Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Historical Curiousity - 3M 32trk Digital from 1978
496 views
Skip to first unread message
Frank Stearns
Oct 9, 2013, 8:57:37 AM10/9/13
to
I recently caught the 1985 documentary of the re-recording of "West Side Story" with
Leonard Bernstein conducting (and at one point of session-friction Mr. B calling
legendary producer John McClure a "silly man").
Not sure which NY studio was being used (the control room appeared to be a sonic
mess, with the back wall not more than 5 feet from the arm rest of the console), but
they were using the 3M digital recorder, 32 tracks, 16 bit, 50 Khz, apparently a
DASH format running at 45 IPS. The thing cost $115K in 1978 US dollars.
16 bit converters weren't around in 1978 (or at least in those years of development
leading up to this machine), so 12 and 8 bit converters were paired.
Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use, and
reliability. At least according to the brief article at
mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was liked and was
used by some larger names in the business -- but its history seems quite thin. Are
any of these still around? How wide-spread was its use?
(My vague memory from second-hand sources was that the Sony DASH multitracks mostly
took over this market within a few years -- but that could be in error.)
Comments invited.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
Leonard Bernstein conducting (and at one point of session-friction Mr. B calling
legendary producer John McClure a "silly man").
Not sure which NY studio was being used (the control room appeared to be a sonic
mess, with the back wall not more than 5 feet from the arm rest of the console), but
they were using the 3M digital recorder, 32 tracks, 16 bit, 50 Khz, apparently a
DASH format running at 45 IPS. The thing cost $115K in 1978 US dollars.
16 bit converters weren't around in 1978 (or at least in those years of development
leading up to this machine), so 12 and 8 bit converters were paired.
Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use, and
reliability. At least according to the brief article at
mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was liked and was
used by some larger names in the business -- but its history seems quite thin. Are
any of these still around? How wide-spread was its use?
(My vague memory from second-hand sources was that the Sony DASH multitracks mostly
took over this market within a few years -- but that could be in error.)
Comments invited.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
Rick Ruskin
Oct 9, 2013, 10:42:46 AM10/9/13
to
machines - one recording the other for backup. It sounded damn good
to me.
Scott Dorsey
Oct 9, 2013, 12:06:07 PM10/9/13
to
Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>
>Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use, and
>reliability. At least according to the brief article at
>mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was liked and was
>used by some larger names in the business -- but its history seems quite thin. Are
>any of these still around? How wide-spread was its use?
It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
>
>Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use, and
>reliability. At least according to the brief article at
>mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was liked and was
>used by some larger names in the business -- but its history seems quite thin. Are
>any of these still around? How wide-spread was its use?
There weren't a lot of the machines made, but RCA adopted the format
somewhat, and I think Bertelsmann still has some of the machines.
My first experience was listening to the CD "Digital Duke" with the Duke
Ellington orchestra, which was recorded on one of them. The album was
incredibly harsh and bright in the sort of way that gave early digital
systems a terrible name, and I think it gave the 3M machines a bad name
in my mind and I kind of avoided them. That was a GRP album, and GRP was
in with 3M very early on... some of the early Flim and the BBs recordings
were made on prototype 3M machines and the original masters are apparently
unplayable today.
>(My vague memory from second-hand sources was that the Sony DASH multitracks mostly
>took over this market within a few years -- but that could be in error.)
The 3M machines used staggered converters which required a lot of maintenance
and they also ran the converters at something over 50 Ksamp/sec in order to
get the nastiness of the first-generation anti-aliasing filters out of the
audible band. I saw a presentation on the design at an AES show and it was
really very ingenious and addressed all of the known problems of digital
systems at the time.
But I never actually ran one of the things; the first digital multitrack
I ever actually used was a DASH.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Frank Stearns
Oct 9, 2013, 1:44:02 PM10/9/13
to
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>>
>>Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use, and
>>reliability. At least according to the brief article at
>>mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was liked and was
>>used by some larger names in the business -- but its history seems quite thin. Are
>>any of these still around? How wide-spread was its use?
>It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
Interesting... If not stationary head (tape speed perhaps implies that) what were
>Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>>
>>Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use, and
>>reliability. At least according to the brief article at
>>mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was liked and was
>>used by some larger names in the business -- but its history seems quite thin. Are
>>any of these still around? How wide-spread was its use?
>It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
they doing? Some kind of rotating helical or quad head thing, ala video? Limited
photos of the 3M seem to also imply stationary head, but this could be my
misinterpretation. Manual that I found doesn't say, but I might have missed it. You
did have to devote a track of your choice for syncronization.
>There weren't a lot of the machines made, but RCA adopted the format
>somewhat, and I think Bertelsmann still has some of the machines.
>My first experience was listening to the CD "Digital Duke" with the Duke
>Ellington orchestra, which was recorded on one of them. The album was
>incredibly harsh and bright in the sort of way that gave early digital
>systems a terrible name, and I think it gave the 3M machines a bad name
>in my mind and I kind of avoided them. That was a GRP album, and GRP was
>in with 3M very early on... some of the early Flim and the BBs recordings
>were made on prototype 3M machines and the original masters are apparently
>unplayable today.
the 3M machine. They got a kick out of live to 2-track in general, as I recall.
>>(My vague memory from second-hand sources was that the Sony DASH multitracks mostly
>>took over this market within a few years -- but that could be in error.)
>The Mitsubishi stuff was also very popular.
>The 3M machines used staggered converters which required a lot of maintenance
>and they also ran the converters at something over 50 Ksamp/sec in order to
>get the nastiness of the first-generation anti-aliasing filters out of the
>audible band. I saw a presentation on the design at an AES show and it was
>really very ingenious and addressed all of the known problems of digital
>systems at the time.
apparently the EDC was sketchy and playback would degrade with each successive pass.
When it got bad, you'd adjust the error circuit, then digital dub to a new tape on
another machine for a re-freshed number of error-free plays. Spooky. (For one thing,
that meant TWO of those beasties at $115K/copy.)
>But I never actually ran one of the things; the first digital multitrack
>I ever actually used was a DASH.
(I had a brief encounter with the 2-track Mits in 1992 or so.)
hank alrich
Oct 9, 2013, 2:44:23 PM10/9/13
to
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
> >
> >Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use,
> >and reliability. At least according to the brief article at
> >mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was
> >liked and was used by some larger names in the business -- but its
> >history seems quite thin. Are any of these still around? How wide-spread
> >was its use?
>
> It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
Doesn't Thomas Stockham's Soundstream recorder predate the 3M?
> Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
> >
> >Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use,
> >and reliability. At least according to the brief article at
> >mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was
> >liked and was used by some larger names in the business -- but its
> >history seems quite thin. Are any of these still around? How wide-spread
> >was its use?
>
> It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream
--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
Scott Dorsey
Oct 9, 2013, 3:19:38 PM10/9/13
to
Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
it wasn't compatible with the DASH or Mitsubishi machines. So if you
made a tape on one of them.... good luck finding another studio where
you could take it.
>>My first experience was listening to the CD "Digital Duke" with the Duke
>>Ellington orchestra, which was recorded on one of them. The album was
>>incredibly harsh and bright in the sort of way that gave early digital
>>systems a terrible name, and I think it gave the 3M machines a bad name
>>in my mind and I kind of avoided them. That was a GRP album, and GRP was
>>in with 3M very early on... some of the early Flim and the BBs recordings
>>were made on prototype 3M machines and the original masters are apparently
>>unplayable today.
>
>I got the sense that the Flim sessions were live to the 2-track "master" version of
>the 3M machine. They got a kick out of live to 2-track in general, as I recall.
Yes, that was a much earlier generation of machine.
>Read someplace there was a pot on each channel to diddle for lowest error rate --
>apparently the EDC was sketchy and playback would degrade with each successive pass.
>
>When it got bad, you'd adjust the error circuit, then digital dub to a new tape on
>another machine for a re-freshed number of error-free plays. Spooky. (For one thing,
>that meant TWO of those beasties at $115K/copy.)
Yes, life was like that back then. It wasn't unusual for folks to have to
do regular hand-tweaking even on computer disk drives.... take a scope and
adjust the servo pots so everything stayed right on the track. Life has
become better since then.
>>But I never actually ran one of the things; the first digital multitrack
>>I ever actually used was a DASH.
>
>Mits or Sony?
First I ever used was a Studer, then later a Sony. If it's Mitsubishi,
it's not DASH format!
>klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>>It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
>
>Interesting... If not stationary head (tape speed perhaps implies that) what were
>they doing? Some kind of rotating helical or quad head thing, ala video? Limited
>photos of the 3M seem to also imply stationary head, but this could be my
>misinterpretation. Manual that I found doesn't say, but I might have missed it. You
>did have to devote a track of your choice for syncronization.
Oh, it was a stationary head system, just like DASH and Mitsubishi, but
>
>>It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
>
>Interesting... If not stationary head (tape speed perhaps implies that) what were
>they doing? Some kind of rotating helical or quad head thing, ala video? Limited
>photos of the 3M seem to also imply stationary head, but this could be my
>misinterpretation. Manual that I found doesn't say, but I might have missed it. You
>did have to devote a track of your choice for syncronization.
it wasn't compatible with the DASH or Mitsubishi machines. So if you
made a tape on one of them.... good luck finding another studio where
you could take it.
>>My first experience was listening to the CD "Digital Duke" with the Duke
>>Ellington orchestra, which was recorded on one of them. The album was
>>incredibly harsh and bright in the sort of way that gave early digital
>>systems a terrible name, and I think it gave the 3M machines a bad name
>>in my mind and I kind of avoided them. That was a GRP album, and GRP was
>>in with 3M very early on... some of the early Flim and the BBs recordings
>>were made on prototype 3M machines and the original masters are apparently
>>unplayable today.
>
>I got the sense that the Flim sessions were live to the 2-track "master" version of
>the 3M machine. They got a kick out of live to 2-track in general, as I recall.
>Read someplace there was a pot on each channel to diddle for lowest error rate --
>apparently the EDC was sketchy and playback would degrade with each successive pass.
>
>When it got bad, you'd adjust the error circuit, then digital dub to a new tape on
>another machine for a re-freshed number of error-free plays. Spooky. (For one thing,
>that meant TWO of those beasties at $115K/copy.)
do regular hand-tweaking even on computer disk drives.... take a scope and
adjust the servo pots so everything stayed right on the track. Life has
become better since then.
>>But I never actually ran one of the things; the first digital multitrack
>>I ever actually used was a DASH.
>
>Mits or Sony?
it's not DASH format!
Scott Dorsey
Oct 9, 2013, 3:20:33 PM10/9/13
to
hank alrich <walk...@nv.net> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use,
>> >and reliability. At least according to the brief article at
>> >mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was
>> >liked and was used by some larger names in the business -- but its
>> >history seems quite thin. Are any of these still around? How wide-spread
>> >was its use?
>>
>> It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
>
>Doesn't Thomas Stockham's Soundstream recorder predate the 3M?
Yes, and Denon had some experimental machines in the mid-1960s, even.
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Curious if anyone here used the thing, what it sounded like, ease of use,
>> >and reliability. At least according to the brief article at
>> >mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering the machine was
>> >liked and was used by some larger names in the business -- but its
>> >history seems quite thin. Are any of these still around? How wide-spread
>> >was its use?
>>
>> It wasn't DASH. It wasn't Mitsubishi. But it was pretty much first.
>
>Doesn't Thomas Stockham's Soundstream recorder predate the 3M?
But they weren't multitrack and they couldn't overdub!
axolotl
Oct 9, 2013, 8:39:54 PM10/9/13
to
Kevin Gallimore
axolotl
Oct 9, 2013, 9:06:39 PM10/9/13
to
On 10/9/2013 8:39 PM, axolotl wrote:
>
> Wasn't that Columbia 30th st?
>
> Kevin Gallimore
...Answering my own question, 30th st was demolished before 1985. They
>
> Wasn't that Columbia 30th st?
>
> Kevin Gallimore
did have a Sony digital multitrack.
Kevin Gallimore
Mike Rivers
Oct 10, 2013, 3:19:17 PM10/10/13
to
On 10/9/2013 1:44 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> .. If not stationary head (tape speed perhaps implies that) what were
> they doing? Some kind of rotating helical or quad head thing, ala video?
No, it was a stationary head, but it wasn't the Sony DASH format, nor
> .. If not stationary head (tape speed perhaps implies that) what were
> they doing? Some kind of rotating helical or quad head thing, ala video?
was it the Mitsubishi Pro Digital format, and probably not the
Soundstream format either. I don't recall any large track count rotary
head digital tape recorders, only the 2, 4, and 8 tracks ones that used
videocassettes (and, of course, DAT).
> Mits or Sony?
Mitsubishi digital multitracks seemed to be the machine of choice in
Nashville, but New York and Los Angeles bought Sony. Before the days of
the computer-based DAW, people used to edit stereo digital recordings by
transferring them digitally to a Mitsubishi digital machine, which you
could edit with a razor blade, almost like analog tape. You had to leave
a small gap at the splice which created an error that the recorder would
crossfade over.
--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
axolotl
Oct 10, 2013, 7:01:44 PM10/10/13
to
On 10/9/2013 8:57 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Not sure which NY studio was being used (the control room appeared to be a sonic
> mess, with the back wall not more than 5 feet from the arm rest of the console), but
> they were using the 3M digital recorder, 32 tracks, 16 bit, 50 Khz, apparently a
> DASH format running at 45 IPS. The thing cost $115K in 1978 US dollars.
>
The internet is a wonderful thing. The German release of the album says
> mess, with the back wall not more than 5 feet from the arm rest of the console), but
> they were using the 3M digital recorder, 32 tracks, 16 bit, 50 Khz, apparently a
> DASH format running at 45 IPS. The thing cost $115K in 1978 US dollars.
>
it was recorded in RCA Studio A (New York, of course). Other records
recorded in Studio A in the same timeframe used a PCM 1610 and, on some
records, a Decca Digital Recording System. First time I have heard of them.
http://www.mancini99.freeserve.co.uk/Decca_1.html
<http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?8386-The-Decca-Digital-Audio-Recorder>
Kevin Gallimore
Luxey
Oct 11, 2013, 3:27:32 AM10/11/13
to
On Friday, 11 October 2013 01:01:44 UTC+2, axolotl wrote:
> a Decca Digital Recording System. First time I have heard of them.
>
> http://www.mancini99.freeserve.co.uk/Decca_1.html
>
> <http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?8386-The-Decca-Digital-Audio-Recorder>
>
> Kevin Gallimore
Thanks for the links.
> a Decca Digital Recording System. First time I have heard of them.
>
> http://www.mancini99.freeserve.co.uk/Decca_1.html
>
> <http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?8386-The-Decca-Digital-Audio-Recorder>
>
> Kevin Gallimore
Frank Stearns
Oct 11, 2013, 4:50:58 PM10/11/13
to
Thanks for finding and posting.
0 new messages