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
Facebook
Twitter