Ballfinger M063 both 1/4 track and 1/2 Track playback
- Thread starter sunan
- Start date
In this design the alignment error of record head is inherited more pronounced than reproduce head simply because it was positioned further away from the headblock pivot point than reproduce head did. We use very long base line, up to 5 meters, to amplify small torsional angle displacement in experiment to prove Newton's gravitational force and Coulomb's electrostatic force; here s = R X theta, R is the baseline.
Anyway I still prefer magnetic heads should be fixed at all time per se. This is also the inherited advantage of reel-to-reel over cassette decks; you can not keep magnetic heads fixed in cassette recorder. STUDER prefer a "more stable" tape-head approach by placing heads as close to head carrying cage pivot point as possible. The head approaches tape around pivot point in a circular way. This mechanism could be better than sliding heads in and out in a linear fashion.
For frequent cycling head block at each command I got irritated each time.....
One way to remedy this probably was to introduce dynamic head alignment, although it could not optimize record head and reproduce head at same time. But this could lead to automatic biasing as a bonus. Nak's casette had this feature; it perform head alignment all the time. Due to close proximity of record/reproduce head casette wins in this aspect.
But why should we cross this forbidden zone and go astray in the first place?
Another important issue was that no magnetic head manufacturers garamtee their core of head was aligned to its case (this well addressed opinion was pin pointed by one of the tapeheads forum member, Bravo!). Thus any well designed tape path MUST has a measure to adjust head azimuthal angle, even at assembly stage!
Anyway I still prefer magnetic heads should be fixed at all time per se. This is also the inherited advantage of reel-to-reel over cassette decks; you can not keep magnetic heads fixed in cassette recorder. STUDER prefer a "more stable" tape-head approach by placing heads as close to head carrying cage pivot point as possible. The head approaches tape around pivot point in a circular way. This mechanism could be better than sliding heads in and out in a linear fashion.
For frequent cycling head block at each command I got irritated each time.....
One way to remedy this probably was to introduce dynamic head alignment, although it could not optimize record head and reproduce head at same time. But this could lead to automatic biasing as a bonus. Nak's casette had this feature; it perform head alignment all the time. Due to close proximity of record/reproduce head casette wins in this aspect.
But why should we cross this forbidden zone and go astray in the first place?
Another important issue was that no magnetic head manufacturers garamtee their core of head was aligned to its case (this well addressed opinion was pin pointed by one of the tapeheads forum member, Bravo!). Thus any well designed tape path MUST has a measure to adjust head azimuthal angle, even at assembly stage!
Last edited:
My 2nd Ballinger with full option will arrive in July. The sonic quality is amazing.
Have you been able to compare its sound quality directly, in the same system, with any other tape deck you own?
Yes, I did. I own ATR-102 by ATR Service, ATR-102 by Bernie Grundman Mastering, A80 Mk-I and A802. Nagra T-Audio and 4s with QGB. The Ballinger is very closed to Nagra T.
STOP THE PRESSES!
Please tell us how the sound of the Ballfinger compares to the sound of your A80 Mk. I and to the sound of your A820. How does the sound of the Ballfinger compare to the sound of the ATR?
What differences in transport mechanism characteristics do you notice among these machines?
Does the Ballfinger handle tape as gently as the Studers handle tape?
Are you using the internal stock audio electronics in all of these machines, or are you using an external tape amplifier with one or more of them?
A80 Mk-1 - A80 has slower, rounder timber and not as transparent. Good tape handling
A820 - A820 has a bigger stage, slower, lay-back and not as transparent. Best tape handling
ATR-102 by ATR Service - 102 has a bigger stage, darker but better timber. Good - tape handing
ATR-102 by Bernie Grundman Mastering - 102 BGM is better in all respect. Good - tape handling
NAGRA T-Audio - The sonic is very similar. The T has a larger stage. Very good tape handing
Studer A820 is best in tape handing, A80 & NAGRA T come in 2nd.
I am using internal audio electronics. The ATR-102 BGM electronics has been customs made by them.
I have a Manley tape head preamplifier Mk-I but I have not compared them.
A820 - A820 has a bigger stage, slower, lay-back and not as transparent. Best tape handling
ATR-102 by ATR Service - 102 has a bigger stage, darker but better timber. Good - tape handing
ATR-102 by Bernie Grundman Mastering - 102 BGM is better in all respect. Good - tape handling
NAGRA T-Audio - The sonic is very similar. The T has a larger stage. Very good tape handing
Studer A820 is best in tape handing, A80 & NAGRA T come in 2nd.
I am using internal audio electronics. The ATR-102 BGM electronics has been customs made by them.
I have a Manley tape head preamplifier Mk-I but I have not compared them.
question about your experience with the Studer A-820; did it have the trafoless (transformer-less) upgrade audio output cards?
I have trafoless cards on my A810 got them brand new from audio house, Yes they still have them new but $1100 each I think. I think it is a slight improvement over the transformer ones. But when I asked my tech, he said he liked the transformer ones. So it could be just preference.
I am glad to hear about the Ballfinger comparing to the Studers, ATR and Nargra. There has been a lot of negativity on another forum when it comes to Ballfinger and even the new Thorens one which have not even been produced yet.
My only question (concern) about the Ballfinger is that moving headblock. What do you feel about that? Did you put a test tape(MRL) on the Ballfinger to see the Frequency Response? Someone said there was no Azmith adjustment on the Ballfinger?
I am glad to hear about the Ballfinger comparing to the Studers, ATR and Nargra. There has been a lot of negativity on another forum when it comes to Ballfinger and even the new Thorens one which have not even been produced yet.
My only question (concern) about the Ballfinger is that moving headblock. What do you feel about that? Did you put a test tape(MRL) on the Ballfinger to see the Frequency Response? Someone said there was no Azmith adjustment on the Ballfinger?
I think it could be best to do a direct head out like Mike's and take out the recording head and replace that with a new playback head. Mr. Doshi told me to send the whole head bloc to CA to get that done when my current head wears out.
Kind regards,
Tang
Kind regards,
Tang
I know that one of the Ballfinger machines is explicitly designed for use with an external repro amplifier
Yes, Nick suggested me. But he looked at my playback head, did some frequency measurement and said the head was in prime condition. So I would only change the head when it is worn out. I may have misquoted the State. I don't remember the name. And yes the whole head bloc can be taken out and sent for head replacement. He said he and his customers did that. Very convenient. He showed me how to do it too. But since it was me, I didn't pay much attention and remember how 
.
Kind regards,
Tang
. Kind regards,
Tang
Similar threads
