Re: [AV Media Matters] Print-through - progress of technology? &

[lists.rlhess@mindspring.com]

Steve,

Totally agreed...in this case, "better" means clearer, more detailed, etc.
I SUSPECT it's due to better phase linearity especially at high
frequencies. It is not just MORE high end, it's clearer, more enjoyable.
Reponse of both machines as measured on test-tapes is reasonably
similar...1-2dB at the most different.

The point that I'm making is that it is hard to get the optimum transfer
(before doing voluntary "improvements"--I always burn several CD-Rs BEFORE
I add the "voluntary" improvements).

Cheers,

Richard

At 04:22 AM 07/11/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>A comment.  Recorders are supposed to replicate the sound captured on the
>medium they are playing back.  Flat. Any involuntary improvements, no
matter
>how delightful, are wrong, so a tape recorder should not sound "better"
than
>others if all are professional level and well maintained.  The only
>exception is in the wow and flutter characteristics- the big Nagra has
>significantly better specs in this department than all others I've looked
>at.  I've never owned, used or measured one, but their paperwork and
>reputation is impressive.
>
>Depending on the client's needs, voluntary improvements are another,
>subjective matter.
>
>Incidentally, relapping or changing heads is only solving part of the
>machine ageing problem.  Dealing with the scrape flutter mechanism resolves
>playback machine tape motion issues.
>
>As many of you know, I also deal in old records-LPs and 78s.  Accurate
>grading is essential.  The greatest improvement to any dealer's grading
>accuracy has been when he gets a new eyeglass prescription.  Fixing scrape
>flutter is, dare I say it, analogous.
>
>Steve Smolian
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <lists.rlhess@mindspring.com>
>To: <AV-Media-Matters@topica.com>
>Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 6:11 AM
>Subject: RE: [AV Media Matters] Print-through - progress of technology? &
>dubbing requ
>
>
>> At 07:37 AM 07/09/2000 -0700, Graham Newton wrote in part:
>>>the caveat of my comments was:-
>>>
>>>**************************************************************
>>>> Since technology will progress, there will doubtless come a time
when
>>>better
>>>> transfer or restoration means are at hand and it will be desirable
to
>>>> re-transfer the deteriorated tape.
>>>**************************************************************
>>
>> This is an interesting comment. Yes, our digital technology will
continue
>> to improve, but the analog reproduction technology is, to the best of my
>> knowledge, stagnate. While one can argue in 1/4-inch that top of the
line
>> Ampex ATR-100's, Nagra-T's, Otari MTR10's and 12's, Sony APR5003v's, and
>> various Studer machines are at the pinnacle of reproduction quality,
most
>> if not all of these are out of production and will need increasing
>> maintenance as time goes by. Due to time and budget constraints as well
as
>> the crossover of technologies, I believe that in most cases the
transfers
>> we do today may be the only ones ever done on a substantial portion of
the
>> existing material. While I'd love a better recording medium than
44.1/16,
>> the majority of the tapes I have access to don't exceed the dynamic
range
>> of this system (and there is a comfortable margin). Also, the high-end
>> response is a bit lacking, but only noticeable in direct A-B comparisons
>> with some of the best 30ips masters.
>>
>> Certainly our 44.1/16 archives are much better than shellac 78's and
>> probably better than 95-99+% of the LPs out there.
>>
>> Very few libraries have the resources evidenced by Fox about eight or
ten
>> years ago when an entire special system was developed to transfer the
>aging
>> Fox Movietone News nitrate films to a 1Kx1K pixel data format using
>> continuous motion transport and a xenon-flash-based exposure system. A
>> custom telecine was actually manufactured for the purpose.
>>
>> Other than that type of investment, I don't see the reproduction
equipment
>> improving with age. In my opinion, even today, the analog reproduction
>> equipment for audio and video is becoming the limiting factor. Thank
>> goodness for the two companies on this list who maintain the several
>> million formats needed to reproduce all the odd formats we've inflicted
>> upon ourselves over the years. In my sideline business of music
>> restoration, I can get by with three machines.
>>    Sony APR5003V
>>    Tandberg 3500X
>>    Turntable, etc.
>>
>> Hey, as a side comment...anyone on this list have an 8-track 1-inch
audio
>> player (probably 15ips) with 8 tracks of dbx AND a 20-bit ADAT
(preferably
>> the XT-20 or better) and would be able to do a transfer for me?
>>
>> Cheers and thanks,
>>
>> Richard
>> Richard L. Hess                              richard@richardhess.com
>> Glendale, CA USA                           http://www.richardhess.com/
>> Web page: folk and church music, photography,
>>                   broadcast engineering, home wiring, and more
>>
>>
Richard L. Hess                              richard@richardhess.com
Glendale, CA USA                           http://www.richardhess.com/
Web page: folk and church music, photography,
                  broadcast engineering, home wiring, and more