In article , Chris J Dixon
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

My little tape recorder had a non-standard speed of 4ips and also had
the tape wound in a funny way so it played backwards on a normal
machine. For tapes I used to strip down 1/2" computer tape. My uncle
worked at IBM and he used to get it for me.

There was one from Shoppertunities? which had no capstan so ran at a
different speed depending on where the tape was on the reel...

What about the one which somehow took its drive from a record
player? I'm sure I didn't imagine it, but can't find any details
right now.


Yes, remember that thing. Made by a firm somewhere in the midlands
Gramdeck I think it was called, absolute abortion it was too!...
Chris

--
Tony Sayer

In article , R. Mark Clayton
scribeth thus

"gremlin_95" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2014 13:14, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 09:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:40:04 +0100, Johny B Good wrote:

I regard not only CD as pre-historic but DVD and Blu-Ray[1] too. It's
not that that makes me feel old, just the effects of old age creeping
up on me.

Presumably old age is having its normal affect on hearing and sight
so you don't notice how crap downloads and/or streaming are compared
to CD or Blu-Ray (or even DVD come to that). B-)

What worries *me* is that many teenagers are of the opinion that
downloads are better quality than CDs.

Even at my age, I can tell the difference, even on earbuds and small
screens.


There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell the
difference

Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

Quite suitable for personal audio players and the like but needs to be
getting on for 320 K/bits for good audio..

PS typical digital audio streams are 44 - 48k samples per second.

Yes don't we just DABbing well know it;!..


--
Dawood



--
Tony Sayer

On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

Andy

On 28/04/2014 20:31, tony sayer wrote:
In article , R. Mark Clayton
Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

Quite suitable for personal audio players and the like but needs to be
getting on for 320 K/bits for good audio..

128k is about equivalent to compact cassette, IME.

PS typical digital audio streams are 44 - 48k samples per second.

*Samples* per second, not bits per second. 44k *bits* per second is low
fidelity mp3 or any other lossy compression well down into distorted
telephone quality speech territory. 44k *samples* per second at 16 bits
per sample is CD quality.

Yes don't we just DABbing well know it;!..

Shouldn't have let the accountants determine the quality.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:

*Samples* per second, not bits per second. 44k *bits* per second is low
fidelity mp3 or any other lossy compression well down into distorted
telephone quality speech territory. 44k *samples* per second at 16 bits
per sample is CD quality.

But that's just one channel. For stereo you have:

44.1k x 16 bits per sample * 2 channels

= 1411200 bits per second... ie about 1.34 Mbps


--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

On 28/04/2014 20:50, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.



I guess I'm easily pleased. I used to commute by bus which took up
around 3 hours of my day. I was very content with my Sennheiser HD205s
and my iPod, I also use Sennheiser headphones when I am working at home
but I play the music from my laptop. I'm 19

--
Dazza

In article ,
John Williamson writes:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.

I can listen to music on almost anything.
Once I've heard it (or played it) and know it, when I'm listening it's
just gently jogging my brain to replay the high quality version it
stored in the learning process.

One thing I do recall from the days of LP's - you would occasionally
get a scratch or just a pip on a track. When I listened to another
recording or even a real concert, it always came as a surprise when
that scratch or pip I was anticipating was missing!

Similarly on tapes, there were a few recordings I had where the tape
was a few bars short of the end of the piece and I couldn't be bothered
to rerecord or didn't have a spare tape. I got used to that piece of
music finishing mid-note, and again it was a surprise to listen on the
radio and for it not to stop where it usually did!

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 28/04/2014 19:37, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"gremlin_95" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2014 13:14, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 09:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:40:04 +0100, Johny B Good wrote:

I regard not only CD as pre-historic but DVD and Blu-Ray[1] too. It's
not that that makes me feel old, just the effects of old age creeping
up on me.

Presumably old age is having its normal affect on hearing and sight
so you don't notice how crap downloads and/or streaming are compared
to CD or Blu-Ray (or even DVD come to that). B-)

What worries *me* is that many teenagers are of the opinion that
downloads are better quality than CDs.

Even at my age, I can tell the difference, even on earbuds and small
screens.


There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell the
difference

Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

I find it really depends on the bit rate of the MP3 and the quality of
the encoder. 128kbps MP3s clearly sound inferior to CDs to me. 360kpbs
however is very much closer.

(I rip all my discs to flac just to be on the safe side ;-)

PS typical digital audio streams are 44 - 48k samples per second.

16 bits each and twice for stereo - so a CD is about 1.3Mbps uncompressed.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/04/2014 21:42, gremlin_95 wrote:
On 28/04/2014 20:50, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.



I guess I'm easily pleased. I used to commute by bus which took up
around 3 hours of my day. I was very content with my Sennheiser HD205s
and my iPod, I also use Sennheiser headphones when I am working at home
but I play the music from my laptop. I'm 19

Modern PC sound systems are pretty decent in general these days - give
then decent material to play, and stick it through a decent amp and
speakers and the results are on par with a good many CD players IME.
(the noise floor can be a bit higher on some, depending on the quality
of the sound card output stage)

My workshop audio is via a PC as a source and its more than adequate
(although note its competing with dust extraction and machine tools some
of the time!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/04/2014 23:18, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson writes:
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.

I can listen to music on almost anything.
Once I've heard it (or played it) and know it, when I'm listening it's
just gently jogging my brain to replay the high quality version it
stored in the learning process.

One thing I do recall from the days of LP's - you would occasionally
get a scratch or just a pip on a track. When I listened to another
recording or even a real concert, it always came as a surprise when
that scratch or pip I was anticipating was missing!

Rather like when you get used to album tracks in a particular order, and
then someone plays the "greatest hits" version and it completely throws
your anticipation at the end of each track ;-)

Similarly on tapes, there were a few recordings I had where the tape
was a few bars short of the end of the piece and I couldn't be bothered
to rerecord or didn't have a spare tape. I got used to that piece of
music finishing mid-note, and again it was a surprise to listen on the
radio and for it not to stop where it usually did!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:37, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"gremlin_95" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2014 13:14, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/04/2014 09:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:40:04 +0100, Johny B Good wrote:

I regard not only CD as pre-historic but DVD and Blu-Ray[1] too. It's
not that that makes me feel old, just the effects of old age creeping
up on me.

Presumably old age is having its normal affect on hearing and sight
so you don't notice how crap downloads and/or streaming are compared
to CD or Blu-Ray (or even DVD come to that). B-)

What worries *me* is that many teenagers are of the opinion that
downloads are better quality than CDs.

Even at my age, I can tell the difference, even on earbuds and small
screens.


There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell the
difference

Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

I find it really depends on the bit rate of the MP3 and the quality of
the encoder. 128kbps MP3s clearly sound inferior to CDs to me. 360kpbs
however is very much closer.

(I rip all my discs to flac just to be on the safe side ;-)

I've ripped all my CDs to lossless as well (WMA as it happens), because
I'm not in the habit of throwing potentially useful information away.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On 28/04/2014 14:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Tape was truly AWFUL.

CD MUCH better.


Pre-digital (1980ish?) audio recordings were all 'awful'?

Can't say I agree.


--
Cheers, Rob

Simon Cee wrote:

check out 'photonics' for some amazing old
electronics... eg:

Mercury Arc Rectifier [100 yrs old]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6V2syGnZA

Amazed that chap hasn't burned his attic down yet!

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tape was truly AWFUL.

Cassette tape, yes, properly maintained 15ips or even 30ips - no.

Where do you think the masters for CDs came from?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

Do the same experiment that I did with some colleagues.

Record a band they know well. (I used a band from Stoke called Halcyon
Dayz, most of whose members worked at the same place we did.)

Mix the close mic'd multitrack recording to your taste.

Play back the stereo mix at 16 bit, 44.1kHz sample rate.

Repeat using a 320kHz bitrate mo3 file using the same playback system.

Repeat using "FM radio" quality settings of 128kHz bitrate.

Almost anyone will note a deterioration in sound quality the further
down the chain you go.

Repeat using a decent choir and a crossed cardioid mic setup. Play to
the choirmaster.

Do you know some of the worst audio quality seems to be acceptable to
some classical musicians I've met with over time;!(..

Having said that some years ago I used just that simple crossed mic
setup and sometimes an ORTF pair to record same and the results were
superb..

Find exactly the same results.

I use a lot of mp3 files to play background music while I'm driving, as
I can't justify the storage cost for CD quality .wav files with many
horsepower of diesel engine drowning out the distortion and noise floor.

Thats why DAB was invented then;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
On 28/04/2014 20:31, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/04/2014 19:09, gremlin_95 wrote:

There must be something wrong with me then because I can't really tell
the difference

That I can understand. Let's assume you have crap speakers! (I have a
decent set of headphones - because I used to work on audio, and couldn't
hear the defects. They let me keep them when I left)

What I can't understand is them thinking a download is better.

It's what teemagers are used to. They also seem to like listening on the
squeaker built in to their phone, or share the audio on earbuds, getting
a channel each.



Yes sad isn't it that they know no better. Why is it that once I went to
a Christmas panto all those years ago and took great delight and
interest in hearing those instruments that the fine "tone" of our
ancient olde radiogram could never handle?..

Yet a friend of mine involved in a hi-fi firm says that business is
still quite buoyant with a lot of their customers overseas, mainly far
east!...
--
Tony Sayer

On 29/04/14 08:04, RJH wrote:
On 28/04/2014 14:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Tape was truly AWFUL.

CD MUCH better.


Pre-digital (1980ish?) audio recordings were all 'awful'?


I didn't say that.
I said tape was awful.

IF you had a wide enough tape running fast enough and you calibrated the
kit on a regular basis and re spooled the tape every few months to avoid
ghosting and' it COULD, with a sacrifice of a virgin and a goat at
midnight, give a passable imitation of 'a recording device'.


Unless you added Dolby, in which case you needed three virgins and a
prayer to St. Bridget as well.

Can't say I agree.


Well since you were disagreeing with a straw man you yourself set up.
that's not surprising.

Did the BBC achieve miracles of recording with tape? Yes they did. They
had engineers who understood it.

Is the average analogue recording from a rock band so bad as to be in
places unusable? yes.

I remember standing behind a desk and saying to te 'sound engineer;''
'er the hi hats are totally overloading' and of course I could hear
that... because hi hats are sharp transient high frequencies which
tape does NOT like. 'No they aint' he said pointing at the VU meters
just tipping into the red...

I thought about telling him about short high frequency transients, high
frequency tape pre-emphasis, and the sort of averaging a VU meter does,
its needle inertia the like. Then I looked at him, thought better of it
and nodded' and left.

I remember being asked to set up a Nakamichi cassette recorder to give
the 'best possible' sound. Widely hailed as the best cassette recorder
ever made. I was completely unable to get a flat response beyond
2.5khz, and it was largely dead at 8khz, about -4dB more on on track
than the other irrespective.

I tried it on a variety of cassette brands and technologies. Each one
had a completely different frequency response and gain. Enough to make
using Dolby a complete joke.

IN the end I decided not to look at the meters and just got as much
treble as I could without being edgy, and made sure it gave an adequate
response to its owners favourite recordings. "Isn't it a piece of kit?"
he enthused.."Yes, it certainly is," I agreed and left hurriedly.

The Russ Andrews syndrome* we call it today I think.

That people achieved miracles with it and with vinyl, is despite, not
because of its inherent qualities.


When you actually look at the amount of pre-emphasis applied, and the
amount of companding that Dolby did, you will realise that in the case
of anything short of professional studio machines you were already
'compressing' the data severely on a tape. Just in a different way.

That MP3 players (and CDs) wiped out cassette players in a few short
years tells you something. MP3 was better even at low bit rates than
Cassette.

And you only need to look at the pre-emphasis to see why. Cassettes may
have appeared to give you 100hz-8khz and 55dB S/N. But they certainly
did NOT have that dynamic range in the last couple of octaves.
You could do lossless comparison of audio and get data rates massively
down. And still be better than tape. CDS are not compressed not because
its gives a better sound, but because it makes the player cheaper. At
the time small CPUS capable of untangling a compressed digital stream
simply were not available - they had enough issues with the D to A
converters which were truly dire and led to the 'Vinyl sounds better
than CD' myth, that started as a fact but became a myth a few years later.

Actually the most difficult sound to compress without loss is the
audience applause that follows the concert.

I did spend 12 years or more designing professional audio kit. I stopped
at about the time digital recording came in because apart from the
actual loudspeakers, every other link in the chain was developed to the
point where it was essentially so good you really didn't need to try and
make it better.

And my name ain't Russ Andrews.

That people have leveraged compression to try and squeeze more onto less
to the point where informations is lost does not mean that compressions
itself means loss of information that you wanted to hear.

And I stand by my statement that tape was, the worst possible recording
medium ever, except for all the alternatives available at that time.



*the more you pay the better it sounds, irrespective of what objective
tests tell you.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 29/04/14 08:45, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tape was truly AWFUL.

Cassette tape, yes, properly maintained 15ips or even 30ips - no.

See my other post. Even THAT was not as good as you think it was.

Where do you think the masters for CDs came from?

I worked in recording studios as well as in concert halls and
discotheques. Grandmother/eggs/suck.

Don't confuse the quality of a technology with the results you can
achieve with it.

An ex-army story illustrates the point: platoon pinned down by mortar
and sniper fire coming from a cave.. platoon has wire guided missile,
but can't make it hit.

Man wanders up 'look have you calibrated that?' 'No' OK look, first you
have to level it, then you have to......

....then you put the crosshairs here on the cave there..is that the right
cave..? Yes..OK then you hit the tit, wait 5 seconds in its a Norwegian
blue, see?

And it was..

Nowadays it's probably all digital GPS and gyro stabilised and all you
do is heft it on your shoulder and press the tit. Back then it was
analogue...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 29/04/14 09:32, tony sayer wrote:
Ditto - originally I thought MP3's were inferior [to CD] because they were
not lossless compression (like zip), however for most purposes you really
can't hear the difference.

Do the same experiment that I did with some colleagues.

Record a band they know well. (I used a band from Stoke called Halcyon
Dayz, most of whose members worked at the same place we did.)

Mix the close mic'd multitrack recording to your taste.

Play back the stereo mix at 16 bit, 44.1kHz sample rate.

Repeat using a 320kHz bitrate mo3 file using the same playback system.

Repeat using "FM radio" quality settings of 128kHz bitrate.

Almost anyone will note a deterioration in sound quality the further
down the chain you go.

Repeat using a decent choir and a crossed cardioid mic setup. Play to
the choirmaster.

Do you know some of the worst audio quality seems to be acceptable to
some classical musicians I've met with over time;!(..

Having said that some years ago I used just that simple crossed mic
setup and sometimes an ORTF pair to record same and the results were
superb..

Less to go wrong.

The rot set in with rock bands who were unable or unwilling to play at a
balanced sound level with each other.


Find exactly the same results.

I use a lot of mp3 files to play background music while I'm driving, as
I can't justify the storage cost for CD quality .wav files with many
horsepower of diesel engine drowning out the distortion and noise floor.

Thats why DAB was invented then;!..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , RJH
scribeth thus
On 28/04/2014 14:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Tape was truly AWFUL.

CD MUCH better.


Pre-digital (1980ish?) audio recordings were all 'awful'?

Can't say I agree.



No they weren't, there are some excellent recordings around from years
gone by. The tech performance of the recording medium whilst improved
over time isn't the be all and end all of a good recording...

Can't find the link now but theres a pix of an innocent looking tape
machine that was used to record Queen's A night at the opera containing
the famous bohemian rhapsody!, now thats not a good recording;?...

--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:32:12 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Do you know some of the worst audio quality seems to be acceptable to
some classical musicians I've met with over time;!(..

Probably because they listen to the music rather than the reproduction.
If I know a piece of music I can listen to and enjoy it using the most
basic of kit, my theory being that my brain 'fills in the gaps'.
However, for it to do that I have to have already listened on high
quality kit or to a live performance or my brain won't know what's in
the gaps.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
By Loch Long, twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather

John Williamson wrote:
I use a lot of mp3 files to play background music while I'm driving, as
I can't justify the storage cost for CD quality .wav files with many
horsepower of diesel engine drowning out the distortion and noise floor.

I keep master versions in CD quality, and create MP3s from them for use
when out and about. The storage cost of the masters on a home PC is
negligible, especially when you compare it to the cost of the CDs! And
of course it's those that I listen to at home.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

In article , Johny B Good
wrote:

I've digitised a portion of my reel to reel tapes and vynil to wav
files which I _have_ retained. The 192Kbps stereo MP3s which I carefully
crafted for 'easy listening' purposes are almost indistinguishable in
quality from the original wavs.

I've got into the habit of now digitising LPs/tapes at 96k/24 and keeping
this as flac. Given what you say about the size of modern storage and the
way bigger amounts will become available this now seems fine. Saves any
faffing about doing any processing down to 'lower' formats that save space.

I do, though, convert the recordings to mono if the LP is mono. Not so much
to save space as to reduce the background rumble and distortion levels. The
change in rumble is quite noticable on headphones for some discs as the
level varies from disc to disc.


I f you want to add an extra level of robustness against 'bit rot' in
the storage media, an effective way is simply to duplicate or even
triplicate the archive files

Yes. I make copies to three different HDs, kept in different rooms, one not
normally connected to anything.

With modern digital storage, we'd be pushing our luck with 5 year
maintence intervals. The only saving grace being the ease with which
exact duplicates can be created on replacement and novel media. Optical
disk storage lost its 'Novelty Factor' decades ago hence my regard of
CDs and the like as being positively 'pre-historic'.

I still like having a CD (or LP) from the point of view of having a
physical artifact I can file, examine, read the cover-notes, etc. But in
practice well made digital versions are easier to play and organise. And
being able to store items 'out of sight' does reduce the level of clutter.

Alas for having a tidy home, I've started to buy LPs again! A nearby
2nd-hand LP shop has opened. I'm not a fan of their 'pop/rock' because - as
you could predict - the pop/rock LPs I've tried tend to be badly worn,
scratched, etc. However they have boxes of old Jazz LPs at low prices. Many
of these seem near mint condition for the ones for pre-bop/modern items.
Double 'RCA Jazz Tribune' sets for 3 quid! :-)

Seems to show that most pop/rock LPs got thrashed. But that many Jazz fans
took far more care of their LPs. That said, some of the LPs have things
like "London Weekend Television" library stamps on them. So might have only
been played once or twice. 8-] Although heaven knows how long ago LWT would
have disposed of its LP library!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 28/04/2014 18:08, Simon Cee wrote:


Incidentally, check out 'photonics' for some amazing old
electronics... eg:

Mercury Arc Rectifier [100 yrs old]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6V2syGnZA


Remember the one at the Science Museum?

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

One thing I do recall from the days of LP's - you would occasionally
get a scratch or just a pip on a track. When I listened to another
recording or even a real concert, it always came as a surprise when
that scratch or pip I was anticipating was missing!

Similarly on tapes, there were a few recordings I had where the tape
was a few bars short of the end of the piece and I couldn't be bothered
to rerecord or didn't have a spare tape. I got used to that piece of
music finishing mid-note, and again it was a surprise to listen on the
radio and for it not to stop where it usually did!

I used to have Beethoven's Ninth on LP, where they always have to split the
third movement, and got so used to it that I would jump if I heard the whole
thing without the split (on a radio broadcast). Then I got it on
Musicassette which split the movement in a different place, so I would jump
in two places.

--
Max Demian

"Simon Cee" wrote in message
...

Incidentally, check out 'photonics' for some amazing old
electronics... eg:

Mercury Arc Rectifier [100 yrs old]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6V2syGnZA

Prior to the renovation of the Royal Opera House just before the Millennium,
they used mercury arc rectifiers to power the First World War submarine
motors they used for the stage machinery.

--
Max Demian

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
I used to have Beethoven's Ninth on LP, where they always have to split
the third movement, and got so used to it that I would jump if I heard
the whole thing without the split (on a radio broadcast). Then I got it
on Musicassette which split the movement in a different place, so I
would jump in two places.

Then there was the '8 track' which had effectively 4 'sides'. So an extra
two breaks per record. ;-) With pop stuff, they used to re-arrange the
track order for best fit which came as somewhat of a surprise if you were
used to the record.

--
*I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it..

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IF you had a wide enough tape running fast enough and you calibrated the
kit on a regular basis and re spooled the tape every few months to avoid
ghosting and' it COULD, with a sacrifice of a virgin and a goat at
midnight, give a passable imitation of 'a recording device'.


Unless you added Dolby, in which case you needed three virgins and a
prayer to St. Bridget as well.

You've obviously not had experience of Dolby SR.

You'd also think by your post that digital gives perfect results every
time. Which means you don't much listen to current commercial recordings.

--
*WHY IS IT CALLED TOURIST SEASON IF WE CAN'T SHOOT AT THEM?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 29/04/14 12:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IF you had a wide enough tape running fast enough and you calibrated the
kit on a regular basis and re spooled the tape every few months to avoid
ghosting and' it COULD, with a sacrifice of a virgin and a goat at
midnight, give a passable imitation of 'a recording device'.


Unless you added Dolby, in which case you needed three virgins and a
prayer to St. Bridget as well.

You've obviously not had experience of Dolby SR.

You'd also think by your post that digital gives perfect results every
time. Which means you don't much listen to current commercial recordings.

Professional digital equipment as currently made is capable of better
quality than the equivalent analogue equipment. Even bottom end digital
recorders are of a quality I could only dream of in the 1970s.

On the other hand, there are a lot more incompetent operators producing
stuff for general consumption round nowadays than there once were.
Partly, this is because almost anyone can afford a digital setup,
whereas, in the days of analogue recording, there was a major investment
in easily damaged equipment, so the ham fisted and half deaf operators
very rarely got anywhere near it.

Don't blame the tools for the bad sound on modern CD releases.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
You'd also think by your post that digital gives perfect results every
time. Which means you don't much listen to current commercial
recordings.

Professional digital equipment as currently made is capable of better
quality than the equivalent analogue equipment. Even bottom end digital
recorders are of a quality I could only dream of in the 1970s.

Given I worked as a sound engineer in broadcast all my life I'm well aware
of that.

On the other hand, there are a lot more incompetent operators producing
stuff for general consumption round nowadays than there once were.
Partly, this is because almost anyone can afford a digital setup,
whereas, in the days of analogue recording, there was a major investment
in easily damaged equipment, so the ham fisted and half deaf operators
very rarely got anywhere near it.

Quite. For all the wonders of computer control and digital everything, the
end result is frequently rather worse than in the all analogue days. Where
people had to be trained to get acceptable results.

Don't blame the tools for the bad sound on modern CD releases.

Faster cars with easier controls don't make for better driving standards.

The point really is that the original CD was designed for as near
faultless domestic reproduction as possible. And nothing has changed in
the laws of physics since. Any data reduction algorithm simply makes that
worse. It may not be audible on some things - but you can be certain it
will be on others.

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:02:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Stephen wrote:

My estimate would be 30 minutes at 3 3/4 inches per second, mono, 10
kHz frequency response, signal to noise ratio 40dB.

My little tape recorder had a non-standard speed of 4ips and also had
the tape wound in a funny way so it played backwards on a normal
machine. For tapes I used to strip down 1/2" computer tape. My uncle
worked at IBM and he used to get it for me.

Bill

There was one from Shoppertunities? which had no capstan so ran at a
different speed depending on where the tape was on the reel...

Happy days.

I bought a similar portable battery powered 'tape recorder' about
half a century ago (ISTR it was a whole 12 quid). The recorder's long
since been chucked out but I still have a few tape recordings that
were made on that machine (3 inch spools with 600 feet of triple play
tape).

I recently auditioned some of them on my ancient Akai M8 (1 7/8, 3
3/4 and 7 1/2 ips speeds). The 1 7/8 ips speed is too slow with the 3
3/4 ips being too fast (but better sounding than too slow). The speed
variation due to reel table drive was nowhere near as obvious as I'd
have expected.

One of these days, I'm going to digitise them by playing them back at
3 3/4 ips on my venerable Akai GX630DB tape deck so I can post process
them back to some semblence of their proper playback speed.
--
Regards, J B Good

Simon Cee wrote:

Thats the biggest difference between the tech of my youth and now -
old stuff was understabndable to the average person.

I wonder if that's right, though. At one level, you can "understand"
how a reel-to-reel recorder works, but in reality you can dig deeper
and deeper into the technicalities until hardly anyone can understand
it. Just the design of the recording head might embody an entire
career's worth of R&D. And then you've got all the electronics - bias,
Dolby NR, equalisation, etc. Then there's the choice of materials -
plastics, metals, resin-bonded stuff - for the mechanics, the case, etc.

I think you can probably do much the same thing with an MP3 recorder.
You could "explain" and "understand" it in a sentence, or you can dig
deeper and deeper into the technicalities.

I guess the 19th century pioneers had to understand radio (for example)
at the physics level. Then in the early 20th century most people who
understood radio understood it at the component level. Now techies
might understand it at the module level. And so on.....

I suggest that almost everything is readily understandable at a
sufficiently high level of abstraction, and almost nothing is readily
understandable at a sufficiently deep level of detail.

--
SteveT

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:54:39 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Katie, who is 11, was helping me in the workshop today. She told me how
some of her class been in trouble for filming the teachers covertly. Of
course I told her how, in 1965, I'd made a sound recording of our maths
teacher, with the class deliberately winding him up just to make it more
fun. I then found myself trying to explain about reel-to-reel tape
recorders. I could see that Katie just couldn't grasp the concept. Finally
she asked, "But how much memory did it have?"

A 1970' nine track tape deck [for a computer] - about 2Gb

Before they were phased out a DAT tape also held about 2Gb.

I've got a collection of 4GB DAT cartridges (uncompressed capacity)
along with the DAT backup drive which I'd picked up at a bargain price
of 200 quid perched in amongst the dusty collection of other such
detritus on top of a roller shutter cupboard in my home office cum
workshop.

I've even hung onto the Adaptec AHA 2940/2940U scsi adapter card (PCI
so still a doable 'add on' in a modern box - I thought it was an ISA
card until I had a closer look) which, fortuitously, has been acting
as a "Dust Cover" to prevent dust ingress through the vent holes and
carriage slide slots in the top of the drive casing.

Of course the recording on audio reel to reel recorders was analogue, so a
data capacity is not so meaningful.

The best you can do is estimate what it would require to digitise the
recordings with suitably matched sample rate and bit depth.

If it's a dolby encoded recording at 3 3/4 ips on Maxell UDB tape on
an excellent tape deck such as as a fettled ('cos it _was_ broken by
design!) Akai GX630DB reel to reel tape deck, a fair assumption would
be to use the CD based sample rate and bit depth to calculate its GB
equivilent of digital storage.

A 10 inch reel with 3,600 foot of tape at 3 3/4 ips gives a total
each way of 3 hours and 12 minutes which is a grand total of 384
minutes. A minute's worth of CD audio quality represents some
10.0937MiB's worth. translating the 384 minute figure gives us a total
of 3.785GiB. It's a rather sobering thought that the box used to store
that ten inch reel of tape would easily store thousands of 4GB microSD
cards!

Of course, an older metal headed tape recorder without dolby NR using
older tape formulations such as Scotch Dynarange and EMI tape using
the 3 3/4 ips speed[1] would only need a 32KHz sampling rate at 16
bits per sample (2.746GiB's worth).

In both cases, a conversion to a lossless compression format such as
FLAC will produce an even lower (but more accurate) memory equivilent.

[1] around the equivilent performance of a high quality cassette deck
with accurately aligned dolby level. Realistically, a C90 TDK SA tape
would only manage the equivilent of 700MiB of storage.
--
Regards, J B Good

On 29/04/14 16:01, Steve Thackery wrote:
I suggest that almost everything is readily understandable at a
sufficiently high level of abstraction, and almost nothing is readily
understandable at a sufficiently deep level of detail.


That is so good it ought to be in your .sig

everybody knows how a car works, you sit in it, turn the key, engage a
gear and steer with the wheel

What could be simpler than that?

Only if you need to fix it when it doesn't work do you need a bit more.

To design it, you need a hell of a lot more.

Operator: technician: designer.

Three very different levels.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Max Demian wrote:
I used to have Beethoven's Ninth on LP, where they always have to split the
third movement, and got so used to it that I would jump if I heard the whole
thing without the split (on a radio broadcast). Then I got it on
Musicassette which split the movement in a different place, so I would jump
in two places.

This might be an urban legend but I heard that the inventor of the CD
was a big Beethoven fan, and one of the design criteria was that the
Ninth had to fit on one disc.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On 29/04/2014 16:18, Johny B Good wrote:

[1] around the equivilent performance of a high quality cassette deck
with accurately aligned dolby level. Realistically, a C90 TDK SA tape
would only manage the equivilent of 700MiB of storage.

Really? That implies a C90 is capable of similar quality levels to CD,
and I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

On 29/04/2014 09:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/04/14 08:04, RJH wrote:
On 28/04/2014 14:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Tape was truly AWFUL.

CD MUCH better.


Pre-digital (1980ish?) audio recordings were all 'awful'?


I didn't say that.
I said tape was awful.


I'm afraid i don't follow. Pre-digital recordings of, say, the 60s and
70s were done on tape.

IF you had a wide enough tape running fast enough and you calibrated the
kit on a regular basis and re spooled the tape every few months to avoid
ghosting and' it COULD, with a sacrifice of a virgin and a goat at
midnight, give a passable imitation of 'a recording device'.


*Much* better than passable, I'd say. Even something by, say, Elliott
Smith (who used a portable 4 track) sounds stunning. At least to my ear,
and certainly not 'awful'


Unless you added Dolby, in which case you needed three virgins and a
prayer to St. Bridget as well.

Can't say I agree.


Well since you were disagreeing with a straw man you yourself set up.
that's not surprising.

Did the BBC achieve miracles of recording with tape? Yes they did. They
had engineers who understood it.

Is the average analogue recording from a rock band so bad as to be in
places unusable? yes.

I remember standing behind a desk and saying to te 'sound engineer;''
'er the hi hats are totally overloading' and of course I could hear
that... because hi hats are sharp transient high frequencies which
tape does NOT like. 'No they aint' he said pointing at the VU meters
just tipping into the red...

I thought about telling him about short high frequency transients, high
frequency tape pre-emphasis, and the sort of averaging a VU meter does,
its needle inertia the like. Then I looked at him, thought better of it
and nodded' and left.


I think you're referring to *using* tape, and not tape per se. In the
hands of decent engineers, I'd defy a good number of listeners to able
to distinguish between tape and digital.

I remember being asked to set up a Nakamichi cassette recorder to give
the 'best possible' sound. Widely hailed as the best cassette recorder
ever made. I was completely unable to get a flat response beyond
2.5khz, and it was largely dead at 8khz, about -4dB more on on track
than the other irrespective.

I tried it on a variety of cassette brands and technologies. Each one
had a completely different frequency response and gain. Enough to make
using Dolby a complete joke.

IN the end I decided not to look at the meters and just got as much
treble as I could without being edgy, and made sure it gave an adequate
response to its owners favourite recordings. "Isn't it a piece of kit?"
he enthused.."Yes, it certainly is," I agreed and left hurriedly.

The Russ Andrews syndrome* we call it today I think.


Not really, you're talking about cassette tape, rather than pro
machines. I did have a semi-pro Revox a while back. I couldn't reliably
distinguish between a recordings and original CDs. I'm not saying that
'test' is the last word in scientific rigour - simply that tape is far
from 'awful'.

That people achieved miracles with it and with vinyl, is despite, not
because of its inherent qualities.


What do you mean by 'miracle'? You're just wandering off somewhere!


When you actually look at the amount of pre-emphasis applied, and the
amount of companding that Dolby did, you will realise that in the case
of anything short of professional studio machines you were already
'compressing' the data severely on a tape. Just in a different way.

That MP3 players (and CDs) wiped out cassette players in a few short
years tells you something. MP3 was better even at low bit rates than
Cassette.


The story of the demise of LP and cassette is far more complicated than
sound quality. It tells me something, but only a fraction of the story.


And you only need to look at the pre-emphasis to see why. Cassettes may
have appeared to give you 100hz-8khz and 55dB S/N. But they certainly
did NOT have that dynamic range in the last couple of octaves.
You could do lossless comparison of audio and get data rates massively
down. And still be better than tape. CDS are not compressed not because
its gives a better sound, but because it makes the player cheaper. At
the time small CPUS capable of untangling a compressed digital stream
simply were not available - they had enough issues with the D to A
converters which were truly dire and led to the 'Vinyl sounds better
than CD' myth, that started as a fact but became a myth a few years later.


That people prefer vinyl is not a myth at all.

Actually the most difficult sound to compress without loss is the
audience applause that follows the concert.

I did spend 12 years or more designing professional audio kit. I stopped
at about the time digital recording came in because apart from the
actual loudspeakers, every other link in the chain was developed to the
point where it was essentially so good you really didn't need to try and
make it better.

And my name ain't Russ Andrews.

That people have leveraged compression to try and squeeze more onto less
to the point where informations is lost does not mean that compressions
itself means loss of information that you wanted to hear.

And I stand by my statement that tape was, the worst possible recording
medium ever, except for all the alternatives available at that time.


What a peculiar statement. So it was the best available, at that time. I
agree with that, I suppose. But still awful by the standards available
today? Given a decent sound engineer, I disagree.



*the more you pay the better it sounds, irrespective of what objective
tests tell you.


Well, obviously. Massive diminishing returns in audio gear. Speakers
possibly excepted.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:09:40 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

Mercury Arc Rectifier [100 yrs old]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6V2syGnZA

Prior to the renovation of the Royal Opera House just before the Millennium,
they used mercury arc rectifiers to power the First World War submarine
motors they used for the stage machinery.

I would have loved to see that in operation. Hope it found a good
home?

On 29/04/14 17:17, RJH wrote:
That people prefer vinyl is not a myth at all.

BUT the reasons why they do are now not based on any discernibly better
sound

And I stand by my statement that tape was, the worst possible
recording medium ever, except for all the alternatives available at
that time.


What a peculiar statement. So it was the best available, at that
time.



I agree with that, I suppose. But still awful by the standards available
today? Given a decent sound engineer, I disagree.


There you go. straw manning again.

Its a bit like saying that because Fangio was a brilliant driver the
mercedes or whatever it was he drove was a really good car!

IT wasn't. It was terrible. You could probably beat it in a production
BMW today.


Tape is awful. Get over it. Just because with a huge amount of
calibration and understanding by some really good sound engineers and
design engineers it was good ENOUGH doesn't make it great. Just. Barely.
Good. ENOUGH.

The biggest advance was to go digital an turn it into a digital
recording medium. At a stroke out go wow, flutter, hiss, dropouts,
ghosting and companding, and in comes a bit of delay.


With over an hour of music available on a 600MByte device an gigabyte
and terabyte discs available why would anyone use tape ?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.