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  September 2014

ARSCLIST September 2014

Subject:

Re: AZIMUTH (was recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24)

From:

Neal Warner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:09:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

 Is the only tool available our ears listening as we manually
adjust the azimuth?

IASA-TC04...5.4.12.2... Additionally or alternatively, a software programme providing a real time-spectrogram function can be used. Azimuth adjustment should be a routine part of all magnetic tape transfers.

Wavelab's Spectrometer has helped me.  Also their spectrum view, while not real-time, can offer a quick comparison of separate recordings of the same bit of content, same with iZotope RX's detailed spectrum viewer.  I've used the spectrometer in a Waves meter package I had, though the detail seemed lacking.  Other spectrometer suggestions?

For those of us who have taught ourselves how to adjust azimuth by ear (sort of the same thing as focusing a camera lens in many ways), we do not need crutches, but I have come to realize that using a two-track head for "factory workers" might be beneficial.

I hear the azimuth/camera lens analogy quite a bit.  Our film scanner (through its associated software) provides a focus-assist feature - a tool that seems to be fairly widespread in video.  This also seems to frequently be labelled a "crutch" by folks who have been in the industry a long time.  I understand this criticism in terms of videographers framing up a shot, but focusing for the transfer of an old film is entirely less subjective.  Using software to find the point at which all possible detail from the original shot can be recovered - where a mm one way or the other would reveal less detail - makes sense to me.
This also makes sense to me in terms of azimuth adjustment - using a scope/software/spectrometer for help with an adjustment that is seeking a definitive point of detail doesn't seem like a crutch to me, considering how perceptions can change throughout the day.   Please let me know if I've missed something.

Neal Warner
Walter J. Brown Media Archives and Peabody Awards Collection
University of Georgia Special Collections Library
300 S Hull St
Athens, GA 30602
706.542.4391
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>


On Sep 10, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Jamie Howarth wrote:

Playing the mono tapes on a multitrack head and bias tracking the tracks and pulling them together would have solved the Sun Records azimuth problem.

Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone

On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:25 AM, "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Hi, Andrew and Tom,

I am (very) slowly working towards a paper on azimuth.

The full-track mono tape is, of course, the hardest to play from an azimuth perspective (of the common formats)--I hate to think about the 1-inch two-track!

Transport guidance is a huge issue and I have found that the Studer A80 is magical in that regard--and the Studer A810, not so much. The Sony APR-5000 is between the two.

For those of us who have taught ourselves how to adjust azimuth by ear (sort of the same thing as focusing a camera lens in many ways), we do not need crutches, but I have come to realize that using a two-track head for "factory workers" might be beneficial.

For one project I proposed (but we chose not to implement) a wide/narrow head for full track mono. We batted around a few different configurations--including a long discussion with Greg Orton. I was thinking of something like 0.120 and 0.04. The nice thing is even if things go south, you still have a good percentage of the highs on the 0.04 track, albeit noisy.

With that said, for oral history cassettes, I use, in addition to manual azimuth adjustment, the azimuth compensation feature of www.stereotool.com<http://www.stereotool.com>. This allows excellent channel summing for improved noise, assuming both channels were recorded.

There is a similar feature in iZotope RX Advanced.

Cheers,

Richard



On 2014-09-10 7:51 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
Hi Andrew:

It's interestng you bring up this topic. I was just reading the book
that comes with the new Beatles In Mono LP box and they talk
specifically about azimuth on the full-track tapes. Despite the fact
that these mono masters were made in-house at Abbey Road, most of them
on the same machines, the mastering engineer said he had to adjust
azimuth on the fly as records were being cut, especially with the later
albums where mono mixes were done days or months apart. His point was,
azimuth was specific to each track on some albums. He had made notes and
used a gauge-based azimuth adjustment on his Studer A80 playback deck,
so he was able to make precise tweaks as the tape rolled between cuts,
according to the book text.

I was taught, with full-track azimuth, that you really have to adjust to
ear, how the top end sounds best. Keep in mind that time-damaged tapes
and poorly slit tapes will likely "country lane" through the transport
and wreak havoc with azimuth. Adjusting tones at the head of the
full-track tape (when they exist) is somewhat helpful, but ears need to
be the final judge.

Azimuth is a tricky thing and I'm still learning about it after 40 years
of playing tapes. What I have learned is that it's really critical to
solve the azimuth puzzle in the analog domain because problems can't be
satisfactorily fixed in the digital domain.

For old full-track tapes, I am curious about using the center two tracks
of a 4-track quarter-inch machine. I haven't done much with this, but
when there are tones on the tape, you can get a scientific azimuth
adjust with a scope. Many old tapes are edge-damaged and I wonder if
it's better not to play the outer edges of the tape. However, the
effects of country-laning may be even worse if you're grabbing two
narrow bands of signal and either combining them or not.

If you want to hear a prime example of azimuth issues, get a copy of the
"Sun Records Greatest Hits" LP that was sold on Record Store Day this
year. The tapes were clearly and audibly played back with a 2-track head
and either were in such poor shape that they couldn't go through the
transport correctly or the playback engineer was inept. In any case,
with many of the songs, if you combine them to mono, they flange, "phase
effect" and go in and out of treble cancellation, telltale signs of
being played out of azimuth. If you listen on a stereo cartridge and
don't combine to mono, it's not as bad, it just sounds like bad
edge-warp. I think it was inept playback all around, but I've never
handled the tapes. I do bet that they'd sound better if played back
either through a narrow-width single head capturing the middle 1/2 of
the tape height or with the middle two tracks of a 4-track quarter-inch
head with azimuth constantly monitored on a scope and tuned to ear.

By the way, even with the less than ideal playback and remastering, the
tunes on that Sun LP jump right out the speakers, still hot and rockin'
to this day.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Dapuzzo" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24


While I understand the importance of capturing output "above 20kHz" with
the aforementioned tools, are there any tools available to help with
azimuth adjustments?  Older recordings, especially those made in the
field
with machines that have been "banged up", may be recorded with azimuth
that
is slightly off.  Therefore, the higher frequencies may be lost or
diminished if playback is not adjusted to the exact azimuth of the
original
recording.  Is the only tool available our ears listening as we manually
adjust the azimuth?

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:18 PM, John K. Chester <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

At 04:49 PM 8/29/2014, Tom Fine wrote:

John, is there a modification for to remove those noises? Do 3rd party
electronics also carry those noises or are they something with the
power
rails under the transport? Sorry if these are ignorant questions,
I'm not
that familiar with the innards of ATR's.

I suspect this is neither the list nor the proper subject heading for
discussing such a highly technical issue, but here's a brief answer:

I have never tried to clean up an ATR with stock electronics, although I
have a good idea of where to start.  I have no data on 3rd party
electronics other than Plangent's.  When I got the Plangent
electronics to
be clean enough for our purposes, I stopped worrying about the problem.
Plangent does use a preamp in the headblock with a cable running
directly
to our box, which helps keep things clean.

I do find it a bit odd that folks doing 192k transfers often don't
seem to
worry about how much signal gets from the tape to the tape machine
output
above 20 kHz, and how much noise in that region comes from the machine
rather than the tape.  There are useful signals up there, and we know
that
if the transfer captures them they can later be used to improve the
quality
of the audio below 20 kHz that we can actually hear.

-- John Chester



----- Original Message ----- From: "John K. Chester" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24


At 05:06 PM 8/29/2014, Shai Drori wrote:

So if I turn the display off the 28.8 kHz goes away?

No, that noise on an ATR is actually coming from the reel motor
drivers.  The display generates other noise which starts somewhere
in the
mid-50's of kHz and has lots of harmonics.

Turning off the display removes a lot of the noise spikes in the audio
output but not all of them.

-- John Chester
--
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
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

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