Hi --

Recently, I picked up a box of NOS Scully parts in a deal. I ended up with
more of some items than I'll ever need to keep my facility's Scully 284 1"
12-track running indefinitely.

I'm not interested in going into the parts business. I'm just hoping to find
homes for some of these parts with folks who also want to keep their old
Scully recorders running. A little reimbursement for my time, the parts and
shipping will be sufficient.

There are no heads, transformers, motors, etc. I've got mostly transport
switches and buttons for 280, 284, 280B and 284B, some unusual plugs and
sockets, etc. but there may be other things in this box of parts you need.
Please contact me at this email address:



Let me know what your needs are and I'll try to help out.You might have to
take a digital picture of your broken part to help me find one for you.

If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully
12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he

http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html

Just scroll down until you get to it.

Cheers,

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:23:03 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote:

If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully
12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he

http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html snip

Forget the Scully...get a load of that MR-70! Holy CRAPOLA! I think
I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now.

There's a lot of perfection going on in this house, for certain.
Bravo!

dB

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:23:03 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote:

If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully
12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he

http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html snip

Forget the Scully...get a load of that MR-70! Holy CRAPOLA! I think
I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now.

There's a lot of perfection going on in this house, for certain.
Bravo!

dB

Hi --

"DeserTBoB" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:23:03 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote:

If you're a Scully enthusiast and wish to see our rack-mounted Scully
12-track machine, you can find a shot of it he

http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html snip

Forget the Scully...get a load of that MR-70! Holy CRAPOLA!

Thanks. Recovering that machine from a pile of parts (none of which worked)
was a LOT of work. I'm glad you like it.

BTW, It sounds awesome -- proof that as far back as 1964, we had all of the
knowledge we needed to build an incredible sounding analog tape recorder. I
think the most significant improvements since then may have been in the tape
itself.

I think
I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now.

300-3SS? Help me decode that. Are you saying you have a 3-track Ampex 300
(Solid State?) That sounds interesting. Please pull it out of the dumpster
and give us more detail. g

There's a lot of perfection going on in this house, for certain.
Bravo!

Thanks.

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

Hi --

"Kevin Kelly" wrote in message
...
Steve,
WOW!

I had no idea that there was any facilicty on face of the earth that had
honed
the archiving and reclamation of a myriad of analog formats to a science.
...and of course there needs to be!

It's been a bit of a mission. I felt that a facility like this was really
needed. Finding the 12-track Scully (with the 1" 4-track heads that also
came with it) was a real breakthrough towards making it possible to provide
transfers of every professional analog format.

I'm still looking for a Stephens 40-track. Anyone know where I can find one?
g

I may just sell my little PC Richards convection oven at a garage sale,
push my
MCI JH110 down a flight of stairs (after dousing the analog torque board
in
gasoline and lighting it), drop an anvil on the damn PuMpInG dbx's and
hissing
Dolby 361's and book some time.

You'd be very welcome here, of course. g

I would also love to include a link to your website in my syllabus as
additional info for the ever-shrinking analog tape unit in one of my audio
classes.

I'd be honored. If there's anything else I can do to help, please let me
know.

Best,

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:37:33 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote:

Thanks. Recovering that machine from a pile of parts (none of which worked)
was a LOT of work. I'm glad you like it. snip

Like it? Well, the MR-70 was one of THE best tape machines ever
built, so I'd be loony NOT to like it! Willi Studer supposedly said
he could build a machine AS good as an MR-70, but not better. That's
a mouthful in itself.

BTW, It sounds awesome -- proof that as far back as 1964, we had all of the
knowledge we needed to build an incredible sounding analog tape recorder. I
think the most significant improvements since then may have been in the tape
itself. snip

No doubt. From this point on, Ampex concentrated on completely
penetrating the industry with "workhorses," like the 440. Except for
the ATR-100, I don't think they ever got as good as the MR-70 ever
again. Analog tape technology was the vanguard, not the machines.
Ampex 406, and later 456, opened the door to what was really possible
with analog.

I think
I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now.

300-3SS? Help me decode that. Are you saying you have a 3-track Ampex 300
(Solid State?) That sounds interesting. Please pull it out of the dumpster
and give us more detail. g snip

OK, if you insist. 300-3SS denotes a Model 300, 3 track ½" format
with the SelSync panel factory installed. On factory delivered
machines, there was also rack space in which to install an MX-10, but
mine's not so equipped. This machine came as part of a deal that
included this machine and a ¼" 351-2. This 300 is a later machine,
and uses the 30960-11 chasses, which were standard with SelSync
installations. They use a different bias circuit than did real 351s,
using a transformer tap for feedback, similar to the older 300s. They
have hi/lo/"Ampex Mastering" EQ. The 351-2 is just a garden variety
351-2 with 30950-1 and -3 chasses.

I got these two in LA many moons ago. The 300 was rumored to be the
one that Richard Vaughn owned and had at his home to record those
George Wright sessions on Vaughn's home installation of the Chicago
Paradise Wurlitzer for his HIFIRecords label. However, there's no way
to verify this. It was with the SelSync panel that Wright learned the
joys of overdubbing, which he later did to the extreme during his Dot
contract, where he had 8 track at his disposal. It wound up changing
hands a few times in Hollywood amongst aspiring wannabe stars, since 3
track was dead by then. By the time I got it, it was in not bad
shape, and the original heads only needed a light lapping to bring
back proper contour. However, as with all 300s, the capstan drive was
a mess, needing both bearings and rubber. Flutter was horrid at 15,
and worse at 7½, so I decided to tear down the entire transport and
replace every bearing that revolved. By this time (1982) parts were
getting tougher to come by, but I wound up replacing every bearing,
guide and roller in the machine. What I wound up with was a machine
good enough for flutter, but not so good with speed accuracy, another
character flaw of the breed. It was frustrating.

I don't know why I acquired and rebuilt the 300-3, other than I kept
thinking, "You know, there is a lot of 3 track stuff in vaults around
town, and someday, they'll need something to dub off of...", and
indeed I wound up doing a few of those, going from 3 track mixing down
to a Studer B-67 ½" 2 trk., a nice machine in its own right, onto the
then-new 499. What was interesting on those projects was that the
Studer on 499 was transparent; you could've sworn you were monitoring
the live mixdown of 3 track on Scotch 111 because its relative noise
floor was so low. When two white noise sources are disparate by 10 dB
total power or more, the lesser noise source just goes away to the ear
and the meter, and that's indeed what was happening. Of course, at
the time I was completely ignorant of PCM except for telephone carrier
work, so a 90-100 dB noise floor just didn't enter into my mind then.
Soundstream had their thing going with Telarc, but I never paid much
attention to digital recording developments except from blurbs from
AES, much to my distress in later years.

At that time, the labels weren't interested in doing much of this work
at all, and I moved the machine home, where it sits in the back room
with a dust cover over it, except for routine fire-ups to keep things
going. Since then, all chasses have had a thorough cap/resistor
change-out and I've kept the transport duly lubricated and healthy.
The capstan drive, though, is a perennial PITA, and now parts are
"unobtainium." The original Ampex cabinet was stripped down and
refinished as close to original as possible, and emotes 1957 quite
well.

I got a job about 12 years ago transcribing some ½"-3 track stuff, and
at that time, the capstan drive was still quite up to the job. That
was when I encountered the ATR-100...wow, a great machine. But now,
the nagging flutter problems are peaking up again, as they always do.
At least I know the bearings are not at fault now. But the audio
performance, minus flutter and drifty speed, is about as good as I've
ever heard from Ampex tube electronics, EXCEPT for the MR-70, which
completely blew me away. Which one's better overall...MR-70 or
ATR-100...would keep me busy for days.

I do know one thing. If I got a call to dub some classic 3 track to
digital, I wouldn't do it on my machine...I'd refer them to you.
There's just no way a transfer could get any better with a finely
tuned MR-70 handling the playback. Besides, I'd rather not deal with
finnicky reels of ultra fragile 111 anymore (it was bad enough 20
years ago), and you seem to be well equipped to handle that chore!

OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why
AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty
competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good
440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads.

TTFN

dB

Hi --

Wow. What a post!

"DeserTBoB" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:37:33 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote:

Thanks. Recovering that machine from a pile of parts (none of which
worked)
was a LOT of work. I'm glad you like it. snip

Like it? Well, the MR-70 was one of THE best tape machines ever
built, so I'd be loony NOT to like it! Willi Studer supposedly said
he could build a machine AS good as an MR-70, but not better. That's
a mouthful in itself.

That's a fun story. It's been challenged and there's a big question as to
whether it's really true. However, regardless of how Herr Studer viewed the
MR70, it remains an amazing machine. I think Studer machines are a classier
build than Ampexes, but then there's that "Ampex sound".

BTW, It sounds awesome -- proof that as far back as 1964, we had all of
the
knowledge we needed to build an incredible sounding analog tape recorder.
I
think the most significant improvements since then may have been in the
tape
itself. snip

No doubt. From this point on, Ampex concentrated on completely
penetrating the industry with "workhorses," like the 440. Except for
the ATR-100, I don't think they ever got as good as the MR-70 ever
again. Analog tape technology was the vanguard, not the machines.
Ampex 406, and later 456, opened the door to what was really possible
with analog.

I'm not sure exactly when the capability of the machines overtook the tape.
In fact, I'm not sure that the capability of the machines hasn't *always*
been greater than that of the tape (of the day).

I sat down for an hour or so one evening with several of the different
manuals for different analog tape recorders and noticed that with each new
machine the S/N figure would climb. Then I started trying to translate them
all so that I could compare apples to apples. Due to the different types of
weighting and the moving target of how much distortion they took their
measurements at, I could only approximate my results. But I was amazed to
find that what was really changing was the tape.

Safety tip: Don't try to tell a stock ATR100 owner that its S/N is little if
any better than that of a stock 440C.

I think
I'll go throw my 300-3SS in the dumpster now.

300-3SS? Help me decode that. Are you saying you have a 3-track Ampex 300
(Solid State?) That sounds interesting. Please pull it out of the
dumpster
and give us more detail. g snip

OK, if you insist. 300-3SS denotes a Model 300, 3 track ½" format
with the SelSync panel factory installed. On factory delivered
machines, there was also rack space in which to install an MX-10, but
mine's not so equipped.

Got it. When I saw the "SS" I thought "solid state" and figured maybe you
had an AG-300.

This machine came as part of a deal that
included this machine and a ¼" 351-2. This 300 is a later machine,
and uses the 30960-11 chasses, which were standard with SelSync
installations. They use a different bias circuit than did real 351s,
using a transformer tap for feedback, similar to the older 300s. They
have hi/lo/"Ampex Mastering" EQ.

That machine has AME in it? Wow. This is really an unusual 300. Are the 351
electronics grey chassis or gold chassis? What color PC boards? If it's
really late, they will be blue. Can you bypass the AME curve if you want to?

The 351-2 is just a garden variety
351-2 with 30950-1 and -3 chasses.

There are a lot of folks who like those machines.

I got these two in LA many moons ago. The 300 was rumored to be the
one that Richard Vaughn owned and had at his home to record those
George Wright sessions on Vaughn's home installation of the Chicago
Paradise Wurlitzer for his HIFIRecords label. However, there's no way
to verify this. It was with the SelSync panel that Wright learned the
joys of overdubbing, which he later did to the extreme during his Dot
contract, where he had 8 track at his disposal. It wound up changing
hands a few times in Hollywood amongst aspiring wannabe stars, since 3
track was dead by then. By the time I got it, it was in not bad
shape, and the original heads only needed a light lapping to bring
back proper contour. However, as with all 300s, the capstan drive was
a mess, needing both bearings and rubber. Flutter was horrid at 15,
and worse at 7½, so I decided to tear down the entire transport and
replace every bearing that revolved. By this time (1982) parts were
getting tougher to come by, but I wound up replacing every bearing,
guide and roller in the machine.

Nice feeling, isn't it . . .

What I wound up with was a machine
good enough for flutter, but not so good with speed accuracy, another
character flaw of the breed. It was frustrating.

Some folks have added Tentrols to those machines for that reason. You're hip
to Tentrols, right?

I don't know why I acquired and rebuilt the 300-3, other than I kept
thinking, "You know, there is a lot of 3 track stuff in vaults around
town, and someday, they'll need something to dub off of...", and
indeed I wound up doing a few of those, going from 3 track mixing down
to a Studer B-67 ½" 2 trk., a nice machine in its own right, onto the
then-new 499. What was interesting on those projects was that the
Studer on 499 was transparent; you could've sworn you were monitoring
the live mixdown of 3 track on Scotch 111 because its relative noise
floor was so low. When two white noise sources are disparate by 10 dB
total power or more, the lesser noise source just goes away to the ear
and the meter, and that's indeed what was happening.

Right, the source noise swamps the noise level of the target machine. So,
are you saying you found the B-67 sonically pure or just that it didn't seem
to add noise.

At that time, the labels weren't interested in doing much of this work
at all, and I moved the machine home, where it sits in the back room
with a dust cover over it, except for routine fire-ups to keep things
going. Since then, all chasses have had a thorough cap/resistor
change-out and I've kept the transport duly lubricated and healthy.
The capstan drive, though, is a perennial PITA, and now parts are
"unobtainium." The original Ampex cabinet was stripped down and
refinished as close to original as possible, and emotes 1957 quite
well.

I'll bet!

I got a job about 12 years ago transcribing some ½"-3 track stuff, and
at that time, the capstan drive was still quite up to the job. That
was when I encountered the ATR-100...wow, a great machine.

Yes, so long as you're running new tape on it.

But now,
the nagging flutter problems are peaking up again, as they always do.
At least I know the bearings are not at fault now. But the audio
performance, minus flutter and drifty speed, is about as good as I've
ever heard from Ampex tube electronics, EXCEPT for the MR-70, which
completely blew me away. Which one's better overall...MR-70 or
ATR-100...would keep me busy for days.

I can't make a 100% reliable direct comparison because I can only
record/play 1/2" 3-track tapes on the MR70 and I can only configure the
ATR100 for either 1/4" or 1/2" 2-track. Additionally, the ATR heads are Flux
Magnetics which have the advantage of computer-assisted design and the
higher permiability of alloys available for today's heads. But, taking all
of that into consideration, in a head-to-head comparision, it is very
difficult to choose between them. IMHO, there's no clear winner.

I do know one thing. If I got a call to dub some classic 3 track to
digital, I wouldn't do it on my machine...I'd refer them to you.
There's just no way a transfer could get any better with a finely
tuned MR-70 handling the playback. Besides, I'd rather not deal with
finnicky reels of ultra fragile 111 anymore (it was bad enough 20
years ago), and you seem to be well equipped to handle that chore!

Thanks!

OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why
AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty
competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good
440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads.

I think they're cheap because they are abundant. Anyone who really wants one
can have one. It's screwy to say this, but I think that if Ampex had sold
fewer of them, they would be more popular today.

It's too bad they're not more highly regarded. We discovered here that with
a bit of money and effort, a 440 can be very significantly upgraded from
stock performance.

If you get a chance, go back to the tech info web page that started this
discussion (www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html) and check out the info on
the Flux ME heads and RTZ repro amps used in the MM1200s here. We're using
the same technology in the 440-2/3/4/8 machine (along with class-A
transformerless output and some other mods to the transport and electronics)
and the results are (I feel) outstanding.

I'm constantly doing listening tests. In a shootout between a modded out
AG440C configured for 2-track, a Scully 280, Scully 280B, MR70 and ATR102,
the modded 440C came the closest to "truth" (input = output). And, it did
this in a very musical way. Of course, you might like certain things about
the sonic signature of the other machines better, but none of them was as
truthful.

Unfortunately, results with a stock 440B will fall quite far short of what
we heard here after taking advantage of the mods and alterations to signal
path we did.

I'm hoping to do another head-to-head with our modded 440C, ATR102, MR70,
Studer A820 and Sony APR5000 (which is supposed to be a sleeper).

OK, so how was that for payback?

BTW, have you considered joining the Ampex List? I think you'd enjoy it. We
have guys on the list that worked for Ampex on the 300-8, the MR70,
AG300/350, the 440, the 1100 and the 440C.

http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html

There's also a really excellent Studer list available through recordist.com.

Cheers,

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

In article writes:

OK, if you insist. 300-3SS denotes a Model 300, 3 track ½" format
with the SelSync panel factory installed.

I take it that symbol preceding the " is 1/2, and in 3-track
half-inch.

On factory delivered
machines, there was also rack space in which to install an MX-10, but
mine's not so equipped.

Left, right, and center - makes sense.

OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why
AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty
competent, if not glamorous, machines.

There were a lot of them. While today there are a lot of people with
cheap digital home recording gear who want to warm up their recordings
and get "that analog sound" when they see how big a 440 is, they start
looking in the attic for their grandfather's TEAC that can fit on the
table. No consideration for what it will take to put either in good
working shape - hey, it's ANALOG, man! But prices fluctuate wildly
since most 440s seem to be sold through eBay these days. Some are
crazy cheap, some are crazy expensive. If you can find a broadcast
station that needs to clean up the shop and hasn't heard of eBay,
that's the best deal.

--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

DeserTBoB wrote:

OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why
AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty
competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good
440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads.

Damned if I know. I recently sold a 440-4 with four-track 1/2" stacks,
four-track and half-track 1/4" stacks, and spare parts kits for $350 on
Ebay.

It wouldn't go over $350. New bearings in the motors, full maintenance
log since it was purchased, recent recapping of all the electronics cards,
and it went for $350.

Another serious sleeper is the MCI JH-110, which people don't seem to be
able to give away. And that is also a very respectable broadcast-grade
machine that, like the 440, deserves more respect than it gets.
--scott

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

Steve Puntolillo wrote:

Safety tip: Don't try to tell a stock ATR100 owner that its S/N is little if
any better than that of a stock 440C.

You know, I had the 440B and the ATR-100 sitting next to one another for
several years, and sometimes I liked the sound of one and sometimes I liked
the sound of the other more. The flutter on the ATR was noticeably lower,
though, in spite of a lot of fiddling with the idlers on the 440.
--scott


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

Steve Puntolillo wrote:

I'm still looking for a Stephens 40-track. Anyone know where I can find one?
g

No, but I know a couple people who can make 40-track heads that you could
put on an existing machine. There are a bunch of guys who used to make
those things for logging machines, and it would be a matter of having them
make some with wider gaps for 15 ips use. Right now, the head market is
dead and there are a lot of head manufacturers still sort of struggling
along.... they won't be around too much longer I fear so now is the time to
get any custom stuff built.
--scott

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:02:46 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote:

That machine has AME in it? Wow. This is really an unusual 300. Are the 351
electronics grey chassis or gold chassis? snip

The old cadmium washed grey. I've seen a few of the later gold
anodized later chassis on 351s, but never on a stock 300.

What color PC boards? If it's
really late, they will be blue. snip

No "blue" boards on any...they're all "grey" fiberglas. My 351 has
the later gold chasses with "blue" boards, though, making it a late
production 351. I went on and on about the 300, but my 351's a pretty
competent machine in its own right. At least I can run without all
that flutter and screwing around with speed control! I recently got a
pair of Inovonics 375s for just about free, and, just as an
experiment, used them on the 351 transport. As my other posts
suggest, they REALLY suck sonically, but for what particular reason,
I'm still not sure. Static R/P distortion measurements are stellar
with the linearizer in, but once you put program material through
them, things get bad really quickly, especially on hot levels.
Cutting the lin circuit out actually makes things even worse! I'm
still investigating, but the problem with these seems to be that they
use the 748 op-amp, known for its really lousy slew rate.
Functionally, they're perfect, but I sure wouldn't want to listen to
them for any length of time.

Can you bypass the AME curve if you want to? snip

Yes. There's a three position EQ switch for low and high NAB, and a
single AME position. I understand that there was a factory option on
these for IEC EQ in lieu of NAB, but I've never seen one. I used AME
on one job for playback, and they were right...it DOES work. More
about that later. Of course, as tape improved, the slight benefits of
AME disappeared, so having it now is basically a tool to use for tapes
cut with it back in the days of Scotch 111...which actually got me a
job once!

Some folks have added Tentrols to those machines for that reason. You're hip
to Tentrols, right? snip

I've been told that Tentrol will help the speed drift problem, but
won't eliminate it. I've noted that, even with tape at the same
relative reel position, speed on the 300 increases proportionately
with operating time in a session, as if the rubber gets "grabbier." I
know it's not bearings, since I'm pretty meticulous about those.
Supposedly, Tentrol will eliminate the tendency to increase speed at
different points on the reel, but won't do much to change the
"increase with time" problem.

Right, the source noise swamps the noise level of the target machine. So,
are you saying you found the B-67 sonically pure or just that it didn't seem
to add noise. snip

Well, the noise issue is obvious; the effective noise floor on the
Studer using 499 was a good 15 dB lower referenced to MOL than what
I'd measured it to be on the original program on 111, so, in reality,
there WAS no additive noise power on the dub, save for a teensy bit at
the extreme top end, since the noise spectrum for 111 vis vis 499
shows a bit of a roll-up above 10 KHz. Even though I have pretty
darned good ears, I honestly couldn't hear the difference in noise
floor. Aside from noise, the dub as recorded on the Studer came off
with about the same "signature" as it did on the Ampex; it was clearly
the "Ampex sound", and the Studer didn't seem to add anything
noticeable in terms of its own artifacts. Mind you, I hit the tape on
the Studer probably a little lighter than I could have, my goal being
to provide at least a 10 dB spread in noise floor, but keep out of the
MOL vicinity as much as possible to keep harmonic distortion at an
absolute minimum. This required two runs, since I hadn't hit the 2
track hard enough on the first try, and there was some audibly evident
noise addition. I boosted the record power 3 dB on the second run,
and it just simply went away and I didn't hear any obvious addition of
third harmonic. It worked out fine, and the client was ecstatic.
Thus, I'd judge the Studer, in this project, to be pretty sonically
"neutral." It was a nice machine!

Yes, so long as you're running new tape on it. snip

I used 499 for that job, too, and was pleased with the outcome.
Whether the ATR-100 or the A-67 were "better" than each other on this
very similar job is a matter of extreme nit-picking and conjecture.
Again, the primary goal was to maintain a 10 dB difference in noise
floor from the originating tape and the dub to prevent generational
degradation due to additive noise power, and the ATR-100 did this
fine, although I do remember having to hit the tape about 2 dB harder
on the Ampex than I did years earlier with that Studer to achieve the
same result. It was a lot tougher to use metrics to get answers on
this project, since the 3 track had no pad tones at all (!), so I had
to guesstimate where the original engineer had set his OPL. I was
still happy with the results, but not as happy as I was using the
Studer, mainly because I had to completely rely on my ears. I'm an
engineering type; I like metrics to back up suppositions, and in this
case, I really didn't have any fixed point of reference like I did
previously. One interesting facet was that the first job I did had a
meticulous log sheet (done at Warner's/Burbank, by the way), and they
had used AME EQ, which I had on my 300-3. This other job used NAB, so
one could conclude that, back in the 300/111 days, AME WAS a superior
choice for providing somewhat better noise floor. I remember I got
that first job mainly because my machine was set up for AME; no one
else in town had it on a 3 track machine at the time, and operable 3
track machines were as rare as hen's teeth by this time, as they are
now.

I think they're cheap because they are abundant. Anyone who really wants one
can have one. It's screwy to say this, but I think that if Ampex had sold
fewer of them, they would be more popular today. snip

I agree. 440s were cranked out by the tons in their day, and I
believe they outsold 300s and 351s combined by the time they were
through. Not sure about that, but I remember "back in the day", 440s
were everywhere. What struck me about the 440 from my exposure to
them was that they were, for a highly mass produced machine, reliably
repeatable in performance. You could walk into a strange room, get on
a 440, and know pretty much exactly what you were going to get.
Scullys? Hmmmm... MCIs? I didn't have much time on those, but hmmmm
again.

What's funny is I can buy a complete, operating 440 in either ¼" or
½", any format, for about the price a piece of crap 350 chassis would
go for. For some time now, 300/350/351 chasses have been scooped up
basically as "effects boxes" for "toob soundz" by the unwashed, thus
driving their prices through the roof, and thus making it hard to get
really good rebuildable examples. More than once I've located a
30960-various chassis for $300, only to find it was missing a
transformer, had be screwed with by someone obviously with no clue and
so on, making them basically a lump of parts of questionable worth.

If you get a chance, go back to the tech info web page that started this
discussion (www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html) and check out the info on
the Flux ME heads and RTZ repro amps used in the MM1200s here. We're using
the same technology in the 440-2/3/4/8 machine (along with class-A
transformerless output and some other mods to the transport and electronics)
and the results are (I feel) outstanding. snip

Thanks for that tip. I'd like to do a "hot rodded" 440 project
myself, since I believe the potential of these machines far outpaces
what was available in stock form.

I'm constantly doing listening tests. In a shootout between a modded out
AG440C configured for 2-track, a Scully 280, Scully 280B, MR70 and ATR102,
the modded 440C came the closest to "truth" (input = output). And, it did
this in a very musical way. Of course, you might like certain things about
the sonic signature of the other machines better, but none of them was as
truthful. snip

I never liked Scullys, and I just don't know why. It seemed there was
a lumped package of artifacts they'd introduce...nothing in
particular, but a lot of tiny things...that just didn't sound right to
me. I know many monster hits were cut on Scullys, and many people
love that sound, but it just doesn't do it for me, especially on
critical material.

Unfortunately, results with a stock 440B will fall quite far short of what
we heard here after taking advantage of the mods and alterations to signal
path we did. snip

That's why I'd like to mod one myself. I'd hazard to guess that, with
these mods, a 440 could give the ATR-100 a run for its money, and
that's not bad at all.

I'm hoping to do another head-to-head with our modded 440C, ATR102, MR70,
Studer A820 and Sony APR5000 (which is supposed to be a sleeper). snip

I have an aversion to Sony anything. The Japanese always say, "Sony
no breakee!" Oh yeah? Ever try to keep one running??

OK, so how was that for payback? snip

More than I bargained for, and good discussion, and thanks!

BTW, have you considered joining the Ampex List? I think you'd enjoy it. We
have guys on the list that worked for Ampex on the 300-8, the MR70,
AG300/350, the 440, the 1100 and the 440C.

http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html snip

I shall join, although mail lists tend to drive me nuts after awhile,
and thanks for the invite.

dB

Hi, Scott --

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Steve Puntolillo wrote:

Safety tip: Don't try to tell a stock ATR100 owner that its S/N is little
if
any better than that of a stock 440C.

You know, I had the 440B and the ATR-100 sitting next to one another for
several years, and sometimes I liked the sound of one and sometimes I
liked
the sound of the other more. The flutter on the ATR was noticeably lower,
though, in spite of a lot of fiddling with the idlers on the 440.

Slapping an Ampex servo capstan helps to close the gap considerably. A TS10
constant tension kit (or Inovonics Tentrol) for the supply side doesn't hurt
either.

Cheers,

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

Hi, Scott --


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
DeserTBoB wrote:

OK, in payment for all this typing, how about opining as to why
AG-440s are so cheap these days? I always thought they were pretty
competent, if not glamorous, machines. I just picked up a pretty good
440B-2 ½" for $200, complete with reasonably good Ampex heads.

Damned if I know. I recently sold a 440-4 with four-track 1/2" stacks,
four-track and half-track 1/4" stacks, and spare parts kits for $350 on
Ebay.

It wouldn't go over $350. New bearings in the motors, full maintenance
log since it was purchased, recent recapping of all the electronics cards,
and it went for $350.

How did I miss that?

Another serious sleeper is the MCI JH-110, which people don't seem to be
able to give away. And that is also a very respectable broadcast-grade
machine that, like the 440, deserves more respect than it gets.

They have a very bad reputation for poor reliability. Did you ever own one?
I bought one once from Sony's NYC studios. Before I left, one of the techs
whispered to me: "Once you get it running, don't move it."

This was a Sony-maintained machine. I brought it home, aligned it, played
some tapes on it and within two days it had blown two channels of
electronics.

I sold it VERY cheap right after that.

I'm told that if you hand-resolder every single molex connector (of which
there are many) and pull the ICs out of the sockets and solder them in
place, these machines will settle down and run reliably. So, apparently they
were well-designed. Just not well-executed. They sound OK, no?

Cheers,

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

Hi, Scott --

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Steve Puntolillo wrote:

I'm still looking for a Stephens 40-track. Anyone know where I can find
one?
g

No, but I know a couple people who can make 40-track heads that you could
put on an existing machine. There are a bunch of guys who used to make
those things for logging machines, and it would be a matter of having them
make some with wider gaps for 15 ips use. Right now, the head market is
dead and there are a lot of head manufacturers still sort of struggling
along.... they won't be around too much longer I fear so now is the time
to
get any custom stuff built.

John French tells me the 2" 40-track Stephens heads were murder to make. I
guess I could beg Greg Orton of Flux Magnetics to make one for me. Or get
John French to get one made by the folks who made them for Stephens. I guess
I could run a very well-shielded cable to the second MM1200 to get the
25th-40th tracks to play back.

But I think it would be a whole lot simpler and cleaner to just find a
Stephens.

Cheers,

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

Hi --

"DeserTBoB" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:02:46 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
wrote:

That machine has AME in it? Wow. This is really an unusual 300. Are the
351
electronics grey chassis or gold chassis? snip

The old cadmium washed grey. I've seen a few of the later gold
anodized later chassis on 351s, but never on a stock 300.

What color PC boards? If it's
really late, they will be blue. snip

No "blue" boards on any...they're all "grey" fiberglas.

The actual Ampex engineers I've spoken to liked those the best.

My 351 has
the later gold chasses with "blue" boards, though, making it a late
production 351. I went on and on about the 300, but my 351's a pretty
competent machine in its own right. At least I can run without all
that flutter and screwing around with speed control!

Right.

I recently got a
pair of Inovonics 375s for just about free, and, just as an
experiment, used them on the 351 transport. As my other posts
suggest, they REALLY suck sonically, but for what particular reason,
I'm still not sure.

I read those posts with interest because I find the subject of phase
compensation interesting and those electronics incorporated a phase
compensation circuit.

Static R/P distortion measurements are stellar
with the linearizer in, but once you put program material through
them, things get bad really quickly, especially on hot levels.
Cutting the lin circuit out actually makes things even worse! I'm
still investigating, but the problem with these seems to be that they
use the 748 op-amp, known for its really lousy slew rate.
Functionally, they're perfect, but I sure wouldn't want to listen to
them for any length of time.

How about updating the opamps?

Can you bypass the AME curve if you want to? snip

Yes. There's a three position EQ switch for low and high NAB, and a
single AME position. I understand that there was a factory option on
these for IEC EQ in lieu of NAB, but I've never seen one. I used AME
on one job for playback, and they were right...it DOES work. More
about that later. Of course, as tape improved, the slight benefits of
AME disappeared, so having it now is basically a tool to use for tapes
cut with it back in the days of Scotch 111...which actually got me a
job once!

I'm hoping that will also work for me on occasion..

Some folks have added Tentrols to those machines for that reason. You're
hip
to Tentrols, right? snip

I've been told that Tentrol will help the speed drift problem, but
won't eliminate it.

If you put them on supply and takeup, it will *provided* the capstan stays
on speed -- which you're about to talk about next.

I've noted that, even with tape at the same
relative reel position, speed on the 300 increases proportionately
with operating time in a session, as if the rubber gets "grabbier." I
know it's not bearings, since I'm pretty meticulous about those.
Supposedly, Tentrol will eliminate the tendency to increase speed at
different points on the reel, but won't do much to change the
"increase with time" problem.

The Tentrols are no match for an off-speed capstan. In the MR70 restoration,
the 300-style capstan was replaced with a direct drive servo capstan. Sure
makes my life a lot easier. I wonder if anyone has tried this with a 300.
You'd have to be pretty devoted to the machine to go through what that would
take to do.

If you get a chance, go back to the tech info web page that started this
discussion (www.sonicraft.com/a2dx/a2dx_tech.html) and check out the info
on
the Flux ME heads and RTZ repro amps used in the MM1200s here. We're
using
the same technology in the 440-2/3/4/8 machine (along with class-A
transformerless output and some other mods to the transport and
electronics)
and the results are (I feel) outstanding. snip

Thanks for that tip. I'd like to do a "hot rodded" 440 project
myself, since I believe the potential of these machines far outpaces
what was available in stock form.

I'm constantly doing listening tests. In a shootout between a modded out
AG440C configured for 2-track, a Scully 280, Scully 280B, MR70 and
ATR102,
the modded 440C came the closest to "truth" (input = output). And, it did
this in a very musical way. Of course, you might like certain things
about
the sonic signature of the other machines better, but none of them was as
truthful. snip

I never liked Scullys, and I just don't know why. It seemed there was
a lumped package of artifacts they'd introduce...nothing in
particular, but a lot of tiny things...that just didn't sound right to
me. I know many monster hits were cut on Scullys, and many people
love that sound, but it just doesn't do it for me, especially on
critical material.

The culprit was probably the linearizer in them. You have to turn that thing
off. Then the machine sounds just fine. Having a totally restored one here
has allowed me to do some interesting A/B comparisons. I understand why they
were popular. (1) They were less expensive than Ampex' machines. (Note that
the Scully 284-8 is what killed the Ampex MR70. Who, in those days, would
buy a 2-track MR70 when the same amount of money would buy them an 8-track
Scully? If what you wanted was business, you "went 8-track" and bought the
Scully.) (2) They sounded good to people.

Unfortunately, results with a stock 440B will fall quite far short of
what
we heard here after taking advantage of the mods and alterations to
signal
path we did. snip

That's why I'd like to mod one myself. I'd hazard to guess that, with
these mods, a 440 could give the ATR-100 a run for its money, and
that's not bad at all.

Well, the ATR100 does this cool little twist to the sound that people like.
You won't get that, but you can certainly upgrade the performance of the 440
to an astonishing extent.

I'm hoping to do another head-to-head with our modded 440C, ATR102, MR70,
Studer A820 and Sony APR5000 (which is supposed to be a sleeper). snip

I have an aversion to Sony anything. The Japanese always say, "Sony
no breakee!" Oh yeah? Ever try to keep one running??

No. And I have a reluctance to use Japanese tape machines in general because
of how some of them sound. But, I feel that (as long as the machine is
suitable to the task and can be kept operational long-term) I owe it to my
clients to leave no stone unturned, so I make an effort to evaluate anything
I can -- just in case . . . And, I do this via critical listening tests. I
like test gear, but I don't trust it to tell me the whole story. Your
Inovonics electronics are a perfect example of this -- measure great, sound
awful.

BTW, have you considered joining the Ampex List? I think you'd enjoy it.
We
have guys on the list that worked for Ampex on the 300-8, the MR70,
AG300/350, the 440, the 1100 and the 440C.

http://recordist.com/ampex/mail-sub.html snip

I shall join, although mail lists tend to drive me nuts after awhile,
and thanks for the invite.

See you there!

Cheers,

--Steve

=================================================
Steve Puntolillo
Sonicraft A2DX Lab
Ultimate Multitrack Analog-to-Digital Transfers
http://www.sonicraft.com/a2dx
=================================================

Steve Puntolillo wrote:

John French tells me the 2" 40-track Stephens heads were murder to make. I
guess I could beg Greg Orton of Flux Magnetics to make one for me. Or get
John French to get one made by the folks who made them for Stephens. I guess
I could run a very well-shielded cable to the second MM1200 to get the
25th-40th tracks to play back.

Maybe, but I was thinking about talking to guys like Lipps, Data Recording
Products, or Brush, all of which made the narrowtrack heads for logging
recorders and which might have the correct laminations around and wouldn't
have to make them. I know Lipps and Brush are still around, although I have
not talked to DRP for a couple years and they may have gone the way of the
rest of the industry.

But I think it would be a whole lot simpler and cleaner to just find a
Stephens.

I know someone who has a 24-track Stephens that he might be selling, but
the 40-track heads... there weren't many of them made.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."