Re: [ARSCLIST] U-matic audio mastering

[Jeff Willens <jwillens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's exactly it. Huge setup costs, huge maintenance costs, large tapes taking up large real estate for storage, real-time transferring... and prone to huge digital errors. What's not to love?

True, it was never designed to be an archival format, but you had to create a physical master somehow, and PMCDs were considered an inferior storage format at the time. So you dumped to 1630, and hoped for the best. In fact, there were some instances at the archive Tom and I are referring to where an EQ'd 1630 was considered the "Best" source, and the analog element was discarded or otherwise disappeared. I shall pause while you pick your jaw up off the floor...

Also a factor, international production masters and cassette masters. These were also done on U-matics, often as clones of the original U-matic master. Eventually, Sonic helped a lot here, to help crank out these parts faster. But these production U-matics are often all that a foreign market has of a given recording. 

In the 90s, some of the earliest U-matics from the mid-80s (Ampex, Sony) were already exhibiting the same shedding problems that analog tapes were showing. I don't know that I ever tried baking a U-matic, but I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes necessary.

And sorry Richard. Vidipax does NOT handle 1630s. I have tried and tried, and tried some more, to purchase a full setup, which we could have done many times in the recent past, to no avail. And it may not happen any time soon, unfortunately....


Jeff Willens
Vidipax, LLC
30-00 47th Ave. 6th fl.
LIC, NY 11101
(718) 482-7111





-----Original Message-----
From: Parker Dinkins [mailto:parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: U-matic audio mastering


The Sony PCM-1600/1610/1630 format was designed primarily to be a production
master for the audio compact disc, and it was never designed to archive
"one-of-a-kind digital masters".

There was also a similar JVC system as well - which some preferred.

In the early to mid 1990s, a complete Sony 1630 system cost just under
100,000USD, with annual maintenance costs said to be about 5,000USD for the
U-Matic machine. With a cap rate of about 5%, that would indicate total
pre-tax ownership costs of about 200,000USD on an annualized basis. Clearly,
this was an engineered solution - for a narrow, specific purpose.

In my discussions with a matrix department of a major US pressing plant, I
was told in the 1990s that:

1) in general, the 3/4" U-Matic format itself was problematic, and

2) in particular, a certain US manufacturer of 3/4" tapes had significant
quality control problems (specifically, the tapes and spools were
excessively loose in the cartridge housing).

In the early 1990s, the US National Archives did not permit digital media
for any archival audio purpose. While that policy has changed significantly
in recent years, no prudent policymaker back then would have permitted tying
up so much financial and artistic resources in "one-of-a-kind digital
masters" in the 1630 format.

The 1630 format was 44.1kHz/16 bit resolution, and was specifically designed
to pre-master audio CDs. Any properly manufactured audio CD can be used as a
master to replicate the manufacture of additional audio CDs. Maybe
collectors have copies of these 1630 masters in audio CD format? Happy
hunting.

Parker Dinkins 

PS - As Konrad Strauss has said, the Sonic Solutions system with the Sony
CDW-900E was far superior to the 1630 system. I think Mr. Strauss speaks
from the horse's mouth!

--
Parker Dinkins
MasterDigital Corporation
Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
http://masterdigital.com