Miscellaneous > Recording - Studio Talk
Re: Hendrix/ Analog Tape info
vansinn:
Ha ha Ha, good one, Harley :thumbs-up:
And if anyone claims false flags on lack of dynamic range of tape, just say the magic words: Loudness war :lol:
rnolan:
Salient point Van, and very noticeable when you rip a CD and compare the signal wave graphs. Newer CDs are mastered to fill all the bits (my CD is louder than yours :facepalm: ) where the older recordings have much more headroom.
Tape is great if you don't need (and mostly you don't) such a wide dynamic range (as provided by 24 bit samples, where the least significant bit (LSB) = -144db). This is handy for some program e.g. classical where there are lots of soft subtle passages. As the soft passages are close to the tapes noise floor noise reduction techniques were applied (notably Dolby (A, B and C) and dbx)
Dolby A and dbx were expensive and most common in studios.
dbx noise reduction works by compressing the signal 2:1 on record, recording this "squished" signal as close to tape saturation as you can (thus staying away from the noise floor) and then expanding the signal by 1:2 on playback to restore the original dynamics.
Dolby A does similar to dbx but splits the signal (into 4 chunks IIRC) and only applies compression to softer signals (that would be affected by the noise floor), so unlike dbx it's selective.
Dolby B is basically a 10khz boost on record and reversed on playback. This boosts the signal that is in the same range as tape hiss so on playback the hiss is reduced. Turning it off on playback of Dolby B encoded tapes gives you the 10khz sparkle (and some hiss) and makes you old tapes sound a bit better.
Dolby C was an extension of Dolby B, but like Dolby A somewhat selective, it didn't really take off that much except in HiFi circles. And then digital happened with larger dynamic range (dependent on bit depth) making the tape NR unnecessary. 16 bit samples need care when you process them as the LSB is audible (apply digital trickery like eq etc). With 24 bit the LSB isn't audible and regardless of sample frequency (eg 44.1khz, 48 khz, 192 khz etc)) is a better (more detailed dynamically) format.
The along came MP3 which throws away program to reduce file size. A good way to loose all you attack transients :facepalm: unlike flac which just throws away any leading zeros in a given sample and puts them back later. So when you use flac on modern recordings, you don't get much file size reduction as the program is (as Van points out) squished up as hard as possible to saturation (ie very few leading zeros).
Harley Hexxe:
@ Sinn, it's not about the loudness for me, it's the fidelity. The loudness can be taken care of at the mastering stage.
@ Richard, all very interesting to know, but don't you think you might be over-analyzing a bit here? After all, the end product is really what matters. So if you can get what you're looking for, regardless of the medium, or the technique, then it's all good isn't it?
rnolan:
Hey Harley, absolutely, although the analysis helps understand why you may go one way or the other. E.g. some rip to MP3 then upscale to CD (44.1/16bit) :facepalm: But as you say it's the end result that's important. Though some enjoy the conversation (including me obviously LoL), others just want it to work.
Harley Hexxe:
Hey Richard,
Don't get me wrong, because I do have a tendency to over-think things myself, and I try to stop myself from doing that because, I'll end up second guessing myself right out of the project I might be working on :lol:
It is interesting to understand the differences between Dolby A,B, and C, since I have used those in studios in the past, but never really understood the differences. For me it was more like try "B" and let's see how it sounds etc.
I completely agree that ripping an MP3 and trying to upgrade that to a CD is totally a$$ backwards, ( a lot of lost fidelity there ), but that is a completely different transfer than going from tape to CD. Also, I am a big fan of recording digital, and getting a really good mix there, then transferring to tape, which cuts way down on the tape hiss, then recording back to digital with the tape compression added, since plug-ins can't give you that quality. They only give you a simulation.
I guess that's my real issue with plug-ins, they are just simulations. In a side-by-side comparison between the plug-ins and the real articles, through a SSL recording desk, you can hear the differences. Very much like the difference between the Celestion Greenback RI's vs. the original 30W Celestions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version