|bushwick wrote on Sat, 02 April 2005 23:48|
...The 30ips sounded smoother, more relaxed, perhaps not as silky as gp9, but had good body and the music was glued up as expected. Compared to PT everyone agreed that it was nicer to listen to and sounded more "finished"...
15ips?...As for the sound, creamy, rich, big, finished, solid, and much easier to get your ears around... Someone in the control room remarked that it sounded like the sound on tape felt much closer to capturing a live performance in energy and continuity...
I'm afraid I'll make myself very unpopular with Josh and others here, but I have to say something. These descriptions have little to do with audio, and tell us nothing. 30 ips was not as silky, but 15 is creamy? What does that mean? 30 has good body and is glued up, but 15 is finished and solid? What's the difference?
Adjectives like that might impress a date on a wine tour but I don't think they would impress a Bill Putnam, a Wally Heider, or an Armin Steiner, who set some of the standards here.
For heaven's sake, let's take a minute to break this down to down to a rational level.
(Kulka walks to bookshelf, grabs old copy of "Modern Recording Techniques" by Huber & Runstein, blows dust off the top of the volume, and turns to page 178.)
"Tape speed has a bearing on the performance characteristics of the ATR because it is related to the recorded signal's level and wavelength. At high speeds, the number of magnetic domains that pass over the tape is greater than at slower speeds...which results in less tape noise..." "At faster speeds, upper frequency bandwidth is extended."
OK, that's a start. We could add that at higher speeds, low frequency response may be rolled off, and the low frequency bumps are in different places. And that at either speed, bias an record levels will make a significant difference in the overall sound.
Others may say "yes, but...", and mention other factors. There are many, and that kind of debate is healthy. But let's use real descriptors that have some meaning in audio, and relate to what's going on under the hood. Sorry, I just think that engineers should think like engineers.