Hi Eric: You are describing a process similar or the same as what is described in the Beatles In Mono LP box set book. I believe they use a Studer A80 with Fred Thal's precision headblock, or something similar. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Jacobs" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] AZIMUTH (was recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24) >I reluctantly describe a process that we�ve used on mono tapes > with country-laning. It�s tedious and problematic, but it can > be better than aligning the azimuth just once at the beginning of > a tape. We�ve only resorted to this process a few times, it�s > hardly a �production� process. > > In essence: > > 1. We play the tape back with a stereo headblock that is fitted > with a precision vernier azimuth knob. The precision vernier > azimuth knob allows you to read the relative azimuth adjustment > that you�ve made at any time. This is the actual headblock we > use to do this (a fantastic sounding headblock as well): > > http://www.ataestuder.com/technical/shro-explained/ > > > 2. As the tape is playing we note the times and values for the > azimuth knob. This can be a very slow process since we need to > stop the tape to take the time and azimuth reading and write > it down. We also record how slowly or quickly we should change > the azimuth in seconds. Did I say �tedious�? It really is. > > 3. We stuff the times and azimuth values into a spreadsheet to > calculate the relative azimuth changes. We use a spreadsheet > to calculate the changes because if you accidentally change > the azimuth in the wrong direction, you actually make things > worse. > > 4. Switch to a mono headblock that has an identical precision > vernier azimuth knob. > > 5. Play the tape and make the azimuth changes according to the > spreadsheet. > > > I�ll be the first to admit that there are all kinds of issues > with this process, just to name a few: > > a. mechanical backlash in the azimuth adjuster > b. only works for gross changes in azimuth over the course of > playback > c. cannot deal with continuous real-time changes in azimuth > d. a mistake in calculating the relative azimuth is worse than > no azimuth adjustment at all > e. prone to human error during playback > f. requires great care and patience > g. effort is only justifiable on special/important recordings > > > Again, I mention this process as a method of problem solving, and > would never advocate this process as �best practice�. > > Eric Jacobs > > _________________________ > > Eric Jacobs > Principal > The Audio Archive, Inc. > 1325 Howard Ave, #906 > Burlingame, CA 94010 > > tel: 408-221-2128 > [log in to unmask] > http://www.theaudioarchive.com/ > > Disc and Tape Audio Transfer Services and Preservation Consulting > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > > On 9/10/14, 7:25 AM, "Richard L. Hess" <[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. 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]> >>> To: <[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]> >>>>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]> >>>>>> To: <[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] >>Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800 >>http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm >>Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. >> > >