Re: arsclist reel to reel player/recorder

["Doug Pomeroy" <pomeroyaudio@xxxxxxx>]

see below
--------
>From: Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: arsclist reel to reel player/recorder
>Date: Wed, Jun 13, 2001, 4:55 AM
>
> 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.

What does this mean? Why should there be a loss? I havn't read Watkinson's
book, so maybe the answer is there. My understanding is that the advantage
of digital is precisely that program can be migrated *without* loss of info,
error correction being extremely robust. Contrast that with analog tape,
where frequency-response and phase variations are *invariably* imposed
with every copy, not to mention the matter of added tape hiss and modulation
noise.
>
> 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.

We can all point to many crappy sounding CDs. Surely there are just as many
crappy sounding analog tape dubs. The fact that two CDs made from the same
old recording don't sound exactly the same is a function of the playback &
recording equipment used, (including a/d and d/a converters), and the skill
of the operator. This doesn't say anything about the quality of digital
recording per se. No two analog tapes made from an old recording will sound
exactly the same either.

To speak of "accurate" transfer begs the question. Who ever said there is
only one "accurate" transfer of anything? A Studer will sound different from
an Ampex; a tube phono preamp will sound different from a solid-state
preamp. You say it is unattainable, I say it doesn't exist. These are
different statements.

Some engineers (eg. Steve Hoffman) take the view that all equipment used
should be the same as that which was in use when the original recording was
made. This is a very sweet-smelling idea, but I can think of many cases
in which it would be foolish. (When I was the engineer at the Museum Of
Broadcasting, the Director wanted me to use an old Gates turntable for
playing the 16" transcriptions. I had to fight very hard to convince him
that the rumble was unacceptable and that we could do better - I eventually
modified a Fons for the job.)
>
> 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