What the Fuhrer said.........
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message


Indeed. Domestic Ampex machines - or rather those which
were available in the UK - were also very down market
compared to Revox, but with a similar price.

Probably not a fair comparison for several reasons.

(1) Analog tape recorders are high-maintenance items and highly dependent
on well-trained staff to use and maintain them. Supporting an
analogcorder in a foriegn country that was a really big ocean away was not
perfected until the Japanese did it in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

That's precisely the reason why build quality was important.
For overseas sales, the main agent was responsible for sales
and service, and organised courses for studio maintenance
personel. There was certainly no shortage of well-trained
staff.

Ampex had huge problems with reliability compared
with Studer, or Lyrec. Even Scully had a better reputation,
and made some sales headway in the UK following
the considerable interest in their machines after the British
audio press wrote articles about John Lennon recording
"Give Peace a Chance" in a Canadian studio using Scully.


(2) In the 1950s and early 1960s Europe was a source of cheap labor by
US standards. You were still recovering from the war.

Not quite sure what you are implying here.
Are you saying that it cost more to build an inferior
machine in the US?

(3) One word: tariffs.

Ampex was quite a bit cheaper than the European products
with which it was trying to compete. But, it's not really about
initial cost Arny. Down time due to a broken machine
with parts coming from the US by UPS tortoise, is enough to
deter anyone from future purchases from the same manufacturer.
And having to cancel sessions is the fastest way to lose your
clients. Once gone they will probably never comne back.

Iain

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
However, Ampex audio recorders were never popular in the
UK - and I'd guess the same applied to EMI in the US.

IME the only EU tape recorder brand to get any serious
market penetration in US was Studer/Revox. The Revox
machines were relatively light duty boxes by the
standards we're talking, which is not to say that they
lacked durability as they were typically used.

Studer pretty well took over the pro market here too - as
others dropped out. Revox were just about the only
machine for high end domestic or semi pro use - as again
others dropped out of the scene.

When I was in Germany in 1970, a Revox rep said that they were running (a
little scared) from the Japanese. They did a really good job of that for
at least 10 years.

Revox, like the then parent company Studer worked hard to build
a good products with a fine reputation to ensure client loyalty.

It paid off.

Studer seem to be going from strength to strength.
They have massive contracts with the major members
of the EBU including the BBC, so no sign of *them*
running from the Japanese or anyone else for that mater.

Their Vista 9 is a console to die for:-)

Iain

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
I think you might have difficulty in convincing people on this side of
the world, particularly audio professionals who know the Studer
C37 and J37, that your assertion is true:)


I've noticed a definite tendancy in articles written by Americans to
wildly over-state the importance of Ampex in the development of the
tape recorder. One piece I read recently stated that Ampex had
"perfected" the tape recorder with it's 200 series, despite the fact
that the 200 series was pretty much a direct copy of "liberated" German
magnetophones.

Indeed. Domestic Ampex machines - or rather those which were available in
the UK - were also very down market compared to Revox, but with a similar
price.

That's as I remeber it also. Both Amnpex and Crown tried to break into
the European high-end domestic market but had very little success.
People seemed to put Ampex on about par with Elizabethan, Reps
and Ferguson,



The same applied to TV broadcast cameras. Those in the US never saw beyond
RCA - yet they simply didn't compete in any way on the international
market.

I remember a trip top Thames TV in the 80s with a group from
Scandivian Broadcasting. They were amazed to find that Thames had
Ampex VTRs. But the system there and the ergonomics of the set-up
was so good, and their service rotas so efficient that they told us they
had never in their history had a breakdown serious enough to take
them off the air. Not many broadcasters back then could make such
a claim.


Iain.

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

In 1964 Ampex came
out with the MR-70, arguably the finest tubed tape recorder ever made.

I think you might have difficulty in convincing people on this side of
the world, particularly audio professionals who know the Studer
C37 and J37, that your assertion is true:)


I've noticed a definite tendancy in articles written by Americans to
wildly over-state the importance of Ampex in the development of the tape
recorder. One piece I read recently stated that Ampex had "perfected" the
tape recorder with it's 200 series, despite the fact that the 200 series
was pretty much a direct copy of "liberated" German magnetophones.

TheAmpex 200 was years behing the AEG, and it was only the spoils
of war that gaver the US the chance to catch up.

Iain

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Mics seem to be all German or Swedish, and consoles
from the UK or Germany. Speakers all from the UK
(haven't used JBL for a very long time)

Don't you have a few from Shure in your cupboard? And Electrovoice?

Yes. I forgot about Shure. We have a DMK57 Drum mic kit
for gig use, where it is too risky to use Neumann. No Electrovoice
but a good selection of AKGs, Beyer, and the excellent Milab.

I still haver the pair of British Film Industries M8 ribbons
which I bought from the proceeds of my first paid recording
(while still a student) made at Ealing Town Hall.

But one very good piece of American equipment you
do see, and often, both in studios and on concert gigs,
is the Crown Macrotech power amp. They perform well,
and are incredibly reliable.

'We' tended to stick with H&H. But then I wasn't involved with large gigs.

The original HH company (Harrison/Heale) is long gone.
The company is now owned by Laney. Don't know
what they make these days.


Iain

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

In 1964 Ampex came
out with the MR-70, arguably the finest tubed tape
recorder ever made.

I think you might have difficulty in convincing people
on this side of the world, particularly audio
professionals who know the Studer C37 and J37, that your assertion is
true:)

I've noticed a definite tendancy in articles written by
Americans to wildly over-state the importance of Ampex in
the development of the tape recorder. One piece I read
recently stated that Ampex had "perfected" the tape
recorder with it's 200 series, despite the fact that the
200 series was pretty much a direct copy of "liberated"
German magnetophones.

Check the pictures, check the schematics. On the one hand the technology
of the day was limited, and there were only so many ways to do the same
thing. OTOH, the Ampex 200 was thorougly re engineered, and went beyond
mere parts availability.


I wasn't trying to suggest that the Ampex was a clone of the magnetophone.
Yes it was re-engineered, but it was firmly based on magnetophone technology
and was no better than some other machines of the period. What it was, was
the first American-made pro tape recorder to sell in any significant
numbers. It's significance was that it introduced the American recording and
broadcasting industries to the advantages of tape, not that it significantly
advanced tape recorder technology (which it didn't).

David.

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
...

As teenagers we dreamed of the Revox A77
but the best any of my friends could afford was an Akai 4000DS

I dreamed of a Ferrograph or better still a Vortexion CBL 6.
The dream came true:-)

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Pics/VortexionCBL6.jpg

Good workhorses though they might have been in their day, Revox was in a
different league.

Not then surprising it still exists while the others long since gone.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Revox, like the then parent company Studer worked hard to build
a good products with a fine reputation to ensure client loyalty.

It paid off.

Studer seem to be going from strength to strength.

How many owners have they had? ;-)

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I remember a trip top Thames TV in the 80s with a group from
Scandivian Broadcasting. They were amazed to find that Thames had
Ampex VTRs.

I suppose you only saw a tiny part of Thames. The transmission area used
an ancient Ampex AVR setup for commercials before changing to Panasonic
MII in the '80s. That the AVRs were still - just - reliable said much of
Thames' VTR department. But programmes were transmitted from C format
machines made by Marconi. Effectively an Ampex clone made under licence.

But the system there and the ergonomics of the set-up
was so good, and their service rotas so efficient that they told us they
had never in their history had a breakdown serious enough to take
them off the air. Not many broadcasters back then could make such
a claim.

It would be a pretty small TV company without backup VTRs.

The AVRs became so flaky ad breaks were compiled to 1" in later years
until replaced. I'd guess you were shown round by management in nice
suits. ;-)

--
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What the Fuhrer said.........
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I remember a trip top Thames TV in the 80s with a group from
Scandivian Broadcasting. They were amazed to find that Thames had
Ampex VTRs.

I suppose you only saw a tiny part of Thames.

We got there mid morning, saw the premises, met many
of the staff, had an excellent lunch and left mid afternoon
I think we were given the main tour. About four hours plus
lunch.


The transmission area used
an ancient Ampex AVR setup for commercials before changing to Panasonic
MII in the '80s. That the AVRs were still - just - reliable said much of
Thames' VTR department.

Yes indeed. They showed us the maintenance schedules,
and logs - one for each and every machine. The standard
of maintenance was first class. It must have been expensive.
Per Lindfors commented that for a 10% increased capital
outlay (Sony BVH ?) they could have probably saved
30% in maintenance hours. All the same, the whole operation
was impressive, and we wefre introduced to both Benny Hill
and Bob Todd-:)

But the system there and the ergonomics of the set-up
was so good, and their service rotas so efficient that they told us they
had never in their history had a breakdown serious enough to take
them off the air. Not many broadcasters back then could make such
a claim.

The AVRs became so flaky ad breaks were compiled to 1" in later years
until replaced. I'd guess you were shown round by management in nice
suits. ;-)

Yes. Nice suits indeed:-)
We were treated to an excellent lunch in the directors suite.
I had several friends at Thames at that time, including the
Musical Director Ronnie Aldrich, executive Joyce Sharpen
and music associate Ted Taylor.

I got the impression it was a good firm, and a happy working
environment.

I won't ask the obvious question:-)

Iain