 |
 |
I just want to make one quick comment about this idea that playing back 60 year old tapes is best realized through playing them back on 60 year old machines. The reality here is that the ability to get the signal on to tape is a much easier task than getting it back off and the recorders of the day were much better at recording than playback. I remastered the entire Living Stereo series and was stunned as to how much information I could get off these tapes using state of the art modern analog playback. I then compared these to the transfers that were made with an Ampex 300 that was restored for the CD reissue project at RCA in the late 1980's and the differences were nothing less than astounding. Modern playback with low wow and flutter and an order of magnitude better performance in frequency response, noise and distortion revealed information that was on the tapes that had never actually been heard. As always, YMMV. All the best, Mark Donahue On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:21 PM, DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > One more point, a lot is said about the problems with not using the > original playback equipment. I would just like to comment that I think > anyone would admit that a Studer A-80, (a popular mastering machine), has > far better flutter and speed consistency specs than an Ampex 300. I think > ideal mastering will occur if the electronics with the original specs, > (which may mean using the original heads), are fitted onto a modern > machine. In the notes of the SACD I'm listening to it says that the > mastered SACD was compared with the original tape played on Wilma Cozart > Fine's personal Ampex 300. That should be fairly accurate. I agree with > Tom Fine that if the SACDs had been made using the original sources on the > original playback situations, the final product would have been that much > better. > > -- ************************************* Mark Donahue Chief Mastering Engineer Soundmirror, Inc. Boston, MA [log in to unmask] www.soundmirror.com *************************************