HD vinyl

bluebird said:

But the A820 is so solid transport wise. The A80 always feels like an old man. Slow and finicky.

Click to expand...

The A820 is the best transport ever designed IMO. Some argue the ATR102 is better because a spec or two is slightly better but an ATR102 will eat your tape if it's unhappy. An A820 is so gentle. It will never eat a tape.

The A80 is way nicer than most transports. Ever try a Scully or MCI? If you haven't replaced lots of the mechanical parts with NOS parts it may not be as smooth as it should. Dash pots are a good thing to start with.

Gold said:

I'd like to know what the thought process was behind not making a an A820 preview deck. Designing a DDL from the ground up in approximately 1985  sounds like it would have required quite a large R&D budget. Studer had a lot of tape transport mechanical expertise. Did they think it was easier to design a DDL? Did they think they couldn't match the performance of the stock A820?Maybe some promo literature would have a clue?

Click to expand...

The thing is, at the time, they had hired a guy named Roger Lagadec, who was one of the digital audio pioneers (went to Sony after, where he was a pivotal member of the team that developped the 3324). Digital delay was a building block of a number of other exploratory developments, so a stand-alone unit was not a big overhead.

Thanks Abbey. That makes sense. Things like that usually have a practical answer... They saw digital on the horizon, hired the best designer they could and plowed ahead into the future of audio. Digital was exotic, expensive and 'better' then.

A recent survey showed that a significant proportion of vinyl buyers don't have a turntable. 

Click to expand...

Haha!  Brilliant ;D

I don't particularly like records but have many. Printed lyrics are OK and artwork helps me find quicker what I'm looking for. But my record collection (I'm not a collector) takes up way too much space

I don't enjoy the sound of records in particular. Maybe this is because I buy mainly used records for really cheap. But I do buy cos some stuff is simply not easily available on other media or not for the price of a plain burger.

Listening to files from a computer is too much hassle for me. Don't like it at all. I'd rather burn the file onto a CDR. I like flipping through everything with my hands -- conservative in that respect.

I get rid of CD cases and store in slim plastic sleeves together with artwork etc. Personally, the (once) premium Digipak is a waste of ressources and space to me. Just hate them.

Have a friend who swears by the sound of records. Even mixing and mastering his music in a DAW and make it sound pretty much like a record -- although a digital file -- didn't convince him...

If they can really make records sound better, they should go ahead. It doesn't concern me.

I have to admit that, the best I've ever heard was several years ago when I had my turntable modded with solid core silver wire, a nice Denon Dl-110 cartridge running through an older PS audio pre amp through a Lavry converter. The sound was so live it was spooky. Really incredible ...Like a live performance with little dust crackles snowing around it......
I didn't like the low end loss it seemed the silver wire gave so I ended up going with a Cardas copper rewire and have not been happy since...... Doesn't matter now because I don't have the Lavry and my stylus broke from a mishap during storage...... But I digress........

I guess it's audiophoolery but, I plan to try again down the road just to verify the memory wasn't influenced by that time of my life....

I'm not a record collector but when I do dust off the few I have, I make it a Dos Equis... 

or whatever I have in the fridge..... usually Stella..


However you guys are doing it, it sounds pretty good to me....

Script said:

Haha!  Brilliant ;D

I don't particularly like records but have many. Printed lyrics are OK and artwork helps me find quicker what I'm looking for. But my record collection (I'm not a collector) takes up way too much space

I don't enjoy the sound of records in particular. Maybe this is because I buy mainly used records for really cheap. But I do buy cos some stuff is simply not easily available on other media or not for the price of a plain burger.

Click to expand...

I wonder if that is really true... I have lots of old vinyl from 60s/70s but if I look hard even some of the obscure stuff (worth finding) is findable.

Listening to files from a computer is too much hassle for me. Don't like it at all. I'd rather burn the file onto a CDR. I like flipping through everything with my hands -- conservative in that respect.

Click to expand...

These days I mostly listen to satellite music service (for background music) but some of their categories are hard to figure out.

I get rid of CD cases and store in slim plastic sleeves together with artwork etc. Personally, the (once) premium Digipak is a waste of ressources and space to me. Just hate them.

Click to expand...

Lately I have had to start using the CD player in my car when the local radio stations became unlistenable.  :'(

Have a friend who swears by the sound of records. Even mixing and mastering his music in a DAW and make it sound pretty much like a record -- although a digital file -- didn't convince him...

If they can really make records sound better, they should go ahead. It doesn't concern me.

Click to expand...

I spent too many years dealing with limits of vinyl playback.  I designed a handful of phono preamps and even two generations of tape companding noise reductions, to make better tape recordings.

Speaking of improved vinyl performance, I was sucked into making and selling a CX record decoder kit. CX was a companding NR similar to dolby NR where the records would be compressed during mastering, then expanded after playback.

On paper this would deliver great dynamic range improvements, but CBS arguably mishandled the merchandising. (I still have some CX encoded LPs in my collection.).

JR

PS: I should be more receptive to vinyl. My father was a recording engineer for RCA records (in NYC) at the time of his death back in the 1950s. I even have a few one-off lacquers he cut for personal use back in the day.  I always told myself that I would perform a digital capture of my old vinyl and use digital tricks to reduce noise, but nah... life is too short for that .

Will the audiophools also claim that the digitally cut plate sounds "stair stepped" you know... cause, digital sounds stair steppish...

sr1200 said:

Will the audiophools also claim that the digitally cut plate sounds "stair stepped" you know... cause, digital sounds stair steppish...

Click to expand...

Hahahahaha

JohnRoberts said:

PS: I should be more receptive to vinyl. My father was a recording engineer for RCA records (in NYC) at the time of his death back in the 1950s. I even have a few one-off lacquers he cut for personal use back in the day.  I always told myself that I would perform a digital capture of my old vinyl and use digital tricks to reduce noise, but nah... life is too short for that .

Click to expand...

You know, its easier and cheaper than you might think.  Just get one of these:

https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT-LP60-USB-Automatic-Belt-Drive-USB/dp/B002GYTPB8?tag=bom_tomsguide-20&ascsubtag=TGUS90171524177343710-tgus:en_US_21_PicStory_1169&SubscriptionId=AKIAJLYKPRLXUSF4GDIQ&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953

$100 and it comes with a free DAW. Just plug the usb to your computer and transfer away.

And there is very powerful de-noising software out there that makes it a snap to clean up the digital file.

bluebird said:

$100 and it comes with a free DAW. Just plug the usb to your computer and transfer away.

And there is very powerful de-noising software out there that makes it a snap to clean up the digital file.

Click to expand...

Actually I own a similar model; transfer is indeed easy, but the cleaning software in Audacity is not so nice. It takes a lot of tweaking to get it to do a proper job. I found myself having to re-do the cleaning several times before finding the right balance.
I found Sampltude gave much better results, at the cost of running 2 or 3 different algos, but without the guesswork.

The Waves X-Noise, X-Crakle, and X-Click make for a very powerful, easy to use suite that can clean up any scratchy record sound.
These three can be had for about $90 each right now. But if your only going to be transferring a couple records its not worth it.
iZotope RX is also a very powerful suite of noise reduction/restoration plugins.

bluebird said:

The Waves X-Noise, X-Crakle, and X-Click make for a very powerful, easy to use suite that can clean up any scratchy record sound.
These three can be had for about $90 each right now. But if your only going to be transferring a couple records its not worth it.
iZotope RX is also a very powerful suite of noise reduction/restoration plugins.

Click to expand...

That's the issue; IMO the free Audacity does not have a satisfactory workflow for noise reduction (it is a remarkable software in many other respects, though). Someone who wants to undertake the task of digitizing/cleaning/restoring their vinyl (or cassette) collection must be ready to shed some $$.
Many of us already have a DAW with the necessary algos, though.

bluebird said:

Hahahahaha

You know, its easier and cheaper than you might think.  Just get one of these:

https://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT-LP60-USB-Automatic-Belt-Drive-USB/dp/B002GYTPB8?tag=bom_tomsguide-20&ascsubtag=TGUS90171524177343710-tgus:en_US_21_PicStory_1169&SubscriptionId=AKIAJLYKPRLXUSF4GDIQ&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953

$100 and it comes with a free DAW. Just plug the usb to your computer and transfer away.

And there is very powerful de-noising software out there that makes it a snap to clean up the digital file.

Click to expand...

It isn't the cost, in fact I would probably get into the technology (inside the box) of it to tweak the de-clicking and de-noising.

Even back in the 1980s I had customers buying my P-10 phono preamp kit because it had the RIAA  EQ in a separate later stage , after a flat gain front end. When de-clicking you can get better results by processing the raw output, before applying the RIAA...which is basically a LPF. So I had customers using my preamps for vinyl processing decades ago.

Of course the technology has advanced a bunch since the '80s.  My most significant constraint now is time (and interest), all the hours it would take feeding the digital capture. Then I don't sit around and "just" listen to music much these days... I play CDs in my car because the local radio sucks so bad, but listening to records in my living room lost most of its impact after multiple beer parties with live bands performing in my living room (decades ago).  8) 

I did set up a decent(?) surround system for my 55" TV set to watch movies on (real sub with 5 full range speakers). It doesn't suck, but I could probably use a little more power (give me more power scotty).  I wouldn't mind cobbling together several hypex amp modules but I'm still waiting for a better euro/dollar exchange rate.  Back in the day I sold kit surround sound systems (L-R+ delay), but the modern stuff is way better.

JR

Gold said:

The delay Studer sold with the A820 was 14 bit. It sounded good.  They never made a preview version of the A820.

Click to expand...

The Ampex ADD-1, demonstrated at the spring 1979 AES show in Los Angeles, could not be identified vs no delay, by the majority of listeners, including grammy winning knob turners.
I heard it and picked wrong.  It was a 16 bit system.
http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-DB-Magazine/70s/DB-1979-11.pdf

ATR's were the hot setup in the late 1970's, everybody had or wanted the machines including mastering rooms.  The question of fitting a preview head was vexing.  Was told directly in no uncertain terms by the late Alistair Heaslett (ATR project head) that the tape path would degrade the transport's superb numbers.  Precision Mastering in LA went ahead and had a preview head fitted.
Regardless of any loss of performance, they cut many outstanding acetates.  I do wonder if your claim that there is an Ampex part number for the preview apparatus might suggest the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, figuratively.
Sterling's ATR setup certainly looks fine.

Not aware of any major cutting room employing the Ampex or Studer A820 delay.
Other than G. Glancy's operation on the west coast, no one doing major work was using any DDL.

Regarding your fondness of the A820, one mastering room (no lacquer cutting) in LA has a machine fitted with custom fabricated Ampex 351 electronics, with companion high Z repro head.
An ATR was considered, but the Studer was chosen for the reasons you cited.

IMO tape machines (nice ones) shouln't me messed with beyond regular cleaning and maintenance. I spent some time messing with ATR electronics trying to get less distortion figures from playback. It was a while ago. I think I tried things like removing the FET's used for changing EQ when the speed was changed, Or sticking a super low noise op amp right after the EQ circuit then right out skipping the whole output stage.  I just couldn't get better figures no matter what I did. There's just too much distortion between the tape and the head to begin with.  A well designed circuit of 741's would probably be adequate. 

But the main thing is, the guys that designed Ampex and Studer machines knew what they were doing.
Putting 351 electronics on a Studer A820 is like sewing a couple chimpanzee legs on a human. Interesting to look at, probably draw some crowds...but your not actually making the machine "better".  Again IMO.

bluebird said:

Putting 351 electronics on a Studer A820 is like sewing a couple chimpanzee legs on a human.

Click to expand...

It's been a long while since I changed my signature line. I am sorely tempted!

gridcurrent said:

Regarding your fondness of the A820, one mastering room (no lacquer cutting) in LA has a machine fitted with custom fabricated Ampex 351 electronics, with companion high Z repro head.

Click to expand...

Haven't they considered fitting a Model T engine in a Mustang?

I think it’s an abomination but I understand the sentiment. Ampex audio electronics sound great.  Every vintage.

The 440 is a particular shame. The electronics sound great but the transport is such a dud.

I think Studers sound good but a Studer transport with an Ampex sound is kind of a fantasy deck. Not a good idea though.

Gold said:

I think it’s an abomination but I understand the sentiment. Ampex audio electronics sound great.  Every vintage.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I've been raised with a diet of Ampex multitrack and Studer 2-track. It seemed the perfect combo, when two servings of Ampex were too much colour and two servings of Studer were too bland.

abbey road d enfer said:

Haven't they considered fitting a Model T engine in a Mustang?

Click to expand...

They did go back to the lower technology 5.0 L after the 4 valve 4.6L in the mustang but that was perhaps a marketing thing (5.0 sounded more macho and was cheaper).

Now who knows  (not me).

JR

JohnRoberts said:

They did go back to the lower technology 5.0 L after the 4 valve 4.6L in the mustang but that was perhaps a marketing thing (5.0 sounded more macho and was cheaper).

Now who knows  (not me).

JR

Click to expand...

Really? I thought the 5.0 l Coyote had DOHC 4-valve and much improved cam-timing...