5v333
Well-known member
It would make most sence that you make what you need. And that goes for every one to decide for them self what that is.
Clean And Transparent Analog Pro Audio Devices Still Have Sense ?
- Thread starter SIXTYNINER
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
5v333
Well-known member
If you cant decide what you need then you have to learn this before you can act. When you do know what is required in every situation you have become an experienced audio eng.
Depends on many factors of course, in what conditions are those old tape recorders? Are they aligned and calibrated? what tape do you use? What AD and DA converters are you referring too?
There's too many variables there, and I'm only saying a few...
Anyway one thing for sure any modern AD and DA converter will have much less hiss than any tape recorder, will have also much better crosstalk figures, will need no maintenance, and it sound exactely the same as before every time you hit playback.
I used to have a Studer A80 (1/4 inch 2 tracks) and a A820 (2inch 24 tracks) in the previous studio I worked for many years.
For the first 4 years I was there I always recorded my mix to the Studer A80 and also to digital, to able to choose which was the best, 90% the Digital was better.
My recollection of tape is not that good, things rarely came out of it better than what went in.
99% of Professional Engineers, myself included use digital now for many years, and digital systems sound tremendously good nowadays.
I'm sorry but tape is dead
SIXTYNINER
Well-known member
Thanks for post ,
are we sure that part of the "hiss" is not an important "element"
of the sound itself ?
A bit different thing , but several similar as concept :
why put a distorsor on a super nice clean sound
of an expensive vintage guitar that sound superb ?
....and the fact that many prefer to use the amp distortion and the reverb ,
and-or pedals, Instead software virtual simulators , or pods .
Maintenance cost (parts and work) ,
the main reason that has conditioned the non-use of the tape reels recorders ,
besides the cost of a 2" tape reel , which is equivalent of 5-8 hard drives
(depending on the size)
apart the diffusion of the home recording gear ,
together the low cost of used pro tools systems ,
that have drastically reduced the demand of recording studio rent .
(unfortunately)
ADA vs tape reels apart ,
of course important "ring" of the chain.....
the topic mainly concerns of analog compressors , eqs ,
and other analog devices that may allow / contribute
to make the sound more pleasant .
Not to go down this rabbit hole with y'all but there are known psychoacoustic phenomenon associated with hiss/noise. For one example HF hiss can be perceived as extended HF response in the audio signal. There are serious studies of psychoacoustic phenomenon dating back decades. Professional designers try to understand and use positive psychoacoustic associations when appropriate, and avoid negative ones (like being branded Peavey 
) .
I used gold plated phono jacks in a preamp kit last century, not because I expected them to actually sound better.
JR
) .I used gold plated phono jacks in a preamp kit last century, not because I expected them to actually sound better.
JR
iampoor1
Well-known member
I dont see any ground breaking developments happening in "clean and transparent" preamps anytime soon.
I think ost people that are "disastisfied with digital sound" want dirty and colored, not clean.
There is plenty of tape around here. As dominant recording medium, sure. Enough like it well enough to keep two manufacturers in business. You of course won’t see it used on jingles or mega pop.
This video series from Casey Connor is interesting:
I learned a lot about psychoacoustics from it. Like some effects can't be heard by some people. I always wondered about that, since I can't hear a lot of those myself.
It's part 1 of 5, but there are actually 7 parts.
I learned a lot about psychoacoustics from it. Like some effects can't be heard by some people. I always wondered about that, since I can't hear a lot of those myself.
It's part 1 of 5, but there are actually 7 parts.
SIXTYNINER
Well-known member
Exactly ,
and not only does it concern the high frequencies,
but the whole audible (and not) spectrum .
Not sure I would call such considerations musical but ergonomics or human factors engineering, literally making it harder to get bad sounds can improve market perception.
One example was the EQ in Peavey's (AMR) highly regarded tube pre. I lobbied to limit the amount of boost/cut available from the simple shelving EQ,
Limiting the boost/cut to only +/-10dB made it harder to sound bad (no customers complained that they needed more boost/cut).
Another example was from my kit company days... in the late 70s I sold a hifi consumer parametric EQ kit. Since more is generally perceived as better I provided a Q/Bandwidth range from very narrow to very wide (1/6th to several octaves wide). Unfortunately when you command a very wide bandwidth with even modest amounts of boost/cut the full range signal volume is obviously affected. My solution was to engineer in a first order interaction between the Q and max boost/cut. The EQ could deliver 20 dB of boost/cut only in the very narrowest bandwidth setting, as the Q control was adjusted broader the boost/cut was reduced to single digit dB.
Perhaps sounding good (or not sounding bad) is musical?
JR
SIXTYNINER
Well-known member
.. Interesting ... ,
there is any chance for an "adapted" diy version of that 20db boost-cut eq
updated with actual components , easy to get from the usual suppliers ?
about how they sound (the Peavey and that of the "Kit"),
it would take some audio file ,
and-or a video on the tube .
That parametric kit (P-94) design was published as a cover article in Popular Electronics IIRC back in Sept of 1979. You can probably find a copy of the article in some internet way-back archive. Popular Electronics was like a 500,000 circulation rag back then.
IMO the design does not need much upgrading. I used TL074 op amps so 13 V/usec slew rate and decent noise floor. It won't drive esoteric 600 ohm inputs, but does anybody really need to do that?
My house isn't big enough for me to keep examples of every SKU I ever worked on.
The VMP-2 is probably still in professional studio use.
JR
SIXTYNINER
Well-known member
So I'm not the only one annoyed by that sound. I figured it had to do with my tinnitus...
SIXTYNINER
Well-known member
..... the paradox is an educational
that talk about psychoacoustics with scientific way ,
but voice commentary audio quality is not at the same level..
... another "unhappy" of the digital sound ?
user 37518
Well-known member
Most people are not music enthusiasts, but rather the broadcasting industry, video, ads, etc... those are the big clients, and most of them couldn't care less about colored and dirty.I dont see any ground breaking developments happening in "clean and transparent" preamps anytime soon.
I think ost people that are "disastisfied with digital sound" want dirty and colored, not clean.
iampoor1
Well-known member
Yeah I metioned that in my post before...the recording industry that wants vintage designs and colored sound is the big minority!
SIXTYNINER
Well-known member
Broadcasting and live pa for some time now are all digital ,
mics and preamps apart .
user 37518
Well-known member
So there is no analog circuitry in them? that is news to me....
user 37518
Well-known member
Exactly my point.
Value audio electronics paths have been clean and adequately wide frequency response to be completely transparent for decades. Back several decades ago reviews and specification sheets revealed actual audible differences. ****
I grew up reading the hifi magazines du jour (I was even in Julian Hirsch's house once but that's another story for another day). I recall an amusing review of an expensive audiophile preamp ( $5k Mark Levinson) and the review unit's frequency response sweep revealed a subtle midrange bump... Hint... when claiming that your SKU sounds better it helps for it to sound different. The cheaper Japanese Hifis selling for 1/10th the price were ruler flat.
JR
*** with the exception of transducers. Microphones and loudspeakers still exhibit measurable and audible frequency response deviations.
I grew up reading the hifi magazines du jour (I was even in Julian Hirsch's house once but that's another story for another day). I recall an amusing review of an expensive audiophile preamp ( $5k Mark Levinson) and the review unit's frequency response sweep revealed a subtle midrange bump... Hint... when claiming that your SKU sounds better it helps for it to sound different.
The cheaper Japanese Hifis selling for 1/10th the price were ruler flat. JR
*** with the exception of transducers. Microphones and loudspeakers still exhibit measurable and audible frequency response deviations.
Similar threads
