<!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 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV>Hi Steve:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It's important to compare apples to apples. I have the
"privilege" of working with both machines and formats. Here's what I
believe are more accurate observations.....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, they are totally different formats, but when comparing, since the IVC
format remained constant while there were changes in the Ampex format, you have
to be specific about what you are comparing. As another list member
pointed out, the only "true" Type-A is what was defined by SMPTE, and if we look
at recordings from that era, they will easily beat the IVC
recordings. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, the original Ampex format is essentially the same as the Type-A
format, but the first machines, which pre-date the IVC machines, used lower
carrier frequencies. Together with the movable guides, the performance was
not as good as the IVC machines when they were introduced. But by the end
of the Type-A era, things had changed and the Ampex format produced essentially
the same quality as the Type-C format which it became with a few
modifications.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Machines for both formats had their problems. For Ampex, it was
the already mentioned movable guides. For IVC, it was the design of their
servo system which worked fine until there was wear on the pulley which then
made it impossible to get the drum up to speed. The IVC transport was
better than the early Ampex models, but the later Ampex models had better
transports than the IVC's. So again, it depends on which models are
being evaluated, but I can't agree that the IVC format was far superior, and in
the end, they lost the race.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Still, both formats had the ability to produce very good recordings.
Since they were both wideband (direct) recordings, playback today using modern
TBC's likely exceeds the quality that was available when they were originally
recorded. We've seen beautiful recordings out of both formats, and
terrible recordings out of both formats!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don Norwood<BR>Digitrak Communications, Inc.<BR><A
href="http://www.digitrakcom.com">www.digitrakcom.com</A></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=Steve.White@800CallNow.com
href="mailto:Steve.White@800CallNow.com">Steve White</A> </DIV>
<P></P><STRONG><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #e4e4e4" size=2></FONT></STRONG>
<HR>
<P></P><FONT face=Tahoma>IVC was the far superior machine ... because it was a
totally different format.<BR><BR>You'll notice the Ampex used a moving pinch
roller path with resulting omega wrap around the drum, while the IVC used a
fixed path and alpha wrap.<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>