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:

Aaron Levinson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:58:00 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (219 lines)

I think the Nagra in general is overlooked by 
restoration/preservationists. I used that machine as a field recorded on 
film projects for years and every single aspect of that machine was 
outstanding. They were overbuilt in every aspect and the sound quality 
of each subsequent machine just got better and better. Another thing I 
liked(and is rarely mentioned) was the fact that even though it was an 
open loop transport it did not beat the tape up. Likewise, from a 
machining standpoint except for the Studer it was the most perfectly 
made transport on earth. I know that some direct to two track recordists 
also sing the praises of the high end Stellavox
from a recording standpoint, but for sheer mechanical perfection and 
beautiful audio I think the Nagra is a real gem.

AA
 

Steven Smolian wrote:
> You know, the best tape transport I ever saw was the console Nagra.  
> Its wow and flutter was way under everyone else's.  And the frequency 
> response was terrific.
>
> It was over double the cost of its competitors.  In the early 80s, I 
> think, I was offered a 2 tr as a dealer closeout for $ 17,500.  I 
> passed (out.) Apart from the money issue, the matter of parts and 
> service and being locked into a Steve Temmer "name your own price" 
> exclusive parts distributorship put the chill on this fantasy.
>
> I can't imagine this dandy device shows up frequently on eBay- or 
> anywhere else for that matter.  I think I still have the literature in 
> my somewhere file.
>
> Building a better perfect transport is only part of the problem.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playback on contemporary machines (was Send me 
> a kiss by wire, baby my heart's on fire!
>
>
>> I was thinking further about this. There's a big money opportunity in 
>> here, if someone runs with this and finds it, buy me a steak dinner 
>> sometime ;)!
>>
>> For the commercial copyright owners, it seems to me that this concept 
>> may offer an excellent and highly-accurate way to once and for all 
>> migrate their tape libraries off of the deteriorating original media. 
>> Even under archival storage, many tapes are nearing the end of their 
>> functional lives, and some masters have been played enough times as 
>> to be badly deteriorated already.
>>
>> Here would be one system I could see as being viable and very 
>> sensible for a large music company:
>>
>> 1. a super-precise tape transport with excellent-quality magnetic 
>> heads is used to transfer the raw signal off the tape. The transfer 
>> should probably be to both DSD (read on, there's sense to this) and 
>> high-resolution PCM. Much testing should be done to make sure that 
>> the digital system is as precise and accurate as is possible for the 
>> formats (which, if the resolution is high enough, should 
>> theoretically mean that just about every bit of meaningful 
>> information should be transferred from the magnetic tape).
>>
>> 2. the standard operating MO from here would be to have these digital 
>> files live in a very robust archive with as fail-safe as possible 
>> replication, migration and backup. This is more in the realm of an IT 
>> expert than a music company and I would suggest there is an 
>> outsourcing model that makes some sense here.
>>
>> 3. for run-of-the-mill reissues (ie stuff with budget and time 
>> constraints), the remastering could be done all DSP, probably all or 
>> mostly automated. I would expect a middling but not terrible net 
>> quality level here, and over-aggressive use of DSP extras like 
>> dynamics control and hiss-reduction would probably degrade the net 
>> result, but tasteful application of the usual mastering tools (which 
>> would run up the budget since human hands and skills would be 
>> required) could improve the average quality substantially.
>>
>> 4. here's where the DSD transfer could come in. Perhaps the record 
>> company itself, or a specialty mastering house, would rig up an 
>> interface between a DSD stream and a rack of different tape 
>> electronics (it's a simple level and impedence matching thing -- and 
>> the intial input stage can be bypassed on some tape electronics with 
>> 10 minutes of solder time). These "deluxe" remasters would be "played 
>> back" to gain the desired euphonic results. Meanwhile, the tapes 
>> would not have to be played again and the "warm analogue sound" from 
>> the tape electronics could be gained in any combination or tweak 
>> desired. The further benefit is no need to maintain a precise 
>> mechanical transport, just more-simple electronics maintenance. But 
>> the big win here is, the master tapes don't get played and 
>> transported in their fragile condition. Assuming the transfer at the 
>> source was done properly (ie azimuth was correct and the A>>D chain 
>> was superb), this would be audibly identical to playing back the 
>> actual tape using the heads used at the source.
>>
>> 5. indeed, there may be an audiophile market in selling the raw 
>> digital transfer and letting the audiophile play it back thru the 
>> tape electronics of his choice. Never before could a listener be so 
>> close to the actual master tape. Again, the weak link here is that 
>> the source transfer needs to be azimuth-perfect and the A>>D chain 
>> needs to be superb.
>>
>> 6. a final benefit to the copyright owner is, he now has in his 
>> archive an unprocessed, uncolored and un-EQ'd version of the source, 
>> a digital "clone" of what is  falling apart on the reel in the box. 
>> As technology, especially DSP, improves, he can hope to achieve 
>> better and better results even with the run-of-the-mill releases and 
>> can get out of the expensive business of analog expertise as the 
>> tapes crumble to dust.
>>
>> More morning musings. I have no idea how much of this is already 
>> being done and what is totally impractical about what I'm suggesting. 
>> And, as I said before, I have no dog in the fight -- except as a 
>> collector and fan desiring better reissues than are the norm.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" 
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 1:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playback on contemporary machines (was Send 
>> me a kiss by wire, baby my heart's on fire!
>>
>>
>>> 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