The problem is, those 3M decks had major linearity issues (at least by today's standards), so the A/D and D/A converters were specially-matched pairs. So you're probably better off converting those tapes to analog and the digitizing the results, provided you have access to the original machine. The two-track stereo masters may not be as impacted by linearity issues as the multitracks - the final mastering decks got the best A/D and D/A converters.
Also, while the digital stages of those 3M decks were wonky, their analog components were second-to-none. So they'd be responsible for very little loss in overall fidelity.
The CD for The Black Hole soundtrack sounds fine to my ears, in comparison the original CD of the soundtrack for Star Trek The Motion Picture recorded and mixed to 44.1/16 Sony digital (on the same year, 1979) sounds very digital-like, with very low noise and great dinamics but also unnatural sounding. Fortunately the full soundtrack was also tracked to analogue tape using Telefunken's TelCom noise reduction and used for the actual movie audio track and also on the 2012 La La Land 3-CD set, on this case the analogue multitrack tapes were transfered to 192/24 using a Studer tape deck with brand new heads and remixed at that resolution and it sounds outstanding, but the originally Sony PCM recorded album, buagh...
Mileage. I have the same collection, and while it's nice to have all of the tracks from the film - including those that haven't appeared on disc before - the digital recordings are the absolute standouts to my ear. The analog cuts sound grainy and oddly muffled - something very strange is happening in the upper midrange, too - giving the recording a pinched quality. Whereas the digital recordings sound perfectly balanced and capture all of the subtle hall ambience, making them sound much more like a live orchestra to my ear. I can certainly hear why classical fans were the first to board the all-digital train. Analog of that era just couldn't reproduce those subtle details as accurately. I suspect later developments - like Dolby SR - probably closed that gap.
You don't like how the remixed Star Trek TMP from the analogue multis remixed to digital sound? I personally love its sound and dislike the digital version.
I've always had a soft spot for those early Telark Soundstream recordings. I do sometimes think that they are a bit harmonically thin, but I still enjoy them. I think that the DSD transfers that Telark made of these did make them sound a bit less digital.
No, don't care for the sound of them at all. They sound weird. I don't know if it's the High Com noise reduction or just the usual culprits - wow and flutter, uneven frequency responses, tape saturation, grain and noise - but they lack the pristine clarity and natural ambience of the digital versions. The pinched midrange makes me think the noise reduction scheme bears the most responsibility, but that's just a guess. I'm glad to have the original soundtrack cuts - we didn't have many of these before - but I can hear why Hollywood quickly went digital.
I think that back in the day it clearly made sense to use NR, especially advanced NR like Dolby SR (which I think sounds great). But this is a decision which hasn't withstood the test of time when these recordings have been remastered in recent years. It's just way too easy to not properly recalibrate your noise reduction units when doing transfers, or to not bother to decode it at all.
Didn't multitrack recorders have noise reduction on every single track, though? I'd imagine that was necessary if you were going to be blending 24 or 36 tracks down to two tracks. I guess the two-track masters could have been cut without noise reduction later into the '70s and on into the '80s, as tape decks and formulations grew quieter, but if the original multitracks had it I'm not sure what the point would be.
That actually brings up another point - I assume when mixing those multitracks the Dolby was decoded off of each individual track and then Dolby was re-applied to the final 2-track stereo master. I assume you couldn't mix un-decoded Dolby program material at various levels and have it decode correctly on final playback.
And chopping off someone's head is spot on for murdering them. But it isn't a good idea. O.k. argument by analogy is a logical fallacy but you get the idea. No kidding. But this is destroying music. First off he is wrong. The more dynamic range your mixes are the more abuse it can take in the mastering stage. But not all agree on this. Leave the increase in volume to the mastering stage! This is what real PROS DO. (Most...) Why? They will have way better equipment then you do and many engineers these days specialize in LOUD. You are a mixer. Your job is to get all the tracks to fit together. Not to make loud. And as you know his super loud tracks will all get turned down sir: Replay gain, normalization on streaming services and satellite radio; and compression on radio. The loudness war is over and yet it seems most of these audio engineers don't know that. What is the point of a super loud track if it is only going to get turned down? AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM I have with it. Modern mix techniques which blow major chunks and then some are ruining music! Everthing sounds the same - LOUD AND BRIGHT. Audiophiles hate compression when used like this. Compression should be used to gell background vocals ir to even out the level of bass notes or to get a certain sound. Compression for loudness sake is wrong and is destroying music. . And adding distortion to a track just to trick the listener into thinking it's loud is destroying music. I would never do that... (little lies don't hurt anyone...Right?) Confession time: I didn't get fired because of my vision which is bad. I got fired because I told a client (famous client) to go fudge himself because he wanted to remix all of his albums 1968 - 1992 loud and bright like modern music. And then his plan was to delete the old catalog after that was released. I said, "We don't do loud." He insisted. I then lost it and told the client that he was stupid and a fool. For us to keep the half million dollar contract my Uncle had to let me go. I was willing to put my job on the line to stop overcompresed music...According to my Uncle the client changed his mind. Just a regular remix. Nothing offense. Modern mix techniques is the problem.
Yes, that is very interesting. Yes, Uncle Jack tells this story (more in depth) every year at Christmas. The tale of the Black Hole soundtrack. Was it a Studer A800 (1973) or a Studer A827? Could have been the mix technique or the mixer. A million other things. It is just speculation to sit here as an arm chair mixer and say that it was because it was digital. Could just be a better mix. For example Dire Straits "Brother's In Arms" and Paul Simon's "Grace Land" (considered and audiophile record by many) were recorded to a Sony DASH 3324A at 16/48. And mixed down to 16/48. No one complaining there. As an engineer of almost 20 years I would agree that analog has more detail. But look at all those great DCC disks at 16/44.1. And I have heard plenty of analog projects that sounded like crap. Analog sir is no guarantee of quality. No project ever failed because it was digital or analog. Or because of word depth or sample rate. If an engineer can't record and mix a good soundtrack or album with 16/44.1 tracks then he isn't a very good engineer. Not Gospel. Just my Canadian nickel.
Did you mean it was recorded on the 3M digital multitrack? or just mixed down to digital? Confused. The 3M was 18/50. Back then they were no 16 bit converters. So they used a 12 and 8 bit converter together. I think they used the last two bits for error correction. Please don't quote me on it. But the 3M is not 16/44.1 it is 18/50 or rather 16/50. The 3M machines used staggered converters which required a lot of maintenance and they also ran the converters at something over 50 Ksamp/sec in order to get the nastiness of the first-generation anti-aliasing filters out of the audible band. Uncle Jack saw a presentation on the design at an AES show in 1978 and it was really very ingenious and addressed all of the known problems of digital systems at the time. By 1982 the standard for stereo digital was quarter inch. ie Sony 3302. Plenty of those tapes play today. But back in 1978/1979 I haven't the faintest clue what kind of machine they used to do a stereo mixdown to digital. Probably recorded on 3/4 inch video tape. But again, don't quote me on it.
Huh? Back in 1982 the Sony 3302 (quarter inch stereo 16/44.1 digital recorder) was firmly established. There was no 12 bit Sony recorder you could buy back in 1982. Or of any kind. March 1978: Sony introduces the professional-grade PCM-1600 Audio Processor (44.056 kHz, 16-bit) (list price $40,000) used with an external U-Matic tape drive, making digital recording commercially available to recording studios for the first time. PCM-1610 and PCM-1630 follow. November 4–7, 1977: 3M demonstrates a prototype 2-channel 50.4 kHz 16-bit digital recorder running on 1-inch tape at 45 ips at the New York AES Convention. As no true 16-bit converters were available, it combined separate 12-bit and 8-bit converters to create 16-bit performance. 1980: Mitsubishi Eletric introduces the X-80 ProDigi open reel 1/4" tape 15 ips 50.4 kHz 16-bit digital recorder ($5000). Only 200 are sold worldwide. I have never heard Of a professional 12 bit recorder. Not after 1976 anyway. There is no pro digital two track in 1982 that was capable of this. 12 bits would have been just 72 db signal to noise ratio. And the lack of detail would have been appaling. By 1982 standards had been formed. And neither 12 or 14 bits was a standard. The master is 16/44.1 not 12/44.1.
What clicks? What pops? DC offset? And channel imbalance is not a digital issue sir. It is transfer or mastering issue. And it happens a lot more on vinyl so why even bring it up? I purchased my first CD player in late 1988. First CD was Eldorado. My God all those clicks and pops! It was horrible. OH NO WAIT...THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. advice - Don't RIP. Just play your disks on a CD player. Yes, I do hear the occasional pop. But only on ripping. I have never heard a pop or click on dosk while playing the actual disk. These are rare when they do happen. Are these 1982 disks? You do know that there can be clicks and pops from the master right? But you don't notice them so much on vinyl because well - surrounded by pop as clicks. There were hundred of these cicks on "Dark Side Of The Moon". They are from the master. An engineer at MFSL spent all night removing all 100. And of course they are removed today on ProTools. The clicks are form hitting the MUTE button. Unfortunately the laymen who don't mix or master don't realize how much crap besides music can be on a master. Bad edits, clicks from bad edits, low frequency thumps from bad edits, clicks, pops, clicks from pressing MUTE and SOLO, etc. It is not perfectly clean. Wait, are you comparing the odd pop or click on the rare CD to the crazy amount of noise you would get on a $200 table and a uncleaned worn record? Kind of a silly comparison and not really fair. It like comparing a splinter to a broken bone. Yes I know that a well cut record properly cleaned on Nitty gritty machine, played back on a a good table with MC cartridge/ line contact stylus through a good MC phono preamp will sound amazingly quiet. 73 db s/n ratio or more! And with a good wet cleaning and that line contact stylus service all that noise (pops, clicks and whatnot) can be brought down as much as 75%. I am not ignorant on the heights of vinyl. Done right, vinyl can kick CD's butt and then some. But the record playing system we are talking about (including the Nitty Gritty) back in 1985 would have been way over $2000. The average person didn't have this. The average person had a crappy $150 - $250 Dual or Techniques table. Maybe with an elliptical stylus. I didn't even have an elliptical stylus. Do you know how noisy and super crappy an old worn record sounds on a normal stylus?
12 is all even progressive Rock needs. If a hypothetical DAC in question back in 1982 actually give you all 12 bits then that would be nice. But I doubt it. Oh those consumer 16 bit DACs back in 1984 operated at 13 bit resolution. That is in term of detail. But if they built a 12 bit DAC back in 1982 it would probably give 11 or 10 bits. Just a guess. But I today - sure. Look. Compare what kind of a USB DAC you can get for $200 or less with what you could get back in 1988 for $200...On wait!..You couldn't. The cheapest AD/DAC were $700 or so. And only 16/44.1. Not today's 32/384 and DSD DACs. I see them for less than $200. Go on Amazon. I see some well built $150 DAC. And it's got 24/192 and DSD and warp drive....You get my meaning. You want a 24/192 DAC back in 1985.....Oh wait! - They didn't have them. But 17 years ago a $200 USB AD/DAC was junk. You had to pay $400 for something o.k. and $600 for something good. What I mean is if the 12 bit ADC really gives me 12 bits then yes....12 bits is enough. And I have done this bit crushing at work. I released A rap CD in 2005 that was 12 bit / 32 Khz (upper limit 16 khz). Actually the whole album was recorded and mixed down to 12/32. Of course it had to bumbed up to 16/44.1. But then again the CD went nowhere, so maybe 12/32 really does blow! P.S. Not my Rap CD. I meant I recorded and mixed the Rap disk for a client.
Real 24 bit converters don't exist. Most 24 bit Pro ADC or DAC operate at 20 bits. Excellent ones at 21 bits. Some at 22 bit. The noise level of a resistor is -140 dba. 23 bit is - 138 dba. It is possible as suppose to at least go down to 23 bits. But any DAC that could actually record and play back that 23 bit would be the most detailed and accurate converter every made. And that is why we DO need to try to make a real 23 bit DAC. Even if it is only 23 bits. All these mile stones trickle down to our level soon.
“Natural ambience” associated with pristine digital clarity. Not sure how those two things mesh. Yes, analog has its issues but analog usually sounds more realistic and natural to me. The quieter sections sometimes contained in classical music may prove problematic for analog. I have no problem with hiss (I don’t like noise reduction) if it allows me to hear everything in a non-antiseptic manner. But pristine and “sharp as needles” digital sound is what Hollywood gravitates to, given they’re inherently involved in creating an unreal/imaginary world to begin with. I will listen to digital if analog is not available or convenient.
I record needledrops in DSD128 with PCM4202 ADC. The maximum dynamic range (A-Weighted) of this ADC is 118 dB. THD+N < -105 dB. Then I convert it to DXD with only 20-bit depth used (THD+N included). I brickwall the sound at 42 KHz to remove any DSD HF noise and I remove the DC offset. After the needledrop post-processing (de-click, de-hum, denoise, etc.) I mix the whole sound with triangular white noise at exactly -105 dB. This is my dither method to attenuate/remove any noise/distortion resulted from hardware and processing. Now the signal is crystal clear and the soundstage is shining. Then I even increase the dynamic range of the sound by reducing any signal under -105 dB with 40 dB or more. Finally, the 24-bit needledrop dynamic range is better that the CD 44/16 dynamic range (96 dB) with at least 9 dB. Better soundstage, subtle nuances and ambience. The DAC I use for audition is ESS Sabre32 (up to PCM 384/32 or DSD256 output in ASIO direct mode).
Really! These two albums surely sound very clean and they have above average dynamics, but at the expense of body and realism. I don't know of this is because of the digital recording technique, but they are not remotely what I understand as "audiophile".
