MCI's 3 inch 32 track machine...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aloha
  • Start date Start date
A

Aloha

New member
why did this format never take off?
was it just too expensive?
 
I think the key stumbling block was designing reel motors that could handle the tape smoothly and keeping proper tension and pressure of the tape across the head stack.

Cheers! :)

ps; I am not sure if it was MCI or 3M who tied this format first? I will have to dive into my old Mix magazines and see.
 
hahaha.....

You gotta feel bad or the studios that bought one of those things.



"Ya man, I got this groovy new 3" tape machine. 32 tracks. It was only $50,000. But now I am the best equiped studio on the west coast.

Hmm.....

Well, ya.....it was all my money. But I am going to make it back soooooo fast. Everyone will want to record here. I don't need a low buget 2". No one is going to use those any more."



-A week later-



"Dude. I got some bad news. Read this.



They don't make 3" tape anymore."


:eek:
 
yep designing a proper motor for an analog tape machine is a bitch. That's why we haven't seen too many machines beyond 2" 30 ips. The cost becomes nearly exponential. I do know someone who has a old geological deck that if I remember correctly runs around 80 ips and it was I think a 12 or 14 track? sounded pretty good.
 
LOL...These were the pop song decks....Standard reels.... 3 1/2 mins a reel :)
 
BillyFurnett said:
80!

Damn, how big were the reels??

:)
Click to expand...

Man.....Mozart didn't even have a means of recording.....

Just be happy with 6 minutes of tape.
 
Uh, I don't know what that means Outlaws..., but ok.


So how big WERE those reels? (I guess the ply of the tape would factor in too.)

:)
 
BillyFurnett said:
80!

Damn, how big were the reels??

:)
Click to expand...

They were standard 10.5 " reels.

Either way, it doesn't really matter at this point as the machines are gone. The tapes are gone. Unless there is still a couple of machines collecting dust in someone's basement somewhere.

Even if the format would have worked and survived, the advent of synchronization technologies allows for multi-machine lock up so, for those that want to have two 16 track, two inch machines to be locked up and used together, they can do so and end up with the equivalent of a 4" machine.

Cheers! :)
 
BillyFurnett said:
Uh, I don't know what that means Outlaws..., but ok.


So how big WERE those reels? (I guess the ply of the tape would factor in too.)

:)
Click to expand...



A standard 10.5" reel at 30"p/s is going to give you 16 minutes of recording time......

so.....

80" p/s would be about 6 minutes.......


....nevermind......:cool:
 
I wish my wife thought 3 inches was too big.

Sorry guys I had to say that:D
 
Ooooooh I see Outlaws-LOL

Man that could get expensive!

:)
 
The 80 IPS pop song decks with six mins a reel - anybody know a model number?

The 80 IPS pop song decks with six mins a reel - anybody know a model number?
We have some tape here trying to remaster playing it on a 827 at 30 IPS and it sounds like a 78 played at 16.

If we record into the computer like that, then WE are going to get all kinds of bass problems in the repo since heads and electronics are not designed to go down to one hertz (hert?).

And how would they have got away with the bass contour problems that occur when tape runs too fast over the heads during recording at speeds such as 80 IPS?

Also if anybody has a 3-inch 32 track MCI for use in restoring the tape made on it
give us a holler cuz guys are trying to find people with players so they can transfer
to digital.

Also, any other ``orphan'' formats would be nice to have as well (Bob Leonard's 18-track across 70-MM full-coat mag anybody? [16 tracks across the center, plus one each from the holes to the edge of the film] originally intended to be run as track and film for 70MM Cinerama experiments) here since the bulk of our transfer business comes from consumer and semi-pro ``orphan'' formats to which no ordinary studio or transfer facility has the time, engineering or money to source players.
 
80 ips? Thats crazy man. Anyone knows which studios used those and which records was done on the machines?
 
If memory serves, the speed of this machine was 20 ips, said by some to be the perfect compromise between 15 ips & 30 ips. Ampex made a few reels of 3" tape so MCI could demo the machine but it was never officially available.
 
At 80ips the LF knee point would be so far up the LF range I can't imagine it would be very useful...bigger (i.e. faster) is not always better.
 
RRuskin said:
If memory serves, the speed of this machine was 20 ips, said by some to be the perfect compromise between 15 ips & 30 ips. Ampex made a few reels of 3" tape so MCI could demo the machine but it was never officially available.
Click to expand...

Right, AFAIK the 3" machine was intended to be used at 20ips. Far as I know it never got past the prototype stage, i think the transport worked enough to move some tape at a show but not sure if it ever actually recorded, not sure if it ever had working audio electronics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top