Slashdot Mirror


Last Manufacturer of Pro Analog Audio Tape Closes

goosman writes "Quantegy, the last manufacturer of professional reel-to-reel analog audio tape in the world has closed their plant in Opelika, AL leaving a reported 250 workers without jobs, according to the Opelika-Auburn News. Emtec (the former BASF, which used to be AGFA) was the last European manufacturer and ceased manufacuring in 2002. An audio account of the closing can be heard at NPR."

550 comments

  1. Oh well.. by jangell · · Score: 0, Troll

    We loose old school tapes.. We gain half-life 2.. i'm happy.

    1. Re:Oh well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We loose old school tapes

      "lose".

  2. Irony by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone else find it ironic that NPR has posted a digital stream of this story about the analog tape industry?

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the great beard of Zeus! That's the first time in... I don't know how long... that I've witnessed someone using the term ironic in an appropriate context.

    2. Re:Irony by xjerky · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, at least it recursively explains why they had to shut down.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    3. Re:Irony by jaavaaguru · · Score: 5, Funny

      My soundcard's not working. Does anyone have a copy of this story on reel to reel tape?

    4. Re:Irony by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ironic, no. Logical, yes. Inevitable, certainly.

    5. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now THAT is irony.

    6. Re:Irony by grennis · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This word recursion. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    7. Re:Irony by Kufat · · Score: 1

      No. It would be ironic if they'd posted a digital stream about the death of the digital stream industry. This would be an example of the opposite of irony; things occur in the way they'd be expected to occur.

    8. Re:Irony by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 1

      I think he was right to use recursively. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=recursive ly

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    9. Re:Irony by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Does anyone else find it ironic that NPR has posted a digital stream of this story about the analog tape industry?

      No, irony would be an employee at OSHA dying in an accident caused by unsafe workplace conditions. This is just the radio media reporting on something having to do with outmoded audio tape. If they had claimed that the plant should have stayed open because reel to reel tape is an ideal medium for distributing radio content while they themselves don't use it, that might be considered irony.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:Irony by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1
    11. Re:Irony by tuxter · · Score: 5, Funny

      I find it ironic that you use the word irony in relation to a metal oxide storage medium.....

    12. Re:Irony by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

      Ironically I destroyed it on accident with a pesky magnet.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    13. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Irony means "the opposite of the intended effect." This is not ironic, but internally consistent.

      Irony would be if NPR posted a digital stream about digital streams no longer being used by radio broadcasters.

    14. Re:Irony by Bastian · · Score: 1

      Irony would also be NPR distributing the report on the last plant that produces professional reel-to-reel audio tape on professional reel-to-reel audio tape, because they always do, because it is still in common use or because it has just experienced a resurgence in popularity or something.

      But they don't. Because barely anybody uses it anymore. Because we've all gone to either digital or higher quality analog media. Which is why nobody is making the stuff anymore.

      --

      Next time on Slashdot: People talking about what a deus ex machina it is that Hamm's Light tastes like aged butt.

    15. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put Windows back on your machine.

    16. Re:Irony by jsdkl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But where do you find analog media that'll beat 2" mag on a 16 track Struder?

      As far as I know, it's pretty much impossible to get mag tape wider than 2" these days.

    17. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ever take this sweet tape on any jumps?

    18. Re:Irony by craw · · Score: 1

      IMHO, it is somewhat ironic. One of the first memorable commercial use of analog audio tape in America was to record Bing Crosby's radio show for ABC. Crosby didn't care too much for live performances on radio, so they recorded his show for later playback. The technology barely made it, but it proved to be a formula for later work.

      BTW, I have several Ampex 1 inch tapes stored away in my office as well as a couple of Tascam cassette tape decks. The latter were the same models that were used by some folks at NPR over ten years ago. I know this because a NPR tech told me so.

    19. Re:Irony by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      The question is, is there a way to transmit anything across the internet using analog? Modems are only at the end points.

    20. Re:Irony by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Yes, irony is like goldy or bronzy, only made of iron.

      Gotta love Blackadder...

    21. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paradoxically, I blew up my sound card with a pesky Tesla coil.

    22. Re:Irony by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      That, tuxter, was the cleverest thing I've read all day. Thank you for the laughs. =)

      --
      Be relentless!
    23. Re:Irony by tuxter · · Score: 1

      Cheers mark, I'm here all week!

    24. Re:Irony by innerlimit · · Score: 1

      ...from Blackadder...

      Edmund:
      Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?

      Baldrick:
      Yeah, it's like goldy & bronzy, only it's made of iron.

    25. Re:Irony by adeydas · · Score: 1

      petrified by numbers, no doubt!

    26. Re:Irony by Stepping+Razor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Being english I find this "irony" concept difficult to understand. Are there any americans out there who could explain it to me?

    27. Re:Irony by Parker703 · · Score: 1

      Christ. Can't people stop saying that? Things happen BY accident or ON purpose. Do you say that you did something BY PURPOSE???? ARGGGHHHH!!!!

    28. Re:Irony by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      And just how would that fix a hardware fault? Note the "soundcard", and not "soundcard driver" in my original post. Anyway, Windows generally needs more help in deciding what drivers to use than Linux does these days.

    29. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This word recursion. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      What it means is that some people work very hard to work the word into a sentence ever since Richard Stallman used it to describe the acronym, "GNU."

      What a bunch of posers!

    30. Re:Irony by lgw · · Score: 1

      Unless you believe NPR was doing a human interest story. Calling attention to the human cost of the death of the analog tape industry, perhaps even with the hope that someone might step in and save it, by using the very technology that brought about the problem is a fair example of irony.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:Irony by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      irony is a watch.

      http://prostore.com/swatch/irony5.html

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    32. Re:Irony by schizacopf · · Score: 0

      I bet you've been waiting a LONG time to use that word...

      fucking loser... - me too

    33. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that would be a fair example indeed.

    34. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But last time I saw, NPR was still playing stories to air on 1/4" 2-track tape.

    35. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, ironic would be a person going to work at OSHA specifically because they believed it would be a safe place to work getting killed in a work place accident

    36. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now millions of tape recorders are as dead treestumps. Most studios went bankrupt during the 1990s.

      I have one 7-inch reel of tape left.
      That would be 20 minutes of recording time. I am planning on living longer than 20 minutes, so now I will live in silence.

      Digital hard drive-based recording? A complete joke, frankly. A nightmare no one should suffer.
      Think Windows 95 was troublesome? Enjoy the idiotic rap music folks, and congratulations to the media for crushing our freedoms.

  3. Great story by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Informative
    Almost 60 years ago, the story was different. "In 1945, after capturing several German 'Magnetophon' tape recorders from Radio Luxembourg, the American Signal Corps recorded a speech by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower to be played to the people of occupied Germany. Due to a shortage of recording tape, the speech had to be recorded on a reel of used German tape. Due to a problem with the German tape recorder, the tape was not completely erased and the voice of Adolph Hitler was intermittently heard along with Eisenhower's voice. This caused a great deal of fear and confusion among the German people
    Wouldn't you have loved to be there for that little mishap? Here's a little more info on that story in case you're interested.
    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:Great story by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      This caused a great deal of fear and confusion among the German people

    2. Re:Great story by DakotaSandstone · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Due to a problem with the German tape recorder, the tape was not completely erased and the voice of Adolph Hitler was intermittently heard along with Eisenhower's voice. This caused a great deal of fear and confusion among the German people

      Something similar happens at the end of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Apparently, the master tape wasn't fully erased after its last use!

      It's faint, but there's an unmistakable orchestral version of the Beatles' "Ticket to Ride" playing. Interestingly, both artists used Abbey Road studios. This analog tape _must_ be expensive if Pink Floyd had to resort to recycling!

      --
      Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
    3. Re:Great story by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1

      First +5 comment on this story and already Godwin's law is proving correct. Amazing.

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    4. Re:Great story by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberately mixed in there. I *would* be surprised if Dark Side of the Moon was recorded on re-used master tape - it was a big no-expense-spared project.

  4. Wah? by djsmiley · · Score: 0, Troll

    They lost it? It get washed away or something?

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
  5. Damn you Digital - Damn you to Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Digital changes things. Someday something will come along to wipe out digital.

    What will it be?

    If I knew I'd be working on it.

    I'm not that smart.

    Or am I?

    1. Re:Damn you Digital - Damn you to Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quantum tecknology, get working.

    2. Re:Damn you Digital - Damn you to Hell by Nova1313 · · Score: 1

      it has! It's called a magnet and or a sledgehammer. IT can completely wipe out digital data with one quick slam depending on the media and it's enclosure!

      --
      There exists some positive integer N that you are the Nth person to read this signature.
    3. Re:Damn you Digital - Damn you to Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's recorded to holographic media, in which case you get a number of copies equal to the number of shards. :)

  6. 8 tracks? by Digital-A · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did they stop producing 8 tracks? I really hope so, those thinks were quite monstrous.

    1. Re:8 tracks? by Raijin+Z · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh come on, with an 8-track player in your dashboard, nobody by the most hard-up audiophile would steal your stereo. Bring them back!

      --
      Change is good, but not in a wallet.
    2. Re:8 tracks? by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

      Or a really nastalgic Slashdotter with a hankering for magnetic tape :)

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    3. Re:8 tracks? by mink · · Score: 1

      We hanker for magnetic tape as in LTO Ultrium 2.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  7. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's not ironic -- NPR posts digital streams of all Morning Editions.

    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Well, actually it _is_ ironic, but evidently, you don't find it ironic.

  8. Significance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean cassette tapes (with their internal reel-to-reel mechanism) are no longer going to be manufactured? What about similar video tape technology (VHS, BETA, etc.)?

    1. Re:Significance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Cassette tapes aren't pro tape.

    2. Re:Significance? by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      Uh, actually, the crap you buy at Wal-Mart isn't pro tape. The stuff that Quantegy made was. It had a thicker base and better magnetic particles stuck on it, and used better QA for less drop-out and longer lifespan.

  9. 250 people lost their jobs? by sakusha · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't know there were even 250 people who still used analog reel-to-reel tapes. Perhaps there were more people making the tape than using the tape.

    1. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      I use 1/4" reel to reel for some of my home recording (I go digital, then run it through my old tape recorder to get that great old analogue sound. At the recording studio my band records at, they still had lots of 2" tape lying around, even though they mostly did stuff with a PowerMac and a Firewire A/D converter.

    2. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I go digital, then run it through my old tape recorder to get that great old analogue sound.
      You mean noise? Or is your tape recorder oiled with snake oil?
    3. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Squareball · · Score: 4, Funny

      Those poor people.. how would they have ever seen it coming?

    4. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      This happened a little sooner than I expected. I can think of about a dozen medium-market radio stations that still use reel-to-reel machines every day.

      Speaking of obscure tape formats, I still know of a TV station that uses 2-inch tape cartridges in its every day news production. I think they haven't been made since the 80's. Station owner heard they were going to stop making them, and bought a warehouse full so he wouldn't have to upgrade the playback machines.

    5. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Even the folks with ears have moved on. Digital was arguably inferior to high-quality analog in the early years, but there aren't many (working) engineers/producers pushing that anymore.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    6. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by bob+beta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I have an old Revere machine. But all I listen to on it are the odd tapes I pick up at auctions.

      I have a few good tapes. One is a 'Christmas 1954' tape, recorded by a geek-Dad. They hand the microphone around and all the family say what they got for Christmas. At the beginning the say 'and this, hopefully, will be syncronized well with the film.'

      Definitely a 1950's AV-nerd geek event!

      Also, some sound tracks of 'I Love Lucy' episodes, that might not even exist in any other form. Who knows...

      It's a mono tape-deck and far more ancient than most Reel-Reel decks still in existence.

    7. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by ThJ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Much more happens in a tape recorder than just the addition of noise. There is something called warping, that is inaccuracies in the speed the tape passes the playback/recording heads. There is crosstalk, that is mixing of audio across several channels. There is also the fact that the signal is being recorded with a bias to bring it into the most linear part of the tape. And then there's the most noticable effect: Compression. When you over-record a tape, you get compression, that is reduction in audio levels compared to the original levels. A digital recorder will just clip, sounding horrible. A tape recorder will do it more gently. Modern musicians and technicians are very fond of what's described as vintage sound. I need just mention the UREI LA-2A compressor, an opto-electric tube compressor, used on numerous recordings. I dare bet anyone who has ever listened to recorded music has heard the handywork of that machine, or it's digital emulations. I love the sound of warping, especially when it comes from record players. It's what I call a becoming untunedness or unstability in pitch. Creates a warm fuzzy feeling inside of me, at least. Tube equipment is popular for grunching things up a bit, the newest Korg synthesizer model, a purely digital machine in all other aspects, has a tube stage for adding an edge to the sound. Guitarists unanamously agree that tube amplifiers give the best sound... I can go on and on... But it's a part of musicians' culture, basically.

    8. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even the folks with ears have moved on. Digital was arguably inferior to high-quality analog in the early years, but there aren't many (working) engineers/producers pushing that anymore.

      You said it, "the people with ears have moved on", listen to any of the digitally recorded mainstream music released in the past 5 years to drive that point home. There are many factors that have seen digital recording take over, sound isn't one of them.

    9. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 1

      That's because the VTRs frequently used in video production for TV stations can cost anywhere from A$50-100,000, from memory.

    10. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by sakusha · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. 2in videotape was never used in cart form, it was always on reels, HUGE reels. I've seen the old beasts in the backrooms at CBS in Hollywood. These machines weren't used for editing, they were used for broadcast network feeds back in the early days of color TV.

      I think you're thinking of the old 3/4 inch tape carts, which were common in the 1970s.

    11. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by sakusha · · Score: 1

      You can do all that stuff with digital postprocessing.

    12. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In theory. But you're not going to find any ADC's with enough dynamic range to actually do anything with digital post-processing. Think about what's going on with tape. You have non-linear smooshing of the wave form as the input reaches a critical value. This (by Fourier analysis) causes a shift upwards in frequency and (also by Fourier analysis) causes the maximum relative variation to decrease. (The maximum relative variation is the supremum of the absolute values of differences of waveform values in an interval). Now consider what a (linear) ADC is doing. It's sampling 44.1 or 96.whatever thousand times per second. Each sample consists of an input waveform measurement. You have 16 or 24 bits of accuracy to work with. That is a lot of dynamic range -- but you're still sort of screwed because if you try to do digital compression, you're going to end up with a bunch of data points in between bits. The obvious solution is to use non-linear weighting in your ADC. But this isn't going to work with ProTools or any other digital audio gear (without conversion to linear weighting, negating the benefits), and there's major inertia to deal with in the professional audio market.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    13. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Sciflyer · · Score: 1

      Even a consumer cassette recorder does wonders for the last two Ministry albums - not that thats hard, it sounds like they recorded them on a SB16...

      ...using the 'ultra-harsh digital' setting :-/

    14. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by sakusha · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't been watching the pro digital audio market lately. I can do all the effects you described with digital preprocessors, if you're worried about mangling your waveforms in postprocessing due to sampling limits.
      But you go ahead and live with your tape hiss and dropouts, and keep convincing yourself analog is superior. Meanwhile, the digital recording world is moving on to 128khz/48bit sampling which is way beyond anything even you could possibly need.

    15. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      Are you at all involved in the music industry?

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    16. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by God_Retired · · Score: 1

      I used to think that people who held onto the analog is superior mindset where deluding themselves. But I've come to realize that analog kind of reflects back onto a time when musicians and music actually had talent and/or soul.

    17. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

      The big change was the advent of delta-sigma D/A converters. Old D/A converters didn't work very well because they tried to directly convert digital PCM sound. Well this meant that to get 16-bit sound (CD quality) you had to have a converter that could produce 65,536 discreet voltage states. When you ocnsider this was over a range of two volts or so, you see why this was a huge problem. It made a very harsh sound that people didn't like.

      Well the answer to the problem came from high power vairable speed electric motors. With those you also need to regulate the voltage and it turns out to be a bitch to design a stepped system that does so properly, cheaply, and efficiently. So what they did is use a different kind of control, called pulse wave modulation, PWM. What you do is take a high frequency digital (square) wave that alternates between maximum and minimum voltage, and just vary the duty cycle to give you the level of power you want. The more pwoer you want in a given direction, the more pulses that direction you have. Turns out to be real efficient, and easy to make. Only downside is it makes the device whine at the frequency of the wave.

      Well, this could be applied to audio as well. Simply vary the rate of pulse to control the output signal. The whining is solved by using a wave of sufficiently high frequency that it exceeds human hearing and speaker capabilities (usually in the MHz range). This proves to work extremely well, and eliminate the problems with digital sound. All corrent D/A converters I'm aware of use this method. You'll see it adverised at 1-bit DAC sometimes.

      Some systems, like SDSD, forgoe the conversion process and store PWM directly.

    18. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by hfolkers · · Score: 0

      real to real tape also is not analog... there is a sampling rate (but much higher as your digital equipment) but I never heard digital stuff simulating analog, sound as good as the original, also the verry expensive things have a diferent sound as the original. What ever you say... it's not the same.

    19. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      There certainly are digital effects designed to "mimic" the sounds of tape or tubes, but those in the know still claim that they don't sound quite like the real thing.

      And as the other poster mentioned, you still have to look out for hard clipping in the digital world, which means putting a limiter on your real-world signal at least. Analog gives you much more leway in that department.

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    20. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      And what's more just think if digital recording technology had been invented first. Would there even have been any compression effects ?

      Personally I don't care what anyone says. Decent quality analogue gear simply sounds better. Perhaps not cleaner or more accurate but definitely better.

      After all any digital reproduction is actually very short clips of sound played so fast your brain doesn't hear the gaps. A life form which processes data faster would hear a right racket !

      So whilst I'm glad for my tiny MP3 player hats off to the analogue originators for a damned fine job.

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    21. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is quite a large use for tape for professional recording. Nora Jones was recorded in analog, for instance. What happens to situations like this?

    22. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Crixus · · Score: 1

      There are certainly more than 250 people in the US and world using analog tape. Any real recording studio has at least one 2", 24 track machne, and probably two.

      My friend's studio in NJ has 5, 2" machines amd 2, 1/2" machine.

      I know a collector of analog gear who rents his equipment out who personally owns NINE 2" analog machines.

      Rich...

      --
      Ignore Alien Orders
    23. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      Nah, you only have to look out for clipping in the 16-bit digital world. 24 bits and above give you so much headroom that there's no need to ride the signal anywhere near 0dB.

    24. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      ROFL!

      So because we have digital equipment, musicians of this time period have no talent and/or soul?

      There has been shitty music produced in every time period. One thing that time does is that it filters out the crap. We only listen to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., but they weren't the only ones making music. The ones that sucked didn't survive the test of time.

    25. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by matyas47 · · Score: 1

      Head over to the forums at electrical.com. I assure you, there is no shortage of analogue fanatics to this day.

    26. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually isn't PWM Pulse *Width* Modulation?

      Just pointing out in case someone wants to look up the concept. Very useful for all sorts of applications...I didn't know it was used for audio. Thanks for the interesting post.

    27. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I used to think that people who held onto the analog is superior mindset where deluding themselves. But I've come to realize that analog kind of reflects back onto a time when musicians and music actually had talent and/or soul."

      Damn...where are mod points when you need them? I agree 100%.

      I'm a beginner with the guitar, but, am starting to get insight as to where the rock bands of the past came from with respect to sound and tone. I've started playing around with both effects, SS amps, and an older Fender Twin tube amp. I love the pure sound the Fender Twin has...and when you crank it to distort (and with this one, you gotta get is VERY loud)...well, it just has a sound that I've not been able to get out of digital effects pedals...

      I'll admit too, though, I'm a fan of tube audio. I've got a little SET tube amp from Decware running through a pair of Klipschorns...I personally can't say I've listened to sound that is better. But, that is, of course a matter of opinion.

      But, yes...I do believe that that analog sound is closer to what 'feels' real. Those pioneers of modern rock...Stones, Zeppelin, etc...could take a guitar riff...crank it up, and make you feel emotion through the music. They knew how to play their instruments...write songs...that generated a feeling in the audience.

      Sadly, corporate generated music today, has lost the 'soul' that is supposed to be a part of music. People that look good, but, with little innate talent can be made to sound 'mediocre' through digital magic.

      Rather than see some barely dressed chic lipsync and dance to a pre-recorded, digitally enhanced track...I'd rather see someone flub a few notes while trying to play a 1000 of them a second...windmill play a guitar with power chords till his fingers bled...or get strange sounds out of a guitar with a violin bow...all through the crunch of a Marshall stack, or Vox set...

      I think the best music comes through things that 'glow'.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by tcr · · Score: 1

      You can do all that stuff with digital postprocessing.

      And my Pod XT(much as I love it) sounds every bit as good as a vintage amp miked up. Er, no.

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
    29. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Corrado · · Score: 1

      Quick! Transfer it to 8-track so it will be preserved forever!

      Whew...that was close.

      --
      KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
    30. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

      I like the joke, and I would like to point out one thing that I thought about after laughing at it.

      Since the plant was in Alabama, I can't imagine there were many other job opportunities available. So even thought they undoubtedly saw it coming, it was probably way better than working at Walmart or subsistence agriculture, which may be what they will have to resort to now.

      Now I *really* feel sorry for the poor people.

    31. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Nope. Two inch tape inside red plastic cartridges. I even saw the boxes which were clearly labeled. These were pretty small -- about the size today's Beta SX field tapes, but much thicker with a black plastic shutter. I understand they didn't hold much video -- maybe five minutes on each.

    32. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You can do all that stuff with digital postprocessing.

      In theory, any analog process can be exactly duplicated using digital techniques. In practice, that doesn't always work out.

      There's no mystery to that at all. Simply, if your model is inaccurate, your results will be off. Analog equipment, especially when working at the edge of it's operational range does a lot of complex and interesting things. It's easy to produce an inaccurate model by failing to measure an unexpected aspect of that behaviour, or to fail to recognize the significance of some aspect.

    33. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by sjames · · Score: 1

      a high frequency digital (square) wave that alternates between maximum and minimum voltage, and just vary the duty cycle to give you the level of power you want.

      Interestingly, the same technique was used to get poor quality sampled audio to come out of the Apple ]['s console speaker.

      The speaker was connected to a single bit in a register (push or pull). Normally it was toggled at the desired frequency to make it beep using a busy loop. Someone got the idea to toggle it much faster and vary the duty cycle.

      It sounded pretty rough and tended to produce a nasty squeal in the process (since it was never intended to operate this way, it didn't have a low-pass filter on it) but it was pretty amazing at the time.

    34. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by mrogers · · Score: 1

      The same trick was used as recently as the mid 90s to play samples through the PC speaker in Alone in the Dark - back when they used to say the PC wasn't a games machine. :-)

    35. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by object88 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, the digital recording world is moving on to 128khz/48bit sampling which is way beyond anything even you could possibly need.

      Eh? Who's working at 128 kHz? Typical rates are 44.1, 48, 96, and 192 kHz, with lesser common rates being 88.2 and 176.4 kHz. Are you talking about oversampling? 48 bit sampling may be used as an internal data depth on some machines, in particular in effects blocks, but the sampling itself typically occurs at 16 or 24 bits, and less commonly 18, 20, and rarely at 32.

      Regarding the actual benefits of higher sampling rates, you might enjoy reading this:

      http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampli ng _Theory.pdf

      And yes, I have been watching the pro digital audio market lately. And no, I don't use tape.

    36. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      I won't argue 'taste' with anybody, and the analog vs. digital thing has been played out a lot over the years...

      That being said, my home recording system, for many years, consisted of a tube-driven 52-input Trident console, a Scully 8-track, and a Scully 2-Track mastering deck, and the sound was something you could wrap yourself in, or eat, understand?

      I had all the 'right' mics, and, as the years passed, eventually added a timecode generator, a Mac SE, and Vision (later Performer). It was great fun.

      Guys can argue analog/digital all they want, but to get that 'collision' (likened to a 'trainwreck' by some Brit buddy engineers), in the mid-highs, you had to either use digital media, or really fuck up on a good analog system.

      It might be the math. If you accept that a sampling rate is a Constant, and that all pitches and timbres are variable, then certain audio tones are going to be more accurately represented (due to multiple 'snapshots' of the longer wave) than others. Just math.

      Still, analog recording and playback was, itself, an engineering attempt at reproducing what human ears do all the time, effortlessly. Thank Bell Labs (AT&T, Northern Electric) for that. I preferred analog, despite the multiple opportunities to screw it up. But the digital scene has come a long way since the first MCIs came out, and home studios, today, are just amazing. Comparisons of the two mediums are difficult, given that the best and worst of both mediums are inherently apples and oranges, and then there's the time 'continuum', to deal with. It's a bit like comparing modern athletes with the folks in the 'old days'...plenty of fodder for argument, but seriously faulty in terms of science.

      So put my vote on 'good' music, regardless of the time/space/medium 'source'.

    37. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well here's the dish it's a bummer not an irony....we are in the mitsed od the digital revolution, adapt or die, every thing I record is in sonar or adat adapt or die, quick some pass me the whine

    38. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by ThJ · · Score: 1

      There's one thing I've always wanted to try: 1. Record audio digitally at a high sample length (say 32 bits). 2. Segment it into short blocks of maybe 1024 samples. 3. Normalize each block and store the amount of amplification together with each block. 4. Quantize to lower sample length (say 12 to 16 bits). 5. Store reduced data heap to medium. Wouldn't you be able to compress audio of quite high fidelity in this way, without actually having a noticable reduction in dynamic range nor quality? Introduce volume interpolation (smooth transitions) between each block and you'd constantly get the highest quality possible for each sample (the encoder and the decoder would interpolate in synch). The HDCD format uses the least significant bit of the signal to add extra dynamic information. The same method could be used to encode expansion information. Imagine this being used by mastering plants to improve sound quality. With special plugins, compression information could extracted in the studio, stored in the least significant bit of each sample, and if the listener wanted, he could cancel out studio compression with a touch of a button, if he had the right equipment. Of course it'll never happen. But it's fun to dream about. ;)

    39. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by w2xo · · Score: 1

      Just an FYI... AM radio stations now use this technique to replace huge oil-filled modulation transformers weighing thousands of pounds and standing 10ft or so high, (at least for the high-power (50kw) stations). AM transmission used to be done by "brute force", with this giant transformer and tubes weighing hundreds of pounds forming a gigantic audio amplifier which was mixed with the carrier frequency wave to produce the AM signal. Now, they just pulse-width-modulate the power supply producing the carrier wave and produce extremely good audio. The transmitted signal now can sound as good as monophonic FM, but is restricted artifically by bandwidth limits imposed by law ( You must "roll off" the signal at 7.5khz, equivalent to pushing the top keys of your graphic equalizer down all the way). However, most AM receivers suck really badly, so no one would notice the improvement unless they had pro monitoring equipment. It just saves money and weight and space.

    40. Re:250 people lost their jobs? by jedZ · · Score: 1

      PWM is pulse width modulation

  10. Damn by the+arbiter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, Quantegy was the last munufacturer of the 2" analog reel-to-reel tape that is used in high-end recording studios. And of the 1/2" tape used for analog mastering.

    A dark day for those of us who loved the old analog sound.

    --
    Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    1. Re:Damn by pmbuko · · Score: 1

      The "analog sound" -- which basically equates to rolled off high frequencies -- can easily be replicated digitally.

    2. Re:Damn by madprof · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the kicker. Analogue tape can produce a certain sound which producers sometimes love. It's not about the accuracy.
      Having said this it can't be long before some manufacturer brings out a piece of software that can mimic the sound of analogue tape...

    3. Re:Damn by Atrax · · Score: 4, Funny

      A dark day for those of us who loved the old analog sound.

      It's OK, you can build a cheap simulator withtwo cell phones and a crinkly plastic bag.

      (takes tongue back out of cheek)

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    4. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. You're wrong. There's a certain compression that highly-driven tape produces, which is much more complex than some lowpass filter.

    5. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Informative

      The finest consumer tape deck ever produced, the Pioneer RT-909, had a frequency response to 30kHz. Studio decks that record at 15 inches-per-second have response clear out to 40kHz and beyond. A CD has response to only 22.05kHz, and even studio digital equipment has a hard time working up to 48kHz.

    6. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      My humble home studio was built on a budget of roughly $500, and I can record at 96khz/24-bit, so I'm guessing pro studios can easily do this as well. The biggest cost at this point is the storage medium, which is why I usually reserve it for vocals or acoustic instruments.

    7. Re:Damn by the+arbiter · · Score: 1

      I hate to be like this, but you are so wrong. It's not high-end at all.

      The difference is in resolution, much like a digital camera. A one-megapixel image is OK for a 3x5 picture. A five-megapixel image is OK for an 8x10 print. But if you really want a big picture (24x36 or larger), full of detail with no visible pixels, you still gotta go with real film.

      And tape is exactly the same way. Digital recording is wonderful (I wouldn't go back to analog for a million bucks) but if you want the detail, analog is still where it's at.

      Or was at.

      --
      Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    8. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is supposed to explain why tapes sound like crap? If it's such a great technology, why is it dropped now? It's useless to show us those weird numbers when you've only got out-dated and expensive devices.

    9. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? An Audigy2 can record at 96kHz with no problems, and this is the sample rate of DVD-Audio. It all depends on the input device - a microphone which is only sensitive to frequencies below 20 kHz isn't going to improve because you sample it more times per second.

    10. Re:Damn by limegreenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It may be one of those scenarios where they have enough stock to easily cover the market for the foreseeable future. For example, the plant that my preferred watermarked paper comes from has been closed for about 5 years, but they're not likely to run out for another 10 years or so based on current rates. I'm also aware of a whisky and a clothing-soap in the same situation.

    11. Re:Damn by justforaday · · Score: 1

      hey dipshit, please don't confuse 2" reel-to-reel at 15 inches per second with 1/8" compact cassette at 1-7/8 inches per second. there's a fucking world of difference...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    12. Re:Damn by furiousgeorge · · Score: 1

      >>My humble home studio was built on a budget of
      >>roughly $500, and I can record at 96khz/24-bit,

      I'm willing to bet thats 96khz SAMPLING.... which equates to a 48khz audio response. c.f. Nyquist sampling theorm.

    13. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 5, Informative
      Cheap studio gear can write "24/96" all over the package but achieving that accuracy digitally is very difficult and expensive. Most low-end equipment I've managed to peek inside of contain poorly implemented clocks. In a digital system the timebase is the most important factor, but Edirol and that crowd spend $0.10 on the clock. A good clock would make "96kHz" closer to the truth, but then it wouldn't be $199 anymore.

      An actual 24-bit system has a theoretical Dynamic range of around 140dB but you'll be hard pressed to get better than 80dB with most gear. With analog recording there are at least two well-known foolproof methods to improve dynamic range and SNR: get a bigger tape, and run the tape faster. The dynamic range and SNR on 2", 32ips tape is amazing.

      And of course tape can be driven to +9dB recording levels in some cases, but a digital system will clip hard at 0dB.

      Digital is definitely the future but right digital recording has its problems. Next time you go to the record store notice how many High Resolution DVD-Audio recordings are being mastered from tapes.

    14. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.
      Tape has a wacky transfer function, and compresses with high levels.
      It also brings up low level detail, as the transfer function becomes non linear as it goes through 0.
      (It becomes curve that kinda flattens off a little, so it's a bit like compression)
      Film does much the same thing, so areas in shadow can be seen better than on video.
      There are plugins that purport to do the same thing, and some rather expensive ($3000+) rack mounts too, but it's never quite the same.
      One you learn how a particular tape stock and machine work together, you can drive it predictably, and use that as part of your production process on certain sounds.
      All in all, record on a studer a80, and it sounds great. Record to a DAW, and you have to fiddle to get the same excitement and energy.
      Both have their qualities, but are not interchangeable.

    15. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From http://www.soundblaster.com/products/audigy2/specs .asp

      That's 96kHz sampling, which would have a nyquist limit frequency of 48kHz. (The poster you replied to wasn't talking about sampling rates.)

    16. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hello sir, I hate to break it to you, but the front-end analog electronics and jittering timebase on the Audigy limit it to dynamic ranges of around 80dB and SNR of around 60dB, giving about the same performance as a good 20-year-old cassette deck.

    17. Re:Damn by Dasein · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is multi-track tape. So you need 32 cell phones and 16 crinkly plastic bags.

      --
      You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
    18. Re:Damn by petsounds · · Score: 1

      That's simply not true, or there would already be a software plug-in which does so. Many producers and recording engineers, even those who work with pristine-sounding top-40 pop acts, still regularly use tape reel-to-reels to "warm up" the sound after initially recording and editing the music in ProTools or its ilk. This is often done right before sending the recordings off for mastering.

      In fact, there has been quite a resurgence in the use of analog gear in the past few years, so it is disappointing to see analog tape marked for extinction.

    19. Re:Damn by Heftklammerdosierer! · · Score: 1

      If you wanted a 24x36 you'd need a medium format camera, though.

    20. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's much more of a complex interaction than that. There's a compression effect, distortion... Good engineers know how to get the sounds they want out of tape.

    21. Re:Damn by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      Do you likewise lament the loss of the 78? Vinyl has great frequency response, yet it has been replaced. The advantage of digital outweighs tons of the disadvantages, and most of those disadvantages can be overcome by throwing more bits at it.

      This does sadden me, but I won't miss things like tape bleed-through and analog hums at every connection.

    22. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanted an LP.
      Only had CDs.
      "Digitally Clean"
      It was a piece of crap.

      Piece of crap!

    23. Re:Damn by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      No studio would though, and neither would you if you have any brains. The standard is 44.1khz/16 bit. And that's what you record at. You don't record at one frequency and just to resample when you want it in a consumer format.

    24. Re:Damn by uradu · · Score: 1

      I can think of various reasons for that state of affairs, one of them being inertia. If recording engineers are like many other engineers (and I'm using engineer here very loosely), they're a conservative bunch who are loath to learn and use new things. The old "if it ain't broke" thing. The thing about accurate clocks for digital sampling that you mentioned I don't see as an issue. If there's one thing we can produce cheaply in this digital world it's accurate quartz clocks. Let's be real, even 96K sampling rates aren't all that high speed really, compared to really high-bandwidth converters such as in (esp. HDTV) video. There's no reason in the world a good quality true 96k sound card would have to be even $200, except that there's probably not much of a market for that. The hardware required for high-bandwidth AUDIO is really not all that high-end anymore nowadays. In 1990 maybe, but not today.

    25. Re:Damn by joshiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is much better to record at a higher bit rate and then downsample at the last step. Most professionals do this all the time.

    26. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of Revox owners would be laughing at you if they were even paying the slightest bit of attention to you.

    27. Re:Damn by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Look at it realistically. Take a 1v p-p audio signal: that's a two volt span. At 16 bit resolution that's 2/65536 or 0.00003 or 30 microvolts per A/D step. It's not hard to get 30 microvolts of noise in any audio system, low-noise amplifiers or not. My point is that it's difficult to achieve meaningful 16-bit real-world accuracy, much less 18 or 24. Not impossible ... just difficult.

      Most of the so-called "24-bit" digital systems record data using 16-bit ADCs. The data stream is stored internally using 24 or 32 bit numbers, so that there is no loss of resolution during mixing and post-processing. But yeah, I'd have to agree with you that professional digital has its' problems.

      Still ... it's better than a gramophone. I think a lot of the push toward digital has more to do with editing and postprocessing capability than it does with absolute sound quality.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    28. Re:Damn by ajlitt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hear hear. Forget that most soundcards use cheapo oscillators. Forget even that the front end on most soundcards are crap. I wouldn't trust anything that sits inside the case of the RF bomb most people call a computer to produce anything of real quality.

    29. Re:Damn by uradu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, one more thing:

      > Next time you go to the record store notice how many High Resolution
      > DVD-Audio recordings are [being mastered from tapes].

      You could have saved yourself the bit in brackets, because that's about where SACD and its competitor are. For audio purists at least, the sad fact is that the CD is the cat's meow to the VAST MAJORITY of people, and the remaining dissenters just aren't enough of a market. I doubt higher quality audio will make much inroads in the future except in niche markets. Yes, the CD will be displaced, but it will give way to medium agnosticity rather than higher quality. IOW, people will be buying music in all shapes and forms (increasingly online), the CD will be just one of the formats, and of ever decreasing importance.

      Then again, maybe this trend will indeed facilitate higher quality audio. Since the software won't be bound to a particular medium anymore, new formats (such as SACD) won't have to reach critical mass anymore to survive. Studios can simply record everything at the highest rate, and then sell the audio at various quality (and perhaps price) levels. Since you're downloading your new album anyway, you can either buy the 96KHz 4GB version for $25, or the 44KHz 600MB version for $15, or the compressed-to-hell MP3 version for $10. It's up to you how you store and play it back. And the industry doesn't have to go through the risky business of pushing yet another audio format through. I'm not sure the labels are there yet mentally, though, since at the moment they still seem to think that the medium equals the music.

    30. Re:Damn by a+whoabot · · Score: 2, Informative

      "And of course tape can be driven to +9dB recording levels in some cases, but a digital system will clip hard at 0dB."

      That's is what it's all about: use.

      Theoretically you can absolutely duplicate an analog recording sound in a way that no human can tell the difference. You can at least duplicate it in a way that recreates it when you transfer it to a CD later; this is necessarily true seeing as they're both are just accessible bits.

      The thing is, how hard is it to do this, at least, right now? Ridiculously hard. There's no DirectX plugin yet, and it's a long, long, long, long way off.

      Though analog can be expensive and tape is finnicky in it's own way, if you're looking for an "analog sound"(as you see written on oh so many digital devices) you'll find that a computer + sound card + pro tools is much more finnicky and/or expensive.

      Not to mention that it's not nearly the same to work in front of a computer as it is to work in front of a reel to reel. Being 'virtualized' in the screen is a much different experience than merely being plugged in to a reel to reel. For an artistic process(I hope you're making art, otherwise I'll probably have a minimal interest in your music) these things are important for what you want to do. Even if digital offered a total simulation of analog, it's still just a simulation. Although a lot of Slahdot readers most likely apply a sort of functionalism to a lot that they do, artists are not all total functionalists, and for good reason. The non-functional difference between a simulation and the real thing can still be quite important. Even if just in the process. I don't like quoting it, but "the medium is the message" can be very true for many works of art.

    31. Re:Damn by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      the last manufacturer of professional reel-to-reel analog audio tape

      So now only the amateurs are manufacturing analog audio tape.

    32. Re:Damn by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Bitrate, yeah. Not sample rate, that's what I mean. 44.1 doesn't divide too well into 96. And you're lucky to get perfect working samplers in the first place.

    33. Re:Damn by SunFan · · Score: 1

      Studio decks that record at 15 inches-per-second have response clear out to 40kHz and beyond. A CD has response to only 22.05kHz...

      Does this mean all studio analog to CD conversions suffer from aliasing? Is this audible?

      (please, elitest self-appointed audiophiles need not reply)

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    34. Re:Damn by nolife · · Score: 1

      Most low-end equipment I've managed to peek inside of contain poorly implemented clocks.

      Care to give some examples of what you thought was a poor design? If you were able to see that with a quick peek I assume you could also describe to us a design in a piece of equipment you thought was poor. I only ask because clocking is one the most basic functions and used in almost every piece of electonic equipment made in recent history. I could understand different designs but could not imagine anything that costs that much more to get a "decent" clock. I'd assume the process would be very straight forward by now. I'm sure the difference in price between high end and low end equipment has much more to do with the economy of scale then simply the type of clock used.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    35. Re:Damn by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      A CD has response to only 22.05kHz, and even studio digital equipment has a hard time working up to 48kHz.

      Naw. There's nothing preventing anybody from doing digital audio sampling at 96kHz or more, except implementation details. I have been thinking of doing high-rate sampling of my vinyl collection. It would put the kibosh on the whole contoversey to sample it at high bit resolution and a high sampling rate.

    36. Re:Damn by afidel · · Score: 1

      Dude, even consumer gear gets WAY better than 80dB, a SB Extigy does better than 90dB (100dB rated) and Prosumer gear like the stuff from RME does real world 96dB, that's a lot better than all but the best studio analog equipment gets with regular maintenance (and most studio gear gets zero maintenance).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    37. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That same 30 microvolts noise is also present in the front stages of the analog system (which would be the same front stages in the digital system prior to the ADC) but it is further compounded down the line through the various stages of analog amplification and to the final conversion to the analog tape also. With the digital, that noise stops once the conversion is done, with analog, it keeps going getting worse as it travels.

    38. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Analog-to-digital processes use analog filters on the input to attenuate signals above the Nyquist frequency (22kHz for CD). A 6-pole Bessel filter would not be unusual.

    39. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, did you even look for a job today?

    40. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Almost every oscillator out there uses a quartz crystal connected to a 74HCU04 inverter and a couple of ceramic capacitors. Such a thing is an oscillator, and it has very good long-term accuracy, but it has atrocious jitter, on the order of tens of nanoseconds. A good implementation would have the quartz crystal, a common-base amplifier with PNP transistors, and its own regulated power supply, with the squaring of the signal being taken care of by a comparator or, in a pinch, an inverter. A good implementation can have jitter below 1ps RMS, or looked at another way, -120dBc phase noise 100Hz from the carrier.

    41. Re:Damn by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Vinyl has great frequency response, yet it has been replaced.
      Hah! Tell that to the DJs still spinning it at hundreds of raves, d&b parties, etc. every weekend. They'll just laugh you straight off the dancefloor. To them vinyl just gives more "control" while beat-mixing and scratching.
      Of course you can try to replace it with fancy input gear and such, or even use "digital vinyl" like this (no, I'm not affiliated with them, blah, blah) to control your set, but why shouldn't they just use the real stuff?

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    42. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you are going to publish at 44.1 you should probably record at 88.2 or 176.4, but asynchronous sample rate conversion has pretty good performance even for arbitrary conversion ratios. Look at the datasheet for AD1896, it can convert 96 to 44.1 with THD+N way down to -120dB or better. You could probably do better than that converting in software slower than realtime.

    43. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm...generally, its known by anyone in the industry that isn't just after numbers that higher bit rate is *FAR FAR* more important than higher sampling rate.

      The sampling is good enough that you really won't hear anything better if recorded on proper equipment (all matching components and such) than a normal CD could play.

      But a 24 bit recording does give range that is truely audible to even non-audiophiles.

      But then you get to records...the RIAA curves for volume and EQ means you are so compressed that you aren't going to have that much bit depth anyways. If you did -- the needle would jump out of the socket. It might give you a bit more granularity in the mid bit, but not much because vinyl recordings aren't that precise to begin with. Not that an audiophile will ever admit this -- the greatest part about them are they sound so incredibly warm because of the distortions in the physical media. I know guys that run a virgin run of their digital media and then move it back to the digital realm after hitting wax because of this.

      So honestly you gain very little other than the fact that you have a bit more margin of error on crappier equipment and lack of experience in this realm.

      The one thing to warn about if you do this -- grab a high end record player, feed it into a quality phono quality preamp and go from there if you really want anything other than the numbers. The phono preamp will pull the curves out that were forced on it by RIAA standards (back when they dealt with quality issues as opposed to just suing listeners) and sorta flaten out everything to its original porportions. If you don't have one of these, several high end plugins will replicate this, but its really not something you want to do down the signal path -- you want it as close to the front as possible.

      BTW A few others in this thread are so far off that they aren't even worth responding to...

    44. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, another audio elitist who spend too much on his studio trying to rationalize his poor decisions with cognitive dissonance.

      Just admit it, you paid too much, and you didn't have to. Or would you prefer to buy some c32-coated amplifier knobs for a richer sound? only $500!

    45. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think you'd be surprised how hard it is to do digital properly. It isn't for lack of effort, as any number of dedicated amateurs will tell you. It's just that the state of the art really is 24-bits at 192kHz, and implementing something to that standard is very very hard, and expensive. Video conversion is fast, sure, but the sample sizes are small: 8-bit is standard, 10-bit is tough, and 12-bit is a miracle. Humans are also more willing to tolerate noise in video than in audio: a decent video DAC has -80dB noise floor, whereas a decent audio DAC like PCM1794 will have a noise floor at -150dB. That's a difference of more than 1000:1.

      Timing is also much more important with audio than with video. People, for whatever reason, are not sensitive to timing jitter in a video signal, but are easily able to hear phase noise in a digital recording. Video uses faster clocks than audio, but their clocks are not as good (and don't need to be).

    46. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It would put the kibosh on the whole contoversey to sample it at high bit resolution and a high sampling rate.

      Wrong

    47. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      I build all my own audio gear, genius. And you? How's the My First Sony sounding?

    48. Re:Damn by nolife · · Score: 1

      I fully agree with you on accuracy but the second method does not justify for much of a cost increase. I guess in mass production of cheap audio equipment, every penny counts and I have no doubt the cheaper router is almost always taken.
      I can not speak for a seperate power supply but a 555 timer chip costs about 50 cents. I am digging deep here as I've been out of the electonics field for a while but I remember a lot of communications and test equipment using frequency dividers to improve accuracy, ie produce a 400MHZ clock, square it off and divide it down 2-4x to get a much more accurate lower speed clock.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    49. Re:Damn by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I have a working RT-707. Sadly, the poor thing is in need of new heads. The -909 was sweet. Although I think the consumer Revox's were better.

    50. Re:Damn by puetzk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep. And sampling @96kHz gives you response up to 48kHz (in theory, though in principal it the last parts suffer from intonation problems if there's any jitter at all to your sampling or reproduction clock.

      Frequency distribution is a nice sharp spike at n Hz...
      | |
      | |
      |_______|__
      n

      So we'll sample at 2n Hz

      _ _
      / \ / \ - forgive the ascii art and
      \_/ \_/ pretend that was a sine wave

      _|__ __|__ - sampled at 2n Hz
      | |

      We'll even pretend that the studio gear sampled it perfectly (no clock jitter) since that gear
      is likely pretty damned good. So our digital signal is +1,-1,+1,-1 just like it should be

      But now we play it back on a cheapo walkman that doesn't have a perfect clock, so what it synthesizes is

      _|_ ___|_ _
      | |

      and after filtering, the analog signal it produces now looks like this
      _ _
      / | _/ | - again, forgive the ascii art,
      |_/ |_/ but clearly it has steeper
      sections and shallower ones
      so it's no longer a pure tone

      So the frequency distribution now looks like

      |
      | |
      |_____|_|_|
      n

      it has some frequency content to both sides of the 'real' signal (how much and how far depends on the amount of jitter present). Obviously, the signals very close to the nyquist limit suffer most from this - the lower pitches get to average the wave-shape out over multiple samples, so they will not spread out as much in the freuency domain if a point is a little off in time. But this is why the nyquist limit is not the whole story. Along with the fact that no filter is a completely sharp dropoff, this is why CD's lowpass filter to <20kHz, not at the 22050Hz Nyquist limit).

      Sampling beyond 96kHz is not (yet, anyway) mainstream gear. So I think the grandparen't claim that digital equipment works to 48kHz, but has a hard time as that limit is approached is pretty fair - that's the theoretical limit (for prosumer-grade stuff), and in practice it will have trouble near the edge.

      --
      The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
    51. Re:Damn by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Actually, tho, if you want the detail, aka Dynamic Range, you don't use (regular) analog formats, either.

      Standard 'CD' audio has a wider dynamic ranger (louder louds, softer softs) than (regular) LPs.

      This is at the consumer level, of course. Still the best sound I've heard in my own home was through my Dynaco Pre-amp and Harmon-Kardon power amp (both all tube).

    52. Re:Damn by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Hmm, this is good information for me. I guess I was mistaken...

    53. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you are going to publish at 44.1 you should probably record at 88.2 or 176.4"

      No, you shouldn't. What possible reason is there to do so? Are you aware that ADC performance is nearly always reduced at higher clock rates? A nominal 24 bit ADC will perform much closer to its theoretical 24 bits of resolution at 44.1 KHz than it will at 88.2, 96, 176.4, etc. ADC performance is a tradeoff between Fs (sampling frequency) and resolution -- to get more of one you must give up some of the other. Better chip technology and circuit design has expanded the Fs * bit width envelope over time, but even now you still cannot ignore its effects when dealing with really high res conversions like 24 bits.

      Furthermore, the only conceivable point of increasing the sample rate is to record a wider slice of bandwidth. By Nyquist, you get a bandwidth window of 1/2 the sample rate (always at baseband in audio applications). But everything recorded above the 1/2 Fs rate of the _output_ format is wasted when you do the final downconversion! It simply won't be represented in your output at all. So why bother capturing it in the first place? Doing so increases file sizes, processing power required to perform DSP, etc. etc., for absolutely no benefit.

      You can't even claim that 22 KHz of recording bandwidth is not enough because it's been proven repeatedly that 99.9% of humans hear basically jack shit above 20K. Not to mention that even in the heyday of analog the microphones and other equipment rarely had much response above 15K. There is a lot of nonsense about analog master tape having better frequency response than CD frequency digital which entirely ignores the fact that said FR was never used for much in the first place...

    54. Re:Damn by ajlitt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah bleed-through. It's to my generation what the pops in vinyl were to my parents. That and the Dolby test tones. And that special noise when the head crosses from leader tape to mag tape. And the SQUEEEEEEK-clunk of the auto-stop. And q-tips and alcohol cleaning sessions. And trying to find the best deals on XLII tape. And untangling a tape jam. And taking apart a cassette to splice out a crumpled segment.

      Oh, you kids today, with your CD authoring programs, and laser cleaning discs. In my day, if your mix album went over time, it would just stop. And you'd have to take the tape out and turn it over and hit play again. And it would be a song you didn't want to hear, but you'd tough it out cos it was easier than trying to fast forward. But we liked it!

    55. Re:Damn by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      If I decide to go nuts with resolution, it would definitely be from a turntable and through my Dynaco pre-amp. I definitely could never afford a better pre-amp than that thing, with it's 12U7 tubes, 1% coupling caps, and the filtered DC filament voltage. I think before I use it again I'll replace the selenium rectifier with one of the audiophile 'upgrades' (a silicon diode) that is well documented.

      I don't have a good cartridge for my Dual turntable at present, tho.

      But my LPs aren't going anywhere.

    56. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Well I always think you want to make the best possible recording. After all, you only get to make the recording once, and you have the rest of eternity to improve the playback. As for music, trumpets generate tones up to 100kHz, just as one example. I can't hear to 100kHz but the spectral power is there. Some day, if a race of super-beings-with-really-good-hearing happen to listen to a 192kHz recording, they'll hear what a trumpet really sounds like (to them) rather than a poor imitation limited by human biology.

    57. Re:Damn by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      substitute 12AU7 in above.

    58. Re:Damn by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      That's an important point you make: every analog-to-digital process must include an anti-aliasing filter to remove frequencies near Nyquist. Normally, you want to make this a smooth "roll-off" to prevent ringing. I remember hearing that the 22 kHz Nyquist of the CD format cuts it so close to the upper limit of human hearing that the roll-off must quite sharp, leading to (alleged) unpleasant effects on the high end of the spectrum.

    59. Re:Damn by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Sorry. If I build a 96KHz 24 bit A/D converter (a formidable task) I would build a 96KHz 24 bit D/A converter to play it back. Not do whatever awkward downconverting or whatever in the discussion you cite, which sounds like audiophile babble. If the stuff being said there were true, digital oscilloscopes wouldn't be possible.

    60. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Futhermore 96KHz/24-bit doesn't mean much. The SNR cannot simply be derived from "24-bit". It may be 106dB at that price range, though the complete system may even be 91dB or worse!
      ADCs are definitely a case of "you get what you pay for"

    61. Re:Damn by connorbd · · Score: 1

      The CD frequency response is about as perfect as it can get. There is no particular need for a person who claims to care about sound to invest in analog playback equipment unless the "analog sound" is what they want.

      A lot of audiophiles confuse the issue, and evidently don't seem to know the difference between production and playback. Tube amps and vintage recording equipment do not provide high fidelity -- they don't have the frequency response. What they do provide is a specific sound to the musician and the record producer. Trying to duplicate that effect on the other end is a matter of personal taste and has nothing to do with high fidelity.

    62. Re: Damn by gidds · · Score: 1
      I think you're talking about different things.

      CD quality is arguably good enough for final storage of the finished product, used for listening -- at least, when properly mastered, dithered, &c.

      But it's not really good enough to use during production, when all the various stages of EQ and other effects, mixing, processing, mastering, &c will cause round-off errors to compound progressively into a far greater issue.

      24/96 may be overkill for listeners, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile for studios and other professionals.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    63. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 1 volt peak to peak is 1 volt. From one peak to the other, the amplitude is 1 volt. You don't need to double it.

    64. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but a lot of the time, the actual noise floor of your card will be higher than what it's rated because of the electrical noise inside your computer.

    65. Re:Damn by connorbd · · Score: 1

      DJs are something of a special case though -- their art almost requires vinyl. There's a very good reason vinyl is no longer mainstream, but it happens to excel at that one particular application, which is why it probably won't die out completely any time soon.

    66. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And what ears will you use for those frequencies above 20KHz? Most adults in Western societies are lucky to hear to 15KHz. Get your hearing tested sometime, and hit some books too, I wish you knew the difference between a sample rate and a signal frequency.

    67. Re:Damn by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Rolled off high frequencies? Surely you jest. Tape compression causes an upwards shift in the frequency spectrum.

      However, if you're used to that crisp, clear digital sound, with its quantization effects and massive spectrum shift, analog audio can sound a bit dull. People who know what instruments sound like when played in good surroundings know that analog preserves fidelity better.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    68. Re: Damn by uradu · · Score: 1

      > I think you're talking about different things.
      > CD quality is arguably good enough for final storage of the finished product [...]
      > But it's not really good enough to use during production

      You're right, I lost sight of the original topic.

    69. Re:Damn by afidel · · Score: 1

      That's why both of the items I talked about use ADC's in external enclosures =) Trying to get decent sound doing the conversion inside a PC is a nightmare.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    70. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DJs are NOT using vinyl because of frequency response but because of the capabilities of interaction with the physical medium. Every other DJ I've allowed to play with my Final Scratch (audion system utilzing a special record that the analog signal is interpreted by a computer to play a digital file as if it was pressed on vinyal) took all of 3 seconds to figure out and use. Why? Becuase the nature of the recording is less important than the medium.
      In addition all this music that is being played on vinyl was MADE on a computer in the first place! ;) Much of the analog vs digital debate goes out the window with much of my studio equipment.
      Most important point is that all this is played over PA which much of the time has crappy clarity and tons of distortion anyhows.

    71. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so why use studio digital equipment when you can use one of these:

      http://www.tek.com/cgi-bin/wtx.cgi?wt=800:1&prod uc t=TDS7000B&link=http://www.tek.com/Measurement/sco pes/tds7000/overview/index.html

      48kHz? try 20GHz. :)

    72. Re:Damn by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

      Hearing non-audio people speaking about audio is always amusing.

      Lets start with the obviously misunderstood:

      96KHz is easy to produce and a good clock is, yes, very expensive. However the difference isn't a quality difference it's a latency difference. It is impossible to hear the difference between 44.1KHz, 48KHz and 96KHz or 192KHz for the simple fact that the low-pass filter cut-off point is more or less the same at the DAC output, only the filter curve is different, it is more subtle more pleasing, but wait, on converters that can do all those frequency the curve is equal to the one needed for the lowest supported sampling rate so: the only practical reason for 96KHz and up is latency, only latency; as a general rule of thumb it takes around 75 samples before what goes in, goes out, if you take 44100 sample per seconds those 75 samples takes longer to produce than if you take 96000 sample per seconds, therefore 96KHz solved one of the greatest and most annoying problem in digital recording: latency. Why 192KHz for DVDs then? Because like previsouly stated the filter curve is smoother, gentler, generates less oscillation because its not a brick wall filter anymore...

      And thats just about 96KHz, 24 bit gets you an approximate theoretical max of 140dB, most converters don't produce that, not because they aren't good but because the manufacturer decided it was more pleasing to actually design a converter that requires smaller amplitude step to define outputed values, a 24 bit system with 116dB dynamic range will generally sound better than a 24 bit system with a 140dB dynamic range and no one, no movie, no orchestra produce such wide dynamic range material anyway except maybe a space shuttle taking off. Now when you go Edirol or any other company like that what you get is ADC that are 18-20 bits, each word of the stream gets 6-4 0s added to it and the output converters are real 24 bits DAC, because DAC are way cheaper than ADC, because a lot more DAC get produced than ADC no other reason.

      Hope this helps...

    73. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if you replace the clock with something more accurate, you'd have a better piece of equipment ?

      If so, why aren't people doing it ?

    74. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      a decent video DAC has -80dB noise floor, whereas a decent audio DAC like PCM1794 will have a noise floor at -150dB. That's a difference of more than 1000:1.
      Well, "dB" is decibel. So we're comparing -8B and -15B. The scale is logarithmic (base 10). So we're comparing sound pressure levels of 10^8 and 10^15. That a difference of 10000000:1 !

      (Or am I missing something?)

    75. Re:Damn by log0 · · Score: 1

      For some reason (please someone explain why), the 1B = 10dB rule seems to apply only when measuring actual sound (as apposed to an electrical signal representing the sound). In most cases 1B = 20dB!

      This would explain why the dynamic range of 16 bit audio is 96.33dB (20 * log(2^16)) instead of 48.165dB (10 * log(2^16)) as logic would suggest.

    76. Re:Damn by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      because it'd cost more and no-one'd notice the improvement? seriously, at this level you're pretty much into the science of kiddology...

    77. Re:Damn by alehmann · · Score: 1

      Why do they use the 74HCU04 instead of the 74HCU04? I'm using a 74HC04 to drive S/PDIF output on a USB-audio device I built because I couldn't find a 74HCU04 at Frys and it seems to work fine. But would I get less jitter with a 74HCU04?

    78. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tube amps and vintage recording equipment do not provide high fidelity -- they don't have the frequency response.

      I will only quibble with that last part. Some of the consumer tube power amps from the 60s, e.g. the HK Citation I, were designed by video circuit engineers and had very good (flat) frequency response way beyond 100 kHz. As far as I know, the limit had to do w/ effectively low-pass filtering by the final output transformers. These things could absolutely fry tweeters if you accidentally fed high frequency noise/harmonics into them.

      So I think pre-amps and studio recording gear could easily achieve that level of frequency response using tubes where you don't need the gigantic finals and 30 lbs. transformers.

    79. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice diagrams and lucid description but you don't have a clue. The rate of the pulses in the initial diagram might have a rate of 20khz but the frequency spectrum is way higher than that. The ability to capture frequencies above the 20Khz band is not the idea here. It's to accurately duplicate those wafeforms/signals in the chosen range.
      the fact that this was modded up to 5 informative pretty much sums up the actual scientific education of slashdot contributors these days. Times have changed.

    80. Re:Damn by plj · · Score: 1

      The labels definitely are not mentally there. Downloadable music still has this huge little bump on its way called DRM, and because CD is the only cat around that has been able to get out of the bag without DRM-wrapping, it will stay around for a looong time.

      RIAA etc. just won't allow any sort of new formats (be it a disc like SACD/DVD-A or downloadable like AAC/MP3/OGG/WMA or FLAC) to get into widespread distribution (except by illegal means) without being wrapped in DRM. But as RedBook or even anything close enough to it - that is, to work in most players - makes adding any truly effective DRM impossible, and CDs already are in widespread distribution, they will stay around.

      Lack of DRM and relatively high quality without lossy compression mean easy convertability, and thus the people who need that will still demand CDs, despite their higher prices comparing to services like iTMS.

      Working compromise for downloadables? A hard to remove unique waterstamp in every song downloaded legally, but no usage restrictions. This way all fair use rights would still be there, but if you put the song into the wild before © expires, you'd get cops behind your door. Definitely wouldn't stop professional pirates but would likely stop P2P freeriders.

      Unfortunately, the labels are not mentally even there. And there are quite a lot of people who just will tolerate actual usage restrictions. So there we are again - CDs just will stay around. For a long time.

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    81. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm...not so sure.

      In my arsonal, I prefer not to use analogue after analogue. Tube is great for 'bringing out warmth', but accurate they aren't. Sounds like the system is pretty well matched, so it will probably work regardless. I just don't like color in my path unless I want to show off an effect, and all in all, that is what tubes do, regardless of what anyone says.

      Yeah -- and that new cart is necessary...that is the one thing I keep forgetting to upgrade in my setup. But then again, I transfered my LPs years ago, and they sound perfectly acceptable and the older cart gave me the scratches exactly where I was use to them and thus did its job -- preserving my memories. Sometimes thats more important than all the technical specs in the world.

      People forget that its not about the technically best, but the emotionally best in these instances. In this instance, I'm dreading a music tech conference I'm attending in 3 weeks where I have to share a booth because the guys we share with are all about specs -- but if you've ever seen their device, you know nothing of great importance is ever going to be run through it because they make it so damn technial in nature. I've begged them to make it a bit less geek oriented and I've taken the front panel of the machine they gave me and optimized it (removed some of the knobs, leaving the pot frozen at specific points to where I now have 3 controls as opposed to a dozen). Quick and easy to use and sounds great, but the guys are so far about specs that they don't even care about the audio coming through it. To them its bits and clocks and sampling rates not audio.

      All good guys, but they look at the science of things instead of the art. And all in all, I think when folks start in with the audiophile bullshit, they stop listening to music and start listening to technology.

    82. Re:Damn by deimtee · · Score: 1
      For some reason (please someone explain why), the 1B = 10dB rule seems to apply only when measuring actual sound (as apposed to an electrical signal representing the sound). In most cases 1B = 20dB!

      This would explain why the dynamic range of 16 bit audio is 96.33dB (20 * log(2^16)) instead of 48.165dB (10 * log(2^16)) as logic would suggest.


      It's a because of a combination of two things:

      1/ Decibels are a logarithmic scale, as you say. If you want to multiply things together, you can add their logarithms
      2/ Decibels are a relative measurement generally applied to waveforms, eg. voltage, current, power.
      However, Power = Voltage X Current. If you double the voltage (10 dB), you double the current (10dB), which quadruples the power (20dB).
      This is why the variation between 10 and 20, it depends on the dimensions of the quantities you are comparing. I don't know of any offhand, but there are probably quantities where 1B = 30dB.
      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    83. Re:Damn by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      The other way (which I looked at) was to generate the reference clock at *way* above the final desired word clock rate, and divide it down. The jitter is inherent in the oscillator design, true. A few tens of nanoseconds is up in the hundreds of megahertz range. Divide a very high frequency oscillator down, and you divide the jitter down too. If you use a programmable counter the output won't be properly square, but that's OK - you make the last stage a divide-by-two flipflop and it will square it off nicely.

    84. Re:Damn by plj · · Score: 1

      who just will tolerate actual usage restrictions.

      Bad typo. I meant to say "will not tolerate".

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    85. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So why bother capturing it in the first place? Doing so increases file sizes, processing power required to perform DSP, etc. etc., for absolutely no benefit."

      Lowered phase and amplitude distortion is what it gets you. Embedded Systems Programming had a very good article on this about 15 years ago. The article stated that if you want to keep these distortions reasonable, that your maximum input frequency should be no more than 1/4 your sample rate.

      Now whether increased phase and amplitude distortion for signals above 11 KHz at a 44.1 KHz sample rate is really all that audible is debatable.

    86. Re:Damn by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      There's more to sound than the audible spectrum, just like there's more to light than the visible spectrum. I suppose you think Infrared and Ultraviolet are to be ignored?

    87. Re:Damn by zentex · · Score: 1

      >Hearing non-audio people speaking about audio is always amusing

      what are you...new?!

      this is slashdot; everyone who posts comments to a story is an expert on said topic didn't you know that?? ;-)
      (smother that in heavy sarcasm)

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    88. Re:Damn by tubeguy · · Score: 1

      >>Humans are also more willing to tolerate noise in video than in audio:

      Good point. Probably because hearing bandwidth is much larger than sight- 19,000 vs. about 340.

      (I know, sound and electromagnetism are apples and oranges, but how would you like it if you could only hear from 3,000hz to 3,340hz?)

    89. Re:Damn by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Working compromise for downloadables? A hard to remove unique waterstamp
      > in every song downloaded legally, but no usage restrictions.

      Long term, I don't see that. Truly effective DRM is proving again and again to be simply elusive, and eventually the mainstream labels will give up. It might take another ten years for that to sink in, though. I think in the long term pragmatism will win out, coupled with the realization that given a reasonable price point, most people would prefer legal ways to ownership. I'm talking averages here, because there will always be a fringe that prefers to live "dangerously". But as long as legitimate purchases stay above a certain threshold, the system will still work. This approach is standard in many other fields, such as insurance or even law enforcement, so eventually even the dense labels will get it.

      Incidentally, I'm saying that DRM is unworkable because there will always be the analog loophole, even if really got watermarking systems are developed. Look at the number of people willing to watch truly sh!tty screen captures from Asia. You can still get very decent sound quality by resampling analog output, and except for true audiophiles most people wouldn't even know the difference. Once you do that, pretty much any watermarking goes out the window.

      Another way labels could make music purchase enticing is by making it preferable for more practical reasons. For example, they could build a really beefy downloading infrastructure that offers faster and more reliable downloads than P2P services. A lot of people would pony up the $0.99 for a track just to be able to have it in 30 seconds instead of ten minutes later.

    90. Re:Damn by plj · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, I'm saying that DRM is unworkable because there will always be the analog loophole, even if really got watermarking systems are developed.

      Yeah, but I didn't even meant it to stop determined people. The fact is just that most people who are used to CD ripping - that is, insert CD, click "import" in iTunes and pop, three minutes later your songs are ready to be shared - will find analog recording so labouring that they simply won't bother doing it for P2P only. Commercial pirates are still going to record or get some sophisticated software to remove the watermark directly, but as they're doing it in volumes and for profit, you can still go after them by traditional means.

      Ordinary P2P users simply wouldn't bother anymore, as if the songs would be only watermarked but not restricted. You could still play them with every single gadget you ever have, and drop copies to your friends that you know you can trust not to share them in the net. BUT if you'd share them with everyone, you'd need to do the time-consuming process of re-recording, which most people would find so complicated operation that they simply wouldn't bother, or otherwise the songs would instantly get tracked back to you.

      See, it's a bit like speed limits on highways: if you're speeding +10 km/h or less, you know that the police most likely won't bother; but if you drive +20 km/h instead, you know that you now have a good chance to get ticketed. And if you're driving +40, your license must be pretty cheap to you.

      Watermarking would be like a bit like this; you would have fair use, but openly sharing in P2P would get you busted. This would be acceptable by most people. Real DRM is not acceptable, because people will feel that they've been played fool when they find out that the usage is restricted.

      Current situation is more like all the highway patrols would've been eliminated, and full-blown DRM would be like the speed limits would be enforced by GPS tracking. Neither is truly acceptable.

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    91. Re:Damn by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      With digital, the problem isn't SNR it's THD (Total Harmonic Distortion). A square wave at n Hz sampled at 2n Hz will be converted to a sine wave on playback even with a perfect timebase system. The 96kHz sampling is needed to reduce the THD by getting more sample points in the audible range under 22 kHz so that a square wave comes out as a square wave even at high frequencies.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    92. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wouldn't trust anything that sits inside the case of the RF bomb most people call a computer to produce anything of real quality."

      Some of the best available audio ADC cards (Lynx) sit in a PCI slot. It's about good circuit design. As long as you keep your signal lines sandwiched between the ground planes on a multilayer board, and filter the power lines, rf is not a problem.

    93. Re:Damn by CBDSteve · · Score: 1

      "Not to mention that it's not nearly the same to work in front of a computer as it is to work in front of a reel to reel. Being 'virtualized' in the screen is a much different experience than merely being plugged in to a reel to reel"

      Yes, but you're assuming that working in front of a reel-to-reel is the 'correct' method, and that any computer software is only going to try and reacreate that process; I think a modern computer system has a valid methodolgy all of its own.

      Either way, surely the 'correct' method is that the music happens inside your head, and then you transfer it to the real world using whatever tool best fits the job, whether thats a analogue electronic system or a digital one?

    94. Re:Damn by lgw · · Score: 1

      While this is important for mixing, so that errors don't accumulate, it's meaningless for playback. There are no square waves in real life, of course, only collections of much-higher-frequency sine waves that are "square enough".

      What you're really saying is that the source materiel has frequencies well above 22KHz, which may look sort of like a square wave or other high-frequency transient, but the playback won't have any frequencys above (about) 22KHz. That's OK - the mechanical constuction of the human ear can't register frequencis above 20KHz anyway (OK, it actually varies between individuals quite a bit). If you subtracted the playback signal from the original signal, the result would be completely inaudible.

      In short, you can't hear fast transients above 20KHz any more than you can hear a sine wave above 20Khz. Now, if you can hear frequencies all the way up to 30KHz (a few people can), you might have something to complain about, but it's not specific to waveform at all.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    95. Re:Damn by lgw · · Score: 1

      Waveform is just a simple way of talking about a much-higher-frequency signal. Capturing the waveform of a 20KHz signal accurately is exactly the same as capturing a 2MHz tone. In the end it gets you nothing: the ear can't tell the difference in waveform at 20KHz any more than it can hear a 2MHz tone, and for exactly the same reason: the physical mechanism can't move that way.

      This actually oversimplifies, as different parts of the ear work in different ways, and the damaged hearing of most adults might not hear a tone above 15KHz, but might still make out a waveform that corresponds to a 30KHz transient, but above about 30KHz it's just a waste.

      Anyway, how many analog instruments play in the top octave to begin with - there's already more than an octave of padding above the base frequency of anything musical that's only really used to hear waveform in the first place, so 22KHz has plenty of slack. And I'm not sure what "accuracy" means for listening to digital instuments in the first place. :)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    96. Re:Damn by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      Because the 74HCU04 can act as a linear amplifier with high gain, instead of a logic device, a fact which I only recently learned from reading Horowitz and Hill. Before I read that, I always wondered why they used HCU, too!

    97. Re:Damn by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Beyond all of that, if you read the article (I know something few slasdotters actually do, you just open it in a seperate tab and forget about it...) the employees left for the new year and came back to no jobs.

      That's fucking rude, and cold. Some of these people have spent their whole lives at this job only to be treated like garbage. I love at the end of the article the management wasn't available for comment. Which really said "Management is currently hiding for fear of getting a couple feet of steel pipe across the face by a mob of angry workers"

      The other side of this is the question, If analog tape is on the way out... don't you think you'd look at some way of keeping yourself competative and transitioning into some other media type that you could produce?"

      Or is this an alagory for why overspecialization breeds in weakness, i.e the Cheeta.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    98. Re:Damn by Hittman · · Score: 1

      Humans can't hear above 20k. (A few people can hear a bit higher, but not much.) The mikes don't record above 20k. Even if they could, the mixing board wouldn't handle anything above 20k. Even if they could, and you had a tape deck capable of recording 30k, the machines that cut the vinyl masters didn't go above 20k. Even if they could, the cartridge that played back the recording didn't go above 20k. Even if it did, the amp it was being run through couldn't process anything over 20k. Even if it could, the speakers the music was being pumped through didn't handle anything over 20k.

      So the argument that analog sounds better because it captured and played back higher frequencies is completely bogus. And even if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a difference to human ears.

      Rather than perusing the holy grail of 30k tones, you'd be better off adding some Shakti stones and/or a Hallograph sound optimizer to your system. Of course, you should first use a green magic marker to improve the sound of your CDs.

      ("Shakti" is a word from an ancient dialect of an ancient language, which means "There's one born every minute.")
    99. Re:Damn by object88 · · Score: 1

      Or would you prefer to buy some c32-coated amplifier knobs for a richer sound?

      That's c37. Good try, though.

    100. Re:Damn by Crixus · · Score: 1

      +9 tape can be driven to that level with little or no distortion, and you can exceed that by quite a bit yielding nice compression and distortion. Rich...

      --
      Ignore Alien Orders
    101. Re:Damn by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      There isn't any 'color' in the path of a Dynaco tube pre-amp. The whole purpose in that grade of gear is complete transparency.

      It can be replaced by modern silicon. I can't afford the grade of modern equipment that would replace the Dynaco preamp. It has low-noise performance that is scary (no 'hiss' at all at max volume, then you notice how high it's cranked when the sound of the tone arm being lifted makes a rumble)

    102. Re:Damn by puetzk · · Score: 1

      What I was trying to point out is *how* timing jitter (in recording or playback) affects signals near the limiting frequency for the system. "why a CD can't go to 22050 Hz". Jitter is all-to-often mentioned out as the bogeyman of digital systems relative to the the number of people who have any clue what the effect even is.

      The frequency spectrum given was for the hypothetical pure sine wave at n Hz (pre-sampling), or the distorted one (post-reconstruction). The resulting pulse train would of course have a very different characteristic if you looked at it directly, since the ideal impulse function has frequency content at all frequencies, most of which is filtered back off as part of reconstruction. Not sure if you were referring to this or to the fact that the jitter "noise" is also quite high frequency. Both are definitely true, and the playback system's filtering will get most of both.

      Also, I'll freely admit that the high frequency noise introduced by the jitter (the inaccurate waveform of the signal) is going to be at or beyond human hearing (for a CD anyway). It's perceptible *at most* as intonation, and not even that much unless the gear in question is really impressively bad. But it's harmonic, so I suspect that the true golden-ear types may be able to notice it, or notice interference patterns between it and the true tones.

      Amusingly enough, the comments tape-deck aficionados seemed to really like this effect as long as it come from motor speed variations.

      --
      The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
    103. Re:Damn by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that was the extra beer talking.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    104. Re:Damn by rich_r · · Score: 1

      Just 'cause you can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there....

  11. Didn't they used to be Ampex? by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or did they buy the audio division when Ampex went to "Ampex Data Systems"? If I am to believe the article, then there would be no further sources of 2" reels. There are a lot of 24 track studios out there that still use this tech.

    BBH

    1. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by raeler · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's okay, there's an entire decade of music reels that can be recycled. Finally, a use for 80's music!

      --
      This is my post. See sig above ^
    2. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by dunng808 · · Score: 1
      Yes, they were a part of Ampex. And there are still sources for open-reel tape, even 2" tape. Total Media Inc. being one.

      In my opinion open-reel may be analog, but it had so many signal degrading problems! Hiss, print-through, edge damage, drop-outs, breakage, flutter and wow. Don't be fooled into thinking that analog tape provided anything pure or natural; it was a kluge.

      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    3. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might notice that all but two of the items on the page you linked to are currenlty backordered i.e. not currently available.

      B
    4. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by javaxman · · Score: 2, Informative
      There seems to be at least some supply of this tape around, though, some of it even still says "BASF" on it just one example. Google for "2 inch audio tape" for more.

      So it appears there may be a reasonable supply of this stuff still around, and if they're "restructuring" maybe they'll make more before that supply runs out, but likely they were making _way_ more than demand called for, so... don't expect that $150 for 2500 feet price tag to drop when they do open their plant back up.

      I don't know if "a lot" of those studios actually use this tape on a regular basis. "A lot" of those studios have had some really hard financial times over the past 10 years.

    5. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by hawk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Finally, a use for 80's music!

      Now wait a minute, younster. 80's music already performed one of the most important feats in history: the end of Disco . . .

      hawk, who remembers the horror

    6. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by goosman · · Score: 1

      Almost all of those products you pointed to from Total Media are backordered....sources are dwindling...

    7. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Disco also served an important function: the death of 'psuedo-hippy.'

      Though it's cooler to see 80's punks stomp hippies than it is to seem them driven away wild-eyed by the sound of disco music...

    8. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by hawk · · Score: 1

      Though it's cooler to see 80's punks stomp hippies

      Cue up the David Allen Coe, to the effect of
      "My long hair just can't hide my red neck ...
      than it is to seem them driven away wild-eyed by the sound of disco music...


      Every yeare I've asked my microeconomics students to complete the phrase, "Disco's dead . . ."

      I've only had a student get it right once . . .

      hawk

    9. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by Dever · · Score: 1
      ...but so are you!

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
    10. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by hawk · · Score: 1

      hmm, lost in the html tags.

      "My long hair just can't hide my red neck
      [description of dives he plays and fights]
      "the cowboys looking at the bikers, staring at the hippies, who wonder if they'll get out of there alive"

      hawk, who used a "less than" instead of a bracket

    11. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Magnetic tape is cut from reels at least a foot wide. In principle, any manufacturer of audio tape could assemble a set of rotary knives for an arbitrary width tape. If there's enough money available for a custom run, it can be done.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by helfon1 · · Score: 1

      It's very common for recording studios to record digitally, drop it to 2 inch analog and then go back to digital to try to maintain all the benefits of digital editing but still get that warm analog sound.

    13. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      On the flip side... Saturation, compression, warmth.
      On your side, you missed the "wonderful" and tedius maintanance that had to be done on analog playback equipment.
      Digital @ 44.1x16 made a great distribution medium. Digital @ 24x96 mad an "OK" creative medium, but it is my opinion that we will have to wait for the next step (192x48) for it to become what 2" analog has been for the last couple decades. (I know, we are already at the next step, but it is really, really, really, expensive)

      While I run digital now, I still find myself mastering to a 1/2" 2 track or through an LA2 just to get the old analog feel.

      BBH

    14. Re:Didn't they used to be Ampex? by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

      "A lot" of those studios have had some really hard financial times over the past 10 years.

      No doubt due to digital music piracy, right RIAA?

  12. This is going to tick off audiophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of pros still incorporate analog tape in the mastering process, and I imagine they are going to be really ticked off by this move. I'm surprised they weren't able to raise prices over the years, to compensate for a shrinking market. I would think some folks would be willing to keep paying premiums for the medium they choose to record in. I mean heck, you can still press records and buy turntables.

    1. Re:This is going to tick off audiophiles by biscuit67 · · Score: 1

      Well, those pro's need to get with the times. Analog had its place and time and is no longer needed (I'm sure I'll get flamed for that).

      Yes, apparently, analog sounds better but who cares? I mean, you lose quality on every analog duplication pass. Every duplication of a digital produces, surprise surprise, a 100% identical duplicate of the original.

      Now that most professional audio is sampled and 192K plus, what's the deal? What's so good about analog? Does it sound "smoother"? If so, why? Is it because of higher harmonics or is it because the technology introduces a "smoother", "softer" sound due to it's flaws?

      Hanging on to this technology is very nostalgic, I'm sure. But even the horse drawn carriage got replaced by better technology.

    2. Re:This is going to tick off audiophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yes, apparently, analog sounds better but who cares?

      people with ears?

      > Now that most professional audio is sampled and 192K plus, what's the deal?

      There's no point in sampling at rates higher than 96K, even that is extreme. Increasing the sample rate can actually degrade audio quality (I'm not talking about upsampling).

      > What's so good about analog? Does it sound "smoother"? If so, why?

      google for 'even odd harmonics'

      > Hanging on to this technology is very nostalgic, I'm sure.

      Not only that, your recording sound better for it. That's kind of an advantage for people who record things for a living isn't it?

    3. Re:This is going to tick off audiophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry... most pros are NOT using the 192K converters. 48k /24bit (32 bit float) is still the standard. Most high end studios use analog tape for the warmth (even and odd harmonic distortions) and for the natual compression created - especially for drums. Then the tracks from the tape are "flown" into a digital editor/multitracker. Many will have 48+ discreate outputs back into an SSL mixer for the final mixdown - the output of which is often to 1 in tape which then goes to the mastering house for final prep before it goes to the masses. I think some of you geeks need to spend some time at www.prosoundweb.com in the forums with some of the worlds most renowned audio engineers and mastering engineer and get their take on this. Also read up at http://www.digido.com to learn about digital audio - many of you are mis-informed! :)

    4. Re:This is going to tick off audiophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just about the medium, it's about causing people, often older people, to change their entire work style. As a younger person who probably uses computers extensively in your work, try to imagine what it would be like if you were suddenly required to use a whole host of appliances (none of which you understood) intead of using your one monolithic machine...just so you could achieve the same result. What is the incentive to change? Pros are not technophiles, they use tools for the purpose of getting the job done. So long as a tool continues to work, it continues to get used.

  13. In other news... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Eastman Kodak, the last remaining manufacturer of silver halide professional photographic film ceased production today, 1500 workers in Rochester, New York are now without jobs.

    Maybe not today, but soon...

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:In other news... by ral315 · · Score: 1

      That won't happen, simply because Kodak has adapted with the change. Kodak makes Digital Cameras, and with development of your 35mm film, many stores will give you a "Kodak Picture CD" Quantegy, while they do make other digital items, had no jobs for their other workers.

    2. Re:In other news... by muntumbomoklik · · Score: 1

      Kodak has been trying to eliminate some aspects of their film manufacturing sector, specifically old super-8 film. However, a large protest by film teachers that super-8 film is -the- way to teach students about film production has kept the film alive.

      Cottage industries and film fanatics keep film stock going, and I really can't doubt that someone will begin to manufacture old audio stock again in small batches. Old technology like this always resurges one way or another.

    3. Re:In other news... by CypherXero · · Score: 1

      Screw Kodak, I'll take Illford Delta 400 Professional. IMO, Illford has higher quality and shorter developing times than Kodak.

    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF every one in America stopped using film for still photography, Kodak would still do just fine on their motion picture films. Even with Digital motion picture capture systems( high end video and the like) no one is even close to capturing the 8k resolution of 35mm film (not to mention the incredible resolutions of 70mm Imax) at 24fps let alone higher frame rates.

    5. Re:In other news... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Hooray! No more toxic chemicals for making film and prints! Our mother Gaia rejoices.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:In other news... by lpontiac · · Score: 1
      Eastman Kodak, the last remaining manufacturer of silver halide professional photographic film

      Eh, manufacture film? I thought they were a Java company.

    7. Re:In other news... by Aero+Leviathan · · Score: 1

      Anyone who lives in Rochester will tell you Kodak has NOT adapted with the change. When I was in elementary school, it seemed like half the kids' dads worked at Kodak (mine included). Now it's hard to find anyone that does anymore... the 'Kodak' areas of downtown looks like a ghost town...

      --
      ~ Aero
    8. Re:In other news... by TheOriginalRevdoc · · Score: 1

      Kodak still sell *billions* of dollars worth of film every year, much of it specialised stuff that you've never heard of.

      Kodak will be in the film biz for a couple of decades yet, even if it becomes a much smaller part of its overall business.

    9. Re:In other news... by bedessen · · Score: 1

      Sooner than you think. Kodak announced a year ago that they were getting out of the traditional film camera business (but they are still manufacturing the film itself of course.)

  14. Okay, how is the evolution of communication news? by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 0

    Did this really come as any surprise to anybody? I know that many audiophiles out there will be dismayed as reel-to-reel consistently was considered to be one of the highest quality media available for audio recording; but does this plant closing come as any true shock to anybody here? In a world where "digital" means "superior" in just about every aspect of technology (even when it technically is not, particularly in the realm of audio) and more and more audio is going to digital, is this really a headliner?

    I guess that this is all Bush's fault somehow.

    This would be just as news-worthy as hearing about the last vinyl LP plant closing or the last floppy disk going off the assembly line. All of these instances indeed are (or eventually will be) the closures of chapters in history, but not enough to be given such importance on Slashdot. There is more emotional impact by (what I deem to be) the unethical business method by which those people lost their jobs (Surprise! You're fired! Merry f**king Christmas!) as opposed to the fact that they lost their jobs due to the totally unexpected decline in the use of reel tape.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  15. May not be closed permanently by eap · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article says they're just closed for restructuring. This is vague, but it may not mean they are closed down permanently.

    1. Re:May not be closed permanently by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 1

      A quick visit to their web site shows that they are into more products than just analog reel tape. They're probably just figuring out how to compete in an already tough, highly competitive, digital media market.

      --
      The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
    2. Re:May not be closed permanently by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      Wait, altering business practices to evolve with a changing market? I find this idea intruiging, please tell me more.

      - Cary Sherman

    3. Re:May not be closed permanently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says they're just closed for restructuring.

      Next on Q13 news: a slashdot poster actually RTFA

  16. Reel to Reel by matts-reign · · Score: 0

    Wierd that this is the very last manufacturer. But i suppose that with all our newfound digital tech there is no longer any need for high quality analog equipment. High quality analog wasn't cheap either, my highschool had some good reel - to -reel recorders that we used to play around on if a teacher would be generous enough to let us touch them. Now adays we can play around with full audio editing stuff on our computers for no cost (other than a normal Pc).

    --
    Waffles rock.
  17. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 1

    I probably need to specify that "totally unexpected decline" was sarcasm, given the rampant grammar and spelling problems on /., some of which I must confess to contributing.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  18. Re:First "I failed it" post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given your lack of abilities I think a 'Fuck' may take you much longer than you expect as well.

  19. Market demands by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If there is a market for 1/4", Maxell will reintroduce XL. Or some Chinese plant will start making it.

    Pro tape, especially 2", is staggeringly expensive. And it still offers some qualities of sound which take a significant effort to duplicate with digital. Yes, this is aberration, but it's a desirable *analog* aberration, and studios that use tape contribute sort of a gestalt to the overall product, an organic quality.

    I'm a big fan of digital, and I don't really care about analog tape, but I do sympathize with the folks still using 1" and 2" decks.

    Digital recording is only *just now* getting to the point where it can truly take over. (It's been there for playback for decades, sure, but production is another story.)

    But it's always been expensive to do 2". In the day, we'd get tapes that had been used once in a voiceover studio and bulk erase them.

    Oh well... I feel sorry for the plant workers and anybody still using an ampex console. Somewhere I think i still have a Teac 4-track 1/4", and boxes of unused, or only partly used, tapes. Ebay time?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Market demands by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good reel-to-reel 1/4" decks fetch several hundred dollars on eBay, so you may as well. Collectors buy up recordings in that format, too, but most of the recordings currently offerend on eBay are complete crap.

    2. Re:Market demands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is just like communism.

      Old fat white men sit in a room and decide what they will sell and they get other somewhat younger white men to get others to buy it. Maybe they use a white female. A sexy one.

    3. Re:Market demands by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      No, under capitalism you are free to startup your own factory to make this product if you so desire.

    4. Re:Market demands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then smote down by the white old men in their boardrooms using their patent laws to crush you.

      Seriously, get a clue stick and beat yourself with it till you get a clue.

    5. Re:Market demands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apologies, using patent laws is against true free markets.

      What they'd do is hire hit men to kill you. After all, restricting any market (the market for hitmen is still a market) at all is a violation of the free market. You aren't against the free market are you?

    6. Re:Market demands by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is aberration, but it's a desirable *analog* aberration,

      That's right where you lost me.

      See I have this funny view that the purpose of recording equipment is to record sounds. The closer you get to a "perfect" recording, the better.

      If certain artists like to use tapes decks as "signal processors", that's all fine and dandy, but it only speaks negatively about their usefulness as recording devices.

      The minute you start saying things like, "sure it adds noise, but it's good noise" you loose all credibility. At that point there's no way to say that ANY equipment is better because you're treating them like sound effects boxes instead of SOUND REPRODUCTION DEVICES.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    7. Re:Market demands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maxell doesn't make tape anymore. They've licensed their name to a Korean manufacturer who also makes ConcertAPE for Radios Hack. That company, an even worse Chinese one, and Quantegy are the only firms on the planet making audio tape.

    8. Re:Market demands by randomblast · · Score: 1

      Pro tape, especially 2", is staggeringly expensive. And it still offers some qualities of sound which take a significant effort to duplicate with digital. Yes, this is aberration, but it's a desirable *analog* aberration, and studios that use tape contribute sort of a gestalt to the overall product, an organic quality.

      You are refering to the "warm" sound of the 50s and 60s...
      This is just nasty colouration that people happen to like. Personally, I'd much rather sample everything nice and cleanly, and then distort the stream later with a filter.

      --
      ...these aren't my real teeth.
  20. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by mabinogi · · Score: 1

    > This would be just as news-worthy as hearing about the last vinyl LP plant closing or the last floppy disk going off the assembly line.

    Yes, yes it is, what's your point?

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  21. I still use analogue tape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work at the BBC World Service, broadcasting in (approx) 42 different languages around the world - and we still use analogue tape for about 80% of our programmes! We are slowly being digitised, but believe it or not, analogue tape is great to work with, quick to edit, and extremely reliable, both for playback and archiving... I'm no luddite, but as someone who has to deal with on-air disasters, I know that tape recorders don't crash.... Our latest digital system runs on windows 2000... Say no more.

    1. Re:I still use analogue tape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is getting tiresome, I know. But I thought you'd like some advise from a audio professional.

      That little "dig" you took at Windows 2000 betrayed your ignorance. Did you do it because you thought you'd make friends here at Slashdot? Only the most foolish of Slashdot posters still make those kinds of silly jokes.

      If your Windows 2000 system is crashing its not the fault of the OS. Trust me on this.

    2. Re:I still use analogue tape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The World Service is always a bit behind. :)
      I work at the BBC London Maidavale studios, at it's all SADiE daws. They do run on Windows 2K, but are VERY reliable (and expensive).
      Virtually nothing is done on 1/4" tape, other than perhaps some contributions from regional radio.
      If it's 2 track it will be DAT, CD or minidisk.
      And yes, they do fuck up more often than the old Revoxes (or Brennels if you've been there as long as I have) but it's what we use.

  22. This is horrible, tape is the only archival medium by tentimestwenty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now that there are so many digital recording formats, with various numbers of tracks, it is essentially impossible to create legacy recordings. Many programs we use today won't even run in 5 years let alone 100 and all we will have is basic 2 track mixdown masters of many records.

    With tape you could use whatever you wanted to record a record, it all got put to the same tape and in most cases the tape lasted a very long time, 50 years plus. Better yet, often times the recording equipment was better than the tape playback so as time went on you could get better sound off the same tape because technology had advanced. Digital is locked in stone forever, never to reveal any improvements. Even as a crude 2nd step backup there is the potential to bounce your multi-track masters to multi-track tape for preservation.

    Steve Albini, one of the world's best recording engineers has a good lecture about the importance of tape here

  23. What will happen now is... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

    A small group of the best employees will get together and buy up enough of the equipment to keep one line running. They will buy the rights to the Ampex name and continue as a boutique manufacturer for high-end enthusists.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  24. Everytime they change formats you have to upgrade. by Momoru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great. Now I guess i finally have to upgrade to an 8-track.

  25. Yikes by nurb432 · · Score: 0

    Sad to see analog equipment being replaced by digital.

    Digital is more convenient, but its NOT better quality.. cant be.. ever..

    It may get to the point the average person cant tell the difference, but its still not the same as the original analog source.

    Its a sad day.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Yikes by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      You mean the *actual* source...

      Analog tape has a finite Nyquist limit because of grain size and transport speed, unlike a digital recording which in principal is only limited by the sampling rate.

    2. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a good point. Do you know what the actual Nyquist limit of high-quality analog tape is?

    3. Re:Yikes by deathcloset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Digital is better.

      In every respect.

      I am an audiophile, and If you are to play vinyl through headphones to someone in the next room they will not be able to tell the difference between the original source and a digital recording of the vinyl playback. A digital recording can have a superset of all measurable audio components - spectrum and amplitude.

      And as for the aliasing of digital recordings, when the sound hits the air it IS analog it becomes analog. When you use very high quality digital audio recordings you can capture and reproduce sounds that begin to (and for all intents do) border on the limits of they physics of sound itself.

      Digital is superior in every way to analog. it is a myth that a person can hear the difference in a sufficciently high sample-rate recording.

      Imagine an analog recording like a wooden box. You can hold it and carry it around. eventually it will begin to wear and tear.

      Digital is like the knowledge of how to build that box. everytime you want to use the box you can build it from scratch instantaneously and you have a perfect, brand new box.

      Sure, it's made out of wood from a different tree than your last box - but it is in better shape and the wood which you construct it out is of the same type and is stronger since it is unworn.

      Furthermore, with the eventual advent of exponentially more sophisticated computation we will see the ability to record sound and reproduce it in such a way that it could be called seamless.

      This will be accomplished not by a direct imprint on some meduim, but via an informational representation (analogous to digital) which will so dwarf the capabilities of the ancient idea of analog recordings that those who said analog is superior will be gaffawed in a similar fashion as we laugh at the gentleman below for his statements.

      "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
      - Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre] (circa 1911)
      He was Supreme Commander of Allied forces, 1918

      He held a similar attachment to the classical way of doing things and saw inherent superiority in his beliefs.

      He was wrong for reasons blatently obvious from the perspective of the modern day.

    4. Re:Yikes by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sorry, but i don't agree. Digital is a lower quality representation packaged in a more convenient format.. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      And I CAN tell the difference.

      However, i will agree that the quality does degrade over time with analog. Digital does not.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Yikes by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't matter anymore, given the butchering job done these days at the mastering stage in the "Quest for the Loudest CD". They might as well record direct to 8 bit for all I care - it's not like they need the dynamic range these days.

      Perhaps what they need is a mixing board with Volumes that go to 11 :)

    6. Re:Yikes by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      I suspect that is the wrong way to put it; in any event good analog tape with clean heads and good tranport will far surpass human hearing in its highest frequency.

      It's just so much cheaper and easier to do this with digital, which in magnetic resonance imaging applications, for example, use analog to digital samplers measured in the *megahertz.* (Most of our hearing goes up to a maximum of 22 KILOHz.)

    7. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital is more convenient, but its NOT better quality.. cant be.. ever..

      Can't be... ever... ??

      FLAME BAIT !

      Modders, pay attention!

    8. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital technology allows the free use of a dictionary, so you too can learn the difference between 'principal' (main) and 'principle' (idea).

    9. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you think you can. You're deluding yourself.

    10. Re:Yikes by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you have one very valid point that I can't argue--that digital audio will one day be 'nearly seamless'...and 'just about perfect'....it will have seams.

      I agree that one day--soon, at that--analog will be dwarfed in every way by what we do in the digital realm....it still won't be the same an equivalent analog counterpart...I'll let you choose what determines 'counterpart'

      Analog is a continuous wave....digital is not. Period. Aside from the idiosynchrosies that make analog a great medium (creative) to work in, digital has that one drawback.

      My point: For the love of God, man, do not confuse 'quality' with 'expense based level of accessability'.

      To get an 'audiophile quality' analog reproduction you need to have the higest in quality--and highest in price--equipment. For digital the entry level is much lower.

      My example: a $39 portable CD player (Via its line out) will have roughly the same (if not damn near identicle) quality output as a $1200 CD player....THD and frequency response being more limited by the output circuitry than any pickup circuitry.

      it'd take (Est.) roughly $5000 worth of analog gear...(being just the turntable and tone arm) to reproduce that.

      Take the high-end of analog audio....store bought vinyl reproducing ~60kHz signal, versus the high end of digital....DVD audio reproducing ~48kHz of signal...that's just the frequency...the real knock-out punch comes from the amplitude. The practically infinite variations between levels. As opposed to digital where it's quite tightly restricted. 16-bit audio (CD) does 65k discreet levels of amplitude....24-bit does 16.7mil. Quite a bit, yes....but, nowhere near par for reality, or even 'reference super-high-end-analog'

      Yes, digital high-end is far more (economically) accesible...but analog high-end is far more 'real'....'hiss' aside ;)

      Where I'm going with all this: I am not going to run 2" tape to listen to the latest album by my favorite band....but I want the studio that records them to. I want that level of 'actual perfect' to exist in some form and to be one day accessible...even if for nothing more than being able to either archive it digitally (using the real top-shelf digital technology for later down-sampling to the lowest-common-denominator of digital playback tech)...or for actual remasterability in later years.

      Remember: In the analog world, you CAN turn things up and down...in digital, all of it is artificial.

    11. Re:Yikes by spywarearcata.com · · Score: 1

      I R soory I bee too bad speller, my grammar was ilitrate and she passd it's on too me.

      Also punkuation is importrant, "Come on Frank!" make dfrent senses wid a commer after de "on."

    12. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Analog is better for Pro-audio because tracks are ADDED together. The high frequencies really get mangled when you add a bunch of digital representations together. Isn't that audiophile 101? Poser.

    13. Re:Yikes by multiplexo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry, but i don't agree. Digital is a lower quality representation packaged in a more convenient format.. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      And I CAN tell the difference.

      Christ, more luddite horseshit from another "audiophile". Can analog recordings be better than digital ones? Certainly they can, in the early years of the CD revolution a lot of CDs were remastered with the RIAA equalization curves that were used to master LPs, which meant that you superimposed an unsuitable equalization curve over a media that had essentially flat reproduction, which made it sound like crap. As engineers got more used to digital music this became less and less of a problem (although it's been replaced with the "let's master this fucker as loud as we can" problem). But as far as the supposed superiority of analog to digital give me a break.

      Let's look at some of the fun artifacts you get with analog media such as LPs (I assume that you're referring to LPs because most of the "audiophiles" out there turn their noses up at commercially mastered cassette tapes). With LP playback you get to deal with cracks and pops caused by static on the record, wow and flutter from your turntable, cracks and pops caused by dust on the record. Now, if you keep your records clean and maintain your stylus and go through all of the happy horseshit that owning a turntable requires you can minimize this. But then you also have to deal with the fact that unless you're buying quality pressings, such as those from the Nautilus SuperDisc line of recordings or the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Original Master Recording series or their later Anadisq 200 series, the stock used to press most vinyl recordings was utter crap, which limited the ultimate quality of any vinyl pressing right out of the box. Then of course there's the fact that every single time you play that record you degrade its quality. Strangely enough though most "audiophiles" who disdain digital aren't consistent with their LP collections, if they were, and if their ears were as good as they claim, they'd have to toss an album out after say a dozen playings since its quality would have degraded.

      As far as being able to tell the difference, a claim which so many "audiophiles" have made I'm sure you can. The vinyl recording is going to have less dynamic range, it has to because if it has too much dynamic range the stylus will pop out of the groove. What most audiophiles completely ignore is the fact that the pure music they claim to love so much has had the living Jesus processed out of it before it even hits the master. The frequency response is going to be different because of the preemphasis and deemphasis that the RIAA equalization, which was designed to deal with the mechanical limitations of the turntable, will not produce completely flat playback.

      I would love to see an ABX comparison where "audiophiles" who claim to be able to tell the difference between digital and analog and prefer the latter, were put into a listening room. They would listen to a recording of either a compact disc played through an equalizer to degrade the sound quality, change the frequency response and reduce the dynamic range or a standard LP. I'd be willing to bet that without too much tweaking on the CD side of things you could make the CD sound like an LP recording to the golden ears of all of the supposed "audiophiles" out there. Perhaps someone should make a box that plugs in between a digital source such as a CD player and the pre-amp that does exactly this and then charge "audiophiles" out the wazoo for it. Sure, some people might claim that taking their money with a scam like this is wrong, but "audiophiles" are such suckers and easy marks that it's almost wrong not to take their money away from them.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    14. Re:Yikes by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to agree, you're just totally wrong.

      Analog storage is limited by the speed of the recording medium and the amount of surface area utilized to store the analog soundwaves (in whatever fashion).

      Even professional recording gear resolves far less sound information than what digital audio gear can do... Sure, a standard CD is a pretty paltry 44khz/16bit. So crank it up to professional units... 96khz or higher, go to 24bit recording... Still not enough? Go even higher if you want, but you'd be deluding yourself if you think you'll hear the difference.

      The sound quality that people tend to like in analog gear is a result of the imprecision of the devices. Signals tend to leak, get transformed and modified by the analog gear they pass through, and also as it relates to the environment the gear is in (RF interference, atmospherics, etc). Some would argue that it gives them a "wamer, richer tone", but it all boils down to analog devices not maintaining an exact representation of the sound they are conveying.

      So yes, you probably can tell the difference, but what you're hearing isn't a result of the storage medium, but of interm processing and modification through imprecise devices.

      If you were to take the same output of the analog tape deck and record it into a high-quality digital deck (at the aforementioned 96/24), then play both of those back, you'd never be able to tell the difference.

      So, if you want to argue that you prefer sound processed through analog gear, that's just fine. To call digital "lower quality" is foolish.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    15. Re:Yikes by dimethylsulfoxide · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but can you play it back with a straight pin and a paper cup like vinyl records?

      A good nuclear EMP will render digital playback equipment useless and erase magnetic media.

    16. Re:Yikes by SunFan · · Score: 3, Funny


      Oh God, an audiophile flamewar. Slashdot editors, delete this thread, now! Oh no...it's too late! I'm melting....I'm melting....

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    17. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a good way of thinking about digital versus analogue. I prefer digital media for playback. But my playback setup at home is not treated the same way as the machines down at the recording studio.

      It seems most asshole audiophiles haven't ever been to a recording studio, except maybe for one of their "pure" and woefully boring audiophile-friendly artists. The fact is IT DOESN'T WORK THE SAME WAY. You WANT the tape to distort slightly, at least when you're recording rock music. It sounds great.

      Try recording a rock band, properly, on analogue and on digital. You can make a very good recording on digital, but the albums I find myself listening to simply for the recording (good music is a bonus) are all recorded on analogue.

      And you're right, it's going to sound great on CD, but I don't want the equipment on my end to distort. The CD will capture the original nuances of the recording well enough for me to appreciate them without having to spend a fortune on good analogue equipment that, as you said, will eventually wear out the media. But when you're working in the studio with a competent artist and competent engineers, the tape isn't going to be played enough to wear out significantly. Either that, or some of these bands I listen to are REALLY good at getting things right on the first take.

    18. Re:Yikes by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      "Analog is a continuous wave....digital is not. Period. Aside from the idiosynchrosies that make analog a great medium (creative) to work in, digital has that one drawback."

      Analog recordings are subject to limitations of the recording medium. Frequency response, attenuation, noise, dynamic range, etc. The "pure wave" is just theoretical. Your analog recording is no more "pure" than a very high resolution digital recording. Both can resolve the original signal to a degree where any variations are far, far beyond your range of hearing.

      Both have caveats.

      If the digital signal can reproduce the analog wave to an accuracy far beyond what the human ear and mind can percieve, then the issue is moot. And it can.

    19. Re:Yikes by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Yes, however...

      The definition of what constitutes a "high" frequency in digital all depends on the sample rate and sample width. Go up high enough, it's not a perceptable issue, as the frequencies you are dealing with are all well below your limit.

    20. Re:Yikes by Daneurysm · · Score: 1

      Analog recordings are subject to limitations of the recording medium. Frequency response, attenuation, noise, dynamic range, etc. The "pure wave" is just theoretical. Your analog recording is no more "pure" than a very high resolution digital recording. Both can resolve the original signal to a degree where any variations are far, far beyond your range of hearing. Both have caveats. If the digital signal can reproduce the analog wave to an accuracy far beyond what the human ear and mind can percieve, then the issue is moot. And it can.

      I agree with you... 100%... though, digital circuitry is just as subject to attenuation and noise...it is far more forgiving of the former, and for more 'workable' of the latter.

      Digital is still subject to the same limitations of frequency response and dynamic range--in fact, the bit-depth and sampling frequency are direct results and/or measures of exactly that...keep in my your nyquist and filter roll-off...I know, I sound like a broken record...no pun intended. ;)

      My thing is, just because it is beyond our abilities of perception (or mere notice) does not in fact make it irrelevant. Regardless of whether I can hear it or not, I desire to have my purchased recordings descended from the accurate-as-possible-spec recording. While analog has many many many caveats and exceptions, and digital is 'too perfect for analog guys'...I understand, as I am not an analog guy...and that's not even with me going off on a tangent about how 'harmonic frequencies' far beyond our range of hearing have been found to affect our perception thereof.

    21. Re:Yikes by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Well put. As of yet I haven't heard anyone bring up the problem of generational loss. Given an ideally mastered analog source and a corresponding digital master at a common sample size and rate (and clean sample clocks at mastering and at final playback):

      -A copy of the analog master will always be inferior to the master, while a copy of the digital master will (unless otherwise intended) be an exact copy. This is because there is ample chance for noise and distortion, both electronic and mechanical, to creep in in any analog playback and analog recording device. No amplifier is perfect, no tape transport is vibrationless, and no head/needle can read or write the source with absolute accuracy.

      -While both media can degrade (CD-Rs are postulated to have far worse life than magtape in good storage), a digital master can always be supplanted with a copy of itself, while the original analog master will always be the best quality recording in an analog copy scheme.

      -If a new generation of copies are made from the current generation before the media degrades, even under best real-world circumstances, then at some point in time the best available copy will sound unacceptable to the listener. Digital copies do not have this limitation.

      Enough ranting. Analog vs. digital fights always make my blood boil.

    22. Re:Yikes by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      I guess what I wonder is this: Analog has frequency response limits too.. so are we assuming that analog can record far higher frequencies than digital can? Why not then just up the sample rate on digital to compensate?

      I don't see how digital can't be just as good, given that neither case represents infinite accuracy.

    23. Re:Yikes by LS · · Score: 1

      No one could deny your analysis except that you forgot one thing - digital is not spiritual. God prefers analogue. Vinyl is psychedelic and shit dude.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    24. Re:Yikes by Daneurysm · · Score: 1

      Analog *is* frequency response...that's my entire point, and even given digital's obvious upperhand in so many other domains...and my nearly-entirely digital production environment...I still would prefer analog.

      Digital, with the right equipment, can record far higher frequencies....conventionally....though, analog can match it easily given fatter tape width and faster tape speeds....(lets keep those heads running 'very high impact' a friend used to say in relation to tape-speed adjustment).

      The wave is analog...

      My preference, would it could down to dynamic range (in digital, that's your bit-depth) or frequency response (in digital, that's roughly half your sampling frequency...remember, a wave runs 360 degrees...-180 to +180).......would be dynamic range, where analog has reigned supreme so far....in going from 16-bit to 24-bit sampling I noticed a massive while 'subtle' difference...it just sounded more natural....add all the bits you want, it'll be decades before we beat 2" tape on dynamic range...and frequency response, once again, is another rant entirely...subject to my experiences and what I've read.

    25. Re:Yikes by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Still, there is a limit to your equipment, to your recording medium.
      Your analog tape can't record a 3ghz signal. That's my point.

      This "pure wave" exists only in thought, in the physical world it's affected by everything it passes through.

      So, if you are saying that good tape gear has better dynamic range and/or frequency response than equivalently priced digital gear, that makes perfect sense. But to argue that htis is somehow a limitation of digital or analog technology is silly. Both have a limit to their frequency response and dynamic range, for different reasons. Neither can record things beyond those limits.

      If both mediums had the same limits, the resulting signal would be the same.

    26. Re:Yikes by justins · · Score: 1
      Analog storage is limited by the speed of the recording medium and the amount of surface area utilized to store the analog soundwaves (in whatever fashion).

      When you characterize the difference like that you make it sound as if analog doesn't have any meaningful limits at all. Just a tiny fraction of the density and speed that newer backup tapes get would serve pro audio tape gear just fine.

      it all boils down to analog devices not maintaining an exact representation of the sound they are conveying.

      Well, sure, that's the important advantage of digital.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    27. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good nuclear EMP

      If analog music is played in a post nuclear war world and there is no one around to hear it, does it still hiss?

    28. Re:Yikes by node+3 · · Score: 1

      To call digital "lower quality" is foolish.

      You point out (correctly) that digital is good enough that you can't reliably tell the difference, but digital, by *DEFINITION*, is "lower quality". It's part of the process of digitization.

    29. Re:Yikes by Jarr · · Score: 1
      Just a quick point guys... There's no microphones that can capture, or speakers that can reproduce much higher than about 25khz anyway...

      So all of this frequency response on either recording device is kinda wasted anyway...

    30. Re:Yikes by connorbd · · Score: 1

      All things being equal, maybe analog is slightly better. But you're assuming perfect conditions, which simply don't exist. Analog gives you tape hiss, nonlinearities in the sound, frequency rolloff, and other lovely things. For reproduction purposes, it's not optimal, but people tend to prefer some analog in the process because it's what they're used to. Record production is not just about recording sound, it's about creating sound.

      In the reproduction domain, you can manipulate a digital medium to have whatever you need in terms of frequency response and sampling rate. For most people, what you're dealing with is uncompressed PCM audio at a 44.1KHz sampling rate, which is more than enough to cover the audibility range of the human ear (Nyquist sampling theorem and all that). You do lose something with MP3 or AAC or Vorbis -- they're lossy formats. But raw PCM digital is as close as you can get to perfect 2.0 audio reproduction; it's actually higher fidelity than a lot of analog recording equipment.

    31. Re:Yikes by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. You know what they say though, there's a sucker born every second. Reminds me of a "product" I saw on bluesnews I believe. This guy was selling replacement wooden knobs for some audiophile amplifier. $350! for stained and varnished knobs! hahahahh! Does anyone have a link?

    32. Re:Yikes by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      I found it! It is actually $475! what a crock of shit.. http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/mercha nt.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C

    33. Re:Yikes by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      Here's another good one... $6,500 power cord

      http://www.audioconnect.com/html/aluminata.html

    34. Re:Yikes by trs9000 · · Score: 1

      yes my friend had an experience similar to this. after recording all digital for a while his band and his producer decided to try analog.
      he had always loved tape, where as i have always preferred digital, and what he ran into explains why:
      analog tape compresses, distorts and otherwise miscaptures the information being recorded. it just so happens to sound really nice (low end yeah!).
      on the other hand, digital (up to a certain point) is all about capturing without coloration. it is not perfectly accurate but it is more accurate than analog. like you said, it just depends on your taste... i really prefer what i played to be what i hear unaltered.

    35. Re:Yikes by LaminatorX · · Score: 1
      We may not be able to hear the difference in all cases, but we do feel it.

      I heard (namedrop) Rupert Nieve speak at an AES event over the Summer (/namedrop). He described a study in Japan in which he had been asked to participate. Essentially the adiologists, electrical engineers, and neurologists involved had determined that our phisiological responses were more positive to continuous analog data than to PCM digital audio. At some deep sensory level, digital audio just doesn't feel as good. Interestingly, non-PCM digital formats like SACD may be immune to this effect. The scientists thought that the agitation experienced by the test subjects was a reaction to the ultrasonic switching frequencies present in all PCM recordings.

      I'm probably part of the last generation to have learned the craft on 2" tape. I love digital for all it's good points, but I hope this isn't the swansong for tape. Each tool has its own merits.

    36. Re:Yikes by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Ok, I suppose I should clarify:

      You are correct - analog sound waves originating in an environment can never be represented in a digital format with the same clarity as the original sound pressure waves.

      That said, digital sampling provides the best possible resolution and reproduction for storing and reproducing analog sound captures if you aim to get back exactly what was fed-in.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    37. Re:Yikes by Daneurysm · · Score: 1

      not neccesarily... harmonics located outside of our range of hearing have been shown to effect things we can hear.

      ...besides, I'd rather have all the frequencies I can get and selectively filter it out later than simply not have them. You never know what the future may hold for audio playback, and I would most certainly want the latest version of a recording if it were remastered to let some of those capabilities show.

    38. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen to it live, then.

      ANY recording will distort it from "true".

    39. Re:Yikes by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      Digital is better.

      In every respect.


      For reproduction and playback, perhaps.

      But for recording and production, analog has its merits. But "audiophiles" don't care about that -- "recording professionals" do.

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    40. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sound quality that people tend to like in analog gear is a result of the imprecision of the devices. Signals tend to leak, get transformed and modified by the analog gear they pass through, and also as it relates to the environment the gear is in (RF interference, atmospherics, etc). Some would argue that it gives them a "wamer, richer tone", but it all boils down to analog devices not maintaining an exact representation of the sound they are conveying.

      I am not biased towards either analog or digita, hell I use an iPod everyday with compressed mp3. I can hear the compression, but it doesn't bother me when I'm on the train. I can tolerate it most of the time, because I'm usually doing something else at the same time, not seriously focusing on the music. However, when I DO focus on the music (like the first time I buy the CD), I can hear digital artifacts, and it bothers me. Most often these digital "artifacts" are caused by really shitty down-mix engineering and not the CD medium itself. But, that said...

      Some people think analog tubes sound better, warm, and rich. Others brush it off as being imperfections, and prefer a "perfect" digital reproduction. Take what you like, but there IS an explanation why the analog "warmth" is prefered.

      The "warmth" is indeed based on imperfections, and the reason a lot of people like it is because it's more natural. The reason it's natural, is because in most situations natural sounds are NOT perfect. The listening environment has imperfections caused by everything from non-acustically-perfect-walls, the wind, the humidity of the air (yes, this makes a difference), and so on so forth. Perfect sounds are un-natural. For the same reason, perfect sine-waves are not terribly pleasant to the ear.

      Now take your "perfect" digital recording. How "perfect" and "digital" is it really? Even if the recording, the down-mix and the final medium are ALL digital, it's highly unlikely that it's entirely digital. Or perfect. Say you like rock music. Any kind of rock music. That electric guitar is NOT plugged directly into the digital recorder. A microphone is plugged into the recorder, and the microphone is aimed at... a tube amp. Even fully digital keyboards usually aren't directly plugged into the recorder, even though I realize increasingly so that they're not microphone recorded. (Plugged into amp simulators instead.)

      So in the end, it really is a matter of what you like and what you dislike, rather than digital is bad, analog is bad, and so on. I really do believe that unless the consumer uses very, very high grade non-consumer equipment they won't be able to tell the difference between analog and digital, but there's a big IF, in there. Only IF, the ditital recording engineers would put the same effort into the recording as analog engineers do.... In digital recording, you need to be much more careful about the input dB, and watch out for over compression.

    41. Re:Yikes by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      I prefer sound processed through analog gear. Compare the Aphex 2020 broadcast processor to something like the Orban 8200. The main problem is the notable amount of latency introduced if any significant DSP graphing is done by a digital processor. I choose the broadcast processors as an example because they are all-in-one boxes, typically doing multiband compression and limiting, preemphasis, leveling, equalization, and other stuff. Even with just multiband compression, there is no digital unit that doesn't introduce latency.

      This doesn't even touch on how bad sounding many of the DSP algorithms are when compared to their analog counterparts.

    42. Re:Yikes by spotteddog · · Score: 1
      Sure, it's made out of wood from a different tree than your last box - but it is in better shape and the wood which you construct it out is of the same type and is stronger since it is unworn.

      You left out the fact that in a digital domain, you can only build specific sizes of boxes. If you need a box the size that falls in between two of your digital boxes - you are stuck. In the analog world, I can alter the dimensions of the box.


      Furthermore, with the eventual advent of exponentially more sophisticated computation we will see the ability to record sound and reproduce it in such a way that it could be called seamless.

      But it will never be seamless. There will always be quantization errors.

      Given an infinate amount of memory, processing power, and a ADC with infinately small quantization steps, I will be able to exactly record one specific tone. Anything else is an aopproximation of the original. The question is, "does it matter?"

      Digital is NOT,/strong> better, just different from analog.

      --
      . there used to be a sig here.....
    43. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, most people recording digital these days are using brickwall limiters. And if they aren't they should be. With a brick wall limiter, it is programmatically and literally impossible to exceed the 0db threshhold and produce the dreaded "clipping" which analog advocates are constantly trying to use as an argument against digital.

      As usual, the problem is not the tools, but the sophomores using them.

    44. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Analog is actually of lower quality, due to its noise floor. And the "warmth" people refer to is really just a case of musical nostalgia, it's the pop industry sound they grew up with so they have a natural affinity for the excessive saturation effect. As fewer and fewer engineers pay homage to that sound (like Motown used to) and more and more of them grow up within the digital generation, the nostalgia for that "overdriven tape" sound will pass as well. And until it does, we've got stuff like Steinberg's TrueTape saturation and PSP Vintage Warmer to see us through anyway.

    45. Re:Yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loudness does not equate directly to butchering. I have heard and analyzed tunes with mean RMS of -8dB which sounded great. These days it's hip to criticize loudness, but ultimately it's "not how loud you get it, but how you get it loud." Each tune has its limitations, and how loud it can naturally sound depends on those. A tune which has a lot of energy in the mids (which the ear is sensitive to) can't get as loud as a tune which is bass heavy.

    46. Re:Yikes by lgw · · Score: 1

      As far as achival quality, there is digital magtape with quite good archival qualities, no need to rely on something optical for archiving. Modern half-inch digital tape is pretty darn good for archiving, and has more tolerance for non-ideal environmental conditions.

      I'm not sure how well the bits last after the first few decades, however, as modern digital tape is magnetically quite different from half-inch tape from a few decades ago.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    47. Re:Yikes by lgw · · Score: 1

      The whole point though is that you *don't* have all the frequencies with analog. It's a common misunderstanding. Every form of analog storage and transmission is band limited in the frequencies it can store or transmit.

      If you're recording from a microphone, there is *always* a digital sample frequency and bitrate that will accomodate the performance of the microphone. The numbers may be quite high if the microphone far exceeds the performance of the human ear, but nevertheless it's possible.

      We can currenly transmit 10Gb/s over a cable digitally, similar to best-quality analog video cables, and well beyond what could ever be needed for audio. Bitrates to and from digital magtape are approaching 100MB/s; it's hard to judge the total bandwidth of 2" analog tape at typical speed, but it's probably the same order of magnitude. Digital has come of age.

      The real question is: for a given price, what's more accurate and/or sounds better. For home audio, digital is far cheaper for a given level of accuracy, but "sounds better" is entirely a personal choice. For pro audio, there has been a lot of really bad digital suff commonly available for a long time, and it takes a careful engineer to find the good stuff today. The good analog equipment is commonly known. So it's easier to get good engineering from analog, but that's just a historical artifact. The future is clearly digital, and the death of 2" tape manufacture is just one more sign of analog's passing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    48. Re:Yikes by lgw · · Score: 1

      The AC has a good point, however - not every piece of pro-audio mixing/editing equipment does "go up high enough", making good digital editing require more equipment knowledge than good analog editing. That's obviously changing, however, given the story. :)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    49. Re:Yikes by marktoml · · Score: 1

      Parent should almost qualify as TROLL.

      The discussion (if a slashdot forum can be so termed) is RE: professional Audio tape (2" high-speed specifically) not LP. A CD is undeniably a better playback medium than a needle on a platter.

  26. The equivalent of... by Rikardon · · Score: 1

    ...being around to hear "last buggy-whip manufacturer goes out of business" last century. Truly the end of an era.

    I remember even ten years ago, when my DJ company would get shipments of new music on vinyl, the Canadian record companies were having to bring the records in from the U.S. because there were no pressing plants left in Canada.

    And now there's not even any analog tape being made in N.A.! Does anybody else smell a cottage industry opportunity?

    1. Re:The equivalent of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buggy whip makers are not extinct. :)
      http://www.bullwhip.org/faq/vendors.html

  27. Well... by TheDarkener · · Score: 0

    "An audio account of the closing can be heard at NPR."

    Let's just hope they're not on those old-ass reel-to-reel tapes. Those things SUCKED!

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  28. Kodak is shutting plants... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    They closed their Australian manufacturing plant recently, at the loss of several hundred jobs.

    I suspect, however, that there will continue to be a small level of demand for film from analog photography hobbyists for many years to come. It might become a cottege industry, but there'll be an industry of sorts.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Kodak is shutting plants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how Kodak closes the wrong plants, closing the most efficient. I hope the (NY)shop is transplanted to China. Presidents have their media shots take with Poraroid 'spy satellite grade film'. The decline was predictable - take a digital shot of the golden gate bridge suspension wires - and you will see why digital is still crap. Those jobs could have been saved by bettering/matching Fuji Velvia technology.

  29. Damn!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess my buggy whip business will be the next to go.

    Nowadays the only thing keeping me in business is the leather crowd out in San Fran.

  30. welp, not too surprising by Internet_Communist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    one of my friends is a huge analog fan when it comes to his music making, all analog equipment, especially when it comes to sound processing and such, and he refuses to use computers in the process, but even he now uses a hard drive based 16-track recorder with a cd writer in it...previously he used a 4-track analog tape recorder.

    analog can be of high quality, particularly when it comes to balanced signals and such for all your inputs...but analog reel to reel? I can definitely see why that's going.

    First you got digital tape, of course DAT would be the most well known (at least it's the one I know) and while I doubt it can fill all the niches (particularly when it comes to multi-track recording) it can fill many.

    That's not to mention a 24bit/96khz sound card can be had for mighty cheap these days...of course if you need one with 10 inputs it'll cost a bit more. This kind of technology can probably fill much of the demand for multi-track reel to reel recording...still change is never easy, especially when you're talking about hundreds of recording studios who probably use the stuff still...

    I wouldn't be surprised if much of the cost of the upgrade would be negated by the fact you don't have to spend cash on tape all the time. Plus once it's in a digital format you can literally put it on anything, CD, DVD, tape, raid array, what not, and not have to worry about loss...of course this is assuming you're writing it on there uncompressed, or losslessly compressed.

    farewell analog tape...

    --

    If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    1. Re:welp, not too surprising by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reel-to-reel with a fat bandwidth (that you can actually measure with a ruler), and high inch-per-second rate is currently unbeatable in dynamic range and frequency response.

      As the proud owner of 2 brands of 24/96 cards (the good ones...or I would have 'settled' for a much cheaper 24/192 card--you know who I'm talking about) I can honestly say that analog--even my limited 1/4" experiences--is far more flexible with signal, has far more 'air' to it--a sound guy term for something we can't quite describe...try if you must--can handle a steading hammering greatly in excess of +0db...and all you get is a nice saturation....natural compression practically....try that with digital.......I can honestly say that if this is indeed the truth, I'm not only dismayed but horrified.

      Digital--no matter how sophisticated...no matter how high the sampling rate, no matter how deep the bits--is no comparison for super-highend analog tape.

      ...while you can pick up a 'good enough' or 'way beyond good enough' audio card for reasonable money--and 'pro gear spec' for much more money--it's damn impossible to get the same recording characteristics in digital.

      Don't get me wrong, I've always 'done it digital', for nearly 13 years now...except for the 'accessible' (Read: affordable) analog tape I've had access to....which even then was shown to be far easier to work with....but...good god.....no more 2" tape!????? anywhere!??!?!?

      If this is actually true--and I have many doubts that it is--well, then, this truely shows modern day mankind's ignorance...that, and savvy...in economic endeavors on "economy scale".

      I don't know whether to 'tsk' at those who believe it, or the fact--if it is indeed true.

    2. Re:welp, not too surprising by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Just a question here, really, as obviously you know what you are doing.

      As 0db signifies the maximum signal you can record accurately, what is the benefit to overdriving your recording? I understand that analog tape gracefully deals with this, natrual compression as you say, but what is the reason for allowing it to overdrive in the first place? To get better dynamic range on the rest of the track at the expense of a few overdriven drumbeats that nobody will notice? Just curious.

      The simple answer is don't overdrive digital... select a recording setup that has an acceptable dynamic range to begin with.

    3. Re:welp, not too surprising by Daneurysm · · Score: 1

      I don't know that I as much 'know what I am doing' so much as 'I have experiences that tell me X'

      It's not so much benefit of overdriven analog as much as it is 'the breathing room provided', granted...this is circumstantial...depends on recording conditions (live, overdubbed, live show, maximum steady signal level, etc).....so far as benefit is concerned, I've recorded some of the juiciest guitar sounds on analog, overdriven (at the channel) far beyond what digital could have handled....and it distorted beautifully. Giving snares an extra 'snap' through added analog distortion (the only exception I can think of that has a digital-input-overdrive counterpart)...the natural compression.....and some guys rely on such artifacts of analog recording....decreases the need for an actual compresser on every channel...save that for the final out stage....if ever, depending on your mixing technique.

      0db signifies the maximum signal you can record 'accurately'...on digital it turns into a very hard clip, on analog it induces tape-saturation. It sounds and feels very natural...as opposed to it's digital counterpart, which sounds cold, harsh, and unnatural....even evil.

      Keep in mind, that's more on the 'creative production' side of things, and if you ever have to rely on tape-saturation to provide you with an accurate (or decent) recording, well, you lost the war a long time ago.

      So far as accuracy is concerned...I've long noticed digital's tendency to be as pedantic about an input level as a slashdot troll about spelling...analog has, at this point--lack of tapes aside--still had the upperhand in the 'top end' and 'dynamic range' category...see my post about 'level of accesability' in this thread to see where that rant goes.

      Though, all being said, I am wildly entertained by noticing and working with the differences associated with each medium....my studio being a highly hybrid (or inbred, as it were) combination of roughy 85% digital 15% analog...I simply can't afford the 'good stuff' in analog....though, even the 'cheap shit' often shatters 'digital guys' perceptions of what is possible....I liken it to 'audiophile types' perceptions to recordings made on what they would consider 'substandard equipment'....ask them to listen to it first, then ask them what they think it was recorded in....no matter who the producer, engineer, or masterer.....the results of such a test are always very flattering, and hysterical.

    4. Re:welp, not too surprising by Internet_Communist · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain when it comes to cheapo cards...anyone who's all that "creative" knows to pick a better brand. I myself do not own a 24/96 card at the moment, though I'm looking into getting an echo audio Mia MIDI as it's 24/96, has linux support, and a hardware mixer of sorts...

      what comes to mind from this is that analog distortion is "better" than digital distortion. I'm reminded of the whole vinyl vs cd thing all over again....though that argument is slightly different, and I tend not to side with vinyls, even though they do sound nice, it's more like an effect. And in that aspect, it is similar to this, the analog effect of which you speak.

      The difference between tape and digital is a lot different than say, comparing tape and vinyl. Tape doesn't have to go through equalization just to overcome the inability of the medium to reproduce certain frequencies. However, frequency response is an issue when comparing digital and analog, and I'm sure anything digital that is lacking in this aspect is probably going to be made up sooner or later, plus the fact that I doubt much audio equipment can even reproduce the frequencies which digital lacks...

      The real problem is distortion to begin with, none of it would be optimal. And I'm sure something like digital emulation of analog distortion may exist, or could be created, but it's somewhat beating around the bush. As the other poster said, it seems it'd make more sense not to overdrive to begin with, then you could apply any effect you wanted to get the sound that is desired.

      Another inherit problem of analog tape is that over time, it loses quality, while digital as I stated could most likely be converted to any number of formats, not limited to tape, thus eliminating this problem. I suppose it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons...

      I have my doubts that digital tape will disappear, afterall vinyls are still around, and by current standards they're pretty dated. You can bet it'll stick if you've got rich audiophile studio owners who want the stuff...

      There's also the matter of placebo. There's people who spend 3 grand on simple power cables, or $500 for a digital audio cable, all in the name of audiophilia.

      I personally think digital is the way to go, but also has a long way to go. The audio workstation could very well be the recording studio of the future, but things like interference simply from other components in the case are problems which most current generation cards don't even deal with, so there's definitely a lot of room for improvement. Maybe with PCI express and all it's extra bandwidth we'll see some pretty impressive stuff...

      --

      If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    5. Re:welp, not too surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but what is the reason for allowing it to overdrive in the first place?"

      Because that's the sound of ROCK N ROLL, man!

  31. Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by algae · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To those of you who are saying "BFD, nobody uses analog tape anymore", have a good look at the liner notes of one of your audio CDs (and don't you dare say "BFD, nobody uses audio CDs anymore."

    Somewhere in those notes, there'll be a logo that says either AAD, ADD, or DDD. If your CD is either one of the first two, then the original instruments were recorded to 2" tape. If it's the second, then the 2" tape was mastered to 1/2" tape.

    A LOT of professional recording studios still use this technology. For one thing, if you send too much signal into an analog tape, you get a nice sounding tape compression, whereas if you send too much signal into a ADC, you get really horrible sounding digital clipping.

    \/me wonders what several hundred recording studios in L.A. are gonna do now.

    --
    Causation can cause correlation
    1. Re:Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
      Somewhere in those notes, there'll be a logo that says either AAD, ADD, or DDD. If your CD is either one of the first two, then the original instruments were recorded to 2" tape. If it's the second, then the 2" tape was mastered to 1/2" tape.

      Yeah, but all the ones I've seen lately are DDD. Got a counterexample?

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    2. Re:Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by acroyear · · Score: 1

      the current common technique (as described by Will Ackerman in his Returning album's liner notes) is to do everything *mostly* digital, but pass the track through an analog head-to-head to "brighten" the sound (analog being the only way to do that right) before going to mix-down (back to all-digital, to minimize hiss introduced by that analog pass-thru).

      in this, its all still DDD, though closer to DaDD.

      however, Ackerman is only dealing with one (in one case, two) guitars in that recording, not trying to mix-down an entire ensemble or orchestra. i'm not sure how well that technique scales and still holds onto the bright sound tonality that an analog 2inch gives.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    3. Re:Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      Haven't they dropped production of 2" tape, because the volume of sales wasn't big enough to sustain production?

      Robert

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    4. Re:Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhere in those notes, there'll be a logo that says either AAD, ADD, or DDD.

      Hmmmm, I kept looking but all I could find was a marking that said "CCCD". Is this the same thing?

    5. Re:Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by boarder8925 · · Score: 1
      I kept looking but all I could find was a marking that said "CCCD." Is this the same thing?
      No. "CCCD" stands for "Compact, Compact, Compact Disc." That or Coast Community College District. =P

      Google search results if you're interested.
    6. Re:Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the AAD/ADD/DDD (the last D is redundant really) markings in CDs since the early 1990s (along with the liner notes that seemed to come with all CDs: "The compact disc digital audio format is a convenient [...] They should be handled like conventional records"

    7. Re:Where 2" reel-to-reel is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're saying "BFD" because, like so many slashdotters, they are willing to comment on just about any topic they have read about on a cereal box.

  32. Oops, time to stock up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I didn't RTFA so I may be a bit off, but I use a Fostex A-8 reel-to-reel 8-track analog recorder. I also have a Mac with a good MOTU 8-port firewire interface which is nice and easy, but I still like the recordings done on the ol' A-8. (No, it's not low-fi like some noobs may think, many early CD's were actually recorded using this exact hardware and later "digitized" and burned to CDs. While early-day CDs didn't have good fidelity and depth, this was often due to bad digitizing, and not a bad master tape recording, which is apparent with recent "re-master" releases.)

    Seems like I should probably stock up on a few reels now before they're all but gone, unless I want to end up hacking some larger format "digital" tape to make-shift 1/4", like is done to construct "Double-8" film. (I hear they modify some kind of 16mm Kodak movie film to the proper size and then roll it all up onto an 8mm film reel... which is actually close to 16mm film reel size for double-8...)

    Is analog THAT "out"?? I mean, really, digital is great, quality is coming up while prices go down, Garage Band is deceivingly simple yet powerful, but I can still think of a LOT of uses for analog open-reel tapes. For starters, for a kid that can't afford a full Mac setup, or doesn't want to learn the nitty-gritty just to get started. The A-8 is pretty darn simple if you just want to record. Plug it in, fire it up, select the channels you're gonna record, and just do it! Mixing down can use a simple 8-channel analog mixer and is mostly straight forward. And the tapes themselves are pretty cheap.

    1. Re:Oops, time to stock up! by vettemph · · Score: 1
      No, it's not low-fi like some noobs may think, many early CD's were actually recorded using this exact hardware and later "digitized" and burned to CDs

      Alot of CD's used to spell it out for you with ADD , AAD and DDD on the back cover and on the CD. These initials refer to the track recording, mix-down and transfer to CD respectively.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  33. Auburn by davidj0228 · · Score: 1

    first the auburn tigers don't get to play for the national championship in college football, then 250 people lose their manufacturing jobs! its a bad week at the prettiest town in the plains.

    1. Re:Auburn by JLyle · · Score: 1

      Auburn is the loveliest village on the plains. Opelika is its ugly sister city.

    2. Re:Auburn by Honig+the+Apothecary · · Score: 1

      Yeah, But the folks there at Quantigy have only had 9.5 years to plan for it. Most of the good people there left for other places years ago. USC/Auburn would have been a good game. I think we could have at least given SC a better game than OU did... War Eagle!

  34. Not dead yet by jsdkl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Open reel recorders are still in wide use and will be for some time still. This is just one plant (granted, the last one in the US) laying off its employees and going through Chapter 11 restructuring.

    I have a few open reel recorders that get regular use, including a fairly new (less than ten years old) Tascam unit.

    Analog audio recording is similar to motion picture film (I have some cameras for that, as well) - digital (so far) just can't compare. There's a special magic to it that can't be replaced.

    1. Re:Not dead yet by dq5+studios · · Score: 1
      There's a special magic to it that can't be replaced.

      Yeah, nostalgia.
    2. Re:Not dead yet by arose · · Score: 1
      There's a special magic to it that can't be replaced.
      I hear that digital pixy dust is already available, but you need to have good alchemist connections...
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:Not dead yet by PenGun · · Score: 0

      It's the infinite bandwith that makes analog so nice. Of course we fail in capturing it but it is still often nicer than a "perfect" digital capture.

      PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

    4. Re:Not dead yet by jsdkl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the 1s keep getting stuck in my nose.

  35. warm glow by trs9000 · · Score: 1

    An audio account of the closing can be heard at NPR

    pfft! ill listen to it when someone puts it on a 1/4" reel to reel... i like my broadcasts with that analog warmth!

  36. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    I agree. Audio is one of the only fields where the older your equiptment, the better it is. Analogue is really appreciated, and I have a hard time believing that there was a lack of interest in tapes.

  37. Re:First "I failed it" post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a 36 year old virgin. I suspect "Fuck" is never going to happen. I think you're wrong.

  38. Call the FBI by fermion · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the BSA be writing an amicus brief complaining that CD have taken jobs from hard working Americans and demanding that the CD manufacturers pay a royalty to keep the buggy whip, i mean record, i mean reel-to-reel manufacturers afloat?

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  39. Soft clipping in the digital realm by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    For one thing, if you send too much signal into an analog tape, you get a nice sounding tape compression, whereas if you send too much signal into a ADC, you get really horrible sounding digital clipping.

    That's why you use high-resolution ADCs and run them at a safe margin less than full scale. Then, when you load the file into your mixer, you take the arctangent of each sample to get soft clipping.

    1. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, when you load the file into your mixer, you take the arctangent of each sample to get soft clipping.

      BZZZT!!! WRONG!

      No, you take the arctangent of each sample to simulate soft clipping. They are not the same. Any guitarist worth his tube amp will tell you they don't even sound close.

      Digital loses again.

    2. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      So many people seem to misunderstand this.

      If you treat high end digital gear just as you would analog gear, of COURSE it's not going to be as good. You rely on certain features of analog gear that you may have not really thought about (like what happens when you drive it too hard).

      If you take these features into consideration, and use the digital gear properly (like ensuring it doesn't get too much signal), the problem goes away.

    3. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was problem on Zwan's Mary Star of the Sea. The entire CD was digitally clipped when mastered.

    4. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      I've noticed this problem on Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication ... it actually digitally clips throughout most of the lyrics. It bothered me so much that I stopped listening to the album.

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    5. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by ockegheim · · Score: 1
      That's why you use high-resolution ADCs and run them at a safe margin less than full scale. Then, when you load the file into your mixer, you take the arctangent of each sample to get soft clipping.

      And even if you do get a little bit of clipping (say when a vocalist exceeds all expectations), a good decrackler can redraw the waveforms. A few years ago, with mild clipping I would redraw the waveforms, and long for the day a plugin would arrive to automate the procedure.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    6. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by tepples · · Score: 1

      Darn right. I take Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication through the clip restorer of my audio editor in order just to make it listenable.

    7. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      Heh heh, you should distribute your own 'underground' mix of it for sound engineers and audiophiles...

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    8. Re:Soft clipping in the digital realm by tepples · · Score: 1

      I used Cool Edit Pro with the settings described in this document.

  40. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by justforaday · · Score: 1

    Im pretty sure that in 5 years, Winamp will still be around and still be able to play MP3's.

    Yet another person confusing consumer playback with mid to high end production. He's talking about the multitude of multitrack recording programs out there. Will there be a program in 50 years that will be able to open the Cakewalk files someone made in their basement in their youth (assuming that person becomes the next Lennon or somthing)? Will I be able to open the tracks that I recorded 7 years ago in Deck II on my old Mac? (I honestly haven't tried opening them in anything recently). This is what he's talking about, not about whether there will still be something that can play CDs...

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  41. It's not the end, yet. by Artful+Codger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The magic word is "restructuring".

    Quantegy bought the reel tape business from AMPEX... and they're apparently failing as a company.

    This will probably resolve itself as:

    A) Quantegy gets its act together and the plant reopens, or

    B) Quantegy goes under, plant is sold and it reopens.

    As others have pointed out, there's still a significant pro market, and many audiophile types, so there's enough market for the right supplier.

    --

    ... plans that either come to naught, or half a page of scribbled lines...
    1. Re:It's not the end, yet. by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      Expect 1/2 the product lines and twice the price!

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  42. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that this is all Bush's fault somehow.

    Most things are. That's the problem when you put a former coke-head in a position of power. Things get messed up. In Reagan's day we had Iran-Contra. In Bush Jr's day we have Iraq-Gonzales. Hail to the Chief!

  43. Re:Everytime they change formats you have to upgra by IvyKing · · Score: 1

    From a 4-track I presume?? I actually did know someone with a 4-track in their car (1974) and have a friend with a few 8-track's in his collection.

  44. Random 4 Letter Names by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 2, Funny
    From the post: the former BASF, which used to be AGFA


    The company will just change names and start over again. The new name will actually be....


    (..pulls four scrabble tiles at random..)


    QMAZ!!!


    Holy Cow! Triple Word Score!!

    1. Re:Random 4 Letter Names by lahi · · Score: 1

      1. Those names are not random.
      I believe BASF stands (stood) for "Bremer Anillin und Soda Fabrik", and AGFA for "AG FArben" (Faben being colors, AG being Aktiengesellschaft = corporation)

      2. I doubt BASF "used to be" AGFA, they are both old (pre-WW II?) German corporations, IIRC.

      3. ...

      4. Why, profit of course.

      -Lasse

    2. Re:Random 4 Letter Names by ahillen · · Score: 1

      BASF still exists (http://www.basf.com/), it stands for "Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF) and it never was AGFA, which once was a subsidary of Bayer, but now seems to be mostly a Belgian company. Before WW II BAYER was part of "IG Farben" (like Bayer, Hoechst), which became infamous for producing the poison gas for the concentration camp.
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben).

    3. Re:Random 4 Letter Names by lahi · · Score: 1

      Thank you for replying. It appears that the only thing I really got right was that BASF and Agfa were not related. I apologise for my faulty memory. BTW, wikipedia also has an interesting article on Agfa.

      -Lasse

    4. Re:Random 4 Letter Names by Sique · · Score: 1

      Basicly BASF and AGFA started out as companies producing aniline (a dye) and soda. That's where the names come from:

      BASF: Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik (Baden Anilin and Soda Factory)
      AGFA: Actiengesellschaft fuer die Fabrikation von Anilin (Corporation for Anilin Production)

      Both were founded in the 19th century, BASF in 1865, AGFA in 1867. While BASF was founded and is still headquartered in Ludwigshafen at the Rhine, AGFA was first founded in Rummelsburg near Berlin, moved later to Wolfen and after World War II split between the east german ORWO ("Original Wolfen", Wolfen is at east german territory) and the west german AGFA (which retained the trademark rights).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Random 4 Letter Names by ahillen · · Score: 1

      BTW, wikipedia also has an interesting article on Agfa.

      Yes, I also saw that one. I just got bored of linking. :) Wikipedia is great (I also didn't know by heart all what I wrote, I also had to look some stuff up :) )

  45. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by EvanED · · Score: 1

    I can't say for sure, but I would guess yes. Someone has got to have the software around somewhere. (Does the LOC take software?) Then it just becomes a point of finding hardware to use it on, same as if you need to play back a reel-to-reel tape.

  46. as an audio guy... by Daneurysm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a really tough time believing that all of the analog tape ('pro gear' type, as measured in inches...ha) is going to be gone soon.

    As an 'audio guy' I have encountered so many 'analog heads' that I think for the wound-up-no-clue-audiophile-asshole market alone this would be worth somebodies while to maintain.

    ...I only wish I could be one of them. Analog recording offers so many advantages (read: quirks) to the producer/recordist...and not to mention the highest bandwidth available in analog audio media.

    Once again, before I ramble too far off topic... I don't believe it. There are far too many studios run by far too many producers which insist--for one reason or another (read: valid or not)--insist on nothing but analog...high quality analog....1" reels, 2" reels...1/2" reels....for mixdown, for final masters...etc. I simply do not believe it. Too many 'big name studios' operate with this techonlogy as the centerpiece of their of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. There's something to think about.

    While I am continually saddened at the migration away for more sturdy analog ancestors of our current-day digital equipment, I simply do not believe that such a market--small but used to paying top-$$$ for everything....even tape--would be abandon outright.

    I'm either in disbelief like denial, or disbelief like 'I genuinely don't believe it'

  47. WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have a army footlocker full of recordings of music of all genres dating from the early 1950's thru to the late 1970's my father made, i inherited them when he passed away, some of the recordings are quite rare and i bet even the RIAA and music labels don't have...

  48. Hope I Like Her by jsindell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can't seem to conjure up my hilarious Opelika joke...

  49. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

    "even when it technically is not, particularly in the realm of audio"

    How not? Perhaps DAT can't compare to professional analog reel-to-reel systems, but there are many modern digital systems that match or exceed the dynamic range and frequency response of any analog audio recording system.

  50. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOT Floppys!!!

    if the Floppy disc goes the way of the dodo bird then i want all Linux distros to start offering to make a boot CD rom during install as opposed to a boot floppy...

  51. So What DO We Make Here? by ToAllPointsWest · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So that means we manufacture what in this country? TV's - Nope Jeans - Nope Cars - Only because the Japs are nice to us Furniture - Yeap Other clothes - China Good code - India Wind - Washington D.C. Yeah... I'm going to go Amish and start builing chairs

    --
    They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist; They came for the Socialists, and I didn'
  52. Re:Yikes - analog recordings aren't live by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    an analog recording is much inferior to a live performance, information is lost and/or distorted and I CAN tell the difference! Analog recordings are just a lower quality representation of reality in a more convenient format! Poo on both of you !

  53. HOW?!?! by AmoebafromSweden · · Score: 1

    How can they be dying?! I haven't seen any articles proclaiming the near death of proffesional analog tapes.

    1. Re:HOW?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, Netcraft hasn't confirmed it, so it isn't true.

  54. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
    tentimestwenty wrote:

    With tape you could use whatever you wanted to record a record, it all got put to the same tape and in most cases the tape lasted a very long time, 50 years plus.

    This is true only in an optimal sense. In a very real and practical sense, it's not true at all. Many tapes are stored in only moderately optimal facilities, and a lot are stored in attics, sheds, and basements. A major scourge is the "Sticky shed" syndrome as described here, for example. while the old Ampex tapes were major culprits, in my own personal experience I have seen a large number and variety of tapes suffer similar fates.

    Several months ago I had to resurrect a number of video tapes that had a similar problem. In short: tape is not as archival as vinyl. The question of archival quality audio reproduction is a hot topic being debated in library science. AFAIK, there have been no real concrete conclusions to the problem. From what I can gather, it seems very likely that the 21st century will simply disappear from history.

    I hope that's not true, but there are an awful lot of extremely obvious and seemingly implacable problems facing archival audio and video storage.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  55. lost jobs... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    leaving a reported 250 workers without jobs

    I'm not too sympathetic to these people laid off. They've known this was coming for at least 10 years.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:lost jobs... by elambi · · Score: 1

      Yeah well I won't be too sympathetic when you lose yours.

      --
      Sig, we don't need no stinking Sig!
    2. Re:lost jobs... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      Yeah well I won't be too sympathetic when you lose yours.

      [sarcasm]
      What? The mp3 player business is going to be booming forever! I don't need to save money for when I have to go back to school or pay my bills for 6 months while I search for a new job!
      [/sarcasm]

      Seriously, I have no illusions that my situation will stay the same forever. Either I will force change upon myself or some other force will do it for me. I just try to be prepared for it. I try to always have a "plan B".

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  56. OT: Recursion Joke in Data Structures Text by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Funny
    I have a well thumbed copy of Data Structures and Algorithms by Aho (the "a" in UNIX "awk," by the way), Ullman, and Hopcroft that I used for an algorithm class many moons ago. During the course, I spent a lot of time poking around the index looking for various things. I noticed the indexes' entry for "Recursive Procedure" includes the page number of the entry itself (see it here).

    The best jokes are always the subtle ones.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:OT: Recursion Joke in Data Structures Text by Aardpig · · Score: 2, Funny

      The best jokes are always the subtle ones.

      Indeed. On the cover of "Numerical Methods that Work", by Acton, the word 'Usually' is faintly embossed (but not inked in) between 'that' and 'Work'. Superb!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    2. Re:OT: Recursion Joke in Data Structures Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That qualifies as subtle? Geez... I would sooner have classified it as "blatantly obvious"

    3. Re:OT: Recursion Joke in Data Structures Text by D'Sphitz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's because you're obviously the wisest man to ever live.

    4. Re:OT: Recursion Joke in Data Structures Text by tootlemonde · · Score: 1

      the indexes' entry for "Recursive Procedure" includes the page number of the entry itself

      That index entry looks more like an example of a loop than recursion. Recursive functions should have an end-condition. The entry compounds the confusion between loops and recursion unless it is trying to make the point that any recursive function can also be implemeted as a loop.

      Here is the same joke using self-recursion.

    5. Re:OT: Recursion Joke in Data Structures Text by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looping and recursion are fundamentally the same thing - two ways of expressing the concept of repeated action. Recursive functions demand an exit condition no more (or less) than loops do.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:OT: Recursion Joke in Data Structures Text by tootlemonde · · Score: 2, Informative

      Looping and recursion are fundamentally the same thing...

      Aho's book uses the same joke for "loop" in the index.

      Perhaps, I should have said the joke was more of an example of iteration than recursion. Certainly, the repetition of the joke is.

  57. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    use documented formats.
    open source.

    they'll be readable as long as someone can program.

    probably easier than assembling a player for that tape too.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  58. Yeah, offtopic, mod me down by nysus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    NPR's logo is almost identical to Sun Microsystem's logo for java.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:Yeah, offtopic, mod me down by SunFan · · Score: 1


      Given that NPR and Java both appeal to a intelligent and sophisticated demographic, I don't see this as suprising :)

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    2. Re:Yeah, offtopic, mod me down by n6kuy · · Score: 0

      You forgot to put quote marks around the words, "intelligent" and "sophisticated" ..

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  59. Taps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Sound of taps playing]......end of recording

    Move along, nothing to hear here

  60. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by John3 · · Score: 1

    You are so right...think about how many formats digital has abandoned (8" and 5-1/4" floppies come to mind first) but I can still play my 1/4" reel-to-reels nearly thirty years after first recording on them.

    And music never sounded warmer than when recorded through the old Ampex tube electronics with a bit of dB boost to saturate the tape. Even if you got some distortion (and occasionally it was desired) it was a cool distortion and not the digital crackle you get from today's electronics.

    I've been slowly copying my old 1/4" reel-to-reels (1/2 track from my college radio days) to digital as some of the tapes are starting to deteriorate. Luckily I managed to purchase an old Scully 1/4" 1/2 track machine from a local studio (a steal at $200).

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  61. Last manufacturer worldwide? by SuperDry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't understand how the last manufacturer of this type of tape in the world could go out of business due to financial problems. If this type of tape really is still somewhat widely used as many people have noted, why didn't they just raise their price to whatever level they needed in order to be profitable?

    1. Re:Last manufacturer worldwide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The manufacturers of the tape for this application are not out of business. Background: Making magnetic tape takes multiple processes; usually company ABC makes a base film bought by company XYZ who coats it with the magic magnetic stuff and slits it down into little rolls. Sometimes there is a third player company C who buys the little coated rolls from XYZ and puts the film into the plastic cartridge. So what happens is the patents run out on the base film technology, and BAM! everybody jumps into the game making the base film with cheap labor, gov't subsidies, etc, and the price drops with very slim margins. Then CDs and DVDs further erode demand. So the manufacturers turn to new products that have a shot at being profitable.

      I mean, come on, a big film manufacturer can pump out 100s of thousands of pounds of base film from one facility, which would easily make 100 thousand miles of reel to reel tape in a single day.

    2. Re:Last manufacturer worldwide? by gordguide · · Score: 1

      " ... I don't understand how the last manufacturer of this type of tape in the world could go out of business due to financial problems. If this type of tape really is still somewhat widely used as many people have noted, why didn't they just raise their price to whatever level they needed in order to be profitable? ..."

      The topic is a bit misleading; what he might have said is Quantegy makes the recording tape formula favored, for a bunch of reasons, by recording studios, and they're shutting down that factory.

      Analog tape is still being made for other applications; this wasn't the world's last tape factory by a long shot, and there's a real possibility someone might resurrect the Quantegy plant yet. It's happened before. **

      It also might help to note that digital is a form of data storage which is easily manipulated by computers; it's not tied to the storage medium itself. You can use open-reel tape to make digital recordings, and many digital recorders used by music professionals do exactly that.

      However, in the last 5 years Hard Drives (hey, isn't that an analog medium storing digital data? Yes, it is!) and processing has come way down in price; while 24Bit/96Khz and recently 24/192Khz software and hardware has really come down in price. Studios use that more and more now.

      The analog deck (ie stays in the analog domain) is mostly used for effects now, although a few very well respected engineers still stay all analog, or have gone back to it for their own reasons.

      You don't need to buy cases of tape every week to do effects; it's not the recording/mixing/storage medium. You can get by with a few reels here and there.

      The Studio needs to keep masters of a sufficient quality that it will be good not for today's 16/44.1 CDs but for tomorrow's hi-resolution format. Until very recently, tape was best for that. Now, it's not really necessary, thus the falling sales.

      ** Someone posted earlier about the last tube factory closing in the US. Well, they still make tubes in the US and will continue to do so for quite a while; it has military/aviation/space/broadcast applications and certain factories that the public never hears about are listed as critical national security facilities by the Defense Department. The US Gov't would subsidize, outright purchase, or otherwise "convince" these factories to stay running, if only in batch production, and they'll say so if you ask. They never really did quit.

      But, I think he was referring to the tubes we're more familiar with, like music amplifier tubes. Well, the "last" factory has been bought and is running again, making the equivalent of the Western Electric 300B tube in the US as we speak. The same could happen to the Quantegy factory; after all the Quantegy factory this topic is about is really an AMPEX factory that AMPEX announced was shutting down years ago. It was purchased turn-key and kept running. It could happen again, quite easily. Maybe it's just bad management; who knows?

      The big issue with tube manufacturing in the US is it's basically a nice big chemical Contamination-And-Cancer factory; it's got more to do with the EPA and liability than the lack of any market for tubes. There's a lot of factories in China, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc still running and making a very nice living, thank you.

  62. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can you give an example?

  63. Re:Yikes - analog recordings aren't live by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

    While I know you're being facetious, there's actually some value in that observation, you know. There's a famous (or infamous) audiophile magazine called The Absolute Sound, and the name refers to the idea of audio recording trying to be as perfect a replication of the live performance as possible.

    And, incidentally, most of the TAS guys seem to be happy enough with SACD -- but not so much CD. The original poster's observation that you can't tell the difference between digital and analog with sufficient sampling resolution isn't really what was in dispute among the analog-philes -- what was in dispute was whether the sampling rate of CD was high enough. And as Jeffrey Baker observed in other comments, digital has hard clipping rather than soft clipping, and that can make a difference. (This is something you run into the visual equivalent of in digital cameras versus film--the difference between overexposing Kodak Portra 160VC film in my old 35mm SLR and overexposing a shot on my D70 is pretty stark, and--despite the many advantages the digital camera has otherwise--not in the D70's favor.)

  64. Sad by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    I remember feeling much the same way when the last U.S. vacuum tube manufacturer went out, and for that matter when the last vinyl record plant shut down. In a way, I'm surprised that professional analog recording held out as long as it did. Well, maybe not ... recording studios had a huge investment in high-end multi-track gear, and it never was cheap.

    Does this presage the end of digital tape storage? Probably not for a while, the cost per bit is still pretty low once you've made the investment in drive hardware. But that will disappear at some point too.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Sad by PenGun · · Score: 0

      No where even close to the truth. GE shut down a long time ago and that's a pity but there are lots left. Lifting "U.S. vacuum tube manufacturer" from your post and dropping it on the google bar yields a rich harvest. Svetlana in Russia is a beast in this field,

      All kinds of people make vinyl recordings these days and for about $5000 you can too.

      PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

    2. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try $300 for vinyl pressing from RTI in SanFrancisco.

  65. So true... by John3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    When I was at MIT (circa 1980) there was a recording studio down the hall from TMRC in building 20 (it was across the hall from an old anechoeic chamber...but I digress). The was pretty much abandoned and used by a small group of students for recording punk demos. The actual studio was isolated from the control room completely...the studio was on springs to completely prevent sound from bleeding through to the control room. The recorder in the control room was an old Ampex rack-mounted 2" 4-track machine...yes, FOUR-track. Recording at 15ips on 2" of tape yielded some incredible sound quality...think about later machines that squeezed 24 tracks of material on the same 2" of tape. In 1981 someone from Ampex contacted us and gave the group a new 1/4" 4-track so they could get the 2" 4-track for their museum. Seeing as how Ampex changed hands since then I wonder what ever happened to those vintage machines.

    People used to buy those old Ampex machines just to get the tube pre-amp electronics...nice warm sound, pleasant distortion (when you wanted it), and no harsh digital clipping.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  66. not disappear, just live on in a compromised form by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

    it seems very likely that the 21st century will simply disappear from history

    I don't have any doubt that most all of the media created in the 20th century will survive, it will just be of such a compromised nature as to kill most or all of the significance. As many people have pointed out, there will still be MP3s floating around and lots of bad VHS copies of TV shows but all of the glorious masters will be lost.

    It will be like reading every second page of a Shakespearean play. You still get the idea but all the nuance is gone. To go one step further, nuances are what inspire a new generation's creations.

  67. In other news... by phud · · Score: 2, Funny

    buggy whip manufacturers report record low sales for 2004

  68. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    mod parent up.

    Sure, my 96/24 pro-spec audio cards can record almost as well as my Tascam 4-track--think about that for a second--but, where is the cutoff and how sharp is the curve? (audio nerd joke)

    I mean it in all seriousness....The 'as-good-as-it-can-possibly-get' analog technology stomps and huge hole in the 'as-good-as-it-can-possibly-get' digital technology. Period.

    The second digital recording can accurately (read: perfectly) model the infinite level of amplitudinal variance granted to us by the analog domain...then I'll digress on this point. Even as a '95% digital' audio producer....and even then, I'm sure higher tape speeds and tape width would be an easy fix to stomp a hole in the digital champion.

    It can end up being an infinite race to higher sampling frequencies.... (remember your nyquist in digital, half of the top sampling rate is your actual top end frequency...and lets not forget about filter rolloff....22k tops for good cards, in reality...fuck the spec sheet)

    ...but you'll never beat that infinitely variable and infinitely dividable quality of analog.

  69. Huh? by Coleco · · Score: 1

    The last vinyl record and vacuum tube makers aren't out of business.

  70. Anyway to emulate analog properties? by Dj+Stingray · · Score: 1

    As a turntablist I have struggled with the possibility of vinyl analog records someday not being made anymore. I mean, it is not just a hobby for me but a profession. Many audiophiles will say that there is nothing like the warm analog sound of the "needle and grove" combo. Some folks 1 2 3 have created a way to control playback of digital audio with turntables using timecoded records. I have played around with them, but they seem to have a "metalic" sound when the program time stretches/compresses the digital audio.

    Is it possible to emulate analog properties?

    (hope that made sense)

    1. Re:Anyway to emulate analog properties? by PenGun · · Score: 0

      No. The absolute problem with digital recording at least at any sane rate and bit is the cutoff at whatever. With 16 bit CD sound the top of the spectrum is 22khz dithered in recordings to 20khz.

      A good turntable setup can do analog up and past 100khz and the difference is not that you can hear that high but that the harmonic overtones are present so your ear can be fooled. Without the overtones almost any ear knows it's not real.

      PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

  71. RTFA Emtec aka BASF aka AGFA SOL :) by mrklin · · Score: 1
    RTFA: Emtec aka BASF aka AGFA SOL.

    CUL8R.

    :)

  72. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by hawk · · Score: 1

    Then it just becomes a point of finding hardware to use it on,

    Yeah, just go tell NASA how simple that is. If you can convince them, they'll throw millions at you . . .

    hawk

  73. the old story of the tube and transistor by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    reminds me of that story when I was growing up (in the 70's, when tube vs transitor was getting to be in vogue).

    the story goes that two engineers were arguing about the sound merits of tubes vs transistors. the tube guy liked the 'sound' of tubes and thought this was the correct sound. the transistor amp just didn't sound right to the tube guy.

    the transistor guy went back to the lab and re-evaluated his design and changed a few things. he returned to the bake-off and gave the tube guy another listen.

    "its sound great now! what did you do?" asked the tube guy.

    "well, I analyzed the distortion, hum and feedback problems your tube amp had and I installed filters and network to create the same set of intermod and distortion you find pleasing"

    morale: its not really the components, its the implementation.

    that said, I'll take an average digital signal over even a high-end analog one anyday. noise, hum and distortion are NOT my friends.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you take your story and swap the words "transistor" and "tube" for each other, do you get justification for why tubes are superior? Your "morale" pretty much destroys your argument.

      You've obviously never heard a high-end analog signal or else you wouldn't have made such an embarrassing comment. There are many other reasons to not want analog gear, but the difference in signal quality between it and digital ain't one of them!

      -ac-

    2. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this were true, the worlds audio racks would not be full of tube gear!

      Trannys beat out tubes for consumer products because they were cheaper to manufacture and maintain.

      Digital is beating out analog because it's cheaper to manufacture and the media costs significantly less.

      I still use tube gear and analog tape machines and I'll still be buying tubes and 1/4 - 2" tape many years after floppies and VHS are obsolete.

      Get a grip.

    3. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reality is in the dynamic domain -- you cannot afford 104 dB of dynamic range on tape. No, you can't. You can have it cheaply in digital.

      So what does everybody do? They mix so that every track is in the top 4 bits, because people perceive "louder" as "better". But it totally eliminates one of the main things that makes digital superior. The order of magnitude higher dynamic headroom. Thrown away because "we" lack the taste for anything like a quiet passage or a subdued element in a mix.

      I know of situations where 48kHz in the frequency domain is a problem, but none of them are musical in nature. 96kHz is enough of a sample rate for bat research, so it's plenty above the plateau of human proportions.

      The fidelity problem is solved. What's a problem now, is the want of specific aberrations, say as in vintage gear, that need to be simulated with signal processing, and that's by nature going to be artificial. Whether it sounds artificial is neither here nor there. A tube simulator, ribbon mike simulator, analog filter simulator, or tape saturation simulator is synthetic, and nothing synthetic is perfect.

      Good enough for production work? Certainly. Good enough that tube amps and tape decks and Telefunkens won't have a market? Wrong.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by jdreed1024 · · Score: 1
      I think even the most hardcore audiophile in a blind test can be tricked into thinking a digital signal is analog.

      However, by the same token, digital music is sampling. It may be pretty darn fast sampling, but it's still sampling. You'll never get a completely pure waveform with no rough edges. The question of course is, if the ear can't distinguish it, why does it matter? And I don't pretend to have the answer.

      I just find it amusing that people can extoll the virtues of lossless audio compression while at the same time believe that digital recordings are of a higher quality than professional-grade analog. Do they last longer and reproduce better? Sure. But there's still information in the analog recording that gets eliminated in sampling.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    5. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "You'll never get a completely pure waveform with no rough edges."

      This is a fundamental misconception. You need to learn about reconstruction filters. They're an essential part of any digital audio system based on Shannon's sampling theory, and they eliminate the 'rough edges' in the output waveform (among other things).

      "But there's still information in the analog recording that gets eliminated in sampling."

      Only if you use insufficient sampling rate and/or sample width. If you choose those parameters to capture as much bandwidth (sample rate) and SNR (sample width) as is needed to exceed the bandwidth and SNR of the analog source, you can record literally all the information in the original signal.

      You don't have to take my word for it. Claude Shannon proved it about a half century ago. And when I say 'prove' I don't mean he made a bunch of measurements, he actually proved it in a mathematical sense.

      In the case of audio, the portion of the audio band audible to humans is rather narrow in bandwidth, so making essentially perfect digital recordings of audio is not too hard technologically.

    6. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by node+3 · · Score: 1

      that said, I'll take an average digital signal over even a high-end analog one anyday. noise, hum and distortion are NOT my friends.

      Are you talking about playback or recording here? For recording, analog is still superior to digital (quality-wise). For consumer playback, it's digital all the way.

      Some day digital will be adequately advanced enough to make analog irrelevant, but we aren't quite there yet.

    7. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      mod this guy up.

      shannon's theory isn't something everyone can understand; but enough people do understand it - and its not magic, really.

      this hogwash about "analogy can hold stuff that digital can't" is just that - hogwash. uninformed hogwash.

      if you sample high enough and use enough bits, it soon becomes irrelevant as the ear can't tell the diff. and unless your aim is to please test equipment, you've already reached the practical limit.

      and don't forget, noise is noise. whether at the mic preamp before any first digital stage - or the whole analog chain (if you're staying pure analog). you can quote 24bit dyn range, but I don't know of a mic'd system on the planet that really resolves down to the full range of 24bits. not the mic elements nor the electronic gain circuits.

      so neither is perfect.

      don't worry about it. listen to the music. and digital music is fine.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      If this were true, the worlds audio racks would not be full of tube gear!

      uhm, no. I don't think so.

      its mostly gullible consumers who are fooled into this high-end boutique nonsense.

      pros use grungy zipcord for speaker wire, regular non-blessed common metal interconnects, and regular non-hospital IEC power cords. and they MIX the hell out of the sound, and it goes thru any NUMBER of eq stages, is compressed (and so on and so on).

      analog vs digital at the very final (listening) stage?

      ha!

      that's a good one.

      (now be a good little consumer and buy a new upgrade next year. cause they say you should. you're _still_ missing some of the sound...)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that said, I'll take an average digital signal over even a high-end analog one anyday. noise, hum and distortion are NOT my friends.

      Yes they are. Almost certainly more than half of your digital music collection was recorded on analog tape. Probably at least half of that was recorded after digital gear was available in the studio. Tape was picked as a creative choice by the band or producer, precisely because the distortion introduced by tape sounds wonderful - especially on drums. (There have also been many hybrid recordings, with some instruments being recorded to analog, others going to digital, according to which sounds better for the source material).

      Of course, now that the band has captured that pleasant distortion on the recording, you're free to play it back on the most pristine sounding system available - and yes, that'll be digital. But that doesn't mean that distortion, noise and hum has no part in your love of the music.

      Harry

      p.s. If tape didn't sound wonderful, you wouldn't find products like this: http://www.wavedistribution.com/fatso.htm

    10. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      You'll never get a completely pure waveform with no rough edges.

      This claim was effectively discredited by the other poster, so I will not repeat his efforts. Just suffice it to say that he was completely correct.

      I just find it amusing that people can extoll the virtues of lossless audio compression while at the same time believe that digital recordings are of a higher quality than professional-grade analog.

      That's analogous to a smug first grader being amused that some people don't believe in the tooth fairy.

      Comparing professional grade recording equipment, digital is superior to analog. Period. Analog recordings suffer from "lumpy" frequency response, tape hiss, more distortion, less dynamic range, and saturation.

      If you want to argue that it just "sounds better," then let's address that. Do you think that the purpose of studio recording equipment is to produce music or to accurately record it? I believe the latter. But if you view studio recording gear as something akin to a fuzz-box or an equalizer, that's fine, but recognize that you are embracing euphonic distortion over accuracy. Most musicians want something that will accurately record their work. They don't, for instance, want a recording that "modifies" the sound of a Stradivarius.

    11. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      its mostly gullible consumers who are fooled into this high-end boutique nonsense.

      pros use grungy zipcord for speaker wire, regular non-blessed common metal interconnects, and regular non-hospital IEC power cords. and they MIX the hell out of the sound, and it goes thru any NUMBER of eq stages, is compressed (and so on and so on).
      ... and also their studios are chock full of heavily used tube gear.

      Please stop talking out of your ass.

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    12. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see, so I should just throw out the old Altec and RCA units? How about I throw out the modern valve stuff as well, heck why stop there when I can trash an API board and replace it with a mackie?

      My mid '70s 2" MCI machine will still be going strong when the next "must have" AD convertors and higher sample rates force hardware upgrades on the digital crowd.

      The only thing keeping you from asshole status is a worthwhile observation on "interconnects", RF interference obviously adds something to the sound for some folks.

    13. Re:the old story of the tube and transistor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take that bet.

      On the second note, sounds like you think we actually are listening to samples. Nope. You get an analog waveform. Nyquist says that if you sample under the right conditions, you **can** reconstruct the actual waveform (i.e. analog wave). Of course, Nyquist is a theorem on the source not the reciever and everyone describes it like it applies to sound in the air (it doesn't - hard to sample at 2 * infinity) and bases the Nyquist frequency at human hearing (which is a reciever property, not a source property) - there is a lot more going on to get to a signal that Nyquist applies to and that part never gets discussed, but that's another story.

  74. Quick by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    Register that domain name!

  75. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by jejones · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...but you'll never beat that infinitely variable and infinitely dividable quality of analog.

    Um...if memory serves, magnetizable objects are made up of a bunch of little regions, called "magnetic domains," that are like little magnets. (A magnet just has the magnetic fields of the domains all lined up rather than in random directions.) These domains aren't infinitely small, just as photographic film suffers from grain. (Hence the cranking up of tape speed for higher fidelity, increasing the domains passed over per unit time.)

    Also, it's not clear to me that an analog medium can be written to or read with infinite accuracy--but I hope someone more knowledgeable than I am can expound on that.

  76. Tom Scholz, Rev. Martin Luther King by wheatwilliams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tom Scholz, legendary engineer/bandleader for hte rock band Boston, just last month gave an interview published at Gibson.com where he stated that he knew he was going to have to give up on analog reel-to-reel in the next year or two, because nobody would be manufacturing the tape anymore. He has switched to ProTools but hates it, and says he has to have an extra full-time professional engineer on his payroll just to operate ProTools. And he goes on and on about the specific limitations of digital recording (frequent computer crashes) and the digital medium, and the audible superiority of analog tape.

    "Classic Sound of Boston is Still Tom Scholz, Still Recording on Tape"

    http://www.gibson.com/absolutenm/templates/Featu re Template.aspx?articleid=175&zoneid=2
    ------------ -

    The big problem here is that analog tape is the universal archival medium.

    100 years from now, engineers will be able to play back 2-inch 24-track tape if it's been carefully environmentally preserved. But in 2104, who will be able to access and remix the individual tracks on an IDE hard disk of an elaborately mixed album recorded in Cubase SX 2.2 optimized for a Motorola G4 processor running Mac OS X 10.2? Nobody. All we will have, if we are lucky, is a 16-bit CD with a stereo mix.

    In 1997 I interned at Crawford Productions, a huge broadcast post-production facility in Atlanta Georgia. The Martin Luther King Foundation brought in Reverend King's entire library of sermons and speeches, which were on 1/4 inch reel-to-reel and cassette, for archival restoration. While Crawford made DATs and CDs, they explained to the Martin Luther King Foundation that they were also re-copying everything to fresh 1/4 inch analog tape, and that this would be the preferred archival method and the tapes they should most jealously protect.

    What now?

    1. Re:Tom Scholz, Rev. Martin Luther King by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >He has switched to ProTools but hates it

      That's because ProTools *sucks*.

      There are several far better DAW platforms.

      ProTools is something you MUST have on your marketing literature, and also, for transparent data interchange because it's a de facto standard, but it's not the best platform to actually use. You use it because you *have to*. Scholz doesn't have to.

      He could have dedicated digital studio gear if he wanted, no reason to use a consumer PC pressed into service as a recording studio, which is really what ProTools is when you get down to it.

      "The big problem here is that analog tape is the universal archival medium."

      *Was* the universal archival medium. Adapt. Use a digital medium, or risk losing your archive. If it's *really* worth archiving, have it pressed as DVD. I don't mean DVD-R. I mean commercial DVD. The prognosis for the longevity of the medium is pretty damned good. Yeah, you can argue that the players will be obsolete, but I'm not going there with you.

      I'm not convinced 2" tape has a 100 year shelf life. There is some entropy in those magnetized ferrite particles. They want to realign with the planetary field.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Tom Scholz, Rev. Martin Luther King by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced 2" tape has a 100 year shelf life. There is some entropy in those magnetized ferrite particles. They want to realign with the planetary field.

      Worse, you can't clone analog signals stored on tape the way you can clone a digital signal. Worried that ProTools and IDE hard drives won't be around in 50 years? Fine. Output the separate channels of your mix to 24/96 .wav audio files, and have them pressed onto DVD. Not burned - pressed. I guarantee you software and players will be available in 50 years that will be able to read that data and retrieve your mix, barring some global catastrophe or total economic collapse (in which case nobody will give a flip about Boston's shitty music). Make a hundred clones of that data and scatter them around the world. A clone of your work is guaranteed to survive.

      Scholz's 2 inch analog multitrack tape on the other hand can never be cloned exactly - any copy will be just that, a copy that's inferior to the original. Worse, those crummy copies are far more expensive to produce than a digital clone is, and both the analog copy and the analog original are far more expensive to store properly. If they aren't stored properly, they'll degrade and may become unplayable after 40 years, let alone 100.

      Beyond that, who knows how many 2" analog decks will still be in working order in 100 years. Not to mention you'll need to configure them just right in order to playback the original tape as accurately as possible. Then you'll need to make sure whatever analog noise reduction scheme you were using is being decoded properly . . . assuming compatible equipment has even survived 100 years in perfect working order. Given how electronic components can decay over time, that's not a safe bet. Will there be anyone around in 100 years who understands Dolby-whatever analog noise reduction circuits well enough to troubleshoot potential problems with a 100-year-old decoder circuit?

      Ask the guys at Atlantic Records about the archival storage of analog master tapes. They lost a slew of priceless masters to a giant fire, back in the early '70s if memory serves. Wiped out the original multitracks of legendary works like Dusty in Memphis and some of Aretha Franklin's Atlantic recordings. They're all just ashes now - we only have the final mixdowns (and those may be copies too - I'm not certain).

      Going digital allows you to produce and store multiple clones of your work for pennies, avoiding the kind of archival nightmares Atlantic experienced. And it's not just music that's in danger when stored in the analog realm. A similar wipeout occurred due to the 9/11 attack, when thousands of photographic negatives from the Kennedy administration that had been stored at the WTC were destroyed. Over a 100-year span, the odds of a war, natural disaster, or media decay destroying a single analog copy of some piece of information are far greater than the odds of digital data cloned and stored in multiple locales being destroyed or rendered unusable. If people 100 years from now want that digital information badly enough, and if you've produced a reasonable number of clones scattered across the globe, they'll be able to dig up a clone of that data and figure out how to go about decoding it - particularly if you've taken the time to store it in a reasonably popular digital format.

      And then they can make clones of it in the popular formats of the day, and scatter those across the globe (or solar system, or galaxy), preserving the information for as long as anybody is interested in accessing it. And probably longer than that.

      JADP, but I pitched all of my high school and college papers several years ago. However, a paper I wrote for a high school history class still exists on a 5.25" floppy at a friend's house, in Atariwriter format. If I wanted that data badly enough, it would be trivial to get it off an old Atari and onto a modern PC, and that's after 20 years. And we're talking a fairly obscure brand of

  77. More at hypocrisy... by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    If they had claimed that the plant should have stayed open because reel to reel tape is an ideal medium for distributing radio content while they themselves don't use it, that might be considered irony.

    And the real irony is that that's hypocrisy, not irony.

    1. Re:More at hypocrisy... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      And the real irony is that that's hypocrisy, not irony.

      Hypocrisy can be ironic. The two are not mutually exclusive.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  78. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by tsotha · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A major scourge is the "Sticky shed" syndrome

    Yep. I used to work for a government agency that recorded missile telemetry on 1" 14 track analog tapes. If you stored them in a tightly controlled temperature/humidity environment they'd last a long time. The problem is that's relatively expensive, and it's not always clear what you most important reels are. We were asked to retrieve some data from a tape that was only about ten years old and it came off the reel like masking tape. We were able to restore them to a certain degree, but if it were audio it would have sounded like crap even after we were done. I had to clean the tape heads every 100' or so...

  79. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by raddan · · Score: 1
    IIRC, Steve Albini also records exclusively with tape. I have no idea what he'll switch to. I remember him saying that the tonal characteristics of tape were desirable.

    Listen to some of Albini's recordings with a good set of headphones. They are amazing. Even more amazing was when I was finally able to hear them on studio reference monitors, but they sound great even with a standard stereo setup at home. His attention to detail is amazing.

  80. Bender: Now that is irony. by Cumstien · · Score: 2, Funny

    REAL ROBOT DEVIL

    You'll give me your hand in marriage!

    REAL HERMES

    Is this really happening or just being staged?

    REAL FARNSWORTH

    It can't be real.

    REAL AMY

    Not if Leela is engaged.

    REAL LEELA [to Robot Devil]

    That isn't what I meant.
    That isn't what I signed!

    REAL ROBOT DEVIL

    You should have checked the wording in the fine - print.

    REAL LEELA [reading contract]

    I'll give you my hand-

    REAL LEELA AND ROBOT DEVIL

    In marriage.

    REAL BENDER

    The use of words expressing something of the other than the literal intention.
    Now that is irony.

  81. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

    as opposed to the fact that they lost their jobs due to the totally unexpected decline in the use of reel tape. Unexpected? If you mean like how Bennifer unexpectly split up into their component parts..... Idiot, the digital age has swamped the analog tech.

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
  82. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm fully aware of the inconsistencies with analog recordable medium....and even given that, I still side with it. I know that every time you play it back you are helping degrade the quality of the recording....I know that 'magnetic media' is prone to a multitude of conditions...and will be imperfect from the get go.... ...but, it's hard to beat--even givin its very human-like inconsistencies and fallbacks.

    ...I've worked wonders remastering brutalized analog recordings....and worked wonders even I couldn't believe, but, for abused digital...while I've worked wonders, it still sounded like a finely polished piece of crap....caveat emptor

  83. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 1

    Idiot, the digital age has swamped the analog tech.

    And once again the concept of sarcasm is totally missed by a fellow /.er! *sigh*

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  84. The other thing... by Jarr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I personally am kind of relieved. I think that the thing that most people are missing, is that the real issue is not about the tape, but about the playback machines.

    I work at an archive, and all I do all day is restore, preserve and digitise stuff on 1/4" analogue tape. Obviously the fact that there's no more tape being made is not really a huge issue for us, as we don't record to it anymore.

    The real issue is that very shortly Studer, (one of the largest tape machine manufacturers) is stopping ALL support for ALL of their tape machines. This includes making parts or full machines. The machine sitting next to me right now (Studer A810) is running for at least 4-5 hours a day, and was already second hand when we got it. We have 10 or so machines in the same situation. These things don't just run for ever. They are extremely complex machines with many moving parts that just wear out after a while, and it's becoming very difficult to source replacement parts, not to mention people with the skills to keep them running properly or to do repairs.

    I just hope that people copy their stuff to another medium before their machines stop working; which may be sooner than they think. What use is a "warm" analogue recording medium if you can't record to it?

  85. Re:I still use analogue tape1 (Medium...Message) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am an audio engineer and here's why this is Not Good.

    Analog tape is not just a mediom for recording/archiving/storing music. It is a medium used to create it. That is, musicians use the characteristics of the medium - they manipulate it's unique qualities as a medium - to create sounds. These are not necessarily equivalent with different media (like digital media) - doesn't sound the same, isn't as easy to work. It's as if all the manufacturers of watercolors and oil paints went out of business 'cause we've just gotten acrylics to work right. Or if the makers of hand-held woodworking tools shut down because we're all going to use computer-controlled 3D modeling lathes from now on.
    It ain't the same and it impoverishes the options - signficantly down-sizes the available tool kit. Things that were once easy will become harder, or more expensive, or maybe impossible.

  86. For those who think tape is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of people have said "people still use analog," but for those still skeptical, I know three CD's from the past year or so recorded on analog, for certain:

    * Death Cab for Cutie - Transatlanticism (recorded on 1", IIRC)
    * Pedro the Lion - Achilles Heel
    * Interpol - Antics

    Not to mention other CDs I have that I *believe* are recorded on analog based on sound, but I do not know those for certain. The first two sound great and are a testament to why analog is still most certainly useful.

    Personally, I'm not a huge audiophile but I love cranking CDs of analogue recordings (of course, it still makes a difference even though my media is digital.) in my car, even with some of the current butcher mastering jobs. Digital is very much useful, and recording techniques seem to be improving every day, but this is still a sad day for record producers/engineers everywhere. Sigh.

  87. Hahaha. Here, do this- by schmaltz · · Score: 1, Funny

    I thought you'd like some advise from a audio professional... If your Windows 2000 system is crashing its not the fault of the OS. Trust me on this.

    Oh, okay. Here's how to crash Win2K on demand, Mister Audio P0rfessional. Download a copy of Exact Audio Copy, here-

    http://exactaudiocopy.org/

    Unzip it to a folder (machine w/Win2K, Sp2 onward.) Run eac.exe. Paf! Instant BSoD!

    Now, reasonable operating systems do not allow this sort of degenerate behavior, because reasonable operating systems place system integrity above all else, whereas Windows places system integrity below ... below ...

    ... what was it that Win2K places above system integrity? Was it fancy GUI? Noo.. Speedy filesystem? No. Coherent and/or object-oriented system API? No! A high level of system security? Don't be stupid! Sophisticated scripting and shell? Confound it all!

    When somebody lets us all know what it is Windows is good at, please post back? Thank you.

    --
    Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
  88. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by afidel · · Score: 1

    Is there a reason that this stuff can't be saved to 44.1 16bit PCM with one track per file? I know that's what I did when recording my friends album and then I just used the multitracking interface in the software to layer it all and create the final stereo track for the CD. 44.1 16bit PCM is already a quarter decade old, I don't think the ability to play it back is going away anytime soon!

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  89. How To Satisfy The Irony Police by Zach+Baker · · Score: 4, Informative
    I see that people have criticized your use of the word "irony." Irony, as it's commonly defined, is an often-misunderstood topic and many people who are familiar with it are annoyed with the misapplication of the term. Here is a guide to understanding irony that may help.
    • Irony describes a result that is the opposite of what would commonly be expected under the circumstances.
    • From that definition, you can see that there must be a common expectation in the first place. If an event happens that is merely coincidental or unrelated to the circumstances, it is "unlikely" or maybe "unfortunate" but not ironic. Even if something is coincidental in a regrettable, cynical, extreme, or unusual way, that does not make it ironic.
      • Example 1: Rain on your wedding day -- regrettable, but your wedding day has nothing to do with the weather. Not ironic.
      • Example 2: Running off with the best man on your wedding day. Ironic.
    • If an event is appropriate given the circumstances, it is "fitting" or "apropos," not ironic. Even if something is fitting in a clever or unusual way, it cannot be ironic. In fact, apropos and ironic are more or less antonyms.
      • Example 1: A traffic jam when you're already late -- something that just makes a bad situation worse is appropriate to the circumstance. Not ironic.
      • Example 2: A traffic jam on a newly-opened expressway. Ironic.
    So technically, I must say that no, the event you mentioned is not ironic but is better described as...
    [ ] extremely unfortunate
    [ ] weirdly coincidental
    [X] amusingly apropos
    [ ] oddly fitting
    [ ] poetic justice
    and I hope you find this post useful.
    1. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by psergiu · · Score: 1

      I think Alanis Morisette has a different oppinion.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    2. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by Bertie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, if you check the latest issue of the Oxford English Dictionary, you'll find the definition of irony is:

      "David Blunkett losing his job as a result of intrusions into his private life"

      See also: "Proof that God has a sense of humour"

    3. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by kilauea · · Score: 1

      Thats a great post, but being english I have an Irony cpu installed at birth so do this automatically.

    4. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Example 3: A popular song called "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette that doesn't contain any actual irony. Ironic.

    5. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by lgw · · Score: 1

      Indeed, irony is often misunderstood. Irony is being mocked by fate.

      You would find "rain on your wedding day" ironic if you knew a control-freak wedding planner (insert joke about slashdotters knowing women here). Spending 10 years planning every microscopic detail of an event so that nothing could possibly be less than perfect, only to have the event ruined by the one thing you can't control.

      Irony is not limited to unintended consequences of actions opposite to the intended consequences (one sign of the universe laughing at you). Dramatic irony includes fate conspiring against you, to defeat your best efforts no matter how strong. And that song contains many examples of both situational and dramatic irony, if you include the likely context in which the events occurred.

      A free ride when you've already paid? If you want a free ride, try hard to get one, finally give up and pay, and only then a free ride is unexpectedly offered - again, the universe is enjoying its little joke at your expense.

      As a final example: a posting that laments the common misunderstanding of irony, yet goes on to further that misunderstanding wile trying to clarify - that's ironic!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incorrect. The definition of irony is whatever someone reading the word irony understands it to be, no more and no less.

      If I say IANAL or 1337, are you going to complain that it's not a real word? Why would you be concerned when the 10,000th person uses irony to mean coincidence? Have you not clued in to the Slashdot dialect yet?

      Someone please mod me and the parent to which I'm replying off-topic so that others don't have to waste their time.

    7. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by Daniel · · Score: 1

      The definition of irony is whatever someone reading the word irony understands it to be, no more and no less.

      Window concomitant breeze bright jump down. Hummus, porcupine sea bark bark spiral? Spatula!

      Palm snow walk blue walrus, palm snow walk gearshift: palm snow walk orbit conspiracy flour surf squiggle daisy loop northeast. Raindrop, poodle compass flushing florin.

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    8. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by ajs · · Score: 1

      Thank you, and well put.

      Absurdists amuse me :)

    9. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by Eric604 · · Score: 1
      one definition of definition is a statement of the meaning of a word.

      Unless you made a statement of your own personal understanding of the word irony, your understanding of the word irony is not the definition. So, use the standard definition or include your own definition, prefable at the top of your text.

    10. Re:How To Satisfy The Irony Police by bedessen · · Score: 1

      Another good read on the topic is the piece by Zoe Williams in The Guardian titled The Final Irony.

  90. End vs. means by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    Guest wrote:
    No, you take the arctangent of each sample to simulate soft clipping. They are not the same.

    Soft clipping is a generic word for an end result. Using an arctangent waveshape on a waveform is a means to this end; it will "get" you soft clipping, though it's only a rough "simulation" of what a valve amp or tape deck does. Simulating a particular flavor of soft clipping takes a lot more computing power, but if you just want to avoid harshly clipping your audio's peaks, arctangent is a nice-sounding way to do it.

  91. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Overrated? Uh, how? What surprise did YOU find in hearing that a magnetic tape plant was shut down? I'll make sure not to post when the article comes across that the last 3.5" diskette drive rolled off the assembly line in China. There are other posts that were probably more deserving of getting modded up with that point. The person whose insight probably should have been moderated up with that point will be appreciative that a moderator didn't like this particular post, I'm sure!

  92. Digital vs Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slight tangent to the current topic, but it is possible to differentiate between digital and 'perfect' audio reproduction. I've heard it myself, and I'm not even an 'audiophile'.

    Our college music professor was asked to evaluate a 24bit 96kHz digital ADC/DAC system. Very high-end, not some $199 junk. He set up a microphone in another building for some live performers (singing/instruments). The feed was brought into his listening room. A blind AB test was set up so that the signal went either through a wire ('perfect' sound reproduction) or through the ADC/DAC combo ('digital' sound reproduction').

    As we progressed through the performers, I didn't hear a single difference until we hit the trumpets. It was subtle, but there was a difference. Other people agreed. The fact that there was a difference at all meant that the 'digital' was corrupting the sound. The prof also said he heard a difference in another performer, but I couldn't hear that one.

  93. Digital: it's about efficiency by flinxmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...primarily cost efficiency.

    Labels don't give people a million dollars and say "come back when you're finished" anymore. They give you 2 months and $30k.

    Faced with this, the goal becomes good quality quickly. Sure, people argue about the warmth and crispness of analog. But what most analog purists miss is the outright efficiency of digital recording.

    If you've ever recorded a song, you know that no matter how good you are there is almost always a better take (with a very few exceptions). When that $30k is all you have, it is imperitive that the take be the best one.

    With tape, it's take...stop...evaluate...rewind...record. And pray fervently you don't accidently overwrite something.

    With digital, you can literally get 10 times the work done. takestopevaluatetakestopevaluate. There is no waiting, and if you screw up you hit 'undo'.

    Even most of the folks that do have a million bucks and want to record onto analog promptly dump to digital for mixing. And the 'warmth' and 'crispness' of analog is largely a myth as of about 5 years ago (when ADATs started to die their long deserved death). Play a 2 inch recorded track vs a protools recorded track and 99.9% of the people out there will never know. A good producer/engineer can work wonders with good preamps and outboard gear.

    So yes, it's a sad day...but not nearly as monumental as purists would have you believe. People who depend on this stuff for a living dumped this along time ago.

    1. Re:Digital: it's about efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point out where in your argument you say digital is better. Actually. Better. 'Fast' doesn't automatically mean 'good'.

    2. Re:Digital: it's about efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These literally ignorant people do not care about what anything actually sounds like; they only care that they can fit it all in their top pocket so they can block out the sound of traffic.

      Anyone who is not ignorant, in other words, anyone who knows what the sound of a properly made recording sounds like when it is replayed, will be deeply horrified that this plant has closed, and indeed, that there was only one pland left.

      Dont waset your fingertips trying to convince this generation young, deaf, ignorant people that 'analogue is better' because they say 'whatever' to anything that is important, in their flippant, stupid and careless manner, that will doom them, and their generation to the obscurity that it deserves.

    3. Re:Digital: it's about efficiency by lgw · · Score: 1

      If there's a piece of music I like that's only available because digital made the engineering fast/affordable, thats Actually Better than if it never existed because of the restrictions of analog, no?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  94. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    guess that this is all Bush's fault somehow.

    No so much. It's the war and the huge deficit that's Bush's fault.

  95. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Audio is one of the only fields where the newer, spectacularly better equipment is routinely disparaged by technical know-nothings who have emotional ties to the imperfections of the "old and busted" analog gear and can't handle the perfection of the new digital hotness.

  96. Why all the mourning? by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 1
    I'm unclear on why this is something to be mourned? Obviously not enough people care about tape to make the LAST manufacturer a going concerned.

    Heck, buggy whip manufacturing and hand weaving still exists but these guys are going under.

  97. The loudness race and Billy Corgan by tepples · · Score: 1

    Some CDs are intentionally clipped to heck during mastering because starting in the mid-1990s, record producers have been deluded into thinking that louder is better, and the resulting hypercompression has turned into an arms race.

    The hypercompression of Zwan, on the other hand, may have been an artistic choice.

  98. Alas, poor Analog... by ktakki · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...I knew ye well.

    Having spent most of my teens, twenties, and thirties in recording studios (as a musician, engineer, producer, and owner), there's a lot I'm going to miss about analog recording on tape.

    • First of all, there's the act of opening a fresh reel of Ampex 456 tape -- the polymer scent, akin to the smell of a new car. You'd place the reel on the deck, thread it carefully, and then fast-forward to the end and rewind to the beginning. This would "seat" the tape so it would align with the transport. But it was almost a ritual act, the first step in recording a new project.
    • After each take, the tape would have to be rewound, either to the top of the track or to the punch point. It was an enforced pause, a chance to let your ears cool off for a few seconds or a minute, maybe take a sip of coffee or beer. I'm not the only engineer who missed this.
    • Flipping the reel: maybe once in a blue moon I'd lay a backwards guitar or piano track, or record some backwards reverb (one of my favorite effects). But when one of the channels on an old Ampex 24-track deck went south, flipping the tape and copying the track over to another track was our quick and dirty workaround (it was only a reference track anyway, and the deck was fixed the next day). Of course, nowadays we have hard drives and we all know that they never ever fail.
    • Splicing: okay, I'll readily admit that in the early '90s Digidesign Sound Designer made me hang up my razor blade and splicing block forever, but it was a hell of a useful skill at the time. I had a lot of fun in the pre-sampler days making 1/4" tape loops (some of them were 20 or 30 feet long and ran around the room, using microphone stands as tensioners).
    • The essential qualities of analog tape: head bump and tape compression. The first is really a quality of analog decks, a low-frequency emphasis between 60 and 200 Hz, where the belly of a kick drum sound lies. Tape compression allows you to selectively saturate certain tracks, like snare drum, where the effects of distortion actually work in your favor. Attempting the same thing with digital only leads to madness. Note that there's a DSP plug-in available for ProTools that simulates these qualities.
    • Longevity: properly stored and cared for, analog tape lasts decades. Perhaps even a century or more. Sure, there was that problem with 3M reels and flaking back in the '80s, but that was nothing that an hour in a convection oven at 200 degrees couldn't cure (heh). I have reels from the '70s that I can still listen to. Compare this with my own personal dead media problem: I have to keep a Mac 512K running if I want to be able to access MIDI sequences I wrote back in the mid-'80s. The software won't run on anything past System 3.2, and the file format is proprietary and not published anywhere (Opcode Sequencer 1.5). I've done straight-through conversions to a standard MIDI file format, but you lose certain features that way (named tracks, loops, etc.). Without a standard multi-track digital audio format that works across platforms and software packages, one that can be perpetuated for decades, musicians, producers, and record labels will find themselves in the same conundrum. Remember that a tape recorded on an Ampex deck will (theoretically) work on a Studer, an MCI, a Tascam, or an Otari. Think 20, 50, 100 years from now. Think reissue, remaster, box set.


    I'm not about to start the analog vs. digital flamefest. I see more good about digital than bad, but there are a few qualities of analog (particularly the last point above) that are worth preserving.

    k.
    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    1. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by mochan_s · · Score: 1

      I've done straight-through conversions to a standard MIDI file format, but you lose certain features that way (named tracks, loops, etc.).

      Why don't you dump it out to AU format instead of MIDI? Then, it's just like tape. It will play on any Mac, Windows, Linux etc etc but of course, unlike MIDI you can't change it. Of course, you can dig out that old Mac and rerun the program. It's like complaining about some piece of ourboard gear that was discontinued and you can't get the same sound as that. Opcode Sequencer is propriatory, reel is not.

    2. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by ktakki · · Score: 1
      Why don't you dump it out to AU format instead of MIDI?

      That's the equivalent of printing all of your word processing files to hardcopy. Your choice of typeface and choice of paper are set in stone, so to speak.

      I recall that when MIDI sequencing was a new thing (back in the mid-'80s), I described it to people unfamiliar with this as word processing for music. The sequencer recorded what keys you pressed, when you pressed them, and how hard and how long you pressed them. Like changing a font in a AbiWord document, you could change sounds on a track. Like editing or cutting and pasting an OpenOffice document, you could edit or cut and paste notes in a MIDI sequence. Like adding Auto Text in a Word document, you could loop or import a sequence into another sequence.

      Dumping a MIDI sequence to a sound file format loses this flexibility.

      The sequencing package I used from 1985 to 1994 was written before a standard MIDI sequence file format was finalized. I probably should have upgraded rather than use the same piece of software for nine years, but I didn't. Not until 1994 did I start running on the Moore's Law treadmill, where everything, software and hardware, gets upgraded every 18 months.

      I've done recordings where not a single piece of equipment in the signal chain, not a single instrument in the studio, was manufactured after 1965 (this was in 1990 or so). Recording is one of those industries where the legacy gear is prized -- vintage mics, pre-CBS Fender guitars, old drum kits, Hammond organs, tube compressors, etc.

      Sorry, I've digressed. But, apropos to the article, I think that someone's going to buy the Quantegy plant and keep producing analog tape.

      Anyway, I'm out of the industry for good, so it's a moot point. Making good music requires a soul, and that's something I lost years ago. I'm in IT right now, where having a soul is an encumberance, a liability. I just like to keep my old gear around to remind me of a time when I could look in a mirror and see a reflection.

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    3. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I have to keep a Mac 512K running if I want to be able to access MIDI sequences I wrote back in the mid-'80s. The software won't run on anything past System 3.2

      Surely you could use one of many emulators, rather than depending on the actual hardware...

      When x86 PCs die out, there will still be emulators like Bochs to load up with old versions of Windows, and run your old audio programs.

      I've done straight-through conversions to a standard MIDI file format, but you lose certain features that way (named tracks, loops, etc.).

      And you don't lose that info when storing on analog tape?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      After each take, the tape would have to be rewound, either to the top of the track or to the punch point. It was an enforced pause, a chance to let your ears cool off for a few seconds or a minute, maybe take a sip of coffee or beer. I'm not the only engineer who missed this.

      From what little I've gathered in my extremely limited experience, this is something of a personality thing these days. If the engineer and talent are in a relaxed mood, those breaks will happen anyway, even if a long-distance phone patch is racking up charges. I don't know how common that is outside music studios and some commercial, voiceover-oriented operations, but I know this still exists, thankfully.

      Of course, nowadays we have hard drives and we all know that they never ever fail.

      Funny, but this business about the slow disappearance of sources for raw analog stock makes me think of the internship I just finished at a rather large player in film post services, where the people who worry about these things are wondering where they'll be able to find 9 and 18GB removable hard drives soon, since these things do eventually fail.

      Part of me wonders whether our rate of technological development is increasing so fast that there's barely enough time to make use of a recently established technology before it becomes obsolete and hard to find spare parts for.

      Splicing: okay, I'll readily admit that in the early '90s Digidesign Sound Designer made me hang up my razor blade and splicing block forever, but it was a hell of a useful skill at the time.

      Indeed, up until 2000, the very first thing taught in the university course I took was how to splice analog tape. The first couple of projects completely relied upon analog tape; you didn't even get to touch the (crappy) multitrack software until second semester of the first year. I'm almost positive this has been excised now in favour of getting the first-years into the digital realm as quickly as possible, but give me a grease pencil, a razor blade, and a block, and I could probably knock enough rust off those skills to chop together a passable 30-second spot.

      Without a standard multi-track digital audio format that works across platforms and software packages, one that can be perpetuated for decades, musicians, producers, and record labels will find themselves in the same conundrum. Remember that a tape recorded on an Ampex deck will (theoretically) work on a Studer, an MCI, a Tascam, or an Otari.

      Indeed, isn't this the same argument presented for open protocols and data formats whenever someone posts an Ask Slashdot about converting one closed, proprietary data format to another? Even the de facto software's session files change format, and that business with the hard disk recorders a couple sections back rears its ugly head here as well, where it will only properly read sessions created by an older version of the software.

      This is one of those things all the software manufacturers and audio gurus may want to start hammering out a spec for, now. Hell, don't even limit this to multitrack audio; just figure out a standard for the next-generation audio encoding and transport--whether or not it just builds on existing stuff--and give everyone enough lead time to ensure compatibility or upgradability. The children of PCM won't last forever, and from what I understand, doing something in Direct Stream Digital requires a completely new, Sony-proprietary digital infrastructure, from the console to the recorder. If DSD somehow spreads to a non-SACD advanced format that hits big, or something else that needs all new equipment comes along, there will be chaos, because we all know how every company uses one standard connection type, data encoding, and software format... *sigh*

      On a completely OT, selfish note, if you know anyone in the Toronto area willing to take on a coffee boy who wants to get some hands-on experience in any kind of sound production work, I'll work for cold water and a bag of peanuts.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    5. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by identity0 · · Score: 1

      My mom has told me stories of using analog tape in her high school days that I found fascinating.

      The really interesting part for me was that she used to edit tapes together by literally cutting them with scissors and splicing pieces together with tape - as in, scotch tape or cello tape. The magnetic pickups weren't bothered at all by the adhesive tape, and as long as you made the cuts diagonally across the (audio) tape, the new splice would be strong enough to play.

      This kind of directly working with media and data in the old analog formats like tape and film is fascinating to me, being used to working with digital formats through arcane software interfaces. I hope the formats will survive into the future.

    6. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Longevity: properly stored and cared for, analog tape lasts decades. Perhaps even a century or more. [...] I have reels from the '70s that I can still listen to. Compare this with my own personal dead media problem: I have to keep a Mac 512K running if I want to be able to access MIDI sequences I wrote back in the mid-'80s. [...]

      You're comparing different things here; a correct comparison would be between the original performance that the analog tape is a recording of, and the Mac playing the MIDI sequences, or a comparison between an analog tape of the original performance and an analog tape of the Mac playing the MIDI sequences. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the computer material actually has an advantage: you can still recreate the original performance. It might require particular old hardware and software, but compare this to recreating a performance involving people: much more difficult.

      Perhaps the only argument for (simple) analog formats is that there is little question as to the best way to record the data, thus none of the endless formats as with digital.

    7. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by RealUlli · · Score: 1
      The magnetic pickups weren't bothered at all by the adhesive tape, and as long as you made the cuts diagonally across the (audio) tape, the new splice would be strong enough to play.

      The heads aren't bothered because you apply the adhesive tape on the backside of the tape. (AFAIK)

      The diagonal cut is done that way not because of the later durability of the connection but (again, AFAIK) to cut diagonally across the tracks, thereby achieving a sort of "mini-fadeout/fadein". OTOH, the angle you cut at might have something to do with the placement of the different heads in a large machine. (I don't think there was only one monolithic head for all the channels...)

      Regads, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    8. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > Recording is one of those industries where the
      > legacy gear is prized -- vintage mics, pre-CBS
      > Fender guitars, old drum kits, Hammond organs,
      > tube compressors, etc.

      Out of idle curiosity, do you know what the "right" way to record an organ with a rotating Leslie is?

      It never sounds the same as it does in a room... maybe 16 mics and quadraphonic playback? Hmm.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:Alas, poor Analog... by ktakki · · Score: 1
      Out of idle curiosity, do you know what the "right" way to record an organ with a rotating Leslie is?

      I don't think there is a "right" way to record a Leslie. But I'll tell you how I did it anyway.

      I had two basic techniques, close and distant. In a situation where the Hammond was the only instrument being recorded (overdub), I'd set up two AKG 451s in an XY pattern about 10 to 20 feet away (depending on the room), with their capsules about 6" apart. I'd also have a large diaphragm condenser on the low transducer and another mic, either a condenser or a bright-sounding dynamic like an SM57 on the horns. These four mics would be mixed to two tracks, with the XY pair panned hard LR and the high-low pair panned in between.

      For situations where the Hammond was being played with other instruments, I'd try to get the Leslie in an isolation booth and just use the close mics, along with a direct feed. As above, the high-low pair would be panned (9 and 3 o'clock), with just enough direct in the center to give it depth.

      And for those who don't know what the fuck a Hammond or Leslie is, these are Univac-era electronic instruments, a marvelous kludge. The Hammond organ generated sound electro-mechanically, with "tone wheels" driven by what was essentially a washing machine motor. The Leslie is a 2-way speaker with motor-driven rotating horns and paddles on the high and low transducers that would "swish" the sound before it left the cabinet (a walnut enclosure half the size of a refrigerator). Leslie speakers weren't for Hammond organs only: I worked with a guitar player who used a pair of them, something that was more common among '70s era stoner bands like Pink Floyd (David Gilmour used them on the Ummagumma album).

      More information can be found here.

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  99. For Sale by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    Does anyone want to buy my reel-to-reel tape machine? :P

    1. Re:For Sale by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Nonono, wait a year, then hawk it on eBay for 5 grand ..

      --
    2. Re:For Sale by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      Good idea.
      Only problem is it's like lead, it weighs about 60 pounds. Big shipping charge!

  100. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that there are so many digital recording formats, with various numbers of tracks, it is essentially impossible to create legacy recordings. Many programs we use today won't even run in 5 years let alone 100 and all we will have is basic 2 track mixdown masters of many records.

    I don't agree... Just about every single computer ever made-- straight back to the 50's-- has been emulated. I don't see that trend going away, at least as long as there are nostalgic geeks with time on their hands. As long as computers exist in a form anything like we know them, legacy digital recordings will be recoverable.

    Besides, technology doesn't make huge leaps forward-- it crawls, and (especially in artistic fields) there are always people using equipment and systems that are generations behind...

    Not to say digital is inherently superior to analog recording... Just as film is still superior to digital photography or video.

  101. I just got my quadraphonic set up! by Colonel+Blimp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh well, back to 8 track.

    1. Re:I just got my quadraphonic set up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I see 2 references to 8-track posted within a couple of hours at Slashdot. Scary thought: maybe it's making a comeback.

  102. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run EAC on my Win2K box all the time, and i can't remember ever having any troubles with either the program or the OS crashing.

    Not a Windows flagwaver or anything, but EAC crashing on any Win2K box just isn't true.

  103. Urhm, no... by lowpass_wilter · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but no. I work at a plant in the U.K. which manufactures audio tape. I've seen it being made TODAY - so I can pretty much vouch for its continual existance.

    1. Re:Urhm, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who? What brand? Where can we get it?

  104. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    You have my sympathies.

    What you have to do is "bake" the tapes.

    What I've done on several occassions is take a tape and stick it in a Food Dryer - the kind you make jerky or dried fruit with. Then set it to a low temperature (like 105 F) and let it "bake" for several hours.

    Then (and this is the most crucial part) :

    you set up and TEST a digital recording system attached to the playback deck, and get the levels as close to perfect as you can, but let it peak around -3dB. Make sure you record it at some insane sampling rate and bit depth. 192kHz at 24bit is pretty good. Why? The bit depth is really important - this way when you process the audio through your restoration software, you have the bit depth to handle stuff like reverb tailings and other audio nuances.

    If you chicken out and don't record at -3dB (which is fairly hot for recording analogue material, frankly) and record it at -12dB, but record it at 16 bit, and a quiet passage is at -24dB, you'll be lucky to be pulling an 8 bit recording out of it, and it will sound kind of gritty. IF you record at 24bit and chicken out, then the quiet passage described will be in 12 bit - not optimal, but one heck of a lot better sounding than 8 bit. If you record at 24bit and get a -3dB recording, then you'll still have boodles of headroom.

    In anycase, you set up your recording system, carefully set the tape in the player, press record on your digital recorder, press play and the deck, and PRAY. Keep a mini vac nearby to suck up the oxide -as it goes through the capstan, it will shred and shed all over the carpet and the interior of the deck. Use the vac to suck up the oxide as it peels off the acetate backing. Also, keep a can of compreszed air nearby to blow components clean. After you record one song, stop the deck, blow the oxide off the components, vacuum the heads, and resume your recording...

    It's a major PAIN IN THE ASS when done right, and that's why it's so freakin' expensive to get done. It's very labour intensive. And also very high risk: You Only Get One Playback after a bake. Once, I got two, but the second was pretty degraded - nothing over 8kHz came through.

    The WORST is video tape. FUCK that sucks. If you get some distortion in audio, that's one thing, a little hiss is something you can accompodate in your listening - but dropped or stuck frames or getting vast fields of snow and frame roll makes for a ***really unsatisfying viewing experience***. Sticky shed video is a true horror. And it's the future. Despair now, and get it over with.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  105. Seriously. 250 to zero? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    From 250 tape makers to zero - is the factory so complex that they couldn't just scale back?

    Sounds like they are going out of business for reasons including lack of demand, but not exclusively due to that lack.

    OK, I just RTFA. I see they have gone down from 1100 in their hey-day. I don't see "Quantegy" listed on the stock exchange, so I wouldn't be surprised that grand-nephew bubba or whomever the current owner is just wanted to sell the plant to build a mall or something.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  106. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You believe in a myth. Analog domain is not infinite in amplitudinal variance. And amplitude is a red herring anyways -- it's always used to beat up digital by people like you who don't understand how digital recording actually works. (If you don't know what a reconstruction filter is, you have no business commenting on amplitude variance since you don't understand the true process by which recorded analog signals are recreated from digital samples.)

    As for clipping... you want soft clipping, a phenomenon that occurs in many (but not all) analog circuits when exposed to signal levels beyond the nominal peak levels.

    You can do BETTER with digital. Simply operate your 24-bit recorder with some input attenuation. You won't notice the 1 or 2 bits lost by halving or quartering the amplitude of the input signal. 24 bits is so much SNR that you can't use all of it in any practical audio recording, so you might as well trade off some of it for protection against clipping.

  107. "Superiority" of digital by FisherRider · · Score: 1
    As is clear from many other comments, there are lots of people out there who think (recognize?) that some analog media are in fact superior to their digital counterparts. While this is certainly true in some cases, the line is blurrier in others.

    I was at a local high-end home audio and video store, where they had a number of large-screen TVs showing HDTV signals. I watched one for a little bit, and noticed considerable compression artifacts (looked like a JPEG). I asked one of the salespeople where the signal was from, and he said that it was digital HDTV. I asked why they used digital if it had artifacts like these, and his response was that consumers instinctively think "digital == better!" and so they run digital HDTV. And this was at a place with shelves of tube amps and speaker cables costing in the triple digits.

    I guess it's the common ignorance/trend that's pusing digital everything, regardless of quality.

    1. Re:"Superiority" of digital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that was compressed HDTV, probably run through a video splitter/amplifier, a crummy upsampler, and a crappy decoder.

      If you ever get a chance to see fully uncompressed HDTV you will fall over. My brother used to work for a company that made realtime uncompressed HDTV editing decks. Fully uncompressed HDTV looks like real life (think Half Life @ 1280x1024x32 with 6x AA ... only better). Unfortunately you will likely never see it since uncompress HDTV is like 2-300megs a second. The test video used was stored on a 14 drive Seagate Cheeta Fiber channel RAID array SAN. Was the only setup circa 2 years ago that could pump out the data at the needed rate. The result is that all current HDTV signals are rather heavily compressed to meet bandwidth limitations.

      HDTV *is* better. You just saw a crappy source, and probably a crappy TV too.

    2. Re:"Superiority" of digital by slcdb · · Score: 1

      Regardless of quality?

      No. I'd like to see you tell someone, with a straight face, that you think the picture quality from VHS is better than DVD. DVD is digital and it's compressed, too. Probably just like that HDTV demo you saw.

      Most likely the store you were at had it poorly or even improperly setup. Or they were playing it from a video disc that had been very heavily compressed. The overall quality of digital HDTV, even with normal HDTV compression, is far superior to old analog TV, simply because of the higher resolution. Any compression artifacts from properly compressed standard HDTV are dwarfed by the amazing increase in detail afforded by the much higher resolution.

      I can almost assure you that what you saw would not be typical of a proper HDTV setup. Which brings me to one of my biggest complaints about these supposed "high-end" A/V stores. Their salespeople are typically completely ignorant of what's really behind the technology they are selling. So they're not capable of ensuring that their demo systems are properly setup and producing the best quality picture and sound. Usually they rely on some inexperienced minimum-wage schmuck from the back room to set things up and help them answer technical questions. So when talking to these guys, keep in mind that often they're getting their information from high school dropouts.

      --
      Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
  108. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by mochan_s · · Score: 1

    Oh, come on. This is ridiculous!!!

    First of all, all your audio files are saved as WAV files - which are basically samples. All your MIDI data is saved as MIDI data. You can import/export it into any program. Furthermore, people are also working on a basic multitrack data standard.

    So, what is lost? The automation information, the tracks you colored green? That is also lost in old tape. Do you think all the fader information, outboard effects are not propriotary? Furthermore, tape gets erased and all the editing is destrutive.

    Tape is just like a WAV file that you can have around - compare a document in the computer to the one written by you. It's like saying old documents that I made in the computer won't be able to be opened in the future!! You can always export the text and pictures and recreate it. Same with the multitrack audio files.

  109. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1
    but not enough to be given such importance on Slashdot

    What makes people think Slashdot is so important that covering an analog tape factory closure is beneath it?

  110. Irony? Nope. by stutterbug · · Score: 1

    When I got into journalism school in 1991, I think digital audio editing was just being experimented with by many radio newsrooms. The way to edit stories then was to use a stiff, one-sided razor blade, an aluminum cutting block and translucent blue tape (or to mix a story down from two reel-to-reels to a third recorder). I like to think I was good at making edits, but my fingers weren't as dry as most other reporters and often you could hear the audio become softer and muddy at my edit points. After I returned from freelancing in India, there was one CBC radio piece I wanted to use for my demo tape. I never bothered to ask for a copy from the newsroom, but I had all of the old source tapes. So I stitched a copy together using a shareware, two-channel, 16-bit audio editor (CoolEdit, I think). I was absolutely astonished at how easy it was to edit the piece. The quality was easily as good as you would expect to get on a cassette tape. The very idea that anyone would use audio tape in news gathering in this day and age makes me want to laugh. In the editing suites at my old journalism school, there were also editing blocks that were 3/4 inches wide in the TV editing studios. Hard to believe people used to use razors on TV tapes too!

  111. BASF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BASF is one of the largest companys in the world, top 50. They invented magnetic tape in 1934. They sold their audio/video division to the Koreans (Emtec) in 1998. Agfa was just a bit player and sometime customer of BASF but not related.

  112. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    Imagine that, your post wasn't modded insightfull or interesting but this Linux fanboys was modded funny although its ignorant. Yeah, this is Slashdot. Linux fanboys unite!

  113. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    Windows is built for compatiblity. Atleast I don't have to code my own WPC11v4 drivers... Look it up.

  114. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Daneurysm · · Score: 1

    I do not believe that analog is absolute infinite...simply 'practically infinite'.

    I'm fully aware of how a digital recording is captured, converted, played back, and the same in reverse.

    I do not want soft clipping, I was merely arguing it as a 'feature' of the format...one that is arguably quite convenient.

    ...and I do do better with digital. I run preamps and compression/limiting on my inputs, increasing apperent dynamic range...through attentuate, et al..I try to stay analog on that side as well. It seems to detract from digital's 'cold harsh reality' drawback...though I hate the cheeziness factor of having a tiny tube preamp....;) ....they work wonders......I have been at this for 13 years now, on digital the entire time, sometimes supplanted by analog inputs...4-tracks, adats...etc...I defend analog, I'm a practical digital fan. Temper my rants with that in mind.

  115. wow by NickRipley · · Score: 1

    There sure are a lot of ignorant people on here.

    Anyway, a big problem with digital is the incompetence of the engineer. Any idiot can get a protools rig and make it sound 'OK.' Plus, these Full Sail graduates also have a tendency to use horrid digital effects, and also to compress a mix to the point where there are no dynamics left.

    It takes skill to properly use analog equipment, and it seems that the mindset and work ethic of an analog tape user is focused on doing things properly and having the results sound good.

    With digital, you can also edit any poor performance into a great one, also removing any ambience and character that the material has.

    My two cents.

    --
    http://cassettefetish.com
  116. Not random! Would have been funnier as... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The new name should really be:

    CUFK!!

    I hope sombody gets it...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  117. not really by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Engineers found that people actually prefer a small amount of even order distortion compared to unmeasurable distortion. Having a slight bit makes the music have a "warmer" sound. Pure digital is cold and somewhat harsh by comparison. Zero distortion does not equal the best sound. Theres plenty of speakers with a flat frequency response that sound like garbage compared to something with some spikes or dips. I find it amusing that it takes a DSP chip with a half million transistors and 1000 lines of code to come close to the sound of a vacuum tube. Ask the guitar guys about tube emulation, its no good.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:not really by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Engineers found that people actually prefer a small amount of even order distortion compared to unmeasurable distortion. Having a slight bit makes the but music have a "warmer" sound. Pure digital is cold and somewhat harsh by comparison.

      This does nothing to invalidate my point. TONS of people like electric guitar, but if your "recording device" distorts everything to that extent, it's a POS recording device. It may be an awesome "effects box" though.

      Zero distortion does not equal the best sound.

      Actually, that's EXACTLY what "best sound" is!
      The idea of a sound REPRODUCTION system is to replay the sound as it was played originally.

      Theres plenty of speakers with a flat frequency response that sound like garbage compared to something with some spikes or dips.

      What you're saying is silly. It's like saying, "there are plenty of Ferraris that drive like crap compared to my Pinto". Sure that may be you opinion, but by any objective measure the Ferrari is better. You might LIKE the feeling of sliding out in a corner that the Ferrari might have handled uneventfully.
      I think all that really does is say that you have poor taste.

      I'm not trying to be a snob, and I certainly don't always leave my EQ set at "flat", but if you're going to have a rational discussion about the merits of a sound playback system it's important to recognize what the fundamental goal is. I'm not trying to force you to buy a Ferrari, saying that your system is "better" when every objective measure says otherwise is just as foolish as saying that your Pinto is better than a Ferrari.

      To put it another way:
      It's possible to make a "perfect" stereo system sound like that noisy system you like, but it's fundamentally impossible to do the reverse. You simply can't do it.
      Think of a good system as one that can do everything yours can do and more. A perfect system would reproduce any kind of noise you liked.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  118. Just remember by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    digital=loss

    Digital is a representation of the original source material. Its only as good as the sampling rate.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Just remember by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's all only as good as your ear. Everything=loss, but digital has no uppr limit on quality other than price. CDs cut it a bit fine for some people's ears, however - I wish one of the newer formats had succeeded before DRM. :\

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  119. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yawn..been running EAC for a while..no problem.

  120. And don't forget .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... digital backup tapes use analog recording technology at the point of tape-meets-head.

    All you sneering digital-heads lamblast analog at your peril .......

    Your PC would NOT exist without the years of development of analogue systems.

    Anybody own a digital speaker ?
    Come on, speak up!

    Digital amplifier anyone ? Completely digital ?
    Speak up, I can't hear you!

    Digital headphones ?
    Come on, somebody MUST have some digital headphones out there .....

    What about a digital cochlea ? Anybody got one of those ?

    Digital brain ?
    SPEAK UP, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

    My digital-amplifier-headphone-cochlea-brain system must be playing up again ..... maybe it's that analogue PSU playing up again... or that analogue power station browning out .... sigh.

  121. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, reasonable operating systems do not allow this sort of degenerate behavior, because reasonable operating systems place system integrity above all else, whereas Windows places system integrity below ... below ...

    I just tried this, and it worked fine. What is supposed to be happening here?

    Why was the parent modded up if it's not true?

  122. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by evilviper · · Score: 1
    Many programs we use today won't even run in 5 years let alone 100 and all we will have is basic 2 track mixdown masters of many records.

    All you need to do is export (the multichannel master) to PCM, and any halfway decent program can handle it. PCM has been around quite a long time, and I'm willing to bet it'll be around longer than the best maintained tapes will survive.

    And, like tapes, I'm willing to bet the IDE/ATA interface will survive for many decades in the future, and you'll have no trouble reading them.

    The filesystem can be a bit tricky, but FAT32 should be readable by most every OS for a very long time as well.

    But more importantly than that, is how easy it is to copy those PCM files from an old hard drive to whatever the new standard hardware/filesystem is, and possibly even convert from PCM to whatever has taken over. The easy of copying/converting digital media is so many times easier than analog, that it's no wonder everyone is switching.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  123. Last plant, or last AMERICAN plant? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    NPR reports this as being the last American plant. Are foreign manufacturers (BASF, etc) still making 1/4 inch?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  124. Re:Not random! Would have been funnier as... by Igottapoop · · Score: 0
    The new name should really be:

    CUFK!!

    I hope sombody gets it..


    We get it, it's just that some company already beat you to the punchline by about 7 years...

    Better luck next time though ;-)
  125. This is actually true. by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The engineer who did that was Bob Carver of Phase Linear. He characterized the highest rated tube amps and built a transistor amp with the same transfer function. In blind A/B/X tests, "high end" listeners couldn't tell the difference.

    Didn't sell.

    Then, almost as a joke, he designed the Carver Silver 7 tube amp. 20 tubes per channel. $25,000 each. Two huge chassis per channel. Huge transformers. Same transfer function.

    Named the "best amplifier of the decade" by The Absolute Sound.

    1. Re:This is actually true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carver? Isn't he the same guy who made a pyramid power amp with 1000 watts for $1000? As I recall, reviews blasted it for its poor sound. (And measurement wise, not much better - looked good as long as you used perfect loading of 8 ohms, but fell apart at something like 8.1)

      Also, whenever I hear something like this, I'ld like to know what kind of test this was. Transistor amps (to this day and with even the best) have an unmistakable hard, electronic edge that a good tube amp *completely* gets rid of, with no loss of the natural 'bite' to the sound. No one who has heard it will believe that its due to 'tube' amp distortions (and I know engineers who argued this bit unitil they actually sat down and listened- changed their tune real quick). I question how well the tube equipment was presented, did it get 'degraded' in sound via the switches, volume pots, etc. What were the speakers - run of the mil cone speakers, electrostatics, etc. If you're going to give 'high end' equipment the benefit of the doubt (and you must to have a fair test) it must be installed correctly and not run through *any* inferior equipment that would bring it down to the level of the transistor amp.

    2. Re:This is actually true. by td · · Score: 1

      Transistor amps (to this day and with even the best) have an unmistakable hard, electronic edge that a good tube amp *completely* gets rid of, with no loss of the natural 'bite' to the sound.

      That, ladies and gentlemen, was the sound of money leaving a rube's wallet and finding its rightful place on the bottom line of a purveyor of direct-coupled linear-phase old-new-stock oxygen-free all-tube snake oil. If these gearhead goofballs really cared about how their music sounds, they'd save some money, get rid of some ugly living-room clutter and buy seasons tickets for their local symphony orchestra, where they'd get a zero percent distortion, infinite dynamic range, perfect soundstage experience. Instead they insist on dumping their cash in the pockets of doubletalking engineers.

      --
      -Tom Duff
    3. Re:This is actually true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Instead they insist on dumping their cash in the pockets of doubletalking engineers."

      What engineers? I was talking about the sound as actually heard, comparing to the sound of actual people singing. I couldn't care less for the reasons why. Tube units (at least the good ones) are more accurate. Have you ever heard a good system? (No Bose doesn't count, neither does Sony ES).

      By the way, I've attended quite a few symphonic concerts, have you?

  126. Clarification on BASF and AGFA by Sir+Ancestor · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am not sure about Emtec but BASF is not former AGFA!!! Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik (BASF) is German chemical and plastics manufacturing company originally founded in 1865. Agfagevaert Gruppe, Dutch Agfa-gevaert Groep, is German and Belgian corporate group established in 1964 in the merger of Agfa AG of Leverkusen, W.Ger., and Gevaert Photo-Producten NV of Mortsel, Belg. The merger established twin operating companies, one German (Agfa-Gevaert AG) and one Belgian (Gevaert-Agfa NV, which in 1971 became Agfa-Gevaert NV). Controlling interest in the group was purchased by Bayer AG in 1981.

    1. Re:Clarification on BASF and AGFA by daniel.probst · · Score: 1

      BASF is the worlds biggest chemical company (bigger than DOW Chemical, for example). BASF used to be a large producer of magnetic tapes and floppys. Due to stagnating demand, this business was sold of to investors under the name of EMTEC around 1997. A few years later, production was shut down.

  127. Analog vs. digital? by mrjb · · Score: 2, Informative

    I used to use quantegy (quantigy? formerly Ampex) tapes in my ADAT machine, a digital 8-track recorder that records 42 minutes of 8 channel, 48 khz digital audio on what is basically an analog VHS tape. Of coure, ADAT tapes aren't the same as reel-to-reel tapes- the packaging is different. I suspect that division will still be running for quite a while, as digital ADAT tapes tend to have better compatibility across machines than analog reel-to-reel. Still I have a hard time believing that not a single studio is going to record anything (analog) on (analog) tape anymore. Not because I don't think harddisk recording hasn't caught up with analog technology, but because the natural compression of tape gives quite a pleasant harmonic distortion to the sound recorded on it. Also, harddisks crash and burned media gets unreadable. For longer-term audio storage, tape is still the medium of choice. Given this, what's the alternative to reel-to-reel tape?

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  128. There is an easy answer by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've recorded in digital and "old school" tape studios.And they both kicked ass.How?The smart digital studio guys run the old tube preamps and eq's.That way you get that nice analog warmth going in,and the ease of digital editing afterwards.It's the best of both worlds.Now let us pray that those few plants making tubes don't go out of business,or all us musicians are REALLY screwed.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  129. Thomas' Postulate by scottgfx · · Score: 1

    My feeling, from my own experience, is that we will be spending most of the 21st century trying to archive all of that analog information left from the 20th. That is why the 21st will dissappear from history.

    --
    It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
  130. recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the major label strata, it's all digital and protools. One needs only to listen to the recent spate of pop divas trying to make do without lip synching live to realize that they're little more than models with an engineer and some filters. They can't sing. It's all silicon (in many ways).

    In the independent strata, there is a choice. You can use digital, or you can use analog. These people can write, perform, sing, play... they are talented enough to choose either technology based on the merits. Both take effort to maintain (tuning in analog, bit rot in digital) but if you know what they can do, an artist can make the best choice for what they're trying to accomplish.

    Until now.

    There was a sub-choice in analog: If you can't afford new stock, buy used stock and record on that. Most of the indies can't afford new anything except pedals, strings and maybe cymbals after the cracks in the current ones start to make a difference.

    With the majors not buying new stock and the indies not having a source of second generation stock... this is a real blow. It's like saying no acrylic or watercolor anymore, you gotta shell out the cash for oil or shut up.

    The obvious /. response is use a high end audio card and record to disk. Well, here's the counter-point: try tracking 8 tracks to a mini-phono or even a pair of rca's simultaneously. Do you have 8 pci slots? Do you have more than 1 USB controller? Game over man. And that's forgiving the point that your bedroom is pretty damn noisy. You need a room with non-parallel walls and anti-noise goobers on the surfaces.

    So this is a real blow. I don't think that anybody saw raw materials drying up as the turning point when you really did need a label to make a decent recording. People always took 2" analog stock as a given and second generation stock as the bargain so you could get things done.

    Now you need to compete with cash to get studio time on a digital rig in a good room. The bargain's gone and the ones in it for fine art's sake have to make do with noisy rooms and recording 1 track at a time.

    At least until market demand motivates new production. I hope this is all a "new coke" move to get people to buy more stock. Otherwise we lose a medium. That is so depressing.

  131. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by sahonen · · Score: 1

    WTF are you talking about? I use EAC all the time on Win2K. I've ripped about 15 GB of music with it.

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  132. struder? by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Funny

    is that the apple-struder model with the dolby cinnamon sprinkles?
    Studer!

    1. Re:struder? by RangerElf · · Score: 1

      Bwahahahaha!!!

      Thanks for the laughs!!! :-D

      -gustavo

  133. thanks for this! by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    seriously, i'd kind of forgotten all of this - strange how quickly cassette tapes have faded from my consciousness...!
    XLII! luxury! when i were a lad we had to make do with TDK AD90s. AND we liked it...

  134. Aphex Twin: Analord Jan 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aphex Twin understands and respects the nuances of analog and pays tribute to it in his numerous Bubble Baths (as AFX). The "dirty" drum sound in these works is amazing and can only be attained from analog equipment.

  135. with the single difference by checkup21 · · Score: 0

    that this advantage is turned over, after you played the same tape 5 times in the 20-year-old cassette deck.

    Oh, and what a funny fact: it behaves the same if you do it on a brand new one.

    die analog recordings, die!

    checkup

  136. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by ContemporaryInsanity · · Score: 1

    'Why was the parent modded up if it's not true?'

    You must be new here.

  137. Irony in fact & speech by j_heisenberg · · Score: 1
    Actually, according to dictionary.com, there is irony in speech and irony in fact. Way back in highschool, we only learned it as in speech: a rhetorical figure. Check out a BYU page on rhetorical figures.
    Quintilian 9.2.45-51; Bede 615; Aquil. 7 ("ironia," "simulatio"); Susenbrotus (1540) 14-15 ("ironia," "illusio"); Sherry (1550) 45 ("ironia," "dissimulatio"); Peacham (1577) D3r; Fraunce (1588) 1.6; Putt. (1589) 199 ("ironia," "the dry mock")
    Over in the US, it's used more in the factural sense, as in irony of history.
  138. BASF alive and well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is a difference between
    - former BASF
    - former subsidiary/ formerly owned by BASF

  139. An excellent (but unfortunate) example of irony by sczimme · · Score: 1


    Fitness/jogging guru Jim Fixx dying of a heart attack while he was jogging: this is a pretty clear example of the opposite of what would commonly be expected under the circumstances. A similar [hypothetical] example would be Esther Williams (an expert swimmer) drowning in a bathtub.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  140. I'd love.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to get my hands on a reel-to-reel audio recording of that closure...

  141. Re:Hahaha. Here, do this- by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

    Someone must have forgotten to tell you that your individual experience doesn't automatically apply to the rest of the computing world...

    --
    The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
  142. Re:I still use analogue tape1 (Medium...Message) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this up ! Too bloody true.

  143. Rename TAR by Stepping+Razor · · Score: 1

    correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't the tar command get it's name from tape archive? time to change it?

  144. i find it funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that all these people who moan about the continued loss in quality of an analogue recording are probably sat listening to mp3's, which by nature, are reduced quality recordings...

  145. I live near by... by bdbolton · · Score: 1

    My friend's dad works at that plant. I live about 30 minutes from Opelika, AL, in Columbus, GA.

    Am I the only one that even knows someone that works there?

  146. Analog tape is used every day. by Crixus · · Score: 1

    I think the perspective on this web site is skewed. Just because you all have some sort of onboard digital audio in your computer and listen to MP3's and own CD's and DVD's, you think there is no market for analog tape anymore.

    You are also interpreting an article about a company "restructuring" as meaning "clearly because I have never seen an analog tape machine in real life, and they haven't used those since the 1940's, no one needs analog tape anymore."

    I can assure you that this is not the case. Large recording studios routinely shell out high six-figure and seven-figure dollar amounts for analog recording consoles. These studios also very likely have 48 tracks (2, 24-track machines) of analog audio available. Do they have Protools? Sure, but he point is many people still prefer analog audio and to do a full length project with 48 tracks (all 48 are not usable, but that's another matter) you need SIX reels of tape (not counting safeties). The fact that the tape is expensive doesn't scare someone who can afford to pay $1,000,000 for a recording console.

    As I said in another post I have a friend with NINE 2-inch analog machines that he rents to big studios. He also has some 1-inch machines, a few 1/2-inch machines, and a few 1/4-inch machines, ALL of which get used, and require tape.

    I have a new reel of Quantegy GP-9 (their flagship product) about 24 inches from my feet as I type this, for an upcoming demo project I'm doing in a local analog room.

    Even if Quantegy does not survive these financial woes, I highly suspect that either someone will buy their manufacturing facility and technology from them, or BASF, or perhaps even Scotch re-enter the market to fill this void.

    Analog tape machines are not going anywhere. Perhaps Quantegy simply needs to re-assess their business plan and operate from the perspective that the analog tape market isn't what it used to be (I won't deny that) and perhaps is more properly looked at as a "boutique" market.

    Rich...

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
  147. Quantegy/Ampex - A little history by Tapeman · · Score: 1

    Quantegy:
    The company and the man behind the tape that recorded the world

    Tamiko Lowery
    Staff Writer
    Opelika-Auburn News
    Thursday, January 6, 2005

    In the beginning, it wasn't about the money - it was about the people, according to H.D. Norman.

    Norman, 54, a native of Opelika and protege under John Herbert Orr - the mastermind behind Ampex, what is now Quantegy - remembers how Orr put Opelika on the map.

    "Orr had an entrepreneurial spirit. He always said his education came from the school of hard knocks. Business men are not as they once were - they run things strictly by the bottom line," Norman said. "Orr never went to business school, he learned how to make things on his own. He was a visionary, a pioneer - ahead of his time. He could have taken his invention anywhere in the world but instead he brought it back to his own hometown - back to Opelika. He was a down-to-earth man. If you ever needed anything, he'd give it to you. He believed in treating everybody right."

    Norman says Orr understood people which was why he was so successful.

    In November 1995, the Ampex Recording Media Corporation was put up for sale, and the recording media pioneer became Quantegy Inc., according to www.quantegy.com.

    But on Dec. 31, 2004, the Opelika plant shut its doors. A brief statement released by the company that day said that "Quantegy Inc. has ceased operations pending restructuring. This is due to financial issues that have plagued the industry and Quantegy for some time. All employees are on layoff pending further notice."

    "I feel for the people who have lost their jobs. I would not want to be at the short end of that stick. The CEO was here for a day or so without knowing the people here; he'll just catch a plane in Atlanta and go home," Norman said. "To lose your job is hard enough but especially around the holidays - it's callous the way it was done. ... Orr did it for the community, to give back to the people. He knew it was the people who made the company. Orr knew the people and everything about the place. He knew which light bulbs needed changing, and when the toilet paper in the men's restroom ran out, he'd change it. He believed in the people first."

    Orr died in 1984.

    "I think if he were alive today, he would be very hurt," Norman said. "He used to smoke this big ol' cigar and if he didn't like somebody he'd fill that room with smoke to smoke 'em out. He'd be doing that now. He's buried down in Loachapoka, and I believe he's rolling over in his grave." Norman said the people, who worked for him, gave him faith in the company.

    Deloris Waller, manager of the Alabama State Employment Services at Opelika Career Center, said hope is what they've tried to give to Quantegy employees who feel they have been forgotten.

    "Monday at 8 a.m. there were 50 or so Quantegy employees waiting for doors to open," Waller said. "As of Wednesday there have been 120 come in, and they're still coming. The vast majority of them have worked there 25 years and up. They have been upbeat, as a whole, but they've got a lot of questions that only the company can answer. And I hope they get their answers soon."

    Opelika Mayor Gary Fuller said during Tuesday's City Council meeting, "In a week to 10 days we should know more. They're working to restructure the plant and continue operations. We have our fingers crossed it will all work out."

    Waller said any closing affects the community but is optimistic about the future with new industry coming in.

    "Already there have been at least five local companies who have contacted us, even a company out of Georgia, indicating interest in these employees," Waller said. "We have given them all a packet of papers to bring back. Thursday, Friday, Monday and Tuesday are all booked for appointments where small groups of employees will come in. There will be people from Montgomery here talking about how folks can survive layoffs and career links to talk about training. I feel for

  148. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by hackstraw · · Score: 1

    I am only speaking as a hobiest and from what I have read and heard, mostly regarding recording of Grateful Dead concerts.

    The Dead have more of a documented recorded history than any other band in history. Almost every concert and other odds and ends like studio outtakes, sound checks, and practices have been recorded and circulated. The Dead have an official vault that has many of the analog recordings over the years, which is carefully climate controlled. There are mostly 1/4" two channel analogue tapes, but there are some multitrack recordings as well. Most of the 1/4" tapes were recorded at 7.5 ips, some were at 15. Not sure about the multitracks.

    That being said, many of the older tapes from the 60s and 70s have had to be baked, literally, in an oven to rejoin the plastic layer of the tape to the magnetic layer. Many times when a tape is cooked, it is the last time that it is ever played. The Dead archivist also make a copy of every tape every time it is played from the vault with the best recording equipment available at the time in case something happens to the master. Unfortunately, crappy cassetes were used for recordings from the late 70s to early 90s. Digital recordings became avaiable in about 1982 or 1983. These early digital recordings were hacked PCM encoded data thrown on video tapes. DAT recorders became common in the early 90s. Now is is very common for recordings to be made as 16bit/48 or 16bit/44.1kHz recordings, some are appearing as 24bit/96kHz now. Many of these recordings now have a dedicated microphone preamp with a high quality AD converter, often times these preamps are after market moded for better sound. In my opinion, and that of many tapers today, the quality from good microphones with a good mic preamp and AD converter are the best available recordings today. The lack of the preamps made tapes from patches off of the soundboard better for earlier recordings.

    My point being is that there is no good archival medium for audio recordings. Original wax recordings by Edison are still playable, but a silly recording of "Mary has a little lamb" are not too desirable, and the quality doesn't matter much. Vinyl is a decent archival medium, but the playback equipment is not likely to improve much beyond the original recording equipment, and vinyl noticibly degrades _every_ time it is played due to the friction of the needle on the surface of the disk. Yes, there are laser vinyl players, but I am not familar with them, and vinyl is not commonly known archival medium. Also, it is worth noting that there are some improvements that can be done with digital masters. I have heard a 30kHz DAT that was upsampled to 44.1kHz with noticable improvements.

  149. Re: Tape recorders don't crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish it were so! My Phillips deck has a servo-controlled capstan motor that randomly takes off at full speed. But it always behaves perfectly when you open it up and approach the motor drive circuit with a scope probe. Takes all the fun out of the Dead concert tapes.

  150. Electric Guitar Sounds Pleasing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you take away all the noise, hum, distortion, and feedback from an electric guitar the sound is less pleasing to me. Perfect reproduction of a live event like a concert would not always result in a popular product. In fact Brittany Spears would not have a career. Tube amplifiers are not susepteble to EMP from nuclear weapons. With out real to real tape would we have discovered the meaning of "OuiKuff"?

  151. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yall are smoking crack. Any of you guys know anything about audio? So many users on this board seem to assume that since they no longer use tape, then the industry is also ready to spontaneously evolve beyond it. Many, many studios still depend on 2" tape, so many, in fact, that I am left wondering if this story is a hoax. "Old tech" or not, there are still compelling arguments for the use of tape (several of which have been articulated here) and there is still a big market for it, which is apparently being inexplicably abandoned...

  152. Re:Okay, how is the evolution of communication new by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    Have you ever done ANY recording? Music is a sensual experence, not in the sexual sense, but meaning that it is based completely on what you hear, how you hear it, and how it effects you. Modern solid state and digial equiptment is perfect, too perfect. It amplifies and captures the sound EXACTLY as it is picked up by microphones and pickups. This is not always good, although in many cases it is just fine. For some types of music, the slight distortion and compression that is caused by tubes and tapes is desireable. It makes the music sound warmer than it actually is, evoking a feeling. As a geek, we all know that the setting and style of the matrix created a sort of feeling that made us more able to be absorbed by the story (and in the latter movies, the lack thereof). The same is true of music. If you are playing vintage surfer-rock, you want people to associate with the days-of-old.

  153. Early electronic musicians... by SharpNose · · Score: 1

    ...used to use diagonal tape splices for attack/release effects and crossfades. There were even "arrowhead" splices for doing this in stereo.

    This only worked for low tape speeds; at 15 or 30 ips any spice you'd make would just shoot by the heads so fast you'd never hear that it wasn't a flat cut.

    I'm unsure of the reason for doing diagonal cuts in the first place (aside from the reason of the aforementioned effects). I know that you didn't want to allow any more than the tiniest gaps between the tape sections in oder to keep from having tape adhesive from touching the heads - I can tell you that it's easier to do that with a diagonal cut than a straight cut (you can see misalignment better too).

    Yes, there'd be one monolithic head for all the channels. I'm unsure if larger (>=8 ch) decks had a separate playback head like smaller decks did.

    I seem to have a dim memory that the Tascam 1/4" 8-ch decks had heads with every other gap staggered, kind of like (ASCII art)

    |
    |
    |
    |

    in order to get the crosstalk down between adjacent tracks.

  154. You didn't have to stop listening by tepples · · Score: 1
  155. hmm by rofthorax · · Score: 1

    Note a computer can't process hundreds of tracks, can't you just make the tape wider, easier than making the computer faster? Also tapes have a longer lifespan than hard drives or CDroms..

    Well guess there is no way of bringing back that guerilla..

    --
    Just say no to license servers!!
  156. Contacted Quantegy by matthew_t_west · · Score: 1

    So after reading that Quantegy has discontinued making analog tapes I decided to call their customer service number. Much to my surprise, after two rings I got an actual voice! So I decided to ask a few questions:

    Q: "Hello, Quantegy, please hold."......."Hello Quantegy."
    M: "I heard you are going to discontinue the manufacturing of analog recording tapes."
    Q: "We are going through some restructuring right now."
    M: "Are you going to continue to take orders?"
    Q: "As long as inventory permits."
    M: "Well, are there any analog tapes available to order as of now?"
    Q: "No. We have sold all of them."
    M: "Is there a possibility of ordering them in the future or from other locations?
    Q: "Sorry, I can't comment right now, we are just taking orders until inventory is out of stock."

    Alas, I may not be able to find fresh tape to record with... The end of a great era.

    --
    Browse at 1. You'll thank me later.
  157. Re:This is horrible, tape is the only archival med by tsotha · · Score: 1
    What you have to do is "bake" the tapes.

    That's what we did.

    you set up and TEST a digital recording system attached to the playback deck, and get the levels as close to perfect as you can, but let it peak around -3dB. Make sure you record it at some insane sampling rate and bit depth. 192kHz at 24bit is pretty good. Why? The bit depth is really important - this way when you process the audio through your restoration software, you have the bit depth to handle stuff like reverb tailings and other audio nuances.

    Heh heh. It wasn't audio data, it was 0-4Mhz analog signal data. Times 14 tracks. The drives were bigger than refrigerators, cost more than $300,000, and would move tape at variable speeds up to 240 inches/sec.

    And yeah, we only got one playback (sweaty palms time). We dubbed it onto another deck.