Re: arsclist reel to reel player/recorder

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While the following message is certainly true of some instances, I think 
that the message following this from Peter Copeland more reasonably 
addresses the issues. While I would normally not reply to a message like 
this, I am so that Holly and others can perhaps view another perspective on 
some of these thoughts while they are evaluating their choices.

First, I don't think it is much more difficult (if any more difficult) to 
get a high quality Red Book CD copy of most analog master tapes than it is 
to get a high quality analog tape copy.

There are three issues in any transfer:

(1) The accuracy of the reproducer
(2) The accuracy of the signal processing
(3) The accuracy of the recorder

In the above, "accuracy" can also be interpreted to include the 
"musicality" and is not meant to imply a strictly numeric accuracy.

(1) Reproducer alignment is always a question. The reproducer needs to be 
aligned to the same curve via which the recording engineer was expecting to 
reproduce it. Quite often, there are multi-frequency tones on the tape. 
Those are useful in fine-tuning the machine after it has been set up via a 
high-quality test tape (Let's say MRL in the USA)

The quality difference among reproducers (and their alignment) is amazing. 
I often wonder about people requiring 24 bit 88.2 storage from signals 
played back from Prosumer decks.

After having found two Sony APR5003Vs at firesale prices and appreciating 
the difference between them and my lovingly maintained and venerable ReVox 
A77's (which in previous years actually performed as well as say an Ampex 
350 transport with 440B electronics when both were well maintained) I have 
become a bit of a reproducer elitist. In fact, in asking around, the Sonys 
are quite well respected. Other machines such as high-end Studers, Otaris, 
and Nagras make excellent reproducers. BUT YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE SOUND 
over reasonably good (and multiple) monitor chains. The machines HAVE TO BE 
WELL ALIGNED!!!

I believe that many of the poor commercial CD reissues fail at this step, 
so they're doomed before they go any farther.

As a corollary, I believe that many CD reissues were made from safety or 
running masters and not the original two-track mix master. There is a 
danger here, however, is that substantial EQ may have been introduced 
between the final mix master and the LP manufacturing. Some of that was to 
compensate for perceived deficiencies in the LP media (or related marketing 
reasons). If a CD is produced from a "hyped" LP running master, it will 
sound screeeeeeechy. A few LPs sound VERY screeeechy as compared to the CD 
reissue, but that was a known fact in the LP purchasing world about at 
least one label at the time (example: Laura Nyro's Eli and the 13th confession)

(2) The chain should be essentially a straight wire and not introduce any 
hum or other artifacts. In this area, I include Dolby and dbx noise 
reduction companding. This companding is required if the original master 
was recorded with it. You have to make sure it's working and in the case of 
dbx type I, I went through three used processors before I found one that 
sounded OK to my ears (it's not subjective in the sense of one sounding 
better than the other, the two bad ones had audible noise reduction artifacts).

(3) The recording chain (be it analog or digital) is also crucial. Not all 
A-D converters are created equal and not all analog tape machines are 
created equal OR ALIGNED WELL! A general rule of thumb that has not 
disappointed me is that analog machines almost always record better than 
they reproduce.

In the case of digital machines, I can hear subtle differences between the 
Panasonic SV3800 DAT's converters and the Marantz CDR500's converters. The 
Marantz is a newer product, but I think some of the subtleties I hear make 
me continue to like the SV3800's A-D better. I bought that machine 
originally due to some "golden ears'" recommendations. There is a fair 
amount of time spent analyzing these things and isolating the problem. It 
turned out the first DAT machine I purchased sounded awful on the boy choir 
stuff I was doing--but it later turned out the be the D-A converters in the 
machine, not the A-D! At the time with one machine accessible, I couldn't 
tell. Before I diss the Marantz, I need to do more checking, but I do hear 
subtle A-D differences. These are far more subtle than the reproducer 
differences I hear between the Sony and the ReVox for example which are 
less than I often hear between a CD and an LP (it's a crap shoot as to 
which sounds better).

Well, enough of a rant. This is typed in haste as I leave for the INFOCOMM 
show in Las Vegas.

Cheers,

Richard

At 09:55 AM 06/13/2001 +0000, Don Cox wrote:
> On 13-Jun-01, Doug Pomeroy wrote:
>
> > I believe we have FINALLY reached the time when even the most
> > conservative forces in the world of audio preservation have recognized
> > the superiority of digital storage. Are you at all familiar with the
> > issue of analog vs digital as relates to archiving?
>
> The problem is getting from one to the other without losing information.
>
> A valuable reference book on these topics is "The Art of Digital Audio"
> by Watkinson. (3rd Ed).
>
> One has only to listen to various CD versions of the same older
> recording to realise that accurate transfer is an unattainable goal, and
> judgements have to be made about which aspect of the sound has priority.
>
> Also, there is the question of cost. How many hours will the budget
> allow to be spent on each original ?
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -
> For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> from the author of the post.

Richard L. Hess                           email: rlh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Vignettes Media                           web:   http://marielynnhammond.com
Glendale, California, USA