[Nil[_2_]]

Can anyone tell me about this mystery tape recorder? I'm looking for a
machine to play back for digital transfer an old tape of my college
rock band that was recorded on a TEAC 3340 1/4" 4-track machine back in
the '70s. I may be able to borrow the machine in the photos below if
it's appropriate. It's been in storage for some years and it may need
some cleaning and TLC.

In looking around the 'net, I think it may be an Otari MX-5050 BII-4. I
find little information on it and not many pictures. There seems to
have been a stereo and a 4-track version - 'mine' must be the 4-track.

http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg

http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari2.jpg

Anyone familiar with it?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/29/2016 7:24 PM, Nil wrote:
Can anyone tell me about this mystery tape recorder? I'm looking for a
machine to play back for digital transfer an old tape of my college
rock band that was recorded on a TEAC 3340 1/4" 4-track machine back in
the '70s. I may be able to borrow the machine in the photos below if
it's appropriate. It's been in storage for some years and it may need
some cleaning and TLC.

In looking around the 'net, I think it may be an Otari MX-5050 BII-4.

Those are 4-track heads and four channels of Otari 5050 electronics, so
it should play your tape. The 5050 was a real workhorse in its day and
if they haven't all gone to landfills, there should be plenty of them
around today. It's hardly rare.

But if you're just talking about transferring one tape, I'd suggest that
you just find someone with a working machine to do it for you. If the
one you can borrow has been out of use for some time, it's bound to need
more than a simple cleaning, probably a new pinch roller, and certainly
alignment. You're probably not equipped to set it up properly yourself.




--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil wrote:
Can anyone tell me about this mystery tape recorder? I'm looking for a
machine to play back for digital transfer an old tape of my college
rock band that was recorded on a TEAC 3340 1/4" 4-track machine back in
the '70s. I may be able to borrow the machine in the photos below if
it's appropriate. It's been in storage for some years and it may need
some cleaning and TLC.

Budget $500 to $1000 to get a machine like that with the usual deferred
maintenance issues up to the point where it can be used. Complete
disassembly for cleaning and lube, new pinch roller, transport tension
setup.

Then, after that, you get to spend the money for an alignment tape and
start lining the machine up, and that's when you start discovering all
the interesting electronics problems and how many caps that need replacing
once you bring the tone ladder up. After that you get to find out what
the heads are like.

If you have a single tape, it's going to be cheaper to contract a transfer
out than to get a neglected machine up to snuff.

In looking around the 'net, I think it may be an Otari MX-5050 BII-4. I
find little information on it and not many pictures. There seems to
have been a stereo and a 4-track version - 'mine' must be the 4-track.

http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg

It indeed looks like a 5050. Most common as a 1/2" 4-track but you could
get 1/4" 4-track headstacks too. Find out what headstacks come with the
machine and feel with your thumb how flat the heads are.

These machines came in hundreds of different configurations and then
folks would swap parts around making frankenstein models. So you wind
up having to describe it as "a 5050 with X heads and Y electronics and
N track Z width."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nil[_2_]]

On 29 Apr 2016, Mike Rivers wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Those are 4-track heads and four channels of Otari 5050
electronics, so it should play your tape. The 5050 was a real
workhorse in its day and if they haven't all gone to landfills,
there should be plenty of them around today. It's hardly rare.

But if you're just talking about transferring one tape, I'd
suggest that you just find someone with a working machine to do it
for you. If the one you can borrow has been out of use for some
time, it's bound to need more than a simple cleaning, probably a
new pinch roller, and certainly alignment. You're probably not
equipped to set it up properly yourself.

You're probably right about getting it set up - I don't have the
equipment and it wouldn't be practical to spend much money or time on
it. Still, I'm curious to see it. Maybe I'll be lucky and it will fire
up and be in perfect working order. Not likely, but ya never know...

Any suggestion of a service that could transfer a tape of my kind?

[Nil[_2_]]

On 29 Apr 2016, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Budget $500 to $1000 to get a machine like that with the usual
deferred maintenance issues up to the point where it can be used.
Complete disassembly for cleaning and lube, new pinch roller,
transport tension setup.

I might take that on as a project if the machine were useful in the
long term or valuable for selling, but not for my one-time use, I
guess.

If you have a single tape, it's going to be cheaper to contract a
transfer out than to get a neglected machine up to snuff.

You're probably right. I will see the machine in the next week or so
and I'll decide then.

http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg

It indeed looks like a 5050. Most common as a 1/2" 4-track but
you could get 1/4" 4-track headstacks too. Find out what
headstacks come with the machine and feel with your thumb how flat
the heads are.

Can you tell from the picture if it's a 1/4" or 1/2" head?

[Rick Ruskin]

Any suggestion of a service that could transfer a tape of my kind?


I do this kind of work on a regular basis.

Rick Ruskin

Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[Nil[_2_]]

On 30 Apr 2016, Rick Ruskin wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Any suggestion of a service that could transfer a tape of my kind?

I do this kind of work on a regular basis.

Cool! I may be getting in touch with you if this thing with the Otari
doesn't pan out. I'll identify myself if I do.

Rick Ruskin

Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible. Does your tape have noise reduction?

[Nil[_2_]]

On 01 May 2016, Klay Anderson wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was
recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from
others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former
is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible.
Does your tape have noise reduction?

Good question. I don't know. It hasn't been played in decades.
Hopefully it's marked on the box. If anything, I think it would be
Dolby - I don't remember those TEAC machines having dbx at that time.

I had (still have - it's boxed up in the attic) a TEAC/Tascam 4-track
cassette recorder that I made lots of DIY recordings in the '80s and
'90s. It was equipped with dbx noise reduction, and I was always
impressed with how well it worked, how clean those recordings are,
considering how they were made. However, the dbx conked out on one
channel, and that channel sounded completely garbled after that.
Unlistenable. I understand what you're saying about Dolby vs dbx.

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:17:25 AM UTC-4, Klay Anderson wrote:
Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible. Does your tape have noise reduction?

Why, may I ask, did you find it advantageous to use noise reduction? Poor quality magnetic tape? Overdubbed too much? Maybe 7-1/2" tape speed? I'd just like to know.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/1/2016 2:50 PM, JackA wrote:
Why, may I ask, did you find it advantageous to use noise reduction?

Dolby and dbx noise reduction reduced only one kind of noise - tape
hiss. The advantage to using it is that it you can record with greater
dynamic range without the hiss being as obvious as without noise reduction.

Because these processes are based on compression when recording and
expansion on playback, you need both ends of the process, and,
particularly with Dolby, you need to use a standard nominal record level
to which the encoder and decoder are calibrated.

On some sources, it's possible to hear the noise reduction working, in
the same way that you can hear a compressor working. Some people believe
they can _always_ hear it. Some wise people use it on tracks that can
take advantage of noise reduction and don't use it on tracks where it
will do more harm than good (like for example). Dumb people don't
document the use of noise reduction.

--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On some sources, it's possible to hear the noise reduction working, in
the same way that you can hear a compressor working. Some people believe
they can _always_ hear it. Some wise people use it on tracks that can
take advantage of noise reduction and don't use it on tracks where it
will do more harm than good (like for example). Dumb people don't
document the use of noise reduction.

Dolby tone at the front of the tape is a clear indication that it's Dolby
encoded, and the warble of the Dolby A, B, and SR tones are different so it's
not hard to tell the difference.

If you don't put the tone on the tape, you can't set it up to play back
properly anyway so it's academic.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On some sources, it's possible to hear the noise reduction working, in
the same way that you can hear a compressor working. Some people believe
they can _always_ hear it. Some wise people use it on tracks that can
take advantage of noise reduction and don't use it on tracks where it
will do more harm than good (like for example). Dumb people don't
document the use of noise reduction.

Dolby tone at the front of the tape is a clear indication that it's Dolby
encoded, and the warble of the Dolby A, B, and SR tones are different so it's
not hard to tell the difference.

If you don't put the tone on the tape, you can't set it up to play back
properly anyway so it's academic.

May be why there are tones mentioned (in micro second, attenuation?) on a tape box of Tom Petty recordings, believe Dolby is mentioned there. I thought that, by the 70's, no tape noise reduction was needed, especially at 15 ISP. Always felt, the larger the tape track, the better the recording. But, with the need of numerous, smaller, multi-tracks, maybe the reduction of magnetic particles demanded noise reduction.

Thanks.

Jack

--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 2:50 PM, JackA wrote:
Why, may I ask, did you find it advantageous to use noise reduction?

Dolby and dbx noise reduction reduced only one kind of noise - tape
hiss. The advantage to using it is that it you can record with greater
dynamic range without the hiss being as obvious as without noise reduction.

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 2:50 PM, JackA wrote:
Why, may I ask, did you find it advantageous to use noise reduction?

Dolby and dbx noise reduction reduced only one kind of noise - tape
hiss. The advantage to using it is that it you can record with greater
dynamic range without the hiss being as obvious as without noise reduction.

Because these processes are based on compression when recording and
expansion on playback, you need both ends of the process, and,
particularly with Dolby, you need to use a standard nominal record level
to which the encoder and decoder are calibrated.

On some sources, it's possible to hear the noise reduction working, in
the same way that you can hear a compressor working. Some people believe
they can _always_ hear it. Some wise people use it on tracks that can
take advantage of noise reduction and don't use it on tracks where it
will do more harm than good (like for example). Dumb people don't
document the use of noise reduction.

--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Do we agree.... take any blank tape and play it at 3-3/4 ISP. Now, double, maybe even quadruple that tape speed, there will be a reduction in tape "hiss" noise?

I think of it this way, at 20kHz, a single sinewave has 1/1000 the tape particle real-estate that 20Hz has.

Jack

[[email protected]]

May be why there are tones mentioned (in micro second, attenuation?) on a tape box of Tom Petty recordings, believe Dolby is mentioned there.

Notes with numbers of us microseconds would probably be about tape EQ settings.

There were a couple of different record and playback EQ standards and one popular way to specify them was the RC time constant in micro seconds.

If you would like to read about it google NAB and NARTB and IEC tape EQ.

or try to find a copy of this old book

http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/intro_Burstein_tape.pdf

wow, I found here is a full copy free online..

http://www.smcelectronics.com/DOWNLO...20CIRCUITS.PDF
Mark






Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil wrote:
http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg

It indeed looks like a 5050. Most common as a 1/2" 4-track but
you could get 1/4" 4-track headstacks too. Find out what
headstacks come with the machine and feel with your thumb how flat
the heads are.

Can you tell from the picture if it's a 1/4" or 1/2" head?

That looks like a 1/4" headstack from the size of the guides. The play
head looks kind of doubtful too. But I wouldn't place money on anything
eyeballed from a photo.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 1 May 2016 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Klay Anderson
wrote:

Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible. Does your tape have noise reduction?
Cheapsters? I'll take a properly aligned and encoded dbx I tape over
dolby B or C all day long.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:09:26 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nil wrote:
http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg

It indeed looks like a 5050. Most common as a 1/2" 4-track but
you could get 1/4" 4-track headstacks too. Find out what
headstacks come with the machine and feel with your thumb how flat
the heads are.

Can you tell from the picture if it's a 1/4" or 1/2" head?

That looks like a 1/4" headstack from the size of the guides. The play
head looks kind of doubtful too. But I wouldn't place money on anything
eyeballed from a photo.

I'm leaning towards 1/2" tape, from the length of the (azimuth adjustment) threaded screws.

Jack

--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:

May be why there are tones mentioned (in micro second, attenuation?) on a tape box of Tom Petty recordings, believe Dolby is mentioned there.

Notes with numbers of us microseconds would probably be about tape EQ settings.

There were a couple of different record and playback EQ standards and one popular way to specify them was the RC time constant in micro seconds.

If you would like to read about it google NAB and NARTB and IEC tape EQ.

or try to find a copy of this old book

http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/intro_Burstein_tape.pdf

wow, I found here is a full copy free online..

http://www.smcelectronics.com/DOWNLO...20CIRCUITS.PDF

Thanks. I'll have to open later, RT tablet is tough on .pdf's.
How I ended up with, "Hits Were Churned Out at Nondescript Building at 1650 Broadway" .pdf is unknown

I GUESS you could use these tones to check tape speed, too.
What I recall of Petty's master tape box, the bass was "sweet", no value assigned.

Anything ever recorded on tape to aid in azimuth adjustment of tape heads?

Jack
Mark






Mark

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:

May be why there are tones mentioned (in micro second, attenuation?) on a tape box of Tom Petty recordings, believe Dolby is mentioned there.

Notes with numbers of us microseconds would probably be about tape EQ settings.

There were a couple of different record and playback EQ standards and one popular way to specify them was the RC time constant in micro seconds.

If you would like to read about it google NAB and NARTB and IEC tape EQ.

or try to find a copy of this old book

http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/intro_Burstein_tape.pdf

wow, I found here is a full copy free online..

http://www.smcelectronics.com/DOWNLO...20CIRCUITS.PDF
Mark






Mark

Seems "AES" offered some equalization (on another Petty tape box). Tones at 100, 1kHz and 10kHz seem common. Master Tape speed at 30 IPS, no noise reduction used.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/1/2016 5:03 PM, JackA wrote:
So, let's say 24 tracks. Maybe 2" tape nominal? That allowed .08333"
per track. Not much! Even some Beatles tunes had .25" inch. What good
is documenting something that is no longer in use? Capitol Records
rid themselves of old equipment that was discarded or replaced, so
mastering "notes" were rendered useless.

Noise reduction on tape was common though the 1990s until digital
recording became the norm. It was quieter than analog tape.

The reason why we document something that's no longer in use is because
it's still in use until the tape is destroyed.



--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/1/2016 5:13 PM, JackA wrote:
Do we agree.... take any blank tape and play it at 3-3/4 ISP. Now,
double, maybe even quadruple that tape speed, there will be a
reduction in tape "hiss" noise?

Increasing tape speed and increasing track width both can reduce tape
hiss. But companding noise reduction processes reduce it even further.
Noise floor of a 2-track 1/4" tape is about 60 dB below operating level.
Dolby A increases that by close to 10 dB. Dolby SR brings it down to
another 15 dB so it's nearly as quiet as digital, and in the early days
of digital recording, sounded better.

--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:39:23 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 5:13 PM, JackA wrote:
Do we agree.... take any blank tape and play it at 3-3/4 ISP. Now,
double, maybe even quadruple that tape speed, there will be a
reduction in tape "hiss" noise?

Increasing tape speed and increasing track width both can reduce tape
hiss. But companding noise reduction processes reduce it even further.
Noise floor of a 2-track 1/4" tape is about 60 dB below operating level.
Dolby A increases that by close to 10 dB. Dolby SR brings it down to
another 15 dB so it's nearly as quiet as digital, and in the early days
of digital recording, sounded better.

Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.

I'd be willing to claim, most 30 IPS session tapes required no noise reduction.

Jack

--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 2/05/2016 3:39 AM, Nil wrote:
On 01 May 2016, Klay Anderson wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was
recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from
others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former
is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible.
Does your tape have noise reduction?

Good question. I don't know. It hasn't been played in decades.
Hopefully it's marked on the box. If anything, I think it would be
Dolby - I don't remember those TEAC machines having dbx at that time.

I had (still have - it's boxed up in the attic) a TEAC/Tascam 4-track
cassette recorder that I made lots of DIY recordings in the '80s and
'90s. It was equipped with dbx noise reduction, and I was always
impressed with how well it worked, how clean those recordings are,
considering how they were made. However, the dbx conked out on one
channel, and that channel sounded completely garbled after that.
Unlistenable. I understand what you're saying about Dolby vs dbx.


It is easier to decode a dbx tape using a DAW than a Dolby one though.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 02/05/2016 09:56, Trevor wrote:
On 2/05/2016 3:39 AM, Nil wrote:
On 01 May 2016, Klay Anderson wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was
recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from
others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former
is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible.
Does your tape have noise reduction?

Good question. I don't know. It hasn't been played in decades.
Hopefully it's marked on the box. If anything, I think it would be
Dolby - I don't remember those TEAC machines having dbx at that time.

I had (still have - it's boxed up in the attic) a TEAC/Tascam 4-track
cassette recorder that I made lots of DIY recordings in the '80s and
'90s. It was equipped with dbx noise reduction, and I was always
impressed with how well it worked, how clean those recordings are,
considering how they were made. However, the dbx conked out on one
channel, and that channel sounded completely garbled after that.
Unlistenable. I understand what you're saying about Dolby vs dbx.


It is easier to decode a dbx tape using a DAW than a Dolby one though.

There's a howto for DBX decoding he-

http://www.bobweitz.com/dbx_webpage/dbx.html

For Dolby B, there is a plugin with some other useful features for
restoring digitised cassette and tape sound that needs Winamp to work at
the link below. I have tested it with the latest available version of
Winamp downloaded before Winamp was removed from its download site by
AOL, but copies of Winamp are available if you look for them:-

http://www.hansvanzutphen.com/tape_r...live/download/

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:

Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always
seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.

If you switch it off and on with loud music, you'll definitely hear a
change in the high end, but that isn't all it's doing, all the time. But
that isn't how you're supposed to use it. Some people used to listen to
Dolby encoded cassettes without decoding for two reasons. First, they
heard more high end, and second, the compression kept the average volume
a little higher.

Today we have "mastering" to fix those problems.

I'd be willing to claim, most 30 IPS session tapes required no noise
reduction.

I'd be willing to not put any value on your claim. However, the dynamic
nature of Dolby noise reduction is more noticeable on certain forms of
music than others, and experienced engineers will choose the best way he
has available to record each song. Recording is full of compromises, and
what you claim doesn't contribute to my decisions.


--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:

Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always
seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.

If you switch it off and on with loud music, you'll definitely hear a
change in the high end, but that isn't all it's doing, all the time. But
that isn't how you're supposed to use it. Some people used to listen to
Dolby encoded cassettes without decoding for two reasons. First, they
heard more high end, and second, the compression kept the average volume
a little higher.

Today we have "mastering" to fix those problems.

I'd be willing to claim, most 30 IPS session tapes required no noise
reduction.

I'd be willing to not put any value on your claim. However, the dynamic
nature of Dolby noise reduction is more noticeable on certain forms of
music than others, and experienced engineers will choose the best way he
has available to record each song. Recording is full of compromises, and
what you claim doesn't contribute to my decisions.

Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause. My ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio, some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late 50's to early 60's.

Man became cheaper and cheaper with recordings, even Columbia Records, any Roadie will do (a Usenet roadie told me this).

Look at reissues, same thing, anyone would do for "remastering".
Listen to Janis Joplin's studio talk, that "engineer" sounds like he's higher than a kite.

Ah, well, thanks!

Jack


--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:

It is easier to decode a dbx tape using a DAW than a Dolby one though.

This is true, but that's a legal issue more than a technical one.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:

Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always
seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.

If you switch it off and on with loud music, you'll definitely hear a
change in the high end, but that isn't all it's doing, all the time. But
that isn't how you're supposed to use it. Some people used to listen to
Dolby encoded cassettes without decoding for two reasons. First, they
heard more high end, and second, the compression kept the average volume
a little higher.

Yeah, but that's in great part because cassettes never had correct azimuth
and the top end was horribly mangled. And if they DID have correct azimuth
at the beginning of the side, they wouldn't by the time they got to the end.

In general, companding schemes do very poorly when the frequency response
of the system isn't flat. Dolby B is actually designed to deal somewhat
with the crappy top end but there's only so much you can do without losing
any benefit.

And of course nobody ever put proper tones on cassettes, so unless the
operating levels were set perfectly, they always pumped.

The problem with Dolby B on cassettes has a lot more to do with the cassette
being a miserable, miserable worthless format than with the Dolby system.

I'd be willing to claim, most 30 IPS session tapes required no noise
reduction.

I'd be willing to not put any value on your claim. However, the dynamic
nature of Dolby noise reduction is more noticeable on certain forms of
music than others, and experienced engineers will choose the best way he
has available to record each song. Recording is full of compromises, and
what you claim doesn't contribute to my decisions.

30 ips really doesn't buy you very much over 15 ips for noise... in fact
to my ears it often sounds noisier because the center frequency is moved
up an octave making the noise more audible.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 02/05/2016 13:15, JackA wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
I'd be willing to not put any value on your claim. However, the dynamic
nature of Dolby noise reduction is more noticeable on certain forms of
music than others, and experienced engineers will choose the best way he
has available to record each song. Recording is full of compromises, and
what you claim doesn't contribute to my decisions.

Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause. My ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio, some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late 50's to early 60's.

The early, amazing, recordings you refer to were almost certainly
recorded taking the limits of the equipment into account by limiting the
dynamic range and frequency range of the performance. Using noise
reduction is not a sign of being an "amateur", it is a sign of wanting
to get the best possible results for your client, and noise reduction on
analogue material lets you record something closer to a normal live
performance.

In the right hands, recording using limited performance dynamics can
give a superficial impression of a really great sound to the
uninitiated. As the available noise floors dropped in studios, then
recordings could be made of subtler material, which may not sound as "In
your face" as the earlier stuff.

For instance, if you listen with professional ears to the Phil Specter
"Wall Of Sound" recordings, they sound fantastic, but have a limited
dynamic range due to the arrangements used, which effectively masks the
tape noise on the master.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:

For instance, if you listen with professional ears to the Phil Specter
"Wall Of Sound" recordings, they sound fantastic, but have a limited
dynamic range due to the arrangements used, which effectively masks the
tape noise on the master.

"Rock music? It goes all the way from Fortissimo up to Fortissimo. Ugh."
-- Todd Goodwin

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/2/2016 8:15 AM, JackA wrote:
Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of
recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use
noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause.

Jack, everything persona, but I'm talking about professional recordings
here, those made in real studios by experienced engineers during the
prime days of analog tape recording. Nothing cheap about a $25,000 -
$50,000 recorder with tape costing, at the time, about $75 for a 10-1/2"
reel of 2" tape, and projects that might span 50 or more reels of tape.

The recorders were the best that could be made, and noise reduction made
them a little better when it it was appropriate. But in any era, there
were well engineered recordings and poorly engineered ones.

Now you may be talking about, in this era, taking a poor sounding
recording from the past which may or may not have been recorded with a
noise reduction system, and carelessly hacking a new version out of it,
that's easily a case where your taste may not agree with that of the
person doing the re-production. But he's the one making money, and he
doesn't care about your 99 cents for a download (or less).

My
ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio,
some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late
50's to early 60's.

That could be what your ears tell you, and there indeed were some very
good recordings made during that period. But there were also some very
good recordings made in the 80s and 90s that would have been noisier
without noise reduction. When you have only a few mics and you're
recording in mono, and playback was with a needle in a groove, there was
no need to invent noise reduction. But as recordings became more
complex, noise sources built up and there was a need to make the noise
less apparent. Noise reduction filled that need.




--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.


Thats becasue you are turning the Dolby on and off at playback only. The recording is still encoded with Dolby meaning the low level treble was boosted during recording. If you turn if on/off during playback only, it sounds like you loose treble when it is on, but you are not hearing the effect of the extra treble put in during recording.

To compare the real effect of Dolby, you would have to turn it on and off during both playback AND record, which of course unless you made the recording as a test, you can't do.

Mark

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-6, Rick Ruskin wrote:

Cheapsters? I'll take a properly aligned and encoded dbx I tape over
dolby B or C all day long.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

Even with the "pro" module dbx 900 series we could always hear breathing and pumping around each bit of sound on the tape. The expander and compressor cannot ever track each other precisely due to the nature of rust on plastic. Four external channels of Dolby B (like the Advent) cost me quite a few bucks back in the 70s and were well worth it connected to my 3340. Eventually dbx made a "home" unit that was cheaper but to a good ear, sounded less than stellar. This was probably partially due to the lack of alignment controls on those first multi-tracks as well as the nature of the beast. We did many tests with the local religious organization that continuously recorded the quiet human voice, their large choir and orchestra in their "big room" on multitrack Ampex and Otari decks. They used dbx for economic reasons. When I was able to show the improvement that A and SR made, they changed to Dolby. Until digital, that is.

Yours truly,
Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:24:48 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.


Thats becasue you are turning the Dolby on and off at playback only. The recording is still encoded with Dolby meaning the low level treble was boosted during recording. If you turn if on/off during playback only, it sounds like you loose treble when it is on, but you are not hearing the effect of the extra treble put in during recording.

To compare the real effect of Dolby, you would have to turn it on and off during both playback AND record, which of course unless you made the recording as a test, you can't do.

Actually, (for me) Dolby C was nice to encode, but not decode, added a nice high frequency end to LP. But, who knows, Mark, maybe the Pioneer deck wasn't that accurate for Dolby use.

Thanks.

Jack

Mark

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:24:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/2/2016 8:15 AM, JackA wrote:
Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of
recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use
noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause.

Jack, everything persona, but I'm talking about professional recordings
here, those made in real studios by experienced engineers during the
prime days of analog tape recording. Nothing cheap about a $25,000 -
$50,000 recorder with tape costing, at the time, about $75 for a 10-1/2"
reel of 2" tape, and projects that might span 50 or more reels of tape.

The recorders were the best that could be made, and noise reduction made
them a little better when it it was appropriate. But in any era, there
were well engineered recordings and poorly engineered ones.

Now you may be talking about, in this era, taking a poor sounding
recording from the past which may or may not have been recorded with a
noise reduction system, and carelessly hacking a new version out of it,
that's easily a case where your taste may not agree with that of the
person doing the re-production. But he's the one making money, and he
doesn't care about your 99 cents for a download (or less).

My
ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio,
some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late
50's to early 60's.

That could be what your ears tell you, and there indeed were some very
good recordings made during that period. But there were also some very
good recordings made in the 80s and 90s that would have been noisier
without noise reduction. When you have only a few mics and you're
recording in mono, and playback was with a needle in a groove, there was
no need to invent noise reduction. But as recordings became more
complex, noise sources built up and there was a need to make the noise
less apparent. Noise reduction filled that need.

Okay, how about an example.

Frank Sinatra recorded for both Capitol and Reprise. Even though the Reprise recordings were later than Capitol's, they are less superior than Capitol..
Believe the Reprise recording were United Western Recorders'
Felt Frank did himself injustice changing labels, even if his own.

Elvis, I had several first pressing of his RCA albums of the '60's. Very impressed. Yet, his last single before his death, an early Take sounded better than the final "thing". I'd expect superior recording technology in the 70's, but just the opposite. So, who or what is at fault, the engineers and/or recording technology? I still claim the engineers are.

Jack




--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:24:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/2/2016 8:15 AM, JackA wrote:
Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of
recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use
noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause.

Jack, everything persona, but I'm talking about professional recordings
here, those made in real studios by experienced engineers during the
prime days of analog tape recording. Nothing cheap about a $25,000 -
$50,000 recorder with tape costing, at the time, about $75 for a 10-1/2"
reel of 2" tape, and projects that might span 50 or more reels of tape.

The recorders were the best that could be made, and noise reduction made
them a little better when it it was appropriate. But in any era, there
were well engineered recordings and poorly engineered ones.

Now you may be talking about, in this era, taking a poor sounding
recording from the past which may or may not have been recorded with a
noise reduction system, and carelessly hacking a new version out of it,
that's easily a case where your taste may not agree with that of the
person doing the re-production. But he's the one making money, and he
doesn't care about your 99 cents for a download (or less).

My
ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio,
some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late
50's to early 60's.

That could be what your ears tell you, and there indeed were some very
good recordings made during that period. But there were also some very
good recordings made in the 80s and 90s that would have been noisier
without noise reduction. When you have only a few mics and you're
recording in mono, and playback was with a needle in a groove, there was
no need to invent noise reduction. But as recordings became more
complex, noise sources built up and there was a need to make the noise
less apparent. Noise reduction filled that need.

One thing I'm trying to grasp... "recordings became more complex". Can you elaborate? Maybe you mean to remove ambient "noise"?

Jack




--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/2/2016 10:25 AM, JackA wrote:
Frank Sinatra recorded for both Capitol and Reprise. Even though the Reprise recordings were later than Capitol's, they are less superior than Capitol.
Believe the Reprise recording were United Western Recorders'
Felt Frank did himself injustice changing labels, even if his own.

Elvis, I had several first pressing of his RCA albums of the '60's. Very impressed. Yet, his last single before his death, an early Take sounded better than the final "thing". I'd expect superior recording technology in the 70's, but just the opposite. So, who or what is at fault, the engineers and/or recording technology? I still claim the engineers are.

The producers and record companies.

--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/2/2016 11:26 AM, JackA wrote:
One thing I'm trying to grasp... "recordings became more complex". Can you elaborate? Maybe you mean to remove ambient "noise"?

Simplest example is 20 mics on a drum kit, and 48 analog tracks, many of
them bounced a few times. It's not like the whole band and singer
recorded to one track from one mic any more.

--
For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com