LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  April 2007

ARSCLIST April 2007

Subject:

Re: RIAA phono EQ and Neumann time constant

From:

Scott Phillips <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 1 Apr 2007 19:26:41 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

I have worked in studios for, oh, 30+ odd years one way or another. I
saw MANY times +/- 2db in response from tape itself more times than I
care to think about. (in a single tape batch). Unless you worked or
owned a facility that aligned for every single session, every single
day, the taped results were 'variable', to say the least. (I was in such
a place, BTW) I remember dealing with Phil 'R' one day when he brought
some tapes down to Criteria cr. 1980 from NYC. I found that the 'head
height' of the tapes he brought from his last studio were wrong,
indicating a physical alignment problem on the machine that made them in
N.Y., or perhaps a slitting issue. (not in this case though)  I ask him
if he wanted me to alter our head alignment (as in this session only) to
agree with the recordings he had brought. We would willing have done
this, it wasn't a dig, the only thing that mattered was the music. He
was FURIOUS with the NY studio when I 'developed' his tape with spray
developer and showed it to him. The difference was not just level, it
was azimuth, variable tape path, and noise issues, which he got without
further explanations. A very bright person.

Yes, there are a Huge number of variables in tape or any recording
system. That said, I fall on the side of finding every single variable
you CAN control, and doing so. I am more than a bit aware that tapes
without 'tones' were more than poor practice, they leave everything to
chance. The variables are endless. Richard (IMHO !!) is well qualified
to do well with these. I guess the point of this rant is that we should
ALWAYS minimize the variables we can in any transfer, then never forget
that we ARE likely the ones that a future generation will use to judge
the music of the (recent ?) past. I saw too many times an engineer (or
me !) could indeed tell and judge a 1 db (or less) difference in R/P of
a reproduction, in a completely blind test. Heaven knows, I was prepared
to discount this sort of thing, but it was just too consistently  proved
to me.

Mind you, yes, those with the $1000 speaker cables make me laugh... They
just didn't get the chain that the recordings were made and monitored
through were not like theirs, the 'difference' they heard was just that,
a difference, and did NOT make 'their' playback more accurate than
someone else's. It just made it different. When is the mix that 'they'
made back then through their monitor and mixing chain less the image of
what they mixed and aimed for ??

Scott Phillips



-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 2:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] RIAA phono EQ and Neumann time constant

At 03:25 PM 2007-04-01, Eric Jacobs wrote:
>Having a good understanding of the minimum error in the disc cutting 
>system (ie. just how flat a frequency response could be achieved, and 
>how accurate are the test discs used to calibrate the cutting systems) 
>will help make specifying minimum RIAA accuracy for reproduction less 
>arbitrary.  If disc cutting systems were accurate to 0.1 dB of RIAA 
>from 20 to 20 kHz when properly set up, then I think the Neumann 
>constant is worth looking into more deeply.  If disc cutting systems 
>were accurate to 1 dB of RIAA, then the Neumann time constant is a far 
>smaller consideration.
>
>I do believe it is a slippery slope to say that just because there are 
>many other elements in the reproduction chain that introduce far bigger

>errors, we should ignore the potential influence of the Neumann time 
>constant - especially if the Neumann time constant could be easily 
>compensated for.

Hello, Eric,

I believe that we will be very lucky to be holding +/- 1dB from 20 to 20
kHz with the tape component--in fact, holding +/- 1 dB from 50 to
15 kHz across the board would have been quite excellent. In just ten
tapes from a major broadcaster known for their quality, I saw one tape
way outside +/- 1 dB at 15 kHz and each session varied within the range
while tapes from the same session were very close. These were 15 in/s
tapes.

While that begs the issue of direct-to-disc recordings, I would suggest
that the vast majority of recordings made from perhaps 1950 until the
end of the LP era were made via tape.

Yes, it's a slippery slope and that's why I suggested that you
contribute an article about this to my blog where we can document all of
these little gotchas. It doesn't have to be long, but I will set up a
separate topic as I plan to add more tape ones in the future -- or if
you write it on your own website, I'll make a note of it and link to it.

And oh, the chemistry issues. Tapes, like the plumbing in "The Money
Pit", are not getting better with age.

Cheers,

Richard


Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information:
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager