My client looking for Ampex 300/350/351 series 4 tk...anyo..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

--
Stephen Anderson

<mailto:steveaudio@earthlink.net>
~At the end of the day, it's all about
the music
24 answers Last reply
More about client ampex series anyo
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <jyEmd.1142$Tq6.393@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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."
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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 <jyEmd.1142$Tq6.393@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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

    <mailto:steveaudio@earthlink.net>~At the end of the day, it's all about
    the music
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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."
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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 <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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

    <mailto:steveaudio@earthlink.net>~At the end of the day, it's all about
    the music
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <UHSmd.29040$KJ6.22316@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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."
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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."
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    > In article <UHSmd.29040$KJ6.22316@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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 <UHSmd.29040$KJ6.22316@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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

    <mailto:steveaudio@earthlink.net>~At the end of the day, it's all about
    the music
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <3oVmd.29165$KJ6.16101@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> SteveAudio@earthlink.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 (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    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
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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."
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >
    >> In article <UHSmd.29040$KJ6.22316@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    >> Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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."
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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."
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

    >Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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
    radiovoiceone@hotmail.com
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    > Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >Scott Dorsey wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <UHSmd.29040$KJ6.22316@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > >> Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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."
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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 <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <UHSmd.29040$KJ6.22316@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    >>>Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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

    <mailto:steveaudio@earthlink.net>~At the end of the day, it's all about
    the music
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:
    > Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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!
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <cnflsb$brv$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says...
    >
    >
    >In article <jyEmd.1142$Tq6.393@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    >Stephen Anderson <SteveAudio@earthlink.net> 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).
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Robert Orban <donotreply@spamblock.com> 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."
  21. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, kludge@panix.com (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
  22. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, kludge@panix.com (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
  23. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    DeserTBoB <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote:
    >On 2 Dec 2004 23:04:05 -0500, kludge@panix.com (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."
  24. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On 4 Dec 2004 10:11:25 -0500, kludge@panix.com (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
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio Music