Studio Master?

[Julf]

High-end is a community, not just an individual.

For some it is, for some it isn't. Or, rather, you are probably right, "high-end" is like a community or tribe, in that it does seem to be a group of people with shared values where the membership in that elite group and reinforcement of the common values sometimes seem more important than the actual sonic results. I am not into "high-end", I am into the good old old-fashioned "High Fidelity" or "hi-fi", where, as the name implies, the ultimate goal is accurate reproduction of the original audio material, rather than any sort of community recognition.

BTW ,the world of high-end did not start and does not end with WBF. There are many forums, decades of high-end magazines and debates archives.

I am extremely well aware of that, but I gave up on trying to read the airhead fluff that passes for "high-end journalism" these days.

Oh well, it is pretty clear that I am in the wrong forum. When I originally joined, it did seem that this group had a reasonable, rational and balanced approach, with roughly equal amounts of "subjectivist" and "objectivist" views.

 

[microstrip]

For some it is, for some it isn't. Or, rather, you are probably right, "high-end" is like a community or tribe, in that it does seem to be a group of people with shared values where the membership in that elite group and reinforcement of the common values sometimes seem more important than the actual sonic results. I am not into "high-end", I am into the good old old-fashioned "High Fidelity" or "hi-fi", where, as the name implies, the ultimate goal is accurate reproduction of the original audio material, rather than any sort of community recognition.



I am extremely well aware of that, but I gave up on trying to read the airhead fluff that passes for "high-end journalism" these days.

Oh well, it is pretty clear that I am in the wrong forum. When I originally joined, it did seem that this group had a reasonable, rational and balanced approach, with roughly equal amounts of "subjectivist" and "objectivist" views.

You just picked a few words, ignored the main sentences, and commented them showing again you have a distorted view of this community. We share respect for all our members opinions, independently of our preferences, but openly debate them. But I can easily see that some one who discards enjoyment from listening and sticks mainly to the technical side only sees the black side of the hobby and most of our threads.

 

[Julf]

You just picked a few words, ignored the main sentences, and commented them

Sorry about that. Glad I am the only one doing it.

We share respect for all our members opinions, independently of our preferences

Yes, I have noticed.

 

[NorthStar]

Sometimes we have some great discussions; when we explore in depth the subject and all that is related to it.
Other times less so, when we discuss more the poster than the subject. ...We bifurcate from the essential goal of what the thread was all about to start with.

I think that at the end what counts is how we like the music or not; digital or analog, hi-rez or low-rez, Studio Master or not.
Our music preference reflects our words' preference, and how we say them, I think.

 

[rockitman]

as even 16 bit CD has a much larger dynamic range than 1/4" tape (even if you use Dolby processing, with all it's problems, on the tape).

Are you trying to suggest that given an analog master RTR 1/4" tape, that if I a/d it to 16 bit, I will increase the dynamic range ? That is a silly thought isn't it ? Like I said before, if the master is analog tape, the best version will be an analog dub from said tape or it's vinyl counterpart.

 

[Julf]

Are you trying to suggest that given an analog master RTR 1/4" tape, that if I a/d it to 16 bit, I will increase the dynamic range ? That is a silly thought isn't it ? Like I said before, if the master is analog tape, the best version will be an analog dub from said tape or it's vinyl counterpart.

I suggest you re-read my message that you responded to. No, of course there is no way to recover the dynamic range that has been lost by recording onto a magnetic tape, but at least a transfer to digital from that tape won't decrease the dynamic range further. As I stated in my message, there is no technical reason to require compression when recording onto a digital media (unlike with tape, where Dolby or DBX noise reduction, that actually performs dynamic compression and decompression, is required to achieve a decent signal-to-noise ratio).

Like I said before, if the master is analog tape, the best version will be an analog dub from said tape or it's vinyl counterpart.

What do you base your claim of "best" on?

 

[Bruce B]

, but at least a transfer to digital from that tape won't decrease the dynamic range further.

Yes it will... because of the added noise of the converters, cables, interface and other noise makers

 

[Julf]

Yes it will... because of the added noise of the converters, cables, interface and other noise makers

Admitted. But will the change be significant when compared to the tape hiss level? What is the best SNR you have managed to get out of a 1/4" tape recorder? The best I have seen (using Dolby A, with its associated issues) is around 80 dB. Most converters and interfaces (not to mention cables) are quite a bit better than that.

 

[Bruce B]

Admitted. But will the change be significant when compared to the tape hiss level? What is the best SNR you have managed to get out of a 1/4" tape recorder? The best I have seen (using Dolby A, with its associated issues) is around 80 dB. Most converters and interfaces (not to mention cables) are quite a bit better than that.

Noise is noise... it all adds up.

 

[Julf]

Noise is noise... it all adds up.

Sure - but if you have noise that is at -80 dB, and add some additional noise at -96 dB, will you hear the difference?

 

[rbbert]

It's very likely that a carefully made 16/44.1 copy of a 1/4-track 7.5 ips reel will sound closer to the original than a 1/4-track 7.5 ips copy.

 

[mep]

Who wants copies of 1/4 track tapes 7.5 ips duped onto another 1/4 track 7 1/2 ips tape?

 

[rbbert]

Who wants copies of 1/4 track tapes 7.5 ips duped onto another 1/4 track 7 1/2 ips tape?

I don't know. I guess you could copy it onto 1/2-track 15 ips, although in that case I'm not sure which would sound better (the 16/44.1 copy or the 15 ips copy). I do know that many older commercial prerecorded reel tapes will deteriorate quickly with repeated plays.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Admitted. But will the change be significant when compared to the tape hiss level? What is the best SNR you have managed to get out of a 1/4" tape recorder? The best I have seen (using Dolby A, with its associated issues) is around 80 dB. Most converters and interfaces (not to mention cables) are quite a bit better than that.

The absence of noise is not the presence of music--HP.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Julf writes: What do you base your claim of "best" on?

The same applies to you. So far you've given us facts and figures about how digital is vastly superior to analog and analog should be shitcanned. So how has/does do all those fancy measurements translate into better sound? Better tonality? Better imaging? Better resolution of recording space? Better dynamics? Better frequency response? Better low level resolution? What is it? It sure as hell isn't all of them, that's for sure.

Nor have you once talked about what sort of system (electronics/speakers/etc.) you used to come to your conclusions. Nor have you talked about any sort of listening that you did eg. say comparing a live performance to the recorded version, be it digital or analog.

 

[Julf]

The same applies to you.

And when I used the word "best", Bruce set me right:

There is no best...

thus I was surprised you would claim something was "best".

So far you've given us facts and figures about how digital is vastly superior to analog and analog should be shitcanned.

Your words, not mine. I love my analog stuff (including 2 tape units), but I would never argue that they are anywhere as good at accurately and faithfully reproducing the original signal as my digital stuff.

So how has/does do all those fancy measurements translate into better sound? Better tonality? Better imaging? Better resolution of recording space? Better dynamics?

No idea. I have no idea what these fancy terms mean - I hear them used all the time, but there seems to be very little agreement as to what they actually mean.

Better frequency response?

Directly measurable. Depending on bias adjustment, you can go beyond 20 kHz on tape, but usually by accepting unevenness (3-6 dB) in the frequency range.

Better low level resolution?

The usual parameter to determine that is the signal-to-noise ratio.

Nor have you once talked about what sort of system (electronics/speakers/etc.) you used to come to your conclusions. Nor have you talked about any sort of listening that you did eg. say comparing a live performance to the recorded version, be it digital or analog.

I am not a "high end" journalist. I don't arrive at my "conclusions" by a listening session or two. I base my opinions on experience acquired over the years, supported by theoretical and practical scientific knowledge verified by measurements.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am not a "high end" journalist. I don't arrive at my "conclusions" by a listening session or two. I base my opinions on experience acquired over the years, supported by theoretical and practical scientific knowledge verified by measurements.

one thing that digital apologist/objectivist posters have in common is a reluctance to share specifics on the systems on which their views are based. there is always a vague reference to vast past experience in all this pro audio/engineering hocus pocus.......but where's the beef?

answer; there is no beef to be found.

yawn. double yawn.

if you are going to come to a high end audio forum with radical views about what analog cannot do then the burden is on you to establish some credibility. part of that is some evidence that you have gone thru the effort to actually investigate what you claim to know so much more about than the rest of us. otherwise your views fall on deaf ears.

and if the answer is that you have not spent time in the last decade listening to state of the art analog then just say so. or tell us about that experience with specifics. we are not basing our views on 'a listening session or two' as you put it. we spend hours daily listening to all formats in systems which we have all put much effort to optimize. so when you come here and refute our conclusions, then deny the validity of our experiences, eventually it comes down to 'can we take your viewpoint seriously?'.

it appears we cannot.

 

[MylesBAstor]

And when I used the word "best", Bruce set me right:

No idea. I have no idea what these fancy terms mean - I hear them used all the time, but there seems to be very little agreement as to what they actually mean.

Might I then suggest reading JGH's book written a decade and a half ago that defined those terms quite adequately.

Directly measurable. Depending on bias adjustment, you can go beyond 20 kHz on tape, but usually by accepting unevenness (3-6 dB) in the frequency range.

Please provide proof. Outside of the low frequency issues caused by the head bump (and that can be flattened out), I don't see any 3-6 dB deviations on any of these machines here. Do you? Even taking into account, the head bump, only two machines show a FR deviation in the range you claim. http://www.endino.com/graphs/ In fact, look at the last tape machine graph for the AT-102 with extended response heads by John French. Pretty damn flat FR.

I am not a "high end" journalist. I don't arrive at my "conclusions" by a listening session or two. I base my opinions on experience acquired over the years, supported by theoretical and practical scientific knowledge verified by measurements.

Are you clinically insane? What reviewer makes a judgement based on one or two listening sessions? Puhleeze....spare me the condescension. The established reviewers BTW, have been doing this for years and years too. If anyone makes a "quick" decision, it might be recording engineers where time is money. But even their "wisdom" is gained from years of trial and error.

 

[Julf]

one thing that digital apologist/objectivist posters have in common is a reluctance to share specifics on the systems on which their views are based.

One thing that rabid audiophile woo advocates seem to have in common is the need to attack the persons disagreeing with them instead of addressing the factual content.
Whatever my gear is, it will probably in any case be a cause for that old argument of "ah, see, your equipment isn't resolving enough for you to hear a difference".

there is always a vague reference to vast past experience

I have never claimed any "vast" experience - I have merely (and purely factually) pointed out the actual number of years of experience.

if you are going to come to a high end audio forum with radical views about what analog cannot do

So far the only "radical" thing I have done is given some comparative numbers. Feel free to present evidence supporting a contrary view.

the burden is on you to establish some credibility.

No credibility required to state the controversial fact that "2 ^ 16 = 65536 = 96 dB". Now, had I stated, as Robert J. Stuart of Meridian has, that "with the correct dither, the resolution of a digital system is theoretically infinite, and that it is possible, for example, to resolve sounds at -110 dB (below digital full-scale) in a well-designed 16 bit channel", that could perhaps have been considered controversial by some, but I didn't want to go that far.

part of that is some evidence that you have gone thru the effort to actually investigate what you claim to know so much more about than the rest of us.

Well, in this case we are talking about things that are covered by pretty much any university-level 101 course in digital audio processing, so there is not much ground-breaking investigation needed. A simple oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer gets you pretty far.

if the answer is that you have not spent time in the last decade listening to state of the art analog then just say so.

"State of the art" is a very vague term. There hasn't been that many new tape decks coming out in the last decade.

 

[Julf]

Might I then suggest reading JGH's book written a decade and a half ago that defined those terms quite adequately.

Unfortunately other publications and sources seem to define them differently, and reading reviews and talking to people I find surprisingly little agreement as to the precise meaning of those terms. What makes JGH's book the authoritative definition?

Please provide proof. Outside of the low frequency issues caused by the head bump (and that can be flattened out), I don't see any 3-6 dB deviations on any of these machines here. Do you? Even taking into account, the head bump, only two machines show a FR deviation in the range you claim. http://www.endino.com/graphs/ In fact, look at the last tape machine graph for the AT-102 with extended response heads by John French. Pretty damn flat FR.

Ampex AT-102: +0/-4 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Sony APR-5000: +1.5/-8 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Studer A820: +1.5/-7 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Otari MX-5050: +2/-9 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Otari MX-80: +2/-4 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
MCI 2-inch: +2/-7 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Otari MTR-100: +1/-8 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Otari MTR-90: +2/-9 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Studer A820: +1.5/-? dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Studer A827: +1/-5 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Studer A80 Mk II: +2/-3 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Tascam MS-16: +2/-9 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Tascam ATR60-16: +1.5/-8 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Ampex MM1200: +-4 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz
Otari MX-80: +1.5/-2 dB 20 Hz - 20 KHz

"old Starmax MT3200 computer's onboard A/D converter": +0/-2 dB.

Thanks for proving my point.

Are you clinically insane?

Technically no, despite posting actual technical facts on an audiophile forum might be regarded as a sign to the contrary.