[D.M. Procida]

I'd be quite interested in owning a copy of "Modern Instrumentation Tape
Recording - An Engineering Handbook", but not 48 of them:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350149931255

Does anyone want to help split this?

Daniele

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
D.M. Procida wrote:
I'd be quite interested in owning a copy of "Modern Instrumentation Tape
Recording - An Engineering Handbook", but not 48 of them:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350149931255

Does anyone want to help split this?

Daniele

If I were you, I'd ask on the Ampex Mailing List. However, you may find
the book is a little light on audio stuff although the basic theory still
applies. Still, there is a lot of discussion of FM and helical scan stuff
that has limited application to conventional audio recording.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D.M. Procida]

D.M. Procida wrote:

I'd be quite interested in owning a copy of "Modern Instrumentation Tape
Recording - An Engineering Handbook", but not 48 of them:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350149931255

Does anyone want to help split this?

Oops. As a couple of people have pointed out, I somehow failed to spot
the word "Instrumentation" in the book's title. Sorry - I don't think it
will be of interest at all.

Copying and pasting is like driving with a satellite navigation device.
It might be quicker, but you really stop noticing where you're going.

Daniele

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Oops. As a couple of people have pointed out, I somehow failed to spot
the word "Instrumentation" in the book's title. Sorry - I don't think it
will be of interest at all.

Copying and pasting is like driving with a satellite navigation device.
It might be quicker, but you really stop noticing where you're going.

There's a BBC Engineering Training Department book on tape recording by
Percy J Guy which was the UK industry standard for many a year. Originally
written in the '50s, it may or may not have been updated to take in things
like Dolby. But a good read anyway for anyone interested in such things. I
thought I had a copy somewhere - but can't find it.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Oops. As a couple of people have pointed out, I somehow failed to spot
the word "Instrumentation" in the book's title. Sorry - I don't think it
will be of interest at all.

Copying and pasting is like driving with a satellite navigation device.
It might be quicker, but you really stop noticing where you're going.

There's a BBC Engineering Training Department book on tape recording by
Percy J Guy which was the UK industry standard for many a year. Originally
written in the '50s, it may or may not have been updated to take in things
like Dolby. But a good read anyway for anyone interested in such things. I
thought I had a copy somewhere - but can't find it.


Yes. The BBC manuals were good.
But are they available outside the BBC?

I would recommend "The Recording Studio Handbook" by
John M. Woram. (Sagamore Publishing) ISBN 0-914130-01-3

Iain

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
There's a BBC Engineering Training Department book on tape recording
by Percy J Guy which was the UK industry standard for many a year.
Originally written in the '50s, it may or may not have been updated to
take in things like Dolby. But a good read anyway for anyone
interested in such things. I thought I had a copy somewhere - but
can't find it.


Yes. The BBC manuals were good.

This is actually a book rather than manual.

But are they available outside the BBC?

Published by Iliffe, IIRC

--
*OK, who stopped payment on my reality check?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
There's a BBC Engineering Training Department book on tape recording
by Percy J Guy which was the UK industry standard for many a year.
Originally written in the '50s, it may or may not have been updated to
take in things like Dolby. But a good read anyway for anyone
interested in such things. I thought I had a copy somewhere - but
can't find it.


Yes. The BBC manuals were good.

This is actually a book rather than manual.

But are they available outside the BBC?

Published by Iliffe, IIRC


Thanks. I'll take a look. One of my old friends was
a BBC lecturer at Wood Norton, back in the analogue
days which he refers to as "steam broadcast"

I have some of his course material in ring binders.

Iain

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Yes. The BBC manuals were good.

This is actually a book rather than manual.

But are they available outside the BBC?

Published by Iliffe, IIRC


Thanks. I'll take a look. One of my old friends was
a BBC lecturer at Wood Norton, back in the analogue
days which he refers to as "steam broadcast"

If you mean M T-S, Percy Guy was before his time, IIRC. But will still
have been spoken about where such people gather. ;-)

I have some of his course material in ring binders.

I wonder what happened to the ETD library when the place closed?

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 9:32*am, Rob wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 6, 5:28 pm, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
I'd be quite interested in owning a copy of "Modern Instrumentation Tape
Recording - An Engineering Handbook", but not 48 of them:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350149931255

Does anyone want to help split this?

Daniele

I reccommed this book....

Elements of tape recorder circuits
by Herman Burstein
Published in 1957, Gernsback Library (New York)

It's an oldie but a goodie..
Lots of detail about EQ circuits, bias osc *etc... nothing about Dolby
NR of course..

There were a few hits on the web, you may be able to download a copy..

Mark

You can indeed - and a very good read it looks too, thanks.

I like the bit on improving sound, or rather 'listening pleasure' -
should strike a chord or two ;-)

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

your welcome

Mark

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 9:32 am, Rob wrote:
wrote:
I reccommed this book....

Elements of tape recorder circuits
by Herman Burstein
Published in 1957, Gernsback Library (New York)

It's an oldie but a goodie..
Lots of detail about EQ circuits, bias osc etc... nothing about Dolby
NR of course..

There were a few hits on the web, you may be able to download a copy..

You can indeed - and a very good read it looks too, thanks.

I like the bit on improving sound, or rather 'listening pleasure' -
should strike a chord or two ;-)

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.

The first is that it's really oriented toward consumer applications and home
tape recorders, which means its reference point is 7.5 ips recording. That's
a pretty different ballgame from 15 and 30 ips; the constraints are far
greater.

The second is that it was written fifty-plus years ago, and things have
changed a lot. Modern tapes respond a lot differently from the Scotch 111
that was the norm in 1957. For example, Burstein suggests that if 3% THD is
considered the overload point, 0 VU should be 6dB below that, and will have
about 1% THD. Older tapes did work like that: distortion increased steadily
until they hit the commonly-accepted overload point of 3% distortion. Modern
tapes have much lower distortion until just below the overload point, after
which the distortion level shoots up quickly. "Harder clipping" in the
modern vernacular. Modern tapes also do a lot better at avoiding
high-frequency saturation, and of course have much greater dynamic range.

Burstein also leaves out the problem of high-frequency losses due to tape
thickness, which was already understood to be the most important source of
high-frequency loss in the recording/playback process. (It had been
described by McKnight in a JAES article sometime in the early-to-mid-1950s.)

It's still a very valuable book, but it needs to be read in context. A good
modern supplement is the article on magnetic recording in Glen Ballou's
mighty tome, written by Dale Manquen.

Peace,
Paul

[David Looser]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

David.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
The second is that it was written fifty-plus years ago, and things have
changed a lot. Modern tapes respond a lot differently from the Scotch
111 that was the norm in 1957. For example, Burstein suggests that if
3% THD is considered the overload point, 0 VU should be 6dB below that,
and will have about 1% THD. Older tapes did work like that: distortion
increased steadily until they hit the commonly-accepted overload point
of 3% distortion. Modern tapes have much lower distortion until just
below the overload point, after which the distortion level shoots up
quickly. "Harder clipping" in the modern vernacular. Modern tapes also
do a lot better at avoiding high-frequency saturation, and of course
have much greater dynamic range.

Indeed - the 'BBC' way I was taught on setting bias in the early '60s was
to increase the bias until the level peaked (using 1kHz tone) then carry
on 'till it dropped by 1 dB. Which was a reasonable compromise for the
standard tape the BBC used in those days.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

David Looser wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

If you are really interested, I can direct you to a couple of people who
do.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[David Looser]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
valid.invalid...
David Looser wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

If you are really interested, I can direct you to a couple of people who
do.


Err... why? Who does acoustical recording these days?

David.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

David Looser wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
valid.invalid...
David Looser wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

If you are really interested, I can direct you to a couple of people who
do.


Err... why? Who does acoustical recording these days?

There is still a small demand for cylinders, I used a cylinder to send a
recorded message to someone about a week ago - but I cheated and did it
electrically.

A good knowledge of the art and science of acoustic recording is helpful
for transfer engineers who work with older media. They need to
appreciate how it was done if they are going to understand the
recordings and get the best from them.

Occasionally that knowledge has also been very useful when working with
more modern equipment under difficult circumstances (e.g. trying to
record a small ensemble with only a single mono mic)


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Scott Dorsey]

In article d.invalid,
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
David Looser wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

If you are really interested, I can direct you to a couple of people who
do.

Where do they get the wax blanks? And don't the musicians mind all
clustering around that big horn?
--scott

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

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

Yes.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
The second is that it was written fifty-plus years ago, and things have
changed a lot. Modern tapes respond a lot differently from the Scotch
111 that was the norm in 1957. For example, Burstein suggests that if
3% THD is considered the overload point, 0 VU should be 6dB below that,
and will have about 1% THD. Older tapes did work like that: distortion
increased steadily until they hit the commonly-accepted overload point
of 3% distortion. Modern tapes have much lower distortion until just
below the overload point, after which the distortion level shoots up
quickly. "Harder clipping" in the modern vernacular. Modern tapes also
do a lot better at avoiding high-frequency saturation, and of course
have much greater dynamic range.

Indeed - the 'BBC' way I was taught on setting bias in the early '60s was
to increase the bias until the level peaked (using 1kHz tone) then carry
on 'till it dropped by 1 dB. Which was a reasonable compromise for the
standard tape the BBC used in those days.

Well, that's something of a different issue, but yes, that's one good way of
setting bias, and it still works for a lot of modern tapes. Setting bias
using 10kHz, though, is a lot easier, because a small change in bias level
produced a large change in tape sensitivity.

That's not quite the same as the tape's distortion performance with level,
though it's related.

Peace,
Paul

[David Looser]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

Yes.


Why? who does acoustical recording these days?

(Yes I know I've already asked that, but nobody has answered it yet)

David.

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler wrote:

well, that's something of a different issue, but yes, that's one good way of
setting bias, and it still works for a lot of modern tapes. Setting bias
using 10kHz, though, is a lot easier, because a small change in bias level
produced a large change in tape sensitivity.

For tapes where you just need to find the peak, the 1KC method works fine.
If you need to use overbias and drop a certain level beyond the peak, it
is nearly impossible to do so accurately with the 1KC method.

I am increasingly becoming convinced that biasing for lowest modulation
noise will give you best perceived sound quality, whatever that means.

that's not quite the same as the tape's distortion performance with level,
though it's related.

What is interesting about modern tapes is not only is the distortion onset
more abrupt, but a lot of effort has been taken in increasing high frequency
headroom, so the distortion of a broadband signal on overload will take on
a very different character than with old-style HOLN tapes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

Yes.

Why? who does acoustical recording these days?

The Edison National Historic Site, for one.

We study the technical aspects of acoustical recording, not because any of
the students expect to do it, but because it helps place into perspective
the technical, and social, and economic, and musical issues which have
shaped recording and the recording industry.

The analog recording class is an entirely different story. Our students
learn the technical and practical aspects of analog recording because it's
still being done, particularly at the higher ends of the food chain, and a
student who knows not only how to use an analog recorder but also how to
calibrate it properly has a leg up in getting a job in the industry.

Peace,
Paul

[David Looser]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Why? who does acoustical recording these days?

The Edison National Historic Site, for one.

That's industrial archaeology, rather as a blacksmith might make a sword
using the technology of the Iron Age. The object of the exercise is to
fill-in the gaps in our historical knowledge of the techniques involved now
that those who practised this art for real are no longer with us.

We study the technical aspects of acoustical recording, not because any of
the students expect to do it, but because it helps place into perspective
the technical, and social, and economic, and musical issues which have
shaped recording and the recording industry.

Clearly the early history of the recording industry was significantly
constrained by the fundamental limitations of acoustic recording technology.
But there is a huge difference between teaching the history of a technology,
and teaching it as a skill to be used. The implication of the answer "yes"
to the question "do you also teach acoustical recording" was the later,
actually you teach *about* acoustical recording.


The analog recording class is an entirely different story. Our students
learn the technical and practical aspects of analog recording because it's
still being done, particularly at the higher ends of the food chain, and a
student who knows not only how to use an analog recorder but also how to
calibrate it properly has a leg up in getting a job in the industry.


My initial response to the thread was prompted by the way analogue audio
tape recording was being discussed as though it was still "state of the
art". Reference was made to "modern" tape formulations, how old are these
"modern" tape formulations?, 20 years?, 25?, hardly "modern". The
manufacture of analogue tape machines has effectively ceased and the number
of manufacturers of analogue audio tape has dwindled to a two or three each
making only one or two types, this is a dying technology. I realise that a
few studios still offer analogue recording to those clients who like
distortion, but it is a kind of technological ludditeism.

David.

[Scott Dorsey]

David Looser wrote:
My initial response to the thread was prompted by the way analogue audio
tape recording was being discussed as though it was still "state of the
art". Reference was made to "modern" tape formulations, how old are these
"modern" tape formulations?, 20 years?, 25?, hardly "modern". The
manufacture of analogue tape machines has effectively ceased and the number
of manufacturers of analogue audio tape has dwindled to a two or three each
making only one or two types, this is a dying technology. I realise that a
few studios still offer analogue recording to those clients who like
distortion, but it is a kind of technological ludditeism.

Perhaps, but it still sounds good, it's still billable, and there are still
plenty of customers demanding it. Equipment and media production have
dropped down to stable levels to support the low but constant demand of
the market. I don't see it expanding, but I don't see it going away either.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

David Looser wrote:

few studios still offer analogue recording to those clients who like
distortion, but it is a kind of technological ludditeism.

On Jan 11, 7:58 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Perhaps, but it still sounds good, it's still billable, and there are still
plenty of customers demanding it. Equipment and media production have
dropped down to stable levels to support the low but constant demand of
the market. I don't see it expanding, but I don't see it going away either.

I spent some time at CES yesterday chatting with Jeff Jacobs of J-
Corder. He rebuilds and resells the Technics 1500 series recorders,
including updating the electronics for lower noise, more headroom, and
bias and EQ to accommodate modern tapes.. Most of his customers are
high end audio addicts who don't record on them, but some have been
sold to studios and mastering houses. He chose to specialize in this
particular model and a better-than-new one goes in the $4500-5500
ballpark depending on the model, accessories, and finish.

That's more than a thrift shop Sony or an eBay AG-440, but consistent
with how Mike Spitz of ATR Service prices the rebuilt ATR-100s that he
sells (or charges for rebuilding one that you own).

People are indeed buying them. Not as many as are buying pocket sized
flash memory card recorders for sure, but then they're being used for
different purposes.

[David Looser]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...


I spent some time at CES yesterday chatting with Jeff Jacobs of J-
Corder. He rebuilds and resells the Technics 1500 series recorders,
including updating the electronics for lower noise, more headroom, and
bias and EQ to accommodate modern tapes.. Most of his customers are
high end audio addicts who don't record on them, but some have been
sold to studios and mastering houses. He chose to specialize in this
particular model and a better-than-new one goes in the $4500-5500
ballpark depending on the model, accessories, and finish.

That's more than a thrift shop Sony or an eBay AG-440, but consistent
with how Mike Spitz of ATR Service prices the rebuilt ATR-100s that he
sells (or charges for rebuilding one that you own).

People are indeed buying them. Not as many as are buying pocket sized
flash memory card recorders for sure, but then they're being used for
different purposes.


My comments had referred to the professional, rather than the domestic
market. Whilst it seems bizarre to me to pay $5000 for a tape machine when a
CD player at a fraction of the price sounds better and gives access to a far
wider range of recorded material, I do know that audiophiles have their own
logic. The Technics looks a lot prettier for starters, and that is very
important in the audiophile market.

David.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article d.invalid,
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
David Looser wrote:

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

If you are really interested, I can direct you to a couple of people who
do.

Where do they get the wax blanks?

'Paul Morris Music' of Exeter, UK.
http://www.paulmorrismusic.co.uk/

He makes standard 2" cylinder blanks in quantity and 5" blanks to
special order, I believe he has been involved in the occasional
production of wax disc blanks too.

And don't the musicians mind all
clustering around that big horn?

The popular stuff for cylinders nowadays seems to be mostly solos, duets
and trios, so the set-up isn't too crowded. The videos I have seen
suggest that they rather enjoy the novelty of it


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
The second is that it was written fifty-plus years ago, and things have
changed a lot. Modern tapes respond a lot differently from the Scotch
111 that was the norm in 1957. For example, Burstein suggests that if
3% THD is considered the overload point, 0 VU should be 6dB below that,
and will have about 1% THD. Older tapes did work like that: distortion
increased steadily until they hit the commonly-accepted overload point
of 3% distortion. Modern tapes have much lower distortion until just
below the overload point, after which the distortion level shoots up
quickly. "Harder clipping" in the modern vernacular. Modern tapes also
do a lot better at avoiding high-frequency saturation, and of course
have much greater dynamic range.

Indeed - the 'BBC' way I was taught on setting bias in the early '60s was
to increase the bias until the level peaked (using 1kHz tone) then carry
on 'till it dropped by 1 dB. Which was a reasonable compromise for the
standard tape the BBC used in those days.


The (UK) National Sound Archive, in the 1980s, specified that the bias
should be set so that a 1 Kc/s tone and a 10 Kc/s tone would replay
within 1dB of each other (after the replay side had been set up with a
calibration tape).


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 1:27*pm, (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:





In article ,
* *Paul Stamler wrote:
The second is that it was written fifty-plus years ago, and things have
changed a lot. Modern tapes respond a lot differently from the Scotch
111 that was the norm in 1957. For example, Burstein suggests that if
3% THD is considered the overload point, 0 VU should be 6dB below that,
and will have about 1% THD. Older tapes did work like that: distortion
increased steadily until they hit the commonly-accepted overload point
of 3% distortion. Modern tapes have much lower distortion until just
below the overload point, after which the distortion level shoots up
quickly. "Harder clipping" in the modern vernacular. Modern tapes also
do a lot better at avoiding high-frequency saturation, and of course
have much greater dynamic range.

Indeed - the 'BBC' way I was taught on setting bias in the early '60s was
to increase the bias until the level peaked (using 1kHz tone) then carry
on 'till it dropped by 1 dB. Which was a reasonable compromise for the
standard tape the BBC used in those days.

The (UK) National Sound Archive, in the 1980s, specified that the bias
should be set so that a 1 Kc/s tone and a 10 Kc/s tone would replay
within 1dB of each other (after the replay side had been set up with a
calibration tape).

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)www.poppyrecords.co.uk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

if we want to reminisce.. what I always found playing with consumer
tape recorders as a kid..

If you set the bias for a 1 or 2 dB over the peak at 400 Hz, then the
output would be more stable and less prone to dropouts. The theory
was that the disturbance that would cause a dropout, would also reduce
the bias and if you are "over the hump" then the reduction in
effective bias would compensate for the reduction in signal and this
would tend to keep the playback signal more steady.

So to align a machine I would first set up the playback EQ per a
standard tape. Set the bias for 1 to 2 dB over bias at 400 Hz to
minimize dropouts. Then set the record EQ for flatest response. This
seemed to work best for me.

I suppose on pro units with pro tape, dropouts were not an issue.

Mark

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

wrote in message
...

if we want to reminisce.. what I always found playing with consumer
tape recorders as a kid..

If you set the bias for a 1 or 2 dB over the peak at 400 Hz, then the
output would be more stable and less prone to dropouts. The theory
was that the disturbance that would cause a dropout, would also reduce
the bias and if you are "over the hump" then the reduction in
effective bias would compensate for the reduction in signal and this
would tend to keep the playback signal more steady.

So to align a machine I would first set up the playback EQ per a
standard tape. Set the bias for 1 to 2 dB over bias at 400 Hz to
minimize dropouts. Then set the record EQ for flatest response. This
seemed to work best for me.

I suppose on pro units with pro tape, dropouts were not an issue.

I wish. Especially with Ampex/Quantegy tape.

That's one of the reasons the same "1-2dB overbias at midfrequencies" (it
was usually 1dB rather than 2dB) became a standard bias-setting technique
for pro recorders around the 1970s. These days we're more likely to use
"4-5dB overbias at 10kHz", but that's for reasons of convenience (the level
changes are more drastic, so it's easier to set the bias level accurately).
At 15 ips, at least, that works out to very nearly the same actual bias
level as 1dB overbias at mid-frequencies.

Peace,
Paul

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

wrote:

On Jan 15, 1:27*pm, (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:





In article ,
* *Paul Stamler wrote:
The second is that it was written fifty-plus years ago, and things have
changed a lot. Modern tapes respond a lot differently from the Scotch
111 that was the norm in 1957. For example, Burstein suggests that if
3% THD is considered the overload point, 0 VU should be 6dB below that,
and will have about 1% THD. Older tapes did work like that: distortion
increased steadily until they hit the commonly-accepted overload point
of 3% distortion. Modern tapes have much lower distortion until just
below the overload point, after which the distortion level shoots up
quickly. "Harder clipping" in the modern vernacular. Modern tapes also
do a lot better at avoiding high-frequency saturation, and of course
have much greater dynamic range.

Indeed - the 'BBC' way I was taught on setting bias in the early '60s was
to increase the bias until the level peaked (using 1kHz tone) then carry
on 'till it dropped by 1 dB. Which was a reasonable compromise for the
standard tape the BBC used in those days.

The (UK) National Sound Archive, in the 1980s, specified that the bias
should be set so that a 1 Kc/s tone and a 10 Kc/s tone would replay
within 1dB of each other (after the replay side had been set up with a
calibration tape).


if we want to reminisce.. what I always found playing with consumer
tape recorders as a kid..

If you set the bias for a 1 or 2 dB over the peak at 400 Hz, then the
output would be more stable and less prone to dropouts. The theory
was that the disturbance that would cause a dropout, would also reduce
the bias and if you are "over the hump" then the reduction in
effective bias would compensate for the reduction in signal and this
would tend to keep the playback signal more steady.

So to align a machine I would first set up the playback EQ per a
standard tape. Set the bias for 1 to 2 dB over bias at 400 Hz to
minimize dropouts. Then set the record EQ for flatest response. This
seemed to work best for me.

I suppose on pro units with pro tape, dropouts were not an issue.

That was the one big difference I noticed between professional tape and
'amateur'. Things like frequency response and S/N ratio also differed,
but neither of those screamed at you in the way the dropouts (or absence
of them) did.

No matter how good a domestic machine was or how well it was set up,
with bog-standard consumer tape it always sounded 'amateurish'.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...

Burstein's book is indeed useful; in fact, I hand out bits of it to my
analog recording classes. But it suffers from a couple of problems.


Do you do classes in acoustical recording as well?

Yes.

Why? who does acoustical recording these days?

The Edison National Historic Site, for one.

We study the technical aspects of acoustical recording, not because any of
the students expect to do it, but because it helps place into perspective
the technical, and social, and economic, and musical issues which have
shaped recording and the recording industry.

Excellent, Paul.

As as student, I was always fascinated by early jazz recording, and
was lucky enough to get a job as a trainee in a record company in the
UK which had been around since the late 20s, and still had access to
an acoustical recording machine, and also to people who had
been recording in that era, and knew all about "shaving waxes" etc.

As a study project, we set up a session with a small ensemble having
the same line-up that Duke Ellington used at that time. I had come across
some "technical notes" written by the engineer at Okeh Records who
had recorded much of Ellington's early material. He even talked about
the piece of angora wool which he used to insert into the horn as an
attenuator. He called it a "pad" a term we use (in a slightly different
context) to this very day!

The analog recording class is an entirely different story. Our students
learn the technical and practical aspects of analog recording because it's
still being done, particularly at the higher ends of the food chain, and a
student who knows not only how to use an analog recorder but also how to
calibrate it properly has a leg up in getting a job in the industry.


There is still demand for analogue multitrack, and companies that
have machines such as the Studer A80/24 with Dolby SR can earn
a handsome rental fee. Many bands want the analogue sound, and
choose to record multitrack, and then have the material transferred
to a DAW for editiing and mixing.

Also, many CD mastering facilities have a stereo analogue master
machine which can be included in the chain, at the request of the
client.

Best regards
Iain

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
There is still demand for analogue multitrack, and companies that
have machines such as the Studer A80/24 with Dolby SR can earn
a handsome rental fee. Many bands want the analogue sound, and
choose to record multitrack, and then have the material transferred
to a DAW for editiing and mixing.

Also, many CD mastering facilities have a stereo analogue master
machine which can be included in the chain, at the request of the
client.

I'd have thought it pretty easy these days to provide a digital 'filter'
that gave the analogue tape sound. Although I'd guess that's not the
'magic' those who still use such machines are looking for.

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[tony sayer]

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
There is still demand for analogue multitrack, and companies that
have machines such as the Studer A80/24 with Dolby SR can earn
a handsome rental fee. Many bands want the analogue sound, and
choose to record multitrack, and then have the material transferred
to a DAW for editiing and mixing.

Also, many CD mastering facilities have a stereo analogue master
machine which can be included in the chain, at the request of the
client.

I'd have thought it pretty easy these days to provide a digital 'filter'
that gave the analogue tape sound. Although I'd guess that's not the
'magic' those who still use such machines are looking for.


I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..

There're fine otherwise, top 'n bottom end is there alright!.

And very transparent too, not veiled just very -real- for want of a
better word.
--
Tony Sayer

[David Looser]

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..


Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort
of -vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems a
pretty daft idea to me.

David.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..


Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort
of -vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems a
pretty daft idea to me.

I took this to mean in contrast to the "smiley" EQ which is present on so
many non-classical CDs.


Iain

[David Looser]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..


Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort
of -vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems
a pretty daft idea to me.

I took this to mean in contrast to the "smiley" EQ which is present on so
many non-classical CDs.


Perhaps I don't buy those sorts of CDs, but I'm not aware of this modern
"sort of -vague- harshness". OTOH I am very aware of the distortion present
on many of the classic pop albums of the 60s and 70s, which sounds like the
effect of overdriven analogue tape to me. This distortion is still clearly
audible on the CD re-issues so it's obviously there on the analogue master
tapes. I'm not that bothered by a bit of tape hiss either, it's the
distortion that I dislike.

OTOH I recently inherited a double LP re-issue of the Lew Stone recordings
of 1935. The technical quality varies, but the best are superb. I was amused
to hear his version of "Anything Goes" (which is on the LP) used on the
soundtrack of the 2008 film "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day". It did not in
any way sound like a "period" recording, but it was Lew Stone's 1935
recording - I checked the credits. It seems to me ironic that so many pop
recordings of the analogue tape era are technically inferior to pre-war
direct-to-disc 78rpm ones.

David.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'd have thought it pretty easy these days to provide a digital 'filter'
that gave the analogue tape sound. Although I'd guess that's not the
'magic' those who still use such machines are looking for.


I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

Perhaps most of my first CDs were from analogue masters - and I was very
happy just to lose the curse of vinyl. But I've also got some early all
digital ones that sound very good too.

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..

There're fine otherwise, top 'n bottom end is there alright!.

And very transparent too, not veiled just very -real- for want of a
better word.

I'm still of the opinion that current mastering fashions are the root of
the problem. Not the equipment itself.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
I've just sort of inherited some CD's that are of quite old recordings
and I'm impressed that some of them sound .. well they don't have that
modern sound on them .. a sort of -vague- harshness..

I'll trade a slight amount of tape hiss for the lack of that!..


Are you suggesting that an analogue tape generation removes "a sort of
-vague- harshness" that would otherwise necessarily be present? Seems a
pretty daft idea to me.

Analogue tape certainly reduces transients. One of its biggest problems.
And plenty of pop engineers weren't happy unless they could hear all the
VUs rattling on the end stops when recording.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

OTOH I recently inherited a double LP re-issue of the Lew Stone recordings
of 1935. The technical quality varies, but the best are superb. I was
amused to hear his version of "Anything Goes" (which is on the LP) used on
the soundtrack of the 2008 film "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day". It did
not in any way sound like a "period" recording, but it was Lew Stone's
1935 recording - I checked the credits. It seems to me ironic that so many
pop recordings of the analogue tape era are technically inferior to
pre-war direct-to-disc 78rpm ones.

It was a similar observation on the part of mastering engineer Doug Sax that
persuaded him to start Sheffield Records and release direct-to-disk LPs.

Peace,
Paul

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...

OTOH I recently inherited a double LP re-issue of the Lew Stone
recordings of 1935. The technical quality varies, but the best are
superb. I was amused to hear his version of "Anything Goes" (which is
on the LP) used on the soundtrack of the 2008 film "Miss Pettigrew
Lives for a Day". It did not in any way sound like a "period"
recording, but it was Lew Stone's 1935 recording - I checked the
credits. It seems to me ironic that so many pop recordings of the
analogue tape era are technically inferior to pre-war direct-to-disc
78rpm ones.

It was a similar observation on the part of mastering engineer Doug Sax
that persuaded him to start Sheffield Records and release
direct-to-disk LPs.

Indeed. And when early digital recording arrived there was no
deterioration in the quality of what had previously been direct to disc
from the smaller companies.

What many seem to gloss over is that a power amp would be laughed at if
it had the same distortion figures as analogue tape. Let alone noise and
transient performance.

Of course those parameters may sound fine when trying to achieve a
particular sound - but isn't some form of magic like many would have you
believe. Especially those who hire out such things. ;-)

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.