[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] reel choices was help in fair pricing of reel to reel machines
Yes, since we mostly use what machines in working order we can get at a
surplus rate from UW -Madison and WHA radio, I use a Technics 1500 and
ATR 700 and 800 machines almost daily. Better machines have been
surplused, but they usually have been basket cases or were way over
priced. The Technics 1500 was actually purchased new in the late 1980's
by our department. At that time the Madison based Smart Studios, (of
Butch Vig / Garbage / Nirvana / Killdozer fame), was using the same type
of machine as their main 1/4" mastering machine.
Robert Wasserman
Robert.Wasserman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sound Archives Proj. Asst./Lead Tech.
Wisconsin Historical Society
608-264-6473
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.
>