499 when it arrived at Ampex Acre Road Reading, England. It was sent to me by Ampex for my views, as I had spoken with the Head Engineer and expressed my concern as to whether the soft coating could handle the stresses and strains of continued winding, rewinding, dropping in & out p, that we were all doing from the date the first multitrack was introduced When the reel arrived I recorded repeated sweeps 20Hz to 20kHz all through the whole reel without stopping the tape, and at the same time I was recording Brüel & Kjær graphs throughout. I never recorded on the tape thereafter I just set the Autolator to play the tape from one end to the other and rewind and do the same again, now and again anyone passing the very smooth running Ampex ATR-124 were told to stop the machine and put it into the mode of transport the machine was in previous to the stop interruption. After four hours we placed the machine into record again and carried out new recording graphs. At 20kHz there were drop-outs as much as 1.2 dB throughout the reel the next day we carried out the same test with Ampex 456 and on the 2nd graph test there were no drop-outs at all. I have never used an Elevated Level tape since, besides you can work most Ampex Machines at these elevated levels without using soft coated tape, because Ampex 456 was designed to match, the MM1200 and the ATR 102/124 series, and the 440C Since these tests I have been asked by clients, had I tested anything as robust as 456 the only one that was as close as one can get was made by the European Co RMG who I understand have a branch in the USA called RMGI . Kind Regards Tony & www.helios-electronics.comIf I'm understanding correctly, you would add Ampex/Quantegy GP9 and Basf/Emtec 900 to the formulations with drop out problems, correct? I assume that the formulation from RMGI you are referring to would be the Dutch made 911 as the French production seems to be having problems getting off the ground at all. |
|
arny
Full Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by arny on Jan 23, 2014 4:44:53 GMT -6
Since these tests I have been asked by clients, had I tested anything as robust as 456 the only one that was as close as one can get was made by the European Co RMG who I understand have a branch in the USA called RMGI . Kind Regards Tony & www.helios-electronics.comIf I'm understanding correctly, you would add Ampex/Quantegy GP9 and Basf/Emtec 900 to the formulations with drop out problems, correct? I assume that the formulation from RMGI you are referring to would be the Dutch made 911 as the French production seems to be having problems getting off the ground at all. I can only assume the 3Ms, the BASF, & Emtec would give the same problems I was not prepared to invest in purchasing other manufactures tape, although I did offer to test them if they were prepared to send me a sample reel, but I never received one. But later, Ampex/Quantegy sent me a reel of GP9 which was a slight improvement but was not as robust as 456 and the overall sound was not as good even though we Re-biased. Yes today I recommend RHG 911 for a robust tape for Multitrack recording. Kind Regards Tony, www.ampex-uk.com& |
|
arny
Full Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by arny on Jan 23, 2014 5:02:47 GMT -6
Arny, can you please share your thoughts on Ampex 406 and 499 as well as Scotch 996? I used 406 only for archiving as the print through was reasonable, I have mentioned Ampex 499 and as I stated I would never use 499 for multitrack recording. I have never tested Scotch 996, but was informed by Ampex that their GP9 was to replace 996 as 3M's had stopped manufacturing 996. One comment I will make about 3M's/Scotch, unlike Ampex, BASF, Agfa, Zonal, during my 21 years of remixing and mastering I have yet to have any 3M's/Scotch tape that required incubating or as some say "Baking". Kind Regards Tony & www.arnys-shack.com |
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 23, 2014 5:48:27 GMT -6
If I'm understanding correctly, you would add Ampex/Quantegy GP9 and Basf/Emtec 900 to the formulations with drop out problems, correct? I assume that the formulation from RMGI you are referring to would be the Dutch made 911 as the French production seems to be having problems getting off the ground at all. I can only assume the 3Ms, the BASF, & Emtec would give the same problems I was not prepared to invest in purchasing other manufactured although I did offer to test if they were prepared to send me a sample reel, never received one. But later, Ampex/Quantegy later sent me a reel of GP9 which was a slight improvement but was not as robust as 456 and the overall sound was not as good even though we Re-biased. Yes today I recommend RHG 911 for a robust tape for Multitrack recording. Kind Regards Tony, www.ampex-uk.com& Have you used the French made (PYRAL) RMGI 911 as well as the Dutch made RMGI 911? The first PYRAL branded boxes actually contained Dutch tape as far as I know. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 23, 2014 10:52:58 GMT -6
Arny, can you please share your thoughts on Ampex 406 and 499 as well as Scotch 996? I used 406 only for archiving as the print through was reasonable, I have mentioned Ampex 499 and as I stated I would never use 499 for multitrack recording. I have never tested Scotch 996, but was informed by Ampex that their GP9 was to replace 996 as 3M's had stopped manufacturing 996. One comment I will make about 3M's/Scotch, unlike Ampex, BASF, Agfa, Zonal, during my 21 years of remixing and mastering I have yet to have any 3M's/Scotch tape that required incubating or as some say "Baking". Kind Regards Tony & www.arnys-shack.comGood thing, I'd say, as the backing on that tape sheds like a sonuvagun! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 23, 2014 11:55:32 GMT -6
I always avoided Ampex tape like the plague after bad experiences with 406 and 456. The only 3M tape I ever had a problem with was 226 which developed a bad case of sticky-shed just like the 456 it emulated.
Ampex tape was popular because tape was a profit center for most studios and the minimum order for a really good price on Ampex left it costing half as much in many cases even though the list prices were the same as 3M. I'll have to try the 911.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 24, 2014 2:28:20 GMT -6
I'll be on the lookout for dropouts. I don't believe i have encountered any. I am certain that tape, to my ears, whether current production or old stock, sounds closer to the input than PCM digital. Of course, machines must be properly aligned and calibrated and levels should be watched carefully for the response to be linear.
Lately I have been using more ATR tape and am quite happy with it. Havent done any rigorous AB testing. Just an impression comparing to the memory of past sessions.
In our studio we have used 456, 499 (all time least favorite formulation), GP9, 911 and 900 (from BASF, EMTEC, Dutch and French RMGI) and ATR Master tape. If I had to pick a favorite, it would be BASF made 911. However, sometimes a lower noise floor is required (specially in the "digital era") so we use higher output formulations and trade off the extra headroom for less noise by calibrating to a 500 nWb/m reference. I find that the slight extra hiss you get when recording at 15 ips with IEC (European) eq is worth the bass response at this speed/eq. It is also true that, for years now, many find buying five reels of 2" (a typical amount for a 30ips multitrack session with a moderate budget in the nineties) impossible to justify. At least, in this part of the world.
If I could, I would buy 16 track heads for the JH24.
Oh, and tape sessions are typically faster that pt sessions. I know that for many, this will sound like utter insanity.
Did I mention that I like tape? : )
|
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Jan 24, 2014 5:20:02 GMT -6
I can think of several reasons why the tape sessions would be faster than the DAW ones. Might make for an interesting seperate thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenafria on Jan 25, 2014 2:51:23 GMT -6
I can think of several reasons why the tape sessions would be faster than the DAW ones. Might make for an interesting seperate thread. It can be summarised as "with tape, it is much harder to postpone decisions". But yes, I have thought a lot about how the supposed advantages of recording digitally with a computer eat up time without making the recording any better. That separate thread sounds like a plan. In the technique section, I suppose : ) |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 25, 2014 9:52:59 GMT -6
Simply recording live ensembles is even faster and more decisive than using tape! It forces you to get the arrangement and performance right so there is no need to use technology crutches to make it work at all.
Does anybody really believe Les Paul's records sounded that great?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 25, 2014 10:08:46 GMT -6
Honestly, a lot of classic recordings lack full bandwidth and to my 40 year old ears - don't sounds "great"...BUT it's funny, - what is "Great"? They have a character and personality (and they certainly are softer and more pleasing to the ear on tape)...It's like hearing Willie Nelson or Neil Young sing - not "great"...but just kind've incredible.
Sometimes I wonder if we mix up the greatness of the performance with the greatness of the sound. What would Marvin Gaye, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc. sounded like recording 24/96? Even better?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 25, 2014 10:09:41 GMT -6
BTW - don't mean to derail the thread - maybe that question should be a separate thread. Reading this thread makes me realize how little I know about engineering! And that's awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 25, 2014 10:44:33 GMT -6
I think I used to like FUJI tape better than Ampex.
Hmm Bob, arrangement and performance right, I gotta try that again, I thick you're on to something.
|
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jan 25, 2014 11:13:11 GMT -6
Well...I got the 440b up and running last night. Printed some rough mixes off the 1608 straight to some 50 year old anonymous tape I found in my grampa's garage.
What can I say? It's good. It's real. It's right.
I wouldn't dare debate any of you on any technical subject and I offer no scientific evaluation at all...
It's just an ear massage.
I've been chasing transistor saturation and transformer coloration and blah blah on and on for 15 years in the digital ITB environment.
This was the missing link FOR ME.
I won't use it on everything, it wouldn't be appropriate for much of the ultra modern stuff I work on but for the right projects...solid gold.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 25, 2014 11:17:10 GMT -6
Well...I got the 440b up and running last night. Printed some rough mixes off the 1608 straight to some 50 year old anonymous tape I found in my grampa's garage. What can I say? It's good. It's real. It's right. I wouldn't dare debate any of you on any technical subject and I offer no scientific evaluation at all... It's just an ear massage. I've been chasing transistor saturation and transformer coloration and blah blah on and on for 15 years in the digital ITB environment. This was the missing link FOR ME. I won't use it on everything, it wouldn't be appropriate for much of the ultra modern stuff I work on but for the right projects...solid gold. Super jealous of your rig man. |
|
