Well guys, I am just reporting on renewed interest in analog tape playback, and secondarily, the quality of all analog recording-playback.
Many here just don't hear the difference, either through lack of experience, or just what you hear through whatever you hear through.
I worked directly with analog tape recorders between 50 and 30 years ago and became expert enough in them that I could replace the electronics of a master recorder with my own and win awards for it.
Now, I know all the downsides of analog recording, especially 3 3/4 -7 1/2 quarter track recording-reproduce. I owned many dozens of prerecorded tapes before the Oakland firestorm in 1991, and they were very noisy. However, I also had my own professional Ampex 15ips half track recorder that I made tapes directly from the microphones of groups that we were working with. Now, they could be better than almost any record and certainly better sounding (subjectively) than CD up to that time. About 38 years ago, I started to make custom electronics for all-out analog recorders for mastering, starting with Mobile Fidelity. Moving up to full track 30 ips gave me lots of challenges, like extending out the low frequency response, etc, and it burned a lot of tape, BUT it did make great recordings. I could never afford this sort of recording, and when I lost all my masters in the firestorm, I just gave up on analog recording. Now 25 years have passed, and people are deriving joy of how GOOD even 15 ips half track can sound, and they are willing to pay for the privilege of owning tapes that really sound good. It seems that even the best digital does not compare (in my opinion) even today. What a disappointment! Why doesn't digital, by now, sound like: "Perfect sound forever?" That is the question to ask.
Many here just don't hear the difference, either through lack of experience, or just what you hear through whatever you hear through.
I worked directly with analog tape recorders between 50 and 30 years ago and became expert enough in them that I could replace the electronics of a master recorder with my own and win awards for it.
Now, I know all the downsides of analog recording, especially 3 3/4 -7 1/2 quarter track recording-reproduce. I owned many dozens of prerecorded tapes before the Oakland firestorm in 1991, and they were very noisy. However, I also had my own professional Ampex 15ips half track recorder that I made tapes directly from the microphones of groups that we were working with. Now, they could be better than almost any record and certainly better sounding (subjectively) than CD up to that time. About 38 years ago, I started to make custom electronics for all-out analog recorders for mastering, starting with Mobile Fidelity. Moving up to full track 30 ips gave me lots of challenges, like extending out the low frequency response, etc, and it burned a lot of tape, BUT it did make great recordings. I could never afford this sort of recording, and when I lost all my masters in the firestorm, I just gave up on analog recording. Now 25 years have passed, and people are deriving joy of how GOOD even 15 ips half track can sound, and they are willing to pay for the privilege of owning tapes that really sound good. It seems that even the best digital does not compare (in my opinion) even today. What a disappointment! Why doesn't digital, by now, sound like: "Perfect sound forever?" That is the question to ask.
Simple fact, not everyone agrees with you. Another point many of the great conductors and orchestras have passed away or retired, and the current situation is not conducive to spectacular performances.
With YOUR speakers, everything sounds good! '-) I am listening to a pair myself at the moment.
You did say good, what's wrong with that?
It's possible you are not into the classical music scene, I was just saying I don't think you could make 30 ips master recordings of any performances that would be worth the effort at this time. As for pop and rock why bother?
I realize that the many of the iconics aren't around or active anymore, but, in general, the quality of your symphonies has improved over the years and who's in vs. out is almost arbitrary. The competition is so tough, which is also why we're not seeing so many virtuosos either.
How about an ABBA cover band then, Scott? My sister likes 'em.
YouTube
Pop music is my Waterloo...😉...but of course people listen to music for many different and personal reasons. Being subsocial, I usually listen for music, not words, and Abba's music is trite and boring, and their words are pretty disposable...IMHO
But like other people I like mental junk food from time to time as well...
(flamesuit on)
Howie
What is the best digital you are familiar with? Have you heard a Benchmark DAC-3? How about the best A/D you may have heard?
Just asking, because the best digital can sound pretty good. Different than tape, but good.
On the other hand if you are talking about CDs and an OPPO player or something like that, it's not the best, and some would say its far from the best.
Last edited:
Really?
CD4066 datasheet (same as uPD4066):
High Degree of Linearity: <0.5% Distortion Typical at fis = 1 kHz, Vis = 5 Vp-p VDD – VSS ≥ 10 V, RL = 10 kΩ
In the schematic, they are in the replay signal path, after the head preamps. Since I can't suspect the Nak engineers being total morons, I would think this 0.5% is much less than what would be expected as system distortions. Amazing performance, isn't it?
It could also be that "technically perfect" and "most enjoyable", i.e., a willingness to impart one's own spin on a piece of music, are not in alignment, too. I really don't have a dog in the fight, I am happy whenever I get to see stuff live.
The human performance stuff is interesting to me, which is where I learned read about the level of competition for classical musicians.
Easy question, it's cheap, very good, and doesn't offer any bragging rights to the owner. Plus, I guess, chicks are easily impressed by those spinning monsters.
Point is, 0.5% distortion parts aren't liable to be the rate limiter in tape playback. So we're not exactly talking high fidelity, nor does it help Mr. Curl's case that "mid-fi" electronics are holding things back (acknowledging that is the hammer to which everything is a nail for him). The media itself and the mechanical drive are the rate limiters.
So everybody in the industry (including our very JC) is wasting their time creating discrete amplifiers with amazing distortion performance, while even modest a chip amp could do much better than 0.5%. Use a great pre/power amp, with amazing 7th harmonic distortion performance, fed by a source with say 1% distortion, what a joke. For the benefit of a few stupid rich *****.
Boy, and some are wondering why is this "high end audio" industry going down the sewer.
As usual... Opamps 5 or more pins. Superior audiophile solid state devices have 3 pins. (Hint they are not op-amps!)
But you can actually build an op-amp to work in a three pin package!!! (Hint inverting input, common, output uses resistor or current source.) Some RF amp chips were (are?) built that way.
Well then you get a nice system for your new DIY listed location! 😉
BTY where you last listed I think you did a few bits that could have called for stoning.
Hi Chris,
I did hardware development for the cassette replication industry, and we used Nak 1000s for play reference, training techs to adjust azimuth for each side. I still have all of the Nak auto-alignment jigs and 1000ZXL parts, and maybe even a 100ZXL Gold head, which was specially selected for gap width and parallellism...I guess I should sell them before there is no demand...
I do have to take issue with your endorsement of the Stuvox A710/B710 cassette decks. While they were made like tanks, their "innovation" of the rotary pivoting head / pinch roller assy guaranteed inaccurate tracking as the humidity and temp changed after alignment. Their heads sucked too, large radius pole tip geometry guaranteeing little pressure at the gap to ensure contact and HF stability. We had a bunch of A80s and A810s in house, and I designed special heads made by John French for them to improve the HF stability. I love Studer's build quality and reliability, heads...not so much.
In contrast Nak's pressure pad retractor just about eliminated scrape flutter, and their small radius pole tips and extremely accurate micro-gaps allowed response in the case of the 1000ZXL to over 40 kHz at 1.875 IPS!
I spent a lot of time with Nak and Dubbly engineers on the MR-1 (IEC '68/'76 eq) and MR-1b (IEC '81 eq). What we discovered about Asian manufacturers being able to use cheap heads by using 'new' ABEX cal tapes resulted in the ITA/IEC '94 spec. While talking with them I found out Nak had gotten its start making reel-to-reel decks sold in Asia, as well as a couple of models they manufactured for KLH. And you are right, if the innovations Nak eventually came up with in head technology along with the superior tape formulations of the late '80s early '90s were put into a RtR deck, it would be great! But no need now that digital is perfect (ducks...)
My favorite piece of Nak gear was a 1000ZXL which I built for a Dolby engineer which had the auto-azimuth and calibration of the 1000ZXL in record, and the auto azimuth mechanism of a Dragon transplanted into it for repro. It would turn out phenomenal tapes which had correct azimuth despite the shell and play back all tapes with az correction. I guess you could call it The Dragon 1000ZXL. I still have a few 1000ZXLs and Dragons around in various states of disassembly as well as one of the IEC Standard Dragons with direct azimuth readout meter. These decks were used to determine the inherent azimuth steering due to the shell and displayed the azimuth difference in seconds of arc.
I still use a Dragon to dump cassettes to digital for various radio stations, I think I have done over 1500 to date...and worn the take-up clutch out, so now I have something else to fix.
OK thanks for triggering that nightmare...I mean memory.
Cheers,
Howie
go back to sleep...digital is perfect, digital is perfect, digital is perfect........
You got it, in either case live performance by people that care is good. It's just important to note their hands are tied in some respect. I get my input from a principle/endowed chair in the BSO, being able to play note perfect with minimal rehearsal fits into the model that the musician's union supports. The days of the mad dog genius conductor driving the agenda to his idea of perfection is over.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.