Recal for GP9 from 499 ??

G

Guest

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

I hear GP9 has a bump that might be detrimental if I don't
re-cal from my current +5 at 185nw for Ampex 499.

Any truth to this, or can I expect decent results without a re-cal?
(Sony MCI JH-24)


TIA,

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
 
G

Guest

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

In article <%xN6d.9928$me5.5689@trnddc06> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> I hear GP9 has a bump that might be detrimental if I don't
> re-cal from my current +5 at 185nw for Ampex 499.

You should always check the bias and HF EQ when changing tape. It
doesn't take very long. And putting on the calibration tape will give
you an opportunity to check the playback response and touch that up if
necessary (and see just how well the machine is performing).



--
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
 
G

Guest

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

David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>I hear GP9 has a bump that might be detrimental if I don't
>re-cal from my current +5 at 185nw for Ampex 499.

What do you mean by a bump? Yes, if you like running at very low levels,
you can run GP9 at +5. It'll sound fine. You will, of course, need to
reset the bias for the new tape.

>Any truth to this, or can I expect decent results without a re-cal?
>(Sony MCI JH-24)

You need to do calibration whenever you get a new batch of tape. Even if
it's the same type, the batch-to-batch variances are enough to make you
want to rebias. Plus the azimuth drifts enough on those machines that
you should check it at least monthly anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

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

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message news:<%xN6d.9928$me5.5689@trnddc06>...
> I hear GP9 has a bump that might be detrimental if I don't
> re-cal from my current +5 at 185nw for Ampex 499.
>
> Any truth to this, or can I expect decent results without a re-cal?
> (Sony MCI JH-24)
>
>
> TIA,

I think you always have to realign the machine for a different tape stock.

At least rebias.
 
G

Guest

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cjh06e$1uo$1@panix2.panix.com...
> David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
> >I hear GP9 has a bump that might be detrimental if I don't
> >re-cal from my current +5 at 185nw for Ampex 499.
>
> What do you mean by a bump?

The producer, who has grown used to digital tape or SlowTools, did
mention that he thought that GP9 inherently recorded with an extra
dB or so of level. When I was last on 2", there was no such thing as GP9.

> Yes, if you like running at very low levels,
> you can run GP9 at +5. It'll sound fine.

Except for snare and guitars, most everything is idling (meter-wise) at
just below or right at zero VU.

> You will, of course, need to reset the bias for the new tape.

You have to realize that I haven't worked on anything but digital reels
for the last 18 years or so. This is the first time that I've been on 2-inch
since the late 80s. My memory tells me that 'bias' is strictly related to
the erase head, unless you're in reference to EQ. Am I having a brain
fart?

> >Any truth to this, or can I expect decent results without a re-cal?
> >(Sony MCI JH-24)
>
> You need to do calibration whenever you get a new batch of tape. Even if
> it's the same type, the batch-to-batch variances are enough to make you
> want to rebias. Plus the azimuth drifts enough on those machines that
> you should check it at least monthly anyway.

I'm working for a decent producer in a different room for a few more days.
We tweaked the machine EQs, record and playback levels for the first batch
of tape, and the second is arriving at noon today.... it may be GP9. Either way,
GP9 or 499, I'll have another good look at the machine levels and EQ.

Mechanically speaking, I haven't tweaked at all on the likes of azimuth, and
after the producer ran a few minutes of erasure on a piece of pre-existing tape
with good results, he decided to have me pass on erase bias and mechanical
adjustments. I really don't have the gear on site to measure the mechanical
stuff anyway. Playback results really sound a great deal better than I remember
for analogue tape. Damn good AAMOF...

The only annoyance is listening to the faint audio during rw and ff while in
sync mode to do punches and od's.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
 
G

Guest

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

David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cjh06e$1uo$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>> >I hear GP9 has a bump that might be detrimental if I don't
>> >re-cal from my current +5 at 185nw for Ampex 499.
>>
>> What do you mean by a bump?
>
>The producer, who has grown used to digital tape or SlowTools, did
>mention that he thought that GP9 inherently recorded with an extra
>dB or so of level. When I was last on 2", there was no such thing as GP9.

Well, yes, the playback level with a given record voltage will be higher.
That's something that always varies from tape to tape, and it's the reason
you set the record level for a given _playback_ bias.

>> Yes, if you like running at very low levels,
>> you can run GP9 at +5. It'll sound fine.
>
>Except for snare and guitars, most everything is idling (meter-wise) at
>just below or right at zero VU.

If that is the case, maybe you might want to consider higher levels on GP9.
Hell, you might like higher levels on 499.

If you're running at these levels, why bother with any elevated level tapes
at all? Why not just use 406? It costs less and doesn't get glassy on top.

>> You will, of course, need to reset the bias for the new tape.
>
>You have to realize that I haven't worked on anything but digital reels
>for the last 18 years or so. This is the first time that I've been on 2-inch
>since the late 80s. My memory tells me that 'bias' is strictly related to
>the erase head, unless you're in reference to EQ. Am I having a brain
>fart?

No, bias is the AC signal that is applied both to the erase and record heads.
Umm... I am assuming that you aren't the person doing the weekly alignment on
this machine, right?

There is a brief discussion in the FAQ on how the tape system alignment is
done, and while it's sort of incomplete, it's worth reading for a general
overview.

>> >Any truth to this, or can I expect decent results without a re-cal?
>> >(Sony MCI JH-24)
>>
>> You need to do calibration whenever you get a new batch of tape. Even if
>> it's the same type, the batch-to-batch variances are enough to make you
>> want to rebias. Plus the azimuth drifts enough on those machines that
>> you should check it at least monthly anyway.
>
>I'm working for a decent producer in a different room for a few more days.
>We tweaked the machine EQs, record and playback levels for the first batch
>of tape, and the second is arriving at noon today.... it may be GP9. Either way,
>GP9 or 499, I'll have another good look at the machine levels and EQ.

Is there a house engineer who normally sets the machine up? Is there a log
on the machine that shows when it was last set up and what it was set up
for? That's a service that the studio should be providing for you before
beginning billable time, although I realize many today don't have the staff
to do so. You should be able to call in and say "I want the machine set up
for this tape I am sending over, I want this level and this amount of overbias"
and have it all ready when you get there.

>Mechanically speaking, I haven't tweaked at all on the likes of azimuth, and
>after the producer ran a few minutes of erasure on a piece of pre-existing tape
>with good results, he decided to have me pass on erase bias and mechanical
>adjustments. I really don't have the gear on site to measure the mechanical
>stuff anyway. Playback results really sound a great deal better than I remember
>for analogue tape. Damn good AAMOF...

If the studio has an analogue tape machine, and they don't have a scope and
a reference tape in the cabinet beside it, something is terribly wrong.

>The only annoyance is listening to the faint audio during rw and ff while in
>sync mode to do punches and od's.

That's not a bug, that's a feature to help you find your place!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

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

In article <cjh8rl$10e$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cjh06e$1uo$1@panix2.panix.com...
>>> David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>> >I hear GP9 has a bump that might be detrimental if I don't
>>> >re-cal from my current +5 at 185nw for Ampex 499.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by a bump?
>>
>>The producer, who has grown used to digital tape or SlowTools, did
>>mention that he thought that GP9 inherently recorded with an extra
>>dB or so of level. When I was last on 2", there was no such thing as GP9.
>
>Well, yes, the playback level with a given record voltage will be higher.
>That's something that always varies from tape to tape, and it's the reason
>you set the record level for a given _playback_ bias.

err... _playback_ level. Actually playback fluxivity, but who is counting.
Sorry about that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

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

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> The only annoyance is listening to the faint audio during rw and ff while in
> sync mode to do punches and od's.
>


That's my favorite part.

--
--
John Noll
Retromedia Sound Studios
Red Bank, NJ

jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net

http://www.retromedia.net
 
G

Guest

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

In article <haV6d.14627$Cn.9324@trnddc04> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> You have to realize that I haven't worked on anything but digital reels
> for the last 18 years or so. This is the first time that I've been on 2-inch
> since the late 80s. My memory tells me that 'bias' is strictly related to
> the erase head, unless you're in reference to EQ. Am I having a brain
> fart?

Yes. The same oscillator is used for both erase current and biasing
record current, but they're separate adjustments. You adjust erase
current so that it erases and that's about it. You adjust the record
bias one of several ways, typically with bias increased past the point
where the record level peaks (when recording a tone) and then drops by
3 dB below peak level. This is what's commonly called "3 dB overbias."
But there are other ways of adjusting bias, and for the combination of
GP9 tape and the MCI heads, the optimum "overbias" point may not be
3 dB. You might want to call Steve Sadler at Blevins Audio Exchange
and ask him the best way to adjust bias. Or maybe there's some data on
the Ampex web site.


--
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
 
G

Guest

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

>You adjust the record
>bias one of several ways, typically with bias increased past the point
>where the record level peaks (when recording a tone) and then drops by
>3 dB below peak level. This is what's commonly called "3 dB overbias."
>But there are other ways of adjusting bias, and for the combination of
>GP9 tape and the MCI heads, the optimum "overbias" point may not be
>3 dB.

Remember that 3 db overbias (when recording a 10KHz tone) is only conventional
at 15 IPS. For 30 it's generally half that, or 1.5 db. The exact amount varies
from machine to machine though, and sometimes as well with different tape
formulations. For example, Otari recommends 1.7 db over at 30 on my MX80 2" 24
track but I prefer to go +2 for sonic reasons (I think one of the reasons MX80s
sometimes get criticized sonically is that they sound a bit bright and harsh if
they're unwittingly biased "conventionally" at +1.5 at 30 IPS).


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
 
G

Guest

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

In article <20041001044913.17053.00001196@mb-m26.aol.com> prestokid@aol.com writes:

> Remember that 3 db overbias (when recording a 10KHz tone) is only conventional
> at 15 IPS. For 30 it's generally half that, or 1.5 db.

That's probalby why my MM1100 manual said to use a 20 kHz source when
adjusting at 30 ips. 1 dB overbias at 1 kHz is more "universal" but
most people want better resolution than that, so we give them 3 dB so
they can be a little more (or less) accurate.

> The exact amount varies
> from machine to machine though, and sometimes as well with different tape
> formulations.

That's about what I said, too. And preferences vary. I used Agfa 468
for a while and found that the point of minimum THD at 1 kHz, lowest
modulation noise ("rocks"), and 2.5 dB overbias of 10 kHz at 15 ips
all occurred at very close to the same bias current. With 3M 256, you
could take your pick of optimum characteristics but they all occurred
at different bias points, but all within less than 1 dB of the "3 dB
overbias" point. So I settled on that method for adjusting since it
was simple, quick, and consistent.

> For example, Otari recommends 1.7 db over at 30 on my MX80 2" 24
> track but I prefer to go +2 for sonic reasons

I wouldn't trust myself to be able to set bias for a reading of
-1.7 dB on the VU meter. I'd rather go for the 2 dB scale mark just so
I was sure I was doing it the same way every time.


--
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
 
G

Guest

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

>I wouldn't trust myself to be able to set bias for a reading of
>-1.7 dB on the VU meter.
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers

It's easier than it sounds. But of course any analog machine's alignment is
made much more challenging if the HF tone "windshield-wipes" (swings back and
forth a db or so) while you're recording/playing it. It happens on my machine
with the occasional reel. Some machines do it all the time.


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
 
G

Guest

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cjh8rl$10e$1@panix2.panix.com...
> David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
> >"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cjh06e$1uo$1@panix2.panix.com...

> >> You will, of course, need to reset the bias for the new tape.
> >
> >You have to realize that I haven't worked on anything but digital reels
> >for the last 18 years or so. This is the first time that I've been on 2-inch
> >since the late 80s. My memory tells me that 'bias' is strictly related to
> >the erase head, unless you're in reference to EQ. Am I having a brain
> >fart?
>
> No, bias is the AC signal that is applied both to the erase and record heads.
> Umm... I am assuming that you aren't the person doing the weekly alignment on
> this machine, right?


Are you kidding...? ;-)

Since you usually require a little background.... It's a long story, but I'll try
to make it interesting and short...

I've been working with a dentist who desires a working studio to be in place
in a space which he already owns, sometime around mid-summer of next
year. We've been talking about this for a couple of years, and over that
period of time I have been picking out and purchasing some gear on his
behalf.

Eventually, Russ Berger is going to do the control room, and we'll probably do
the rest of the facility 'in-house'. Plans are to have a large number of formats
and be able to provide a fairly massive transfer service. We already have
24 tracks of DAxx, 24 tracks of ADAT, 16 tracks of Mitsu, 32 tracks of Mitsu,
24 tracks of Paris, ProTools funding in the can, some UFCs, ISDN capability,
some cool mics and outboard, etc., etc...

A few months ago we purchased Joe Egan's Sony MCI JH-24 and last month
we bought the personal DC-2000 from Soundcraft's US sales rep.

Well... a friend of a friend of a friend (you know the story) happened to know
someone at a record label that just signed someone local, and the dentist
is friends with the executive producer. So... said money-man convinces the
dentist that he should put his new gear to use and let the basic tracks be
recorded in what was once his upstairs apartment and offices.

About 20 days ago I find out that this may really happen, so walls start being
demolished, the electricians come in, the HVAC people come in, and suddenly
I am looking at about six days to have the 2" machine and the Soundcraft desk
moved in from storage, up two flights of stairs and wired up well enough to
function through tracking a session with a 40 year veteran producer/engineer.

Unfortunately, the remaining walls still had to be shored up, glass installed,
at least *some* absorption or diffusion put in place, windows to the outside
of the building sealed and baffled, some special AC wiring run, florescent
fixtures replaced with incandescents, and parts & wire ordered to interface
the gear.

Before I knew it, the dust was finally settling and I had just two days left to \
uncover the equipment and get it interfaced and checked out.

To get back to the point.... the machine and console were fired up for the
first time in a few months last Friday night, just 52 hours before the session
was scheduled to begin. The temporary control room was set up on
Saturday, and with one helper, the console, the tape machine, and minimal
outboard gear was interfaced by Sunday afternoon.

The producer flew in on Sunday and naturally stopped by to see the place
and what he would be working with. At least three people were vacuuming
and carrying out scrap wood, wall covering was being applied to the areas
that still looked like a house, and I was wiring outboard gear while listening
to the 24-track masters of the client's previous album. He shook his head
in disbelief more than once, as did a few members of the band who had
also dropped by the night before, when it was even more of a shambles.

The producer and I met at 10:00 am on Monday to set up the machine
as best we could. Both of us had to call technician acquaintances to assure
ourselves that we were on the right track with the alignment. No specialty
tools of any kind were there except my little Fluke 8600, an HP oscillator,
an EDAC pin crimper and extractor.

When he arrived, no real audio had been run through but 16 of the 32 channels
on the desk, and nothing of significance had been recorded to the tape machine.
(Needless to say, this man is an audio warrior, a positive thinker and very, very
forgiving).


So no.... I'm not the guy doing the <ahem> "weekly" alignment. <g>


> >I'm working for a decent producer in a different room for a few more days.
> >We tweaked the machine EQs, record and playback levels for the first batch
> >of tape, and the second is arriving at noon today.... it may be GP9. Either way,
> >GP9 or 499, I'll have another good look at the machine levels and EQ.

The second batch of tape turned out to be 499 also.

> Is there a house engineer who normally sets the machine up? Is there a log
> on the machine that shows when it was last set up and what it was set up
> for? That's a service that the studio should be providing for you before
> beginning billable time, although I realize many today don't have the staff
> to do so.

With part of your question answered, my advice to the dentist two weeks
ago was to tell his (executive producer) friend to make other arrangements
with the producer for another place to record so as not to embarrass himself,
but he committed and I was silly enough to like the idea of a challenge, so I
agreed to tackle it.


> You should be able to call in and say "I want the machine set up
> for this tape I am sending over, I want this level and this amount of overbias"
> and have it all ready when you get there.

I remember those days... I just haven't seen them in 17 years. I'm not sure
I like the idea of going that direction, but I will eventually be doing what ever
is required for the machine and the test equipment *will* be in house.


> >Mechanically speaking, I haven't tweaked at all on the likes of azimuth, and
> >after the producer ran a few minutes of erasure on a piece of pre-existing tape
> >with good results, he decided to have me pass on erase bias and mechanical
> >adjustments. I really don't have the gear on site to measure the mechanical
> >stuff anyway. Playback results really sound a great deal better than I remember
> >for analogue tape. Damn good AAMOF...
>
> If the studio has an analogue tape machine, and they don't have a scope and
> a reference tape in the cabinet beside it, something is terribly wrong.

A corner of the building we're calling the 'control room' is indeed, "wrong". <g>
The astonishing thing is that when the band arrived we did have a functioning
drum room, a vocal room, an amp room, and a control room that modestly told
the better portion of the truth about what we were hearing.

The sad part about this (other than the fact that this super-cool producer whom
I thoroughly enjoyed my week with, has to leave this weekend) is that everything
we've done has to be torn down in order for the _real_ construction to begin.

Amazingly enough however, after a good bit of 'down-time' (2 or 3 hours) on
the first day, not only have we gotten 97% of the rhythm tracks down, which
was the single objective, but we have totally completed 4 of the 12 songs
and are well into overdubs and vocals.


> >The only annoyance is listening to the faint audio during rw and ff while in
> >sync mode to do punches and od's.
>
> That's not a bug, that's a feature to help you find your place!

Right. If that's what I wanted, I'd go press a finger down on the tape over
the head stack. <g>

Sorry about the dumb question to begin with... my head's been a flurry
for too many days. I still ccn't believe we tried this and are actually pulling
it off with a decent degree of success.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
 
G

Guest

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

David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>> If the studio has an analogue tape machine, and they don't have a scope and
>> a reference tape in the cabinet beside it, something is terribly wrong.
>
>A corner of the building we're calling the 'control room' is indeed, "wrong". <g>
>The astonishing thing is that when the band arrived we did have a functioning
>drum room, a vocal room, an amp room, and a control room that modestly told
>the better portion of the truth about what we were hearing.

Put tones down! Put a full tone ladder down, not just 1 KC and 10 KC. If
the tones are there, your azimuth can be wrong and your EQ can be wrong and
you can correct it when it comes time to mix (assuming you have a scope and
good metering then). It may take some time to get the playback machine
misaligned in the same way as the record machine, but as long as the bias is
correct and you have plenty of time in mixdown, a full tone ladder will save
you in this sort of improvised situation.

If you can do sweep tones, do sweep tones too!

>Sorry about the dumb question to begin with... my head's been a flurry
>for too many days. I still ccn't believe we tried this and are actually pulling
>it off with a decent degree of success.

Congratulations, it's always fun when things actually work out under
circumstances that look disasterous. Hope you're recovered soon.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

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

"Ted Spencer" <prestokid@aol.com> wrote in message news:20041001044913.17053.00001196@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >You adjust the record
> >bias one of several ways, typically with bias increased past the point
> >where the record level peaks (when recording a tone) and then drops by
> >3 dB below peak level. This is what's commonly called "3 dB overbias."
> >But there are other ways of adjusting bias, and for the combination of
> >GP9 tape and the MCI heads, the optimum "overbias" point may not be
> >3 dB.
>
> Remember that 3 db overbias (when recording a 10KHz tone) is only conventional
> at 15 IPS. For 30 it's generally half that, or 1.5 db. The exact amount varies
> from machine to machine though, and sometimes as well with different tape
> formulations. For example, Otari recommends 1.7 db over at 30 on my MX80 2" 24
> track but I prefer to go +2 for sonic reasons (I think one of the reasons MX80s
> sometimes get criticized sonically is that they sound a bit bright and harsh if
> they're unwittingly biased "conventionally" at +1.5 at 30 IPS).


Thanks for the conversation guys, and rattling my brain. I have much to re-learn.

DM
 
G

Guest

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

What were you smoking and where can I get some?

I don't know how one can make the assumption that a tried and true 499
calibration would equate to GP9, even if it were a simple recalibration.
996, yes. I haven't had any real appreciable differences although I like
996 more for rock and 499 more for jazz, but GP9? Just the substrate itself
is thick enough to cause problems without even worrying about biasing, and
even if one biases the recorder correctly for GP9 one still has to worry
that the heavier tape will cause enough fluctuations due to the transport
mechanism that the calibration could/would go to hell. Seems to me that GP9
would involve a mechanical problem as much, if not more, than a
recalibration problem. You said a JH-24? How long ago was it mechanically
refurbed? Can you pass signal and measure the consistancy of playback or
record?

I kinda like Scott's suggestion that moving back to 406 might be a
reasonable solution only in that it's a formulation/thickness/stiffness that
the machine would be familiar with. But then, I only do political posts
anymore, and usually I don't know what I'm talking about then, either.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:BKu7d.460$pw4.264@trnddc01...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cjh8rl$10e$1@panix2.panix.com...
> > David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
> > >"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cjh06e$1uo$1@panix2.panix.com...
>
> > >> You will, of course, need to reset the bias for the new tape.
> > >
> > >You have to realize that I haven't worked on anything but digital reels
> > >for the last 18 years or so. This is the first time that I've been on
2-inch
> > >since the late 80s. My memory tells me that 'bias' is strictly related
to
> > >the erase head, unless you're in reference to EQ. Am I having a brain
> > >fart?
> >
> > No, bias is the AC signal that is applied both to the erase and record
heads.
> > Umm... I am assuming that you aren't the person doing the weekly
alignment on
> > this machine, right?
>
>
> Are you kidding...? ;-)
>
> Since you usually require a little background.... It's a long story, but
I'll try
> to make it interesting and short...
>
> I've been working with a dentist who desires a working studio to be in
place
> in a space which he already owns, sometime around mid-summer of next
> year. We've been talking about this for a couple of years, and over that
> period of time I have been picking out and purchasing some gear on his
> behalf.
>
> Eventually, Russ Berger is going to do the control room, and we'll
probably do
> the rest of the facility 'in-house'. Plans are to have a large number of
formats
> and be able to provide a fairly massive transfer service. We already have
> 24 tracks of DAxx, 24 tracks of ADAT, 16 tracks of Mitsu, 32 tracks of
Mitsu,
> 24 tracks of Paris, ProTools funding in the can, some UFCs, ISDN
capability,
> some cool mics and outboard, etc., etc...
>
> A few months ago we purchased Joe Egan's Sony MCI JH-24 and last month
> we bought the personal DC-2000 from Soundcraft's US sales rep.
>
> Well... a friend of a friend of a friend (you know the story) happened to
know
> someone at a record label that just signed someone local, and the dentist
> is friends with the executive producer. So... said money-man convinces
the
> dentist that he should put his new gear to use and let the basic tracks be
> recorded in what was once his upstairs apartment and offices.
>
> About 20 days ago I find out that this may really happen, so walls start
being
> demolished, the electricians come in, the HVAC people come in, and
suddenly
> I am looking at about six days to have the 2" machine and the Soundcraft
desk
> moved in from storage, up two flights of stairs and wired up well enough
to
> function through tracking a session with a 40 year veteran
producer/engineer.
>
> Unfortunately, the remaining walls still had to be shored up, glass
installed,
> at least *some* absorption or diffusion put in place, windows to the
outside
> of the building sealed and baffled, some special AC wiring run, florescent
> fixtures replaced with incandescents, and parts & wire ordered to
interface
> the gear.
>
> Before I knew it, the dust was finally settling and I had just two days
left to \
> uncover the equipment and get it interfaced and checked out.
>
> To get back to the point.... the machine and console were fired up for the
> first time in a few months last Friday night, just 52 hours before the
session
> was scheduled to begin. The temporary control room was set up on
> Saturday, and with one helper, the console, the tape machine, and minimal
> outboard gear was interfaced by Sunday afternoon.
>
> The producer flew in on Sunday and naturally stopped by to see the place
> and what he would be working with. At least three people were vacuuming
> and carrying out scrap wood, wall covering was being applied to the areas
> that still looked like a house, and I was wiring outboard gear while
listening
> to the 24-track masters of the client's previous album. He shook his head
> in disbelief more than once, as did a few members of the band who had
> also dropped by the night before, when it was even more of a shambles.
>
> The producer and I met at 10:00 am on Monday to set up the machine
> as best we could. Both of us had to call technician acquaintances to
assure
> ourselves that we were on the right track with the alignment. No
specialty
> tools of any kind were there except my little Fluke 8600, an HP
oscillator,
> an EDAC pin crimper and extractor.
>
> When he arrived, no real audio had been run through but 16 of the 32
channels
> on the desk, and nothing of significance had been recorded to the tape
machine.
> (Needless to say, this man is an audio warrior, a positive thinker and
very, very
> forgiving).
>
>
> So no.... I'm not the guy doing the <ahem> "weekly" alignment. <g>
>
>
> > >I'm working for a decent producer in a different room for a few more
days.
> > >We tweaked the machine EQs, record and playback levels for the first
batch
> > >of tape, and the second is arriving at noon today.... it may be GP9.
Either way,
> > >GP9 or 499, I'll have another good look at the machine levels and EQ.
>
> The second batch of tape turned out to be 499 also.
>
> > Is there a house engineer who normally sets the machine up? Is there a
log
> > on the machine that shows when it was last set up and what it was set up
> > for? That's a service that the studio should be providing for you
before
> > beginning billable time, although I realize many today don't have the
staff
> > to do so.
>
> With part of your question answered, my advice to the dentist two weeks
> ago was to tell his (executive producer) friend to make other arrangements
> with the producer for another place to record so as not to embarrass
himself,
> but he committed and I was silly enough to like the idea of a challenge,
so I
> agreed to tackle it.
>
>
> > You should be able to call in and say "I want the machine set up
> > for this tape I am sending over, I want this level and this amount of
overbias"
> > and have it all ready when you get there.
>
> I remember those days... I just haven't seen them in 17 years. I'm not
sure
> I like the idea of going that direction, but I will eventually be doing
what ever
> is required for the machine and the test equipment *will* be in house.
>
>
> > >Mechanically speaking, I haven't tweaked at all on the likes of
azimuth, and
> > >after the producer ran a few minutes of erasure on a piece of
pre-existing tape
> > >with good results, he decided to have me pass on erase bias and
mechanical
> > >adjustments. I really don't have the gear on site to measure the
mechanical
> > >stuff anyway. Playback results really sound a great deal better than I
remember
> > >for analogue tape. Damn good AAMOF...
> >
> > If the studio has an analogue tape machine, and they don't have a scope
and
> > a reference tape in the cabinet beside it, something is terribly wrong.
>
> A corner of the building we're calling the 'control room' is indeed,
"wrong". <g>
> The astonishing thing is that when the band arrived we did have a
functioning
> drum room, a vocal room, an amp room, and a control room that modestly
told
> the better portion of the truth about what we were hearing.
>
> The sad part about this (other than the fact that this super-cool producer
whom
> I thoroughly enjoyed my week with, has to leave this weekend) is that
everything
> we've done has to be torn down in order for the _real_ construction to
begin.
>
> Amazingly enough however, after a good bit of 'down-time' (2 or 3 hours)
on
> the first day, not only have we gotten 97% of the rhythm tracks down,
which
> was the single objective, but we have totally completed 4 of the 12 songs
> and are well into overdubs and vocals.
>
>
> > >The only annoyance is listening to the faint audio during rw and ff
while in
> > >sync mode to do punches and od's.
> >
> > That's not a bug, that's a feature to help you find your place!
>
> Right. If that's what I wanted, I'd go press a finger down on the tape
over
> the head stack. <g>
>
> Sorry about the dumb question to begin with... my head's been a flurry
> for too many days. I still ccn't believe we tried this and are actually
pulling
> it off with a decent degree of success.
>
> --
> David Morgan (MAMS)
> http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
> Morgan Audio Media Service
> Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
> _______________________________________
> http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message...

> Congratulations, it's always fun when things actually work out under
> circumstances that look disasterous. Hope you're recovered soon.
> --scott


I just finished twelve 15-hour days. The moment I recover I'll post some
before, after and during photo's.

DM
 
G

Guest

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

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message news:cjnhii$dp$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> What were you smoking and where can I get some?
>
> I don't know how one can make the assumption that a tried and true 499
> calibration would equate to GP9, even if it were a simple recalibration.
> 996, yes. I haven't had any real appreciable differences although I like
> 996 more for rock and 499 more for jazz, but GP9? Just the substrate itself
> is thick enough to cause problems without even worrying about biasing, and
> even if one biases the recorder correctly for GP9 one still has to worry
> that the heavier tape will cause enough fluctuations due to the transport
> mechanism that the calibration could/would go to hell. Seems to me that GP9
> would involve a mechanical problem as much, if not more, than a
> recalibration problem. You said a JH-24? How long ago was it mechanically
> refurbed? Can you pass signal and measure the consistancy of playback or
> record?

Holy batsh*t, Rogerman !! That's too many questions, but I'm sure you have
some ideas as to the answers on a few.

You may have just answered one of my new questions, though. Tonight
I developed a transport tension problem.

> I kinda like Scott's suggestion that moving back to 406 might be a
> reasonable solution only in that it's a formulation/thickness/stiffness that
> the machine would be familiar with.

Well... this won't in any way be the primary machine, and I'll have to get
the tools and be prepared to be calibrating if the transfer business actually
pick up. But I'll try learning what I can about the differences... anything
you want to cough up will be appreciated.

> But then, I only do political posts anymore....

Sorry... I don't know what you're talking about. <insert smiley>

DM
 
G

Guest

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

In article <AN68d.2736$1g5.1095@trnddc07> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> You may have just answered one of my new questions, though. Tonight
> I developed a transport tension problem.

You'd better make friends with Steve Sadler at Blevins Audio Exchange.
There are some tricks to setting the tension on the JH24 that aren't
in the manual. I was helping a local studio get their recorder in
shape a few years ago and Steve talked me thorugh a procedure that
worked when I couldn't get it right doing it according to the
instructions.


--
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
 
G

Guest

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

Mr. Sadler is always a good person to keep in mind.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1096891434k@trad...
>
> In article <AN68d.2736$1g5.1095@trnddc07> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:
>
> > You may have just answered one of my new questions, though. Tonight
> > I developed a transport tension problem.
>
> You'd better make friends with Steve Sadler at Blevins Audio Exchange.
> There are some tricks to setting the tension on the JH24 that aren't
> in the manual. I was helping a local studio get their recorder in
> shape a few years ago and Steve talked me thorugh a procedure that
> worked when I couldn't get it right doing it according to the
> instructions.
>
>
> --
> 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
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY