I can see that working with 160 or even 200 (you can hear it if you slow
down the tape enough), but the ATR is bias free, at least on tapes I
made so far. The system is interesting though. How does it monitor to
see that the original bias did not drift while recording? This would
make you track the wrong frequency..
On 4/29/2010 10:24 AM, Andrew Hamilton wrote:
> There are other forensic time stamp signals besides bias which would
> allow for an ATR-100-recorded tape to be de-fluttered by the PP DSP.
> However, even though a tape may be played back by the Airshow ATR-100,
> it's entirely possible that the tape was recorded elsewhere by a
> different machine (having a much lower bias f). I believe that
> Airshow are offering this service with PP for already-existing analog
> tapes, rather than for creative layback transfers.
> David Glasser is chief engineer at Airshow and he has mastered a huge
> amount of audiophile CDs, DVDs, and SACDs. Great ear; great rooms;
> great gear.
> From the PP website:
> "software algorithm, developed with researchers at Cambridge
> University in England, which identifies a steady-state ultrasonic
> reference tone (such as tape bias or logic control) embedded within
> the original analog signal and then performs continuous
> high-resolution pitch correction in order to keep the reference tone
> at a fixed frequency..."
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:15 AM, Shai Drori wrote:
>> My experience with the ATR is just the opposite. I have tested
>> various transport and some tapes were handled only by the ATR. Does
>> the system figure out bias frequency automatically. What does it do
>> with tapes recorded on the atr where the frequency is so high it
>> doesn't show up on playback (400kHz+)?
>> On 4/29/2010 8:54 AM, Paul G Turney wrote:
>>> Well they only use ATR 102 machines which are notoriously rough tape
>>> They use software to track and maintain a bias frequency so that any
>>> speed anomolies are and wow and flutter are reduced by maintaining
>>> perfect pitch with this tone.
>>> Not worked with Airshow mastering.
>>> It appears to be a monopoly on the software so Airshow would be
>>> subbing the work out to PP.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chandra Lynn [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 02:12 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Airshow Mastering& Plangent Processes
>>> I noticed some earlier postings about Plangent Processes. It
>>> eliminates wow,flutter and speed aberrations from analog masters.
>>> They are now working withAirshow Mastering to offer optimized tape
>>> transfers. The announcement is onAirshow¹s site at
>>> http://www.airshowmastering.com/plangent.htmlHave any of you worked
>>> with Airshow or Plangent? If so, what has been yourexperience?