The other comment I forgot to add, is regardless of the digital sampling freq. and bit depth, most commercial recordings released on digital use quite a bit of compression in the signal chain, which is sad. One of the main advantages of digital, especially hi rez files is super wide dynamic range. If you need proof, just play your favorite CD or digital file, while feeding the signal to a set of VUs and watch for the minimum and max change in level. With most digital recordings, there is not much there. It is a shame since with higher rez formats, the dynamic range available is seldom used.
The comments about master clocks not needed if the electronics are done correctly is mis-information; or not correct. All you need to do is step into any modern studio and you will find most of the A to D devices and recorders are run by a master clock of some sort. Same applies to playback. But most have not heard the improvement a clock can make since majority of consumer oriented DACs do not have an external clock input.
All of the above applies to 24/96 and higher rez. If you are listening to 16/44.1 files, even inexpensive analog will usually blow these data rates away.
Several years ago, I was asked to do a recording for a major suburban audiophile club to allow them to hear the analog/digital comarison. They had 2 performers, a singer/ guitar player and bass player.
I set up with both high rez digital, and 30 ips analog tape. Stereo X/Y pair fed to microphone preamps. The signal from the preamp was split, one side went to A to D, the other side to the analog tape inputs. I could feed any of the three signals to the headphone amp and 2 pairs of Senn HD800s. The listener could select between the live mic feed, the signal coming off the tape, or the output from the A to D/ D to A converter. Most were shocked they could not hear a difference between the live feed and the signal off the tape, but could hear a difference between the live mic feed and the output from the converter.
|
emrofsemanonm audio2design, atmasphere and others
Hard to disagree with any of your statements.
Regarding phase shift and other 'distortions' more prevalent in vinyl than digital recording, electro-mechanical lathing/playback (with RIAA equalization) seems of central importance.
Regarding potential frequency response with vinyl, again no argument.
This frequency response....higher frequency reproduction...is I would argue better preserved by playback (with or without subsequent digitalization) of vinyl pressings contemporaneous with the original recording than by 'master tapes' of those recordings, because of time-dependent degradation of the tapes. |
I set up with both high rez digital, and 30 ips analog tape. Stereo X/Y pair fed to microphone preamps. The signal from the preamp was split, one side went to A to D, the other side to the analog tape inputs. I could feed any of the three signals to the headphone amp and 2 pairs of Senn HD800s. The listener could select between the live mic feed, the signal coming off the tape, or the output from the A to D/ D to A converter. Most were shocked they could not hear a difference between the live feed and the signal off the tape, but could hear a difference between the live mic feed and the output from the converter. I find this statement suspect and can only assume a mistake in the setup. For far too many hours of my life, I have heard what has come off the microphones, what has come off digital and what has come off tape. If you have a good quality digital system, the direct feed and digital feeds are indistinguishable, assuming levels are set the same. Tape on the other hand, especially if you know what to listen for, absolutely will have a distinctive sound, even, since I would assume this is portable, 30ips - 1/2" - 2 track. Even with 30ips, in what I assume is a very quiet environment, you would notice, with headphones, subtle tape hiss not evident on the digital feed. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that at 30ips you were not using noise reduction, since that has a distinctive sound all on its own. If these results occurred, I would go with, poor digital chain, or digital chain levels not matched. On the master clock front, studios use a master clock for synchronization, not for ultimate quality. Transmitting that clock around the studio and decoding it will impart more jitter than an internal good quality clock. In a studio where you can have multiple ADC, and digital processors, it is advantageous if not essential to have the sampling synchronized. That would apply even more so if you need to have sample accurate synchronization with video. Good studio ADC will have better specs using their own internal clocks than with the master clock generated in the studio. As studios modernize and move to IP (ethernet) networks, master clock domains get smaller and smaller being limited to only local equipment. IEEE1588 over Ethernet provides enough synchronization accuracy for most usages. For consumer DACs, an external master clock has no practical purpose. It is relatively easy, and inexpensive to generate an internal clock in a DAC, and that will not be susceptible to noise on an interface to an external clock. That also does not handcuff the consumer DAC to a set of arbitrary external clock frequencies that may not be ideal for that equipment. |
For kicks last night I decided to do something I had not done before. I recorded my Mo Fi 45 rpm copy of Santana's 1st record to the hard drive then played both back synchronized as close as possible. After matching volume I spend the better part of 30 minutes trying to tell the difference between the two switching by remote from my recliner. There were times when I thought the treble may be a little recessed on the digital side but I could not make up my mind if it was real or not. I probably should have had my wife do the switching. |
@mijostyn Its funny how much better a master digital file is than one that's been exposed to DSP!
|
It seems that the latest posts are from technicians or engineers, as opposed to "high end" music lovers.
The reason I specified "high end" is because most of the qualities pertaining to high end audio gear can not be measured; as a matter of "fact", after the engineers finish with Audio Research amps, they give them to audiophiles who don't even know Ohms law for final tuning based on their educated ears.
I have earned a living as an electronics technician, and I am a devotee of high end audio equipment. We begin where specifications end; that is in the subconscious audio realm in regard to the subjective evaluation of the music.
Presently, I'm listening to a new noiseless record that has me in a state of quiet euphoria. Were I to compare it to a CD, I already know the difference; "some of the emotional component would be missing"; we call that "musicality". The only meter qualified to measure such a quality resides in the mind, which is located somewhere in the brain.
Like many of the finer things in life, this love for high end analog is left for the connoisseurs of such things to enjoy, while those with less sophisticated taste look on.
|
That is why those of use who are true audio....connoisseurs drive a manual. |
Atmasphere, what is wrong with digital signal processing assuming it is used correctly? I know it is easy to screw things up, done correctly. |
Many a recording engineer and many an audiophile would disagree with that comment on DSP. The recording engineer because he uses it to emulate analog sound and the audiophile who raves over the result not knowing why ... They just like it.
Orpheus the topic is can digital capture and playback vinyl such that it is indistinguishable. Many with very good systems, and even with very experienced listening skills would argue yes if done right. There is no audiophile magic in this.
|
audio2design, no, there is no magic, but you must have the right equipment; this plus I changed a card in my computer to enable a smooth conversion of the analog to digital process. https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-adc1-usb-audio-converterThe people who would benefit from doing what I have done were too busy saying it could not be done instead of doing it. Now it's possible that they are correct, because it can not be done if what's needed to do it is no longer available. How sweet it is to lay in bed and enjoy your vinyl collection in all it's glory, the same as if you were dropping the needle on the LP, at 3:00 in the morning (I sleep sporadically) Enjoy the music. |
"I find this statement suspect and can only assume a mistake in the setup."
Too funny, thanks for the humor. As you noted correctly, clocks are used to sync all the gear, but that is only one function. The other function is to reduce drift. Look at all the high end gear from DCS, most have a clock input. Even on file playback, all you have to do is listen to a DAC, then listen to same DAC with the clock. Focus is improved, dimensionality is better in the sound stage, etc.
I have been doing live to 2 track for 25+ years. so have listened to hours and hours of mic feeds. once digital got good enough, I shelved most of my analogue gear and switched to 24/192 digital since its much less weight to carry around a cart load of digital gear.
|
This is just downright comical; "old farts" saying it couldn't be done, and now it can't be done because the equipment to do it is no longer available.
I'm an old fart, but I realized that digital and computers eluded me; I don't understand the stuff, that's why I sought a computer "Guru" who has a college degree in the stuff.
In the beginning when I asked him questions in an effort to learn, he tried to explain, but each time he noted that totally blank look on my face, that's when he decided it was hopeless. Now he just asks what it is that I want done, indicating; "Please don't waste my time by asking questions". That works for both of us.
Maybe the computer train done come and gone for all the "old farts", but you will get a lot more out of this hobby if you find a computer Guru.
|
This is sort of laughable. I have the equipment and use it everyday. Works fine. I would think with the system I have problems or differences would be as obvious as they can get. Of course, depending on the hearing of one person (in this case me) to make an evaluation on anything is dangerous. But I think it is safe to assume that a record and a 24/192 file of that record are close enough in sound quality such that there are not glaring differences and a large percentage of us can't hear the difference. |
Do lp's made contemporaneously with analog tape recordings, in the decades before availability of digital recording at resolutions exceeding 16/44.5, offer better sound on playback than high resolution transfers made from those analog tapes ?
Thanks for any opinions and answers. |
When you go to a movie, can you tell that you are looking at separate frames of a still picture?
|
If everyone will permit me, I would like to share with you how overjoyed I am with the improvements in my rig; same TT but new cartridge and NOS tubes for the phono. Of course these same improvements are heard on computer playback, but let's disregard that for the moment.
Records that I was neutral on, and hardly played for many years, now sound quite interesting. Sorry, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, just my elated joy with the improvement from something less than a monumental cost.
|
The drift reduction again is for sync. The clock input on a modern DAC is marketing. The part cost for a clock suitable for 145db+ SNR is 10's of dollars into the low 100's in low volume integrated into a unit and less high volume. USB or networked DAC has no need of synchronization. Just like in the studio there is more potential for noise and jitter on the clock I/F than using an external master clock.
Generally 1/2 two track is remote work in small settings. Even concert and concert hall we wouldn't use that except for check work. I have worked with 24 and 16, and all forms of digital in settings and with equipment where nuances are readily apparent. 30 IPS with good track spacing properly setupis very good but still noticeable. Professional 24/192 is transparent. You may not like the sound but it is transparent.
|
Mijostyn, you don't need a fortune or a perfect room for critical listening. Differences in source material are typically more evident with headphones and a good headphone amp. $3-4K in that area would be more "revealing" than just about anything with speakers in a room < $50-100K
|
audio2design, I think in relation to most systems you are probably right except for the evaluation of very deep bass. Apparently you have not looked at my system. What I have is essentially very large electrostatic headphones except the perspective of the soundstage is correct. Headphones can be a good reference for tonal balance. I have Grado Ref2 headphones. The system sounds just like the headphones from a tonal perspective. I never evaluate music with the headphones and I would think mixing/mastering recordings by headphones would be a big no no. They have special systems set up for this. The perspective of the music is wrong and setting up a proper stage would be more difficult. I greatly prefer the stage I get on my system and the visceral sensations you get with live music. This is all missing on headphones. But, I am no recording engineer so if I am wrong please tell me. I just know what I am looking for in my own system. |
I am not sure, who is this listener what hears exactly what is "objectively better" - ? And I am sceptical to such claims regarding digital. It is not as if I have not tried. I played analog for many years, until I switched to digital, naively thinking "a bit is a bit". It wasn't. I had to reinvest in my analog chain, to get better sound. I think some of the confusion here is due to differences in the quality of the analog chain. It has to be fairly good (but not outrageously expensive) to compete with the best digital.
Now, I've recently invested in a Teac NT-505. It does raise the digital sound quality quite a lot, in my case, going from a Squeezebox. Very enjoyable. So I've been listening to streaming (masters from Tidal) and to hi-res recording over the home network. The Teac is a bit polite maybe not fully burned in, but very nice. Then, last night, I put on the latest Blue Oyster Cult, The symbol remains. 2 x LP. Sorry folks, but it blew away the digital! Even if this is by no means an "audiophile" recording (rather the opposite). Why is this? Why do I find myself "listening" to digital, while I become "immersed" in the analog sound? Don't know. Maybe, some conditioning is at work, I am used to playing LPs, but I don't think that is the whole story.
|
I should add, re: "blew away". This was the result using the Lyra Atlas cart with the Aesthetix Io phono preamp - costing much more than the Teac, so in those terms the playing field is not even in my system.
|
Mijostyn >I never evaluate music with the headphones- - Me too. I like the staging and feeling of music better through my speakers. Using phones only for reference e g when recording from vinyl. Recently I’ve considered, maybe I should give headphones another chance, and have ordered a used Audioquest Nightowl, supposed to sound quite organic and "analog".
|
Orpheus10 and others,
I again seek input regarding preservation ("archival") of music recorded prior to the hi res digital era.
Does playback (with or without digitization) of lp's made, say 40 years ago, from audio tape offer advantage over hi res digital transfers made today from those 40-year-old tapes ?
Is there better preservation of high frequency information on the lp's ? |
Headphones are not for mixing, at least not ideal. They are for fine work, determining issues, etc.
|
Seventies, in regard to preservation of music, it has been unanimously decided by the most astute audiophiles that reel to reel tape is ultimate audio for "music lovers" .
In regard to computer storage, I use WAV and the difference between the playback of the reel to reel and the playback of reel to reel tape that I've stored on computer files is "minute".
I'm of that age, which could be questioned in regard to my hearing, but I think it's still pretty good; however, since I am of that age, the allegation that I don't have perfect hearing would have some merit. Never the less, I can distinguish the difference between LP playback, reel to reel playback, or CD playback from my computer.
There are some differences between my computer and stock computers in regard to cards, there is one card for sure that was recommended for analog transfer, but I don't remember which one it is. That information might be on the PC forum. I know for sure that if you do everything right, whatever you store on your computer will be practically indistinguishable from the original.
I used hi-res for awhile, but not every record was perfect; it was hit and miss so I quit, but that was when they first started.
|
I do not think there is any argument that analog signals on magnetic tape deteriorate over time. What I hear most is that high frequencies start to roll off. These can always be EQed up I suppose. Once the music is digitized it is immortal as long as the hard drive isn't destroyed. My understanding is that most music has now been digitized in computer libraries and as long as there are sufficient back-ups there is no better way to warehouse it at this time. Does it matter if the path to your ears is all analog or all digital or a mix of the two? If it is good music and it sounds good? Well Scarlet, frankly, I could not give a....... |
Seventies,
Analog tape is surprisingly robust for storage. It is usage that degrades it. The biggest concern is break down of the underlying binder for the magnetic materials and the plastic substrate. If really old it is acetate and very prone to mechanical failure. You can get some layer to layer bleedthrough on thin cheap tape. You don't lose high frequency from storage but you may add noise. The plastic in records can also slowly decay albeit slowly.
|
So if you don't think analog tape is the bees knees you are not astute? I would argue most astute audiophiles have never heard unmixed and unprocessed audio on analog tape or high resolution digital but that is not what the topic thread is about.
|
Seventies, I am a reel to reel and tape enthusiast; as it pertains to your question, disregard it; it's expensive, and there is a better way.
I already have everything stored on "external hard drive". When I get a new CD, I down-load it into the computer, and it goes to the external hard-drive. Very rarely do I pop a CD into the player, I simply add it to the playlist on the computer.
Presently I'm working on my third "down-loading" of LP's onto the external hard-drive. This has to be done whenever you make significant improvements in your analog rig and you want to enjoy them on computer playback.
All of my CD's and my favorite LP's are stored on the "external-hard" drive and no lights have flashed to indicate that I'm running out of space. This is the third time for LP's; in other words, 3 times my collection of LP's are on the hard-drive because this is the third improvement. Now I have to "delete" the first two times I did this in order to free up space on the hard-drive.
This is the computer age. I know very little about the things, but I have a "guru" who does. Fortunately this external hard drive thing is neither expensive or complicated.
|
Orpheus, Mijostyn and Audio2design, I raise this issue because of disappointment with older albums re-released as 'high density tape transfers (HDTT's)' and 'remastered (? EQ-ed up)' recordings. In both instances the high frequencies are to my ear so compromised as to suspect misleading commercialization. Certainly, audio2design, audio tape can chemically deteriorate with time, and magnetic information degrades with repeated playback. To what extent is that information...particularly high frequency information....lost with time even if tape is of high quality and properly stored ?
|
seventies I raise this issue because of disappointment
with older albums re-released as 'high density tape transfers (HDTT's)' I've never heard of HDTT. Will you please explain what it means?
In both instances the high
frequencies are to my ear so compromised as to suspect misleading
commercialization... What is "misleading commercialization"?
To what extent is that information...particularly high
frequency information....lost with time even if tape is of high quality
and properly stored ? There are too many variables to answer this definitively. It really depends on the tape formulation.
|
Well this seems to make sense, but am I oversimplifying?
When the artist’s work is prepared for distribution, a vinyl pressing is made and digital streaming files are prepared. The digital streaming files will be identical to the digital mix prepared for distribution.
The vinyl pressing will be as close as a skilled cutter of a spiral groove can get to it. Close, but never a duplicate.
Some listeners really like the changes to the original sound that cutting the spiral groove introduces. So much so, that if they want to listen away from their turntable they would rather have a digital copy of the sound the spiral groove makes than the digital duplicate of the original mix.
And the quality of that copy of the spiral groove can be so good as to be indistinguishable - showing that the ear can not distinguish a digital copy of an analogue sound.
Is that right?
|
bluemoodriverWell this seems to make sense, but am I oversimplifying?When the artist’s work is prepared for distribution, a vinyl pressing is made and digital streaming files are prepared. Yes, you have already substantially oversimplified. There are many steps involved in "making a vinyl pressing." The digital streaming files will be identical to the digital mix prepared for distribution. Not necessarily. CD is limited to 16/44.1, but streaming from a source such as Qobuz can be in hi-res. Some listeners really like the changes to the original sound that cutting the spiral groove introduces. Again, you have substantially oversimplified. It is possible to make an LP that is very, very close to the master tape. That’s why test pressings are part of making an LP. Digiphiles often chime in here with claims that digital has better s/n and dynamic range than LP can ever have, which is true. But that advantage is often way in excess of the what the music actually requires. That’s a big part of why an LP can sound so close to the master tape. |
Cleeds, bluemoondriver,
Apologize if I did not clarify.
I concur that lp's newly made from tape or high resolution digitalization of an audio source can be 'very close to the master tape' except that 'cutting the spiral groove' (what I termed an electro-mechanical process) changes the 'original sound' in a manner pleasing to some listeners.
I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself.
Regarding possibly 'misleading commercialization', I refer to 'high resolution digital transfer'...ie transfer from tape... and 'digital re-mastering of tapes recorded decades ago....before high resolution digital recording became available.
One company, 'High Definition Tape Transfers' (HDTT is their logo) offers downloads in a choice of digital resolution. To my ear 'high resolution' is a specious claim insofar as one is making a high resolution digital copy of a time-degraded source....ie. low resolution in particular respect of lost high frequency information.
Digitally "re-mastered" tapes from that era, also sold as downloads or streamed, and sometimes not identified as 'remastered', are subject to the same loss of initially recorded information. Resolution is not and cannot be improved by boosting the treble.
Am I misleading ?
|
It's hard for me to understand other people's problems because I don't have any.
Just about the time CD's came out, I was buying LP's like crazy. CD's "appeared to be" superior to LP's, so I went exclusively into CD's, leaving all my new LP's going unplayed. (I had the same kind of record player we all had back in the day) A CD and CD player was, and still is clearly superior to that rig.
Not until many years later was "high end" analog revealed to me; it wasn't the record, but the "record player". Back in the day, we spent $200, for TT, and 60 to $150 for cartridge; that was common. You know what's common for our analog rigs now, a lot more than back then, plus they are many times more complex, no wonder records sound better.
"I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself."
The LP sounds good, but never better than the tape.
As a result of not playing all those old records after purchase, I have many new LP's that were purchased back in the day. Just yesterday, I down-loaded "Azymuth Spectrum", recorded in Rio Brazil 1985, and I must have purchased it about that time; this album is dead silent. That's representative of many of my LP's. I can't answer questions about these new processes.
|
I was mastering lacquers for vinyl in the late 70s to early 80s and my current turntable is a ReVox B791 tangent tracking system, playing vinyl EXACTLY as it was cut... straight across the middle. No groove distortion or side-to-side phase errors.
I use a Ortofon VMS20e cartridge I purchased in 1985 and have a store of new styli as needed.
Preamp is by Graham Slee feeding an RME interface where I transcribe into ProTools at 96kHz/24bit minimum. Conversion is done to 44.1/16bit for my old clients that have lost master tapes, allowing the to do CDs as needed.
There is something magical that happens between the groove, stylus and preamp that is hard to compare with digital transfers of the master tape. In many cases, I will purchase 96k or higher files of albums even though I have a great vinyl copy... and they do sound different.
Just my $.02. |
I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than does the tape itself.
Regarding possibly 'misleading commercialization', I refer to 'high resolution digital transfer'...ie transfer from tape... and 'digital re-mastering of tapes recorded decades ago....before high resolution digital recording became available.
When I was recording to tape in the 70s to late 80s prior to Digital, our multitrack tape machines were capable of HF response above and beyond 23-24kHz, with SN ratios approaching 70dB, depending on tape format and speed. One of the projects I did in the mid-80s was mixed to ½" analogue tape at 30ips as well as DAT tape 48kHz/16bit. There was NO comparison to the sound and we stuck with the analogue tape, transferring it to DAT once the final mixes were edited & assembled for mastering. Many of the early CDs were mastered using what was called an EQ COPY of the master tape, taking into consideration EQ and processing for mastering to vinyl and NOT from the original master tape. It took several years for companies to REMASTER for CD using the original tapes and not use EQ copies. That being said, since there was a limitation of HF response on tape, purchasing anything above 96kHz of an original analogue album is a waste of money. Even finding something at 48k/24bit is going to sound as good as the original tape... the extra 48k sampling (for 96k product) is just leftover, in most cases. |
How sweet it is! My favorite cut "Singing Winds and Crying Beasts" off of my all time favorite album, "Santana Abraxas" coming to me off of my computer play-list, from my latest LP down-load after new cartridge, plus NOS tubes installed in phono. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xskk5q1DL6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wT1s96JIb0It's like hearing this for the first time; although I have worn out numerous LP's that I played to death, I never heard it like I'm hearing it now. This music takes me back to the 70's, at my favorite club, the "Fontainebleau" (no, not that one, but another one with the same name) The color was "hot pink", and ladies wore those stockings that glowed under black lights. When they walked through the club wearing these stockings, the lights from down low made it appear as though there were beautiful glowing legs walking through the club. This music intensifies my memories of those fantastic times. Looking for a new pipe at a "head shop" was a lot of fun; there were these glowing posters, and always the smell of sweet incense, which was another item on the shopping list. Decisions, decisions; so many different sweet fragrances, which one to choose; jasmine, peach, or wild-flower? This was the age of "Aquarius"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajgeaOt_HTQThose were the most incredible times in my life, I hope you were there. |
Seventies, there have been many good answers in regard to your questions. I'm curious as to whether or not all your questions were answered to your satisfaction, and what decisions have you made?
|
Atmasphere, what is wrong with digital signal processing assuming it is
used correctly? I know it is easy to screw things up, done correctly. Its easy to screw up is all! I prefer a minimalist approach, using as little as I can. The more DSP gets into the mix, the more it seems to harm the final signal. But my experience with DSP is limited to its used in recording applications. Does playback (with or without digitization) of lp's made, say 40 years
ago, from audio tape offer advantage over hi res digital transfers made
today from those 40-year-old tapes ? @seventies Of course! Tape degrades from the day it was recorded. If you want the best sounding LP from tape, you cut the LP ASAP. You then have the lacquer plated ASAP- that's how you get a lively vivacious recording. If you wait 40 years, no matter what method you use, the master tape will sound a bit 'sleepy' compared to the day it was recorded! Analog tape is surprisingly robust for storage. It is usage that degrades it. @audio2design This statement is false unless very special care is taken in storage which is quite rare! If the tape is polyester, it is prone to absorbing moisture which leads to shedding; trust me on this if a tape has gone too far you won't even be able to spool it off the reel. Think: goo I am asking about LP's made decades ago from analog tape...whether these
lp's preserve sound...particularly high frequency sound...better than
does the tape itself. Yes. LPs have a lifespan of nearly a century if stored correctly (normal humidity and temperature, upright, not too many on a shelf). Stereo LPs have bandwidth to 40KHz or so, tape does not. |
Atmosphere, the op was referring to master tapes which in general will be stored properly for any media company of note and for which my comment applied. Note my next sentence.
The biggest concern is break down of the underlying binder for the magnetic materials and the plastic substrate.
If they are stored properly which major media companies generally do, then they are rather robust. 40khz bandwidth is of little use when the mastering media can't match it. That's also 40khz with effectively noise reduction, i.e. RIAA equalization at high frequencies. |
Have to side with Atmosphere here. He is correct. Would agree on the minimalist method of doing most things, and most of the major labels do have climate controlled storage conditions for their session masters. That is not to say many production or duplication masters tapes still get tossed. Can't tell you how many times I have been to the loading dock of a major studio back in the day, and found pallets and pallets of tape waiting for the garbage truck to pick it up....
As for tape degradation, the SSS (sticky shed syndrome) was a major problem on Ampex 406/407, 456/457, scotch 226/227, and a few others.
After Quantegy stated they had fixed the binder problem I bought 4 new cases of 456 with the new and improved binder. They were good for the first few years, but after that they slowly degraded into sticky shed just like the earlier stuff. Ended up pulling the flanges off and tossing the balance of the remaining tape into the trash.
The earlier formulations never had this problem. Same with Scotch 206/207. Have 4 cases of 207, from the early 1980s, and it still performs like new.
Losing signal was normally not an issue.
|
Atmasphere, it is my understanding that most of the old tapes have been digitized. Correct me if I am wrong but digital storage is certainly more robust. Once in numbers that "sleepiness" can be corrected with very modest EQ as well as doing neat stuff like getting rid of the tape hiss.
I am totally unfamiliar with DSP as might be used in the recording studio.
My experience is in using it on the reproduction side for correction and bass management. Given the variables involved in speakers, subwoofers and rooms the advantages are significant on this end. IMHO it is always an advantage to hear and know what "flat" sounds like before modifying things to your liking. It is also a great learning experience hearing what different modifications do to the sound. |
master tapes which in general will be stored properly for any media company of note Are you forgetting about the Universal studio fire in 2008? Apparently, it's really hard (expensive) to properly store large amounts of media. If you're considering long term storage, as in 50+ years, vinyl discs are probably the preferred method. This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs. |
As for tape degradation, the SSS (sticky shed syndrome) was a major
problem on Ampex 406/407, 456/457, scotch 226/227, and a few others.
After
Quantegy stated they had fixed the binder problem I bought 4 new cases
of 456 with the new and improved binder. They were good for the first
few years, but after that they slowly degraded into sticky shed just
like the earlier stuff. Ended up pulling the flanges off and tossing the
balance of the remaining tape into the trash.
I bake tape for about 3 hours at 140-150 degrees if there's any question about age or storage (and these days there usually is). This will cause the moisture to exit the tape and it should be good for a few months. It helps to store the tape in a plastic bag with a packet or two (more if its 1/2" or 1" tape) of silica gel to absorb moisture. Its better to store the tape in the attic rather than the basement! We remastered an LP where the artist ('Spider' John Koerner) did exactly that and the tapes (recorded in the early 1970s) were immaculate- no shedding and no need for baking. it is my understanding that most of the old tapes have been digitized.
Correct me if I am wrong but digital storage is certainly more robust.
Once in numbers that "sleepiness" can be corrected with very modest EQ
as well as doing neat stuff like getting rid of the tape hiss.
Some tapes have been digitized. Many, possibly most are missing because studios sold them off or sent them to landfill. Digital storage is less robust than LP, unless the digital storage is constantly moved/backed up (which means electricity is involved for the period in which the recording is stored); if analog tape is stored properly (see above) it can last decades, but its rarely treated properly. You can't correct that 'sleepiness' with just EQ; you need a bit of expansion (as opposed to compression) and you can't do anything about the loss of detail. This is all why original LPs are usually the best 'record' (if you'll pardon the term) of an older musical event. This is according to research done by the Library of Congress when deciding upon their long term archive needs. That study was done sometime in the 1980s if memory serves. What they found was that laminated media (magnetic media and CD) had lifetimes in decades if stored properly (months or years if not) but amorphous media (LPs and the stampers that made them) could last centuries. The study did not include any kind of solid state media like thumb drives. |
Anyone got an estimate of the proportion of all masters which have yet to be captured in red book digital quality or higher? I’m guessing, now that Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal, and Spotify are competing on total digital library size, the proportion is small.
If the proportion of non-digitised masters is small, then we can conclude either i) not enough people want to listen to the remaining non-digitised tapes so who cares really, or ii) there should be a crowd-funder effort to complete the capture to achieve the complete permanent preservation of all The artefacts of that extraordinary period of human artistic achievement. |
Is anyone else storing their LP's on hard-drive beside myself? To me, that seems like a dumb question, but maybe it isn't.
|
I have made quite a lot of digital recordings of LPs, but mainly for comparison purposes, when trying to compare, say, tonearms or cartridges. I can play the samples over and over without damage to the record or stylus, and it gives me a good basis for comparing the sound of two cartridges, for example.
I also have a few records which I have recorded because they are not otherwise available in digital form.
But for most of my several thousand LPs I just listen to the record. I have a good AD converter from RME and a great DAC (a Lumin X1) but the digital recordings never sound quite as good as playing back the originals on a turntable.
|
I've done so many things that I've forgotten what I've done, but my playback is identical to playing the TT which is why I have to do this thing all over again each time I make an improvement. After I down-load my favorite LP's, I program the play list, and that's the only way I listen to my record collection.
This is the third and last time I'm doing this. I have a Stereophile "A" rated CD player, and my analog rig is head and shoulders above that, so I'm quite satisfied. Although I realize you can always get better, I doubt very seriously if I'll try.
Many others are getting the same results I'm getting so it's not that unusual. But this was back when what we were doing was new, and there were many different ways to do it. I doubt if those computer cards that enabled us to get these results are still available, but all that information is somewhere on this forum, because we had long heated debates that raged back and forth.
Some people get great joy from playing their records, I don't; I only like to enjoy how fantastic they sound after purchasing a better cartridge and NOS tubes in my case that put it all over the top.
Have fun spinning records and enjoy the music.
Thanks for answering my question.
|
Blasphemy!!! Keep analog as far away from digital as you can!!! |
