Could be a number of things. But all DAC have a sweet spot. Playing your DAC back at full level can lead to a gritty sound. If it works for you than go for it.
Yep, Nagra's were the standard analog tape machines for recording dialog on film and television. Up until the company went digital back in the 1990's.
Thanks for your answer. Yes,forme it works, by converting red book rips to DSD 128 sound gets less PCM-like.
Thanks for the info. Can this editor do all DSD editing without conversion to PCM? I've been thinking about buying a DA-3000 for needle dropping my LPs, so if this editor can do that, then I'll definitley record them to DSD.
As far as I know Tascam's Hi Res Editor does its limited DSD limited editing natively, without converting DSD toPCM and back to DSD.
How dare you mock 24 bit audio!.....Oh wait.....You said a Studer A80?.....Sorry.....Please continue.
Correction the 1981 Sony PCM DASH 3324 (24 tracks) was $125 000 USD. The Sony DASH 3348 (48 tracks) was $250 000 USD. Who has the money for this foolishness?!
The first few generations of ADAT (S-VHS) and DA-88 (HI-8MM) were bad. The converters were no match for the big Prodigi and DASH machines. They took forever to sync up and they broke down a lot. The last two generations of ADAT saw a big change. In 1998 came the 18 bit models. And then Alesis came out with a 20 bit ADAT Model. By the 18 bit period they had gotten most of the kinks out that plagued earlier generations. So yes by 2002, 20 bit ADAT units did sound better than Sony DASH 3348. (48 tracks of 16/48 on 1/2 DASH tape running at 30 ips over stationary heads.)
It would have done little improvement. Wider tracks here, faster tape speeds. It made more sense for slow speed, narrow track cassette use.
Why? Would you please mind to elaborate? But I agree that wider tracks and faster tape speeds make a big difference. I had a 3 head JVC cassette deck in the early 1990's, 1991 or maybe 1992, I opened it and managed to locate the tape speed trim. I expected this speed trim to have a little range just to fine tune tape speed,but it has such a wide range that allowed me to increase tape speed so much that I got a 90 minute tape to last around 55 minutes, not bad. And the speed increase made a difference on sound quality for good. Of course I could only play the tapes recorded on my deck.
It would not have improved performance enough on studio machines to justify the purchase of new heads, and also having to modify bias circuitry and erase circuitry to handle metal tapes. Which would add considerable expense to already very expensive studio tape machines. And the cost would increase as track count increased. You might get 1db or slightly better performance gains after all this expense. Remember a high end analog professional machine can print a lot more flux level to modern tape than a cassette can or ever will, especially when DIN equalization is used.
No argument there. Comparing 2 inch tape running at 15 ips to 1/8 th inch cassette tape running at 1 7/8 ips second is silly. But metal 2 inch tape would have meant more abuse on the tracking side before tape wear. Excessive tracking will cause the upper highs to go. Drop outs appear. Metal tape would have helped that. I believe there was a Chrome quarter inch tape formulation. ...Briefly.....I will get back to you on that. Anyway I don't think it caught on.
Question. Your 3 head deck with even Type 2 tape should be 25 - 20 000 hz +-3db. Unless you a are taping from half speed mastered or MFSL records or CD than anything above 18 khz won't be a concern for you. Why did you fell the need to alter your JVC? My 1979, NAK 581 sounded just like the source. But you needed Metal tape to get the 20 - 20 000 hz +-3db response. Regardless it always sounded like the source with or without Dolby B. But this is what we have Dolby C and S for. Trying to get quarter inch half track specs out of the cassette at any speed is a futile effort.
How much is a nice 14 inch reel of 2 inch tape going these days for? I was talking with a cousin of mine who used to work for BASF (1973 - 1992). I mentioned to him about the 1979 MCI JH32 ( The infamous 3 inch 32 track prototype) Pretty good. It ran at 20 ips. 30 - 28 000 +1 / - 2 db. 65 db 'A' weighted signal to noise ratio The frequency response was better than a 2 inch 16 track running at 15 or 30 ips. To bad it only worked in the vertical position. In the horizontal position the 3 inch tape kept lifting up over the heads in playback or record. The only solution was to make the tape twice as thick. Picture how expensive a 14 inch reel of 3 inch tape that is twice as thick would have been. The whole prototype along with it's reels of 3 inch tape were locked away. Maybe one day........ Those were the days of pushing analog tape to it's limits. Those days are gone.. If a company should decide to start making spanking brand new 2 inch 24 track tape machines you are most likely looking at $150 000 U.S. My cousin says I am being optimistic here. He says more like $200 000 US. And no, that isn't including shipping, taxes, or shipping insurance.
1 inch tape. Pure metal formulation. Which was the Pro Digi format to record 32 tracks of 16/44.1. Funny, our consumer video tapes were 1/2 inch wide and yet Sony managed to cram 48 tracks of 16/48 on this pure metal tape in 1988. Of course these were 14 inch reels at running at 30 ips. And the Tri-layer VTR proved that a 3rd deeper magnetic layer could be recorded as well. 1/2 inch consumer VCR / Professional 1/2 inch S-VHS, 3/4 inch Pro video. 1st layer........ 525 line video picture 2nd deeper layer......Stereo AFM sond Professional Tri-layer VTRs. 1/2 S-VHS. 1st layer........ 525 line video picture 2nd deeper layer......Stereo AFM sond 3rd deeper layer.......Stereo 16/44.1 PCM track. Proving that a lot more than just 2 tracks of 16/48 could be recorded on 3/4 pro video tape. Or even consumer 1/2 inch. Of course to record a 3rd layer of PCM sound requires another set of heads. Expensive! The 24/96 audio would have broken up over 3 layers of magnetic depth. Tricky but possible. MFSL altered a Sony F1 to record at 16/100 onto 3/4 video tape. And Sony said it was impossible..
Don't know for sure but I think the 1966, 3M M23, 1 inch 8 track was all tubes. Our is but it was made in 1966. Doesn't freaking work anymore. When Abbey Road purchased their 3M M23 in 1968 it might have been a transistor upgrade. Might have been. Don't know.
CAN I HAVE IT MOM?....PLEASE MOM PLEASE...PLEASE!!! In all seriousness I have criticism of this fine machine. It would have been way better if they had gone with a 3M transport. Specs would have been way better. Better high and low end response. Better signal to noise ratio and wow and flutter rating. 3M doesn't exist anymore but the designs of their transport system does. A similar design was used on all the Stephen tape machines. It is that tape transport design that made the 2 inch 40 track possible. But very difficult to fix and maintain. So forget I brought the idea up. Still........
Yea. Bass bumps happen in all analog multitracks. It is bizarre. And it depends on speed. If you use the JDF 2 inch 8 track heads on Studer A827 / Otari MTR90 and run it at 7.5 ips you get a 25 hz bass bump of several db. 60 hz @ 15 ips and 100 hz bass bump at 30 ips. I think it is 2 or 3 db. Keep in mind at 7.5 ips these heads will go right down to 15 hz without a problem and lower. But the bump at 25 hz makes a great sound. Many artists who have made records using the 2 inch 8 track heads have recorded at 7.5 ips for this reason. With a 24 track you machine would only be flat up to 15 khz at 7.5 ips. But with the JDF 2 inch 8 track heads 22 khz is a breeze even at 7.5 ips. A signal to noise ratio around 80 db A weighted. Even at 7.5 ips they beat Dolby A performance. Nice!
Yes. There is more to good sound then a wide frequency response. All those 1960's recordings were 30 - 15 000 hz and they sound pretty damn good. Bruce made his Nebraska album using a Tascam 4 track cassette recorder. Oouch! 40 - 12 500 hz +- 3db 63 db signal to noise ratio. The first model used Dolby B and not DBX. I wish Bruce hadn't mixed to mono.. On one song I hear a vocal, guitar and mouth organ. Bruce could have made nice stereo mix: Vocal ...............center Guitar..............9 0 'clock Harmonica.....3 0 'clock There a nice stereo mix. If only. What sounds like a second vocal on the song Nebraska is in fact delay from the effect send. Nicely done Bruce. Although he had one track left. He should have done a bass on it. Or perhaps overdub his guitar on track 4. Then...... Vocal................Center Guitar 1...........hard left Guitar 2...........hard right Harmonica..... 2 0 ' clock. Now send the effect return single to a spare channel and pan it half way left. See.....Now Nebraska sounds super fly.....No?.....Just an idea.
I've always loved the sound on Nebraska... haunting and sparse. He made the right choice to just release the demos as the album rather than a rerecorded version. Further proof that, just like any great guitarist can pick up a junker guitar and make amazing music, someone with the talent of Springsteen sounds great recorded on a lo-fi 4-track. On the other hand, my 4-track recordings sound, well, like an amateur.
