[gtbuba[_2_]]

Ok this month I am going to buy an Otari MX-55 2 track. Had a 5050
back in the 80's. I have been trying to figure out how people make
them run at 30 IPS? Was told you have to have the optional remote
which is near impossible. Some guy on ebay has a replacement for sale?
Anyone know about these machines? GT.

[William Sommerwerck]

On the 5050 series, there's an internal switch that changes the speed
/range/ and the EQ. If the 55 has two speed ranges, it should have a similar
switch.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/9/2012 10:08 PM, gtbuba wrote:
Ok this month I am going to buy an Otari MX-55 2 track.
I have been trying to figure out how people make
them run at 30 IPS? Was told you have to have the optional remote

There was a modification kit for 30 ips. With the kit
installed, SW1-1 on the Control circuit board, the High/Low
speed switch, changes the speed switch from 7.5/15 to 15/30 ips.

Probably the easiest way to tell if the one you're buying
has the kit, short of trying it to see if changing that
switch will make it run at 30 ips, is to look at the EPROM
IC12 on the control board. If it's part number PGA11711,
then the machine has the 30 ips modification. Good luck
getting the kit if your machine doesn't have it.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 10, 9:35*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/9/2012 10:08 PM, gtbuba wrote:

Ok this month I am going to buy an Otari MX-55 2 track.
I have been trying to figure out how people make
them run at 30 IPS? Was told you have to have *the optional remote

There was a modification kit for 30 ips. With the kit
installed, SW1-1 on the Control circuit board, the High/Low
speed switch, changes the speed switch from 7.5/15 to 15/30 ips.

Probably the easiest way to tell if the one you're buying
has the kit, short of trying it to see if changing that
switch will make it run at 30 ips, is to look at the EPROM
IC12 on the control board. If it's part number PGA11711,
then the machine has the 30 ips modification. Good luck
getting the kit if your machine doesn't have it.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff

Wow.....thanks. I guess there is no way of telling short of having the
seller look and that is asking too much. I have several Mx55's to
choose from,but not committed yet. Too bad there is not a serial
number I could get to see if it has the PGA11711. I am unsure what to
do. Thanks again. GT.

[William Sommerwerck]

I guess there is no way of telling, short of having the
seller look, and that is asking too much.

No, it's not. If he wants the sale, he'll look. I assume the front panel
drops down as it does on the 5050s.

[Scott Dorsey]

gtbuba wrote:
Wow.....thanks. I guess there is no way of telling short of having the
seller look and that is asking too much. I have several Mx55's to
choose from,but not committed yet. Too bad there is not a serial
number I could get to see if it has the PGA11711. I am unsure what to
do. Thanks again. GT.

Buy the machine with the heads that are in the best condition, and don't
worry about 30 ips operation. If the machine sounds good at 30 ips, it'll
also sound good at 15 ips.
--scott

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sat 2012-Mar-10 12:59, Scott Dorsey writes:
Buy the machine with the heads that are in the best condition, and
don't worry about 30 ips operation. If the machine sounds good at
30 ips, it'll also sound good at 15 ips.

I'm with you there. 15 ips still sounds good if everything
else does, and most folks handling 2 track if you're sending out work to others can handle 15 ips alright.

Doesn't jrf still deal with the headstacks for those babies/

I liked the 5050-2. Did a lot of mixes to one of those back in the late '70's early '80's.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 10, 8:24*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
On Sat 2012-Mar-10 12:59, Scott Dorsey writes:

Buy the machine with the heads that are in the best condition, and
don't worry about 30 ips operation. *If the machine sounds good at
30 ips, it'll also sound good at 15 ips.

I'm with you there. *15 ips still sounds good if everything
else does, and most folks handling 2 track if you're sending out work to others can handle 15 ips alright.

Doesn't jrf still deal with the headstacks for those babies/

I liked the 5050-2. *Did a lot of mixes to one of those back in the late '70's early '80's.

Regards,
* * * * * *Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Ok, I am set to buy one tonight. The machine I decided on is running
smooth and in pretty good shape. (so the owner tells me) In this case
the best looking machine was at a good price. However too many times
in the past I have tried to save money by buying the least expensive
choice only to kick in 3x the cost in repairs and parts. This time
hopefully might be better. In the high resolution pictures it looks
pretty new for a 24 year old machine. I am not going to worry about
the 30 IPS. Thanks GT

[Scott Dorsey]

gtbuba wrote:
Ok, I am set to buy one tonight. The machine I decided on is running
smooth and in pretty good shape. (so the owner tells me) In this case
the best looking machine was at a good price. However too many times
in the past I have tried to save money by buying the least expensive
choice only to kick in 3x the cost in repairs and parts. This time
hopefully might be better. In the high resolution pictures it looks
pretty new for a 24 year old machine. I am not going to worry about
the 30 IPS. Thanks GT

All things considered, tape machines are cheap. You can buy them for
a fraction of the original cost.

Tape heads are expensive. When you buy a machine, you're buying the
heads and everything else comes along for free. So what a machine is
worth is pretty much entirely related to head condition.

And tape is expensive. If you want to save money, don't run 30 ips.
In fact, you can run 7 1/2 ips and get that solid low end...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

gtbuba wrote:

hopefully might be better. In the high resolution pictures it looks
pretty new for a 24 year old machine. I am not going to worry about
the 30 IPS.

That would have been my choice too, 30 IPS comes at a potential cost of bass
bandwidth and linearity. I haven't tried it, so I don't _know_ this, but my
understanding is that it is for multitracking it is most interesting.

Thanks GT

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/10/2012 10:48 AM, gtbuba wrote:

Wow.....thanks. I guess there is no way of telling short of having the
seller look and that is asking too much. I have several Mx55's to
choose from,but not committed yet. Too bad there is not a serial
number I could get to see if it has the PGA11711.

This was always an aftermarket modification. It wasn't a
production change.

The thing to do is not buy one from someone who doesn't know
what he has. I thought maybe you could look yourself before
buying, but I guess that's not the case. If the seller
doesn't know for sure that his machine can run at 30 ips, or
won't take the trouble to find out, then find a different
one to buy. What you really should be concerned about is the
condition of the heads. That's really what determines the
value of an analog tape deck these days.

Honestly, I don't know how common that 30 ips modification
was. I was looking for a 30 ips machine when I bought mine
and I bought it (used) from a reputable dealer who knew what
he was selling. That's a little harder to do now than 20
years ago when I bought mine. But I'll tell you that I used
it at 30 ips only 3-4 times. Unless you have a stash of 30
ips tapes that you need to transfer, you probably don't
really need the high speed modification.

I hope you understand that an analog recorder isn't
plug-and-play. It takes some knowledge, test equipment, and
a reference calibration tape in order to get it to perform
like it should, and keep it performing that way. The MX-55
is a pretty stable machine, but they all need maintenance.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/10/2012 12:46 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

No, it's not. If he wants the sale, he'll look. I assume the front panel
drops down as it does on the 5050s.

The front panel drops down to get to the alignment
adjustments. The switch that selects the high or low speed
pair is in the back.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 11, 8:45*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/10/2012 12:46 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

No, it's not. If he wants the sale, he'll look. I assume the front panel
drops down as it does on the 5050s.

The front panel drops down to get to the alignment
adjustments. The switch that selects the high or low speed
pair is in the back.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff

Yes I know decks are different than plug ins. restoring an Ampex 350
from 2 pre's and a transport was my biggest accomplishment. I am fine
with a 15 ips MX55. The high res pictures really look good. I asked
the guy to send me some and he did a good job . Not sure if it's just
me,but the last few years people have been giving analog recorders
away. My best deal was several months ago I bought a Fostex E16 16
track in near mint with a remote for $50..... .. .....what?.......
yes I made sure it wasn't stolen. GT.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/11/2012 7:33 PM, gtbuba wrote:

Not sure if it's just
me,but the last few years people have been giving analog recorders
away. My best deal was several months ago I bought a Fostex E16 16
track in near mint with a remote for $50..... .. .....what?.......

Well, it's true. There are still a few major producers and
engineers who have a preference (or clients with a
preference) for recording analog, but most prefer the
convenience and flexibility of recording with a computer.
And even if the basic tracks are recorded on analog tape,
there really isn't a major production today that doesn't go
through Pro Tools before it's finished.

Occasionally a hobbyist will want to use analog tape for a
project, but usually it's to use as a signal processor -
just running audio through it and recording the output to a
DAw. They're usually satisfied with their grandpa's TEAC
that they dug out of the attic. The rest of the analog tape
decks are truly surplus and are in the hands of people who
know of nothing else to do with them than put them out at a
yard sale, sell them for cheap, or put them on eBay as a
rare vintage analog recorder for an absurd price.

So, yes, if you want one, they're a bargain. I'm hanging on
to what I have, but I'm not looking to acquire any more.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

There are still a few major producers and
engineers who have a preference (or clients with a
preference) for recording analog, but most prefer the
convenience and flexibility of recording with a computer.

I think in many cases it's less about that and more about how cheaply
the process can be managed.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/12/2012 3:15 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Mike wrote:

There are still a few major producers and
engineers who have a preference (or clients with a
preference) for recording analog, but most prefer the
convenience and flexibility of recording with a computer.

I think in many cases it's less about that and more about how cheaply
the process can be managed.

That, too, for the most part. But when it comes to the
reeeeeally big boys, money isn't quite no object any more,
but they can usually squeak by for a a few dozen reels of
tape. Since they transfer the analog recordings to Pro Tools
anyway, I suppose a lot of that tape can get re-used. And
with a system like CLASP (once you get past the initial
cost) the tape is all re-used until it gets used up.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/12/2012 3:15 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Mike wrote:

There are still a few major producers and
engineers who have a preference (or clients with a
preference) for recording analog, but most prefer the
convenience and flexibility of recording with a computer.

I think in many cases it's less about that and more about how cheaply
the process can be managed.

That, too, for the most part. But when it comes to the
reeeeeally big boys, money isn't quite no object any more,
but they can usually squeak by for a a few dozen reels of
tape. Since they transfer the analog recordings to Pro Tools
anyway, I suppose a lot of that tape can get re-used. And
with a system like CLASP (once you get past the initial
cost) the tape is all re-used until it gets used up.

Even with PT in the picture, some folks with serious discographies use
it as a giant recorder with precise editing capabilities, and then mix
it through the console, and the outboard gear, often back into PT or
some other digital storage format.

But those aren't the workin'-for-cheap folks.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 12, 7:54*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/12/2012 3:15 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Mike *wrote:

There are still a few major producers and
engineers who have a preference (or clients with a
preference) for recording analog, but most prefer the
convenience and flexibility of recording with a computer.

I think in many cases it's less about that and more about how cheaply
the process can be managed.

That, too, for the most part. But when it comes to the
reeeeeally big boys, money isn't quite no object any more,
but they can usually squeak by for a a few dozen reels of
tape. Since they transfer the analog recordings to Pro Tools
anyway, I suppose a lot of that tape can get re-used. And
with a system like CLASP (once you get past the initial
cost) the tape is all re-used until it gets used up.

Even with PT in the picture, some folks with serious discographies use
it as a giant recorder with precise editing capabilities, and then mix
it through the console, and the outboard gear, often back into PT or
some other digital storage format.

But those aren't the workin'-for-cheap folks.

--
shut up and play your guitar *http://hankalrich.com/http://www.you...HankandShaidri

My tests with pro tools and analog seem to lead me to track basic
tracks to analog then go to pro tools. Then I usually mix to computer.
For some blues music I have been working on I'm going to mix to
computer and an Ampex 440b. for the 1st song or two then choose one or
the other. I will try the Otari mx55 out once I get it. A few years
ago a client paid me to test tracking to pro tools. Bouncing through a
1" 8 track otari back to pro tools. I didn't do much for us. But
tracking real drums or even a drum machine on the Otari first I think
it was a 7800 at 30 ips was magic. Or at least for me. Maybe it takes
me back down memory lane?........... no.... Possibly a bit, but I have
spent years trying to get that analog tape sound on digital. GT

[hank alrich]

gtbuba wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:54 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/12/2012 3:15 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Mike wrote:

There are still a few major producers and
engineers who have a preference (or clients with a
preference) for recording analog, but most prefer the
convenience and flexibility of recording with a computer.

I think in many cases it's less about that and more about how cheaply
the process can be managed.

That, too, for the most part. But when it comes to the
reeeeeally big boys, money isn't quite no object any more,
but they can usually squeak by for a a few dozen reels of
tape. Since they transfer the analog recordings to Pro Tools
anyway, I suppose a lot of that tape can get re-used. And
with a system like CLASP (once you get past the initial
cost) the tape is all re-used until it gets used up.

Even with PT in the picture, some folks with serious discographies use
it as a giant recorder with precise editing capabilities, and then mix
it through the console, and the outboard gear, often back into PT or
some other digital storage format.

But those aren't the workin'-for-cheap folks.

My tests with pro tools and analog seem to lead me to track basic
tracks to analog then go to pro tools. Then I usually mix to computer.
For some blues music I have been working on I'm going to mix to
computer and an Ampex 440b. for the 1st song or two then choose one or
the other. I will try the Otari mx55 out once I get it. A few years
ago a client paid me to test tracking to pro tools. Bouncing through a
1" 8 track otari back to pro tools. I didn't do much for us. But
tracking real drums or even a drum machine on the Otari first I think
it was a 7800 at 30 ips was magic. Or at least for me. Maybe it takes
me back down memory lane?........... no.... Possibly a bit, but I have
spent years trying to get that analog tape sound on digital. GT

I wasn't happy with digital until I got a good interface (Metric Halo)
_and_ started leaving tons of headroom. My old analog habits,
particularly wanting to cut hot, worked against me. When I started
leaving stupid amounts of headroom, all the way through to the
mixed-down result, I became well staisfied with the outcome.

The top cleaned up beautifully, the bottom was more honest than it had
ever been via the Studers, wow and flutter were bygones, and I was
delighted.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/12/2012 10:33 PM, gtbuba wrote:

My tests with pro tools and analog seem to lead me to track basic
tracks to analog then go to pro tools. Then I usually mix to computer.

The workflow on both sides of the studio window is different
when working with multitrack analog tape than when working
with a DAW. Things to go faster (if it's the right kind of
client) because, with the finite number of tracks, you make
decisions as you go along. You erase a take you know isn't
good rather than keeping it thinking there may be something
good in there that you can use. You fix small problems in an
otherwise good take with punch-ins rather than record four
more takes and edit a good take from them later. And people
tend to get enthusiastic about there being this machine
that's making things sound just a little different than what
they heard, and they like it.

For some blues music I have been working on I'm going to mix to
computer and an Ampex 440b. for the 1st song or two then choose one or
the other. I will try the Otari mx55 out once I get it.

You'll like the mix to analog tape better, I'm sure, as long
as the recorder is working well.

ago a client paid me to test tracking to pro tools. Bouncing through a
1" 8 track otari back to pro tools. I didn't do much for us.

Could be because you were making more work for yourself and
concentrating more on what it sounds like than the music
itself.

tracking real drums or even a drum machine on the Otari first I think
it was a 7800 at 30 ips was magic. Or at least for me.

That's not uncommon. For a while there were a few sets of 2"
8-track heads being made for machines specifically for
tracking drums, though I think most of them used 15 ips
because it souded better than 15.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/13/2012 1:45 AM, hank alrich wrote:

I wasn't happy with digital until I got a good interface (Metric Halo)
_and_ started leaving tons of headroom. My old analog habits,
particularly wanting to cut hot, worked against me. When I started
leaving stupid amounts of headroom, all the way through to the
mixed-down result, I became well staisfied with the outcome.

Most people aren't willing to turn up their monitor volume
control and judge the performance of their system by how
much of the track graphic is fulled up with squiggles.
There's really a difference between just not clipping and
keeping everything several dB below full scale when you're
using a good converter.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:

Even with PT in the picture, some folks with serious discographies use
it as a giant recorder with precise editing capabilities, and then mix
it through the console, and the outboard gear, often back into PT or
some other digital storage format.

But those aren't the workin'-for-cheap folks.

As far as I know that's how most people use PT.... it's a tape machine.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

(hank alrich) writes:

- snips -

I wasn't happy with digital until I got a good interface (Metric Halo)
_and_ started leaving tons of headroom. My old analog habits,
particularly wanting to cut hot, worked against me. When I started
leaving stupid amounts of headroom, all the way through to the
mixed-down result, I became well staisfied with the outcome.

The top cleaned up beautifully, the bottom was more honest than it had
ever been via the Studers, wow and flutter were bygones, and I was
delighted.

+1, many times.

Took me a year, kicking and screaming, to fully get a handle on digital and make it
sound good. As Hank is saying, you need to come at digital a little differently, and
old, well-honed habits, take a while to rethink and recast.

There's absolutely no way now that I'd ever go back to tape, even though I still
love the tactile feel and companionship of an MM1000, MM1200, or ATR102.

Miss that, but not the real-estate, operating costs, and sometimes persnickity
behavior.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Anahata]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:03:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/13/2012 1:45 AM, hank alrich wrote:

Most people aren't willing to turn up their monitor volume control and
judge the performance of their system by how much of the track graphic
is fulled up with squiggles. There's really a difference between just
not clipping and keeping everything several dB below full scale when
you're using a good converter.

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Is there some subtle non-linearity going on, or is there is still some
clipping that doesn't register on a meter?

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/14/2012 7:03 AM, anahata wrote:

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?

Some converters just get a little non-linear near the top end.

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Maybe because it sounds better. And in the hands of an
unskilled recording engineer (that's what most are these
days), clipping, for whatever reason, is not going to
happen. But there are other forms of distortion other than
clipping that can we can hear. That's where better
converters and better analog circuitry surrounding them
become significant. The rude fact of life is that digital
recording is NOT perfect.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Frank Stearns]

anahata writes:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:03:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/13/2012 1:45 AM, hank alrich wrote:

Most people aren't willing to turn up their monitor volume control and
judge the performance of their system by how much of the track graphic
is fulled up with squiggles. There's really a difference between just
not clipping and keeping everything several dB below full scale when
you're using a good converter.

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Is there some subtle non-linearity going on, or is there is still some
clipping that doesn't register on a meter?

As a theoretical matter, it really shouldn't matter.

As a practical matter, a lot depends on the quality of the analog path right up to
the actual point of conversion, and this includes any active analog buffer circuits
right in the converter chip itself.

Better quality gear probably has at least 3 dB (6?) of analog headroom above the
digital clip point (and is linear all the way to the analog clip point), while
lesser gear might have none at all, and equally as bad, start going non-linear at a
-3, -6, or worse.

A lot of this has to do with power supply and overall power design for the
whole circuit.

While not the entire reason, power quality inside a piece of gear is a cornerstone
of why some items perform well and sound great under a wide range of conditions,
while others do not.

But I too would be interested in comments from any with more intimate knowledge of
the topic.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[hank alrich]

anahata wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:03:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/13/2012 1:45 AM, hank alrich wrote:

Most people aren't willing to turn up their monitor volume control and
judge the performance of their system by how much of the track graphic
is fulled up with squiggles. There's really a difference between just
not clipping and keeping everything several dB below full scale when
you're using a good converter.

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Is there some subtle non-linearity going on, or is there is still some
clipping that doesn't register on a meter?

Up front, you know I'm not a techie. That said, I think part of it is
that with good analog kit ahead of conversion, not driving it so hard
allows very clean passage of transients.

This does assume that both the upstream gear and the interface have
admirably low noise floors.

I've no real clue as to how this might also ease the process within the
DAW, if it does. I just know the evidence is incontrovertilbe to my ear,
and I'm not turning back to my old ways.

I now track such that peaks rearely get to -12dBFS, with much of the
capture sitting below -20dBFS. I don't add gain on a per channel basis
while mixing, so the final result will have peaks still well below
0dBFS. I will add additional gain in a premastering program to bring
levels up to roughly -1 dBFS to see if anything starts going wrong, but
I will submit the mix to mastering without that additional gain, and
allow the mastering engineer to bring it all up to a reasonably
competitive level.

One thing I've noted is that in spite of the way the loudness wars are
working, or not, material in which the transients survive handily seems
louder to me than the crushed stuff.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/14/2012 7:03 AM, anahata wrote:

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?

Some converters just get a little non-linear near the top end.

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Maybe because it sounds better. And in the hands of an
unskilled recording engineer (that's what most are these
days), clipping, for whatever reason, is not going to
happen. But there are other forms of distortion other than
clipping that can we can hear. That's where better
converters and better analog circuitry surrounding them
become significant. The rude fact of life is that digital
recording is NOT perfect.

"Never turn your back on digital". Bob Ludwig

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

anahata wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:03:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/13/2012 1:45 AM, hank alrich wrote:

Most people aren't willing to turn up their monitor volume control and
judge the performance of their system by how much of the track graphic
is fulled up with squiggles. There's really a difference between just
not clipping and keeping everything several dB below full scale when
you're using a good converter.

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?


A *good* reason? No. But it might still be the case. Stuff
doesn't always work.

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Is there some subtle non-linearity going on, or is there is still some
clipping that doesn't register on a meter?


Mike's recent review talks about things like the last bit of
the trim pot jumping wildly on gain settings for cheap gear. This
happens a lot because the pots aren't the right taper. A lot of
prosumer/consumer kit does that. That means it's easy to get the gains
wrong.

Maybe an opamp is running on razor thin margins. Maybe there's
a rail problem. Maybe the A-D just has an undiagnosed problem
close to 0DBFS.

If you're working with "test equipment" stuff - stuff to where the
engineers take great pains to verify correct operation - then
maybe it doesn't matter.



--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:03:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 3/13/2012 1:45 AM, hank alrich wrote:

Most people aren't willing to turn up their monitor volume control and
judge the performance of their system by how much of the track graphic
is fulled up with squiggles. There's really a difference between just
not clipping and keeping everything several dB below full scale when
you're using a good converter.

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Is there some subtle non-linearity going on, or is there is still some
clipping that doesn't register on a meter?

Up front, you know I'm not a techie. That said, I think part of it is
that with good analog kit ahead of conversion, not driving it so hard
allows very clean passage of transients.

This does assume that both the upstream gear and the interface have
admirably low noise floors.


You should be able to set the trims closest to the A/D for this,
and not have any noise problems.

I've no real clue as to how this might also ease the process within the
DAW, if it does. I just know the evidence is incontrovertilbe to my ear,
and I'm not turning back to my old ways.

I now track such that peaks rearely get to -12dBFS, with much of the
capture sitting below -20dBFS. I don't add gain on a per channel basis
while mixing, so the final result will have peaks still well below
0dBFS. I will add additional gain in a premastering program to bring
levels up to roughly -1 dBFS to see if anything starts going wrong, but
I will submit the mix to mastering without that additional gain, and
allow the mastering engineer to bring it all up to a reasonably
competitive level.

One thing I've noted is that in spite of the way the loudness wars are
working, or not, material in which the transients survive handily seems
louder to me than the crushed stuff.


Yeah, but you know how to run that volume knob on the playback device.
This is generally considered Black Magic by us cretins and therefore
cheating



--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Trims? What trims? You must be buying $1,000 converters.
The cheapies don't want to spend the money on parts that
they'd have to explain to their non-engineer customers. And
besides, an extra part in the analog path might cause them
to lose a dB in the race for lowest noise in the marketing
spec sheet.

And that, in short, is one hell of a good argument in favor of
buying $1,000 converters.
--scott


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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/14/2012 1:34 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

You should be able to set the trims closest to the A/D for
this,
and not have any noise problems.

Trims? What trims? You must be buying $1,000 converters. The cheapies
don't want to spend the money on parts that they'd have to explain to
their non-engineer customers. And besides, an extra part in the analog
path might cause them to lose a dB in the race for lowest noise in the
marketing spec sheet.


Well, gawrsh! Teh VF16 has trims... it's also a mixer. Point taken,
though...

Yeah, but you know how to run that volume knob on the
playback device.
This is generally considered Black Magic by us cretins and
therefore
cheating

You're right there. Most people stick a commercial CD in the computer's
drive, play it, set the volume, and then when their recorded tracks
sound wimpy in comparison, they complain.


--
Les Cargill

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 14, 10:53*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/14/2012 7:03 AM, anahata wrote:

Input "just not clipping" may actually clip because of overshoot in the
antialiasing filter, and fixed point processing could easily clip
internally, but aside from that, is there a good technical reason why a
digital recording peaking at -12dBFS would sound better than one peaking
at, say, -3dBFS?

Some converters just get a little non-linear near the top end.

Obviously it no longer necessary to record so hot, especially with all
the headroom available in 24 bit A-D coverters, but why does it actually
matter?

Maybe because it sounds better. And in the hands of an
unskilled recording engineer (that's what most are these
days), clipping, for whatever reason, is not going to
happen. But there are other forms of distortion other than
clipping that can we can hear. That's where better
converters and better analog circuitry surrounding them
become significant. The rude fact of life is that digital
recording is NOT perfect.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff

Er........Aaah...... The guy selling the Otari MX-55 broke it during
packing so he refunded my Money. WTB Otari MX-55 = Me . GT

[Scott Dorsey]

gtbuba wrote:

Er........Aaah...... The guy selling the Otari MX-55 broke it during
packing so he refunded my Money. WTB Otari MX-55 =3D Me . GT

What did he break? There's not much on those things you can't get fixed.

Personally, if it were me, I'd hold out for an Ampex 440. There are a lot
of them out there and they are easy to work on, very rugged, and there is
good support for them.
--scott

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

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 15, 6:00*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
gtbuba wrote:

Er........Aaah...... *The guy selling the Otari MX-55 broke it during
packing so he refunded my Money. *WTB Otari MX-55 =3D Me . *GT

What did he break? *There's not much on those things you can't get fixed.

Personally, if it were me, I'd hold out for an Ampex 440. *There are a lot
of them out there and they are easy to work on, very rugged, and there is
good support for them.
--scott

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

Here is what he said..
" Hey Glenn,
I have refunded you money because while final test tape recorder, got
the take up reel stuck on machine and snaped off tip of reel. Sorry
guess this transaction wasn't ment to happen! Let me start looking for
replacement part." What???
I think he really didn't want to ship it.. Oh well.. I have an Ampex
440B 1/2" 4 track. It's good ,but I don't have enough room to fit it
in my control room. Guess I could use it with longer cables running
out to my playing room. Sort of hate to pull it off the roll around
stand, but I guess I could rack up two channels and transport. GT.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/15/2012 8:37 PM, gtbuba wrote:

Here is what he said..
" Hey Glenn,
I have refunded you money because while final test tape recorder, got
the take up reel stuck on machine and snaped off tip of reel. Sorry

The reel hold-downs on the MX-55 are a real bugger. The
"blades" are just barely narrow enough to fit the slots of
most small hub reels. Some of them fit really snug. You can
push the reel on to the spindle with some effort, but when
you try to take it off, you're pulling against a spring.
When the spring gets fully collapsed, then you're pulling
against a fairly small diameter screw. I'm really careful
when removing a tight reel, but I can see how someone
careless could rock it in a way that it breaks the screw.

The replacement part is probably just a screw, but there may
be a broken piece stuck in the reel hub. Better that he
didn't ship it and leave you with the problem.
transport. GT.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[William Sommerwerck]

This happened to me with a radio I wanted to buy. I asked the owner to check
something, and in the process, he dropped the radio and broke it!

Similarly, I was about to sell someone an Olympus ZLR, and the autofocus
suddenly started acting weird.

Stuff happens.

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 16, 8:42*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
This happened to me with a radio I wanted to buy. I asked the owner to check
something, and in the process, he dropped the radio and broke it!

Similarly, I was about to sell someone an Olympus ZLR, and the autofocus
suddenly started acting weird.

Stuff happens.

Ok I bought another Otari MX 55. Also bought an JH110c 1/4' machine.
My original thought was to test the Ampex 440 i own and the Otari on
this blues project mixes. Now I will have three machines. Will stop
buying for now. Looking forward to setting up some tests. GT.

[PStamler]

On Mar 18, 5:58*pm, gtbuba wrote:

Ok I bought another Otari MX 55. Also bought an JH110c 1/4' machine.
My original thought was to test the Ampex 440 i own and the Otari on
this blues project mixes. Now I will have three machines. Will stop
buying for now. Looking forward to setting up some tests. *GT.

Do make sure all three machines have been calibrated to the same batch
of tape, or the comparisons won't mean much.

Peace,
Paul

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On Mar 19, 2:03*am, PStamler wrote:
On Mar 18, 5:58*pm, gtbuba wrote:

Ok I bought another Otari MX 55. Also bought an JH110c 1/4' machine.
My original thought was to test the Ampex 440 i own and the Otari on
this blues project mixes. Now I will have three machines. Will stop
buying for now. Looking forward to setting up some tests. *GT.

Do make sure all three machines have been calibrated to the same batch
of tape, or the comparisons won't mean much.

Peace,
Paul

Yes I have some MRL tapes. Will get whatever I need. if these machines
are not calibrated the tests won't mean anything to me. GT