New company maufacturing reel to reel machines

[everettT]

Are you forgetting the loudness wars that CDs were tangled up in and the dybamic range of CDs were no vwtter or worse than of these poorly recorded CDs?

Absolutely I am. It's always about the engineering.

 

[TLS Guy]

What a bunch of bs. Ask any old-timer recording engineer and gladly vote for digital recording options

I think my vote counts. I still have very functional reel to reel machines and a Daw. For me digital all the way. Every time you use a reel to reel machine you struggle to make it as good as digital. Running cost were always high and now right through the roof!

The people are nuts no matter what 3db thinks. Let 3 db buy the tape. He would soon change his tune!

 

[Verdinut]

The reason artists like Lady Gaga prefer analog tape recordings is that there is no risk of unbearable clipping that happens with digital recordings in live recordings as an example. Analog recording will accept sound level overload situations to a certain extent, but digital ones won't, and there is no practical way to correct the situation when distortion has occured.

This situation happened with so many digital recordings that we can hear on CDs. This, of course, all depends on the experience and competence of the recording engineer. The situation is more critical with classical music recordings where the dynamic range can reach up to 35db, on one opera recording which I was informed of.

I have noticed that the quality of the recordings on films, concert DVDs and Blu-rays is of a better quality and so far, I don't recall having heard a multichannel DVD or Blu-ray reproducing noticeable distortion. The fact that DVDs and Blu-ray are using a 24 bit depth instead of 16 bits allows more dynamic range and surely helps with the end results.

I would need some sound engineers to back me up!

 

[3db]

I think my vote counts. I still have very functional reel to reel machines and a Daw. For me digital all the way. Every time you use a reel to reel machine you struggle to make it as good as digital. Running cost were always high and now right through the roof!

The people are nuts no matter what 3db thinks. Let 3 db buy the tape. He would soon change his tune!

Not interested in reel to reel as they're to cumbersome to work with. I guess reel to reels are much like that old tractor you have requiring maintenance. I posted this thread from an engineering point of view and thought it kind of cool that a company would even dare to resurrect this.

 

[lovinthehd]

Are you forgetting the loudness wars that CDs were tangled up in and the dybamic range of CDs were no vwtter or worse than of these poorly recorded CDs?

Wasn't that more due to production values in the studio rather than the recording process in general?

 

[TLS Guy]

The reason artists like Lady Gaga prefer analog tape recordings is that there is no risk of unbearable clipping that happens with digital recordings in live recordings as an example. Analog recording will accept sound level overload situations to a certain extent, but digital ones won't, and there is no practical way to correct the situation.

This situation happened with so many digital recordings that we can hear on CDs. This, of course, all depends on the experience of the recording engineer. The situation is more critical with classical music recordings where the dynamic range can reach up to 35db, on one opera recording which I was informed of.

I have noticed that the quality of the recordings on films, concert DVDs and Blu-rays is of a better quality and so far, I don't recall having heard a multichannel DVD or Blu-ray reproducing noticeable distortion. The fact that DVDs and Blu-ray are using a 24 bit depth instead of 16 bits allows more dynamic range and surely helps with the end results.

There is a problem with digital clipping that I have eluded to before. As to dynamic range, reel to reel tape even at 30 ips has less dynamic range than a CD. However if you add Dolby A or dbx it is greater. However there are other problems, especially pumping, if set up is not obsessional. Dynamic range is then comparable to SACD or high res PCM.

Clipping is a problem with analog tape. It is true that analog tape without noise reduction clips relatively softly. However when you use noise reduction as I mentioned above then clipping is hard and objectionable. It sounds awful and is sudden, so you had to estimate a 3db margin. You never dared let your peak meters get to 0db and kept 3db below. So you never really dared use the full dynamic range available.

Digital clipping on the other hand totally looses it and loud pops and snaps develop. That is very unpleasant. So you used to keep about 5 to 6 db below peak. Metering is key in digital and the bit meter is especially useful. NEVER RUN OUT OF BITS. Fortunately my DAW has very comprehensive metering. You can never have metering that is too comprehensive and accurate when working in the digital domain. It is totally intolerant of mistakes.

I think this may have lead to the dynamic range compression if digital recordings as engineers were so concerned to keep the program well between clipping and the noise floor.

I have made lots of recordings in the analog and digital domains. Certainly different skill sets are required working in the different domains.

I made recordings with very wide dynamic range in both formats, recording very large forces with big orchestras and choirs.

 

[3db]

There is a problem with digital clipping that I have eluded to before. As to dynamic range, reel to reel tape even at 30 ips has less dynamic range than a CD. However if you add Dolby A or dbx it is greater. However there are other problems, especially pumping, if set up is not obsessional. Dynamic range is then comparable to SACD or high res PCM.

Clipping is a problem with analog tape. It is true that analog tape without noise reduction clips relatively softly. However when you use noise reduction as I mentioned above then clipping is hard and objectionable. It sounds awful and is sudden, so you had to estimate a 3db margin. You never dared let your peak meters get to 0db and kept 3db below. So you never really dared use the full dynamic range available.

Digital clipping on the other hand totally looses it and loud pops and snaps develop. That is very unpleasant. So you used to keep about 5 to 6 db below peak. Metering is key in digital and the bit meter is especially useful. NEVER RUN OUT OF BITS. Fortunately my DAW has very comprehensive metering. You can never have metering that is too comprehensive and accurate when working in the digital domain. It is totally intolerant of mistakes.

I think this may have lead to the dynamic range compression if digital recordings as engineers were so concerned to keep the program well between clipping and the noise floor.

I have made lots of recordings in the analog and digital domains. Certainly different skill sets are required working in the different domains.

I made recordings with very wide dynamic range in both formats, recording very large forces with big orchestras and choirs.

.

I have yet to hear this "pumping" effect with dbx that you keep mentioning with my 2 decks that I have bought used and are pushing 30 + years. I know what to listen for and I can set your mind at ease that its not happening.

 

[3db]

Wasn't that more due to production values in the studio rather than the recording process in general?

Agreed but the outcome is the same, poor dynamic range. The last Von Bondies album produced sounds like total crap as there is definitely some distortion going on. Im merely pointing pointing out the fact that it does occur in the digital world despite some people never hearing it.

 

[everettT]

.

I have yet to hear this "pumping" effect with dbx that you keep mentioning with my 2 decks that I have bought used and are pushing 30 + years. I know what to listen for and I can set your mind at ease that its not happening.

I believe he said unless perfectly setup and was talking about standalone units not ones in cassette decks.

 

[lovinthehd]

Agreed but the outcome is the same, poor dynamic range. The last Von Bondies album produced sounds like total crap as there is definitely some distortion going on. Im merely pointing pointing out the fact that it does occur in the digital world despite some people never hearing it.

Oh no, it definitely exists, particularly with pop music.

 

[TLS Guy]

.

I have yet to hear this "pumping" effect with dbx that you keep mentioning with my 2 decks that I have bought used and are pushing 30 + years. I know what to listen for and I can set your mind at ease that its not happening.

That is mainly because you are using domestic dbx 2 and not pro dbx 1 which has a much greater dynamic range. Also you are recording material already compressed not off live mics. Program is also an issue as popular music would not likely show it up as much as an exposed flute, clarinet of oboe line. dbx 1 is especially intolerant of frequency response error between record and play back. This meant that 15 ips was mandatory as there is HF loss at full modulation with all magnetic tape at speeds below 15 ips which is progressive between -10 db and 0 db modulation. That is why you have to set up and adjust tape machines running less than 15 ips at -10 db rather than 0 db at 15 and 30 ips. Because of loss of HF with tape saturation at the slower speeds dbx 1 will pump like crazy and dbx 2 can as well. The other thing about dbx is that frequency response errors between record and playback are doubled. This means that recorders have to be very good and very well set up. So dbx 1 and 2 are very different animals. You could not begin to use dbx 1 on any cassette machine, the results would be unlistenable.

Also you have the dbx in the machine that presumably is already aligned. However live you have the mix desk to dbx encode to recorder input and then recorder output to dbx decode to preamp. The Dolby A system is totally intolerant of level miss match between record and play back and the levels have to be very carefully instrument matched and calibrated or you have a mess. The dbx system less so but you still can not be cavalier.

 

[3db]

That is mainly because you are using domestic dbx 2 and not pro dbx 1 which has a much greater dynamic range. Also you are recording material already compressed not off live mics. Program is also an issue as popular music would not likely show it up as much as an exposed flute, clarinet of oboe line. dbx 1 is especially intolerant of frequency response error between record and play back. This meant that 15 ips was mandatory as there is HF loss at full modulation with all magnetic tape at speeds below 15 ips which is progressive between -10 db and 0 db modulation. That is why you have to set up and adjust tape machines running less than 15 ips at -10 db rather than 0 db at 15 and 30 ips. Because of loss of HF with tape saturation at the slower speeds dbx 1 will pump like crazy and dbx 2 can as well. The other thing about dbx is that frequency response errors between record and playback are doubled. This means that recorders have to be very good and very well set up. So dbx 1 and 2 are very different animals. You could not begin to use dbx 1 on any cassette machine, the results would be unlistenable.

Also you have the dbx in the machine that presumably is already aligned. However live you have the mix desk to dbx encode to recorder input and then recorder output to dbx decode to preamp. The Dolby A system is totally intolerant of level miss match between record and play back and the levels have to be very carefully instrument matched and calibrated or you have a mess. The dbx system less so but you still can not be cavalier.

I will record Mozart's Clairinette Concerto and see if I can detect it. I have it both on vinyl and CD. Come to think of it, I also have his Oboe Concerto as well. I most likely will not hear it for the reasons you mentioned. You keep falling back to pro audio which IHO, the majority of people do NOT own or have.

 

[TLS Guy]

I will record Mozart's Clairinette Concerto and see if I can detect it. I have it both on vinyl and CD. Come to think of it, I also have his Oboe Concerto as well. I most likely will not hear it for the reasons you mentioned. You keep falling back to pro audio which IHO, the majority of people do NOT own or have.

Well that is because what I did especially and still do now to an extent pro audio was essential. In addition like here we are discussing professional recording. Of the machines you quoted only the $24,000 machines will be any use. Only machines with three direct drive motors are of any use whatever. Machines that do not have this are just toys and not pro.

All my tape machines are three motor machines. That is just part of the basics for quality recordings on magnetic tape.

The machines are clearly Revox/Studer knock offs. The tape path is virtually identical to my Revox A700s.

That recorder

seems to have a lot on common with this Studer machine.

But I suppose if you are going to copy somebody, you might as well copy the best.

However ALL Studer and Revox machines were three motor.

 

[slipperybidness]

I call your ELP setup and raise it with JM Jarre rig from the late 70s (click to zoom) -

How about Kid Koala, a pic from his 12 Bit Blues Album liners

 

[TLS Guy]

What's the supply situation for the tapes needed to utilize a reel-to-reel recorder now?

Mark Spitz founder of ATR started manufacturing magnetic tape after Quantergy folded. It is ATR magnetics.

Note tape costs for 1/4" tape are over $40 per hour of recording for tape alone bought as a pancake without reel and box.

ATR specialize in the restoration of Ampex tape machines primarily and they will also do Studer machines and some others.

 

[highfigh]

The reason artists like Lady Gaga prefer analog tape recordings is that there is no risk of unbearable clipping that happens with digital recordings in live recordings as an example. Analog recording will accept sound level overload situations to a certain extent, but digital ones won't, and there is no practical way to correct the situation when distortion has occured.

This situation happened with so many digital recordings that we can hear on CDs. This, of course, all depends on the experience and competence of the recording engineer. The situation is more critical with classical music recordings where the dynamic range can reach up to 35db, on one opera recording which I was informed of.

I have noticed that the quality of the recordings on films, concert DVDs and Blu-rays is of a better quality and so far, I don't recall having heard a multichannel DVD or Blu-ray reproducing noticeable distortion. The fact that DVDs and Blu-ray are using a 24 bit depth instead of 16 bits allows more dynamic range and surely helps with the end results.

There's a good amount of doing things because others are doing them in recording pop music (AKA, 'being trendy')- much more than in Classical or experimental music, where they do something because it works, or because it has never been done before, respectively. The sound of analog is often different from digital in ways some people like and prefer but bad recording techniques are often at fault. However, squeaky-clean sound can lose qualities that make analog more suitable and it's not always at the upper limit of dynamic range.

One other reason a lot of people use only digital formats is that it's A LOT faster to go from recording the tracks to a finished product. Even if a master can be copied at high speed, it's still orders of magnitude slower than copying/pasting song files to a folder, naming the tracks and clicking a button to burn a disc and when time is money, this matters.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Digital clipping on the other hand totally looses it and loud pops and snaps develop. That is very unpleasant. So you used to keep about 5 to 6 db below peak. Metering is key in digital and the bit meter is especially useful. NEVER RUN OUT OF BITS. Fortunately my DAW has very comprehensive metering. You can never have metering that is too comprehensive and accurate when working in the digital domain. It is totally intolerant of mistakes.

I think this may have lead to the dynamic range compression if digital recordings as engineers were so concerned to keep the program well between clipping and the noise floor.

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is. Recording with 24bit word depth gives you enough headroom to record just about anything without clipping, and then editing software allows you to increase average volume and truncate to 16bits (or whatever).

This whole topic of digital clipping is discussed in the recording industry under the very unfortunate term "inter-sample overs". I've listened to very little pop music in the past decade or so, but apparently digital clipping is a raging problem, at least if you believe the articles about it. If this is really true the recording industry is populated by a lot of really incompetent recording engineers and mastering engineers. I find this difficult to believe, but the evidence is otherwise.

So long as this BS doesn't infect classical and jazz recording I suppose I won't notice it anyway. Many young people I know are into vinyl; they are under the impression it sounds "better". I noticed in one of the local big box department stores I was in recently there was a rather large display of phonographs, mostly horrendous all-in-one things like were popular when I was a small child. I know someone whose family is into owning FM radio stations, and they're convinced FM is making a comeback. One of my best software engineers just bought a McIntosh tube amp. I think nostalgia and the vintage rage are hot in audio and that's fueling this tape resurgence too. The audio good old days, which IMO are really the bad old days. I think I'll still keep my old Marantz tuner with a 'scope sitting in a box in my house as an investment. If my friend's family is correct it should be worth something soon (assuming it still works - I haven't turned it on in several years).

 

[TLS Guy]

There's a good amount of doing things because others are doing them in recording pop music (AKA, 'being trendy')- much more than in Classical or experimental music, where they do something because it works, or because it has never been done before, respectively. The sound of analog is often different from digital in ways some people like and prefer but bad recording techniques are often at fault. However, squeaky-clean sound can lose qualities that make analog more suitable and it's not always at the upper limit of dynamic range.

One other reason a lot of people use only digital formats is that it's A LOT faster to go from recording the tracks to a finished product. Even if a master can be copied at high speed, it's still orders of magnitude slower than copying/pasting song files to a folder, naming the tracks and clicking a button to burn a disc and when time is money, this matters.

You would absolutely never make a high speed copy of a master tape, and if it was an encoded tape the result would be disastrous.

Therein lies another problem with analog.

You always have to make at least one dub of the master. You never edit the original master. Once you cut a tape there is no undo button. Every dub is slightly worse than the master in analog tape. Twice the noise and distortion and a doubling of any frequency response errors. You always dub in code carefully matching levels. So between the FR errors in dubbing and the doubling of FR errors in the encode/decode, you quadruple FR errors with every dub.

That is why when analog was the only game I spent so much of my time with machines in my workshop in Grand Forks obsessionally tweaking reel to reel machines again and again. trying to keep them flat to 0.5 db or better.

Between that and the enormous cost of the tape I was glad to embrace digital. So for a 2 hour concert I would get through $80 of tape and as much again for the edited master and as much again for the broadcast tapes.

Digital on the other hand makes identical copies virtually instantly. Whereas analog dubs are in real time. If I really thought that analog was better I would still go to the trouble. The fact is though you have to go to a vast amount of trouble to get quality that is comparable even to a digital recording. I have been there, so I know.

 

[TLS Guy]

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is. Recording with 24bit word depth gives you enough headroom to record just about anything without clipping, and then editing software allows you to increase average volume and truncate to 16bits (or whatever).

This whole topic of digital clipping is discussed in the recording industry under the very unfortunate term "inter-sample overs". I've listened to very little pop music in the past decade or so, but apparently digital clipping is a raging problem, at least if you believe the articles about it. If this is really true the recording industry is populated by a lot of really incompetent recording engineers and mastering engineers. I find this difficult to believe, but the evidence is otherwise.

So long as this BS doesn't infect classical and jazz recording I suppose I won't notice it anyway. Many young people I know are into vinyl; they are under the impression it sounds "better". I noticed in one of the local big box department stores I was in recently there was a rather large display of phonographs, mostly horrendous all-in-one things like was popular when I was a small child. I know someone whose family is into owning FM radio stations, and they're convinced FM is making a comeback. One of my best software engineers just bought a McIntosh tube amp. I think nostalgia and the vintage rage are hot in audio and that's fueling this tape resurgence too. The audio good old days, which IMO are really the bad old days. I think I'll still keep my old Marantz tuner with a 'scope sitting in a box in my house as an investment. If my friend's family is correct it should be worth something soon (assuming it still works - I haven't turned it on in several years).

I agree with most of what you say here. However to make a really good digital recording of classical music still is a significant skill set. Not only do you have the problem of running out of bits, which in a live recording is a massive disaster, but you have trouble in the pianissimos.

Unlike analog, the distortion of a digital recording below clipping increases as volume goes down. Unfortunately the ear is much more sensitive to distortion on low level signals, but will not perceive it as distortion, but just as something not quite right. The reason is simple as you get to a level where the ADC/DAC has to choose between 1 and zero, so you get 100% THD! This is what dither (added white noise) is about so that you never get to the 1/0 choice. However this degrades the signal to noise and is the noise source in a digital recording.

Now obviously the higher the bit rate the lower the level of the signal at which you get the 1/0 choice and so less dither is required. That means there is improvement in signal to noise and therefore usable dynamic range.

So to make really excellent recordings you have to keep in mind what the end user bit rate will be, as it may well not be the bit rate of the master. So like analog you do have to keep program as close to bit saturation as you dare and keep the quiet passages as far above the noise floor as you can. If you just say I'm going to keep as far away from bit saturation as I can then you will not have a really excellent recording.

In other words you have to study the pieces to be recorded, know the music and the score. You need to have a conductors/orchestral score and follow a little ahead of the performance and be prepared if necessary to engage in a little manual gain riding.

Making excellent recordings either digital or analog is an art, make no mistake.

I'm glad 3db started this thread as it has provided an educational opportunity to talk about what happens before music is reproduced in the home. This latter is what we are usually talking about, but it is only 50% at best of the total issue.

Unfortunately I suspect a lot of members will just skip this thread as of no interest, which is a pity.

What I have been talking about gives insight into what can go right and above all wrong on both the digital and analog domains and therefore shed light in issues that can have a bearing on which medium is preferred rather than issues based on emotion and nostalgia.

 

[TechHDS]

This is the part that gets me:



So digital recordings sound too good? I'd think instead of making the recording on older media to achieve an effect it'd be easier to use a different mic or guitar amp, pedal, etc to capture the sound rather than use the media to make it sound different. There are also filters in most DAW to replicate this sort of thing.

Or maybe the intent is to go analog to analog so as not to change the recording in any way. I guess I just don't get it.

Man! I been telling these cats the very same thing. Way before the recording engineer in the Studio and producer pushes that fingerprint on it. It's for that reason your favorite band artist instrumental band doesn't sound the same when in a live show. All the Reverb added to just about everthing ever recorded in a recording studio just about all sounds the same.