Leica Dying

Jeremy wrote:

however, the current audio tape situation is in even worse than film.
there is currently nobody making studio-grade tape since quantegy locked
its doors a few months ago.


I hadn't realized that tape was unavailable. Bummer. I just assumed that
it was still out there all this time.

I see new casette tapes available in every single electronic shop AND
supermarket I visit (even super-discount ones).

I assume the OP is talking about pro-quality reel tape.

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Jeremy wrote:

however, the current audio tape situation is in even worse than film.
there is currently nobody making studio-grade tape since quantegy locked
its doors a few months ago.


I hadn't realized that tape was unavailable. Bummer. I just assumed
that
it was still out there all this time.

I see new casette tapes available in every single electronic shop AND
supermarket I visit (even super-discount ones).

I assume the OP is talking about pro-quality reel tape.

Places like this abound on the internet....
http://store.tapeplus.com/index.html

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Jeremy wrote:

however, the current audio tape situation is in even worse than film.
there is currently nobody making studio-grade tape since quantegy locked
its doors a few months ago.


I hadn't realized that tape was unavailable. Bummer. I just assumed
that
it was still out there all this time.

I see new casette tapes available in every single electronic shop AND
supermarket I visit (even super-discount ones).

I assume the OP is talking about pro-quality reel tape.

Places like this abound on the internet....
http://store.tapeplus.com/index.html

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .

The actually fidelity of the LP was never superior to CDs, but the early
CDs weren't mastered very well and sounded like pure crap - tinny and
weak.
--

I had some interesting discussions with an former RCA recording engineer,
who was well-versed in all aspects of the Westrex cutting head's operation.
He said that the "mellow glow" of vinyl was the result of the cutting head's
distortion. Many people liked that warm, somewhat muffled high end over the
clear and edgy sound of digital in the early days.

When Sony introduced the 20-bit "Single Bit Mastering" system, I became
quite happy with digital sound. The new 96-bit systems employed by BMG are
are great. I do not miss LPs at all. I have many CDs that are remastered
versions of LPs that I already own, and every one of them is super than the
old vinyl version.

I just did not think that any professionals were still fooling with analog
any more--not after almost 3 decades of digital availability.

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article et,
says...
The high-bit recording techniques have overcome the initial tendency of
digital recordings to sound gritty--like breaking glass. I know that there
are a handful of vinyl lovers out there, but I've never heard whatever they
thought was so much better sound.

It was the mastering process that compressed the original signal and
tended to pump the bass up.

Actually, the mastering process did exactly the opposite: It reduced the
bass drastically because, due to the fact that energy content increases
proportionally to frequency, you'd only be able to get 5 minutes or so
on one side of an LP if you mastered with flat frequency response
because low frequency content would require cutting huge, high-amplitude
grooves. RIAA equalization specified the exact response of the filter to
be used to cut bass during mastering. There was a complimentary RIAA
curve used in phono preamplifiers that corrected the response back to
flat during playback.

The actually fidelity of the LP was never superior to CDs, but the early
CDs weren't mastered very well and sounded like pure crap - tinny and
weak.

Early CD players were crap too. There wasn't one I thought was worth a
damn until around 1990. Of course, A/D conversion improved along with
D/A conversion, so a lot of analog recordings remastered for CD in the
1980's had to be re-remastered again later to come up to snuff.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

In article . net,
says...

I had some interesting discussions with an former RCA recording engineer,
who was well-versed in all aspects of the Westrex cutting head's operation.
He said that the "mellow glow" of vinyl was the result of the cutting head's
distortion. Many people liked that warm, somewhat muffled high end over the
clear and edgy sound of digital in the early days.

Well, you also had to clip the peaks to keep the cutting head from
breaking when you made the metal masters. Additionally, you'd keep the
volume as high as possible to avoid the noise floor. People generally
liked that type of sound.

When Sony introduced the 20-bit "Single Bit Mastering" system, I became
quite happy with digital sound. The new 96-bit systems employed by BMG are
are great. I do not miss LPs at all. I have many CDs that are remastered
versions of LPs that I already own, and every one of them is super than the
old vinyl version.

The Rolling Stone's remasters indeed sound better than the original
vinyl - while the ones that weren't remastered tend to suck eggs
compared to the original. It all depends on if the digital mastering is
done with "fidelity" or "faithfulness" in mind.

I just did not think that any professionals were still fooling with analog
any more--not after almost 3 decades of digital availability.

2" Ampex tape machines are in everyday use at almost every major studio
worth it's salt. Might not be used much for classical, but certainly no
digital recording method has been able to recreate the sound of tape -
which a lot of producers, artists and engineers swear by.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/