Amica Ampico Article: The third installment commenting on the mistakes.

   We have so far taken to task some really egregious errors and
misconceptions about the Ampico by Jeffrey Morgan in his article, "Some
Observations On Fundamental Differences Between Ampico Model B and
Prior Reproducing Systems."

   These are not "technical differences of opinion." We are speaking
here of physical absolutes.  We are not taking depositions, and do not
treat a physical fact with the same weight as an opinion.  There is such
a thing as correct and incorrect.  Jeffrey is decidedly incorrect.

   The purpose of this article, it seems to me, is to show how "weird
and incompatible" the Model B is to all other Ampicos, and (presumably
therefore) why the Model B doesn't play very well.  As Jeffrey said in a
previous article, it "Skips notes." Hmm.  Apparently, his Model B's do
skip notes, so I can't argue with him there.  I don't know.  [He said
they did, not me.]

   The contest I have with this is the bad rap and mischaracterization
he is attempting to lay on the Model B Ampico.  If our purpose is REALLY
to restore to original performance and capacity, the vintage pneumatic
instruments, then why are we panning them in a false comparison to
other vintage instruments-- unless we have something to prove? Unless
our Model B's don't work well, as Jeffrey has already admitted?

   Conversely, is it not also our responsibility as restorers to
correct wrong assumptions, technical mistakes, and false
characterizations? Who do you know is writing comparison pieces
against, say, Mills Violanos and comparing them to Hupfeld Phonolists--
and telling you that this one or that one isn't correctly designed? I
heartily disagree with such activity, disguised as a technical opinion.
It is presumptuous, self-serving, and politically controversial.  Just
exactly what is Amica trying to do by exacerbating such baloney?

5. p 70, last para. "All pre-model B Ampico expression systems, except
   the 1A, can superimpose full crescendos over any preprogrammed
   intensity level including zero.  Their crescendo systems are fully
   independent of their step systems and can achieve full effect at the
   stack at all times (the Model B expression system does not have this
   capability)."

ANS: {For the record, there is no such thing as a "zero intensity" in
an Ampico.} Here, Jeffrey actually contradicts his own overall point.
The fact that the Ampico roll coding system was never intended to
utilize crescendos separately from their intensities is actually borne
out by the fact the "Bs" require intensities in addition to any
crescendo to work properly.  Since a major criteria of the "B" was
compatibility with (practically) all A rolls cut after 1921, [and
please note that the Hupfeld roll series are the major exception and
will not work on a B, but that is another story],  this becomes an
ipso-facto, self-evident fact that requires no proof.  It is supported
by the Nelson Barden interview with Angelico Valerio, the head of the
roll editing department for Ampico, and also by the Hickman diaries.[
Dr. Hickman developed the Model B. ]

   So the intent to show inconsistencies and incompatibilities,
expression-wise, are not at all borne out by this claim.  Were Ampico to
have programmed its rolls with independent crescendo, not using
intensities, then I would have to agree with Jeffrey.  But the Model B
was made perfectly compatible with the roll editing formula established
at the end of 1921 for the most part, and still plays rolls prior to
1921 quite well.  So with a few exceptions, namely experimental rolls
that saw very limited production, the vast Ampico library is compatible
to anyone with a Model B.  The Model B also does not need the sub
intensity or amp trigger holes cut in, in order to play a roll well.
Those perforations merely expand the dynamics a bit.  It will still
"crescendo" and operate the intensities  perfectly.

   As an aside to this fact, the longest slow crescendo used in any of
my rolls measures a little over 2".  It is on a 1915 Ampico march roll.
The Model B has no problems with this.  And what does that amount to,
dynamically? A little over 1" of extra vacuum, or a 5% increase for the
longest slow crescendo hole in a 600 roll collection.  Slow crescendo
was only used after the roll was coded to give a little extra "bump" to
a few passages.  You could tape over them all and barely notice a
difference.  The proof of the pudding, so to speak, is right there on
the roll itself.  Angelico Valerio underwrites this completely.  It is
not a matter of speculation.  It is a fact.

6. p 70, para 5. "By means of a binary code -- the crescendos are
   controlled."

ANS: Give me a break, Jeffrey.  Why not -- for a change -- just look up
the term "binary code" in any textbook and see if you can possibly
justify such an outlandish claim.  The fact that the Ampico uses two
holes in the trackerbar to control crescendos does not mean therefore
that it is binary.  It is more like a faucet with a small knob mounted
on top of a large knob, both controlling the flow.

   Binary code is not the same thing as boolean logic or a logic state
table.  The two tracker bar inputs are actually used together or
separately, but that doesn't mean they are binary, either.  Duo-Arts
operate more from "binary" concept.  Ampicos never did, and they never
will, either.  And, we're not changing 'em.

Craig B.