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  March 2015

ARSCLIST March 2015

Subject:

Re: Tape dubbing backwards?

From:

Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:55:03 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (240 lines)

Hi Ellis,

Not exactly a polarity explanation but, I used to routinely make 
backwards copies of master tapes. The reason is: transient response. The 
heads (coils) on a tape deck can play and record transients much better 
in reverse than forwards. The trick however, was to align the repro deck 
very carefully, paying close attention to azimuth. I adopted the 
practice of using a dual-trace scope and viewing the individual tracks 
with one waveform over the other to make certain that I had adjusted for 
the best possible phase relationship between tracks. When azimuth is 
spot-on, you can overlay the two images on the scope. I only did this 
for non-Dolby masters. In fact, I rarely used any noise reduction during 
my music recording years.

Cheers!

Corey

Corey Bailey Audio Engineering

www.baileyzone.net <http://www.baileyzone.net/>



On 3/10/2015 9:03 PM, Ellis Burman wrote:
> That is the right hand rule.  Your thumb points in the direction of the
> current, and your fingers curl in the direction of the magnetic field
> around the wire.
>
> True, if a magnet is moving towards a pickup, it'll produce voltage
> opposite that of when it is moving away from it.  But I see it like Jamie
> does - N is N, + is +.  I guess I'll have to try it and prove it to myself.
>
> Kinda reminds me of the reason I've heard was to why people store tape
> tails out - so that the print through is a post echo instead of a
> pre-echo.  I never understood that one either.  It's the same distance from
> oxide layer to oxide layer, so why would it matter?  Why would the magnetic
> field have a "preference" in any direction?
>
> Ellis
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:58 PM, DAVID BURNHAM<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> It's not analogous to playing a record backwards.  If you think of a phono
>> cartridge, as a wave of the groove moves the stylus towards the spindle,
>> the output will be of a certain polarity; if the stylus moves towards the
>> edge of the record, the opposite polarity will be presented.  Whether the
>> record is playing forwards or backwards the wave towards the spindle will
>> always be towards the spindle and the polarity won't be reversed.
>> With tape, however, if the tape is playing backwards, the magnetic signal
>> on the tape will be exciting the coils in the opposite direction, causing a
>> reverse in the polarity.  You might remember from school, (if you took the
>> same courses as I took), where they drop a magnet through a coil and an
>> electric signal is present at the terminals of the coil.  If the magnet
>> goes through the coil in the opposite direction the signal is also in the
>> opposite direction, plus in one direction minus in the other.  I know there
>> was a formula where if you hold up your hand with the fingers curled and
>> the magnet travels in the direction of your thumb, the current will flow in
>> the direction of your fingers, but unfortunately I've forgotten if it was a
>> left hand rule or a right hand rule.
>> I'm sure somebody knows.
>> db
>>
>>       On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:45 PM, Ellis Burman<
>> [log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>   So, the same program was recorded on tracks 1 and 4?
>>
>> Ellis
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> Hi Ellis:
>>>
>>> No, I was just looking at a scope with spoken-word material on the top
>>>        
>> and
>>      
>>> bottom track. They were also recordings from transcription records, so
>>> there was quite a bit of record noise. I was surprised how many times
>>>        
>> there
>>      
>>> would be a loud sound at the same time for both tracks, often enough to
>>> verify that azimuth wasn't way off. This is inexact, to say the least,
>>>        
>> but
>>      
>>> everything sounded surprisingly good.
>>>
>>> The whole 4 tracks at once thing gets into craft vs. science.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ellis Burman"<
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:18 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape dubbing backwards?
>>>
>>>
>>>   Hi Tom.  If is was a 4-track mono tape, how did you check the azimuth?
>>>        
>>>> Was
>>>> there phase coherent tones or pink noise on all four tracks?  That seems
>>>> highly unlikely to me.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Ellis Burman
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   I've never tried doing all four tracks of a quarter-track stereo of
>>>>          
>>>>> high-fidelity music all at once using my Tascam 44-OB, but I have had
>>>>>            
>> no
>>      
>>>>> problems doing some OTR (4-track mono) tapes. The quality going in
>>>>> sucked,
>>>>> so the client was very happy to save money not paying for 4 passes
>>>>>            
>> across
>>      
>>>>> the heads. I was actually surprised at how good it did sound. He told
>>>>>            
>> me
>>      
>>>>> his dubs were second-generation from transfers of transcriptions (so
>>>>> either
>>>>> 3rd or 4th generation from the transmission line). He had been smart
>>>>> enough
>>>>> to use a good quality deck (I forgot he told me it was Pioneer or Teac,
>>>>> later-generation so with direct drive capstan and decent azimuth
>>>>> stability). On my scope, the azimuth looked OK between tracks 1 and 4,
>>>>> so I
>>>>> figured I was probably getting pretty good fidelity out of all 4
>>>>>            
>> tracks,
>>      
>>>>> especially considering the relatively lo-fi source. His smartest moves
>>>>>            
>> in
>>      
>>>>> making the tapes were doing them at 7.5IPS and using well-slit Maxell
>>>>>            
>> UD
>>      
>>>>> tape. We also transferred at double speed (7.5IPS of 3.75IPS material),
>>>>> and
>>>>> again this did not effect the sound quality of OTR source material very
>>>>> negatively. The guy got 4 hours of transfer material for every half
>>>>>            
>> hour
>>      
>>>>> of
>>>>> tape machine on the clock time. As I said up front, I would never do
>>>>>            
>> this
>>      
>>>>> for high-fidelity musical recordings.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess"<
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:49 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape dubbing backwards?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Some of the four-track in-line heads cheated down a little from the
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> standard 43 mil track width, but I think it was down to 38 mils to
>>>>>>              
>> allow
>>      
>>>>>> for better crosstalk. This is not well documented...but then again we
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> a variation of at least 75-82 mils in "NAB" two track heads. At this
>>>>>> point,
>>>>>> if one is dealing with more than three tracks on 1/4-inch tapes there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> usually larger issues than this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-03-09 9:09 PM, Dave Radlauer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Careful there, I don't think there's a one to one relation between
>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> 4-track
>>>>>>> and 1/4 track formats, but I'm sure more knowledgeable voices will
>>>>>>> chime
>>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave R
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>> Richard L. Hess                  email: [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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>> --
>>>> Ellis
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> 818-846-5525
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>
>> --
>> Ellis
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 818-846-5525
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>
>    

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 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