Actually, according to the liner notes it was digitally mastered from the Soundstream digital tape recorder: View Image I certainly recall how crystal clear this one sounded on the radio. It was truly striking.
A copy can't be better than the original. For example, a low dynamic range recording doesn't become high dynamic range by copying to a different medium, even if that medium is nominally better. The noise originally recorded remains there, it doesn't magically disappear.
I agree with your point that a copy cannot contain more data than the original. But doesn't it sometimes sound better, even if the sound is added distortion? Isn't this one of the theories as to why LPs sound better than master tapes? Oops. I feel so naughty for saying that.
For sure, a digital copy of an LP can sound better just by filtering pops and, of course, the digital copy can be equalized to taste.
When I said better I meant "truer to the original", not "subjectively pleasing". The two are very different things, even though they're often confused in audiophile circles. The OP I was responding to was claiming that he could achieve above 100 dB SNR from vinyl, which also implies the "truer to the original" meaning. That is what I was responding to. Obviously subjectively pleasing doesn't necessarily require high fidelity, it could also be processed thus intentionally differing from the original. According to the accepted theory that is the reason why some people prefer vinyl, the basically use the format as a sound processor. But that is a totally different thing.
Ahhhh, not if Mr. Brillant Bob here has a direct to disk record. And with expensive studio vinyl restoration he can pull off some incredible feats of audio magic. Mr. BB what record were you using? I A am curious. Please...I indulge the FAT LOUD MAN. Because it certainly wasn't that 70 minute Journey Greatest Hits album that I picked up from London, England back in 1993. One of those sides was 35 minutes. Noisy.
Good points. But before we nail poor Brillant Bob to the wall (who seems to to know what the fudge he is doing) COME LET US REASON TOGETHER - From the wisdom of Solomon. Hey, if I had 800 wives and 1200 concubines like Solomon I would be wise too or at least happy. Down to the point at hand... O.k. let's assume the original was from an analog master. If it is an early 90's recording then certainly a two inch 24 track Studer A827 with Dolby SR could reach 100 db (A weighted easy.) But if it is from say 1977, Forget it! A two inch 24 track back then could just pull 65 db A weighted signal to noise ratio at 15ips. With Dolby A another 8 db. So 75 db (A weighted is the best) AND YOU CANNOT GET QUIETER THAN THE MASTER. It is also easy to get fooled when reading dynamic range and signal to noise ratio off vinyl. My comment was directed at normal cut vinyl. And a lot of vinyl was made from copy tapes that wouldn't even come near 70 db let alone 75 or 100 db signal to noise ratio. We have made CD releases from vinyl when the tapes were unavailable. After super cleanup we managed maybe 80 or 85 db A weighted. But 105 db does sound like a stretch. But then we didn't have vinyl cut at 45 RPM with 12 - 15 per side.
EQ TO TASTE!? I hope you mean a db here and maybe 2 db here. I mean to go to all that trouble to do a Star Trek TNG needle drop and then EQ it......
Who records everthing in real stereo with two omnidirectional microphones. Including the kick and bass amp.
Dolby A is on almost all of those classic Rock recordings that you like. It is the multitrack and the quarter inch half track.
Heads up: Graceland was used by UHF magazine to test systems. And it is a well known audiophile record. What is horrible about Graceland?
I think you misunderstood. We should strive for real 24 bit performance. But 23 bits is on the way. Follow the yellow brick road! But the 24 but ADC is a lie and has been for years.
When I play cassettes I never use Dolby. It seems to mute the sound and dynamics. I’d rather hear hiss.
You can only do this with Dolby B. So I am confused. That is Dolby mistracking. Also a lot of people like the treble boost that turning off Dolby B gives. That doesn't mean it better just that some people prefer it. Dolby A is a professional noise reduction circuit made for pros. It is on all your Classic Rock albums. Including DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. I assume you have a three head deck so you can compare Dolby on/off in record mode with the tape / source switch. When you record turn the Dolby circuit on and off and then on again. All you should here is hiss going on and off. No change in level. I did this when I was 11 with my Nak581 and there was NEVER any change in top end. This is the only way to really know weather the Dolby circuit is mistracking. If you set your bias and Dolby level right you should get flat frequency response. You can't make the decision based on some treble boost that is pleasing to the ear. If you don't have a CD or Vinyl version of the album but just a cassette then how do you know how it is supposed to sound? I could take a great sounding master and add 4 db at 12 khz @ a Q of 1 and many people would love it. But that isn't the master. Could you describe these cassettes sir. Are they home made, pre-recorded? Made in America or Canada?
Let me explain. Not everthing that happens in studio is A. Remembered right B. On The web. Many early digital projects were also tracked to analog as well. But these analog tapes were never used and forgotten. Just because it doesn't mention it in the CD insert doesn't mean the tapes don't exist. Uncle Jack has worked in studios all over the world from: Hong Kong, to London to Vancouver to Boston to Toronto to Cairo to Manila since 1968. He has worked on many early digital systems. According to him they were fickle and gave problems. Funny! We have restored (baked) and transfered many analog multitracks. Some you would claim DON'T EXIST. You would be surprised at how many projects were backed up to analog sir. For example here is a studio story you won't find anywhere. Not in a CD insert, or on the web, or on Utube or in a magazine. John Stephen's - The ex- aerospace engineer who made the famous 2 inch 40 track recorder back in 1973. Very hard to fix these beasts were. In fact only John knew how to fix them. They are stories of actual studio personal waiting around for days for John to come and fix the multitrack. And according to one engineer he carried around a gun which he placed on top of the board as the fixed one of his machines. You will NEVER be able to confirm this story. And I have posted with John's brother. Only those who have had John Stephens come and fix his machines would know. Sorry but analog backups on earlier digital projects were made all the time. Ans engineers forget stuff. Hell, according to Sir Geroge Martin in 1987 no stereo mixes were made of PPM and WTB when we have documentation to the contrary. However they might have been analog copies made weeks later from the 3M system. And not tracked to analog as the other member here stated in his post. So you might be right. Partially.
I had a studio rat coworker who was like that. Personally, I cannot stand the hiss. But Dolby is NOT a sound quality company, it is a licensing company which makes lots of money by selling lots of licenses. So they whored out Dolby B to anything vaguely resembling a cassette deck, regardless of performance or alignment blah blah blah. Therefore on many if not most decks, the Dolby just doesn't really work.
You dislike analog tape because?.....Pretty much 99.9 % of all music was digital until 1982. Let me show you why I hate analog. And it's for a real good reason. When I was working at my Unlce's studio I had to align, clean, powder & diaper, calibrate and demagnetize 7 analog machines. Just like in the video. The list was as follows: 2 Studer A827 2 Otari MX-80 (with 32 & 24 headstacks) 2 Studer A820 (with 2 inch 8 track head stacks) And (drum roll please) a 3M M79 1 inch 8 track built 1968. Yeck! (Pre-logic and no auto- calibration. It was the machine from the first studio he own in 1970. Perfectly restored and it was a constant pain up my..... One of the best sounding 8 tracks ever but MATIENCE INTENSE. If you are really stupid you can buy one on Ebay. Good luck. It sounds like no other 1 inch 8 track. So we would tranfer all of the 1 inch 8 track tapes on the old thing for that authentic early 70's analog tape sound. Wasn't my idea!
Huh? Dolby 'A' invented in May of 1966. The NR unit was made for pros only. Tape was noisy. Ampex 300 -3, Ampex-4 or the noiser Scully 1 inch 8 track (284. Later called the 284-8) needed all the help they could get. 62 - 64 db A weighted signal to noisy ratio. Dolby A gave you an additional 8 db of signal to noise ratio. Dolby A sir was used on most releases from 1968 - until the Dolby SR came along in the early 90's. Including "Dark Side Of The Moon" which is considered by most to be an audiophile record. Dolby SR was invented by Dolby Labs. They started using SR on film Prints in 1986. Dolby SR was also used on analog tape machines so they could could compete with their quiet digital counterparts. Dolby SR brought the 70 db A weighted signal to noise ratio of say a Studer A827 up to 100 db. Dolby SR was designed as the first AUDIOPHILE NR CIRCUIT. Unlike DBX that was not. It's original use was for long distance analog phone lines where it's pumping on bass and woodwinds would not be an issue. ** Up until the early 90 if you wanted a 6 channel soundtrack on your movie there was only one way - An expensive 70 mm print. This was the only format then that could hold a 6 track optical soundtrack. The 35 mm prints held the optical stereo prints. They were "Dolby encoded Surround" which (and I agree with you here a million % - Doesn't work.) Well they lied. Four channels encoded into two was and still is I possible. More like a pseudo third channel that needed the audio acrobatics of Dolby Pro logic( lots of Channel steering) Dolby Labs some time ago had come up with their AC-3 5.1 format. But where to put it on a 35 mm print. They could get rid of the standard stereo optical soundtrack but that would be a bad idea. They found a place - I between the holes of the film. Now for the first time ever every single 35 mm print could now have a 20 - 20 000 hz +-1 db / 100 db S/N ratio 6 channel soundtrack but have the standard stereo optical track as well. This was a major break through. Back in my day if you wanted to see your movie in 6 channel sound it was double the price for a 70 mm 6 track SR print. And in 1986, $6.50 was almost $2 more than the minimum wage in Ontario. Now thank the greedy S.O.B.s at Dolby Labs. We will wait......LOL And then out came the consumer version of Dolby SR which was Dolby S. For the first time offering wonderful people like yourself the world's first audiophile NR circuit. Up to 91 db A weighted of signal to noise ratio. Now you could record almost the full quality of a Jazz or Opera CD without noise and effects and the pathetic operation of DBX Type 2. Or the perceived effects of Dolby B and C. Father got me the Nak 581 in 1980. The Dolby B circuit worked perfect. And it was easy to check. As my other post describes in detail. Just because some people love the treble boost from turning off the "B" circuit does does not equate to " Dolby B does not work." I purchased my second cassette deck in the summer of 1985. A two head $180 Hitachi. Dolby worked fine. People do this ignorant thing with Dolby. Instead of comparing the source to the Dolby B or C endoded tape, they turn off and on the Dolby in playback. "I don't like the Dolby B sound. I prefer it off." Problem is with the Dolby off now the tape sounds nothing like the CD or record. Why do people think that an increase in treble means, "mmmmm, this must be what the CD / record really sounded like.." LOL LOL I had a Pro Sony Walkman ($300) in 1989. Played all my home made cassettes in there. Dolby B encoded because 61 db A weighted S/N ratio sucks and blows. It is noisy and amateurish! Yes, course with Dolby B off it sounded sort of better. Why? A little treble boost. But a treble boost by turning Dolby B off does not equal "HEY THE CD MUST HAVE SOUNDED THIS WAY." It is a logical fallacy I wish some of you would stop engaging in it. Without Dolby Labs you would have never had 1977 Star War in 6 channel sound. Without Dolby Labs there would not be 6 channel soundtracks on every 35 mm print back in the 1993...You would have been dishing out twice the amount of money for a ticket just to get that cool 6 channel thing. And without Dolby Labs albums like "Dark Side Of The Moon" would be hissy. Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!! (Sound of hiss)
It would be great to know what big selling albums were recorded and mixed using Dolby Spectral. I've never seen an album stating being recorded using Dolby Spectral but I guess most people don't care about that.
Anything recorded analog starting in 1986 was likely cut using Dolby SR. It supplanted Dolby A almost overnight, and allowed a good analog deck to compete with the best digital equipment of the era in terms of noise and dynamic range. This was important since some of the analog decks from that era had a crazy number of tracks, or allowed multiple machines to be synchronized. Toto recorded parts of Toto IV on three synchronized 24-track recorders providing up to 69 tracks, for example (with one track on each deck being reserved for timecode). Even a little hiss coming from 69 different tracks can add up to a lotta hiss in the final 2-track mixdown...
