[marios_mar]

Is it true that many LP records have a freq. range of about up to 15KHz? I think I read it on an old 70s hi fi mag.

If that is true wouldnt those records suck compared to Cd? (not to mention SACD?)

Are only audiophile pressings good enough and with a wide frequency response.

I am mainly takling about rock and more commercial records as I believe classical music usually are better pressings (Decca, D.G. etc)

 

[JefferyK]

Quote:

Originally posted by marios_mar Is it true that many LP records have a freq. range of about up to 15KHz? I think I read it on an old 70s hi fi mag. If that is true wouldnt those records suck compared to Cd? (not to mention SACD?) Are only audiophile pressings good enough and with a wide frequency response. I am mainly takling about rock and more commercial records as I believe classical music usually are better pressings (Decca, D.G. etc)

Theoretically, vinyl can go up to 30,000 kHz. But because of cutting head limitations, you're lucky if you get anything above 18,000 kHz. I think the 15,000 kHz number you cited is a bit low.

Rock or classical, doesn't matter. Where those differ is dynamic range.

The biggest advantage to current audiophile pressings, IMHO, is that in general they aren't EQd as heavily as the original pressings were. So, the sound can be a bit better. Emphasis on CAN.

Sound reproduction is complicated, and frequency range is just part of the equation. So, you can't really generalize about format strengths and weaknesses.

Jeffery

 

[mkmelt]

Most mass produced LPs in the 60s/70s had very little if any bass much below 100 Hz and little or no high frequency music information much above 10-12Khz. Anything above that was as much noise as music.

Popular music and rock recordings were mastered for the masses, figuring they would be played on a pretty crappy setup. If they were mastered with deep bass the cartridges of the typical record changer would not have been able to play the louder passages without having the stylus jump out of the groove.

For this reason most speakers of the day were not designed to reproduce frequencies much above this range. Amplifiers were equipped with low filters and high filters to deal with noisy FM reception, tape hiss, and turntable rumble (low frequency noise common in all but the best turntables.)

The better classical record labels, i.e. Mercury Living Presence, Decca, and others were able to produce LPs with extended frequency range. These are still considered to be some of the better sounding LPs even by today's standards.

[If that is true wouldnt those records suck compared to Cd? (not to mention SACD?)]

Not really. If your system can effectively reproduce the range from 80Hz up to 8KHz with low distortion, minimal phase shift, and flat response this will provide some vary satisfying listening on a wide variety of music. Not pipe organ or synthesizer music perhaps, because the lowest 2 or so octaves are not being reproduced. It is not that there was no response above 10Khz, just that it was at a reduced level compared to the midrange. The brain can compensate quite a bit, so unless a direct comparison is done the music sounds fine.

 

[JefferyK]

Quote:

Originally posted by mkmelt Most mass produced LPs in the 60s/70s had very little if any bass much below 100 Hz and little or no high frequency music information much above 10-12Khz. Anything above that was as much noise as music. Popular music and rock recordings were mastered for the masses, figuring they would be played on a pretty crappy setup. If they were mastered with deep bass the cartridges of the typical record changer would not have been able to play the louder passages without having the stylus jump out of the groove. For this reason most speakers of the day were not designed to reproduce frequencies much above this range. Amplifiers were equipped with low filters and high filters to deal with noisy FM reception, tape hiss, and turntable rumble (low frequency noise common in all but the best turntables.) The better classical record labels, i.e. Mercury Living Presence, Decca, and others were able to produce LPs with extended frequency range. These are still considered to be some of the better sounding LPs even by today's standards. [If that is true wouldnt those records suck compared to Cd? (not to mention SACD?)] Not really. If your system can effectively reproduce the range from 80Hz up to 8KHz with low distortion, minimal phase shift, and flat response this will provide some vary satisfying listening on a wide variety of music. Not pipe organ or synthesizer music perhaps, because the lowest 2 or so octaves are not being reproduced. It is not that there was no response above 10Khz, just that it was at a reduced level compared to the midrange. The brain can compensate quite a bit, so unless a direct comparison is done the music sounds fine.

Thank you. Learned something new today.

I'd never been able to figure out why audiophiles seemed perfectly satisified with cartridges with 20-20,000 ranges.

And I totally spaced out regarding classical record frequency range. London = FFRR = Full Frequency Range Recording. Right there in the logo.

Jeffery

 

[marios_mar]

mkmelt you are a fantastic info resource. And now that I got your attention will you tell me typical freq. responses for

Reel to Reel 7,5 inch
Reel to Reel 3,25 inch
Cassette (Metal)
DVD-A


I think that listening clear and good treble only up to 8Khz is a hearable drawback isnt it?

So do you think that applies to rock and mass produced records?

Also what do you think are the best vinyl pressigns

American
UK
or
German?

 

[marios_mar]

and another stupid question

Is reel to reel recorded on one side of the tape as I think it is or is there info on the other side too?

 

[mkmelt]

Typical freq. responses for

Reel to Reel 7,5 inch (7-1/2 IPS)
Reel to Reel 3,25 inch (3-3/4 IPS)

Regarding reel to reel tape performance, see this other thread:
http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...threadid=49858

Cassette (Metal) 30Hz - 20KHz +/- 3db *

* This would be for a good three-head deck, using Dolby C or Dolby S noise reduction and Dolby HX-Pro headroom extension circuitry. Cassette performance is always specified at a recording level that is -20db from the cassette tape reference level of 200 nanowebers/meter (0db). At 0db the saturation of high frequency signal on the cassette tape, even Metal tape, limits upper response to about 10Khz.

The cassette was originally developed by Phillips in the early 1960s as a dictation format. 20 years and many hundred of millions of dollars later, the electronics industry and the tape manufacturers were able to make the cassette a true high fidelity medium. It is sad now that with the demise of high quality blank cassette tape (tried to buy a 90 minute Metal tape recently?) and only budget cassette decks being manufactured, that before too many years the cassette will go back to its origins, a format suitable for voice dictation and not much else.

DVD-A - I have not seen the specs for DVD-A, but I would assume 20Hz - 20Khz +/- 1db

I think that listening clear and good treble only up to 8Khz is a hearable drawback isnt it?

Not on most music. There is high frequency information in the range of 8Khz - 15Khz, it is just at a lower level than the midrange. So a few instruments such as cymbals will sound a bit dull, and for certain female singing voices the upper harmonics will not be reproduced as well, but except for a direct comparison with a wider range source or speaker, the sound will be very listenable.

Keep in mind that Motown records founder Berry Gordy mixed all of their famous hit records so they could be enjoyed in the front (or back) seat of an American sedan like a Ford or Chevy, being played through a factory in-dash AM radio. AM radio has nothing like 8Khz response, with 5Khz being the typical upper range for these receivers.

So do you think that applies to rock and mass produced records?

Yes, there is little if any high frequency music information above 10Khz.

Also what do you think are the best vinyl pressigns

Vintage: Decca, London, Mercury Living Presence

70s: Telarc, Scheffield Lab, Nautilus, Mobile Fidelity

Modern reissue: Don't know

The very best vinyl pressing was done in Japan, on virgin vinyl of a quality not available in the USA. American made LPs included a certain percentage of remix (unsold record inventory that were ground up, label and all, and used to make new records. This vinyl was , as expected, not the quietest formulation. Japanese vinyl was able to be produced without the same work-place safeguards for chemical exposure that OSHA here in this country required.

 

[marios_mar]

I was reading your posts and thinking of getting into reel to reel.

But I dont like the hiss. What are the S/N ratios of

Reel to Reel ar both speeds and a modern TT (mine is around 70dB but I dont know if that is balanced or not-what exactly is balanced?)

Are the prerecorded MCs any good?

Do you know anything about the priceing of multitracking R to Rs?

Are the normal four tracks capable of playing back the 3 tracks while recording the one or is a special multitracker machine needed?

thanks for your replies

 

[mkmelt]

Regarding your earlier question:

Reel to Reel tape is 1/4" tape recorded in either 2-track or 4-track. The 2-track recordings were phased out around 1958 in favor of 4-track which was the standard until the demise of factory reel tapes (1980).

For professional recording, 2-track machines were still sold/used through the 1980s.

2-track stereo tapes play in only one direction:
(=>> Tape moves from the reel on the left to the reel on the right)
Track 1 (Right channel) Tape Direction <<=
Track 2 (Left Channel) Tape Direction <<=

Each track is slightly less than 1/8" to account for a guard band between the tracks

4-track tapes play in both directions:
(=>> Tape moves from the reel on the left to the reel on the right)
(<<= Tape moves from the reel on the right to the reel on the left)

Track 1 Tape Direction =>> (Right Channel)
Track 2 Tape Direction <<= (Right Channel)
Track 3 Tape Direction =>> (Left Channel)
Track 4 Tape Direction <<= (Left Channel)

Each track is slightly less than 1/16" wide. In forward direction the playback heads play Tracks 1 and 3 for normal stereo. To play Tracks 2 and 4, the tape must be turned over, or the tape recorder must have an autoreverse feature and an extra playback head to play Tracks 2 and 4.

But I dont like the hiss. What are the S/N ratios Reel to Reel at both
speeds

S/N figures revised based on fresh look at the Ampex 2000 series owners manual:

Overall S/N for 7-1/2 IPS tape speed:

Playback (no tape) Unweighted: 54db min. Weighted: 74db min.

Playback (bulk erased tape) Unweighted: 53db min Weighted: 68db min.

Overall (recorded, then erased) Unweighted: 52db min Weighted: 62 db min.

Note: Unweighted noise will be approx. 2db higher at 3-3/4 IPS and 4db higher at 1-7/8 speed.

My experience, there is some audible hiss, a bit more on the 3-3/4 speed tapes, but it is not usually noticable except during the quietest parts of the music. If you can hear the hiss, you have the volume too high for safe listening.

LP record - 60-65db (weighted)

[S/N for a modern TT (mine is around 70dB but I dont know if that is balanced or not-what exactly is balanced?)]
Balanced = weighted, for one of the standards for S/N.

* Weighted S/N numbers are higher (lower perceived noise).

[Are the prerecorded MCs any good?]

What is MC?

[Do you know anything about the priceing of multitracking R to Rs?]

What kind of Multitrack?

[Are the normal four tracks capable of playing back the 3 tracks while recording the one or is a special multitracker machine needed?]

Some are, yes.

 

[mkmelt]

Ampex reel recorder S/N data updated in earlier post, this thread.

 

[marios_mar]

mkmelt MC is a tape cassete. Mini Cassete. At least in EUROPE thats how they are called.

Normally the hiss should be higher on tapes than vinyl.

Anyhow I was wondering if you know why higher speed equals less noise. I mean there is friction and actually its more at higher speeds isnt it?

 

[mkmelt]

Analog tape recording benefits from higher tape speed for several reasons:

Less wow and flutter: The effect of speed variations in the tape transport decrease relative to the linear speed of the tape.

Better high-frequency performance: increased high frequency headroom, and less equalization is needed for playback with flat response (see below)

Better signal to noise: The background sound of a tape is not related to friction, it is the random magnetic orientation of the oxide particles. A brand new recording tape will never be as quiet as it is before recording a signal on it. During manufacture the magnetic field of each of the oxide particles are all randomly aligned. Besides some noise produced from the tape heads and other circuits in the player, the sound of these randomly aligned oxide particles produce a low level of background tape noise that is constant in amplitude and frequency distribution.

Reel to reel decks have equalization circuits that are applied to the tape recording during playback to compensate for magnetic recording tape's natural rolloff of high frequencies during recording. Proper equalization restores flat response, however, in boosting the higher frequencies of the music equalization also boosts the background noise. At the higher tape speeds not as much equalization is needed, so the tape noise is not boosted nearly as much.

Also, there are only so many iron oxide particles for a given area of tape to capture the signal. Since the tape width is fixed, as is the width of each recording track of the tape, the only way to grab more tape area per interval of recorded sound is to move the tape faster. Each time you double the tape speed, twice as much tape is used to record a part of the music.

The net effect of doubling the tape speed will yield a 2-3db increase in the signal to noise.

 

[marios_mar]

Thanks for the answers mkmelt. I read and re-read your posts. They are a wealth of knowledge.

I would also like to ask you (because I think you were an owner) about the ESL63 from Quad. Particularly about their bass compared to the newer models. Up to when were they produced? And are they a good used buy or do they need maintanance that costs too much. (replacing panels etc) I think the ESL57s were plagued by such problems.

 

[mkmelt]

I own a pair of the ESL-57. The ESL-63 were sold from 1983 until sometime in the early 90s, when Quad introduced a new speaker.
The ESL-63 may need to be rebuilt, I am really not familiar with the shortcomings of this model Quad.

The ESL-57 was produced from 1958 until about 1981. My pair are late 70s production. They were serviced once about 10 years ago by Quad USA after they were damaged during shipping (the second owner told me this). I am the third owner of these speakers. They are currently working fine.

 

[Orpheus]

the stats for the VERY best reel-reel's are significantly better than CD without noise reduction. i forgot all the numbers... but 2" 30ips would give you quality almost equivalent to DVD-A (noise and distortion.) at least that's what i read somewhere.

but the problem is, there's no way you're ever gonna afford such a machine. which is why i still question your decision for analog. digital is much cheaper overall--you get much better resolution for much less money.

not to mention, you get many less tracks to work with, and you can't do editing very easily. with today's DAW's you can drag and drop and do anything you can imagine. i dunno how the heck i could even fathom using a linear tape drive to record music vs the versatility of a modern DAW.

i'm not talking your $500 teac/revox 2-track 1/4" stuff. i'm talking $10,000+ machines with constant maintenance by a trained tech.

but good luck anyway.

mkmelt, your ampex that you referred to for the stats--is it a 1/4" unit?