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."

wrote in message
...
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..

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:-)

Iain

"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

"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

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

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.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

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

"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.

"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?

David.

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."

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

There were literally dozens like that in the 50s and particularly the
60s. They are known as "rim-drive" decks. They all had horrendous sound
quality; it's not a mechanism suited to the purpose!

They were novelty toys, really. I think they all came from Japan, from
just a very small handful of factories who sold them under a vast array
of more or less plausible western-sounding brand names.

As well as being cheap, they could be made very small.

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

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

There were literally dozens like that in the 50s and particularly the
60s. They are known as "rim-drive" decks. They all had horrendous sound
quality; it's not a mechanism suited to the purpose!

They were novelty toys, really. I think they all came from Japan, from
just a very small handful of factories who sold them under a vast array
of more or less plausible western-sounding brand names.

As well as being cheap, they could be made very small.


I remember them well. They used to be extensively advertised in the small
ads in the back of "Practical Wireless" and the like.

David.