I've recently been listening to a considerable number of the 78 rpm vinyl pressings of the "Historic Masters" series. With no surface noise to mask it, groove noise can be clearly heard in most of these.
Steve Smolian
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Haley
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape vs. Disk
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>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
|