Hello, and sorry if this topic has been discussed at length but did not find much
From what i understand there is long term debate aboute the fidelity of signal transformers.
Lately i have seen that at many audio fairs some top quality equipment are demoed using old very high quality tape recorders.
Moreover i have listened recently to some cds obtained by the digital conversion of analog tapes.
Many of these recorders have signal transformers on the outs.
I find the quality of these cds very very high, with a very strong 3D effect.
The reviewers call this quality "palpability".
So i have become interested, and a lot, about this signal transformers.
I think that this is a famous feature of Neve consoles
And i start to like this "palpable" sound a lot indeed
My understanding is that these transformers can isolate grounds (?) and decrease the noise.
Then my question ... if i wanted to try at the output of my line preamp two of these transformers, one for each channel, which models i had to buy ?
Is the wiring difficult ? is the operation worthwhile ?
Just for reference i am attaching one of the cd with a very nice and palpable sound ... very very nice
Thanks a lot and kind regards, gino
From what i understand there is long term debate aboute the fidelity of signal transformers.
Lately i have seen that at many audio fairs some top quality equipment are demoed using old very high quality tape recorders.
Moreover i have listened recently to some cds obtained by the digital conversion of analog tapes.
Many of these recorders have signal transformers on the outs.
I find the quality of these cds very very high, with a very strong 3D effect.
The reviewers call this quality "palpability".
So i have become interested, and a lot, about this signal transformers.
I think that this is a famous feature of Neve consoles
And i start to like this "palpable" sound a lot indeed
My understanding is that these transformers can isolate grounds (?) and decrease the noise.
Then my question ... if i wanted to try at the output of my line preamp two of these transformers, one for each channel, which models i had to buy ?
Is the wiring difficult ? is the operation worthwhile ?
Just for reference i am attaching one of the cd with a very nice and palpable sound ... very very nice
Thanks a lot and kind regards, gino
ginetto,
Trying to understand your post. I'm not sure that adding output transformers to the output of your line stage will add "palpability" - but it will change the sound, as all transformers have a "sound".
If you want to try something, I would suggest a transformer perhaps designated as an "output transformer", 600 ohm, and perhaps with a one to one ratio - or even with selectable ratio (one to two or higher) that you could play around with. I'm suggesting an output versus input transformer as the output units are designed to handle larger signal levels with distorting. There are a number of good manufacturers - Lundahl near you and Jensen in the US
Charles
Trying to understand your post. I'm not sure that adding output transformers to the output of your line stage will add "palpability" - but it will change the sound, as all transformers have a "sound".
If you want to try something, I would suggest a transformer perhaps designated as an "output transformer", 600 ohm, and perhaps with a one to one ratio - or even with selectable ratio (one to two or higher) that you could play around with. I'm suggesting an output versus input transformer as the output units are designed to handle larger signal levels with distorting. There are a number of good manufacturers - Lundahl near you and Jensen in the US
Charles
Hi and thanks for the valuable reply
Yes this was my understanding. For instance the recording mentioned was made with an Otari tape recorder with outputs transformer coupled.
Palpable in the sense of a sound image particularly well reproduced. Like the players and instruments standing out in the listening room.
Very fascinating effect i think. I think this effect can be related mostly to the presence of coupling transformers, am i right ?
Yes output transformers would be perfect, even if i do not know which would be the best point in the chain to place it. Maybe after the source ?
I think sometimes especially in a normal listening environment the benfit of some kind of electrical isolation are superior to the negative effect of some distortion added by the transformer.
I see these parts here from Neutrik
http://www.neutrik.com/en/accessories/inline-adapters/
so i think that maybe the real issue is the galvanic isolation that could be extremely beneficial also in a home context.
I think that the transformers you mention are much better of course
I am confused ... i will look for the Lundahl anyway
Thanks and regards, gino
Last edited:
I do a lot of tape work and the "palpability" may very well come from the medium. Some of the Otari's are VERY good sounding machines
ChARLES
ChARLES
OK, don't mistake "we'll use transformers because that's the best circuit architecture " with "transformers add a magic sound"
The point of transformers in a larger-budget build is because they allow a better architecture - Resulting in LESS artifacts not MORE
Adding transformers to a "broken" architecture won't (by definition) fix the architecture.
Now, adding stepdown transformers (eg 10k:600) to a high impedance output will likely will result in a better architecture - but only if you use good (ie Lundal or better) transformers or the end result may not be better overall
Last edited:
Yes.
Transformers, like other circuit components, have to be designed in - not slapped on as an afterthought. As a general rule, competent audio designers will only use a transformer when a transformer is the best way of achieving the desired result - they are expensive, need careful screening, and have limited frequency response. They often need to be used between carefully controlled impedances - the exact opposite of most domestic setups.
Transformers, like other circuit components, have to be designed in - not slapped on as an afterthought. As a general rule, competent audio designers will only use a transformer when a transformer is the best way of achieving the desired result - they are expensive, need careful screening, and have limited frequency response. They often need to be used between carefully controlled impedances - the exact opposite of most domestic setups.
Hello and thank you very much indeed for the very helpful explanation
I understand better the situation now.
Well but if the result of better architecture and output transformer is this one i sincerely do not understand why such designs are not more popular.
What impressed me is how the noise seems to be put down with the music emerging more prominently.
I wonder if someone here has had the opportunity to look at the schematic of these stages, especially the output stage.
Do you now if service manuals/schematic are available somewhere ?
The one used in the mentioned project is the Otari MTR 90.
I would even take out the "guts" from a broken one ...
By the way i do not know if this feature of transformer coupled outputs is very common in pro tape recorder.
I am liking very much what i listen. Even after digitalization on cd.
I cannot even image how the master could sound ... perfect !
Thanks a lot again. Kind regards, gino
Last edited:
Hi and thanks and this i suspected 🙁
But it could be that the circuit is itself could be even simpler
This is the response of the Otari MTR 90 i found in the web
I think if it is transformer coupled
actually especially in the bass there is a substantial drop
But the midrange is flat and the midrange is very important
And the voices are sublime ... i can tell you
As they say ... very lifelike. Very beautiful.
And no noise ! that is the interesting part.
It seems that the background is more in the back.
The sound is like at least a low relief if not a sculpture.
Usually my sound is more like a painting ... very very flat.
This is the worst thing of all.
Thanks again. Kind regards, gino
Last edited:
Gino, in all your posts you seem to be permanently searching for simple answers to complex questions (yes, they are complex questions even if they seem simple to express).
There is no silver bullet!
You need to seek understanding, not answers. It will take years, but it is very rewarding.
There is no silver bullet!
You need to seek understanding, not answers. It will take years, but it is very rewarding.
Hi, i have absolutely no chance to design/build anythink without stealing a schematic ... is that simple.
And even with the schematic i have no chance something comparable to the original. A good result would be something decent.
With the right tool i could solder a kit, maybe.
Mine is most a curiosity ... because when i listen to something very good indeed i am intrigued by the object and i would like to copy it. Or part of it.
I would never buy a tape recorder by the way.
But if something like the tape sound were obtainable from casette like VHS i would think ... not i have said a silly thing. There is no going back from digital. I still believe that decent digital is possible.
I should study more this transformers. Seriously.
I have found something ...
http://www.lundahl.se/our-products/line-output/
http://lundahl.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/feedbck1.pdf
here ....
Lundahl 1545a Audio Transformer
i read
Interesting advantages.
Thanks again, gino
gino, DF96 has expressed the process very succintly - there are no "magic" ways or shortcuts to getting correct sound. Personally, the approach, the mental attitude I use is that every system I come across is capable of producing the type of sound you're after - but of course 99 ... no, make that 999 out of a 1000 don't do it - and the reason they are not performing up to scratch is that they have a number of flaws, usually quite a large number, preventing this happening.
So, the process, for me, is to identify each flaw, one after another, the worst ones first, and rectify each one as I find it; and continue this journey until the "good sound" emerges, as it ultimately will. Not fixing a key flaw will undermine all the rest of my efforts - I need to track down every aspect in the system that weakens its ability to deliver convincing sound ...
So, the process, for me, is to identify each flaw, one after another, the worst ones first, and rectify each one as I find it; and continue this journey until the "good sound" emerges, as it ultimately will. Not fixing a key flaw will undermine all the rest of my efforts - I need to track down every aspect in the system that weakens its ability to deliver convincing sound ...
Hi and thanks to All for the very helpful advice.
This is one of those case in which a part that should make the sound worse (the transformer) instead makes the sound different and more musical
Let's be honest. Neve consoles are still nowadays objects of cult.
And i think the transformers inside the units have a lot to do with this sound.
Now we have this blessed Otari machine with a really spectacular sound and no one is interested to peep inside its circuits ? i cannot believe really
I would tear one apart if i only had the opportunity to do so
The sound is not good ... it is fantastic. At least for me.
The voice comes out of the speakers like neve before.
As i said i can only image how the master can sound.
And i guess that the DSD version is even better
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
This is one of those case in which a part that should make the sound worse (the transformer) instead makes the sound different and more musical
Let's be honest. Neve consoles are still nowadays objects of cult.
And i think the transformers inside the units have a lot to do with this sound.
Now we have this blessed Otari machine with a really spectacular sound and no one is interested to peep inside its circuits ? i cannot believe really
I would tear one apart if i only had the opportunity to do so
The sound is not good ... it is fantastic. At least for me.
The voice comes out of the speakers like neve before.
As i said i can only image how the master can sound.
And i guess that the DSD version is even better
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
So you can listen to a recording made by someone somewhere using a particular tape recorder and you can reliably determine that the sound you like is due to a particular component in that recorder? Nothing to do with the recording venue, the microphones, their placement, any preamps or mixers used, the tape, the skill of the recording engineer etc. etc. And, of course, the designer of that component and the designer of that recorder did their very best to make it as transparent as possible but you believe they failed, and are glad they failed because you like the distortion or limited bandwidth they could not remove?ginetto61 said:
Hi i have an opinion. Some elements in the chain have a certain character that they superimpose on the other elements of the chain.
They are something like the leading element. And there is where the cult begins.
One case i have mentioned is the Neve consoles.
Some recording engineers wants them ... the other things can change but the Neve console and its sound stay.
The same could be with some tape recorders, microphone ... preamps.
And i would stop. In a recording chain you have mics, preamps and tape recorders.
And then what is captured is captured. When you digitalize the tape you can only lost something.
But if it is not present there is no hope to get it.
Some elements have the power to shape the overall sound more than other.
But thinking a little more about this i think that the key is the isolation of grounds within a chain.
Usually in a normal home set-up there are ofthen issue of ground loops that generate noise.
A transformer acts also as an ground isolator.
I am going to try something from Neutrik ... they made inline adapters
I want the music more detached by the noise. I have to try something.
Kind regards, gino
Last edited:
gino, there is a way out of the apparent nightmare - of everything affecting the sound, so what is the real sound? ... if one keeps thinking in terms of parts in a system being additive to the sound, they "make it better, or make it worse" then in my opinion one will keep going around and around and around ... one needs to think instead of subtracting problems.
Your last comment is right on the money, "I want the music more detached by the noise." - that is the signature of correct sound, the recorded performance stands apart from any "defects" in the recording, and playback - it has an integrity and quality which rises above any of the notional problems that could be detected by, say, measuring the sound.
The Otari got there by having enough flaws in how it was set up eliminated or reduced - but you don't need a specific setup, though that may make it easier. I agree, it can be very hard to work out what the prime problem areas are - it may be an issue of ground loops, or it may be something quite different ... only experience, and an ability to persevere are real guarantees, if that, in getting a good outcome.
Your last comment is right on the money, "I want the music more detached by the noise." - that is the signature of correct sound, the recorded performance stands apart from any "defects" in the recording, and playback - it has an integrity and quality which rises above any of the notional problems that could be detected by, say, measuring the sound.
The Otari got there by having enough flaws in how it was set up eliminated or reduced - but you don't need a specific setup, though that may make it easier. I agree, it can be very hard to work out what the prime problem areas are - it may be an issue of ground loops, or it may be something quite different ... only experience, and an ability to persevere are real guarantees, if that, in getting a good outcome.
Hi and thanks again for the very kind and helpful reply.
I believe in instruments, in the sense they can tell us a lot of things.
Problem is that i have no instruments.
I still have to buy my first scope ... i have just bought a 2nd hand SPL meter so that i will be able to see the max level i get from my system during some listenings
I do not know well what 100dB at my listening spot mean, for instance.
This said, i have noticed that noise starts when i connect the source
First things should be to characterize this noise ... what kind of noise is .. mey feeling is like a ground loop.
So i believe now in isolator and transformers also act like isolators
When the noise is pushed down the signal stands out more.
I do not know at all if these transformers are very common in tape recorders
But in the case of the Otari there are.
Then it is very impressive how the voices the instruments become very present in the room. Also the 3D effect is increased.
Incidentally it is for me the more fascinating characteristics and i have always found it hard to get in the room.
To end i have also noticed that when i get, with the right recordings of course, a quite good 3D all the rest is just fine.
I have a crazy idea in mind.
To go hunting for a NEVE output module or line driver with transformers of course, i do not know if it exists
And then use it as a line preamp.
I am very curious to listen the result.
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
I believe in instruments, in the sense they can tell us a lot of things.
Problem is that i have no instruments.
I still have to buy my first scope ... i have just bought a 2nd hand SPL meter so that i will be able to see the max level i get from my system during some listenings
I do not know well what 100dB at my listening spot mean, for instance.
This said, i have noticed that noise starts when i connect the source
First things should be to characterize this noise ... what kind of noise is .. mey feeling is like a ground loop.
So i believe now in isolator and transformers also act like isolators
When the noise is pushed down the signal stands out more.
I do not know at all if these transformers are very common in tape recorders
But in the case of the Otari there are.
Then it is very impressive how the voices the instruments become very present in the room. Also the 3D effect is increased.
Incidentally it is for me the more fascinating characteristics and i have always found it hard to get in the room.
To end i have also noticed that when i get, with the right recordings of course, a quite good 3D all the rest is just fine.
I have a crazy idea in mind.
To go hunting for a NEVE output module or line driver with transformers of course, i do not know if it exists
And then use it as a line preamp.
I am very curious to listen the result.
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
Since the dawn of CD's, 1984, the TV Repair shop that I worked at had the very First CD player in town and I have always found that I liked the sound of the Material after I had recorded it on to one of my tape machines and then played it back to listen to.
Some of my tape machines are better than others and this only makes it that much better, but even just using my old Teac's was good enough.
Even to this day I record stuff from off of the computer and play it back using my 16-track using some really good tape, and it just sounds better to me.
A lot of it I really have to drastically EQ it before it even starts to sound right!!
I have done quite a few re-mastered mix CD's that sounded great on any stereo, but sounded like crap to begin with.
My equipment is state of the art from the mid 90's and there are no transformers in the signal line anywhere.
Go Figure!!! 😉
I could tell even listening to the radio if they were playing a CD or not, and, even many of my analog cassette tape copy's and originals sounded better than any CD release of the same thing that I have ever heard, even though the noise floor was just a tad higher. 😉
Especially ones I did directly off of a vinyl album.
FWIW
jer 🙂
Some of my tape machines are better than others and this only makes it that much better, but even just using my old Teac's was good enough.
Even to this day I record stuff from off of the computer and play it back using my 16-track using some really good tape, and it just sounds better to me.
A lot of it I really have to drastically EQ it before it even starts to sound right!!
I have done quite a few re-mastered mix CD's that sounded great on any stereo, but sounded like crap to begin with.
My equipment is state of the art from the mid 90's and there are no transformers in the signal line anywhere.
Go Figure!!! 😉
I could tell even listening to the radio if they were playing a CD or not, and, even many of my analog cassette tape copy's and originals sounded better than any CD release of the same thing that I have ever heard, even though the noise floor was just a tad higher. 😉
Especially ones I did directly off of a vinyl album.
FWIW
jer 🙂
Last edited:
I have an Otari MTR-12 and a MTR-15 and these mastering machines were the workhorses of the CD printing back in the day.
Most any CD that you have ever heard have had their signals originated from one of these types of machines.
I do have the full service manuals for each of these machines and there is absolutely no transformer in the signal chain, Not one!!
Yet they sound so pristine and angelic like nothing you have ever heard before!!
And, with no DBX or DOLBY, or any kind of noise reduction what-so-ever!!!
Why?...You ask....
It is because they are analog and analog tape does have more resolution than even a 192KHZ 24bit digital system does.
Here is a little article that explains this in better detail,
Nothing Sounds Like Tape | ATR Magnetics
And then there is the sound of, and frequency response, of the tape itself.
Also here is the specs of the ATR tape I have been using lately as well,
Technical Information | ATR Magnetics
This stuff is absolutely amazing and is the only one of two types that are still being made today.
Here is a few frequency response charts of track 8 (middle) at 10Hz to 25Khz on my MSR-16 using some 499 Ampex mastering tape that I just re-aligned a few weeks ago.
I have not done a FR chart using the ATR tape yet.
The first two FR's is at 30 ips with DBX and then without DBX.
And the third FR is at 7 1/2 ips without DBX.
Notice how much nicer the low ends is at 7 1/2 ips!!
It is a bit of a toss up between the two speeds, but, I still always use 15 ips when I record anything with the MSR-16.
It shows on the high end of the response. 🙁
Sorry that these may be a bit dark as I got them back off of FB and I don't have access to the original files at this time.
Now, Both the Otari's will do 30 ips and if you want to talk about eating some tape!!!
But the difference in the sound is like night and day as well!!
Even at those speeds!!!
I sure wish the MSR-16 did 30 ips !!! 😉
At least the DBX gives me an extra 10db to 20db of head room and dynamic range for a noise floor of no higher than -108db or so as measured and it is within the specs of the deck as well.
I can actually get better dynamic range than that depending on how hot I have my record levels.
Typically I keep my peaks at +6db to +9db max and it still doesn't distort until the signal is way off of the scale.
Tests have showed the the electronics seem to clip before there is any noticeable saturation of the tape.
FWIW
Enjoy!!
jer 🙂
Most any CD that you have ever heard have had their signals originated from one of these types of machines.
I do have the full service manuals for each of these machines and there is absolutely no transformer in the signal chain, Not one!!
Yet they sound so pristine and angelic like nothing you have ever heard before!!
And, with no DBX or DOLBY, or any kind of noise reduction what-so-ever!!!
Why?...You ask....
It is because they are analog and analog tape does have more resolution than even a 192KHZ 24bit digital system does.
Here is a little article that explains this in better detail,
Nothing Sounds Like Tape | ATR Magnetics
And then there is the sound of, and frequency response, of the tape itself.
Also here is the specs of the ATR tape I have been using lately as well,
Technical Information | ATR Magnetics
This stuff is absolutely amazing and is the only one of two types that are still being made today.
Here is a few frequency response charts of track 8 (middle) at 10Hz to 25Khz on my MSR-16 using some 499 Ampex mastering tape that I just re-aligned a few weeks ago.
I have not done a FR chart using the ATR tape yet.
The first two FR's is at 30 ips with DBX and then without DBX.
And the third FR is at 7 1/2 ips without DBX.
Notice how much nicer the low ends is at 7 1/2 ips!!
It is a bit of a toss up between the two speeds, but, I still always use 15 ips when I record anything with the MSR-16.
It shows on the high end of the response. 🙁
Sorry that these may be a bit dark as I got them back off of FB and I don't have access to the original files at this time.
Now, Both the Otari's will do 30 ips and if you want to talk about eating some tape!!!
But the difference in the sound is like night and day as well!!
Even at those speeds!!!
I sure wish the MSR-16 did 30 ips !!! 😉
At least the DBX gives me an extra 10db to 20db of head room and dynamic range for a noise floor of no higher than -108db or so as measured and it is within the specs of the deck as well.
I can actually get better dynamic range than that depending on how hot I have my record levels.
Typically I keep my peaks at +6db to +9db max and it still doesn't distort until the signal is way off of the scale.
Tests have showed the the electronics seem to clip before there is any noticeable saturation of the tape.
FWIW
Enjoy!!
jer 🙂
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.