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