[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arsclist reel to reel player/recorder
I'd like to add my two cents worth here.
The most basic problem I encounter is that those performing the preservation
work or making judgements about it (i.e., producers) have no idea how
well-or poorly- the original can sound when properly cleaned, aligned,
equalized, centered, played through excellent equipment, etc.
The rerecording crew therefore has no standard of "best audio obtainable
from this item" toward which they are aiming, subjective though it may be,
and tempered by the hearing idiosyncrasies of those involved.
And I still maintain that there is a basic flaw in the algorithms in digital
declicking programs, that the distortion they introduce is not solved by
processing at 24 bit wordlengths, and that the resulting drier signal, even
when rewarmed by echo, reverb, etc., compromises the sound that is being
preserved.
=========================
Steven Smolian 301-694-5134
Smolian Sound Studios
---------------------------------------------------
CDs made from old recordings,
Five or one or lifetime hoardings,
Made at home or concert hall,
Text and pics explain it all.
at www.soundsaver.com
=========================
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard L. Hess <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: arsclist reel to reel player/recorder
> While the following message is certainly true of some instances, I think
> that the message following this from Peter Copeland more reasonably
> addresses the issues. While I would normally not reply to a message like
> this, I am so that Holly and others can perhaps view another perspective
on
> some of these thoughts while they are evaluating their choices.
>
> First, I don't think it is much more difficult (if any more difficult) to
> get a high quality Red Book CD copy of most analog master tapes than it is
> to get a high quality analog tape copy.
>
> There are three issues in any transfer:
>
> (1) The accuracy of the reproducer
> (2) The accuracy of the signal processing
> (3) The accuracy of the recorder
>
> In the above, "accuracy" can also be interpreted to include the
> "musicality" and is not meant to imply a strictly numeric accuracy.
>
> (1) Reproducer alignment is always a question. The reproducer needs to be
> aligned to the same curve via which the recording engineer was expecting
to
> reproduce it. Quite often, there are multi-frequency tones on the tape.
> Those are useful in fine-tuning the machine after it has been set up via a
> high-quality test tape (Let's say MRL in the USA)
>
> The quality difference among reproducers (and their alignment) is amazing.
> I often wonder about people requiring 24 bit 88.2 storage from signals
> played back from Prosumer decks.
>
> After having found two Sony APR5003Vs at firesale prices and appreciating
> the difference between them and my lovingly maintained and venerable ReVox
> A77's (which in previous years actually performed as well as say an Ampex
> 350 transport with 440B electronics when both were well maintained) I have
> become a bit of a reproducer elitist. In fact, in asking around, the Sonys
> are quite well respected. Other machines such as high-end Studers, Otaris,
> and Nagras make excellent reproducers. BUT YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE SOUND
> over reasonably good (and multiple) monitor chains. The machines HAVE TO
BE
> WELL ALIGNED!!!
>
> I believe that many of the poor commercial CD reissues fail at this step,
> so they're doomed before they go any farther.
>
> As a corollary, I believe that many CD reissues were made from safety or
> running masters and not the original two-track mix master. There is a
> danger here, however, is that substantial EQ may have been introduced
> between the final mix master and the LP manufacturing. Some of that was to
> compensate for perceived deficiencies in the LP media (or related
marketing
> reasons). If a CD is produced from a "hyped" LP running master, it will
> sound screeeeeeechy. A few LPs sound VERY screeeechy as compared to the CD
> reissue, but that was a known fact in the LP purchasing world about at
> least one label at the time (example: Laura Nyro's Eli and the 13th
confession)
>
> (2) The chain should be essentially a straight wire and not introduce any
> hum or other artifacts. In this area, I include Dolby and dbx noise
> reduction companding. This companding is required if the original master
> was recorded with it. You have to make sure it's working and in the case
of
> dbx type I, I went through three used processors before I found one that
> sounded OK to my ears (it's not subjective in the sense of one sounding
> better than the other, the two bad ones had audible noise reduction
artifacts).
>
> (3) The recording chain (be it analog or digital) is also crucial. Not all
> A-D converters are created equal and not all analog tape machines are
> created equal OR ALIGNED WELL! A general rule of thumb that has not
> disappointed me is that analog machines almost always record better than
> they reproduce.
>
> In the case of digital machines, I can hear subtle differences between the
> Panasonic SV3800 DAT's converters and the Marantz CDR500's converters. The
> Marantz is a newer product, but I think some of the subtleties I hear make
> me continue to like the SV3800's A-D better. I bought that machine
> originally due to some "golden ears'" recommendations. There is a fair
> amount of time spent analyzing these things and isolating the problem. It
> turned out the first DAT machine I purchased sounded awful on the boy
choir
> stuff I was doing--but it later turned out the be the D-A converters in
the
> machine, not the A-D! At the time with one machine accessible, I couldn't
> tell. Before I diss the Marantz, I need to do more checking, but I do hear
> subtle A-D differences. These are far more subtle than the reproducer
> differences I hear between the Sony and the ReVox for example which are
> less than I often hear between a CD and an LP (it's a crap shoot as to
> which sounds better).
>
> Well, enough of a rant. This is typed in haste as I leave for the INFOCOMM
> show in Las Vegas.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> At 09:55 AM 06/13/2001 +0000, Don Cox wrote:
> >On 13-Jun-01, Doug Pomeroy wrote:
> >
> > > I believe we have FINALLY reached the time when even the most
> > > conservative forces in the world of audio preservation have recognized
> > > the superiority of digital storage. Are you at all familiar with the
> > > issue of analog vs digital as relates to archiving?
> >
> >The problem is getting from one to the other without losing information.
> >
> >A valuable reference book on these topics is "The Art of Digital Audio"
> >by Watkinson. (3rd Ed).
> >
> >One has only to listen to various CD versions of the same older
> >recording to realise that accurate transfer is an unattainable goal, and
> >judgements have to be made about which aspect of the sound has priority.
> >
> >Also, there is the question of cost. How many hours will the budget
> >allow to be spent on each original ?
> >
> >Regards
> >--
> >Don Cox
> >doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >-
> >For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> >http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> >Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> >permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> >from the author of the post.
>
> Richard L. Hess email: rlh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Vignettes Media web:
http://marielynnhammond.com
> Glendale, California, USA
>
>
> -
> For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> from the author of the post.
>
>