cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 delay

This is where record cutters raise questions about cutting, and trade wisdom and experiment results. We love Scully, Neumann, Presto, & Rek-O-Kut lathes and Wilcox-Gay Recordios (among others). We are excited by the various modern pro and semi-pro systems, too, in production and development. We use strange, extinct disc-based dictation machines. And other stuff, too.

Moderators: piaptk, tragwag, Steve E., Aussie0zborn

User avatar
KALIA
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:37 am
Location: hvadcity, scandinavia

cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 delay

Post: # 48409Unread post KALIA
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:07 am

Hey Trolls,

Im looking at buying a studer a80 tape deck, to cut some tapes directly.

Ive seen an example of a modded a80, that can feed the lathes pitch computer with a delayed signal.

Have any of you experince with this mod.?

Is it possible to make a mod that can switch easy between delay times for 33rpm and 45 rpm.?

does it demand a new head?


thank you

User avatar
KALIA
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:37 am
Location: hvadcity, scandinavia

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48410Unread post KALIA
Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:41 am

Another thing. Is it possible to have a a80 for bot recording tapes and cutting with preview signal.

Is it very expensive and time conduming to make this mod?

User avatar
Greg Reierson
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:31 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48415Unread post Greg Reierson
Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:28 am

You would need a preview head stack. Not a simple mod and not easy to find.

More common now is a digital delay line from a standard deck but then it's no longer an analog audio path to the cutting head.
Greg Reierson
http://www.RareFormMastering.com
VMS70 :: SAL74B :: SX74

User avatar
Aussie0zborn
Posts: 1822
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:23 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48417Unread post Aussie0zborn
Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:37 pm

The head block on any tape machine for disc cutting preview needs to have two playback heads (no record head and no erase head). This head block can be changed out for a normal head block so that the same machine can also be used for recording.

There is a longer tape path between the two playback heads. The length of this tape path varies for the two different delay times and disc speed.

For 15ips tape speed the tape length between the two playback heads should be 16.5" for 33.3rpm giving a 1.1sec delay and 12.63" for 45rpm giving a 0.84sec delay which are the required delay times for the stock Neumann VMS66/70 pitch/depth system.

Other lathes such as Neumann VMS80, Scully and third party pitch/depth controllers all have their own required delay times so the length of the tape path between the preview head and the playback head is dictated by the preview system being used.

I would hunt around and find a preview tape machine such as the Telefunken M15A-PREVIEW or the Studer A80-PRE. The Telefunken M15 and M15A machines are superior to other tape machines for this purpose. You could ofcourse modify a regular tape machine such as the Ampex ATR102 as Sterling Sound, USA did here : https://sonicscoop.com/2009/06/16/vinyl-comeback-prompts-sterlings-new-all-analog-vinyl-mastering-part-i/
Image

Don't forget that you will need a 4-channel mastering console - whatever processing you apply to the program signal also needs to be applied to the preview signal otherwise the preview signal will be looking at an unmastered signal. If you apply eliptical EQ or attenuate low frequencies in the program signal, this will have no effect on the preview signal which means the preview will be doing something that is not entirely related to the program.

User avatar
boogievan
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:43 am
Location: Dutchess County, NY

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48427Unread post boogievan
Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:36 pm

The disk computer on your lathe needs an advanced repro signal for the depth calculations of the program (L - R) and the pitch calculations (R). The left channel of the pitch computing will be processed based on the left channel's real time modulation (as the left channel groove wall has no constraint from adjacent turns of the groove, being faced with essentially, unlimited land, towards the label/spindle), but the computer might only have two audio inputs if it's able to derive a real-time copy of the left program signal from the left advance signal by delaying an internally-generated 'mult' thereof.

{Digital delay is usually unacceptable for the analog program going to the cutting head because it entails digitization, whereas, the point of using a pre-listen tape machine is that you keep the music modulating the groove in the analog domain, which usually has a much gentler high-frequency roll off than any digital audio sample rate allows.}

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Low and Mid-range EQ, as well as broadband dynamics processing, would need to be identically-applied to the advance signals as to the program signals, unless the program eq was entirely subtractive, in which case it would be 'optional' to include with the processing of the advance path signals, however, you might need to use offset attenuators for the signals going to the lathe's disk computer, once you check how much land would be wasted if the signals were not offset, compared to the now, selectively-attenuated modulated program. (So, theoretically, a 2-channel Sontec can be used during an all-analog, automated cut - just not, perhaps, for long sides, for which consistently-tight groove-nestling is mandatory.)

De-essing (or acceleration limiting) and high frequency EQ does not need to be applied to the signals going to the disk computer, since it only measures the significant voltages which will only be in the bass and midrange, as they get boosted in the lathe's disk computer, due to the RIAA-filtering of the program modulation (which happens normally in the cutting amp) and also the natural response of velocity transduction by the cutting head. (High frequency modulations change direction so often that they simply don't have enough time to displace the stylus tip beyond the base pitch (unless your base pitch setting leaves 0 land). However, I once read that the RIAA pre-emphasis that attenuates 20 Hz by over 19 dB, still results in the effective low bass modulation excursions being about 4 times larger than those of the treble.)

One thing that intrigued me about the RIAA standard is that, if the time constants really are exactly 3180 and 318 and 75 microseconds, then the frequencies of the 'corners' of the filtering are actually irrational: 50,05 - 500,5 - and 2.122,... cps. This is because of 2Pi, as in: 1 / 2Pi R C = f.
Therefore, 1 / 2Pi (1)(1) = 0,1591549........... (It goes on forever, of course, thanks to Pi.)

{Tau (Greek) is used for 'time constant' (which is also derived from 1/omicron (i.e., angular frequency)), whereas, T (Roman) stands for duration (which is derived from 1/frequency (itself)).}

Tau, therefore, equals: 159,1549... divided by frequency (in kcps). So, if we want the 'corner' of the bass filter to be 'dead nuts' on 50,00 cps, then the actual time constant should be 3183 microseconds... just saying....

________________________________________________________________________________________

The Sterling mod is something Mike Spitz, Z'l, came up with, which entails digitizing an overly-advanced pre-listen repro head signal, which is left enough time before it's needed so that it can be digitized and delayed appropriately for the variety of tape and disk speeds that might be used before reconstruction for signaling to the disk computer that's still in advance of the program modulation, which, itself, remains all-analog.

Ampex made a pre-listen ATR-102 (with four Audio cards, but for two, 2-track repro head signals placed at two locations of the tape, which used rollers for establishing the precisely-timed, pre-listen path.)

Image

- Tim E.

User avatar
2bitcomputer
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:53 am

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48457Unread post 2bitcomputer
Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:13 pm

I'm not all that familiar with the StuderA80 but if there was a way for it to act as either a master or a slave to smpte (or something like it) then you could load a copy of the music into your DAW and have the DAW (as master or slave) provide the 'preview' for your pitch computer - 331/3 or 45 or 1/2 speed would be easy I would think - and the A80 would be feeding the 'real' audio.

Or, if you could afford losing a generation, you could load a copy onto a large format multitrack and stripe one of the free tracks with smpte and have your DAW chase that...?

User avatar
petermontg
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:51 am
Location: Ireland.

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48459Unread post petermontg
Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:54 am

The preview wouldn't be the same as been cut. You would need to mimic the curve of the IPS been cut and all other nuances.

Best
Peter
Peter Montgomery
+353(0)894926271
peter(at)petermontgomerymastering.com

Stereo cutter head wanted. Send email or smoke signals.

User avatar
petermontg
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:51 am
Location: Ireland.

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48462Unread post petermontg
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:08 am

Just been thinking more on the smpte I don't see why it couldn't work. I have a spare deck here going try and sync to transfer settings over the weekend.
Peter Montgomery
+353(0)894926271
peter(at)petermontgomerymastering.com

Stereo cutter head wanted. Send email or smoke signals.

User avatar
2bitcomputer
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:53 am

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48468Unread post 2bitcomputer
Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:31 pm

petermontg wrote:The preview wouldn't be the same as been cut. You would need to mimic the curve of the IPS been cut and all other nuances.
I was thinking you would transfer to the DAW after you finalize all the mastering and assuming there is a way to patch into the audio before your cutting amps, and you do a very high quality recording into your DAW, it might work.
One potential problem is that you could only make minor 'on the fly' mastering changes while cutting since they would not be reflected in the preview...

User avatar
petermontg
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:51 am
Location: Ireland.

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48469Unread post petermontg
Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:01 pm

It is possible but time consuming. If you are working on a 2 channel desk you have to re-record the changes and record the preview back into DAW. It could be a complete rabbit hole if working on an album. You could just waste a day transferring from the 2 track mix/Master tape to the slave deck. The trick would be to get the transfer right first time around, which we all know is.... .....

I am still intrigued just to try it though.



Best
Peter
Peter Montgomery
+353(0)894926271
peter(at)petermontgomerymastering.com

Stereo cutter head wanted. Send email or smoke signals.

User avatar
petermontg
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:51 am
Location: Ireland.

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48632Unread post petermontg
Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:20 am

or another option would be to have an extra set of outputs on the last unit in the desk feeding the preview. It'll require a little reverse eng. and replacement for the rear panel.

I think there was a Sontec model out there that had an extra set of outputs for disk cutting
It wasn't a four channel EQ, just a 2 channel with the mod.

I think that could be a better option than striping and setting up SMPTE.

Best
Peter
Peter Montgomery
+353(0)894926271
peter(at)petermontgomerymastering.com

Stereo cutter head wanted. Send email or smoke signals.

User avatar
Tremdall
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:50 am

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48642Unread post Tremdall
Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:15 pm

Sorry for asking, but why would you want to cut directly from a reel to reel?
Is it because of the analog warmth or as a challenge?
Because I really don't see anything better and stable than a computer with good adda converters.
For the analog feel you can use a R2R of course, or good preamps.
Or you can use a good quality summing mixer and add as much warmth / analog distortion as you like.
Once the gargoyle had withdrawn and unlatched his suckers from the topside of Tremdall's agonizing torso, a profound slumber would overtake him, as though from the labor of many days.

User avatar
petermontg
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:51 am
Location: Ireland.

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48643Unread post petermontg
Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:01 pm

If you think of it this way.

If you record analog, mix analog, master analog, cut analogue you have a certified AAA product (Some like AAA release).

Plus analog doesn't suffer from any digital conversion's. You will be taking a pure original sine wave to the disc.

It's kinda cheating dumping a digi product to tape and then cutting it. It wouldn't be considered AAA really then.
Peter Montgomery
+353(0)894926271
peter(at)petermontgomerymastering.com

Stereo cutter head wanted. Send email or smoke signals.

User avatar
Tremdall
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:50 am

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48644Unread post Tremdall
Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:26 pm

Well, each his own I guess...

But you'll also have more hiss when you work all analog; and other typical analog problems like possible tape wow/flutter. Good digital recordings are simply a clean registration.
I personally prefer to work hybrid; High class ad converter in front of my protools for a clean and fully automated mix and then via a da converter out the box through a summingmixer to a R2R and then back in the computer where I have full control again over the volume, eq, etc.
I can even fully automate a manual volume riding (instead of using a compressor which I always dislike) and see every sound anomaly on the screen if I wish.
After that it's ready for cutting. It gives the best control and i challenge everyone to hear any digital sound in it- because they can't. Just use high quality converters, preamps, microphones etc.

Besides, good god, am I thankful I don't have to work with multitrack r2r anymore. What a pain in the ass it was... I only used 8 track at the time, which cost me a small fortune per tape. I don't even wanna think about what 24 track tapes cost. Plus machine maintanance...
No super happy here with the no cost xxxx tracks I can record for as long as I wish (instead of the 20 minute durance of the regular tapes I used). It gives full artistic freedom as a musician and it works fast... and think about rewinding the tape everytime (will your customers in your studio like to pay for this extra time?) or manually tape editing/ slicing instead of quickly seeing the anomaly on screen and deleting it in one mouse click... All analog may sound romantic, but the reality is unruly...
Once the gargoyle had withdrawn and unlatched his suckers from the topside of Tremdall's agonizing torso, a profound slumber would overtake him, as though from the labor of many days.

User avatar
jesusfwrl
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48684Unread post jesusfwrl
Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:47 am

Tremdall, do you actually cut masters?

How does your method of ADC (digital signal processing), DAC, Summing mixer, R2R, another ADC, more digital signal processing, and yet another DAC, prior to further signal processing in the analog domain (cutting electronics), amplification and transduction (cutterhead), manage to do away with the "typical analog problems" of hiss and W&F (since you're still using a tape machine and cutting a disk)?

What about the "typical digital problems" you are introducing along the way, as a result of four conversions, two stages of DSP, and the associated dithering noise, jitter, aliasing distortion, filter phase shift, converter noise, etc?

How is this better to an all-analog method of pair of good mics connected to a pair of good mic premaps, directly feeding a stereo tape machine with no further gadgets, and then playing back this stereo tape directly into the cutting electronics?

Or even a lo minimalistic setup of multiple mics and mic preamps to analog summing mixer, directly feeding a stereo tape machine and then playing back to the cutting electronics?

Or, to further illustrate my point, a pair of mics and mic preamps directly connected to the cutting electronics with no tape? Will introducing multiple A/D and D/A conversions and DSP somehow magically improve things compared to not introducing unnecessary steps? How will these all-analog examples have more hiss and W&F?

70 years of tape recording have left us with a considerable number of valuable recordings already done on tape, with excellent equipment, engineers and performers. Transfering these to disk directly from tape is often much preferable to doing it the long way. Plus, there's those of us who still actually like recording to tape or even direct-to-disk, all-analog using a minimal signal path.

Yes, I still manually cut and splice tape, rewind for paying customers, pay for machine maintenance for 10 tape machines or so (I had reached 20 machines at one point, different formats and speeds), and do not particularly feel like I have much use for 500 tracks and surgical editing possibilities, with a visual display of wave forms.

Maintaining and using a disk mastering system is not cheap, simple, or automated either, but this doesn't seem to put that many of us off on this message board.

I'm sure that most of us have been made aware at some point that more "convenient" methods of sound recording have been invented, but we still keep it it.

To finally contribute to the original question of this thread, it is much easier to start with a tape machine that already comes configured as a preview head machine, than to convert a standard machine. Some models lend themselves to easy switch-over between Record/Playback and Preview/Playback, while others are either one or the other. I can supply a preview head machine, please PM me to discuss further.
~~~ Precision Mechanical Engineering, Analog Disk Mastering ~~~
Agnew Analog Reference Instruments: http://www.agnewanalog.com

User avatar
Tremdall
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:50 am

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48695Unread post Tremdall
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:27 pm

jesusfwrl wrote:Tremdall, do you actually cut masters?
:)
relax and take a deeeep breath...
Relaxed now?

Now, re read my message...
All answers are there

Over and out,

Truly yours,
<3

Tremdall
Once the gargoyle had withdrawn and unlatched his suckers from the topside of Tremdall's agonizing torso, a profound slumber would overtake him, as though from the labor of many days.

User avatar
boogievan
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:43 am
Location: Dutchess County, NY

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48707Unread post boogievan
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:07 pm

Alas, mastering entails 'hella' caveats, since all things are never equal... That's why we usually use a mastering equalizer. (;

Specifically, not all analog tape machines are good reproducers. A mastering deck will be able to extract more detail from the flux on the tape than many recorders in the field can extract from their own recordings!

Unfortunately, to play back a tape adds flutter and possibly-audible wow to the recorded signal on the tape. Fortunately, a decent disk mastering studio will have a tape machine with better-than-average flutter and wow specs for 'pitching' to the transfer console. The mastering deck's repro headstack is more likely to have been recently lapped. The electronics are more likely to be recently calibrated and given various sound-improving mods (mostly entailing the deletion of unneeded circuit components (e.g., RF filtering and 'balancing' op amps) resulting in a very pure repro path within the machine).

If Tremdall is laying back his Pro Tools mix to tape and recapturing it in 'reel-to-reel' time (i.e., simultaneously - delayed only by the tape travel between the record and repro heads), then he's minimizing the flutter and wow of the process that would otherwise have entailed playing back the tape on a separate occasion during disk mastering. If he uses an ATR-100 or Studer A80, or better, then all's well, already. Don't (necessarily/otherwise) try this at home...

Any tape would. of course, have to be reproduced at least once in order for its recording to be what modulates the groove, so, reproducing the tape while it's being recorded (recapturing it into the DAW, on the fly) forces the flutter and wow that happened during the recording to be the sole instance of these distortions. One lump, rather than two... However, the very small flutter addition (which may not be audible) by a highly-tuned, tricked-out mastering deck is usually greatly offset by virtue of its state-of-the-art repro head(s) and custom, or at least 'mint', electronics. Unless one lays back to a mastering machine, it might not be the best playback - even though the recording, itself, is good '...enough for Jazz'.

Unfortunately, digital audio doesn't have a 'blameless' sound, and, therefore, for vinyl (since vinyl is an analog medium and, therefore, doesn't require sampling's inherent limitations - most notably, the very high-order low pass filtering that's mandatory on any format, including 2x LPCM and DSD (though not for the same reason)), Pro Tools is not a 'hands-down' winner that 'walks all over' tape. Although 4x LPCM puts the very-high-order low pass(anti-aliasing) filter at a very high frequency (e.g., stop band at 96 kHz for 192 kHz F/s LPCM), Mr. Lavry has pointed out that (over-)sampling that fast deprives the chips in the converter from their needed minimum 'settling time' between sinc pulses. So, the faster one sets the sampler, the less accurate the sampling. It might not be objectionable - analog circuits introduce grosser 'errors' - but it's expensive (in terms of hard drive capacity) and money (in terms of the converter brand needed for best sound). The low pass filtering in high end tape machines and in high end disk cutting amps and the cutting heads that are usually driven by them are permitted very gentle attenuation slopes that have far less effect on the phase response of the 'air band' than can be realized at 1x and, to some degree, 2x sampling. (Thanks a lot, Harry Nyquist!)

However, we are discussing something extremely trivial, here, of course. The measured distortion of an 88.2 kHz 24 bit digital recording is probably more than adequate for ideal playback of most song recordings - especially those 'blessed' by tape's unique compression, which is highly appealing to many ears.

Furthermore, if you're cutting a stereo groove, then the amount of out-of-phase information that you allow into the groove modulation will result in even-order harmonic distortion on playback, due to scanning errors. It happens with all-lateral (i.e., mono) cuts, however, in that case, the all-lateral modulation's pickup self-cancels the even-order harmonic distortion which is symmetrical on lateral-only pickup. ...same with whatever amount of bandwidth gets summed to mono with an elliptical equalizer on stereo cuts.

Tape, even full-track, adds odd-order harmonics. So, cutting a stereo groove from analog tape is arguably the worst kind of transfer, since pickup stylus-reproduction of the transfers (from tape to grooved disk) adds enharmonic distortion, due to the addition of even + odd harmonics to the program (playback). Far better would be to cut 'mono' from tape, or to cut 'stereo' from digital.

Tremdall's approach (laying back to tape with live repro ingest (unless I've misread his post)) enables the addition of tape's desirable distortions (ultimately) to get in the groove, while allowing editing, metering, and waveform-viewing that's so advanced and user-friendly in today's digital domain workstations.

Frankly, Stein, I've never heard a digital audio mix that didn't sound better after being laid-back to a Studer A80. The improvement in overall sonic glue (mercifully softening the digititus of digital audio transients in a colorful way) seems to survive redigitization. No one, therefore, really needs to stay all-analog unless it's for the spellcraft, of course, or to impress those who haven't done fair and honest triple-blind (?) listening tests...

Mais, vive la differénce!


- Tim E.

User avatar
jesusfwrl
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48710Unread post jesusfwrl
Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:00 am

Tremdall, my post was meant as a reply to your question: "Why would you want to cut directly from reel-to-reel?"

In case you did not understand the content, I will rephrase:

The point of cutting masters directly from tape, entirely in the analog domain, is to have LESS noise, distortion, etc. In other words, FEWER of the "typical analog problems" due to using a shorter signal path and NONE of the "typical digital problems" since there are no A/D and D/A conversions or DSP involved. When the source is tape to begin with, there is no point in introducing all the additional stages you mention in your post.

If you are using tape as an "effect" for a digital mix, it still makes more sense to do it as a last step and then cut directly from tape to eliminate further A/D and D/A conversions.

There's loads of tape already out there, where you have no choice of "undoing" the tape, even if you wanted to. Converting the signal derived from the reproduction of such tape to digital will not undo any of the distortions or W&F, it will only serve to add further degradation, the more you do to it.
In many ways less is more, since all audio equipment and forms of signal processing will degrade the original signal to some extent by introducing their side effects.

Most importantly, analog is not just tape and distortions, recording commonly require microphones and microphone preamplifiers, which of course are analog. Like all audio equipment, these also introduce their own noise and distortions. Hooking these up directly to the cutting amplifiers eliminates ALL further distortion and noise sources, no tape, no digital.
This is the cleanest path to disk recording, and is all-analog. Anything introduced between the microphone preamplifiers and cutting amplifiers will simply add noise and distortion. However, a meaningful direct-to-disk recording using only a pair of microphones can only materialise in a suitable room with the required acoustics and reverberation characteristics and with truly excellent musicians, who can flawlessly perform an entire side, using excellent instruments that already produce the desired sound without further assistance.

So, in practice, it is common to introduce additional noise and distortion as a side effect of introducing more equipment (tape, DAW,signal processing), which would be necessary to produce a recording under less than ideal circumstances.
Still, keeping the additional degradation to a minimum is a useful goal, possible with careful planning of what is to be used for each occasion, rather than having a standardised signal path or processing concept regardless of the material at hand.

Evidently, there is nothing inherently wrong with an all-analog workflow, especially considering that air, microphones and loudspeakers are still analog. In fact, in many instances there are significant benefits to an all-analog signal path. This is especially true when working with analog media. Digital media will inevitably require and A/D conversion at some point, and a D/A conversion to reproduce, so there you cannot keep it all-analog anyway.

But, even while in the digital domain, even a simple fade-in or fade-out is a complex enough process, which can produce audible side effects if not carefully considered. Neither analog nor digital is foolproof or transparent.
~~~ Precision Mechanical Engineering, Analog Disk Mastering ~~~
Agnew Analog Reference Instruments: http://www.agnewanalog.com

User avatar
Tremdall
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:50 am

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48711Unread post Tremdall
Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:04 am

jesusfwrl wrote:Tremdall, my post was meant as a reply to your question: "Why would you want to cut directly from reel-to-reel?"

In case you did not understand the content, I will rephrase:
Like said before, each his own I guess...

If this is your preferred working process, be my guest...
Tbh, I don't feel the need to convince anyone.
If this working process of yours adds to, or is even necessary for you to reach a certain quality, by all means do so.

Again, for me a hybrid form gives me the analog quality soundwise and the full automation and fastness of digital.
Both as a musician (artistic flow) and in mixing and mastering, I appreciate this, wáy over all analog.
Besides the added warmth and other typical analog sound properties (nice imperfections like (very) minimal wow can in my perspective even add to the liveliness which digital sound will never have from itself) I don't see much added qualities of analog.

Good digital provides a perfect 1:1 transfer of sound, It will not add anything, nor will it diminish anything. Because it's acoustically dead.
However, the added analog sound properties from the analog equipment (in my case Telefunken M15, 2x BAE 1084 preamps, Neve 8816 / 8804, RCA 44bx, 2x EMT140 etc.) are flawlessly transferred to my PT.

Your comments on 'digital audible side effects' are perhaps more a reflection of your own personal experience with it. Because they are definitely not mine.
What converters did you exactly use previously? I'm currently using a Euphonix ma703 and am713. Agreed, not the newest around, but even so, they are móre than adequate.

With cheaper converters digital errors may occur, but isn't this the case with low quality analog equipment as well?

Again, to me a full analog approach seem to only complicate things. Time I wish to spend on more important things, but feel free to do it your way, no offence.

Further, I think this is a really old discussion; analog vs digital vs hybrid. On sites like Gearsluts this has been covered comprehensively.
Once the gargoyle had withdrawn and unlatched his suckers from the topside of Tremdall's agonizing torso, a profound slumber would overtake him, as though from the labor of many days.

User avatar
jesusfwrl
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: cutting direct from tape. advise needed for studerA80 de

Post: # 48736Unread post jesusfwrl
Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:08 am

Tremdall wrote:
Good digital provides a perfect 1:1 transfer of sound,
Oh dear...
I wish there would be such a thing in audio!
From a scientific viewpoint, this is simply not true.

From a subjective viewpoint (what each of us thinks they can or cannot hear), this is what a lot of people also claim about good analog.
Unfortunately, this is neither true for digital nor for analog. We are not that technologically advanced yet. Maybe one day in the far future the dream will come true.

To be able to hear the admittedly minor degradation caused by good analog or good digital equipment, one will need a monitoring system and environment capable of resolving such detail.

For the vast majority of the music buying public, music is still enjoyable despite the side-effects caused by the lack of a "perfect 1:1 transfer" technology. The side effects are always there, so "analog vs. digital" is not really a debate on which one is free from side effects. It is mostly a question of which side effects you can more easily put up with in your workflow.

The goal is usually the same for all of us: To produce recordings which are enjoyable to listen to. How each of us gets there is a matter of personal preference. What is enjoyable to listen to is also a subjective evaluation. I am not arguing any of these points. I am simply pointing out that the underlying science is not a matter of opinion. Objectively, the "perfect 1:1 transfer" has simply not been invented yet, despite the many marketing claims throughout the years. Recorded sound still works without the "perfect 1:1 transfer" though, which is what allows each of us to take a different approach and still produce useful results.
~~~ Precision Mechanical Engineering, Analog Disk Mastering ~~~
Agnew Analog Reference Instruments: http://www.agnewanalog.com

Post Reply