Tape Project Forum
Tape Project Albums => Tape Project Albums - general => Topic started by: ironbut on September 02, 2009, 11:28:51 AM
-
It is good to see general interests in fine reel to reel machine had greatly increased lately and some of the real experts in the field are joining the TP community to share their experiences.
Ki
I agree 100%!
I'm so happy that the Tape Project has attracted owners and those knowledgeable about the finest tape machines built. Aside from the studios who've chosen to continue recording with magnetic tape and dedicated collectors, the sound on the Tape Project tapes has given new life to what remains of these industrial works of art. I guess you could say that the playback of these tapes is " The Killer App".
Now all we need to do is get the boys to follow through with some special order 1/2" dups and get one one a Stephens!
-
Steve:
Great idea -- 1/2" dups!! Subject for another (I didn't see one) thread?
Do "the boys" have any 1/2" equipment? 2T? 3T? 4T?
Any chance that some recordings could be done with a center channel? Plus room ambience?
4.0 would playback beautifully on a 5.1 speaker layout (i.e. both "surround" the same)!!
Why limit ourselves to 2T . . . ??
Mark Stahlman
New York City
-
From time to time there's been talk of producing 1/2" dups of each release and now that things have settled down a little with standard production and shipping, I think that it may be time to bring this subject up again.
Regarding different formats, the original concept for the Tape Project was to duplicate the masters and give ordinary folks the opportunity to hear what mastering engineers have been privy to all these years. So, that would probably preclude any tapes that couldn't be had in an original stereo+? format. Of course, that brings up the 3 track Decca's and Mercuries.
Unfortunately, the audience for these would be extremely limited but I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for "the boys" in what they might find interesting to produce on a special order basis (just like the 1/2" releases would have to be I'd think).
-
Steve:
I'm new around here, so I'll listen and wait for whatever issues the originals need to resolve regarding tape formats.
Sorry for the dumb question but are all the TP albums originally recorded in 2-tracks only? Is there somewhere on the site where the recording setups are described?
That said, as Paul Klipsch and Saul Marantz apparently stressed, the biggest mistake the audio industry ever made was fixating on 2-channel stereo and not making room for the center channel. The reason given is always mass-consumer economics -- moving people from mono to stereo (two-channels) was thought to be enough of a leap.
Apparently, 3T 1/2" tape was the studio "standard" for much of the 50's and 60's. The mixing boards were also typically 3 output.
Tom Fine has stated that his father's group generally intended the center track to be a mono-mix or for soloist mic'ing, as was typical.
However, some actually recorded ensembles with three spaced omnis -- straight to the 3T tape. Like at Columbia Studios on 30th Street.
If you haven't heard the Sony Miles Davis SACD releases, you are really missing something. Straight from 3T tape to DSD. LCR. Fantastic you-are-there sound!
If we are going to create new high-quality tape recordings then why limit ourselves to two channel playback?
Mark Stahlman
New York City
-
We are format extremists ourselves, and yes we can handle any format that has been mentioned so far. Please do understand that these custom format requests would end up being quite expensive. If price is not an issue, we would be happy to talk to folks about it. I'm not trying to discourage anyone who really wants to pursue the idea, but I also don't want to create any mistaken impressions about the expense involved in what we're being asked to do. The entire line would have to be shut down to reconfigure even one machine for 1/2" 2 track, and then again to reconfigure back. So we lose valuable production time for the existing 1/4" format albums and we have to have an engineer on the clock to do this reconfiguration. We would have to work up packaging for these presumably very limited production items. Our existing packaging is expensive enough in 2000 piece order quantities. 10 or 20 pieces pricing that we would probably look at for a small custom run would be outrageous. Obviously 1/2" tape stock costs twice as much as 1/4". The costs start to add up really, really fast. If I had to spitball I'd guess we would have to price 1/2" 2 track one offs at maybe $1500 per album. That might not be that outrageous a price when you consider the quality potential compared to any other format.
Now if you want 1/2" three track, you're going to pay Paul to remaster that album just for you on top of everything else already mentioned - if we can get the original three track. And I don't even want to think about trying to convince even our small group of very enthused subscribers that they now need to buy a custom 1/2" three track machine that will be useless for anything but the few three channel tapes we can reissue in a year.
It can all be done, but the client will need to be willing to accept the expenses involved up front.
-
Dan:
Thanks. Makes sense. This is a business, not a DIY project, and it's a two-channel audiophile world -- for better or (in my opinion) worse.
Sorry for my ignorance but does the TP start from 2T "repro" masters or from multi-track originals? Is the information available somewhere on the site about how these albums were recorded -- mics, tracking, studio equipment, etc?
Mark Stahlman
New York City
-
Hey Mark,
Actually the home page of the Tape Project should be able to answer some of your very relevant questions.
Lots of the members here enter here through that site but quickly forget about it while Doc does his best to keep it up to date.
Here's the link;
http://www.tapeproject.com/
One thing that I don't recall being reflected on that site is the fact that the source of the running masters varies somewhat. In the case of the Arnold Overtures tape for instance, the running master is actually made from the session tapes played on Keith Johnson's focused head recorder. I'm sure you'll agree that this is as close as it comes and is indicative of the extreme measures that the principles are willing to go through to provide the very finest playback possible.
Of course many companies who still have the original session tapes are reluctant to let them out of their vaults. But I have a lot of faith in Paul and the gang that what they're able to obtain will be as good as possible.
-
Hey Steve, maybe this thread should be splintered off and moved. I'll let you flex your moderator muscles.
The tapes we use are, for lack of a better term, the "original masters". This means they are the tape from which the lacquer for the original release would have been cut. We refuse to use safety copies. Regarding more modern recordings which have been recorded to multitrack tape, we don't remix them, we use the mixed down two channel original master tape made from the multitrack tape. Our goal is to deliver to our subscribers all that those original master recordings can give.
-
Folks:
Excellent idea to reboot this thread over here!
Since I seem to have started this, let me clarify my initial question -- what about an analog format for 5.1 system playback?
Yes, there could be interest in a 2T 1/2" version (or even 2T 1") for the "format extremists" but it seems to me this would have marginal benefits and considerable cost.
As well noted, the TP start from "the 'original masters'. This means they are the tape from which the lacquer for the original release would have been cut."
Herein lies the issue. "Lacquer" (excluding Quad) is a two-channel medium. But the world has moved on to many channels.
The digital formats of SACD and DVD-A support six-channels of un-compressed audio. Many audiophiles have discovered the benefits of having a center channel and hall ambience and have installed home theaters with high-end audio. Thousands of discs have been issued. Most mastering suites have been upgraded. Many ensemble recordings -- jazz, classical, etc. -- are now mastered for 5.1.
Why limit a new analog format to only two channels?
Tape decks are inherently multi-channel. Why restrict ourselves to a 1950's format that was, by many accounts, a "sonic" mistake in the first place-- forced on the world by lowest common-denominator consumer economics?
Why not four-channel 1/4" (aka Quad Tape)? Or, the largely abandoned (therefore cheap) 4-channel 1/2" studio format?
LCRS. Left, Center, Right, Surround (aka Ambience).
What a beautiful sound it would be. And just imagine the impact at the next CES!
Mark Stahlman
New York City
-
I have to confess that I'm a pretty much a stick in the mud as far as multi-channel goes (perhaps given the extra funds I won't be at some point). Don't get me wrong though, it's not that I haven't heard the real world advantages of at least having a center channel which I believe could be done with any 2 channel original and could in fact be done very well.
I know that Paul and Michael aren't as stodgy as I am regarding multi channel and luckily they're the ones that are important. It is after all Paul Stubblebine Mastering and DVD.
Unless I'm totally wrong, it would require another generation away from the master tape in many cases. But, if we're talking about a special order release there's no reason that you couldn't have both the standard and remastered release.
-
The older music that is now being reissued in surround is being digitized at the multitrack level, then remixed to surround in the digital realm. To do what we are talking about would require a new, different remix that has been done in the analog realm.
-
The older music that is now being reissued in surround is being digitized at the multitrack level, then remixed to surround in the digital realm. To do what we are talking about would require a new, different remix that has been done in the analog realm.
It would be hard to find masters of things done totally in the analog realm to more than 2 channel, without an "interpretive re-mix" of multitrack masters if they exist. Exceptions might be quad mixes done for those analog 4 ch. formats, and any 1/2" 3 track done with a stereo plus center format, some of which have been re-issued in digital format.
In my system, I almost always listen to 2 ch. sources with some sort of "ambiance recovery" (L-R) rear scheme and frequently with derived center (L+R) and sub as well. If not overdone, it can enhance the basic 2 ch. experience.
But my system is sort of loosely based around the quad and 5.1 formats and I actually still listen to discrete quad incl. R2R and would think it quite fun to have new material in that 1/4", 7 1/2 ips. 4 track format. Heck, even 15 ips. on 10.5" reels - give all those Teac 3340s something new to do nowdays.
-
An interesting point about the 2ch. TP masters has been brought up. It probably varies from tape to tape, but how does one come up with the original 2 track mix "master tape"? Not a safety copy -I understand that, and not a digital copy of course. But I understood that "the tape the lacquer was cut from" might be eq'd for best results when cutting. This was what was said made all the early CDs sound so bad - they were using "the tape the lacquer was cut from", with compensating eq and possibly compression and other processing for that disc mastering process. Do you at Tape Project then find the previous generation that is the artist/producer agreed upon "final mix" before any final eq, compression etc. were printed to tape for the vinyl rendition or is this just done on the fly by the disc mastering engineer, and not part of the 2ch. "master tape"? It does make a difference and I am sure you compare with other formats to see what differences may exist.
Without giving away all the secrets, could you comment on what becomes "the reference"?
BTW, it is great that you have Keith Johnson's focused head recorder and tapes as the source for some of the releases.
I can't imagine a better reference than that!
-
Whoever said "the tape the lacquer was cut from" misspoke. As you point out, that tape is sometimes the original mix, and sometimes an EQ copy.
We always work from the original tape. In the case of the Decca and Reference titles, and some of the early jazz titles, that means the tapes that were run at the original session, just spliced together. In the case of something that was recorded multitrack, like the Robert Cray or The Band, that means the tape that was recording right off the console's mix bus during the mixdown.
Finding the original can sometimes be quite an adventure, but we don't go into production until we have found it. That happened, for instance, on our Staple Singers album. The vault first pulled up a safety copy. I actually took a couple of demo reels to the last CES made from the safety, just so I could give folks a taste of things to come. Then I carefully collected those demo reels after the show, since I knew the vault would eventually come up with the original mixes. They did, we mastered from them, and we are now in production on that tape.
-
Whoever said "the tape the lacquer was cut from" misspoke. As you point out, that tape is sometimes the original mix, and sometimes an EQ copy.
We always work from the original tape. In the case of the Decca and Reference titles, and some of the early jazz titles, that means the tapes that were run at the original session, just spliced together. In the case of something that was recorded multitrack, like the Robert Cray or The Band, that means the tape that was recording right off the console's mix bus during the mixdown.
Finding the original can sometimes be quite an adventure, but we don't go into production until we have found it. That happened, for instance, on our Staple Singers album. The vault first pulled up a safety copy. I actually took a couple of demo reels to the last CES made from the safety, just so I could give folks a taste of things to come. Then I carefully collected those demo reels after the show, since I knew the vault would eventually come up with the original mixes. They did, we mastered from them, and we are now in production on that tape.
That makes total sense to me. I wonder though, if either another "processed" tape was used for subsequent re-issues on, say, SACD or even CD or iTunes or if a heavily processed, done-on-the-fly and not printed to tape vinyl master has become "the reference" will people deem the purist result that you come up with subjectively "better" than what they are used to if they know the album well?
I would hope that to be true, but you never know. Hopefully the processing artifacts don't become a part of the artistic statement.
-
Whoever said "the tape the lacquer was cut from" misspoke.
That was me, oversimplifying.
-
Whoever said "the tape the lacquer was cut from" misspoke.
That was me, oversimplifying.
Sorry, I really wasn't trying to play inquisitor. I would imagine it might be hard for even the places you license the tape from, to determine which is the final reference 2 ch. master mix tape. And then the question I brought up of "re-masters" of one sort or another for various reasons and formats becoming the "new reference".
I for one would love to hear what you guys could do with the original session multi-track masters mixing down to a new analog multi-channel format.
-
Folks:
All good points being made. If the TP *requires* that there was NO digital processing in the mastering chain, then this would clearly restrict the available multi-channel sources.
Are any of the newer "purist" recording efforts using any of the modern multi-mic surround arrays (Schoeps, Holophone, etc.)? Are there any masters available that used Decca-tree or even three spaced omnis? How about the Bell Labs 5-mic Sennheiser array?
This was why I was asking (earlier in this split thread) about the mic'ing techniques used for TP sources. Multi-channel mic'ing is 50+ years old, of course. I was guessing that the TP sessions were not simply coming from two coincident microphones.
Even in those cases where two-channels is all that's available, the center and ambience could be "matrixed." The Trifield matrix (Gerzon etal) is perhaps the best for the center and has long been available both as an outboard box for mastering and in Meridian amps for playback. The rear ambience could be as simple as a L+R sum, attenuated (say 6dB) and phase reversed to simulate a rea-wall reflection, as Mark Wilder did for the Sony SACD multi-channel releases of Miles Davis, Brubeck, etc. The rear can always be turned off, as Wilder suggested in an email to me.
IMHO, the center channel is the key improvment. Asking a two-channel system to fill in the "phantom" middle is, well, not really practical for most source material -- psychoacoustically speaking. Yes, if you start with Blumlein coincident figure-8 mics and arrange the speakers closer and pointed towards your head, you will achieve significant spacial accuracy. But no one does that -- other than Robert Greene, apparently.
Then there is the problem of the "sweet-spot." If TP subscribers are interested in sharing their music, that would be greatly enchanced by having a center channel. Unless, you insist that your friends all sit on your lap. <g>
Btw, has anyone ever listened to TP tapes played back through Ralph Glasgal's Ambiophonics system? It takes a two-channel input and cross-cancels the L/R and then adds hall ambience. Quite a powerful acoustic statement, with a multi-person sweet-spot to boot.
Mark Stahlman
New York City
-
I think it is clear that the TP was founded on the principle of releasing 2 channel recordings made from the original master tapes. Therefore, it strikes me odd that someone who desires to hear music with at least 3 channels and preferably more would be asking why the TP doesn?t release their recordings in a multi-channel format. I for one have absolutely no interest in multi-channel recordings. I also wouldn?t join a multi-channel music forum and ask the principles why they don?t release their multi-channel music in stereo because I think stereo is superior. It?s kind of like going to a Chinese restaurant and ordering a hamburger and telling the owners that you hate Chinese food.
-
Mark:
I understand your viewpoint -- which you share with many other experienced audiophiles. Those who have finely honed their two-channel stereo systems have every right to their bias and to their enjoyment.
However, to extend your analogy, are you saying that you will only eat Chinese food and have absolutely no interest in French cuisine?
The history of sound reproduction is far more interesting and complicated than two-channel stereo. As best I can tell, two-channels were selected by the electronics industry not for audiophiles but for lowest common-denominator consumers.
Indeed, as you may know, the early experiments on "periphonics" done by Bell Labs -- in which they sat an audience in a concert hall and tried to simulate a performance over loudspeakers -- concluded that the minimum number needed was three channels. This is why theatrical sound (i.e. movie theaters) has generally started with three speakers and expanded from there. Such early pioneers in home audio as Paul Klipsch and Saul Marantz reportedly viewed two-channels as a terrible mistake made for low-fi compromise reasons.
The fact that many talented people have made a "silk-purse," so to speak, from the two-channel commercial mass-market standard is a testament to people's ingenuity. Bravo!
I'm happy to be corrected but I thought the TP was founded to bring high-quality analog tape to a wide audience. Analog tape is not two-channel. It is inherently multi-channel, obviously.
My suggestion is that the TP *consider* alternatives. You seem to imply that is excluded -- on principle.
That would be unfortunate, IMHO.
Mark Stahlman
NewYork City
-
The Tape Project is a rather small operation. All the principles have "day jobs" such and running a mastering/recording studio and in Doc's case, running the Bottlehead Corp.. At the moment, it's not what I'd call a money making machine either and if it weren't for their "day jobs", I'd venture to say that it couldn't exist in it's current form.
It's based on the fact that the sound of master tapes are in many cases, audibly superior to any other reproduced musical source even todays digital masters. The addition of any type of processing not only introduces colorations but in practice, requires an additional "generation" of duplication which also degrades the sound.
The incredible clarity and lifelike reproduction of these tapes can never be conveyed in words but can only be experienced. I've done a number of demo's of these tapes and the word I hear over and over is "alive".
Do yourself a favor and buy one of these tapes (I'd suggest the Arnold Overtures which is an amazing recording) and give it a listen. These tapes really speak for themselves so I'll leave it at that.
Regarding different formats, I think that the principles will always have an open mind towards anything that has the potential to improve the purity of the sound in some way. I think that's one of the great advantages of smaller companies like this. They can be very flexible.
On the other hand, it makes it difficult to branch out. It's been asked many times if they could make smaller format tapes for instance (7 1/2 ips 1/4 track). To which the answer has been, they'd welcome others to produce these more generally accessible tapes but this isn't what the Tape Project does. It's one thing to work hard on a project and accept the headaches involved with very little return if it's a product based on principle and ideals. It's an entirely different thing if you know you're shooting at a price point.
-
Mark-Your extension of my food analogy was kind of strange. I also don't understand your point that analog tape is not two channel. I am specifically referring to the master tapes the TP works from. They are two channel. I know you are convinced that 2 channel stereo is fatally flawed and therefore that implies that all of us that have spent money on our 2 channel systems and software are misguided. If only we would see the light...
There probably is a good case to be made for 3 channel sound (L-C-R). Unfortunately, how many 3 channel master tapes are out there besides the Mercury catalog? It is just my opinion that you are barking up the wrong tree in this forum. 2 track 15 ips tapes are already a very esoteric small niche market. To now ask it to be something else that is even more esoteric (multi-channel analog tape which would require a new tape deck, preamp, amp, speakers, etc.) just strikes me as odd. But hey, what do I know?
Reading some of your posts on this forum kind of makes me feel like a guy who thought he was walking into a strip club only to find out it was all a ploy and instead of seeing some hot naked chicks, he has some hellfire and brimstone preacher telling him how evil he is for wanting to go to a strip club in the first place. Kind of makes you think the preacher should apologize and give the poor guy some money to get a lap dance at a real strip club for having to listen to his rant.
-
Mark:
Ha!! The analogy between your audiophile experience and a lapdance is priceless!!
The psychology of online forums is endlessly fascinating. People say the darnest things.
Let's see if anyone else is being entertained by this excursion into alternative lifestyles.
Mark Stahlman
New York City
P.S. Please re-read the previous post -- any two-channel master can easily be turned into three-channels via Trifield. Michael Gerzon was one smart audiophile.
P.P.S. Using Ampex 350's to put a coat of tubular "paint" on the output of an MX-55 is a truly remarkable use of a technology more commonly used to provide mic-pre's with a peculiar coloration. Very inventive. I've owned both but never thought to put them together. Maybe I'll marry an Ampex PR-10 with my Stellavox this weekend to hear what the offspring sound like. <g>
-
Steve:
I quite agree that the beauty of a well made analog master tape is a thing to behold!
I've made a few (can't say how well they were done), heard many more and even own a couple that I think are priceless.
Of course the TP is a labor of love.
Thanks for the opportunity to offer some ideas on how to broaden the appeal to another audience.
Mark Stahlman
New York City
-
Mark S.,
I aways enjoy discussions of this type and that is the "beauty" of the internet.
I dare say that without it who knows how long it might have taken for the TP to grow into a healthy enterprise. And as membership here on this forum reached 650 I'm amazed that there are this many reel to reel users still around.
Which begs the question, how many would make designing and building a entirely new machine a worthwhile endeavor?
Hmm,.. may be a good idea for a new thread!
Stay tuned!
-
A couple of us here at the Tape Project are also fans of multichannel playback of music.
We aren't currently pursuing any projects that involve multichannel originals. (For clarity, multichannel refers to the playback end. If music is originally produced with many tracks, the way pop music is done these days, that's called multichannel.) The market for good multichannel music recordings has been disappointingly small. If there is any market for multichannel releases on reel to reel, it would probably be microscopic.
However, if you want to hear what good derived L-C-R would sound like from one our tapes, you don't have to wait for us to put one out. Just set up your own L-C-R system, if you haven't already, and play our 2-channel tapes through a trifield decoder.
-
However, if you want to hear what good derived L-C-R would sound like from one our tapes, you don't have to wait for us to put one out. Just set up your own L-C-R system, if you haven't already, and play our 2-channel tapes through a trifield decoder.
Paul:
Harry Weisfeld owner of VPI has quite a large collection of master tapes (including some RCA classical and soundtracks like Gypsy), many of which were obtained from Bert Whyte. Harry has set up a three channel system for playback of three track tapes using Quads 63 and says the sound is unbelievable. Have yet to hear it but will get down his way one day soon to hear this! We have to face this one fact - this was the way the tapes were really meant to be heard - but you're right that the market for these tapes could probably be counted on two hands.
Myles Astor
-
Mark-I don't know what you mean by a tubular coat of paint with regards to the Ampex 350s. If that is supposed to mean some technicolor palate of coloration, I would take great exception to that. I find the sound of the Ampex 350s to be very neutral and just correct in their ability to throw a huge soundstage with correctly sized instruments upon that stage and with a degree of realism that escapes most components. I have to admit that I love the sound of properly designed tube electronics as they bring music alive in a way that I find that SS just can't. Maybe I will change my mind at some point if I ever here something better, but I find the Ampex 350s to be stunning in their ability to make music come alive and sound real and I wouldn't want to be with out them.
-
However, if you want to hear what good derived L-C-R would sound like from one our tapes, you don't have to wait for us to put one out. Just set up your own L-C-R system, if you haven't already, and play our 2-channel tapes through a trifield decoder.
Paul:
Harry Weisfeld owner of VPI has quite a large collection of master tapes (including some RCA classical and soundtracks like Gypsy), many of which were obtained from Bert Whyte. Harry has set up a three channel system for playback of three track tapes using Quads 63 and says the sound is unbelievable. Have yet to hear it but will get down his way one day soon to hear this! We have to face this one fact - this was the way the tapes were really meant to be heard - but you're right that the market for these tapes could probably be counted on two hands.
Myles Astor
I heard 1/2" three tracktape through three channel playback at the AES demo in LA some years ago and even in those circumstances in a hotel meeting room it was pretty amazing. McIntosh tube amps and Altec monitors for a very vintage studio sound. Ampex 351 electronics I think and some vintage tube console in between. They also played them "mixed down" to 2 ch. stereo through 2 speakers to show what the difference was. I can't recall if they played any 2 channel stereo tapes through a derived mono L+R center. Some were 60s pop recordings with the vocalist on the center channel track and the orchestra in stereo.
-
Paul etal:
Thanks for your to-the-point business answer. It's no surprise that you and your colleagues would be multi-channel playback fans.
Size of market: Unknown. If there are 10,000's of candidate customers for 2-track TP tapes, you currently have customers counted in the hundreds. The number people who have (or might buy) 4-track 1/4" players is certainly fewer, maybe in the 1000's, so this would likely be a smaller business opportunity. Microscopic? Perhaps, but they might be good customers to have nonetheless.
The number of people with multi-channel SACD/DVD-A music collections is clearly disappointing by mass-market standards but could also be in the 10,000's or more. As Mark Waldrep of AIX Records says, he has built a very nice business based on those people. The number of people who are both serious about quality reproduction and who have built 5.1 playback systems could be in the 100,000's. As we all know, the high-end equipment retailing business largely disappeared years ago and was replaced by home theater showrooms.
Many in the industry were at the AES 3T demo or have heard about it. Those who have been involved in multi-channel digital releases have heard the masters and have spread the word. Harry Pearson and others in the press have written their rave reviews and banged on their drums about multi-channel playback. Despite (or because of) its ubiquity, the inherent single listener sweet-spot and spatial innaccuracy problems with two-channel stereo are widely known.
The TP is a low-volume business no matter how you EQ it. You are currently fishing in the 2T analog tape pond and doing pretty well. The pond where those who desire multi-channel tape playback swim is smaller but influential. Compared to the average audiophile, these are the people "in the know." Even one well-done multi-channel release would likely get the TP some headlines and interviews that would help expand your 2T business. Just a friendly suggestion from someone who builds small businesses into big ones (i.e. I'm a venture capitalist) -- which I'm sure touchs on issues that you have already been thinking about.
-
Just a friendly suggestion from someone who builds small businesses into big ones (i.e. I'm a venture capitalist) -- which I'm sure touchs on issues that you have already been thinking about.
Excellent! We appreciate the encouragement. Perhaps you might be able to help with the funding for such a multichannel project? I've done some quick figuring and I think that if we can sell out 200 album run of 1/2" three or four track at about $1000 per album we could make some money for our investors. We would need some new equipment and new packaging (for which I have a rough cost figure in mind that I would be willing to discuss by PM) and I think the rest of the production could be handled with our existing setup.
-
Doc etal:
Sure, happy to discuss business plans with you! Also glad to assist in raising money for what is probably more of an "angel" situation (i.e $10-100K's) than venture capital i.e. ($10-100M's).
Mark Stahlman
New York City