I just though some here might be interested in this:

http://www.waves.com/german/htmls/service/faq/dont.html




(Thanks to Michal Škopík for putting this link on the Samplitude
forum)



Regards,

Terry

In article ,
Terry wrote:

I just though some here might be interested in this:

http://www.waves.com/german/htmls/service/faq/dont.html




(Thanks to Michal Škopík for putting this link on the Samplitude
forum)



Regards,

Terry

Thanks for the URL.

While this is quite interesting from a theoretical point of view, it remains to
be shown that the ability to correct these shortcomings in magnetic tape
recordings would necessarily be desirable. After all, our interest in analog
recording relates to how it sounds WITH these anomalies present. Suppose
removing wow/flutter, print-through, varying azimuth, and the rest resulted in
exactly what digital recordings now sound like: would that be desirable?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Jay Kadis wrote:
While this is quite interesting from a theoretical point of view, it remains to
be shown that the ability to correct these shortcomings in magnetic tape
recordings would necessarily be desirable. After all, our interest in analog
recording relates to how it sounds WITH these anomalies present. Suppose
removing wow/flutter, print-through, varying azimuth, and the rest resulted in
exactly what digital recordings now sound like: would that be desirable?

I did an editorial on the subject in Recording not too long ago. For the
most part, i think it might be desirable a lot of the time. I could see
cases where it wouldn't be. The problem is having the ability to know
the difference.

www.plangentprocesses.com is worth looking at.
--scott


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

In article , (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:
While this is quite interesting from a theoretical point of view, it remains
to
be shown that the ability to correct these shortcomings in magnetic tape
recordings would necessarily be desirable. After all, our interest in
analog
recording relates to how it sounds WITH these anomalies present. Suppose
removing wow/flutter, print-through, varying azimuth, and the rest resulted
in
exactly what digital recordings now sound like: would that be desirable?

I did an editorial on the subject in Recording not too long ago. For the
most part, i think it might be desirable a lot of the time. I could see
cases where it wouldn't be. The problem is having the ability to know
the difference.

www.plangentprocesses.com is worth looking at.
--scott

Well, there's certainly no argument about preserving the analog masters.
I'd be curious to hear corrected versions against the originals.

Then there's the issue of recordings originally made on the PCM-F1...

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:
While this is quite interesting from a theoretical
point of view, it remains to
be shown that the ability to correct these shortcomings
in magnetic tape recordings would necessarily be
desirable. After all, our interest in analog
recording relates to how it sounds WITH these anomalies
present. Suppose removing wow/flutter, print-through,
varying azimuth, and the rest resulted in
exactly what digital recordings now sound like: would
that be desirable?

I did an editorial on the subject in Recording not too
long ago. For the most part, i think it might be
desirable a lot of the time. I could see cases where it
wouldn't be. The problem is having the ability to know
the difference.

www.plangentprocesses.com is worth looking at.
--scott

Well, there's certainly no argument about preserving the
analog masters. I'd be curious to hear corrected versions
against the originals.

Check the URL that Scott posted. Before and after examples
are there!

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message news:jay-

While this is quite interesting from a theoretical point of view, it
remains to
be shown that the ability to correct these shortcomings in magnetic tape
recordings would necessarily be desirable. After all, our interest in
analog
recording relates to how it sounds WITH these anomalies present. Suppose
removing wow/flutter, print-through, varying azimuth, and the rest
resulted in
exactly what digital recordings now sound like: would that be desirable?

Well, just try this experiment: listen to the feed going into the tape
recorder rather than the feed coming out of it. Does it sound nice? If so,
then an analog recording of it without all those anomalies should sound nice
too. If digital didn't have its own anomalies, but gave back that nice
sound, then it would be desirable as well. It's getting there.

I've always maintained that the preference for analog among a lot of
engineers has to do, not with liking the anomalies that analog introduces,
but with disliking the ones digital introduces more. Yes, Arny, I know you
believe 16/44.1 digital produces a recording that's audibly identical to the
input. This is America, and beliefs are free.

Peace,
Paul

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

www.plangentprocesses.com is worth looking at.

Well, there's certainly no argument about preserving the
analog masters. I'd be curious to hear corrected versions
against the originals.

Check the URL that Scott posted. Before and after examples
are there!

Yes, but which is better? And when the original producer is long dead,
how do you really know? Maybe making things more accurate is not something
he would have approved of. Maybe it is.
--scott

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

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message


Yes, Arny, I know you
believe 16/44.1 digital produces a recording that's
audibly identical to the input. This is America, and
beliefs are free.

Actually my belief is that good 16/44.1 digital has never
been found to produce a recording of music that can be
distinguished from the origional.

There are only three conditions on the test:

(1) Time-synched playback
(2) Level-matched playback
(3) Bias-controlled listening test

So, can you help me find a counter-example? ;-)

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

www.plangentprocesses.com is worth looking at.

Well, there's certainly no argument about preserving the
analog masters. I'd be curious to hear corrected
versions against the originals.

Check the URL that Scott posted. Before and after
examples are there!

Yes, but which is better? And when the original producer
is long dead, how do you really know? Maybe making
things more accurate is not something he would have
approved of. Maybe it is. -

Some of the samples started out with rediculous amounts of
flutter. By most reasonable criteria for sound quality, the
recordings were ruined.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

www.plangentprocesses.com is worth looking at.

Well, there's certainly no argument about preserving the
analog masters. I'd be curious to hear corrected
versions against the originals.

Check the URL that Scott posted. Before and after
examples are there!

Yes, but which is better? And when the original producer
is long dead, how do you really know? Maybe making
things more accurate is not something he would have
approved of. Maybe it is. -

Some of the samples started out with rediculous amounts of
flutter. By most reasonable criteria for sound quality, the
recordings were ruined.

Absolutely. But what is much more interesting are the recordings that
started out very accurate, but which became more clean-sounding and with
better separation between instruments after the small amount of residual
flutter was removed. Is this good or bad?
--scott


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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

www.plangentprocesses.com is worth looking at.

Well, there's certainly no argument about preserving
the analog masters. I'd be curious to hear corrected
versions against the originals.

Check the URL that Scott posted. Before and after
examples are there!

Yes, but which is better? And when the original
producer is long dead, how do you really know? Maybe
making things more accurate is not something he would
have approved of. Maybe it is. -

Some of the samples started out with rediculous amounts
of flutter. By most reasonable criteria for sound
quality, the recordings were ruined.

Absolutely. But what is much more interesting are the
recordings that started out very accurate, but which
became more clean-sounding and with better separation
between instruments after the small amount of residual
flutter was removed. Is this good or bad? --scott

I'd have to listen to a real-world example of this. FM
distortion is one of my instinctive and I really hate it
when it is audible at all.

In article ,
"Paul Stamler" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message news:jay-

While this is quite interesting from a theoretical point of view, it
remains to
be shown that the ability to correct these shortcomings in magnetic tape
recordings would necessarily be desirable. After all, our interest in
analog
recording relates to how it sounds WITH these anomalies present. Suppose
removing wow/flutter, print-through, varying azimuth, and the rest
resulted in
exactly what digital recordings now sound like: would that be desirable?

Well, just try this experiment: listen to the feed going into the tape
recorder rather than the feed coming out of it. Does it sound nice? If so,
then an analog recording of it without all those anomalies should sound nice
too. If digital didn't have its own anomalies, but gave back that nice
sound, then it would be desirable as well. It's getting there.


The problem with your suggestion is that I don't have access to the input signal
for comparison, since we're talking about the entirety of recorded music for the
last 50 years. (Perhaps releases like the Rolling Stones reissues on SACD gives
us a better idea of what the input signal was like originally.)

Until digital recorders, I always preferred the input. So I did things like
equalizing the bass through playback in record mode to make the output sound the
way I wanted it. I used noise reduction on some tracks when the noise was too
intrusive. And frankly those old analog masters sound pretty good still.

I've always maintained that the preference for analog among a lot of
engineers has to do, not with liking the anomalies that analog introduces,
but with disliking the ones digital introduces more.

I'm in the opposite camp: I preferred the digital anomalies. But I would really
prefer NO (audible) anomalies.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But what is much more interesting are the recordings that
started out very accurate, but which became more clean-sounding and with
better separation between instruments after the small amount of residual
flutter was removed. Is this good or bad?

I guess that's what you'd call "detail" or "seeing into the mix" or
"much greater depth" and those things seem to be good buzzwords today.
Perhaps if the original producer were alive and/or still working, he'd
go after those characteristics. Or maybe he wouldn't. There are people
who think their digital recordings sound better when they're put on
analog tape,

I dunno. I'm not that fussy. But if I don't like how the recording is
going, I'll stop and try to figure out if there's anything I can fix to
make it better.

Hi Jay,

Yeah, it used to make me crazy trying to get out an analog mastering
machine what I put into it. I would have everything EQ'd and sounding
like I wanted, then bounce to 2-track and on playback the EQ (along
with other things) sounded different. So I would have to either redo
the mix or pre-EQ what I fed the mastering 2-track. I don't miss those
days at all, and don't I understand nostalgia for the analog ways.

Dean

test

"Terry" wrote in message
.183...

I just though some here might be interested in this:

http://www.waves.com/german/htmls/service/faq/dont.html




(Thanks to Michal Skopík for putting this link on the Samplitude
forum)



Regards,

Terry