LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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  July 2008

ARSCLIST July 2008

Subject:

Re: Playback on contemporary machines (was Send me a kiss by wire, baby my heart's on fire!

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:37:50 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (69 lines)

Along these lines ...

As DSP improves and higher-resolution and even DSD transfers become the norm, I'm wondering if it's 
time to start thinking about eliminating the analog electronics altogether for non-NR tapes. To 
wit -- a tape head connected directly, with proper impedence-matching, to a high-resolution A-D 
converter, perhaps with one stage of gain between the head and the converter. The EQ curve and 
level-normalling is then performed in the digital realm via DSP. The main advantages I could see to 
this would be: 1) perhaps more accurate EQ curve than can be achieved with analog components, but 
this may or may not be the case at the present state of the arts.  2) elimination of all noises and 
distortions from analog components -- now it's a whole can o' worms whether the DSP would just add 
less-euphonic distortions of its own.  3) perhaps less cost due to no need to maintain and/or repair 
old analog electronics (even the solid-state stuff will wear out eventually).  4) the creation of a 
market for digital-realm expertise in analog issues like EQ curves and magnetic head interfaces, 
thus leading perhaps to some new and innovative audio-cleanup/restoration tools and better 
analog-to-digital interfaces.

I have no dog in this fight, just doing some Sunday musings on an interesting topic.

One other point. As the world's fleet of tape machines get older, I think more and more are falling 
permanently out of spec. I think it's a great stretch to expect a 50-year-old Ampex 350 to sound 
anything close to original unless you are a restoration expert and have done an expert restoration 
on the machine or have paid plenty of $$$ to have it done by someone else. The same can be said of 
just about any machine ever made that has more than a few hundred hours on it and/or has not been 
stored in an ideal environment its whole life. And some machines have built-in manufacturing or 
design weaknesses that cripple them over time no matter what. Belts stretch and fall apart, for 
instance, even if the machine isn't used.  Some of the connectors used on MCI machines corrode, no 
matter what. Etc. etc.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playback on contemporary machines (was Send me a kiss by wire, baby my 
heart's on fire!


> Hello, Mark and Jim and Shiffy,
>
> I think it's important that we reinforce the lesson of playing magnetic media on the best 
> available equipment. While there are times when playing a tape on the machine that recorded it 
> will provide the sound that the producer originally heard and intended, in most instances, playing 
> a magnetic recording on a high-end, late-model (but not necessarily last-model) machine will 
> provide superior results. This means that Shiffy's one-off device is probably the best device to 
> reproduce a wire, and it means a small handful of the best tape machine models should be chosen 
> and preserved for playing tapes. I won't bother enumerating those models here, as I think that 
> list is well-known.
>
> The philosophical approach that works for me, and I suggest that everyone consider, is that 
> machine perturbations are additive. Play deficiencies/perturbations rarely if ever "cancel out" 
> record deficiencies/perturbations that are already recorded on the magnetic record. Therefore, the 
> machine that adds the fewest deficiencies/perturbations that is compatible with the speed and 
> track format (or can be made compatible) is generally the one to choose.
>
> There are usually other competing factors driving the selection of the reproducer, but having a 
> machine to play the magnetic records with performance better than the record machine is generally 
> the best way in my opinion/experience.
>
> 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

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