Re: [ARSCLIST] reel choices was help in fair pricing of reel to reel machines

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marcos:

The Technics machine has 2-track and quarter-track play heads, too. So does the Ampex/Tascam 
ATR-700, but I wouldn't recommend that machine unless you got one not beaten to death at a radio 
station and the price was really cheap.

Here's the main problem with Otari's, Ampex ATR-700's and many Tascam machines -- they've been 
ridden hard and put away wet way too many times at radio stations or TV stations or not-top-tier 
video production places colleges or other places not staffed by skilled maintenance personnel. So 
they're beat to death by the time they get released on the market. None are all that easy to restore 
or work on. And none sound all that great.

The Technics machines I've seen on ebay go for good money because there seems to be a cult 
appreciation of them (and why not -- they're great machines), but they seem to come out of places 
where they were used less and treated better. John French has done great restoration work on 
headblocks for me, and I recommend you make sure to ask that he spray and clean the somewhat cheapo 
2T/QT head switch.

By the way, the big problem with any machine that feeds 2T and QT heads through the same electronics 
(ie any machine with 2 play heads and a switch) is that you need to optimize playback for one or the 
other. Now, if both heads are really nicely buffed and aligned, it'll be close enough for most 
playbacks, but it won't be perfect unless you tweak for each head when you switch. I have a 
quarter-track play head on one of my Ampex AG-440B's and it has its own cables going to AG-445 type 
playback electronics, which are adjusted for that head alone. Meanwhile, the main play/record 
electronics are optimized for 2T.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marcos Sueiro" <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] reel choices was help in fair pricing of reel to reel machines


> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Interestingly, one of the satisfied MX-5050 owners I know is a radio 
> station. What I do like about the 5050s (on paper) is their flexibility for the price, the BIIIs 
> (I think?) having a 1/4 as well as a 1/2 track head on the same path, as well as three speeds. It 
> has been a while since I have heard one, but I seem to recall the sound as being  similar to 
> comparable Teacs, perhaps a bit fuller.
>
> Of the few I have more experience with, the ATR-102 wins hands down to my ears--but we are talking 
> very different price points, of course.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marcos
>
> Richard L. Hess wrote:
> > Hi, Marcos,
> >
> > I'm not Tom, but here are my thoughts on your question, and no, I don't think you're being 
> > bellicose, I think you're being curious as you'd like to learn. Of course, Tom and I have 
> > different approaches. He is a mostly Ampex and Technics shop and I'm a Sony and Studer shop and 
> > we both get great results that please our clients.
> >
> > While only having a very limited exposure to early MX-5050s, I did own four MTR-10s/12s and found 
> > them frustrating. They weren't gentle on tape (the Sonys blow away most transports in many ways 
> > in that regard), they were difficult to modify. Their adjustments didn't allow nearly the 
> > flexibility that we have in the APRs and the A810s to use slightly out-of-spec heads (to get the 
> > job done). The noise floor wasn't that great, neither was the response. The adjustments are all 
> > screwdriver pots, none are electronic and there is limited flexibility for multiple setups (I 
> > forget the exact arrangement).
> >
> > I felt I got better results with ReVox A77s in classical recordings than a competitor got with 
> > MX-5050s. The 5050s were OK as low-cost radio station machines.
> >
> > The thing the MTR-10/12 had going for them was they held up in radio station use and operators 
> > loved them for fast production work.
> >
> > Having several APRs and several A810s by the time I made the decision to dispose of my MTRs could 
> > have coloured my decision. I just couldn't find a way to use the MTRs. Acquiring the only APR-16 
> > ever made (16T and 8T 1" and 8T and 4T 1/2" plus now 16T 1/2" and 7T 1/2" play) I decided to 
> > standardize on the APR and the A810 platforms for transfer work and the A807 as a utility machine 
> > (prep, etc) And, at least for me, getting the Otaris out of my space was a good choice (and I'm 
> > glad I didn't have them when I decided to move back to Ontario).
> >
> > So, those are my reasons. Yes, they work, but there are better machines out there.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > At 11:48 AM 2007-01-24, you wrote:
> > > Tom, I hope my question was not interpreted as bellicose --I'm just curious as to your opinion 
> > > on those Otaris.
> > >
> > > I know people who own MX-5050s (I don't) and seem to be happy with them.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Marcos
> > >
> > > Marcos Sueiro wrote:
> > > > > Otari -- one man's opinion here -- I wouldn't take one if it were GIVEN to me.
> > > >
> > > > Tom, why is that?
> > > >
> > > > Marcos
> >
> > Richard L. Hess                   email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> > Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> > Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.