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

"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Woody wrote:
Clearly you have never had the joy of listening to a direct cut
disc
played on a good turntable with a moving coil cartridge into
any
sort
of reasonable system. It is a really something to behold.

I've had the joy of listening to the live sound in the control
room
where
it's being balanced/recorded. Only a good digital recording comes
close to
that. Analogue tape never did, and any form of disc recording a
very
poor
second.




Old Stan Curtis has an interesting take on analogue recorders;!

And a few other audio topics.


http://www.stancurtis.com/PDFs/HiFi%20Critic%205.pdf

--


Now there was a chap who knew his onions.

If he does, he doesn't cover it fully in that article. More to
lining up
an analogue tape machine for replay than simply cleaning the heads
and
setting a level.



Stan Curtis AIR was for a while a reviewer/critic on Hi-Fi News
magazine whilst also designing amps under the Lecson and later
Cambridge Audio brands (or was it the other way around. IMSMC he
didn't pull the punches when he didn't like the design or sound of any
given amp. (Where's Jim LeSurf when you need him?)

If anyone is interested I found this web page with some details of
basic amp modules that he designed and were published in Electronics
Today International or ETI as it was always known in the early
80's-ish.

http://home.kpn.nl/a.van.waarde/Curtispre.htm

Interestingly I bought a faulty Toshiba SY-C15 preamp from a modular
hi-fi stack system from Neat audio (Neat stood for North East Audio
Traders) who had a secondhand hi-fi shop on the old GNR in Darlington
before they moved into designing and manufacturing some very nice
compact speakers at silly prices. The circuit was almost identical to
that of SC's design except that the input bootstrap pair were a single
substrate dual transistor, and the output pair were power transistors
similar to TIP29/TIP30. The fault was a blown TIP29 (equiv) in one
output stage.

Also interesting but again per SC's design the RIAA preamp used the
same circuit as the main preamp but with RIAA feedback. Line inputs
went straight to the main preamp which could also be bypassed by a
switch in effect leaving the volume control as the only item in the
signal path - it became a 'passive preamp' as the marketing bods would
later call such configuration.

Of its time it was a superb piece of kit; hum and hiss were inaudible,
it had very capable dynamics due to a well regulated PSU. The only
reason I had to get rid of it was lack of inputs!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In article , Woody
wrote:

Stan Curtis AIR was for a while a reviewer/critic on Hi-Fi News
magazine whilst also designing amps under the Lecson and later
Cambridge Audio brands (or was it the other way around. IMSMC he didn't
pull the punches when he didn't like the design or sound of any given
amp. (Where's Jim LeSurf when you need him?)

No idea. Who he? :-)

However, I think you are right, but afraid I can't recall the details of
the above so can't comment beyond that.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

keskiviikko 18. lokakuuta 2017 16.48.38 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:
In article ,
Woody wrote:

"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Woody wrote:
Clearly you have never had the joy of listening to a direct cut
disc
played on a good turntable with a moving coil cartridge into any
sort
of reasonable system. It is a really something to behold.

I've had the joy of listening to the live sound in the control room
where
it's being balanced/recorded. Only a good digital recording comes
close to
that. Analogue tape never did, and any form of disc recording a very
poor
second.




Old Stan Curtis has an interesting take on analogue recorders;!

And a few other audio topics.


http://www.stancurtis.com/PDFs/HiFi%20Critic%205.pdf

--


Now there was a chap who knew his onions.

If he does, he doesn't cover it fully in that article. More to lining up
an analogue tape machine for replay than simply cleaning the heads and
setting a level.


Agreed! Setting the replay was the easy bit. Much more to it if you include demag,set up of record level, hf, and bias, on 24 tracks with Dolby SR. It was an early morning task for every studio assistant. I wonder what they do these days, uploads and downloads probably, and of course make coffee strong enough to dissolve the spoon. Some things never change:-)

Iain

keskiviikko 18. lokakuuta 2017 0.58.33 UTC+3 tony sayer kirjoitti:


Old Stan Curtis has an interesting take on analogue recorders;!

Much more important than the view of a manufacturer is your own opinion -even more so if based on personal experience. Analogue tape, which was after all state of the art for forty years, was used to make thousand of fine recordings, which have delighted audiences the world over, and was particularly good after the introduction of Dolby A in the mid 60's.

It is interesting to note that many pop musicians favour studios where they can record on 2" analogue multitrack (Studer A80/24 with Dolby SR is a particular favourite) and edit and mix in digital.

Many mastering facilities have a stereo Studer A80 for clients who ask for an analogue pass as a part of the premastering stage. Why do you think that might be?

I tend to associate various recording/reproducer techniques with certain type of music, (and accept their strengths and weaknesses). To me, 20s and 30s jazz sounds best from shellac on a wind up gramophone, and Jethro Tull from a Garrard 401, SME arm and Shure V15 takes a lot of beating:-)

Iain

torstai 12. lokakuuta 2017 4.59.51 UTC+3 RJH kirjoitti:



Wouldn't a recording be 'going through' the tape, like on a 3 head
cassette deck? No idea, perhaps not.

Yes. Monitoring is usually off tape. You do have the possibility to switch to Line In if you wish, for comparison.

If what you say is the general case, it does make me wonder how much
better all the analogue recordings could have been.

In what way could they have been better, Rob?, giving the technology available at the time?

Iain

On 21/10/2017 22:11, Iain wrote:
torstai 12. lokakuuta 2017 4.59.51 UTC+3 RJH kirjoitti:



Wouldn't a recording be 'going through' the tape, like on a 3 head
cassette deck? No idea, perhaps not.

Yes. Monitoring is usually off tape. You do have the possibility to switch to Line In if you wish, for comparison.

If what you say is the general case, it does make me wonder how much
better all the analogue recordings could have been.

In what way could they have been better, Rob?, giving the technology available at the time?


Well, given the observation by Dave P that only digital recording was
'close' to the line-through sound monitored in the control room.
Analogue was 'never close'.

I am surprised that's the case, but anyhoo, I've never been in a
control room, let alone worked in one.

And it does make me wonder what, say, the Beatles/Floyd recordings would
have been like, and how blokes like Neil Young manage in the face of
this. I think they/their work sounds pretty superb as is.

Maybe Dave's talking about the experience of a control room using top
rate speakers and listening environment etc as opposed to a domestic
setting. And 'not close to the original' for him is a decent
approximation for the rest of us.

Even so, I'm still surprised, and wouldn't mind a day with Steve Albini :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 21/10/2017 22:11, Iain wrote:
torstai 12. lokakuuta 2017 4.59.51 UTC+3 RJH kirjoitti:



Wouldn't a recording be 'going through' the tape, like on a 3 head
cassette deck? No idea, perhaps not.

Yes. Monitoring is usually off tape. You do have the possibility to switch to Line In if you wish, for comparison.

If what you say is the general case, it does make me wonder how much
better all the analogue recordings could have been.

In what way could they have been better, Rob?, giving the technology available at the time?


Well, given the observation by Dave P that only digital recording was
'close' to the line-through sound monitored in the control room.
Analogue was 'never close'.

In that you could clearly hear a difference, if in a position to compare
them. But not saying the analogue recording was dreadful.

I am surprised that's the case, but anyhoo, I've never been in a
control room, let alone worked in one.

You could hear similar on a decent high end domestic R to R like a Revox,
by switching between input and off tape output.

And it does make me wonder what, say, the Beatles/Floyd recordings would
have been like, and how blokes like Neil Young manage in the face of
this. I think they/their work sounds pretty superb as is.

The original wax cylinders would have sounded good too. At the time.

Maybe Dave's talking about the experience of a control room using top
rate speakers and listening environment etc as opposed to a domestic
setting. And 'not close to the original' for him is a decent
approximation for the rest of us.

Just a simple fact. Not in the least trying to say analogue can't give
results which delight.

I'll try and give a simple analogy. If you save, say, a text document
created on your computer, it can be copied as many times as you want, and
look exactly the same. Now try saving a screen shot of it as a TIFF or
whatever. It should look quite good. Now enlarge that TIFF and the text
will go all fuzzy. Not so with the original file.

Of course that's not exactly the same - but sort of shows what I mean.

Even so, I'm still surprised, and wouldn't mind a day with Steve Albini :-)

--
*Filthy stinking rich -- well, two out of three ain't bad

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

sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 11.41.48 UTC+3 RJH kirjoitti:
On 21/10/2017 22:11, Iain wrote:
torstai 12. lokakuuta 2017 4.59.51 UTC+3 RJH kirjoitti:



Wouldn't a recording be 'going through' the tape, like on a 3 head
cassette deck? No idea, perhaps not.

Yes. Monitoring is usually off tape. You do have the possibility to switch to Line In if you wish, for comparison.

If what you say is the general case, it does make me wonder how much
better all the analogue recordings could have been.

In what way could they have been better, Rob?, giving the technology available at the time?


Well, given the observation by Dave P that only digital recording was
'close' to the line-through sound monitored in the control room.
Analogue was 'never close'.

That is Dave's personal opinion (to which he is fully entitled:-)
Replay from a professional analogue recorder with Dolby A or SR was incredibly close.

Iain

sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 12.35.51 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:


You could hear similar on a decent high end domestic R to R like a Revox,
by switching between input and off tape output.

Don't compare a Revox with a professionally set-up studio recorder, Studer A80
or Ampex A440 with Dolby SR.

The Revox is not even in the same league.

Iain

On 22/10/2017 13:59, Iain wrote:
sunnuntai 22. lokakuuta 2017 12.35.51 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:


You could hear similar on a decent high end domestic R to R like a Revox,
by switching between input and off tape output.

Don't compare a Revox with a professionally set-up studio recorder, Studer A80
or Ampex A440 with Dolby SR.

The Revox is not even in the same league.


True, but one of the few domestic recorders that had separate record and
replay heads so you could monitor a recording off tape. I think Akai
made one as well for a while.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.