Tape recording theory
 

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


The 1950's were a very interesting time in tape recording.
I can remember a 76cms Magnetophon recorder on which the
erase head got so hot that it would burn a hole in the tape
when the transport was not moving, if you did not put a
match stick between.

Nothing beats a real "high tech" solution:-)

Was that one that had been "liberated" in 1945?

There were, by all acounts only four machines
liberated from DR (Deutsche Rundfunk) and these
came from Leipzig.

The machine I refer to was owned by a Dutch
film maker in London, who was a friend of my
father's. It fascinated me, and might have planted
the seeds for a career choice much later on.


Iain

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The 1950's were a very interesting time in tape recording.
I can remember a 76cms Magnetophon recorder on which the
erase head got so hot that it would burn a hole in the tape
when the transport was not moving, if you did not put a
match stick between.

Surely the EMI BTR series were around by then - to all intents and
purposes a modern tape machine?

Was the BTR1 a predecessor to the TR90 ?

Yes - although its real successor was the BTR2 which looked very
different to the BTR1. Probably the definitive 1/4" tape machine design
ever for ergonomics if you had to edit, etc. Designed regardless of cost.

The TR90 was a two part device designed for bay mounting, although many
ended up in trolleys as a transportable design - or rather more
transportable than a BTR2. ;-)

I remember well the BTR2, and also the BTR4
which came out circa 1966 (whatever happened to the BTR3?)

Never saw any of the later ones. BBC TV moved on to Levers Rich after the
TR90 then Studer. BBC Radio bought loads of Philips - don't know the model
- which weren't much loved by the operators.


IIRC, the Magnetophon dates from the
early '40s - and was the basis for the EMI BTR1.

Yes. The Magnetophon was the machine that the Allies
brought back from Germany as part of the spoils of War.
It had baffled the Allies for some time that the Germans
were able to broadcast pre-recorded speeches by
Hitler from Berlin without give-away disc noise, and put them
out as supposedly live transmissions, when it was known for
certain that he was elsewhere.

Arthur Haddy stated that the Allies brought back four
Magnetophon machines, two of which went to what became
Ampex in the USA, one to EMI at Hayes, and one to Decca.

The only BTR1 I saw looked pretty similar to the Magnetophon including the
case decoration. But of course in EMI greens.

Nothing beats a real "high tech" solution:-)

I remember a cheap tape deck in the '50s that had no capstan - so the
tape speed varied with the amount on the reels. Disaster if you broke
the tape and had to junk some.

Wonderful!

Iain

--
*Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

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

Tape recording theory
 

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.

Tape recording theory
 

"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.

Tape recording theory
 

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

The tape machines were Philips Pro 50s

I liked those. We had several in mixdown and copying
facilities.


Ampex AG440s, both using Scotch 206.

Did you likethe AG440? Compared with Studer they
were pretty flaky IMO. When I moved to RCA we
had an Ampex multitrack. On a big (expensive) session,
we used to insist that a maintenance engineer with hot
soldering iron and a box of spare cards, sat besides the
machine for the whole session.

Happy days....

Indeed. Flying by the seat of one's pants!
It was fun!.

I also preferred the Philips to the Ampex machines. I don't think there was
much difference in performance, but the Philips were nicer to work on. A few
years later I went to work for Ampex, at the time that the ATR100 came out.
That was pretty impressive as a transport, excellent tape handling. I also
recall a couple of years before the ATR100, at Rediffusion we bought a
transport mechanism from an American company that was capstan-free.
Microconic, Miniconic, Microsonic or something like that. We wanted to make
it into a test-tape manufacturing deck, so it had to be very good. Very
impressive machine, but I don't think anything ever came of it.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Tape recording theory
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

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

The tape machines were Philips Pro 50s

I liked those. We had several in mixdown and copying
facilities.


Ampex AG440s, both using Scotch 206.

Did you likethe AG440? Compared with Studer they
were pretty flaky IMO. When I moved to RCA we
had an Ampex multitrack. On a big (expensive) session,
we used to insist that a maintenance engineer with hot
soldering iron and a box of spare cards, sat besides the
machine for the whole session.

Happy days....

Indeed. Flying by the seat of one's pants!
It was fun!.

I also preferred the Philips to the Ampex machines. I don't think there
was much difference in performance, but the Philips were nicer to work on.

And much more reliable:-)

A few years later I went to work for Ampex, at the time that the ATR100
came out. That was pretty impressive as a transport, excellent tape
handling.

When I was still a teenager; I was the proud owner
of an Ampex 351 in a broadcast console. My elder
brother was a freelance producer and been working
on a series of records at a studio which was having a
clear-out. I got the Ampex for a fiver, with a remote,
a huge box of spares and about a dozen NAB reels of
tape.

Iain

Tape recording theory
 

D.M. Procida wrote:

Wasn't there a thing in the fifties called "GramDek" or something like that
which you put on the turntable of your Dansette to convert it to a tape
deck?

Gramdeck - I'm sure I saw one on eBay recently.

Here's one:

http://search.ebay.co.uk/320332604819

Very cunning.

Daniele
--
Your chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK)
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220341650190

Tape recording theory
 

"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

Tape recording theory
 

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.

Tape recording theory
 

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

Tape recording theory
 

"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.

Tape recording theory
 

"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

Tape recording theory
 

"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.

Tape recording theory
 

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.

Tape recording theory
 

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.

Tape recording theory
 

"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

Tape recording theory
 

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.

Tape recording theory
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"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.



Yes .. total illogical bollockx I know but they seem more well, relaxed
... pleasant to listen too .. more transparent!..
--
Tony Sayer

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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.


Yes .. total illogical bollockx I know but they seem more well, relaxed
.. pleasant to listen too .. more transparent!..

Could be that these days of everything being multi-tracked and an emphasis
on a 'perfect' performance from all in the session - and often things
being recorded at different times - you lose that 'something' that comes
from an essentially 'live' performance.
Too many think everything is in the mixing/recording process and miss out
on other perhaps more important things. Musicians too may not give their
best when they know it can always be done again.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

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

Tape recording theory
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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.


Yes .. total illogical bollockx I know but they seem more well, relaxed
.. pleasant to listen too .. more transparent!..

Could be that these days of everything being multi-tracked and an emphasis
on a 'perfect' performance from all in the session - and often things
being recorded at different times - you lose that 'something' that comes
from an essentially 'live' performance.
Too many think everything is in the mixing/recording process and miss out
on other perhaps more important things. Musicians too may not give their
best when they know it can always be done again.


I think .. you might be quite right on that Dave..


--
Tony Sayer

Tape recording theory
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:
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.


Yes .. total illogical bollockx I know but they seem more well,
relaxed .. pleasant to listen too .. more transparent!..

Could be that these days of everything being multi-tracked and an
emphasis on a 'perfect' performance from all in the session - and often
things being recorded at different times - you lose that 'something'
that comes from an essentially 'live' performance.

This may be one of the reasons I've tended to prefer DVDs (of classical
concerts) and BBC Broadcasts above commercial releases.

I've also found some ancient recordings re-released on CD to sound
remarkably good. I suspect this was due to the use of more basic microphone
and performance methods. Perhaps also a tendency for the recordings to
allow more of the venue acoustics to come thought. Hard to say. But to
balance this there are doubtless many old recordings that are dire. So
there is a risk of applying rose-tinting and selecting the good recordings
whilst forgetting all the lousy ones... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Tape recording theory
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Yes .. total illogical bollockx I know but they seem more well,
relaxed .. pleasant to listen too .. more transparent!..

Could be that these days of everything being multi-tracked and an
emphasis on a 'perfect' performance from all in the session - and often
things being recorded at different times - you lose that 'something'
that comes from an essentially 'live' performance.

This may be one of the reasons I've tended to prefer DVDs (of classical
concerts) and BBC Broadcasts above commercial releases.

I've also found some ancient recordings re-released on CD to sound
remarkably good. I suspect this was due to the use of more basic microphone
and performance methods. Perhaps also a tendency for the recordings to
allow more of the venue acoustics to come thought. Hard to say. But to
balance this there are doubtless many old recordings that are dire. So
there is a risk of applying rose-tinting and selecting the good recordings
whilst forgetting all the lousy ones...

Some of the very best recordings ever made are the Mercury Living
Presence series, mostly recorded on 35mm magnetic film (thicker and
wider than tape), in the 1950s.

They used three microphones and three tracks. No manipulation or
processing of the sound, either in recording or in the mixing/mastering
process. Most of the effort was put into the arrangement of the three
microphones, and the quality of the equipment used.

Of course, they were recording superb orchestras conducted by great
conductors, on excellent sound stages, so the performances were bound to
be of the highest standard. But the sound quality of these recordings,
made 50 or more years ago, compares favourably with everything recorded
since.

There's no special "tape magic" in these recordings. I can't identify
any special tape "sound". It just sounds really, really wonderful, clear
and open and real.

Daniele
--
Your chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK)
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220341650190

Tape recording theory
 

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

Some of the very best recordings ever made are the Mercury Living
Presence series, mostly recorded on 35mm magnetic film (thicker and
wider than tape), in the 1950s.

They used three microphones and three tracks. No manipulation or
processing of the sound, either in recording or in the mixing/mastering
process. Most of the effort was put into the arrangement of the three
microphones, and the quality of the equipment used.

Of course, they were recording superb orchestras conducted by great
conductors, on excellent sound stages, so the performances were bound to
be of the highest standard. But the sound quality of these recordings,
made 50 or more years ago, compares favourably with everything recorded
since.

There's no special "tape magic" in these recordings. I can't identify
any special tape "sound". It just sounds really, really wonderful, clear
and open and real.


I've not heard any of that series, but if they sound as good as you say then
it will be due to the use of a simple microphone technique and the care
taken, rather than to any particular merits of the recording machine.
Blumlein's pre-war experimental stereo recordings (direct to disc of course)
also sound remarkably open and natural.

35mm mag film was, of course, the mainstay of the film dubbing world for
many years, but it has it's disadvantages from a "HiFi" point of view. In
particular 96Hz flutter from the sprockets, and the difficulty (due to the
stiffness of the base material) in getting and maintaining good head-to-film
contact.

David.

Tape recording theory
 

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Some of the very best recordings ever made are the Mercury Living
Presence series, mostly recorded on 35mm magnetic film (thicker and
wider than tape), in the 1950s.

35mm magnetic film ain't that brilliant, quality wise. Too rigid to give
as good head contact as audio tape. Its advantage in those days was many
machines could be locked together via the sprockets and stepping motors -
and of course locked to the picture. For film dubbing, of course.


It wasn't until the '60s that locking audio machines to pictures became
practical - Thames TV designed and built the first UK one using a 6 track
Telefunken. The system was named Medway.

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats*

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

Tape recording theory
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Some of the very best recordings ever made are the Mercury Living
Presence series, mostly recorded on 35mm magnetic film (thicker and
wider than tape), in the 1950s.

35mm magnetic film ain't that brilliant, quality wise. Too rigid to give
as good head contact as audio tape.

I'm sure you're right about the limitations of the medium, but this is
partly my point. Whatever the technical limitations of the medium, those
50-year-old recordings stand up to anything else I've ever heard.

In other words, once you get past a certain point of sound quality in
your technology (and this point was clearly reached at least half a
century ago) what determines how good a recording sounds is how well you
do it.

Of course it's always more tempting to talk about technology than
technique - it's more tangible, it's easier to acquire, and allows one
to believe that one could achieve greatness too if only one had the
requisite technology to hand.

Daniele
--
Your chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK)
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220341650190

Tape recording theory
 

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
35mm magnetic film ain't that brilliant, quality wise. Too rigid to
give as good head contact as audio tape.

I'm sure you're right about the limitations of the medium, but this is
partly my point. Whatever the technical limitations of the medium, those
50-year-old recordings stand up to anything else I've ever heard.

Nowt to do with the tape medium, though - better 1/4" machines were around
then.

In other words, once you get past a certain point of sound quality in
your technology (and this point was clearly reached at least half a
century ago) what determines how good a recording sounds is how well you
do it.

The only real way to be certain would be if the session had been recorded
simultaneously on two formats. And of course you're listing off vinyl
which has inherent problems - but which in some cases can add to the
enjoyment of the piece.

Of course it's always more tempting to talk about technology than
technique - it's more tangible, it's easier to acquire, and allows one
to believe that one could achieve greatness too if only one had the
requisite technology to hand.

Absolutely.

--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

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

Tape recording theory
 

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I've also found some ancient recordings re-released on CD to sound
remarkably good. I suspect this was due to the use of more basic
microphone and performance methods. Perhaps also a tendency for the
recordings to allow more of the venue acoustics to come thought. Hard
to say. But to balance this there are doubtless many old recordings
that are dire. So there is a risk of applying rose-tinting and
selecting the good recordings whilst forgetting all the lousy ones...

Some of the very best recordings ever made are the Mercury Living
Presence series, mostly recorded on 35mm magnetic film (thicker and
wider than tape), in the 1950s.

Some of the ones I have do sound quite good. But I can't say they sound
better than some other recordings of similar vintage which were not made
onto the 35mm film, or used the recording systems employed by the team
whose work was made famous by Mercury. (Curiously, they also made much
less well-known recordings for labels like Pye IIRC.)

They used three microphones and three tracks. No manipulation or
processing of the sound, either in recording or in the mixing/mastering
process. Most of the effort was put into the arrangement of the three
microphones, and the quality of the equipment used.

I'd suspect that the limit of three mics was less important that the points
you then make. More modern recordings often sound distractingly 'spot lit'

Alas, at least one modern re-issue of the Mercury recordings on CD has
quite detectable clipping. Of a kind that is diagnostic of the conversion
simply being done at too high a level. Crazy given that the dynamic range
on CD would be much greater than the original tapes. Puzzling to decide if
this was due to an error or a deliberate 'louder is better' faith on the
part of those doing the transfer to CD...

Of course, they were recording superb orchestras conducted by great
conductors, on excellent sound stages, so the performances were bound to
be of the highest standard. But the sound quality of these recordings,
made 50 or more years ago, compares favourably with everything recorded
since.

Yes. Alas, frustrating for me is that my favourite artists/performances
have tended to appear on labels where the company was perhaps less
concerned with the technical quality of the produced output. :-/

Personally, I wish Barbirolli and the Halle had recorded for Decca, not
EMI. Shame also that some of his Pye tapes were perhaps not well looked
after for some years. Ironic that some of his 'american' recordings made by
the radio companies for archive purposes in the late 1930s, etc, sound as
good or better than some of his later 'commercial' recordings. Thank
heavens for the BBC making recordings of the proms, and finally releasing
them onto CD!

Again personally, I wish the BBC would release some of their Proms TV
broadcasts on DVD each year - and in 'PAL'[1] format, i.e. *not* produce a
degraded version as 'NTSC'[2]. Irony here is that you can make better
looking recordings on a home DVD Videorecorder than some of the 'NTSC'
conversions I've seen on commercial discs.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] [2] sic.

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Tape recording theory
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In other words, once you get past a certain point of sound quality in
your technology (and this point was clearly reached at least half a
century ago) what determines how good a recording sounds is how well you
do it.

The only real way to be certain would be if the session had been recorded
simultaneously on two formats. And of course you're listing off vinyl
which has inherent problems - but which in some cases can add to the
enjoyment of the piece.

No, they are available on CD too.

Daniele
--
Your chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK)
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220341650190

Tape recording theory
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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.


Yes .. total illogical bollockx I know but they seem more well, relaxed
.. pleasant to listen too .. more transparent!..

Could be that these days of everything being multi-tracked and an emphasis
on a 'perfect' performance from all in the session - and often things
being recorded at different times - you lose that 'something' that comes
from an essentially 'live' performance.

Multitrack has been with us since the mid sixties, so
cannot be to blame? Though I do agree with you that
recording in sections, or single instruments, (or even a drum kit,
one drum at a time) must have an effect on the cohesion of the
overall production. I have worked on many recordings put
together in this way (we called it "musical bricklaying" where
it took often 1 hr to record a drum kit, drum by drum to a
click track, for a title which lasted 3 mins. Even at the
much later stage of putting on the background vocals,
no-one had heard the melody:-)

Too many think everything is in the mixing/recording process and miss out
on other perhaps more important things.

David talked about "rough" recording of the sixties. These products
though they may not be be clinically clean, have "feel" which is so
important in pop recording, and may be one of the reasons that
may popm projects still start with analogue multitrack.

Musicians too may not give their
best when they know it can always be done again.

That is probably an unfair generalisation. They get paid their
session fee even if they play the six titles prima vista in
20 mins. No-one wants to perform badly in the presence
of their colleagues.

Regards
Iain

Tape recording theory
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes that's true:-) I can remember on my first day at Decca,
listening to a Rolling Stones master that had just arrived from
Bell Sound in New York. The VUs were against the end stop
except when leader was passing the repro head. The sound
was exactly right for the project in question.

But there are of course many many fine examples of good clean
recording from that era too. The Moody Blues, and Chicago
are just two examples.

Iain

Tape recording theory
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Agreed

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.

This has been apparent for a number of years, and has been
discussed ofte on this and other groups. The fact that the
public don't seem to react, and also that -mp3 is now becomiing
the standard by which others are judges, means that it is now
probably too late to do anything about it.

Iain

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Could be that these days of everything being multi-tracked and an
emphasis on a 'perfect' performance from all in the session - and
often things being recorded at different times - you lose that
'something' that comes from an essentially 'live' performance.

Multitrack has been with us since the mid sixties, so
cannot be to blame?

In a crude form with many less tracks than is the norm these days, yes.

Though I do agree with you that
recording in sections, or single instruments, (or even a drum kit,
one drum at a time) must have an effect on the cohesion of the
overall production.

Which is what I was implying.

I have worked on many recordings put
together in this way (we called it "musical bricklaying" where
it took often 1 hr to record a drum kit, drum by drum to a
click track, for a title which lasted 3 mins. Even at the
much later stage of putting on the background vocals,
no-one had heard the melody:-)

Heh heh - I'd say 1 hour is very fast. Some have spent days doing just
that.

Too many think everything is in the mixing/recording process and miss
out on other perhaps more important things.

David talked about "rough" recording of the sixties. These products
though they may not be be clinically clean, have "feel" which is so
important in pop recording, and may be one of the reasons that
may popm projects still start with analogue multitrack.

Strangely, it's that slightly 'rough' feel which is missing from so many
pop recordings - probably because so few real instruments are used on
many.

Musicians too may not give their
best when they know it can always be done again.

That is probably an unfair generalisation. They get paid their
session fee even if they play the six titles prima vista in
20 mins. No-one wants to perform badly in the presence
of their colleagues.

I did say 'may'. And of course was referring to where they were laying
tracks individually. Get them all playing together negates the problem in
the first place. I've got plenty of respect for real session musicians.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

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

Tape recording theory
 

David Looser wrote:
"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.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle. I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too. It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.
--scott

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

Tape recording theory
 

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

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.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle.

Indeed you can, but an equaliser does the same job far more easily and
controllably, and without adding unwanted noise and distortion.

I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a waveform. It
has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of that waveform
belongs to. What you are claiming is physically impossible.

It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.

So "subtle" that you need a great imagination to hear them.

David.

Tape recording theory
 

David Looser wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

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.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle.

Indeed you can, but an equaliser does the same job far more easily and
controllably, and without adding unwanted noise and distortion.

No, not at all. It's a very different set of tools from a conventional
equalizer. For one thing the action can be level-dependant if you want
it to be.

I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a waveform. It
has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of that waveform
belongs to. What you are claiming is physically impossible.

Nope, it's just a psychoacoustic trick. The tape machine adds certain
distortion characteristics, if I want it to, and those characteristics
are completely under my control. Some of them have precisely the
perceived effects I describe.

It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.

So "subtle" that you need a great imagination to hear them.

Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the customer
wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings in a record,
says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a teeny bit of
underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels to the point where
I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB on the mark... voila!
--scott

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

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of ensemble by
blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give an
artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a
waveform. It has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of
that waveform belongs to. What you are claiming is physically
impossible.

I'd guess Scott is referring to messing about with the separation between
tracks. What you get on the 'other' track isn't linear referred to the
original.

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

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

Tape recording theory
 

In article , Scott Dorsey
scribeth thus
David Looser wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

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.

It can, if you'd like it to. I can set the tape machine up to smooth the
top end out, and I can set it up to make the top end a little bit sharper
and more brittle.

Indeed you can, but an equaliser does the same job far more easily and
controllably, and without adding unwanted noise and distortion.

No, not at all. It's a very different set of tools from a conventional
equalizer. For one thing the action can be level-dependant if you want
it to be.

I can set the machine up to give an artificial sense of
ensemble by blending sounds together, and I can set the machine up to give
an artificial sense of separation too.

Pardon??? A tape recorder doesn't record "sounds", it records a waveform. It
has no knowledge of what "sound" any particular part of that waveform
belongs to. What you are claiming is physically impossible.

Nope, it's just a psychoacoustic trick. The tape machine adds certain
distortion characteristics, if I want it to, and those characteristics
are completely under my control. Some of them have precisely the
perceived effects I describe.

It's a hell of a powerful tool for
making subtle sonic changes.

So "subtle" that you need a great imagination to hear them.

Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the customer
wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings in a record,
says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a teeny bit of
underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels to the point where
I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB on the mark... voila!
--scott


Above all noted..

Except that what I'm describing is seemingly a -lack- of distortion!.

Course you can get the tape machine to -modify- the sound but in those
days they weren't looking to the tape machine as a sound processor in
its own right..

Least ways in the classical field..
--
Tony Sayer

Tape recording theory
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the
customer wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings
in a record, says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a
teeny bit of underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels
to the point where I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB
on the mark... voila! --scott


Above all noted..

Except that what I'm describing is seemingly a -lack- of distortion!.

Think the best it can do is about 1%.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

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

Tape recording theory
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Oh, I can make it pretty blatant and nasty-sounding too, if the
customer wants that. I've done that before too. Blues singer brings
in a record, says he wants to sound like that.... I set up 641 with a
teeny bit of underbias (using 1KC peak method), set operating levels
to the point where I get first audible distortion on a 1KC tone at -1dB
on the mark... voila! --scott


Above all noted..

Except that what I'm describing is seemingly a -lack- of distortion!.

Think the best it can do is about 1%.

You're about an order and a half of magnitude off. More than that if you're
willing to live with restricted dynamic range, which we often are. On the
other hand, if you want distortion, we have that too.

These days lots of people are running at elevated levels because they like
the coloration it gives you, but there's no reason you have to run at
elevated levels.
--scott

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

Tape recording theory
 

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Think the best it can do is about 1%.

You're about an order and a half of magnitude off. More than that if
you're
willing to live with restricted dynamic range, which we often are. On the
other hand, if you want distortion, we have that too.

Distortion is quoted at standard reference levels, typically 185 nWb/m, and
the last time I looked most tape formulations were producing around 1% 3rd
harmonic at those levels.

These days lots of people are running at elevated levels because they like
the coloration it gives you, but there's no reason you have to run at
elevated levels.
--scott

It's not "coloration", it's distortion. If you say that "lots of people"
like distortion I'll have to believe you, but it seems that those of us who
have been under the misapprehension that a recording machine should simply
reproduce as accurately as possible what was fed into it have been wasting
our time.

I referred earlier to the obvious distortion (read muddiness and mush) on so
many classic 60s pop albums, if people like that then they have peculiar
tastes. Of course it can be done better, much better, such as by a digital
recorder.

David.