breathe wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 14:35 |
Yes it has higher headroom, but when you hit the top of that headroom, the distortion is really hard and unmusical. |
breathe wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 16:43 |
And 456 is a +6 tape, I was talking about the virtues of +3 or lower tape. |
Fletcher wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 15:54 |
EMI tape was made by Zonal -- which in my opinion was THE best sounding tape ever... |
Fletcher wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 13:29 |
Yeah - you're wrong. Most things, especially vocals and drums went through a Fairchild 660 [not 670] on the way to tape... which was a 1" 4-track tube Studer [not two track as in "mix buss compression" stuff we know today]. Some of the lower flux tape [Ampex 406 and 456] compressed great, some didn't [Scotch 250 comes immediately to mind -- some of the most "musical" sounding tape ever... until you hit the limits of its capability in which case it distorted like a bastard and told you to back the off your levels in a big hurry!!]. Peace. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 19 October 2010 08:19 |
... so the coloration doesn't build up. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 22:18 | ||
456 came along long before we were working at +6 over 185nWb/m. You must be referring to 499. Cheers, |
Fletcher wrote on Tue, 19 October 2010 08:56 | ||||
Due respect, you're thinking 250 nWb/m - not 185 nWb/m The standard alignment for 456 was 3db>250 nWb/m [which was called "+6" but was really like +5.2] and 499 [and other "elevated level" tapes that came out around the same time as Dolby SR and the unfortunate acceptance of the DASH format] was generally aligned to 6db>250 nWb/m [a.k.a 355 nWb/m] I don't think anyone actually had a 185 nWb/m alignment tape after about 1978 - 1979 |
ssltech wrote on Tue, 19 October 2010 18:44 |
I can't keep quiet any longer. dB's are relative. "plus three dB" doesn't MEAN anything in absolute measurement terms, so PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE for the love of precious waveforms STOP using it as an absolute. The ONLY time that dB is used in an absolute sense is dBA. The 'A' is for 'Absolute', in case you were wondering. You MUST NOT EVER just say 'plus three dB' unless you FINISH the sentence. Since dB are relative (a dB is a multiplier, [x 1.122 in fact]) you must say WHAT you're multiplying. THUS: +3dB OVER 185nWb/m is acceptable. +6dB over 185nWb/m is acceptable. +3dB over 250nWb/m is acceptable. +6dB is not acceptable. +3dB is not acceptable. EVERYTHING is dB over something else. |
Fletcher wrote on Tue, 19 October 2010 08:56 |
The standard alignment for 456 was 3db>250 nWb/m [which was called "+6" but was really like +5.2] and 499 [and other "elevated level" tapes that came out around the same time as Dolby SR and the unfortunate acceptance of the DASH format] was generally aligned to 6db>250 nWb/m [a.k.a 355 nWb/m] I don't think anyone actually had a 185 nWb/m alignment tape after about 1978 - 1979 |
ssltech wrote on Tue, 19 October 2010 18:44 |
+6dB is not acceptable. +3dB is not acceptable. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 03:37 | ||
While we're at it, I prefer +4dBu and -10dBV, not just +4 and -10. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 03:30 | ||
With all due respect, by doing the math, 370nWb/m is 6dB hotter than 185nWb/m (notice 2X185=370). MRL made 355nWb/m tapes that were technically 5.5dB hotter than 185nWb/m. 6dB over 250nWb/m would be 500nWb/m. By the way, in the early 90's, I took a detour into film post production and everything (2", Mag, etc.) was aligned to 185nWb/m. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 00:37 |
Lately, I have noticed a number of citations in print implying that dBu and dBV are the same thing and therefore interchangeable. |
Fletcher wrote |
------- Keith, before you blow a vein / have an aneurism... there are commonly referred shortcuts [vernacular] in every field. The "aligned to +6" [etc.] thing was a common abbreviation as it was generally understood [at least until the late 80's early 90's when the real "riff raff" started to filter in from the 'cordin' skools] that "+6" implied 3db>250nWb/m with far fewer sounds to recite. Same with the +4 / -10 thing... it was well known that the difference was 12db and change [that is until the "riff raff" started to filter in]. I guess I was just a bit lucky and got into the industry when there were real and actual professionals still involved on the music side of things [they were always in film... because that's where the money was... the "music studios" could only provide "a living" and access to show passes and the key to the tech room where the drugs were consumed]. Peace. |
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. |
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 08:11 |
As for film post, an area with which I was never acquainted, I could be very wrong... in "rock and roll music" studios I never saw a 185nWb/m alignment tape... it could very well have been prevalent in the film world... I entered that world only once - as an installation tech, I never actually used one of those studios [though hanging out and building one was pretty damn cool]. Peace. |
CWHumphrey wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 15:18 | ||
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, |
ssltech wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 14:23 |
If there were tones printed (you know... like you're SUPPOSED to do... in the real world... where all those "professional" people live!) this became a non-issue. They could print "plus nine over forty one and three-quarter femto-Quarads" on the box, and it simply wouldn't matter... you could just point the needle to zero VU, and trust that your playback would match whatever effort they had made on the originating machine. |
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. |
Fletcher wrote |
SONY was making digital machines at that time which were got-awful expensive... |
Gold wrote on Wed, 20 October 2010 16:49 | ||||
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. |