This is a relatively info free post, but within the last year I saw a cheezy video somewheres where they got a handful of supposedly respected recording engineers and some musicians. They played some tape and some files. Supposedly top notch equipment. The participants were supposed to raise a hand when they thought it was one versus the other. The results were about 50/50. Hands were flying all over the place. One had one up while another had one down. It was a mess.
Result? Digital has at least matched analog for recording, if not superceded. They went on to say there is plenty of equipment designed to put the desirable analog sound (what is that?) in the digital anyway, and that this is being done on a massive scale because it is cheaper, more reliable.
Result? Digital has at least matched analog for recording, if not superceded. They went on to say there is plenty of equipment designed to put the desirable analog sound (what is that?) in the digital anyway, and that this is being done on a massive scale because it is cheaper, more reliable.
makaiyumtony - I used to build the mics you used for the recording you did. They are very nice, and expensive mics, but they wouldn't have been my first choice in your application. The rear polar lobe of any ribbon mic will be reverse polarity wrt the frontal lobe. When you are relying on them for ambience pickup, you end up with some anomalies in the recording due to front to back and side to side cancellations. I've found it a big step up to use cardoid mics (with very even polar patterns) for the close mics, and then omnis spaced a lot farther out. The final result is much more natural sounding.
I also question recording in an all brick room - I like how large the room is, that is definitely working in your favor, but all brick with no diffusion must echo like crazy? At the very least, it will have a strong sonic signature.
I wish I could try your recording setup sometime! I would really love to do a comparison between my digital setup versus an all analog setup. Whether the final sound is different or the same, there would be lots to learn...
It there any chance you could post a sample recording of the analog and digital recordings?
I also question recording in an all brick room - I like how large the room is, that is definitely working in your favor, but all brick with no diffusion must echo like crazy? At the very least, it will have a strong sonic signature.
I wish I could try your recording setup sometime! I would really love to do a comparison between my digital setup versus an all analog setup. Whether the final sound is different or the same, there would be lots to learn...
It there any chance you could post a sample recording of the analog and digital recordings?
Thank you very much for the reply, we are not pro just for hobby, a lot of things in learning, we start with a audio technica cardioid and a transistor pre amp to a revox A77 in a 700sqft room, then changed to ribbon and ribbon with tube, home made silver mic cable and tube pre amp with silver transformers, also from Revox pr99 to Studer A80, we found ribbon in the room was not real good, we did try all over the house, final the indoor pool with 8000sqft cedar celling, two storages high in one end down to one storage high in the other end is the best place in sounding, even same violin sound quite different sound very worm, and nothing feed from back except audience's hand clapping, I will transfer your reply to my parter and let him sand some sample to you
regard tony ma
Easy - if you look at most SE tube amps and xformers, you see added distortion, hum, noise and ripples in the freq response. That's coloration in my book.
jdq
The track I used in the comparison was 'Homeless'. The CD as well as the LP were first issues, actually they were just '1' apart in serial numbers.
They really sounded indistinguisable to me a and couple of my buddies.
The later CD releases sounded progressively worse.
jd
Well you may like the Nak sound, but don't tell me you hear no difference between the original and the Nak copy!
jd
Thanks jd I'll have to try and find it, and refresh my memory as to what it was that made it sound bad. Now that I have some better speakers, I think that the deficiencies in various recordings are much more apparent (could also partially be that I don't have the final crossover yet too).
Tony.
Tony.
For me there is simply no argument. I LIKE tape. =) But I grew up with it.
(although I do agree that piano is helped by the steady digital clock)
Whatever good analog tape is doing to the signal, I like it. It's just one more tool in the sound arsenal.
(although I do agree that piano is helped by the steady digital clock)
Whatever good analog tape is doing to the signal, I like it. It's just one more tool in the sound arsenal.
The argument never was that you're not supposed to like this or that, of course.
jd
You should try a strong direct drive turntable like a Technics SP-10 MkII or MkIII. No piano in the world can upset it. A MkIII with a low impedance MC and high quality vinyl comes real close to master-dub tape.
John
"When the first Dolby B cassettes were introduced in the early '70s, there were those who swore the high end was missing when frequency response tests showed no errors at all. "
I was a service tech for Nakamichi at that time. Many of the people who swore the high end was missing were usually correct, in my experience. One of the less publicized aspects of Dolby noise reduction for cassettes (and for that matter of cassette recording in general) is that the effective frequency response is extremely sensitive to both recording bias level and record/playback gain or loss. Use the wrong brand and type of tape, or even the same brand and type of a different batch, and the frequency response will vary markedly at higher frequencies. Particularly for "Type II" Cr02 type formulations. The factory settings used with a random tape brand would seldom be a lucky combination. The store I worked at would always have the service dept do a bias and Dolby level adjustment on each recorder sold, for the specific tape the customer used, which worked for a while. They'd leave with their Naks at -3dB 20kHz, but only for a while.
The most noticeable error was "not enough highs", because further aggravating the situation was that when the head got a little dirty, or worn, or magnetized, (actually rather quickly) the high end would fall off noticeably. Dolby NR then emphasized the rolloff effects. People would be annoyed by that and by the inevitable calibration errors that happened with some mismatched tapes, and they'd try turning Dolby off for playback and say "gee, now it sounds brighter" and conclude that Dolby was cutting the high end. A lot of people found by trial and error that they could record with Dolby on and playback with it off to kick up the high end.
Damn, I feel old writing that!
I was a service tech for Nakamichi at that time. Many of the people who swore the high end was missing were usually correct, in my experience. One of the less publicized aspects of Dolby noise reduction for cassettes (and for that matter of cassette recording in general) is that the effective frequency response is extremely sensitive to both recording bias level and record/playback gain or loss. Use the wrong brand and type of tape, or even the same brand and type of a different batch, and the frequency response will vary markedly at higher frequencies. Particularly for "Type II" Cr02 type formulations. The factory settings used with a random tape brand would seldom be a lucky combination. The store I worked at would always have the service dept do a bias and Dolby level adjustment on each recorder sold, for the specific tape the customer used, which worked for a while. They'd leave with their Naks at -3dB 20kHz, but only for a while.
The most noticeable error was "not enough highs", because further aggravating the situation was that when the head got a little dirty, or worn, or magnetized, (actually rather quickly) the high end would fall off noticeably. Dolby NR then emphasized the rolloff effects. People would be annoyed by that and by the inevitable calibration errors that happened with some mismatched tapes, and they'd try turning Dolby off for playback and say "gee, now it sounds brighter" and conclude that Dolby was cutting the high end. A lot of people found by trial and error that they could record with Dolby on and playback with it off to kick up the high end.
Damn, I feel old writing that!
I once took my VPI and recorded the same track twice (It was a decent 60's mono solo guitar piece) and carefully lined up the beginning on a small tick and put one recording in each channel. Quite a revelation. The phlanging after only 30 sec. was unbearable.
if that call coloration then I quite happy to have with because they give me a very worm, thick, live sound easy listen to without tire in long hours listening, flat and extend freq response mean nothing to me because heavy feed back for this purpose will make sound worse, and speaker will not follow too, the best way to have a good freq response is a multi amps system with a electronic xover using gain control adjust freq response by the sound level from speakers not by the amp's character itself
final target for reproduction is getting close like a real sound, so people should try more listen to the real sound from instruments and catch the difference between with reproductions
I use Technics SL110 as the motor and pulley to drive Clear Audio Master Solusion with a very thin elastic thread, 1 to 1 speed ratio, MC is Benz Ruby vs revox A77 4 tracks 7.5 ips. play HATARI 's LP and Tape.
they are different type of sound, but tape sound a little bite more easy to listen, but if play a direct cut LP, then VINYL have better image. again Studer with 2 tracks 15 ips tape , in this case VINYL will be far behind so hard to compare depand what level equiment in use
... which is a convoluted way to say that you like the sound of your system. Which is great! Enjoy!
jd
Well, sure. If it's about taste, who can argue? =) I just think the "digital is perfect, end of argument" stance is sooo tired. Know what I mean? Sure, good digital is great, but so is good tape. Maybe the noise and other faults are what folks really like. Maybe digital is too clean?
Anyway, having used a lot of open reel tape and even cassette, I still like it. I won't ever try to argue that it's perfect, but that I like the way it sounds. To quote SY from his recent article "Music is originally and ultimately analog." I think it's not a bad thing to keep it that way.
What I certainly do like about digital is as distribution medium. It has really raised the bar for the ordinary consumer.
*Full disclosure. I own far, far more digital than analog recordings.
Thanks John - I'll look into it. Always shied away from the DD turntables. Maybe it's time to have a look and listen.
hehehe nice explanation bwaslo. Whilst I have never owned a high end tape deck (my first was a hammond organ tape mechanism, with a stereo head bodgied into it) My Akai GX-32 certainly showed a marked improvement when recording in Dolby C compared to Dolby B. As did recording on Metal tapes compared to crome or standard.
I always felt that dolby B recordings sounded kind of muffled, something that dolby C didn't suffer from. However whilst you could get away with playing a dolby b tape with no dolby with only a boot in treble, a dolby C recorded tape played back without dolby C sounds awful as does a non dolby C recorded tape played back with dolby C enabled.
So whilst I have never done measurements of the same thing recorded with or without dolby B, I have made recordings both ways, and can definitely hear the difference. I think that part of the issue with people saying it cuts the high end, is that the only way that they could compare a commercially recorded tape would be to play it with the dolby off, in which case it is definitely going to sound like it has more top end 🙂
Tony.
+1
This also explains why good digital copies from analog sources sound... analog. I love my records, but always had more than a suspicion that some of the defects of the process add stuff in that is psychoacoustically satisfying. Electronic MSG, as it were. Umami.
Far out speculation with no data or good theory to back it up- could the defects in analog recording (especially noise, flutter, phase phunnies) act as sort of a dither, making the non-ideal components downstream (e.g., speakers) sound better?
Jeez, SY - you're up early!
Yeah, I think it could be pretty easy to add analog artifacts to a pure digital recording. It would make a nice test. I have some "analog umami" that I could mix in. But maybe not enough. Might be a fun project.
Yeah, I think it could be pretty easy to add analog artifacts to a pure digital recording. It would make a nice test. I have some "analog umami" that I could mix in. But maybe not enough. Might be a fun project.
That's a nice hypothesis, but by the mid eighties all of the faults in analog (lp) playback had been all but eliminated. Noise, wow, and flutter are vanishingly low on systems like the Technics SP-10 MkIII or the Exclusive P3A, as to be inaudible. I will go as far as saying that by the time cds had come to dominate the market, lps were producing perfect sound forever. Phase problems are more or less artifacts of the recording process and digital doesn't do much to help that. I agree that very large digital files are excellent and on par with good tape, but unfortunately those are rarer than even master tape dubs.
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.