Ferrograph 5

[ckbrooks]

I wonder if anyone can give me their thoughts on the sound quality Of a Ferrograph Series 5 at 7.5 ips? I’m thinking of buying a fully restored model. My interest is in 1960s experimental music, musique concrete and working with tape loops. I have lots of modern digital gear, but am interested in going back to first principles and using tape editing all over again.

Is it worth having the extra head fitted, And Is so, what would be the benefit?

I appreciate I could by a Revox A77 and so on, but the British made Ferrograph has a certain intrinsic appeal.

On a related matter, does anyone have an old editing block and splicing tape they would be prepared to sell me at an affordable price?

Thanks for you input. I look forward to your thoughts.

Best regards

Clive

[barrymagrec]

The specification of a Ferrograph 5 is quite average but actually they will sound pretty good when correctly set up.

As to fitting a third head, this is quite possible but the standard amplifier does not have separate record and play amplifier chains so you would also need an additional replay amp.

If you are using the machine as you suggest you really need separate record and play heads so I am not sure a 5 is the best Ferrograph to choose, have you considered a 422 or a 632 which both have 3 heads and are also twin track which might also be useful to you

[rontech]

Back in the 1960's and early 70's the local amateur dramatic theatre produced about 8 plays per year and I provided most of the sound effects and interval music. The society had their own earlier Ferrograph which had the same basic transport mechanism as the Model 5.

I found the machine to be very robust and reliable with impressive sound quality.

Ferrograph never made exagerated claims in their specifications and think their decks probably exceeded the claims. My uncle had a somewhat later Ferrograph ( valve electronics ) in his very good domestic hifi system and that also sounded really excellent.

[Tractorfan]

Hi,
If I remember correctly, my Series Five Ferrograph has an octal valve socket under a dummy 'head' next to the replay head which will accept an extra plug-in head. This is taken to a socket on the back for an additional amplifier.
I'll go and have a look and take a photo.
Cheers, Pete.

[llama]

I'm sure you're right, Pete.
My Series 5 has a dummy head where a replay-only head would go. I bought a record head and a replay head together off ebay a couple of years ago but haven't got around to fitting them yet.
A problem we have is that originally a transformer was required to match the lower track head to an outboard valve amplifier. I wonder if anyone has designed a solid-state stage that matches an FP16A to line level.
Graham

[Tractorfan]

Hi,
I took a couple of photos this morning and it's for a stereo head F.P.14 (I'd forgotten that), which comes out to two sockets on the rear. Of course, it will only play stereo tapes, but not record. The sockets are marked U.T. and L.T. which puzzled me until I realised they were 'Upper Track' and 'Lower Track'.
Cheers, Pete.

[barrymagrec]

You still need a separate replay amp though and it would need a head transformer or be quite a sophisticated solid state design for such a low impedance head.

[rontech]

As a straight replay amp for a low impedance source how about a PU MC cartridge amp.

I think at some stage, a replay curve analogous to RIAA may be needed somewhere in the playback chain..

[Hartley118]

AFAIK Ferrograph introduced that extra head option for replaying pre-recorded stereo tapes such as EMI Stereosonic. Some stereo preamps at the time, such as the EMI (Clark & Smith) units had inputs for tape head replay together with appropriate equalisation. The Ferrograph heads would have needed a pair of step up transformers though. I wonder whether they were ever listed in the Ferrograph catalogue.

I agree with the comments that, specification wise, the Ferrographs were not exceptional. However, in my experience, they could generally be relied upon to do just what the specification claimed. Over the years, I seem to have collected two or three and unlike much vintage gear, I can plug them in and they just work!

Martin

[Stevie342000]

FYI Sowter make the head step up transformer see:
http://www.sowter.co.uk/vintage-audio-transformers.php

It's near the bottom of the page.

A tape head lift amplifier and equaliser is available in the GEC book which can be found here: http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/GEC_approach.pdf

The original articles can be found here about 57 or 58: http://www.americanradiohistory.com/...d_Magazine.htm

In my opinion a Brenell is a much more versatile machine for muzique conrete as equalisation is independant from tape speed function and a Brenell MK5 M is the model you should be looking for plus it has space for 4 heads.

[rontech]

Re previous post. I used the Ferrograph extensively at the theatre. For the prime recordings; editing, equalisation, assembly of sound effects in script sequence etc, I worked at home on my Brenell Mk5. It had much easier access to the tape path past the heads. The motor control switch was much less clunky than the Ferrograph one.

[Hartley118]

I agree that for theatre work it does take some dexterity to avoid offstage mechanical noises when using a Ferrograph. My Brenell works well too after its overhaul, but it somehow lacks that quasi-military eternal ruggedness of the Ferrograph.

Martin

[ckbrooks]

What should I look for in a restored series 5? What are the things that should have been done?

Thanks..... Clive

[Ted Kendall]

One advantage the Brenell deck has for composition applications is that, because the capstan shaft always carries a sleeve, it is possible to create a chromatic scale of tape speeds with sleeves of the appropriate sizes. Fred Judd had a deck so equipped, and one was used for some of Oliver Postgate's music tracks. The provision for four heads is also useful, of course, provided the Bogens haven't gone pop...

[TIMTAPE]

I owned a Ferro 5 for about 30 years, made many recordings on it, repaired, modified it etc. They were a bit dated when they came out, having felt pressure pads which was a bit cruel on the heads, and not designed for the more modern "backcoated" tapes. Also very heavy to move around.

You might be better off with one of the later model machines such as a Revox, Teac, Sony. Just note that Revox A77 and B77 conceal the tape and so not the easiest for cutting and splicing tape. A Revox PR 99 is a lot easier.

I still splice edit tapes and leaders occasionally for digitising old material but I wouldnt go back to it by choice. Digital editing seems better in every way.

[ckbrooks]

Thank you for you kind input.

I should explain that I’ve got plenty of modern gear, but simply like the idea of going back to an organic way of working now and again. Was the Ferrograph you had reliable. Im being offered a restored one. Is the sound quality at 7.5 still pretty good? Was it enjoyable and fun to use? Why did you decide to keep it for so long? Was it because it was good? The revoxes and so on are more than I want to spend. Which Teac or Sony would you recommend?

Thanks for anything you can come back to me with!

[TIMTAPE]

Yes once I repaired and set it up the Ferro 5 was reliable. Sound quality was OK for that format. If you're just recording long stretches with few stops, starts, going back etc they're OK but a proper push button controlled machine is so much easier for frequent tape shuttling.
For marking, cutting, splicing of tape, the machines really needs to be lying on its back (like the Ferro) for a clear view and easy access. On some Sony machines, the pinch roller actually recedes out of the way in Stop, making inserting and splicing a lot easier.
I was thinking of a smaller 7" Teac machine like A2300 or later X3 which is solidly built with push button solenoid control and could probably cope with being operated on its back for tape editing. But pro machines set up for tape splicing would be a lot easier. I guess it depends on what you regard as enjoyable and fun...

Tim

[BillDWVA]

Originally Posted by ckbrooks

Thank you for you kind input.

I should explain that I’ve got plenty of modern gear, but simply like the idea of going back to an organic way of working now and again. Was the Ferrograph you had reliable. Im being offered a restored one. Is the sound quality at 7.5 still pretty good? Was it enjoyable and fun to use? Why did you decide to keep it for so long? Was it because it was good? The revoxes and so on are more than I want to spend. Which Teac or Sony would you recommend?

Thanks for anything you can come back to me with!

The main advantage with these decks is their simplicity, both mechanically and the electronics. There is not much ‘servicing’ required apart from the occasional drop of oil on the motor bushes, pinch roller and idler shafts. I think the main check I would do if offered a refurbished one, is to check for head wear. The paint around the ‘Run’ lever gets chipped and is a giveaway to how much use the deck may have had.

At 7.5 ips the sound quality is good - to my ears - but this is always subjective.

I have used a Series 4 Vortexion (with the same deck as a Ferrograph) since 1981 and it just keeps on going.

These decks are not happy with ‘back coated’ tapes and on mine the best performance has been with Maxell UD35 and TDK LX35.

Hope this helps? I should add that I am a fan of Ferrograph and Vortexion machines.

Bill