R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Was low-flux 1/4" tape the best 2-bus compressor?  (Read 9615 times)

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: Was low-flux 1/4" tape the best 2-bus compressor?
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2010, 08:24:40 am »

Fletcher wrote

I would have to wager that this was about 1985 - 1986 when SONY began their hardcore entry to the "recording studio market" and purchased MCI.


You would indeed have won your wager.

Fletcher wrote

SONY was making digital machines at that time which were got-awful expensive...



Again, Spot on.

But you could equally have omitted the word expensive. Wink

To paraphrase Sir Thomas Beecham- "Why bring cost into it?"

Twisted Evil

(The original quote comes from Sir Thomas on a tour in Australia, when he was approached by an attractive young lady after a concert. -She asked him if he'd be willing to be the godfather to her future son.

"I'd be delighted!" Sir Thomas replied, "...-But do we HAVE to bring God into it?")
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

CWHumphrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
Re: Was low-flux 1/4" tape the best 2-bus compressor?
« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2010, 09:09:59 am »

Gold wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 16:49

CWHumphrey wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 15:18

Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 08:26

The confusion probably comes from dBv, which IS the same as dBu - dBV is not.



From my research, about 1978 the NAB and the IEC standardized this.  Pro analog would go with dBu and not use dBv (note lower case) and consumer analog would go with dBV.

And yes, the difference between +4dBu and -10dBV is about 11.79dB making pro equipment's operating level almost 4 times louder than consumer.

So, are we going to hash out "over bias" next? HA!

Cheers,





I don't believe this is correct. Lower case v is the consumer one referenced to .316 volts and capital V is a professional standard referenced to 1 volt.


I don't have my books in front of me at the moment, so I'm forced to quote Wikipedia:

"dBu or dBv

   dB(0.775 VRMS) – voltage relative to 0.775 volts.[2] Originally dBv, it was changed to dBu to avoid confusion with dBV.[14] The "v" comes from "volt", while "u" comes from "unloaded". dBu can be used regardless of impedance, but is derived from a 600 Ω load dissipating 0 dBm (1 mW)."

Cheers,
Logged
Carter William Humphrey

"Indeed...oh three named one!" -Terry Manning
"Or you can just have Carter do the recording, because he's Humphrey."-J.J. Blair

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: Was low-flux 1/4" tape the best 2-bus compressor?
« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2010, 04:01:43 pm »

Somebody please remind me: Something about for the purposes of tape, 0db/185 nanowebers is considered a certain percentage of THD?  I can't find the note where I'd written it years ago, but it came from an ATR sponsored alignment seminar I once took.  I'm probably way off here.  Fill me in.
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

Gold

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1453
Re: Was low-flux 1/4" tape the best 2-bus compressor?
« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2010, 05:56:05 pm »

Mea Culpa. The reference level is -10dBV not -10dBv. I didn't know the lower case v was originally tied to dBu. That's why I didn't tie together the reference level discrepancy. That and half the manuals don't get it right. -10dBV is .316v which is "0" reference level. I got the voltage number right but not the reference unit.
Logged
Paul Gold
www.saltmastering.com

On the silk road, looking for uranium.

CWHumphrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
Re: Was low-flux 1/4" tape the best 2-bus compressor?
« Reply #34 on: October 23, 2010, 03:32:03 am »

Paul, don't worry about it.  However, it demonstrates why the NAB retired dBv in favor of dBu.

Cheers,
Logged
Carter William Humphrey

"Indeed...oh three named one!" -Terry Manning
"Or you can just have Carter do the recording, because he's Humphrey."-J.J. Blair

Dominick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 580
Re: Was low-flux 1/4" tape the best 2-bus compressor?
« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2010, 11:54:43 am »

JJ,

I'm working from memory, winging numbers and details.

In the late 40's an Ampex 200 recorder running 3M 111 tape was capable of record / repro @ 185 nW/m with less then 3% distortion between 50Hz and 10kHz. This became "Ampex level".
Logged
Dominick Costanzo
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up