As a fellow Ampexian I appreciate the kind words. I have the OE playback head that is NOS quality. I'll ask you as you are a RKI on the MR70, what would you use? And what differences could I expect to hear? As I understand the OE head has a unusual response curve. A friend sent me a message about the ME playback head on the MR70.....
"Where you *really* want to spend the $$$ is on a Flux ME play head. The difference is nothing short of startling."
Again what do you think ? Also if there are other's using flux playback heads I would like to hear your feedback also.
I put a Flux head on my Studer A80 (for 1/4 trk playback) and the performance is absolutely stunning...so much so that I would consider the ME head for all of my machines, MR70 included. Apparently the nuvistor electronics are capable of much more than the stock head can give, but the ME head fixes that.
The flux head just gets more information off of the tape. I routinely put the Studer up against other machines in 1/4 trk playback and everyone admits the Flux head stomps all over standard heads. Think what it would do in two track.............
I put a Flux head on my Studer A80 (for 1/4 trk playback) and the performance is absolutely stunning...so much so that I would consider the ME head for all of my machines, MR70 included. Apparently the nuvistor electronics are capable of much more than the stock head can give, but the ME head fixes that.
The flux head just gets more information off of the tape. I routinely put the Studer up against other machines in 1/4 trk playback and everyone admits the Flux head stomps all over standard heads. Think what it would do in two track.............
Back in the late 80s my audio mentor commissioned John Curl and Saki to design a new and 'improved' head with a parabolic profile for the MR70. Saki built them up for him and they did not turn out to be any improvement at all. My friend Al had 3 or 4 MR70s at the time. I remember the tape tech coming in from Westchester county frequently to keep them running. When the MRs were working they were very special.
Back in the late 80s my audio mentor commissioned John Curl and Saki to design a new and 'improved' head with a parabolic profile for the MR70. Saki built them up for him and they did not turn out to be any improvement at all. My friend Al had 3 or 4 MR70s at the time. I remember the tape tech coming in from Westchester county frequently to keep them running. When the MRs were working they were very special.
During the time I spent with the MR70s(from mid 80s to about 1995) it was the top dog for sonics. We only had a Scott Kent modified ReVox A700, Ampex 351 and Nagra IV-S to compare it to. It handily bettered those machines. The ReVox was bottom of the barrel for sonics. At the time it was likely the best sounding machine available. I can't give any further sonic impressions on the deck.
During the time I spent with the MR70s(from mid 80s to about 1995) it was the top dog for sonics. We only had a Scott Kent modified ReVox A700, Ampex 351 and Nagra IV-S to compare it to. It handily bettered those machines. The ReVox was bottom of the barrel for sonics. At the time it was likely the best sounding machine available. I can't give any further sonic impressions on the deck.
I knew a guy in Chicago who had a Cello modified Stellavox TD-9 with 1/2 inch two track heads running at 30 ips. His deck was truly breathtaking. It was not a fair comparison with the MR70- that deck was only 1/4 inch and 15 ips. The ease and detail from original masters on the Cellopex was awesome. The system was stacked Dayton-Wright electrostatics from 100 to 5K with modified Heil tweeters on top and some giant subs below 100 cycles. All driven by Cello Performance amps putting out a kilowatt into the 2 ohm load. I would have loved to compare like for like on those two machines. The Cellopex was the only machine in those days that I would compare to the MR70.
If your stock head is in useable condition it would be well worth it to at least give it a try. The general recommendation is that the MR70 benefits from the ME head, but we might be talking about larger multitrack machines here. I don't know how many 1/4" machines are still running and could be used for a sonic comparison.
Then again, I doubt there's more than a handful of MR70's in any configuration still being used....so it's great to see you taking this one on with such perseverance.
If your stock head is in useable condition it would be well worth it to at least give it a try. The general recommendation is that the MR70 benefits from the ME head, but we might be talking about larger multitrack machines here. I don't know how many 1/4" machines are still running and could be used for a sonic comparison.
Then again, I doubt there's more than a handful of MR70's in any configuration still being used....so it's great to see you taking this one on with such perseverance.
I have been thinking about the extended frequency vs the stock Ampex head. What the MR70 is known for is capturing the ambient enviroment of the recording . I seem to recall Kavi Alexander of Water Lilly talking about this and the Stereophile "Poem" Cd sounds very good with plenty of ambient info. I know Charlie Richardson's Cd's sound exceptional,they have a quality,that captures a live event better than almost any recording I have heard.
My biggest concern is I don't want to upset the balance and signature of the stock MR70 in a way that takes away from what most say is a exceptional machine. I already have a Studer and I can say it sounds fine but it's a Studer if you get my drift. My playback head is "like new" so I have decided to use it on the first go around. that way I know what the original signature is. If I find fault with it I can always swap it out for the ME head.
I would be glad to share any info that I may have about finding sources for parts on the MR70....relays,motor bearings and restoring them. I have learned a lot about the machine.
Then again, I doubt there's more than a handful of MR70's in any configuration still being used....so it's great to see you taking this one on with such perseverance.
You know I was thinking about that and I know for sure there are 4 running now and maybe a few others. I can't imagine it's that low but your'e probably close.
The MR70 will be delivered tomorrow,so I will be busy putting things together. The head stack will be shipped off and then the cables made. The cables should be done next week and then I can run the nuvistor preamps through my system.
The images below are from Vic Damon's studio circa 1967 . Vic was located in Kansas City & had gobs of recording equipment including 3 MR70'S .You can see them in the B&W image with 1 in the color picture. Quite the Studio.
The MR70 will be delivered tomorrow,so I will be busy puting things together. The head stack will be shipped off and then the cables made. The cables should be done next week and then I can run the nuvistor preamps through my system.
I posted it somewhere before but thought it would make a good compliment to Roger's images:
It's a photo of Kearney Barton Studio in Seattle. Kearney is gone...sadly but his Ampex 351 standing up right next to the wall clock is in my room now longing for his original owner...
Looks like a good start for a thread on slobbo-audiophilia. I am guilty as charged. No M&M boxes, and the stuff hasn't cascaded onto the floor yet, but the filing system looks familiar.
Do Slobbo-audiophiles have better sound or worse sound? Are they more interested in the sound than the appearance? Is it impossible to keep a good sounding system that is constantly in flux? Are neat systems boring systems?
