Motown Tape Machines?

B

Bguzaldo

New member
Does anyone know what 3 track machines they use to use? I think they were Ampex or 3M but I can never seem to find what models they were using.

Thanks,
-Barrett
 
Not sure if you have seen this already. It does mention the machine,but not the make.
Its about Motown recording techniques.
You'll have to scroll down a little to get to the article.

1st Issue TECHNIQUES
 
There's a guy on gearslutz who used to work there, can't remember his handle. Search around, you'll find some threads.

I do know they used a lot of Neumann KM86 mics. I have myself a pair, and they are amazing. Creamy creamy creamy.
 
I think they used most everything that was available at the time. Ampex 300-series decks (300? 350?), Scully 280s, early 3M machines (I think it was similar to an M23 but pre-dated it), and Studer as well. Basically discrete '60s decks.
 
Yeah, LOTS of Ampex 35x machines and in the late 60's into the early 70's the 440 was very popular.

I'm not sure there WAS a 3M Mincom deck the pre-dated the M-23...
 
sweetbeats said:
Yeah, LOTS of Ampex 35x machines and in the late 60's into the early 70's the 440 was very popular.

I'm not sure there WAS a 3M Mincom deck the pre-dated the M-23...
Click to expand...

I know Motown had an M23 8-track starting in '68, but I thought I read somewhere about them having an early 3M prior to that ... after researching a bit, I think I'm confusing them with another studio.

In any case, it might have been some kind of prototype or pre-M23 deck that was probably essentially the same thing. I attempted some research but can't get back to the sites I found it on a while back! (funny how the internet takes you down a rabbit hole, never
to be found again!)

Although it looks like the first M23s were referred to as simply "Dynatrak" because of that weird noise reduction system they had available. I think they only made like 30 like that, and I'm guessing that they were all turned into regular 4-tracks or 8-tracks later on.
 
Yeah the M-23 was introduced earlier in the 60's...don't recall what year. Ofajen would know. Or I think the info is on the Allen Sound website. And then the M-64 followed in the late 60's but the M-64 and M-23 transports and electronics are VERY closely related and cross-compatible. The biggest difference between the two is that the M-23 has a rim-drive capstan and the M-64 is belt-drive using a mylar belt. And, yes, the M-23 was available in 2-track, 2-track Dynatrack (1/2" 4-channel halftrack), 4-track, and 1" 8-track. The M-64 was only available up to 4-track, but the transport is essentially identical to the M-56 machines which came in 1" 8-track (with separate electronics modules for each channel ala M-23 8-track), or as a 2" 16-track...i believe the 2" M-56 was the first to utilize drawers for the amp cards rather than separate modules with separate power supplies. That was a Dale Manquen thing. I have to say that those 3M transports were very advanced for their time and reliably eloquent even today...and ROBUST. Coolest vintage pro transport in my book. And I can't wait to hear the sound. All discrete class A amplification and the I/O trannies are giant.
 
This is not likely what I was remembering, but I did locate this PDF from United/Western studio newsletter, April '67.

They are announcing their new 8-track acquisition, a 3M model C-401. I've never heard of this model and I was thinking maybe somebody got the model wrong and it was actually an M23:

http://www.studioelectronics.biz/newsletters/67apr.pdf

The weird thing is, there's a video of the Beach Boys recording in (likely around) fall '66 at Western, and there is a Scully 280 8-track there! I was thinking Brian must have rented it from Wally Heider's, but we couldn't come to any conclusion or verify it on a Beach Boys forum.
 
I read that PDF...i'm pretty certain that the "C-401" is the M-23. The Dynatrack concept first hit the market with the M-23 as well as Mincom's "iso-loop" mechanical constant tension closed-loop tape path. Flutter levels as low as 0.04% and that was measured using a tape that had the test recorded AND reproduced on the subject transport. Period Ampex 440's by comparison had flutter spec that really only measured the transport flutter in reproduce because a flutter test tape made on a precision transport was used. Flutter spec was 0.08% (depending on the capstan motor type and transport speed), and again that was measuring the transport flutter performance in reproduce only. With the 3M spec it was a real-world test because the flutter measured would be the sum of the flutter printed to tape and then when it was reproduced...and it was still HALF that of the Ampex spec. No complicated servo control, not an IC in sight. All relay logic and discrete transport circuitry.
 
sweetbeats said:
I read that PDF...i'm pretty certain that the "C-401" is the M-23. The Dynatrack concept first hit the market with the M-23 as well as Mincom's "iso-loop" mechanical constant tension closed-loop tape path. Flutter levels as low as 0.04% and that was measured using a tape that had the test recorded AND reproduced on the subject transport. Period Ampex 440's by comparison had flutter spec that really only measured the transport flutter in reproduce because a flutter test tape made on a precision transport was used. Flutter spec was 0.08% (depending on the capstan motor type and transport speed), and again that was measuring the transport flutter performance in reproduce only. With the 3M spec it was a real-world test because the flutter measured would be the sum of the flutter printed to tape and then when it was reproduced...and it was still HALF that of the Ampex spec. No complicated servo control, not an IC in sight. All relay logic and discrete transport circuitry.
Click to expand...

Yeh, that PDF and the M64 are probably where I got confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top