ID this tape machine?

[Nil[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

Anyone familiar with it?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/29/2016 7:24 PM, Nil wrote:
> Can anyone tell me about this mystery tape recorder? I'm looking for a
> machine to play back for digital transfer an old tape of my college
> rock band that was recorded on a TEAC 3340 1/4" 4-track machine back in
> the '70s. I may be able to borrow the machine in the photos below if
> it's appropriate. It's been in storage for some years and it may need
> some cleaning and TLC.
>
> In looking around the 'net, I think it may be an Otari MX-5050 BII-4.

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

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




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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

>In looking around the 'net, I think it may be an Otari MX-5050 BII-4. I
>find little information on it and not many pictures. There seems to
>have been a stereo and a 4-track version - 'mine' must be the 4-track.
>
>http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg

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

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

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

[Nil[_2_]]

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

> Those are 4-track heads and four channels of Otari 5050
> electronics, so it should play your tape. The 5050 was a real
> workhorse in its day and if they haven't all gone to landfills,
> there should be plenty of them around today. It's hardly rare.
>
> But if you're just talking about transferring one tape, I'd
> suggest that you just find someone with a working machine to do it
> for you. If the one you can borrow has been out of use for some
> time, it's bound to need more than a simple cleaning, probably a
> new pinch roller, and certainly alignment. You're probably not
> equipped to set it up properly yourself.

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

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

[Nil[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rick Ruskin]

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


I do this kind of work on a regular basis.

Rick Ruskin

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

[Nil[_2_]]

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

>>Any suggestion of a service that could transfer a tape of my kind?
>
> I do this kind of work on a regular basis.

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

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

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

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

[Nil[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

[JackA]

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

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

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >On some sources, it's possible to hear the noise reduction working, in
> >the same way that you can hear a compressor working. Some people believe
> >they can _always_ hear it. Some wise people use it on tracks that can
> >take advantage of noise reduction and don't use it on tracks where it
> >will do more harm than good (like for example). Dumb people don't
> >document the use of noise reduction.
>
> Dolby tone at the front of the tape is a clear indication that it's Dolby
> encoded, and the warble of the Dolby A, B, and SR tones are different so it's
> not hard to tell the difference.
>
> If you don't put the tone on the tape, you can't set it up to play back
> properly anyway so it's academic.

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

Thanks.

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 2:50 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Why, may I ask, did you find it advantageous to use noise reduction?
>
> Dolby and dbx noise reduction reduced only one kind of noise - tape
> hiss. The advantage to using it is that it you can record with greater
> dynamic range without the hiss being as obvious as without noise reduction.

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 2:50 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Why, may I ask, did you find it advantageous to use noise reduction?
>
> Dolby and dbx noise reduction reduced only one kind of noise - tape
> hiss. The advantage to using it is that it you can record with greater
> dynamic range without the hiss being as obvious as without noise reduction.
>
> Because these processes are based on compression when recording and
> expansion on playback, you need both ends of the process, and,
> particularly with Dolby, you need to use a standard nominal record level
> to which the encoder and decoder are calibrated.
>
> On some sources, it's possible to hear the noise reduction working, in
> the same way that you can hear a compressor working. Some people believe
> they can _always_ hear it. Some wise people use it on tracks that can
> take advantage of noise reduction and don't use it on tracks where it
> will do more harm than good (like for example). Dumb people don't
> document the use of noise reduction.
>
> --
> For a good time call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

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

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

Jack

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

or try to find a copy of this old book

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

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

http://www.smcelectronics.com/DOWNLOADS/1957-TAPE%20RECORDER%20CIRCUITS.PDF
Mark






Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil > wrote:
>>>http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg
>
>> It indeed looks like a 5050. Most common as a 1/2" 4-track but
>> you could get 1/4" 4-track headstacks too. Find out what
>> headstacks come with the machine and feel with your thumb how flat
>> the heads are.
>
>Can you tell from the picture if it's a 1/4" or 1/2" head?

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


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

[Rick Ruskin]

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

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


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

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:09:26 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Nil > wrote:
> >>>http://rednoise.vacau.com/temp/Otari1.jpg
> >
> >> It indeed looks like a 5050. Most common as a 1/2" 4-track but
> >> you could get 1/4" 4-track headstacks too. Find out what
> >> headstacks come with the machine and feel with your thumb how flat
> >> the heads are.
> >
> >Can you tell from the picture if it's a 1/4" or 1/2" head?
>
> That looks like a 1/4" headstack from the size of the guides. The play
> head looks kind of doubtful too. But I wouldn't place money on anything
> eyeballed from a photo.

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

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > May be why there are tones mentioned (in micro second, attenuation?) on a tape box of Tom Petty recordings, believe Dolby is mentioned there.
>
> Notes with numbers of us microseconds would probably be about tape EQ settings.
>
> There were a couple of different record and playback EQ standards and one popular way to specify them was the RC time constant in micro seconds.
>
> If you would like to read about it google NAB and NARTB and IEC tape EQ.
>
> or try to find a copy of this old book
>
> http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/intro_Burstein_tape.pdf
>
> wow, I found here is a full copy free online..
>
> http://www.smcelectronics.com/DOWNLOADS/1957-TAPE%20RECORDER%20CIRCUITS.PDF

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

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

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

Jack
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > May be why there are tones mentioned (in micro second, attenuation?) on a tape box of Tom Petty recordings, believe Dolby is mentioned there.
>
> Notes with numbers of us microseconds would probably be about tape EQ settings.
>
> There were a couple of different record and playback EQ standards and one popular way to specify them was the RC time constant in micro seconds.
>
> If you would like to read about it google NAB and NARTB and IEC tape EQ.
>
> or try to find a copy of this old book
>
> http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/intro_Burstein_tape.pdf
>
> wow, I found here is a full copy free online..
>
> http://www.smcelectronics.com/DOWNLOADS/1957-TAPE%20RECORDER%20CIRCUITS.PDF
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark

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

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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



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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:39:23 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 5:13 PM, JackA wrote:
> > Do we agree.... take any blank tape and play it at 3-3/4 ISP. Now,
> > double, maybe even quadruple that tape speed, there will be a
> > reduction in tape "hiss" noise?
>
> Increasing tape speed and increasing track width both can reduce tape
> hiss. But companding noise reduction processes reduce it even further.
> Noise floor of a 2-track 1/4" tape is about 60 dB below operating level.
> Dolby A increases that by close to 10 dB. Dolby SR brings it down to
> another 15 dB so it's nearly as quiet as digital, and in the early days
> of digital recording, sounded better.

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

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

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

[Trevor]

On 2/05/2016 3:39 AM, Nil wrote:
> On 01 May 2016, Klay Anderson > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>> Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was
>> recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from
>> others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former
>> is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible.
>> Does your tape have noise reduction?
>
> Good question. I don't know. It hasn't been played in decades.
> Hopefully it's marked on the box. If anything, I think it would be
> Dolby - I don't remember those TEAC machines having dbx at that time.
>
> I had (still have - it's boxed up in the attic) a TEAC/Tascam 4-track
> cassette recorder that I made lots of DIY recordings in the '80s and
> '90s. It was equipped with dbx noise reduction, and I was always
> impressed with how well it worked, how clean those recordings are,
> considering how they were made. However, the dbx conked out on one
> channel, and that channel sounded completely garbled after that.
> Unlistenable. I understand what you're saying about Dolby vs dbx.
>

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

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 02/05/2016 09:56, Trevor wrote:
> On 2/05/2016 3:39 AM, Nil wrote:
>> On 01 May 2016, Klay Anderson > wrote in
>> rec.audio.pro:
>>> Everyone that has commented is pretty much spot-on. When I was
>>> recording during those years, I used external noise reduction from
>>> others that included Dolby B. Some cheapsters used dbx. The former
>>> is easier to deal with without decoding. The latter impossible.
>>> Does your tape have noise reduction?
>>
>> Good question. I don't know. It hasn't been played in decades.
>> Hopefully it's marked on the box. If anything, I think it would be
>> Dolby - I don't remember those TEAC machines having dbx at that time.
>>
>> I had (still have - it's boxed up in the attic) a TEAC/Tascam 4-track
>> cassette recorder that I made lots of DIY recordings in the '80s and
>> '90s. It was equipped with dbx noise reduction, and I was always
>> impressed with how well it worked, how clean those recordings are,
>> considering how they were made. However, the dbx conked out on one
>> channel, and that channel sounded completely garbled after that.
>> Unlistenable. I understand what you're saying about Dolby vs dbx.
>>
>
> It is easier to decode a dbx tape using a DAW than a Dolby one though.
>
There's a howto for DBX decoding here:-

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

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

http://www.hansvanzutphen.com/tape_restore_live/download/

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

Today we have "mastering" to fix those problems.

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

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


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

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:
>
> > Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always
> > seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.
>
> If you switch it off and on with loud music, you'll definitely hear a
> change in the high end, but that isn't all it's doing, all the time. But
> that isn't how you're supposed to use it. Some people used to listen to
> Dolby encoded cassettes without decoding for two reasons. First, they
> heard more high end, and second, the compression kept the average volume
> a little higher.
>
> Today we have "mastering" to fix those problems.
>
> > I'd be willing to claim, most 30 IPS session tapes required no noise
> > reduction.
>
> I'd be willing to not put any value on your claim. However, the dynamic
> nature of Dolby noise reduction is more noticeable on certain forms of
> music than others, and experienced engineers will choose the best way he
> has available to record each song. Recording is full of compromises, and
> what you claim doesn't contribute to my decisions.

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

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

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

Ah, well, thanks!

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>
>It is easier to decode a dbx tape using a DAW than a Dolby one though.

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 5/1/2016 11:01 PM, JackA wrote:
>
>> Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always
>> seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.
>
>If you switch it off and on with loud music, you'll definitely hear a
>change in the high end, but that isn't all it's doing, all the time. But
>that isn't how you're supposed to use it. Some people used to listen to
>Dolby encoded cassettes without decoding for two reasons. First, they
>heard more high end, and second, the compression kept the average volume
>a little higher.

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

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

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

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

>> I'd be willing to claim, most 30 IPS session tapes required no noise
>> reduction.
>
>I'd be willing to not put any value on your claim. However, the dynamic
>nature of Dolby noise reduction is more noticeable on certain forms of
>music than others, and experienced engineers will choose the best way he
>has available to record each song. Recording is full of compromises, and
>what you claim doesn't contribute to my decisions.

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

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

[John Williamson]

On 02/05/2016 13:15, JackA wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> I'd be willing to not put any value on your claim. However, the dynamic
>> nature of Dolby noise reduction is more noticeable on certain forms of
>> music than others, and experienced engineers will choose the best way he
>> has available to record each song. Recording is full of compromises, and
>> what you claim doesn't contribute to my decisions.
>
> Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause. My ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio, some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late 50's to early 60's.
>
The early, amazing, recordings you refer to were almost certainly
recorded taking the limits of the equipment into account by limiting the
dynamic range and frequency range of the performance. Using noise
reduction is not a sign of being an "amateur", it is a sign of wanting
to get the best possible results for your client, and noise reduction on
analogue material lets you record something closer to a normal live
performance.

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

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



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

Mark

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

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

> Cheapsters? I'll take a properly aligned and encoded dbx I tape over
> dolby B or C all day long.
>
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com

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

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

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:24:48 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> > Okay. I just never heard anything Dolby that impressed me. Always seemed to work like a treble control, just turn it down a bit.
> >
>
> Thats becasue you are turning the Dolby on and off at playback only. The recording is still encoded with Dolby meaning the low level treble was boosted during recording. If you turn if on/off during playback only, it sounds like you loose treble when it is on, but you are not hearing the effect of the extra treble put in during recording.
>
> To compare the real effect of Dolby, you would have to turn it on and off during both playback AND record, which of course unless you made the recording as a test, you can't do.

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

Thanks.

Jack
>
> Mark

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:24:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/2/2016 8:15 AM, JackA wrote:
> > Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of
> > recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use
> > noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause.
>
> Jack, everything persona, but I'm talking about professional recordings
> here, those made in real studios by experienced engineers during the
> prime days of analog tape recording. Nothing cheap about a $25,000 -
> $50,000 recorder with tape costing, at the time, about $75 for a 10-1/2"
> reel of 2" tape, and projects that might span 50 or more reels of tape.
>
> The recorders were the best that could be made, and noise reduction made
> them a little better when it it was appropriate. But in any era, there
> were well engineered recordings and poorly engineered ones.
>
> Now you may be talking about, in this era, taking a poor sounding
> recording from the past which may or may not have been recorded with a
> noise reduction system, and carelessly hacking a new version out of it,
> that's easily a case where your taste may not agree with that of the
> person doing the re-production. But he's the one making money, and he
> doesn't care about your 99 cents for a download (or less).
>
> > My
> > ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio,
> > some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late
> > 50's to early 60's.
>
> That could be what your ears tell you, and there indeed were some very
> good recordings made during that period. But there were also some very
> good recordings made in the 80s and 90s that would have been noisier
> without noise reduction. When you have only a few mics and you're
> recording in mono, and playback was with a needle in a groove, there was
> no need to invent noise reduction. But as recordings became more
> complex, noise sources built up and there was a need to make the noise
> less apparent. Noise reduction filled that need.

Okay, how about an example.

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

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

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

[JackA]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:24:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/2/2016 8:15 AM, JackA wrote:
> > Mike, nothing personal, but I see it as amateurs in charge of
> > recordings. They certainly didn't take much pride, if they HAD to use
> > noise reduction. Inexpensive tape media was most likely the cause.
>
> Jack, everything persona, but I'm talking about professional recordings
> here, those made in real studios by experienced engineers during the
> prime days of analog tape recording. Nothing cheap about a $25,000 -
> $50,000 recorder with tape costing, at the time, about $75 for a 10-1/2"
> reel of 2" tape, and projects that might span 50 or more reels of tape.
>
> The recorders were the best that could be made, and noise reduction made
> them a little better when it it was appropriate. But in any era, there
> were well engineered recordings and poorly engineered ones.
>
> Now you may be talking about, in this era, taking a poor sounding
> recording from the past which may or may not have been recorded with a
> noise reduction system, and carelessly hacking a new version out of it,
> that's easily a case where your taste may not agree with that of the
> person doing the re-production. But he's the one making money, and he
> doesn't care about your 99 cents for a download (or less).
>
> > My
> > ears tell me, when there were REAL audio engineers in the studio,
> > some of man's best recording were before Dolby and DBX, in the late
> > 50's to early 60's.
>
> That could be what your ears tell you, and there indeed were some very
> good recordings made during that period. But there were also some very
> good recordings made in the 80s and 90s that would have been noisier
> without noise reduction. When you have only a few mics and you're
> recording in mono, and playback was with a needle in a groove, there was
> no need to invent noise reduction. But as recordings became more
> complex, noise sources built up and there was a need to make the noise
> less apparent. Noise reduction filled that need.

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

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/2/2016 10:25 AM, JackA wrote:
> Frank Sinatra recorded for both Capitol and Reprise. Even though the Reprise recordings were later than Capitol's, they are less superior than Capitol.
> Believe the Reprise recording were United Western Recorders'
> Felt Frank did himself injustice changing labels, even if his own.
>
> Elvis, I had several first pressing of his RCA albums of the '60's. Very impressed. Yet, his last single before his death, an early Take sounded better than the final "thing". I'd expect superior recording technology in the 70's, but just the opposite. So, who or what is at fault, the engineers and/or recording technology? I still claim the engineers are.

The producers and record companies.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

[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/model/pioneer_ct-9r_stereo_cassette_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_library/pioneer/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/model/pioneer_ct-9r_stereo_cassette_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_library/pioneer/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/model/pioneer_ct-9r_stereo_cassette_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/model/pioneer_ct-9r_stereo_cassette_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."

[Trevor]

On 4/05/2016 12:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> 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.

"ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
digital recording over analog tape! :-)

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
> digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
> digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?
- show quoted text -"

Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars'
again?

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
>> digital recording over analog tape!

>Are any of them making you any money?

Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.

Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track. There are even options to degrade digital so
that it sounds like tape. Operation and maintenance... well, that one should be
fairly self-evident.

However, as always, YMMV. If you can "sell the romance" of fully amortized older
gear, by all means, go for it. But for what I do, it's impossible to match the
sonic quality I get with digital (which is a cornerstone of what I sell to clients).

It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[None]

< theckma-the-reeeeeetard @ dum****s.shortbus.edu > wrote in message
...
> Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars' again?

I see you're circling back to your hobbyhorse again; because you're
too much of a dumb **** to control your compulsion to flog the rotting
corpse. You should really put your hockey helmet on and get back on
the short bus, before you hurt yourself by being a moron.

HTH. FCKWAFA. YSANFDS? KJFS!

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Mike Rivers > writes:
>
> >On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
> >> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
> >> digital recording over analog tape!
>
> >Are any of them making you any money?
>
> Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
> and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.
>
> Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
> hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
> that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track. There are even options to degrade digital so
> that it sounds like tape. Operation and maintenance... well, that one should be
> fairly self-evident.
>
> However, as always, YMMV. If you can "sell the romance" of fully amortized older
> gear, by all means, go for it. But for what I do, it's impossible to match the
> sonic quality I get with digital (which is a cornerstone of what I sell to clients).
>
> It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
> digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
> marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

Note aimed at you, Frank....

Who, or what popular song, ever utilized 24 tracks? I know McCartney returned from the UK to US to gain access to 24 Tracks, for Band On The Run album, but as far as I'm concerned, those additional tracks (greater than 16 in UK) may have never been used in the final "mix". It's why I believe some "alternate" versions can be created from those unused tracks, such as with Fleetwood Mac, even Van Morrison. Why "alternate version" is often used, since there are no real "Takes".

As far as analog vs digital recordings? Who cares? It's not like one will be significantly better than the other. Human hearing sucks.

OT: Like, what musicians would play electric guitar to a drum machine?...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/suddenlylastsummer.mp3

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
>digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
>marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.

Whereas I consider the inability to do those things to be an advantage in
the analogue world.

The two things that are a big win for me in the digital world are the flat
and clean low end and the ability to do fine time delays accurately and
consistently. I can line up spots with the main pair set wherever I want,
rather than having to set the main pair set 33 ms out because that's the
amount that sel-sync gets me.

Still, being able to say "we can't window edit, you have to get it all
right in one take" can be a powerful tool even when it's actually a lie.

I'm very happy having both available to me and I'm pleased to switch
from one to the other as is appropriate for a given job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Mike Rivers > writes:
>
> >On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
> >> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
> >> digital recording over analog tape!
>
> >Are any of them making you any money?
>
> Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
> and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.
>
> Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
> hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
> that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track.

Which means that anybody with a "bedroom studio" can now compete with you.

So digital is wonderful yes, but maybe not so much for your business model.

Maybe that was Mike's point? IDK?

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
>> hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
>> that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track.
>
>Which means that anybody with a "bedroom studio" can now compete with you.

Nahh, not at all. It means that you have to sell yourself based upon your
room and your skills, not based upon your equipment.

Unfortunately the room is more expensive than ever and the skills aren't
getting cheaper to develop either.
--scott


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

[Trevor]

On 5/05/2016 8:31 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
>> digital recording over analog tape!
>
> Are any of them making you any money?

Yep, the HUGE reduction in my costs for a start! :-)

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

TheKman quotes self: "Mike Rivers wrote: "On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
> digital recording over analog tape!

Are any of them making you any money?
- show quoted text -"

Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars'
again? "


Just to note I *did* specify format wars - not
the other kind. The biggest audible difference
between analog and digital formats exists
between the chair and the controls - nothing
to get all upset about!

[JackA]

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 6:32:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> TheKman quotes self: "Mike Rivers wrote: "On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
> > "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
> > digital recording over analog tape!
>
> Are any of them making you any money?
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Oh Geez.. Flaming the 'format wars'
> again? "
>
>
> Just to note I *did* specify format wars - not
> the other kind. The biggest audible difference
> between analog and digital formats exists
> between the chair and the controls - nothing
> to get all upset about!

I like that!

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>
>>It'd be even more impossible still to do the kinds of things I can do in post in
>>digital, things I could only dream about back in those days of staring at china
>>marker scribbles on a ribbon of dark plastic parked in a splicing block.

>Whereas I consider the inability to do those things to be an advantage in
>the analogue world.

>The two things that are a big win for me in the digital world are the flat
>and clean low end and the ability to do fine time delays accurately and
>consistently. I can line up spots with the main pair set wherever I want,
>rather than having to set the main pair set 33 ms out because that's the
>amount that sel-sync gets me.

>Still, being able to say "we can't window edit, you have to get it all
>right in one take" can be a powerful tool even when it's actually a lie.

>I'm very happy having both available to me and I'm pleased to switch
>from one to the other as is appropriate for a given job.

Those are surely all true statements in a broad sense, but for a specialist like me
who stays mostly in the classical/acoustic arena, tape no longer has any
application. For quite a while I recorded digital and mixed analog, but even that
hybrid no longer has any real appeal, given how far ITB has come in just the past
five years.

The classical/acoustic people I work with seem to be better disciplined musicians
(in the broadest terms) so when they screw up it's not likely they'll fall "into the
traps" of micro editing, and most don't go in with the attitude "that anything can
be fixed, so just play any old way you'd like." I have seen that, but it's rare.

Many don't have those world-class player chops. Endless retakes to fix
some little thing I can do in seconds with a digital razor blade might not get us
any further along, and in fact might degrade the other items yet to be done in the
session. But as long as the underlying musicianship is there I can move the
technical aspects of their playing quite a ways in that world-class direction. They
like that.

Just a specailized opinion. :)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:38:51 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> Mike Rivers > writes:
>>
>> >On 5/5/2016 5:11 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> >> "ONE thing"! Hell there are at least a dozen things or more I love about
>> >> digital recording over analog tape!
>>
>> >Are any of them making you any money?
>>
>> Good point, but there's another way to look at that one as well -- cost to get in
>> and ongoing costs to maintain and operate.
>>
>> Passable, even very good digital, is now relatively cheap, not to mention several
>> hundred hours of 24 track that can be put on a drive costing much less than half
>> that of 30 minutes of analog 24 track.

>Which means that anybody with a "bedroom studio" can now compete with you.

>So digital is wonderful yes, but maybe not so much for your business model.

Well, actually, I've made some pretty good "new" money with those very folks
bringing their "home studio" tracks to be edited and mixed. They get frustrated,
really don't know what to do because the "sound just isn't there". They're in a
crappy room with bad monitoring, don't really know how to use their tools, etc. So
I'll do a demo mix and bring life out of tracks they didn't think existed, and
suddenly the job is mine.

I have to admit, though, the first few projects I did like that were maddening. But
certain kinds of common mistakes I found again and again and over time managed to
cobble some useful countermeasures. Once in a while I've made these folks re-record
something, but 95% of the time I can work with what's there -- provided there's
underlying musicianship.

And this can be true further up the food chain as well. Just a few months back I
took a job away from some Grammy-winning rock mixer because he simply applied his
"rock" template to something that was more acoustic in nature. He apparently never
really just listened to the tracks to understand the music lurking within. When I
did that and came back with a mix that revealed the music within, the producer
immediately gave me the entire project.

The home studios don't spook me, I embrace them. As a bonus, some of the folks
coming out of those places are very nice people, and eager to learn.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
I like that!

Jack "


Hey, it needed to be said - and I don't
give a crap WHO it angers! ;)

[None]

< Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 > crapped in message
news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
> Hey, it needed to be said

In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb ****\?

[JackA]

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 4:44:11 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
> < Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 > crapped in message
> news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
> > Hey, it needed to be said
>
> In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb ****\?

And this needed to be said - Thank you, Mark (participant) for reconsidering. I value your ability to hear a difference!

Jack

[[email protected]]

None wrote:
< Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 > crapped in message
news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
> Hey, it needed to be said

In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb ****\? "

And someone is angered! Clearly this cracker's
got something to lose by the exposure of studio
trickery to make something sound different. A
financial interest. A washed up former industry
insider overwhelmed by the fact that DAWs
can exist in every other household on a typical
block.

Otherwise mentioning it wouldn't upset it so much.
Come on. Military secrets aren't being exposed
here, just bad audio engineering practices! Lighten
up, people!

[None]

< BrainDeadRetard @g THECKMAH.dumb****sRthekma.org > wrote in message
...
> None wrote:
> < Theckmah @ dumm****.shortbus.k12 > crapped in message
> news:97f1a373-e8a3-49da-873a-
>> Hey, it needed to be said
>
> In case there was someone who hadn't noticed that you're a dumb
> ****\? "
>
> And someone is angered! Clearly this cracker's
> got something to lose by the exposure of studio
> trickery to make something sound different. A
> financial interest.

There goes the retarded dumb****, riding that "financial interest"
hobbyhorse, as if he's bragging about how little (or nothing) he knows
about the recording industry. It's like walking around with a big
picket sign saying, "I'm THECKMA! I'm a Dumb****!

> A washed up former industry
> insider overwhelmed by the fact that DAWs
> can exist in every other household on a typical block.

No. li'l buddy, I'm not in the recording industry any more because I
changed careers to something much, much, more lucrative. I really
don't give a **** who has a DAW. I have them for personal use; not
professional. I have two. I'm very familiar which how to use them. You
have no idea, because you're too retarded. The brain damage has
ensured that your IQ will never rise above your shoe size.

Where does your fantasy come from, that anyone who understands audio
must be evil? Is it because digital audio involves numbers, and you're
too brain damaged to understand numbers? Numbers must really scare
you, lil buddy. Maybe they remind you of your three years in first
grade, or your six years at a two-year junior college.

It's very fortunate for you that you found a job with a company who's
mission is to hire unemployable retards. But you should stop whinging
about management wanting to keep you away from the audio equipment.
Not for retards to play with, li'l KKKKKKKKKrissie ........ It was
probably a bad idea to tell the boss that you wanted to go into the
audio closet to fondle the big knob.

> Otherwise mentioning it wouldn't upset it so much.
> Come on. Military secrets aren't being exposed
> here, just bad audio engineering practices!

You have no comprehension of audio engineering practice. You don't
have the mental ability to comprehend it, probably because of all the
many times you were dropped on your head. You're obviuolsy completely
unable to learn evan a tiny speck of information; it would never get
past the thick layer of stupid that suyrrounds your entire existens.

> Lighten up, people!

The short bus is here to tale you to retard school. li'l Krissie! Put
your hockey helmet on, you stupid dumb****, get on the short bus, and
off to your retard job.