Check out the new Tape Project website at tapeproject.com, now with online ordering. Inventory is updated every week, so stop by often to see what we have in stock.

Author Topic: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?  (Read 15946 times)

ceved

  • Guest
When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« on: February 12, 2008, 03:24:54 PM »
Have you ever closely read a Barclay Crocker pamphlet?
It appears that they were manufacturers and distributors.
Some labels they manufactured, others they distributed.
Some tapes they sourced from Ampex and then later from Stereotape.
I wonder if the same production values applied?
BC had licenses to produce for the following labels;
Musical Heritage Society, Vanguard, Unicorn, Desmar, Halcyon, Entr'acte, Argo, and L'Oiseau Lyre at least as of 1978.
Are all BC's created equal?


Offline Danny Kaey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2008, 07:15:02 PM »
I just bought a DG BC tape...

contrary to popular opinion, the few DG tapes I do have are actually quite good sounding, certainly superior to your typical DG release...

Cheers,

D.
SonicFlare
www.sonicflare.com

US Editor | The Inner Ear
www.innerearmag.com

Senior Assistant Editor | Positive-Feedback Online
www.positive-feedback.com

Offline ironbut

  • Global Moderator
  • leader in spreading disinformation
  • *****
  • Posts: 2503
  • rs1500>repro amp#1
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2008, 07:22:37 PM »
Hey Charles, the Halcyon BC's (11 I think) and the Entr'acte recording Society (5) were were the ones with a different label, but they were still duplicated by BC. Aside from the labels you mentioned, they also duplicated Mercury, Phillips, Spectrum, Telefunken, and Deutsche Grammophon. There are a few that were recorded from digital masters and are marked as such on the covers. I've got a couple and one is good and one is just OK. The sound aside, the performances are almost always wonderful (since that is how say, one Mahler's 1st was chosen over another one) as long as you agree with Barclay's taste. There's also a few DBX encoded tapes (which I have none of and I've never stopped to figure out how many there were) but some are definitely available as Dolby encoded tapes too ( Ozawa's reading of " The Rite of Spring"). There are also a few ( the Ozawa just mentioned included) that, even though recorded in the 4 track format, are only recorded in one direction. These are recordings with particularly high dynamic peaks and were duplicated this way to avoid crosstalk.
So, to answer your question,.. they were all duplicated at a much lower speed than typical factory tapes (I understand that the ratio was changed somewhere along the line) and all were recorded onto good tape stock. What really sets one apart from the others seems to be the master used and the engineering of that master. I've never really gone back and counted the ones I've labeled as "Demo" quality but out of the 180 or so that I have, I'd guess that it's somewhere around 25. There are tons of "9s and 10s" and very few outright "dogs". Needless to say, I need the Costco size bottle of Last.
steve koto
 Sony scd 777es(R. Kern mods)> Vpi Aires>Dynavector XX-2mkll>Bent mu>CAT ultimate>CJ premeir 140>Magnepan 1.6qr(Jensen xover)Headphone Eddie Current Zana Deux>AT ad2000,HD800 ,Metric Halo ULN-2 (battery powered),
 HE Audio Jades

Offline astrotoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2008, 07:23:50 PM »
I have about 100 or so B-C tapes. mostly purchased in the 80's toward the end of their existence. In addition to the labels mentioned, I have B-C tapes that are Philips, Spectrum, Pro-Arte DG and Telefunken labels. In the few that I spot checked, they all say they were manufactured by B-C. On the program notes the duplicating mastering is listed as Harold Kovner. I also have 14 dbx II encoded B-C tapes. The duplication mastering is by Alex Abrash on the two that I spot checked. B-C always stated that they did not produce many copies of their tapes at any one time. They would have a limited number in inventory and then produce more as the orders flowed in. I have heard comments in other places that the quality went down at the very end when they began discounting the prices to clear their inventory. The implication to me is that if a title were popular and they ran out, they would duplicate enough to fill the orders. Those last dups may not have had the quality control of earlier production. I have not listened carefully enough to detect the difference. I cannot also tell which were the tapes I ordered at the final sales.  Finally, a very few of the B-C tapes were from digital recordings. I have one in front of me from Spectrum "Pachelbel Musicalishe Engoetzung" SPCx170 which was digitally recorded (the x was the notation that B-C used for the dbx II encoding). The advantage to the dbx II encoding was that since there was much greater compression in the encoding compared to dolby B, the tapes did not have the leakage from the reverse channels in loud passages that one can hear in the dolby B recordings. Hope this helps.   Larry
Larry Toy CharterMember-BHReproTechnics1506/Akai747dbx/OtariMX5050B3-ClassicalVinylFreak-15Krecs-VPIHRXRimDrv-LyraSkala-HelikonMono-HerronVTSP3A/BHPhonoPre-PacificMicrosonics Model2 - Pyramix&MykerinosCard-OppoNE-Proceed AVP2+6/CVP2-CJ MET1-Cary 2A3SE-AvantgardeDuos-3Solos-VelodyneDD18Sub

ceved

  • Guest
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2008, 08:41:07 PM »
Thanks to all for the speedy informative replies.
As I mentioned, I was under the impression that BC had produced all the tapes in their own facilities.
The pamphlet from 1978 which BC printed seems to indicate the contrary at least for the labels I did not list. Actually the pamphlet identified each label that was manufactured by Stereotape and others such as the Quad tapes.  They even went on to say that the label releases that Stereotape manufactured were sourced from California.
Did BC manufacture their own tape formulation?
Perhaps that is what they meant.
Did they have a special deal with Ampex/Stereotape to dub at different speeds with a different masters?
Sure makes me wonder.
Kind of like casting doubt on whether MOFI made all their LP's or if Columbia helped out.
How the heck did they go from tape to toiletries?
Not far in the alphabet, but a world apart otherwise!
Thanks again for all the info.

Offline ironbut

  • Global Moderator
  • leader in spreading disinformation
  • *****
  • Posts: 2503
  • rs1500>repro amp#1
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2008, 09:18:51 PM »
I was looking at the 1981 catalog and there's no mention of the Stereotape or Quad tapes. I know I have some Stereotape releases and I'll have a look to see what is on them. All the tapes (including DDG and Phillips etc) say that they're dupped by BC. A note states that the tapes are recorded on Ampex 642, 1 mil tape. Is it one of their catalogs that you have? They did have several distributors in the US and Canada. Also, for overseas sales, they had a another distributer in Pa. (Four Reel to Reel Sound).
BTW there were a number of BC releases that sold over a thousand copies.
steve koto
 Sony scd 777es(R. Kern mods)> Vpi Aires>Dynavector XX-2mkll>Bent mu>CAT ultimate>CJ premeir 140>Magnepan 1.6qr(Jensen xover)Headphone Eddie Current Zana Deux>AT ad2000,HD800 ,Metric Halo ULN-2 (battery powered),
 HE Audio Jades

Offline astrotoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2008, 02:42:35 AM »
I checked further into my B-C tapes. On the back, almost all of them have a box which says "This tape was duplicated by B-C". However, on the Philips and DG B-C tapes the box says "Manufactured and distributed by B-C...." The latter also gives B-C's address.  Is there a difference between being duplicated by and manufactured and distribute by?  Larry
Larry Toy CharterMember-BHReproTechnics1506/Akai747dbx/OtariMX5050B3-ClassicalVinylFreak-15Krecs-VPIHRXRimDrv-LyraSkala-HelikonMono-HerronVTSP3A/BHPhonoPre-PacificMicrosonics Model2 - Pyramix&MykerinosCard-OppoNE-Proceed AVP2+6/CVP2-CJ MET1-Cary 2A3SE-AvantgardeDuos-3Solos-VelodyneDD18Sub

Offline aamastering

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2008, 09:58:03 PM »
Hi my name is Alex Abrash and I was the mastering engineer who filled harold shoes in the last
years of BC, first let me say the quality never went down not even when it was in its final days.
I spent hours keeping the Ampex 440B and duplication equipmet working like new ( I clearly
remember spending all night into the morning on the speed duplicator) so in no way
did we let it slip. hope that helps I still do mastering in my own studio but mostly for CD.
Alex Abrash
AAmastering.com

Offline ironbut

  • Global Moderator
  • leader in spreading disinformation
  • *****
  • Posts: 2503
  • rs1500>repro amp#1
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2008, 11:47:20 PM »
Hi Alex, you are most welcome on this forum. Although there are only a few "professional" reel to reel users here, I think you'll find that there couldn't be a more enthusiastic gathering of open reel users. If you've found your way to this forum, hopefully you are too.
There are several of us here that are apparently fans of your work. Personally, I've collected over 200 of the Dolby BC releases and enjoy them on a regular basis. There is however, a lack of information about Barclay-Crocker (or that is alluding us). For instance, the Halcyon, and Entracte releases. I've often wondered how they fit into the general scheme of BC? Also, I have a few of the newsletters and there seems to be some differences in the total numbers of individual titles released (not including DBX vs Dolby B). The final listing I have is dated December 1986. And while the listing states that it is complete, I know of 9 tapes that aren't included. At the top of the first page is a note stating that "Listed below are the titles of all the tapes duplicated by Barclay-Crocker since 1977." Do you know how many there were?
Well, I think that's enough questions for now.
BTW What's the story on the little elves or whatever they are?
steve koto
 Sony scd 777es(R. Kern mods)> Vpi Aires>Dynavector XX-2mkll>Bent mu>CAT ultimate>CJ premeir 140>Magnepan 1.6qr(Jensen xover)Headphone Eddie Current Zana Deux>AT ad2000,HD800 ,Metric Halo ULN-2 (battery powered),
 HE Audio Jades

Offline ironbut

  • Global Moderator
  • leader in spreading disinformation
  • *****
  • Posts: 2503
  • rs1500>repro amp#1
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2008, 04:14:53 PM »
Resurrecting an old thread, during some testing of a Dolby unit I've modified, I'm listening to many BC tapes and other Dolby encoded releases. The last one I listened to is a London release of Solti/Chicago of the Enigma Variations (Elgar). I noticed that it was distributed by Stereotape (North Hollywood Ca) unlike most of the Londons which are made by Ampex. As I listened along the end of side one came up and low and behold,.. a Dolby calibration tone. This is one of the only times I've heard one on anything other than a BC. Then it came to me,.. maybe this tape was produced by BC. Then I compared the reels. Identical. So, was this tape made by BC in Poughkeepsie? Does it matter? Perhaps only in that it may have been BC making the tapes for StereoTape and not the other way around. Although it isn't clear from labels, catalogs etc., I think one fact to keep in mind is that there were more record labels looking for someone else to produce tapes than tape producers. We know that BC was producing tapes but what we don't know is if Stereotape was.
steve koto
 Sony scd 777es(R. Kern mods)> Vpi Aires>Dynavector XX-2mkll>Bent mu>CAT ultimate>CJ premeir 140>Magnepan 1.6qr(Jensen xover)Headphone Eddie Current Zana Deux>AT ad2000,HD800 ,Metric Halo ULN-2 (battery powered),
 HE Audio Jades

ceved

  • Guest
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2008, 09:08:21 PM »
Steve,
Or should I say Columbo?
Perhaps this would be a question to pose to our BC engineer friend that responded to a post a few weeks ago.
Shall you or I do those honors?
I would really like to know if those BC 'master' still exist and if so who owns them.

Offline ironbut

  • Global Moderator
  • leader in spreading disinformation
  • *****
  • Posts: 2503
  • rs1500>repro amp#1
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2008, 01:37:52 AM »
I think that BC was in a similar boat as our Tape Project principles. They would've secured the rights and paid to sell a given number of releases and then back to the company vaults. I would imagine that the dubbing masters (which would be Dolby or DBX encoded most likely) would either been worn from use and discarded or kept by whoever wanted them. Heck, Alex may have them. At the time of their closing, reel to reel as an entertainment source was considered dead and buried (I think around 1986).
steve koto
 Sony scd 777es(R. Kern mods)> Vpi Aires>Dynavector XX-2mkll>Bent mu>CAT ultimate>CJ premeir 140>Magnepan 1.6qr(Jensen xover)Headphone Eddie Current Zana Deux>AT ad2000,HD800 ,Metric Halo ULN-2 (battery powered),
 HE Audio Jades

Offline reel zealot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: When is a Barclay Crocker not a Barclay Crocker?
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2009, 08:52:57 PM »
Hi all!

New here, but thought I would clear up a few misconceptions on B-C. I have been collecting prerecorded tapes for the last 26 years. And was a customer of B-C from day one to the end.

First, they were reel -to-reel enthusiasts like the rest of us here.  They started a business selling prerecorded tapes back in ~1972 when it became increasingly hard to get tapes.  About a year later (on travel and don't have my records with me), they decided to try manufacturing their own tapes.  They started with Musical Heritage Society and branched out into other labels as they gained success.  You can tell their tapes from others due to the distinctive graphics on color paper in blue tape boxes.

Keys to their philosophies were:
- Quality duplication at a lower duplication speed.  Not 1:1 but not 1:32, I believe it was 1:4
- If they could not obtain a Master that meet their discriminating hear, they did not release the tape.
- They always included liner notes and librettos where applicable.
- Unless they lost the license, items remained in their catalog.

After the first few releases and Ampex ceased production, they switched to offering their tapes exclusively.

They remained in business until ~1986.  As discussed in another posting, a list was printed with every B-C tape and how many produced.  The rarest can fetch a significant sum on ebay depending on the times.

I have a complete set of B-C catalogs and bulletins.  Let me know if you have a specific question.

I hope this has been of some help and interest.
Glenn Yoritomo