Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 09:32 |
I can see the creative uses for the process, but all the fuss makes me feel like it's hip in mastering to alter the S beyond recognition. If it's "stereo enhancement" we want, I think I'll stick with plain, skilled L/R EQ. |
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 14:32 |
De-essing in M/S might be interesting. |
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 15:32 |
De-essing in M/S might be interesting. |
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 17:19 |
I might use M/S 1% of the time. |
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 21:44 |
Mark, indeed I am. Or I think the tests were done with 680ohms, but they were still flat from 10hz to 20kHz with just some 0,2dB drooping at 20k. Gotta try out that 3300ohm resistor, but it does sound odd to me. |
bigaudioblowhard wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 23:39 |
Jaakko, are you terminating the 111C's with 600 ohm resistors? |
bigaudioblowhard wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 15:30 |
If I were feeding an unbalanced input from a 111C, would I just drop the Pin3 after termination? |
masterhse wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 17:02 |
I don't know if you have seen this, but it may be of interest regarding 111C and 119C performance: http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/non-linear_transformer_be havior.htm#Western_Electric_119C_Repeating_Coil_Frequency_Re sponse |
Gold wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 16:23 |
I have a feeling the best way to use the 111c's is with a 1 watt 600 ohm termination resistor . Then make sure the resistor gets warm. I think they can take +36dBM with 1% THD @20hz. Insane. I'm too lazy to look it up. |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 08:40 |
Studer list guys have told me that voltage matching _always_ works best for music signaling and precludes the need for tranny termination. Ampex list guys have said always to terminate the tape machines with what they would have seen in a power matching setup (e.g., DC Ω (aka 600 Ohms)), regardless of load. The A80 R manual has a lot of specificity about using 600 Ohm termination for NAB, and _200_Ohms_ for CCIR. I have heard that the machine has a 0 Ohms output impedance. But there is no mention I can see about using the machine outside of a power matching-esque context, actually, in spite of contemporary European studio practices circa 1970... If you for some sinister purpose wanted to insert the ATR overbridge in the output path of the machine, and you were (balanced) signaling to a device that had a 100k input Z, should you still flip the 600 Ohm switch on the back of the ATR for best handshake? Try it both ways and pick the winner? Or forget the switch for modern studio signaling? Interestingly?, also, the ATR has no 200 Ohm switch, even though it _does_ do CCIR. |
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 19:19 |
I might use M/S 1% of the time. |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 00:40 |
The A80 R manual has a lot of specificity about using 600 Ohm termination for NAB, and _200_Ohms_ for CCIR. I have heard that the machine has a 0 Ohms output impedance. But there is no mention I can see about using the machine outside of a power matching-esque context, actually, in spite of contemporary European studio practices circa 1970... |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 04:23 |
I should have thought that the optimum sound quality would only truly be possible if the preferred sound was in agreement with a flat transfer, and with no aberrant behavior at the trafo (i.e., no overshoot...). |
johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 06:54 | ||
Unfortunately the only way to eliminate overshoot and have a flat, extended high frequency response is to avoid transformers altogether. |
johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 06:54 |
Choosing the correct termination is a trade-off between ringing/overshoot on one hand and reduced bandwidth on the other. Typically the best that can be achieved is a slight overshoot with a minimal amount of ringing. |
johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 06:54 |
Sometimes additional termination isn't necessary because the input impedance of the following device is sufficient to damp the HF resonance, but there's still the same trade-off. |
johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 03:54 |
Unfortunately the only way to eliminate overshoot and have a flat, extended high frequency response is to avoid transformers altogether. |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 23:30 |
So, Burgess was right not to use trafos, then. |
Gold wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 10:38 | ||
Since they were mainly used for disk cutting, having low end phase shift and/or distortion is a bad thing. It will cause more vertical excursion. |
zmix wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 11:57 |
I call getting out of bed in the morning a vertical excursion... |
Gold wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 10:38 | ||
Since they were mainly used for disk cutting, having low end phase shift and/or distortion is a bad thing. It will cause more vertical excursion. |
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 08:41 |
White. Or silver. |
masterhse wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 07:40 |
I find silver to be a bit bright, possibly a 600 ohm termination could fix this. Though white or silver will still get me to the same destination if driven properly. |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 10:05 |
Aren't there trafos on most lathe inputs? I heard about a trafo-less lathe, but was told it was a late development. |
TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 15:17 |
When was the transformerless SAL74B introduced? About 1978? Lots of folks did the conversion of their 74's to 74B's after that time. |
dcollins wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 18:13 |
Yes, but do 99 out of 100 tracks benefit? DC |
masterhse wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 17:15 | ||
Dave, I'm not sure if that was rhetorical but I'll answer anyway with another question. Can you make a sweeping assumption about 100 tracks? Best, Tom |
dcollins wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 19:48 |
I was just surprised that Brad runs M/S 99% of the time. |
Quote: |
The only thing I do that often is hit record. |
TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 18:17 | ||
When was the transformerless SAL74B introduced? About 1978? Lots of folks did the conversion of their 74's to 74B's after that time. Best regards, Steve Berson |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 03:20 | ||||
Since this was just two years before CD was introduced, that was a late development, indeed... |
masterhse wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 22:18 |
... I'm amazed at the polarity of opinion among mastering engineers but the quality of work done by all concerned. |