[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:15:28 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

Okay, now I'm tuning in. The need for noise reduction came about from the numerous multi-tracks all contributing to noise. Correct?

Why, early on, when man was able to record "live", little, if any, tape noise was heard.

Jack



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

[John Williamson]

On 02/05/2016 15:09, JackA wrote:
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.

If it was a cassette deck, then it inevitably had a poor and
inconsistent HF response due to the physics involved. A slow tape speed
and a narrow track width combined with a truly horrible tape path all
combine to increase perceived noise and make it impossible for the tape
to remain in correct alignment with the heads,and crosstalk between
channels was not good either.

Turning off the decoder gives an apparent boost to the HF end, which
masks a few of the problems.

Playing back a Dolby B or C encoded tape with the playback decoder
turned off boosts the higher frequencies at the lower levels, giving
playback the HF boost you seem to love so much, while masking the HF
part of the tape noise, which is the part most people find
objectionable. If the levels are set correctly, and you use Dolby B or C
encoding and decoding, what comes out is actually quite close to what
goes ins, especially if you use a 1/4" open reel deck running at 7.5ips
as I set up as an experiment once instead of a cassette recorder.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2016 15:09, JackA wrote:
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.

If it was a cassette deck, then it inevitably had a poor and
inconsistent HF response due to the physics involved. A slow tape speed
and a narrow track width combined with a truly horrible tape path all
combine to increase perceived noise and make it impossible for the tape
to remain in correct alignment with the heads,and crosstalk between
channels was not good either.

Turning off the decoder gives an apparent boost to the HF end, which
masks a few of the problems.

Playing back a Dolby B or C encoded tape with the playback decoder
turned off boosts the higher frequencies at the lower levels, giving
playback the HF boost you seem to love so much, while masking the HF
part of the tape noise, which is the part most people find
objectionable. If the levels are set correctly, and you use Dolby B or C
encoding and decoding, what comes out is actually quite close to what
goes ins, especially if you use a 1/4" open reel deck running at 7.5ips
as I set up as an experiment once instead of a cassette recorder.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Might of been that I was using "Metal" tape that has low noise to begin with.
I can't see any studio using that, it would cost a fortune.
See, Sony found a way to not only shape the particles, but also align them for the greatest dense packing.

As for cassette cross-talk, never heard any.

Here's the deck I have, maybe a step lower....
http://www.hifiengine.com/images/mod...sette_deck.jpg

Thanks.

Jack

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2016 15:09, JackA wrote:
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.

If it was a cassette deck, then it inevitably had a poor and
inconsistent HF response due to the physics involved. A slow tape speed
and a narrow track width combined with a truly horrible tape path all
combine to increase perceived noise and make it impossible for the tape
to remain in correct alignment with the heads,and crosstalk between
channels was not good either.

Turning off the decoder gives an apparent boost to the HF end, which
masks a few of the problems.

Playing back a Dolby B or C encoded tape with the playback decoder
turned off boosts the higher frequencies at the lower levels, giving
playback the HF boost you seem to love so much, while masking the HF
part of the tape noise, which is the part most people find
objectionable. If the levels are set correctly, and you use Dolby B or C
encoding and decoding, what comes out is actually quite close to what
goes ins, especially if you use a 1/4" open reel deck running at 7.5ips
as I set up as an experiment once instead of a cassette recorder.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

p.s. Notice the complaints about the tape head....
http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_lib...er/ct-9r.shtml

Easily repairable.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/2/2016 1:27 PM, JackA wrote:

Okay, now I'm tuning in. The need for noise reduction came about from the numerous multi-tracks all contributing to noise. Correct?

That's certainly a major contributor, yes.


Why, early on, when man was able to record "live", little, if any, tape noise was heard.

Because our playback systems weren't so quiet and any tape noise was
masked by surface noise and noise from simpler and less sophisticated
electronics. If you play a phonograph record from the 1960s or1970s
that's in very good condition on a modern playback system, youll hear
tape hiss you never heard before, and it's on the record.

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

[geoff]

On 3/05/2016 1:11 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
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


Blanket generalisation or limited experience of the genre.

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/05/2016 1:24 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
.

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.

A situation benefiting from noise reduction was the introduction of
multi-track recording, with background noise potentially building up
with each added concurrent track.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/2/2016 1:27 PM, JackA wrote:
Why, early on, when man was able to record "live", little, if any, tape noise was heard.

Because our playback systems weren't so quiet and any tape noise was
masked by surface noise and noise from simpler and less sophisticated
electronics. If you play a phonograph record from the 1960s or1970s
that's in very good condition on a modern playback system, youll hear
tape hiss you never heard before, and it's on the record.

Also, of course, once you start spotting everything, you start needing
compression and limiting to bring the exaggerated dynamics down, and once
you start doing that, the noise floor starts getting pulled way up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 3/05/2016 1:11 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
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

Blanket generalisation or limited experience of the genre.

Well, it was the sixties.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
On 3/05/2016 1:11 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
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


Blanket generalisation or limited experience of the genre.

geoff


Plexi much?

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 2/05/2016 10:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:
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.

Yep, that's my take too. Track width governs noise in the main, tape
speed governs frequency response. But the notion any analog tape format
"required no noise reduction" is only something the sort of people who
also like snap crackle on pop on their vinyl records would say IMO. :-(
Glad we don't have to make those compromises any longer!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 2/05/2016 11:24 PM, wrote:
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.

But anybody with a 3 head deck making their own recordings can easily do.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 02/05/2016 21:46, JackA wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2016 15:09, JackA wrote:
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.

If it was a cassette deck, then it inevitably had a poor and
inconsistent HF response due to the physics involved. A slow tape speed
and a narrow track width combined with a truly horrible tape path all
combine to increase perceived noise and make it impossible for the tape
to remain in correct alignment with the heads,and crosstalk between
channels was not good either.

Turning off the decoder gives an apparent boost to the HF end, which
masks a few of the problems.

Playing back a Dolby B or C encoded tape with the playback decoder
turned off boosts the higher frequencies at the lower levels, giving
playback the HF boost you seem to love so much, while masking the HF
part of the tape noise, which is the part most people find
objectionable. If the levels are set correctly, and you use Dolby B or C
encoding and decoding, what comes out is actually quite close to what
goes ins, especially if you use a 1/4" open reel deck running at 7.5ips
as I set up as an experiment once instead of a cassette recorder.

Might of been that I was using "Metal" tape that has low noise to begin with.
I can't see any studio using that, it would cost a fortune.
See, Sony found a way to not only shape the particles, but also align them for the greatest dense packing.

The cost of tape and other media was and is a very small proportion of
the cost of a professional recording.

As for cassette cross-talk, never heard any.

Have you ever checked? Maybe by recording on the right hand channel
only, then listening on the left hand channel? It will also cause an
apparent reduction of the width of the stereo image.

Here's the deck I have, maybe a step lower....
http://www.hifiengine.com/images/mod...sette_deck.jpg

A tape head which turns over, so guaranteeing that the alignment will
change every time you play a tape, one capstan for both directions, so
the tape tension can't be properly controlled..... I like a review on
one site that said that to call it a lemon is being kind, as at least
with a lemon, you can make lemonade. It was just below a review that
said the most satisfying sound the owner heard from it was the sound of
it smashing as he dropped it onto concrete from a height of ten feet.

If you can find one, you would get better results using the Sony Walkman
Pro (The WM-D6C), which is portable and not so flashy, but when it was
new gave better results than any other cassette deck apart from the
Nakamichi Dragon. Incidentally, it was designed from the start to use
Sony metal tape. Even the semi-pro model (WM-D3) gave rock solid stereo
imaging and enough fidelity to decide that the bass on a particular
track was a Fender running through a Marshall Amp. It won't record on
metal tape, but will play it back.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 02/05/2016 21:48, JackA wrote:


p.s. Notice the complaints about the tape head....
http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_lib...er/ct-9r.shtml

Easily repairable.

Only by a complete redesign with a fixed, 4 gap head and a pair of
matching erase heads, which will cause other problems due to the
switching necessary and component tolerances. The rest can be improved
by using 2 capstans and pulling the tape out of the cassette into a
properly engineered tape path.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Klay Anderson wrote:

Even with the "pro" module dbx 900 series we could always hear breathing an=
d pumping around each bit of sound on the tape. The expander and compresso=
r cannot ever track each other precisely due to the nature of rust on plast=
ic.

The thing about companding is that you're trading frequency response for
dynamic range. The more dynamic range you squeeze out of it, the more it
is going to exaggerate any frequency response issues in the system.

Four external channels of Dolby B (like the Advent) cost me quite a fe=
w bucks back in the 70s and were well worth it connected to my 3340. Event=
ually dbx made a "home" unit that was cheaper but to a good ear, sounded le=
ss than stellar.

If you looked at the manual of the original dbx Type I units, they specifically
said it wasn't for use with machines like your 3340, for exactly the reason
you specify. Dolby A would have caused similar problems.

Dolby B and dbx Type II were specifically designed for limited bandwidth
recorders and they had a lower ratio and didn't key the compression on high
frequencies. Consequently they were less sensitive to the quality of the
record chain itself, but they also didn't get you as low a noise floor.

You don't get something for nothing, but companding NR systems allow you to
trade one thing for another.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

Trevor writes:

On 2/05/2016 10:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:
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.

Yep, that's my take too. Track width governs noise in the main, tape
speed governs frequency response. But the notion any analog tape format
"required no noise reduction" is only something the sort of people who
also like snap crackle on pop on their vinyl records would say IMO. :-(
Glad we don't have to make those compromises any longer!

With, say, a properly-setup AT100 there wasn't a large sonic difference between 15
and 30 in the studio. The big difference showed up downstream, in the home
environment. It appeared that in terms of subtle detail and "life" a source
originated at 30 IPS could withstand more degradation at all steps along the way
(and particularly in the consumer's home) -- and still retain enough of that sparkle
to be noticeably more "alive" than at 15.

With rock/pop, the narrower dynamic range could be used to hide tape hiss, except,
of course, in the quieter sections and during ring outs. I came up with a "manual
HF noise gate" that worked surprisingly well when things were "exposed".

I took a tap off the stereo mix bus and fed it back into two empty channels, panned
hard left and right. I flipped polarity and boosted the crap out of the top end.
Then, as a tune would ring out I'd slide up those channels, cancelling all (or some)
of the top end. I got fairly deft at doing this just enough to make the hiss less
noticeable, but not completely destroy the top end.

Then we got DBX, which was a godsend, especially for classical and acoustic music.
But, we did NOT use it on the two-track, only the multi. This worked fairly well, as
the sonic "contribution" of the DBX on the multi simply became part of the mix
process, and we worked with/around it.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
With, say, a properly-setup AT100 there wasn't a large sonic difference between 15
and 30 in the studio. The big difference showed up downstream, in the home
environment. It appeared that in terms of subtle detail and "life" a source
originated at 30 IPS could withstand more degradation at all steps along the way
(and particularly in the consumer's home) -- and still retain enough of that sparkle
to be noticeably more "alive" than at 15.

Sure, the top end is a little more open, but the bass bump moves up an
octave and the low end at 15 ips is irregular enough as it is.

The one thing that I loved, and still love, about digital recording is that
the low end doesn't get screwed up in the tape machine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

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.

Yep, that's my take too. Track width governs noise in the main, tape
speed governs frequency response.



in THEORY, doubling the track width, OR doubling the tape speed SHOULD be able to improve the SNR by 3 dB.

but there are a lot of other issues in practice..

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 07:37:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



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.

Yep, that's my take too. Track width governs noise in the main, tape
speed governs frequency response.



in THEORY, doubling the track width, OR doubling the tape speed SHOULD be able to improve the SNR by 3 dB.

but there are a lot of other issues in practice..

Not the least of which is doubling the accuracy you need to achieve in
head alignment and halving the intervals between required alignments.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 2:15:51 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 2/05/2016 10:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:
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.

Yep, that's my take too. Track width governs noise


So, man found it advantageous to have many small tape tracks beyond what he actually needed, so he was forced to use "noise reduction" as a result?

Bring back Billy Sherrill!! :-)

Jack

in the main, tape
speed governs frequency response. But the notion any analog tape format
"required no noise reduction" is only something the sort of people who
also like snap crackle on pop on their vinyl records would say IMO. :-(
Glad we don't have to make those compromises any longer!

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 10:37:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:

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.

Yep, that's my take too. Track width governs noise in the main, tape
speed governs frequency response.



in THEORY, doubling the track width, OR doubling the tape speed SHOULD be able to improve the SNR by 3 dB.

but there are a lot of other issues in practice.

Plus, faster tape speed, where resonance of the tape transport becomes an issue at low frequencies.

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:
With, say, a properly-setup AT100 there wasn't a large sonic difference between 15
and 30 in the studio. The big difference showed up downstream, in the home
environment. It appeared that in terms of subtle detail and "life" a source
originated at 30 IPS could withstand more degradation at all steps along the way
(and particularly in the consumer's home) -- and still retain enough of that sparkle
to be noticeably more "alive" than at 15.

Sure, the top end is a little more open, but the bass bump moves up an
octave and the low end at 15 ips is irregular enough as it is.

My exposure to 30 ips was limited, just to the later-generation ATRs which had the
hot-rod heads and rev'd electronics, as I recall. I kept hearing about the LF issues
with 30 ips but never really experienced it first hand. Those later revision
machines & heads provided +/- 0.5 dB, from 35 hz to well out past 20 Khz. Waaaayyyyy
better than the 440C or even the MM1200 (+/- 1.5 dB or so at 15). 15 IPS on the ATR
was close, maybe +/- 0.75 dB, just not quite as far out in the top end and maybe the
LF flatness held on just a little lower.

In spite of some their quirks and warts, those were damned fine machines, and
probably took tape right to the boundary of its theoretical performance limits.

The one thing that I loved, and still love, about digital recording is that
the low end doesn't get screwed up in the tape machine.

Boy howdy, ain't the the truth. And right up there with that is no scrape flutter.
Woohoo!

Frank

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/3/2016 12:33 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
My exposure to 30 ips was limited, just to the later-generation ATRs which had the
hot-rod heads and rev'd electronics, as I recall. I kept hearing about the LF issues
with 30 ips but never really experienced it first hand.

Some bass players like what their bass sounds like at 15 ips, others
like it at 30 ips. It's all a matter of where the head bump lies, what
the bass player is playing, and what does "sounds good" mean to the bass
player.

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 13:33:58 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/3/2016 12:33 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
My exposure to 30 ips was limited, just to the later-generation ATRs which had the
hot-rod heads and rev'd electronics, as I recall. I kept hearing about the LF issues
with 30 ips but never really experienced it first hand.

Some bass players like what their bass sounds like at 15 ips, others
like it at 30 ips. It's all a matter of where the head bump lies, what
the bass player is playing, and what does "sounds good" mean to the bass
player.

Have they never heard of parametric EQ?

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

My exposure to 30 ips was limited, just to the later-generation ATRs which had the
hot-rod heads and rev'd electronics, as I recall. I kept hearing about the LF issues
with 30 ips but never really experienced it first hand. Those later revision
machines & heads provided +/- 0.5 dB, from 35 hz to well out past 20 Khz. Waaaayyyyy
better than the 440C or even the MM1200 (+/- 1.5 dB or so at 15). 15 IPS on the ATR
was close, maybe +/- 0.75 dB, just not quite as far out in the top end and maybe the
LF flatness held on just a little lower.

Absolutely. On the ATR-100, there are definitely low end differences between
the metal heads, the ferrite heads, and the Saki aftermarket ferrite heads.
John French keeps telling me that the Flux Magnetics heads have better
extension and make everything great at 30 ips, but that's a bit beyond my
budget.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:42:29 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2016 21:46, JackA wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2016 15:09, JackA wrote:
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.

If it was a cassette deck, then it inevitably had a poor and
inconsistent HF response due to the physics involved. A slow tape speed
and a narrow track width combined with a truly horrible tape path all
combine to increase perceived noise and make it impossible for the tape
to remain in correct alignment with the heads,and crosstalk between
channels was not good either.

Turning off the decoder gives an apparent boost to the HF end, which
masks a few of the problems.

Playing back a Dolby B or C encoded tape with the playback decoder
turned off boosts the higher frequencies at the lower levels, giving
playback the HF boost you seem to love so much, while masking the HF
part of the tape noise, which is the part most people find
objectionable. If the levels are set correctly, and you use Dolby B or C
encoding and decoding, what comes out is actually quite close to what
goes ins, especially if you use a 1/4" open reel deck running at 7.5ips
as I set up as an experiment once instead of a cassette recorder.

Might of been that I was using "Metal" tape that has low noise to begin with.
I can't see any studio using that, it would cost a fortune.
See, Sony found a way to not only shape the particles, but also align them for the greatest dense packing.

The cost of tape and other media was and is a very small proportion of
the cost of a professional recording.

As for cassette cross-talk, never heard any.

Have you ever checked? Maybe by recording on the right hand channel
only, then listening on the left hand channel? It will also cause an
apparent reduction of the width of the stereo image.

Here's the deck I have, maybe a step lower....
http://www.hifiengine.com/images/mod...sette_deck.jpg

A tape head which turns over, so guaranteeing that the alignment will
change every time you play a tape, one capstan for both directions, so
the tape tension can't be properly controlled..... I like a review on
one site that said that to call it a lemon is being kind, as at least
with a lemon, you can make lemonade. It was just below a review that
said the most satisfying sound the owner heard from it was the sound of
it smashing as he dropped it onto concrete from a height of ten feet.

The units I purchased, were REMANUFACTURED, but sealed, factory boxes.
As for sound quality, top notch. As for ideal mechanical engineering, that needed improvement.

I purchased the unit to make my own cassettes, vinyl record dubs.


If you can find one, you would get better results using the Sony Walkman
Pro (The WM-D6C), which is portable and not so flashy, but when it was
new gave better results than any other cassette deck apart from the
Nakamichi Dragon. Incidentally, it was designed from the start to use
Sony metal tape. Even the semi-pro model (WM-D3) gave rock solid stereo
imaging and enough fidelity to decide that the bass on a particular
track was a Fender running through a Marshall Amp. It won't record on
metal tape, but will play it back.

Was that a closed loop, or two capstan design?
My days of making cassettes are over. I prefer making MP3s now!! :-)

Jack



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 4/05/2016 5:33 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/3/2016 12:33 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
My exposure to 30 ips was limited, just to the later-generation ATRs
which had the
hot-rod heads and rev'd electronics, as I recall. I kept hearing about
the LF issues
with 30 ips but never really experienced it first hand.

Some bass players like what their bass sounds like at 15 ips, others
like it at 30 ips. It's all a matter of where the head bump lies, what
the bass player is playing, and what does "sounds good" mean to the bass
player.


Just goes to show that one or both of those speeds cannot reproduce the
bass signal 'exactly'.

A doddle with digital, and add whatever FX later !

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "A doddle with digital, and add whatever
FX later ! "


Or just leave it as it is.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:42:29 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2016 21:46, JackA wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/05/2016 15:09, JackA wrote:
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.

If it was a cassette deck, then it inevitably had a poor and
inconsistent HF response due to the physics involved. A slow tape speed
and a narrow track width combined with a truly horrible tape path all
combine to increase perceived noise and make it impossible for the tape
to remain in correct alignment with the heads,and crosstalk between
channels was not good either.

Turning off the decoder gives an apparent boost to the HF end, which
masks a few of the problems.

Playing back a Dolby B or C encoded tape with the playback decoder
turned off boosts the higher frequencies at the lower levels, giving
playback the HF boost you seem to love so much, while masking the HF
part of the tape noise, which is the part most people find
objectionable. If the levels are set correctly, and you use Dolby B or C
encoding and decoding, what comes out is actually quite close to what
goes ins, especially if you use a 1/4" open reel deck running at 7.5ips
as I set up as an experiment once instead of a cassette recorder.

Might of been that I was using "Metal" tape that has low noise to begin with.
I can't see any studio using that, it would cost a fortune.
See, Sony found a way to not only shape the particles, but also align them for the greatest dense packing.

The cost of tape and other media was and is a very small proportion of
the cost of a professional recording.

I see. So you invest a fortune in recordings HOPING people will PURCHASE them, to yield some profit?


As for cassette cross-talk, never heard any.

Have you ever checked? Maybe by recording on the right hand channel
only, then listening on the left hand channel? It will also cause an
apparent reduction of the width of the stereo image.

John, if I thought my dubbed cassette recordings were plagued with cross-talk, I, too, would have been smashing the Pioneers deck(s).

Jack



Here's the deck I have, maybe a step lower....
http://www.hifiengine.com/images/mod...sette_deck.jpg

A tape head which turns over, so guaranteeing that the alignment will
change every time you play a tape, one capstan for both directions, so
the tape tension can't be properly controlled..... I like a review on
one site that said that to call it a lemon is being kind, as at least
with a lemon, you can make lemonade. It was just below a review that
said the most satisfying sound the owner heard from it was the sound of
it smashing as he dropped it onto concrete from a height of ten feet.

If you can find one, you would get better results using the Sony Walkman
Pro (The WM-D6C), which is portable and not so flashy, but when it was
new gave better results than any other cassette deck apart from the
Nakamichi Dragon. Incidentally, it was designed from the start to use
Sony metal tape. Even the semi-pro model (WM-D3) gave rock solid stereo
imaging and enough fidelity to decide that the bass on a particular
track was a Fender running through a Marshall Amp. It won't record on
metal tape, but will play it back.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/3/2016 1:50 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Have they never heard of parametric EQ?

Back in those days, hardly not. But, you know, yeah, man, that analog
tape is organic. No EQ needed. The recorder has just the right faults.
Sometimes.

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 6:23:22 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/3/2016 1:50 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Have they never heard of parametric EQ?

Back in those days, hardly not. But, you know, yeah, man, that analog
tape is organic. No EQ needed. The recorder has just the right faults.
Sometimes.

Maybe joking? It seems there's always some equalization (in µs) associated with magnetic recording tape and it varies with the composition of the tape.

Jack




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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/3/2016 6:59 PM, JackA wrote:
Back in those days, hardly not. But, you know, yeah, man, that analog
tape is organic. No EQ needed. The recorder has just the right faults.
Sometimes.

Maybe joking? It seems there's always some equalization (in µs) associated with magnetic recording tape and it varies with the composition of the tape.

You know too much for your own good. You should be thinking about what
people tell you and learn how to interpret it in context instead of
blurting out irrelevant facts and opinions.

The question was about parametric EQ, something that, as a recording
tool, was invented many years after the professional tape recorder.
George Massenberg seems to have been given credit for it, at least its
use in audio recording and mixing.

Of course we have record equalization, but that's a function of the
recorder itself and a standard, not something to make an instrument
sound different from how it was recorded. And while it's possible, and
almost surely has been done at some time by someone, you don't, as a
rule, change the record EQ to change the frequency response of a track
to suit what you're recording. It's why we have external equalizers,
parametric or otherwise.

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:27:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/3/2016 6:59 PM, JackA wrote:
Back in those days, hardly not. But, you know, yeah, man, that analog
tape is organic. No EQ needed. The recorder has just the right faults.
Sometimes.

Maybe joking? It seems there's always some equalization (in µs) associated with magnetic recording tape and it varies with the composition of the tape.

You know too much for your own good. You should be thinking about what
people tell you and learn how to interpret it in context instead of
blurting out irrelevant facts and opinions.

Come now, Mike, if you guys were such experts, you wouldn't be hanging out in usenet all day.

Sure, I search for facts, not fiction.


The question was about parametric EQ, something that, as a recording
tool, was invented many years after the professional tape recorder.
George Massenberg seems to have been given credit for it, at least its
use in audio recording and mixing.

And recording studios never designed and made any of the own equipment?



Of course we have record equalization, but that's a function of the
recorder itself and a standard, not something to make an instrument
sound different from how it was recorded. And while it's possible, and
almost surely has been done at some time by someone, you don't, as a
rule, change the record EQ to change the frequency response of a track
to suit what you're recording. It's why we have external equalizers,
parametric or otherwise.

I was just curious when I check on Sony's Metal Tape and 70µs equalization was stated on the cover, that's all.

Jack


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

[Nil[_2_]]

On 03 May 2016, Mike Rivers wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

You know too much for your own good. You should be thinking about
what people tell you and learn how to interpret it in context
instead of blurting out irrelevant facts and opinions.

Not gonna happen. He operates on a set of vaguely-understood non-facts,
and every statement he makes is designed to support his preconception,
no matter what the evidence.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Klay Anderson wrote:

Even with the "pro" module dbx 900 series we could always hear breathing an=
d pumping around each bit of sound on the tape. The expander and compresso=
r cannot ever track each other precisely due to the nature of rust on plast=
ic.

The thing about companding is that you're trading frequency response for
dynamic range. The more dynamic range you squeeze out of it, the more it
is going to exaggerate any frequency response issues in the system.


I kind of liked that about it. When the drummer really smacks that
snare, it opens up a bit. I blame spaghetti Western soundtracks
representation of firearms for that preference ( the mythic
"small cannon into a garbage can" sound) .

dbx on 1/64" track width ( 1/8" / 8 ) also seems to mask bad rooms
better for the obvious reasons. You're already spot miking everything
and ( at least I was ) going for the vibe more than the absolute
pinnacle of sonic purity.

Four external channels of Dolby B (like the Advent) cost me quite a fe=
w bucks back in the 70s and were well worth it connected to my 3340. Event=
ually dbx made a "home" unit that was cheaper but to a good ear, sounded le=
ss than stellar.

If you looked at the manual of the original dbx Type I units, they specifically
said it wasn't for use with machines like your 3340, for exactly the reason
you specify. Dolby A would have caused similar problems.

Dolby B and dbx Type II were specifically designed for limited bandwidth
recorders and they had a lower ratio and didn't key the compression on high
frequencies. Consequently they were less sensitive to the quality of the
record chain itself, but they also didn't get you as low a noise floor.

You don't get something for nothing, but companding NR systems allow you to
trade one thing for another.
--scott


--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/3/2016 7:55 PM, JackA wrote:

Come now, Mike, if you guys were such experts, you wouldn't be hanging out in usenet all day.

Show me the money and I'll not spend so much time here. There's not much
of a market for knowledgeable explanations from people like me when they
can get opinions from people like you for free.

Sure, I search for facts, not fiction.

The trick is to be able to understand the context in which those facts
are valid.

And recording studios never designed and made any of the own equipment?

They all did, a long time ago. But they didn't wind their own tape heads
and assemble their own transports. Studios designed mic preamps and
compressors, and often built their mixing console in place, and
assembled a 16 track recorder from pieces of other recorders. But by the
1980s, there was enough good commercially made equipment that studios
didn't have to design and build their own. That holds true through today.



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

[Rick Ruskin]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 06:47:39 -0700 (PDT), Klay Anderson
wrote:

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.


the only time I would hear the pumping and breathing everyone
complains about with dbx I is when the machine was poorly aligned
and/or record levels exceeded dbx's recommendations.


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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 18:23:19 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/3/2016 1:50 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
Have they never heard of parametric EQ?

Back in those days, hardly not. But, you know, yeah, man, that analog
tape is organic. No EQ needed. The recorder has just the right faults.
Sometimes.

Right on...

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 9:00:54 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/3/2016 7:55 PM, JackA wrote:

Come now, Mike, if you guys were such experts, you wouldn't be hanging out in usenet all day.

Show me the money and I'll not spend so much time here. There's not much
of a market for knowledgeable explanations from people like me when they
can get opinions from people like you for free.

Sure, I search for facts, not fiction.

The trick is to be able to understand the context in which those facts
are valid.

And recording studios never designed and made any of the own equipment?

They all did, a long time ago. But they didn't wind their own tape heads
and assemble their own transports. Studios designed mic preamps and
compressors, and often built their mixing console in place, and
assembled a 16 track recorder from pieces of other recorders. But by the
1980s, there was enough good commercially made equipment that studios
didn't have to design and build their own. That holds true through today.

I agree. Early on, some could record multi-track, but not were not able to "mix" to stereo. I believe that's how Tom Dowd aided Atlantic Records.
An old-hand at AES had a nice story about mixing sound early on, even an example or two.

Look, they are still talking about analog tape...
http://www.aes.org/live/?ID=2

Be well.

Jack




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

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2016 06:47:39 -0700 (PDT), Klay Anderson
wrote:

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.

the only time I would hear the pumping and breathing everyone
complains about with dbx I is when the machine was poorly aligned
and/or record levels exceeded dbx's recommendations.

1. Material with sharp transients (like close-miked harpsichord) can
exaggerate the problems to the point where even a well-set-up system
can have audible mistracking.

2. You cannot align a 3340 well enough to make dbx Type I track properly.
It is unfair to blame dbx for this, though.
--scott


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