Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FS: Reasonable - NOS Scully parts

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:23:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.marketplace,rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.marketplace (More info?)

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:

steve@sonicraft.com

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 here:

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
=================================================
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 7:39:00 PM

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

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!
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.
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.









Kevin M. Kelly
"There needs to be a 12-step program for us gearheads"
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 2:45:33 AM

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

Hi --

"Kevin Kelly" <kellykevm@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041205113900.08186.00001668@mb-m05.aol.com...
> 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
=================================================
Related resources
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 3:29:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.marketplace (More info?)

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:37:33 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
<spunt@comcast.net> 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
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 8:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.marketplace (More info?)

Hi --

Wow. What a post!

"DeserTBoB" <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ebq7r01u1e8jda355c6jdccsru9phnpjnl@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:37:33 -0500, "Steve Puntolillo"
> <spunt@comcast.net> 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
=================================================
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:17:14 PM

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

In article <ebq7r01u1e8jda355c6jdccsru9phnpjnl@4ax.com> desertb@rglobal.net 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 (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
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:37:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.marketplace (More info?)

DeserTBoB <desertb@rglobal.net> 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."
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:42:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.marketplace (More info?)

Steve Puntolillo <steve@sonicraft.com> 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."
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 4:49:26 PM

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

Steve Puntolillo <steve@sonicraft.com> 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."
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:35:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.marketplace (More info?)

Hi, Scott --

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp1ulb$a7n$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Steve Puntolillo <steve@sonicraft.com> 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
=================================================
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:42:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.marketplace (More info?)

Hi, Scott --


"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp1uce$nl5$1@panix2.panix.com...
> DeserTBoB <desertb@rglobal.net> 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
=================================================
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:48:40 AM

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

Hi, Scott --

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp29jm$l4q$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Steve Puntolillo <steve@sonicraft.com> 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
=================================================
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:41:56 PM

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

Steve Puntolillo <steve@sonicraft.com> 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."
Anonymous
April 24, 2010 3:54:40 PM

Hey Steve,

I know it's been ages since you posted this but do you have a spare dashpot for the take-up side tension arm. I've just purchased a machine 1" 8 track 284 I believe with a missing dashpot. Quite an interesting machine actually as it's a custom order with vertically rack mounted playback electronics and remote meter bridge.

You can contact me at robwithhair@gmail.com if you have anything suitable.

Thanks,

Robert
!