Specs in manual was minimum guaranteed that was guaranteed. And your quoted was possibly with tape of the era, better tape formulations helped improve on this. And those machines recorded far better than they reproduced, which also factors in.
I can see him liking the converters. But SVHS wasn't up to the reliability expected. But reliable those SVHS tape transports aren't, especially with age. But a Mackie 24/96 HDD recorder is much more reliable. I am not wild about DAW work environments either. And who's making spare parts for ADAT machines? Who's left to service them, few if any. I respect them for what they did, which was to bring digital multitrack capabilities to project studios. In capable hands, they made reasonably good sounding recordings. I'd still take one over a Fostex R8 any day. But they aren't built to be forever gear.
Can't argue with that. Rush (After getting some bad advice) recorded every show from their COUNTERPARTS and TEST FOR ECHO tour on 3 ADAT beasts. (1994 - 1997) They had one spare in case of breakdown. (Should have had 3 spare! LOL) When they went to listen to the 174 odd shows in 1998 only half of the ADAT tapes played back. Every try to play back a 25 year old ADAT tape? We have had the fun and challenge and freaking headache of doing that very crappy job. We have some tricks to play back troublesome digital media but.....It only works half of the time. Parts are easy to come by. No problem. Do what we have been doing - Just buy lots of broken down ADATS (as is sale) and PRESTO! All the parts you will ever need. ADAT repair is similar although not identical to S-VHS or HI-8 MM video repair. Uncle Jack took a course 10 years ago. He fixes the ADATS.....Or tires to fix them. The ads for ADAT bragged that you could sync up to 16 ADATS (Noooo!) together for 128 tracks. My Uncle and I thought this was funny. We use to joke that if you actually synchronized 16 ADATS together that a mechanical voice would come on announcing: "SELF DESTRUCT IN T - MINUS 30 SECONDS." Until 4 years ago we got an ADAT transfer project with 126 tracks. The 16 ADAT machines synchronized (sort of )and we transferred the tapes to Pro Tools. But what a pain in the ass! It still hurts. Oouch!! We only had 12 ADAT machines at the time and had to borrow/rent/steal/ build 4 more. The sound of ADAT is ok. But what a pain!
Better tape won't get you super high frequency response. Lower noise and distortion but not super highs. Those old multitracks were fussy. For example the Stephens machines could only use the Scotch 204/205 tapes which no longer exist. When studios back in 1974 tired to use other tape formulations with the Stephen (ie BASF, EMI) machines they were not up to spec. Worse still they were much noiser than the competition. Newer tapes are for modern machines. You must know from your experience Mclover that modern tapes can record at super hot levels allowing for much lower signal to noise ratio levels. Many older multitracks from the 60's have had their head stacks changed to modern heads. This is the only way to get 20 khz out of MM-1100. The head configuration in those days just couldn't record super high frequencies that we see in the early 70's machines. Bottom line is the machine either can record a 17, 18, 19 or 20khz or it can't. And none of the 300 Ampex series tape machines could (with the original head stacks). I have never heard of pro multitrack machine that could record a 23 khz tone when it was new and then 5 years later couldn't. You must have used some special machines. Someone can say that a Otari MX-80 can really do 16 - 25 000 khz +-2db but if it can't record a 16 hz or 25 khz tone then that is and was NEVER THE SPEC. It would be like saying, "John, you have $100 000 in your savings account." John asks, "Can I take all $100 000 out?" Bank guy says, "Nope. Bare minimum is $50 000." John asks, "Do I get interest on the $100 K?" "Nope," the banker replies. John is confused and says, "So I don't really have $100 000 in my account?" Banker keeps replying, "Bare minimum." This is what you are saying. When the Ampex was new it couldn't play back a 18 khz tone under any circumstances. The technican had calibrated the machine to factory spec. According to you it is supposed to be 20 - 20 000 hz +-2db but it never could. Not now and not ever. So under what super conditions is the machine capable of recording up to 20 khz? Talk to engineers from the day. When the 2 inch 24 tracks came out they were obviously inferior. Not just signal to noise ratio between channels but distortion and the bottom end especially. If they were all doing 20 - 20 000 hz +-2db as you claim then no one would have noticed. But a 1971, 2 inch 24 track has crappy bottom end compared to it's 2 inch 16 track brother. This is why 16 track hung around for so long. Better bottom end a quieter signal. Your well maintained Studer A827 should get 30 - 20 000 hz +-2db at 15 ips. Can it record a 20 hz and 22khz tones? Why yes. 20 - 22 000 hz +- 4 db. Damn good. or 10 hz and 26 khz? Not a chance! I don't know any engineer that can get 16 - 25 000 hz +-2db out of his 827 or A800 or MX-80. Not possible under any circumstances. Uncle Jack still has the Ampex 300-8 machine with the original head stack. It still can't record a 18 khz signal. Or much of a 17 khz one either. tape makes no difference. A hotter signal but that is it. The technican (who was trained by Ampex) and Uncle Jack stand by the specs of the Ampex 300-8. 30 - 15 000 +-2db at 15 ips. Or 25 - 16 000 +-4 db. And that was the industry standard back then.
Not a pro standard. But they were always trying to improve ADAT. when everyone had gone to 24/48 on DASH and Prodigi, ADAT was still lagging behind at 16 bit. So they went to 18 bit and then 20 bit. For example Pro DAT machines by the late 90's had hit 24/96. Digital cassette used a lossy codec similar to minidisk. Not Sonys now dead ATRAC lossy codec but MP3 or something close.
I would like to add a final word to the "Could old 60's multitracks record up to 20 khz?" Debate with some proof that everyone can hear. Check out the 15 khz tone at the end of the Pepper CD. As you can hear it is swapped by machine noise. It J-37 can record it at level just barely. The Beatles wanted to put something on the record that only a dog could hear. Back then 15 khz was considered by most to be the upper most of human hearing. We know better today. And Matin knew his machines in and out. Remember this tone was for dogs and cats. If the J-37 at 15 ips was flat up to 20 khz then why not put a 16 khz tone on, or 17 khz tone on? Because machines back then couldn't do it. And the 15 khz tone is the proof.
Proof that IQ tests are BS, since I was also tested as a child and my score was quite decent according to my mother, but I'm slow as a turtle with a stroke and a classic underachiever. I'm really enjoying reading your posts and your knowledge is truly amazing. I don't have anything to add, since I'm just an amateur, but please keep up the great talk, I'm enjoying a lot. Sorry for threadcrapping this great thread full of people who knows their stuff.
In the era, what machine could do better? What music out there really needs to do much better? When the Ampexes were new, virtually no consumer tape machine did any better, no Stereo disc cutting system could even cut HF beyond around 12-13K at best.,Studer A 827 has major problems, too early computer. Parts are scarce for it already. I prefer reliable, working machines I can repair to exotica which has to be outsourced, when the work has to get done. I always preferred 2 inch 16 track, to 2 inch 24 track, always had better bass, and better SNR and sounded better.
Had to get some old ADAT tapes to play for a transfer, 3 machines linked together. PITA as you describe on a smaller scale. Had to have 3 spares at the ready. 2 of the original 3 machines had issues, too. Was able to get 3 machines working long enough to transfer the client's tapes. Hope never to see another ADAT for a long time.
I appreciated your comment. Question. What is thread crapping? No, what annoy me is members who obviously feel strongly about their point but won't debate it. They just keep stating their claim over and over again and never back it up. For example: John Lennon slept with Brian Epstein. I challenge the claim and say, "That was from a bogus book that had been proven to have lies and false info in it." And we all know that book got discredited. And when you ask the person to back up their story all I get is the claim repeated over again. Like just saying it over and over again will make it true. You have made the claim now the burden of proof is on you. This is what annoys me. Posts like yours put a smile on my face.
John, I really appreciate the wealth of information behind the music producers' scene you give to us. It is clear that you speak from experience, not from books. Do you know what is maximum dynamic range of any reel-to-reel original master tapes? I noticed in all my needledrops a sharp drop in signal starting with 15 KHz about. Recorded with a high quality BB ADC with DNR 118 dB and THD+N <-105 dB about, with no other coloration from whatever sophisticated preamp, tubes, etc. In any CD analyzed I saw that the signal does not drop to 15 KHz and is flat to the end. From here I concluded that in CD production the HF signal is artificially amplified to give the feeling of high fidelity.
DCC used PASC (Precision Adaptative Sub-band Coding) than can be considered the father of MP3. I got a DCC deck back in 1994, it was a pain in the "you know where" to operate. I eventually sold it.
DCC never caught on. The fidlelty wasn't there. 20 - 20 000 hz. No wow and flutter. Nice and quiet, but the details just aren't there. In the beginning Mini disk sounded like CD to me. Now my first generation minidisk player sounds so bad. I can hear this coloring over the music. Kind of like a digital tube (if just a thing existed) Sounds like a Rock band. "Please put your hands together for the 7th night at Earls Court Arena, Precision Adaptive Sub-band and Coding!" What made it hard to operate. Wasn't it just like a cassette? STOP....PLAY....REWIND....etc.
What made it a nightmare to operate are two things: 1- It didn't have a buffer memory so if a song was in the middle of a side change there was an abrupt and long sound cut. If you wanted to record a tape without song cuts you had to carefully calculate the timming of songs you could fit on each side.It wasn't hard, but it was inconvenient. 2- When you recorded a tape it only stored the TOC at the very beginning of the tape so if you started playing your own recorded DCC by track 3 and wanted to skip to 8 the deck had no way to know where track 8 or 10 where. It scanned the full first side, if track 8 wasn't on the first side it started to scan the full second side till it found it. And maybe,track 8 was just a few meters away from track 3 but on the other side, but the track had no way where the tracks were. Also, you couldn't skip from track 3 to 8 just by pressing the "8" button, you had to press five times the skip button until "8" was shown on the display, and the started the endless process of searching. I think DCC sounded damn well but was clumsily designed.
Mmmmm.....Good question. It depends on the period. All S/N ratio figures are 'A' weighted and measured at 0VU unless otherwise stated. This would be the max dynamic range of the multitrack. It is assumed that the half track, quarter inch master would be equal. Assuming they encoded the tape with Dolby A which was standard by 1973. Except for those few engineers that thought Dolby NR was the work of Satan and swore the NR circuit freaked up their mixes. Down to your answer.... 1973 - 1984, 2 inch 16 track. Excluding the Ampex ATR 116. No Dolby A......66 db @ 15ips, 68 db @ 30 ips. Dolby A............76 db @ 15 ips, 78 db @ 30 ips 1973 - 1984, 2 inch 24 track. Same as above. Excluding, Studer A800 and the Ampex ATR124. No Dolby......64 db @ 15 ips, 66 db @ 30 ips. Dolby A.........74 db @ 15 ips, 76 db @ 30 ips Stephens 2 inch 40 track.. Used by Thomas Roy Baker (Queen) and John Farr to name a few. I actually have a list of who purchased Stephens machines. It's an interesting read. Back in the late 70's John Farr fell in love with digtial stereo delay and hasn't been the same since. Doubt me children of Hoffman? Listen to every ONJ single between 1980 - 1985. No Dolby.........67 db @ 30 ips, 65 db @ 15 ips. Dolby A.......... 77 db @ 30 ips, 75 db @ 15 ips. The great famed performance of the 2 inch 40 track was mostly from John's great engineering skills. But the final nail in the coffin was the 30 ips speed. The speed was original used by engineers for copying. A time saver yes, but it's real advantage was not losing top end or increasing wow and flutter and not causing more noise. It bottomed out the bass a bit. On a 2 inch 24 track of the day the - 2 db @ 40 hz became a sad - 2 db @ 50 hz. O.k. back in 1968 but not good in 1980. Oouch! For those who are confused over what the real specs of these machines were - let me ease your mind. Yes, Pro companies are conservative. Actually all engineers are conservative. But they don't hide real specs or outright lie. There is a myth that consumer HI-FI companies exaggerated and or lied about the specs of their equipment. Nonsense. This came from people and magazines that did their tests incorrectly. For example a speaker (Boston Acoustics A-100) claimed that the A-100's had a frequency response of 35 - 21 000 hz +-3db. The test was done in a fully treated room. And the speakers were spiked. Using good cables with spade lugs and not just bare wire. Properly angled of course with the tweeter at ear level. Some guy with a microphone and some test tones sets up the speaker in his basement. The A-100 pair are not set up correctly, not spiked and the room had no acoustic treatment. Naturally the speakers did not live up to spec. In this case they measured: 850 - 17 000 hz +- 4db. Now the fool declares that Boston Acoustics lied about the test. Typical. Or silly people with Realsitic SPL meters that didn't know how to measure SPL. "They are many standard ways John," a member bellows from the back of the hall. Noooo! They are not. Another myth. There is on one proper standard way to measure SPL level. In fact it is the only speaker measurement (in consumer products) you can rely on. Real easy.... You play a 1 khz tone through the speaker at 1 watt. Your measure the SPL at one meter away. Not at an angle. And yet I have seen idiots on line using many different tones at different distances. It is like they got a SPL meter for Christmas and decided to make up their own bull-crappy test. The procedure I mentioned above IS the industry standard for testing SPL. And I am only wrong 13 % of the time. : I have asked the member (who I respect) many times to define the term, "bare minimum" but I have NEVER got an answer. If anyone here has ever been able to record and playback a 27 khz and a 15 hz tone on a Studer A827 at 15 ips let me know. That would be incredible!.... According to the "bare minimum" belief the 30 - 20 000 hz +-2db of the A827 is not really what it can do. It can really pull off 15 - 28 000 hz +-1 db. They want to be honest by putting the wrong specs in. LOL. Over the years friends and colleagues have asked me to check over used analog multitracks they have purchased. A few were really bad. A few were really heavily used machines. Not abused just massively used. The test I ran through the 3M 24 track showed a machine that couldn't operate at the "bare minimum." The 1976 3M machine specs were: 40 - 20 000 hz +-2db at 15 ips. The tests I did showed the machine was at best 50 - 17 000 hz +-3db. Back to your question...... All the multitrack recorders from the 60's were pretty much 30 - 15 000 hz +-2db @ 15 ips. Or 20 - 16 000 hz +-4db. Tape machines like the Scully 284-8 / 284-12 and the Studer J-37 could record at 30 ips. Both the Scully 1 inch 8 and 12 tracks machines; along with the Studer J-37 could achieve 50 - 18 000 hz +-2db at 30 ips. At 30 IPS The Studer and Scully machines can reach 20 khz. But not at - 2db. But the bottom end running at 30 ips is thin. But back in 1967 most people's Hi-Fi sets couldn't go below 90 hz let alone get anywhere near 50 hz so the low bass didn't matter that much or at all. This will probably answer your question. Here is the typical specs of the leading multitracks of the 1973 - 1984 period. Excluding the Studer A800-24, Ampex ATR 124 / ATR 116; and the Stephens 2 inch 40 track. 16 track machines: 1 inch 8 & 2 inch 16 track.....30 - 21 000 hz +-2db @ 15 ips. At 30 ips....40 - 26 000 hz +-2db. 2 inch 24 track: @ 15 ips......40 - 20 000 hz +-2db @ 30 ips......50 - 24 000 hz +-2db. Studer A800- 24 @ 15 ips......30 - 20 000 hz +-2db @ 30 ips......50 - 24 000 hz +-2db In 1973 The Studer A800-24 had the specs of most 2 inch 16 tracks. Ampex ATR 124 @ 15 ips......25 - 22 000 hz +-2db. Signal to noise ratio.......66 db 'A' weighted. Only 90 sold. Good luck finding parts.... The Stephens 2 inch 40 track: @ 30 ips.........40 - 22 000 hz +-2db @ 15 ips........ I HAVE NO IDEA. And usually a signal to noise ratio of 62 db 'A' weighted. Doubt it? Listen the Sly & Stones stereo mix of "Stand." Recorded on a 8 track and it is HISSY AS HELL. No Dolby 'A' here. So if the 62 db 'A' weighted (60 db unweighted) was not the real spec. The "bare minimum" then the song would be swapped in hiss. You can hear the 62 db poor signal to noise ratio is as clear as a bell. More proof that the specs in the manual are the REAL specs.
John, thank you very much for these detailed information. My goal in "needledropping" is to make the sound as realistic as possible and to not remove any original musical info from vinyl. So, the SNR of the original master tapes doesn't surpass the recorded vinyl SNR (~ 75 dB about). That means the music on vinyl can be considered lossless if the mastering process and the physical production of the vinyl record have enough quality. The greatest enemies of a needledrop are noise and distortion, not clicks and pops which can be easily manually remove. The noise and distortion are everywhere. The TT noise, vinyl noise, hum and hiss can be spotted and removed in no time. But the silent noise and distortion are still there. They are hidden mainly in the low and high frequencies. The vinyl rumble, wow and flutter, jitter, the distortion resulted from fft processing, harmonic distortion, intermodulation, etc. dramatically alter the sound. Eliminating the silent noise and distortion that permeates the authentic signal is a science and an art. The filtering and dithering are very important in this process. You need skill, experience and adequate tools. The complex filtering of the silent noise in frequency bands, including the reversed filtration and dithering are indispensable.
What the fudge?! You are joking right? The DCC deck sounds like it was designed by someone half asleep.
Sounds tough. Best of luck with that. My sister puts vinyl on CD that hasn't been put on CD. but these records are 50 often 60 to 65 years old. A few actually go back before the RIAA curve. Fun! Sometimes all that exists of an old LP is cassette or an 8 track cartridge. She also transfers quater inch reel to reel to digital. Lot of people out there have classic Rock 7.5 ips releases. But Rosy insists on having the right table, MC cart and phone preamp. But adusting the tracking angle for every freakin' record seems a bit much to me. But that is what she is doing. She had list of all the cutting angles favored by the cutting engineers. Doesn't it get silly at this point? You are REAL serious about transferring vinyl. The move CDs must have been done with equal care. I heard the The Move CDs I had were needle drops down by the company. It blew me away. Never a click or pop. I think I heard some record surface noise on one track. Maybe.
Yes, it worked like this, that's why I got rid of it. I had no complaints on the sound but my deck was Philips top of the line in 1994 and featured great D/A's for the time, I think they were two Philips Bitstream TDA1547.
The Philips DCC 900 was one of the few components that I deeply regret buying after a few hours of buying it, and I paid around 600/650 Euros for my deck not adjusted to inflation.
That's 909/985 CAD $ not adjusted to inflation. That's what it cost me the Philips DCC 900 deck back in 1994. Not cheap,but at the time Mini Disc decks were even more expensive and so were the blank recordable Mini Discs. But DCC blank tapes were cheaper,around 5.75 CAD $ for a 90 minutes tapes,while a 74 minutes blank Mini Disc were around 12 CAD $. There's something about DCC that I found very intriguing: its error correction. I took a 60 minutes DCC and recorded on it a minute times, I abused it to death. I recorded again, I listened to the whole recording from start to end and never ever heard a single glitch, and you have to keep in mind that the tape was the same width of a conventional cassette and run at the same speed, only that conventional cassette tapes had two tracks on each side while DCC tapes had 9 tracks on each side, 8 for audio data and 9 for control data, markers etc...
But at that price you could have purchased a DAT recorder. Maybe even a used Pro one! Did you have a portable minidisk player as well? I had a few of those. **************** ANDRADE PRODUCTIONS PRESENTS: JOHN'S EARLY JUNE DAT RANT. Enjoy..... People say DAT failed because of the copy protection and/or because people couldn't record at 48 khz back in 1987. Huh?!?!?! I was there. I know what the average Joe and Mary thought. I was buying audio magazines and was in to this stuff and even I WAS CONFUSED. So DAT failed because people wouldn't be able to make digital copies of a digital copy? What?! Huh? Get out of here! LOL. And DAT failed because people couldn't record at 48 khz. What? Seriously?!? What drug were these people on? * Most people were not going to buy two DATS. That would be crazy expensive! Most people wanted a DAT to make perfect copies of a: CD, vinyl, cassette, reel to reel and Beta/VHS HI-FI tape. Or a nice portable DAT to make illegal live bootleg recordings. (I have never done that. ) So if your good friend lent you a DAT that was made from another CD (via light pipe) you could still make a perfect copy (99.99%) using the analog inputs. DAT uses PCM. Even with the crappy analog connections: 20 - 20 000 hz +-1db 96 db signal to noise ratio. Unmeasurable Wow and Flutter THD at the 1/1 000 th level. No scap flutterd No bias or Dolby to set. No loss of highs or transients with repeated playing. Even in the "inferior" analog mode any PCM recorder back then kicked butt spec wise over even the best professional half inch half track recorder at 15 ips with Dolby A. But they confused people. Many thought you couldn't make any digital copies. Or even an analog one. Many were confused. I was super confused. Where is this abundant 48 kilohertz media back in 1988 that people were supposed to be copying but couldn't? Mmmmmmm???? Every CD was 44.1 khz. And most digital masters were at 44.1 khz. Back then 48 khz was for the pros. Consumers had no use for it. Some members at the back say, "I could record my vinyl at 48 khz." Yes, but 95% of the buying public could have cared less. Most consumers didn't even understand about sample rates. All those great DCC disks were made at 16/44.1. If it was good enough for Steve then it was good enough for you. DAT failed because they confused people and it was to expensive.
Keep in Mind that many of those DCC decks were made in Holland so they were no Import Fees to pay because Spain has been in the EU since 1986. The cheapest Sony DAT deck I remember seeing was around 1800/1900 Euros not adjusted to inflation, that's almost double the price of a DCC deck and DAT blank were expensive too and hard to find in Spain while blank DCC's were sold on every shopping mall in more than one shop and even at record shops. DCC walkmans were lightweight while portable DAT decks in addition to being extremely expensive they were heavy. But back in 1997 I started working as a tour guide full time spending months living in hotel rooms for months at the other side of Spain. That's when I sold my DCC deck and moved to Mini Disc as quality was OK, blank MD's were as easy to find in Spain as DCC's,my Sony Stand alone Sony MD deck was a piece of cake to operate and the Sony Mini Disc Walkman player was small and lightweight and MD's were so small (at the time, if I was shown a 128 GB Micro SD at the time I'd thought they were fooling me) that I could carry a lot of music with me. Working as a tour guide, spending an average of 8 or 9 months away from home right at the other side of Spain to where I live, Mini Disc was a blessing for me. What wasn't a blessing was quitting my job as a Tour Guide in Northwestern Spain in 2007 and coming back to Anadalusia. There only one thing that I dislke more that Andalusia, and those are Andalusians.
