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

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

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

"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.

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.

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

"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.

"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.


Later, a 10kHz tone was used, and bias set at 3dB over peak.
This was recommeded by AGFA for PEM468.

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

"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.


Later, a 10kHz tone was used, and bias set at 3dB over peak.
This was recommeded by AGFA for PEM468.


When I worked for Rediffusion in the early seventies, there were heated
discussions between the maintenance people and the sound engineering people
as to the correct bias setting: 1dB overbias, 2dB or 3dB....we obviously
didn't have enough work to do.....The tape machines were Philips Pro 50s and
Ampex AG440s, both using Scotch 206. We finally agreed 2dB over, but we
lined up at 700Hz, not 1kHz.

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

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
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.


Later, a 10kHz tone was used, and bias set at 3dB over peak.
This was recommeded by AGFA for PEM468.

Indeed - but the practice I was taught was from the days when machines
struggled to make 10kHz on BBC standard tape.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

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