Re: [ARSCLIST] Space Shuttle Recorder - Link to NY Times article

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, those Ampex 350s (ansd 300s) changed speed as the weight of the
tape shifted from the feed to the take-up reel.  It was common to them all,
unless modified.

In cases where a master was edited from different parts of the same reel or
from multiple reels, there's a whole lot of shifting going on.

You can get away with a shift of a few or more cents in choral music and
massed strings, but flashing lights go off in your ear if you have a splice
in the woodwind section.

Solution?  A machine with variable speed, patience and a fine selection of
naughty words.

Steve Smolian
=========================
Steven Smolian    301-694-5134
Smolian Sound Studios
---------------------------------------------------
CDs made from old recordings,
Five or one or lifetime hoardings,
Made at home or concert hall,
Text and pics explain it all.
at www.soundsaver.com
=========================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Stephens" <savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Space Shuttle Recorder - Link to NY Times article


> In all this discussion of playing back various forms of magnetic
> recordings using older used decks, I wonder if very many people ran into
> my problem?
>
> At my company's location in Hollywood, they originally had an Ampex reel
> to reel recorder/reproducer (a 350, I think), but gave it away before I
> came to work as their archivist.  By the way, an excellent web site
> showing many generations and manufacturers of such decks is:
>
> http://www.phantomprod.com/vintage.html
>
> Anyway, in order to digitize their radio broadcast library for mastering
> to CD, I had to find a replacement deck that could handle 10 1/2" reels
> at 15 IPS.  I found a Scully 280 with plugin head stacks (1/2" four
> track and 1/4" two track) at a small local studio, and had it checked
> out by an audio firm who said it recorded and reproduced perfectly.
>
> So, I started on my merry way, digitizing away with excellent audio
> coming out on my system sounding clean and as if the tapes (direct feed
> KHJ radio masters) and the shows had been recorded yesterday (actually,
> they were recorded from 1952 to 1967).  By chance, I did some A/B
> comparisons with some shows that were reruns made from transcriptions,
> and when I tried to edit some music from one version to the other, the
> pitches didn't match.  I finally realized that the Scully was running
> slow compared to the original transcription which I knew was "on" by the
> strobe on the side of the turntable.  Unless a person has perfect pitch
> (I don't, although I read music and have sung, professionally), you can
> be fooled by what sounds to be an accurate reproduction. The speed
> dropped the pitch about a half-step, and over a half-hour show added
> about twenty seconds.to the running time.
>
> The overall problem is a common one, I would guess, since many of the
> machines used for archiving today are not in their first youths, and
> wear of the various transport parts will cause changes in speed.  I
> thought this should give others food for thought in checking out their
> analog decks, and I hope my experience will be of help to others.
>
> The irony here is that I'm sure the vendor from whom I purchased the
> Scully wasn't aware of any problem, since he was doing "in house"
> recordings, and, as long as the recordings were played back on the same
> deck, they would be relatively "perfect", playing at the same speed they
> were recorded.
>
> I have gone back and remastered the offending recordings.  I have also
> in some cases used my digital software to resample the .wav files using
> the "time/pitch" tools in Cool Edit Pro, since I have now found that
> some of the library's 1/4" tape masters were not recorded perfectly on
> pitch, either, due to the machines they were using back in the '50's and
> '60's.
>
> So, the moral of the story is: "Nothing Is Perfect".
>
> Rod Stephens, Archivist
> Family Theater Productions, Hollywood
>
>
> phirsch wrote:
>
> >Though I realize that the recorder in question is dealing with data and
not
> >sound and therefore could be considered OT, we do spend a fair amount of
> >time discussing very similar recording, storage and playback issues. So,
if
> >you are interested, take a look at:
> >
> >http://nytimes.com/2003/03/21/national/nationalspecial/21SHUT.html
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Peter Hirsch
> >
> >Head Archivist for Music and Recorded Sound
> >Wilson Processing Project
> >The New York Public Library
> >phirsch@xxxxxxxx
> >521 West 43rd Street
> >New York, New York  10036
> >(212) 714-8570
> >(212) 714-8508 - fax
> >
> >
> >