<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19019">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Hi Chris:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>I'll agree that the IVC interchange was better. Beyond
that, both the electronics and the transports had issues. While the
transport looked very "professional", a check underneath revealed some serious
shortcomings, especially the lack of direct drive servo system for the
drum. As the machines aged, this became even more apparent when the pulley
wore to the point that the head could never achieve speed!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>As for the TBC designs, the analog TBC-790 came out in
'72. At that point, I'd guess that the cost of digital was still too high
for the helical market. Two years later in '74, the TBC-800 was introduced
as Ampex's first DTBC for helical. Weighing in at a mere 100 lbs compared
to the 120 lbs of the 790, it had a 1-H correction window and list price was
$11,500 plus an additional $3,500 for Velcomp. The 790 had been priced at
$10,000 for the base unit and only had a correction window of +/-1.5 usec, so
for about the same price, there was a huge performance increase in two
years. Then, in another two years ('76), the TBC-1 at $12,800 plus only
$1,500 for Velcomp offered a +/-6H window for less cost than the TBC-800.
It was also down to a lightweight 80 lbs!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Don Norwood<BR>Digitrak Communications, Inc.<BR><A
href="http://www.digitrakcom.com">www.digitrakcom.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Chill315@aol.com href="mailto:Chill315@aol.com">Chill315@aol.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=quadlist@quadvideotapegroup.com
href="mailto:quadlist@quadvideotapegroup.com">quadlist@quadvideotapegroup.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 14, 2011 7:02
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [QuadList] What is
it????</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Bill</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Very interesting history. I have used a few different models of the
EIPD machines. 7000, 7500, 5000 series and a 7800. They were
decent but had issues. When IVC came along, a number of us wished that
one could combine the Ampex electronics with the IVC transport because it held
interchange a whole lot better. Actually we were complaining about the
swing arms in the EIPD machines. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The TBC designed for the 7900 was interesting. I still wonder why
that path was chosen for the design. Was it because it was so early in
the digital age that the cost was too high to produce a TBC? Was
it too early for the engineering skills? Was there a time issue to get
the product for market? Or was the culture at Ampex such that it had
lost its way.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I remember being told about the letter for the discontinuance of
InstaVision. It said something like "Due to the unprecedented success of
Instavision, we are discontinuing the product." A fellow by the name of
Doug Mumley was working for EIPD here in Detroit and saved the letter.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chris Hill</DIV>
<DIV>WA8IGN</DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>