Five days ago actually.There was "something digital"there too,but in this case it was not used.There were real instruments playing and we felt we didn't have any "right" to destroy them
The tape will go to a producer who will make a limited number of LP's.
Last edited:
HF hearing ability is only part of the story here.Acceptance of reality, yes, but that has nothing to do with accepting that you claim to be able to hear something that happens at 17KHz+ at the age of 45+ .
If you can hear 17KHz+ at the age of 45+, you truly stand out, and will be one of VERY few.
At the age of 40, most have even kissed 15-16KHz goodbye.
Magura
At 43 I can EASILY hear an 18KHz fundamental, I can hear the 19kHz MPX notch filters engaged on tape decks and their effects. A 16kHz line freq from a CRT is still very annoying and there's numerous SMPS supplies I chase down in the house for high frequency noise I can HEAR.
How many dB my hearing is down at the extremes is totally irrelevant if the noise actually bothers me. The same is true for HF cable effects, especially when it's primarily the interface method and impedance matching/mismatching that causes the percieved 'differences'. Audio is less susceptible, only because the spectrum we are interested in is only 20KHz wide at the bottom end of the spectrum. Arguably it is the most important as we are attempting to derive the most perceived 'realism' from using it. It therefore makes sense to use anything that enhances that result. The entire discussion is a waste of time we could all be spending building, testing and mostly...listening.
Hi restorer-john,
Do you restore cassette decks John? If so, where ever do you get the capstan bearings?? The other rubber parts are another issue again, and that is why I gave up on cassette deck service (and R-R) years ago.
-Chris
OMG, I haven't dealt with one of those in years! They are only found on cassette decks aren't they? Now, in tuners, I see them almost every time unless they use a pilot canceling system.
Well, it's not cable mismatching as you might think in RF terms, but is certainly is a loading effect. The higher the source impedance, the more effect you will have. You will also have more noise pickup. The system for audio isn't matching the impedance, it's low Z out to high Z in. The only time this doesn't hold true is in phono cartridges and high end microphones. Also, a balanced line is one where the two signals are equal in amplitude, but opposite in phase. A proper zero is + 4 dBm in that case. Consumer gear almost never adheres to these standards though.
Do you restore cassette decks John? If so, where ever do you get the capstan bearings?? The other rubber parts are another issue again, and that is why I gave up on cassette deck service (and R-R) years ago.
-Chris
Actually my job and a friend's was to deliver the finished tape(on a Revox G36
).We did it for fun and the experience.Our "fee" will be a few LP's.I can ask about the cost if you like to know.
Hi Panicos K,
You did that on a G-36? That's cool. I was having trouble getting parts way back when. The function switch assy is the most problem prone thing in these. Can't get them any more.
If you can, restore a PR-99 to work with. These will last longer - should anyway. It's a nice machine. If not, B-77. The A-77 wouldn't be my first choice for this.
The better Teac machines (like the 52 as opposed to the 32) are pretty good as well. I have a BR-20 I haven't used, still in box!
There is nothing that compares to what you can lay down on R-R tape. TAlk about impact! Good going Panicos!
-Chris
You did that on a G-36? That's cool. I was having trouble getting parts way back when. The function switch assy is the most problem prone thing in these. Can't get them any more.
If you can, restore a PR-99 to work with. These will last longer - should anyway. It's a nice machine. If not, B-77. The A-77 wouldn't be my first choice for this.
The better Teac machines (like the 52 as opposed to the 32) are pretty good as well. I have a BR-20 I haven't used, still in box!
There is nothing that compares to what you can lay down on R-R tape. TAlk about impact! Good going Panicos!
-Chris
Back to cable effects? Has anyone seen this on "the maxwell effect". It suggests that there is an optimal wire diameter for audio. Its quite convincing and complete with pages of maxwells equations to support the claims. And all tough its very scientific and backed with math, something dosnt ring true (the part that shows EM propagation in a wire at low audio fs is 1/25 the speed of sound). Anyone here remember enough differential equations to check the math. Any intelegent comments welcome.
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/
Hi Chris,
Sad but true,our G36 will not live forever.Same problem with partrs here,my friend Nicholas has his last ones and keeping them like madThe result was really good.
I will tell him about your suggestions.
Oh....and those pictures I have promissed
I'll send them this weekend.
Really
Sad but true,our G36 will not live forever.Same problem with partrs here,my friend Nicholas has his last ones and keeping them like mad
The result was really good.I will tell him about your suggestions.
Oh....and those pictures I have promissed
I'll send them this weekend.Really
And I thought electronics and music was sheer math
Well, joke aside, it really is based on math, even the music, right
Question is
How does the same piece of music sound boring with one musician or band, and just absolutely stunning mind blowing with another
Ehh, wheres the magic hidden
In math ?
Sounds to me like you are just shooting in your own foot
Point is, ist all connected, depending on each other
One side doesnt exist without the other
Well, joke aside, it really is based on math, even the music, right
Question is
How does the same piece of music sound boring with one musician or band, and just absolutely stunning mind blowing with another
Ehh, wheres the magic hidden
In math ?
Sounds to me like you are just shooting in your own foot
Point is, ist all connected, depending on each other
One side doesnt exist without the other
Last edited:
Hi M,
No one's claiming to be hearing beyond the measured limits of his physical capabilities.
It's not about compression either but more likely the fact that the bandwidth has been cut at the high-end of the frequency sprectrum alters and affects the range lying below.
Could be anything really, phase-shifts perhaps, subtle changes in tonal balance. Just guessing.
One thing's for sure though, my bat-like hearing is long gone....
Cheers,
Naah Frank, I'm only 34
Anyhow, could it be due to the compression, rather than the lack of the last KHz?
I would think so, as the attempts so far to demonstrate that we perceive sound above our hearing limitations, has not made it past theory.
Magura
No one's claiming to be hearing beyond the measured limits of his physical capabilities.
It's not about compression either but more likely the fact that the bandwidth has been cut at the high-end of the frequency sprectrum alters and affects the range lying below.
Could be anything really, phase-shifts perhaps, subtle changes in tonal balance. Just guessing.
One thing's for sure though, my bat-like hearing is long gone....
Cheers,
Hi Panicos K,
Well, enjoy those machines while you can. Time is also not going to be your friend there either.
I thought I heard of some places in the USA that were supplying the studio market with parts for the better machines. Wouldn't it be cool (and amazing) if someone came out with Sendust (or Crystalalloy) heads for these Revox machines (or Teac)? Imagine electronics from Nakamichi coupled to the heads I suggested and aligned. That would be super quiet and extremely clear. Now there is a combination I have wanted to see since I started servicing Nakamichi, I was already servicing Revox and Tascam. What a machine that would make.
What you want for a replacement machine is one that controlled the back tension dynamically. That would reduce the flutter and absolute tape speed would be more consistent. You might even be able to have a consistent tape to head tension lower than what you have normally. As a side benefit, no belts any more. Braking is done with the motors, brakes only keep the reels from turning after they stop.
Don't worry about the pictures! I am still not ready, so no problem at all.
-Chris
Well, enjoy those machines while you can. Time is also not going to be your friend there either.
I thought I heard of some places in the USA that were supplying the studio market with parts for the better machines. Wouldn't it be cool (and amazing) if someone came out with Sendust (or Crystalalloy) heads for these Revox machines (or Teac)? Imagine electronics from Nakamichi coupled to the heads I suggested and aligned. That would be super quiet and extremely clear. Now there is a combination I have wanted to see since I started servicing Nakamichi, I was already servicing Revox and Tascam. What a machine that would make.
What you want for a replacement machine is one that controlled the back tension dynamically. That would reduce the flutter and absolute tape speed would be more consistent. You might even be able to have a consistent tape to head tension lower than what you have normally. As a side benefit, no belts any more. Braking is done with the motors, brakes only keep the reels from turning after they stop.
Don't worry about the pictures! I am still not ready, so no problem at all.
-Chris
From the paper;
"The velocity of propagation in a lossy material follows from v = ω/β, whereby v = √(2ω/µσ). This is very much lower than that for a material with low conductivity.
For copper (using the material parameters in Table 1), α, β, and v are given by
α = β = 15.13 x √f and v = 0.415 x √f
Note the frequency dependence of α, β, and v—All are significant at audio frequencies!!! At 1kHz, the velocity is just 1/25 of the velocity of sound in air!"
Or 4 m/s at 100hz. So i can run faster than the EM propogation in copper! Am I missing something? Did I miss read? Or do they expect me to believe these numbers because of the fancy math.
"The velocity of propagation in a lossy material follows from v = ω/β, whereby v = √(2ω/µσ). This is very much lower than that for a material with low conductivity.
For copper (using the material parameters in Table 1), α, β, and v are given by
α = β = 15.13 x √f and v = 0.415 x √f
Note the frequency dependence of α, β, and v—All are significant at audio frequencies!!! At 1kHz, the velocity is just 1/25 of the velocity of sound in air!"
Or 4 m/s at 100hz. So i can run faster than the EM propogation in copper! Am I missing something? Did I miss read? Or do they expect me to believe these numbers because of the fancy math.
Measuring cables
Hey guys,
First post here. Yesterday I found this thread and thought I would make a contribution based on my experience with audio interconnects.
As a music lover and audio engineer I was curious about the measured performance of cables, this triggered by the difference I thought I could hear among different interconnect types, so I decided to develop a test system that could hopefully confirm what other people and I were hearing.
So, about five years ago I started playing with some ideas and building a prototype, based on what I thought was the best approach: A system that could measure the difference between the input and output signals of any interconnect cable. So, two prototypes were built, based on my own schematics, and a Praxis measurement system used for signal generation and display of time-domain and frequency-domain measurements. The second prototype also let me listen to the losses (just the losses, isolated from the input signal) with headphones, using music as a source, and A/B-ing two interconnects for losses just by flipping a switch (a fascinating exercise).
Since right now I’m travelling, with limited access to my documents, I'll leave most of the technical details for the future and go straight to the results and preliminary conclusions: In the attached PDF document you can see the measured magnitude of losses, relative to the input signal (2V RMS), for four different interconnects chosen at random, from a cheap one (top trace, with the highest losses) to an “audiophile" type, and a couple of things in between. This is for a 10k load impedance, which can be easily changed, with obvious impact on the measured results.
Conclusions:
•Interconnect cables can be quite different from each other (confirmed by measurements), with up to a 20dB difference in the magnitude of losses between common “good” and “bad” interconnects.
•Cables preferred by music lovers have consistently low measured losses, even if the magnitude of losses is not “flat” within the audio spectrum.
•Very good interconnects can be easily made from selected cable types from your electronics store (and very bad ones can be easily made as well….) Testing different cable types is a captivating exercise, for they all have different characteristics, based on materials and construction.
•More in future posts...
This measurement system may not be perfect, but I think it’s a good starting point to finally confirm that each interconnect has its own distinct characteristics; to understand where the difference is coming from, and also as a tool for audio cable development and evaluation.
I’ll try to answer any questions you guys may have.
Cheers,
Ricardo
Hey guys,
First post here. Yesterday I found this thread and thought I would make a contribution based on my experience with audio interconnects.
As a music lover and audio engineer I was curious about the measured performance of cables, this triggered by the difference I thought I could hear among different interconnect types, so I decided to develop a test system that could hopefully confirm what other people and I were hearing.
So, about five years ago I started playing with some ideas and building a prototype, based on what I thought was the best approach: A system that could measure the difference between the input and output signals of any interconnect cable. So, two prototypes were built, based on my own schematics, and a Praxis measurement system used for signal generation and display of time-domain and frequency-domain measurements. The second prototype also let me listen to the losses (just the losses, isolated from the input signal) with headphones, using music as a source, and A/B-ing two interconnects for losses just by flipping a switch (a fascinating exercise).
Since right now I’m travelling, with limited access to my documents, I'll leave most of the technical details for the future and go straight to the results and preliminary conclusions: In the attached PDF document you can see the measured magnitude of losses, relative to the input signal (2V RMS), for four different interconnects chosen at random, from a cheap one (top trace, with the highest losses) to an “audiophile" type, and a couple of things in between. This is for a 10k load impedance, which can be easily changed, with obvious impact on the measured results.
Conclusions:
•Interconnect cables can be quite different from each other (confirmed by measurements), with up to a 20dB difference in the magnitude of losses between common “good” and “bad” interconnects.
•Cables preferred by music lovers have consistently low measured losses, even if the magnitude of losses is not “flat” within the audio spectrum.
•Very good interconnects can be easily made from selected cable types from your electronics store (and very bad ones can be easily made as well….) Testing different cable types is a captivating exercise, for they all have different characteristics, based on materials and construction.
•More in future posts...
This measurement system may not be perfect, but I think it’s a good starting point to finally confirm that each interconnect has its own distinct characteristics; to understand where the difference is coming from, and also as a tool for audio cable development and evaluation.
I’ll try to answer any questions you guys may have.
Cheers,
Ricardo
This could be interesting to dig a little deeper into.
If time permits, I'll try to set up a test rig for this tomorrow.
It should be fairly simple to test if the compression is guilty, as it would be a matter of recording two pieces. One which is compressed to get under 15KHz, and one which is just cut off at 15 KHz. If there is a difference, it should be fairly obvious.
Magura
Hi,
You mean without punity, correct?
More bad news; I am afraid it's mainly you doing the wishful thinking here.
It would be nice if you understood that it's not your hearing abilities that are under attack here, just that you don't seem to be willing to bring any evidence to the table that what you hear is nothing more than shifts in electrical parameters within the various cables you hook your system up with.
Surely, I don't mind to carry this on for another 500 pages or so but does everone?
No hard feelings,
You mean without punity, correct?
More bad news; I am afraid it's mainly you doing the wishful thinking here.
It would be nice if you understood that it's not your hearing abilities that are under attack here, just that you don't seem to be willing to bring any evidence to the table that what you hear is nothing more than shifts in electrical parameters within the various cables you hook your system up with.
Surely, I don't mind to carry this on for another 500 pages or so but does everone?
No hard feelings,
Hi,
Well, well, well...What tape do you use for the G36 recordings?
Cheers,
Hi Chris,
Sad but true,our G36 will not live forever.Same problem with partrs here,my friend Nicholas has his last ones and keeping them like mad
I will tell him about your suggestions.
Oh....and those pictures I have promissed
Really
Well, well, well...What tape do you use for the G36 recordings?
Cheers,
- Status
- Not open for further replies.