Sonorous ATR10 MMK II
- Thread starter Philip O Hanlon
- Start date
For most archiving yes 1.5 mil is preferable but 1 mil is used in many instances, especially voice recordings. By the way 468 is no longer made.
Yes, I am too painfully aware of that.
The Tapeproject tapes were recorded in RMGI Studio Master 468 - do you know what they are currently using?
I would assume 911 but I don't have any direct knowledge one way or the other. You can try giving them a call.
468 was my preferred tape and I'm sad to see it go. One thing I liked about it is that it wound very cleanly at high speed.Yes, I am too painfully aware of that.
468 has a long history and has clearly proven to have minimal print through. I really won't trust a 1 mil tape for archiving. Storing tail out does not prevent print through, BTW. But it creates post-echo instead of pre-echo, which is less noticeable.
If you don't archive, print through is a moot point. Personally I wouldn't archive on analog at all, but that's just me. In my experience, the amount of print through between 1 and 1.5 mil is not night and day.
If you really don't want print through and really want to bring out the Big Guns to do some quality recording, go with 3 track 35mm magnetic film (seriously). I've found 35mm magnetic film to be the best analog medium of them all.
But 35 mm magnetic film makes my advocacy for 30ips reel to reel seem almost mainstream.
Last edited:
Yes, this is modern generation (ca 2002) 35 mm magnetic audio film, the same stuff Mercury used. The sprocket ripple is taken care of by the design of the transport, called a 'Davis tight loop' system. They are massive, heavy and expensive. I used magnetic film from my time working in motion picture music/sound/sound effects in Hollywood. They transisitoned to all-digital around that time. Magnetic film is unbelievable because the backing is 5 mils, the oxide very thick and at 18 ips speed, it is fast enough to have better high frequency response than regular tape yet slow enough that bass response isn't compromised. The tracks are very wide, with 3 track having 200 mil tracks, like 1/2" stereo tape masters.They dynamic range is off the map good, as is the speed stability / wow / flutter. Makes 15ips tape seem rather like a cassette. I have plenty more pictures of the machines in action if interested I'll post them.
interesting. clearly an awesome way to go if recording a live event.
my question is; in what context would one use this 35 mm audio film? to justify the acquisition of the gear and media? or maybe you already have these 33 mm film recordings on hand?
unless you are doing live recordings you would be limited to dubbing from other less capable sources? is it worth the bother other than 'cuz you can'.
I was on a feature film mixing stage a few years ago that still had mag machines and some stock and I bet everyone lunch that the mag would kill the sound of their ridiculously expensive hard disk recorders. So we recorded one version to disk and one version to mag and the difference was startling even to the biggest naysayers. You can't go backwards in technology of course but there was a room full of analog converts that day. And lunch was delicious.
Yup, sounds about right! The sound of mag is just unbelivable. Everything else is just cassette or mp3 by comparison.
You'd use 35mm magnetic film just the way Mercury and Everest did. I don't have any of the machines here - I don't have the sheer room for them. They are always mounted in 7' high 19" racks and obviously weigh a ton. Totally impractical for home use making mix tapes, but definitely a conversation piece! Maybe somebody will eventually take one to a HiFi show - I'm sure it would steal the show.
The ones in Hollywood I was around were used as the mix-down media for feature films. The main recorders were 6 track and the "dummies" which were up to dozens of playback machines which contained the source audio/music were anything from mono to 6 track.
People like Robert Fine had the right idea when they adopted them for their recordings - it was obviously superior to anything else by a long shot, but the impracticality eventually caught up with them. Hollywood studios used them because the sound film had a 1:1 size/speed ratio with the photographic film.
The first feature I worked on (at the Disney main stage) had over 100 Mag playback machines running through the mixing board to three separate 6 track recorders. At the time these were not automated mixing boards. The three mixers were just witches.
That was the state of things when I started working in film (around 1984) and towards the end of my time working in the field the change to digital was mostly complete. Where with mag there might have been a dozen or more people in the machine room tending the loading/changing of reels, by the time I left there was only one person (probably the one who was highest in seniority in IATSE) tending two dubbing stages. The media was either DA-88 digital tape or plug-in hard drives. I liked the older days better......
Mostly I miss the pool and ping pong during reel changes!
The film I did last year was one guy doing everything basically: sound editing, design, and mixing. We had an old time guy cutting our effects. The most amazing part was the seemless translation from small mixing stage to 400 seat theater. And the same mix sounds great for streaming. The tech is ridiculous now.
Similar threads
