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."
Sigs cause cancer.
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
The article says they're just closed for restructuring. This is vague, but it may not mean they are closed down permanently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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).
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.