Elliott Scheiner said his reference was Dolby SR on analog tape and that he always backed up to that. What I meant about bad sound wasn't the treble boost, but mistracking Dolby B on cheap machines, and a lack of tight standards to ensure interoperability between machines. I had a nice 3-head with Dolby C which was pretty transparent, but put those tapes (with Dolby B though) in other machines and the results were not always good. Dolby are innovators, true enough, but they aren't a non-profit
To answer the question at the end of your post, I have 200 plus U.K., U.S., Canadian, Yugoslavian, and Korean prerecorded Beatles cassettes. And prerecorded cassettes of all of my favorite albums. Everybody hates hiss but taking away noise also takes away sound/music that isn’t noise. DSOTM is a dead sounding album.
The past several posts remind me why I'm okay with a slightly diminished musicality claimed by some audiophiles, with digital. Most of the bad-old-side effects of analog were addressed. Give me a couple of days using my old analog recording gear, turntables and FM radio and I'm okay with my digital gear, even my car's Mp3-only stereo!
Everytime I read stuff like that, a Rock or Pop album needing that huge amount of tracks I wonder why they need so many tracks for. For a classical recording this makes sense, I remember reading that the three soundtracks for the Star Wars sequels were tracked with two 48 tape recorders sincronized (the first two to analogue, Revenge Of The Sith is fully digital) but how many instruments and players there are on an orchestra playing at the same time? Using 69 tracks for a Rock or Pop recording is overproducing, something very common in the 80's IMHO.
Actually it makes even less sense with classical. I think orchestras sound best with one stereo mic placed in the sweet spot of the hall. But I suspect for soundtracks they record with a slew of mics so they can punch up (or down) the levels on certain instruments or sections of instruments without having to repeat the whole performance.
In 1982/1983 most desktop/home computers, even the IBMs in offices were 8 bit. They used mostly 8088, 8080, 8085, z80, 6502 and 6800 microprocessors. 16 bits became more common when the IBM machine started using the 16 bit 8086 as the PC microprocessor instead of the 8 bit 8088.
Exactly this. And 64k of memory, not 64 megs or gigs, was considered a lot. On my first job out of college, In order to save memory I was writing programs is assembly language back then changing single bits on an Intel 8085 processor. The first IBM desktop PC used an 8 bit Intel 8088 processor. Those were simpler times.
Maybe this will change your mind. On the other hand, classical music could ideally recorded with a pair of stereo mikes because it's not about sound processing. The ideal is the sound of the orchestra as is. Multiple microphones merely help to achieve it, but they aren't technically necessary. Whereas a lot of pop is about sound created in a studio.
Compressors are still used when recording orchestras, because a microphone does not respond to sound the way ears do, so does not pick up room compression effects. Uncompressed recordings sound odd.
But I think that technique was phased out by the early to mid 70's. I know that the soundtrack for Star Wars (1977) used a 16 track recorder for the sessions and only a year later at the same studio, Anvil Recorders, they used a 32 track recorder for the recording sessions for the soundtrack for Superman The Movie. For the soundtrack for E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial I think reading a 32 track analogue tape recorder was used and John Williams insisted on recording the ambient hall sound, I read that for the 20th Anniversary SACD release that features a 5.1 mix. What is heard on the rear channels are not instruments "fooling around" like some other orchestral recordings (like The Film Music Of Jerry Goldsmith, the 5.0 mix puts youin the middle of the orchestral which sounds unnatural), just the ambient hall of MGM Recording Stage when recording.
I never said there was a relationship. I was merely replying to TimB's post suggesting there was a connection between the cpu's data bus size and the cd's 16 bit sample rate. It serves people well to read the full conversation sometimes instead of just jumping in Anorak2.
Just the thought of a label doing flat transfers gets me excited. But in a good way. But that still gets the blood pressure up.
Mmmmm......Ahhhhhh...... Hold on. Just a moment. Good question. On some CD inserts it will say, "We were forced to use Dolby SR. They said they would hurt our families if we didn't use it." Please insert Poe's Law. But really, you will see the SR logo on some CD inserts. Most analog tapes made after 1990. But with a 70 db A weighted signal to noise ratio with a good Studer A 827, Otari MTR90 or such their equal who needs NR? Kevin "The Caveman" uses no NR on his analog multitracks. And I quote, "It doesn't need it."
I am talking about properly recorded North American cassettes. Those Euro cassettes are horrible as you know. But the problem is not Dolby. It is bad duplication. Dolby only works properly if it is set up right. So I am gathering that you have never made your own Dolby B, C or S cassettes on your own machine? Yes, many up and coming engineers feel that way. The drums are heavily damped with blankets which was the style until the late 80's. And with just four microphones: Kick, snare, stereo overheads. Are you implying that Dolby A makes records sound dull? Then 90% of the Rock records made between 1968 - 1986 must be dull. You find all those records dull? I think not. I am sorry that your experience with Dolby B was so bad. But comparing the critically acclaimed Professional Dolby SR NR to Dolby B is like comparing a McDonald's burger to a Keg half pound burger. Do you guys have the Keg over where you are? Modern Rock records go crazy with EQ and over compression on the drums. It may sound existing but it is fake. And also NO ONE today damps the drums with blankets. This is the equivalent of saying I don't like Opera recordings because the engineer didn't close mike. The professional Dolby A is not Dolby B. Dolby B. works fine if the Dolby level is set right. It does NOT take away air. Dolby B is a massive treble boost. In playback it is pulled back exactly the same. It is no different than the RIAA EQ curve that is on everyone of your records.
I thought they were non-profit. Dream destroyer! LOL. Some mis -Dolby tracking. But the irony here is that playing back with 2 db of Dolby error was way better than playing the tape back without Dolby which gives you a even bigger error. But I see your point. But why didn't you love Dolby B? It loved you. Look it I found a letter Dolby B sent you a long time ago in the web: "I encoded your tapes for you. But you said I never did them right. Was it my fault your friends had lackluster tape machines. Why didn't you buy a three head machine? Then you could have set the Dolby level perfect. You never loved me. I tired so hard to make your tapes quiet...."
Hello John, Santana - Caravanserai I made some tests with this Vinyl LP made from the original analog tape and the results are awesome. The processed needledrop sounds very analog. The cymbals sounds very natural as if the guy hit them in my room. I never heard this kind of sound on any 44/16 CD I listened on the same audio system.
I have heard 16/44.1 masters at My Uncle's studio that would blow most vinyl away. And I have heard 24/192 masters that sounded like they needed a lethal injection to be put out of their misery no joke. And I have made 16/44.1 recordings that had massive sound stage way larger than your record. But let's be honest - no one gets to hear the master. And they usually fudge up the CD. I would expect the record to sound better. But, how do you know it was cut from the analog tape? I think it was. But we are just assuming. For example: Rush, "Presto" was recorded and mixed downed to 16/48. Anyway it was a DDD. And yet the vinyl sounds better. Better bass. Not harsh. And yet from the digital tape. Maybe they sneaked in a analog quarter inch half track when no one was looking.
I am not that kind of fanatic "vinyl or death", I listen CDs too. Especially when there is no vinyl release. In my YT collection I have some processed CD tracks (Vangelis) that's sound good to my ears. I pushed the noise floor as low as possible and as far in HF by DSD transcoding then I removed it with low level dither (-138 dB TPDF) and steep low pass digital filter. When the voice appears clearly and distinctly in front of the speakers and the instruments are heard somewhere behind the speakers and laterally from them, then I know I listen a good piece of work.
I referenced having 200 plus prerecorded Beatles cassettes. The Beatles recordings cannot be lumped in with so called horrible “Euro” recordings, as you know. And I did say I also have cassettes of all my favorite albums. Which includes North American albums. Particularly and especially American albums via the 50 states. But also Brian Eno, the Moody Blues, etc. I realize the Dolby discussion is a complex one because of the different types of Dolby, the variety of sound equipment, and the different levels of expertise when it comes to recording techniques. Some people, but definitely not most people in this digital age, don’t mind a small amount of noise/hiss because their ears hear a more lively and spacious sound when hiss/noise is not removed. Compared to when it is removed. I’d rather hear a wide open sound presentation with ALL of the music and sound present and easily tolerate a barely/slightly audible hiss during the extra quiet parts or between songs. But that’s completely unacceptable to the antiseptic crystal clear digital crowd who value clarity over realism. No problem. I listen to both analog and digital. But definitely prefer to keep the Dolby off. We’ll probably need to agree to disagree on this one.
There's nothing "realistic" about leaving Dolby off, though. You're getting unnaturally boosted highs and very unnatural companding. If the tape sounds dull with Dolby on, there's something wrong with your deck or something wrong with the tape.
And of course there’s nothing realistic about a world without noise. Or a sound recording wiped clean of “bad” sound labeled noise to be gotten rid of. If I hear everything and have nothing cleaned and removed, that’s realistic, holistic, and natural to me. If the treble is boosted, allowing me to hear all of the highs, so that the noise/hiss is left alone along with the other sounds/music, then I’ll accept as a trade-off slightly boosted treble. (Which admittedly I favor to begin with, compared to boosted bass via remastering.)
