Print

Print


Steve, you've explained why tail out is preferred very eloquently. As far as the FFRR records are concerned, you may be right, but I can't see how they could calculate it so that the cut record would end, (start on playback), at the correct point on the disc, especially when margin control is employed.  An advantage of cutting a record backwards, (as you alluded to in your comment on tail-out wind), is that sharp entries such as piano chords or bass drums, or cannon in the 1812, will not take the compressors by surprise. 

db

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 3:05 AM, Steve Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Since the attack is louder than the fade (this does not necessarily hold for electronic music), print-through will be masked in the crescendo rather than left exposed in the decay.
> 
> The same principle was why English Decca's FFRR records were cut backwards, from the center out, or so I was told.
> 
> Steve Smolian
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Ellis Burman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Tape dubbing backwards?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ellis
> [log in to unmask]
> 818-846-5525