Funny eBay Listing of the week: Doesn't get any screwier than This!!!

Well...yes...that's a lot of money. Too much for sure, though I gotta say if I didn't have the MM-1000, my top 2 alternatives would be a 3M M56 2" like the one to which you posted the link, or an Ampex MM-1200. The 3M in the eBay listing appears all there with the rare remote. The M56 in 2" trim is a rare machine, and mechanically eloquent in that it has about the lowest flutter spec of any open reel audio tape machine with its closed loop mechanical constant tension design. Yup...The industry standard shifted to complex servo-based constant tension designs, and towards the end of the era there was the advent of tape paths devoid of either a capstan, or pinch rollers. The Stephens machine was one such design, which was based on a 3M transport. Anyway, the M56 features simple discrete relay-logic for hammer-mechanics like me, but incorporates a completely mechanical closed-loop constant-tension system...eloquently dirt-simple and reliable...the tape path is so short, and the wrap angle so minimal...the flutter-spec rivals even the most advanced transports and here's the kicker: as far as I know, the flutter tests documented in every other tape machine I've read were solely based on the playback of tone from a test tape. The way 3M did it for their machines was to record tone onto tape, and then reproduce and measure the flutter off the reproduction of the tone...that's right...the 3M flutter spec is the cumulative spec of the record AND reproduce processes of the subject machine...and the performance STILL killed the competition. And we are talking about 1960s tech here. Big fan. Can you tell? And I believe my information is reliable as it came from direct correspondence with Dale Manquen, who was heavily involved in the design of 3M transports of the era, particularly the wide format M56. Dale, as humble as he is, can take credit for many innovations including the drawer-type amplifier electronics trays on the 2" M56. This was his solution to housing 16 sets of amplifier cards. The 1/4", 1/2" and 1" M56/M64 transports all use individual rackmount modules for each channel of amplifier electronics, 3U each. IIRC the team at the Mincom audio division were charged to get a 2" 16-track together, but if they stuck with the status-quo the electronics would have taken up 48U of rack space. So Dale came up with the drawer design. It wasn't adopted until the early 70s by competitors like Ampex with the prototypical MM-500 (which became the MM-1100). I have the story in his own words in an email somewhere. Anyway, I have the half-track version of the M56, the M64, which is why I've scavenged some of this info. Dale and I have corresponded via email and by phone...says so much the guy was willing to take time to help me 1:1. The 1/4"~1/2" M64 has the same transport as the 2" M56...total overkill on everything. The M64 even utilizes dynamic braking (no mechanical brakes...all relay logic reeling motor executed braking). The capstan flywheel is, like...8" in diameter. Okay. Enough. I guess my point is that, yes, 20,000GBP is ridiculous, but a machine like a complete 2" M56 is rare enough and neat-o enough I'm not sure there really is a "market", and therefore the "market value" is simply based on what somebody would pay for it. I wouldn't pay 20,000GBP for it. :D Maybe somebody might and more power to the seller if that be the case.

Kills me...there was one for sale several years ago in my neck of the woods for around $3,000USD and at the time I didn't know the unique gem that it is. On top of the transport design wonders, the electronics are, like other period units, all discrete class A design, and the power supplies are overkill and the input and output transformers are HUGE...I'd pay $3,000USD for one. ;)[/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top