Questions:
1) Given Jay McKnight's sage paper on NAB versus today's formulae's
performance(s), is everyone making new recordings only at 30 ips, or are you
going "CCIR," aka IEC I, at 15 ips to optimize for low end and save tape?
(You can set up both speeds with only one such Calibration tape, played at
either speed, right?) Or are many still ploughing ahead with NAB, just for
the sake of the ubiquity of Calibration tapes and machines that can do that
EQ?
2) DC said rock might still sound better on 1/4" Why was that, again? (If
azimuth, why is rock more sensitive to it?)
------------------------------------------------
> is everyone making new recordings only at 30 ips, or are you
> going "CCIR," aka IEC I, at 15 ips to optimize for low end and save tape?
I think that the majority of today's analog tape machine users (here in the USA, anyway) are not interested in extracting the maximum fidelity available from the technology. (Sadly.)
What has happened (with the more than fifteen years of dumping of analog tape machines by the recording and broadcast industries for newer, cheaper, digital technology) is that we now find the legacy analog hardware predominately in the hands of non-professional persons who are mainly interested in employing analog tape as an effects sidechain. To a person interested in analog fidelity, it is an extremely depressing situation.
> Or are many still ploughing ahead with NAB, just for
> the sake of the ubiquity of Calibration tapes and machines that can do that
> EQ?
Another good question, and one that frequently comes up (every five years or so). I think there can be no argument that the development of the analog magnetic recorder has been held back by the NAB standard. We first heard people in the industry saying this thirty years ago, or even before that (in the case of J.G. McKnight at Ampex). I think I wrote somewhere, maybe ten years ago, that since analog was now finally dead, why are we using the same old tape formulations, the ones
designed to work with our same, tired, old, limiting (but widely adopted) standards, for any new acquisition recordings? Why don't we instead create a whole new generation of analog tape, building the best tape formulation we can imagine and then empirically deriving new operating
standards (such as speeds and EQ curves) based on that new tape's capabilities?
But this suggestion was met with opposition from the stodgy people who think that we already have too many standards and that these new recordings would become quickly unplayable, as the adoption of any new standard at this point in the game would be far too small. And besides, how many people are doing any serious acquisition work in analog, anyway?
----------------------------------------------------
Included in the slow process of death to this medium we all appreciate so much is the dwindling of
resources to maintenance, to research, and to find tutelage. Your "sadness and depression," seems
to be directed to those isolated few who are actually maintaining what little life there is left
in analog. I am one of those isolated few "semiprofessionals," and I am writing to say that your
assumption is dead wrong. I AM very interested in "extracting the maximum fidelity available from
the technology." Please teach me.
----------------------------------------------------
Вот так, собсно...
Вход
Регистрация
FAQ
Поиск
