Those are all intriguing comments, Jamie. I wish there were a way we could
experience even some of what you are pointing out at an ARSC
lecture-demonstration. But sadly, we are usually subjected to pretty
substandard playback equipment which would immediately cancel out the
important subtleties you are discussing.
In particular, I would really love to hear a demonstration of the
difference in tape playback, before and after the removal (correction?) of
"fast flutter."
I am right with Tom about abhorring the ever-present rumble and "bottom
noise" that seems to be there in virtually every LP pressing. It is easily
seen in spectral views of the audio on the computer, and it is handy to
isolate it and play just that back (easy in iZotope). It is extremely
audible, especially in soft passages where it is not masked. Yet when you
remove it, even at a loss of whatever musical content there might be down
at the level below 30 or 40 Hz (precious little in the vast majority of LP
recordings), what a tangible difference in the overall sound that can make.
There is "room tone" and so-called subharmonics down there, but frankly,
those gets tangled up with the plain old groove rumble on most LPs. There
are a few instances I have come across where the subharmonics can be
isolated as described above, where you can really hear them as part of the
music that is happening well above these very low pitches. But more often,
when you isolate and listen, it is just grumbly ol' noise way down there.
Best,
John Haley
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jamie Howarth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/20/2015 8:04 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> >>> Regarding tape vs. disk ...
> >>>
> >>> 1. in the very early days of commercial tape recording in the US, the
> electronic distortion going into a tape head and going into a disk
> cutterhead were about the same. We don't have any brand-new-like tapes from
> that era to playback now and really test about the magnetic media being a
> lower-distortion carrier than the etched groove. In the case of working
> with used/vault-stored music masters from the late 1940's and early 1950's,
> it's entirely possible that an unscratched and well-preserved laquer disk,
> direct-cut from the same source as a tape from that era, will today sound
> better than the tape. The paper-backed and acetate-backed tapes have
> well-known physical life-span issues, and many were not stored optimally
> over the years. Furthermore, magnetic tape is susceptible to damage from
> magnetic fields, and lacquer disks are not. Net-net, 60-70 years down the
> line, it's possible and in fact likely that a disk source made from the
> same recording buss as a tape source in that time era might sound better
> with proper playback. But, at the time, when the tape was fresh, I submit
> that the playback equipment of the day would greatly favor the tape.
> That has not been our experience. Tapes from the mid late 50s sound great.
> Mag film from 1953 sounds incredible. ’m hoping we get to test some 1940s
> tape soon. Other than the obvious sticky shed we’ve only seen a few earlier
> acetate tapes that show any edge damage issues and when they don’t play
> correctly on an ATR it’s likely fixable with some strategic shimming. I
> would reverse this and say there are probably a few cases where the lacquer
> would be better than the tape. Tape doesn’t age, and we have experience
> with damaged tape that totally rocked when played properly. I would submit
> that there’s still information on all tapes that even the best reproducers
> are leaving on the table.
>
> I have sneaking suspicion that some of the legends of late about the
> unplayability of some tapes is actually job security by producers who don’t
> want any follow-on attempts at beating their work product.
>
>
> >>> 2. no matter how you cut it, disk recording and playback is
> compromised by the fact that it's a mechanical system very much observant f
> the laws of physics. Lacquer disks are known to have "memory," where the
> groove closes back slightly within the first short time period after
> cutting. A disk played back for listening in 1945 sustained damaged right
> then and there, irreparable damage, due to the heavy and non-compliant
> playback systems of the time, they essentially re-etched parts of the
> groove. There are ways to somewhat mitigate this, tracking in other parts
> of the groove with a compliant modern stylus for instance.
>
> I just took a real look at a real playback of the Shure disk and it’s
> shocking how much harmonic distortion, IM and wow there is. It’s
> remarkable. Unbelievable. If this was a piece of gear we’d throw it out.
> >>>
> >>> 3. where the disk is likely to shine vs. tape of that era is in the
> transient attack and time-smear areas. Simply put, excellent direct-to-disk
> recordings of that period did not have the problems that scrape-flutter and
> other mechanical differences in each tape pass cause. However, this can be
> fixed today -- Plangent Process.
> Thanks, and some of that actually translates to the vinyl. Our tape to
> digital to lacquer sounds better than tape to lacquer. Anybody wants to
> challenge this and disprove it and has the resources it would be a fun
> little friendly competition to verify.
>
> The nature of the heavier lathe platter (and in turntables like the direct
> drive goldmund with it’s insanely massive turntable) is that it damps out
> faster flutter, which tape recorders produce a lot of. I’m looking at the
> IM caused by flutter in an early MCI 24 track and it’s worse than you’d
> expect, with a welter of sharply defined flutter signatures, whereas the
> Thorens that I was looking at yesterday has a high level of flutter but
> it’s more stratified and noise like ... other than two insanely high peaks
> at 220 and 280 (Thanks, Rhett).
>
> >>> I do think the combination of direct-to-disk recording and the groove
> velocities allowed by 78RPM can produce the "tactile" sense that disk fans
> talk about, and tape of that era would come up short in comparison -- aside
> from the mechanical time-smear issues, the disks could accomodate greater
> short-term dynamics that would reproduce on a system with adequate speed
> and power, whereas tape would saturate and brickwall-limit the dyanmics due
> to the physics of electromagnetism.
> The tape playback will sound more like the console than the direct to
> disk, but the tape to disk will obviously have several generations of
> problems rather than one. My believe is that the more the time-base is
> corrupted the more “immediacy” is lost. I remember being impressed with
> live radio broadcasts and the tape didn’t hold up to the same sense of
> “thereness". But get rid of the time base errors and it comes back.
> >>>
> >>> 4. I can't understand how anyone would prefer rumble and whoosh groove
> noise over tape hiss. All recordings of that era were noisy, but tape was
> less so. I submit that a person who can't hear and is not at least somewhat
> annoyed by the rumble has inadequate bass response in their playback system.
> >>>
> Hiss is easily tuned out, and one of the cool things about removing the
> fast flutter (which BTW is not the same as scrape flutter, which is a term
> being thrown about a bit) is that the hiss gets smoother and easier to
> ignore.
> >>> One man's opinions ...
> >>>
> >>> -- Tom Fine
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:11 AM
> >>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Reiner/Pittsburgh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'd like to send sincere thanks for to Dennis Rooney for his talk and
> >>>> demonstration of the Reiner Columbia recordings at ARSC NY,
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmNEHgop_8c
> >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmNEHgop_8c&feature=youtu.be>
> >>>> &feature=youtu.be, and to Kim Peach for sharing it. The work Dennis
> and Seth
> >>>> did twenty years ago is astonishing. It completely passed me by at
> the time.
> >>>> Even via MP4, the results are incredible, so I can imagine what the
> >>>> transfers must sound like. They certainly break down my
> stereo-centrism.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fascinating too is Dennis' comment about the virtue of lacquer discs
> vs.
> >>>> tape. I recall a late interview with Kenneth Wilkinson, who said the
> best
> >>>> reproduction he'd ever heard was from disc, not from tape.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How much do we know about the microphone technique Columbia used at
> that
> >>>> time? There is a photo of Stravinsky recording with Cleveland ca.
> 1952-55.
> >>>> The only mic visible is a RCA 44, well back of the podium. I have to
> go back
> >>>> and listen to those for evidence of other pickups, but the Reiners
> have
> >>>> evidence of wind spotlighting. Is it likely that in the 1940s ribbon
> mics
> >>>> would be the primary tools? My experience with ribbons for such use
> suggests
> >>>> that their falling high frequency response must have been
> compensated, given
> >>>> the strong and very clear high-end on those lacquers. Quite a feat to
> do
> >>>> that and maintain low enough noise floor. I guess that would have
> been a
> >>>> limiting factor for how many mics could be used, although at a time
> when
> >>>> noise was referenced to shellac, a little hiss may not have bothered
> anyone.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> TIA to anyone who can replace my speculations with facts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Carl
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Carl Pultz
> >>>>
> >>>> Alembic Productions
> >>>>
> >>>> Rochester, NY
> >>>>
> >>>> www.alembicproductions.com <http://www.alembicproductions.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
|