Should I keep it under 0dB or let it hit +3 on peaks?

[zenith2134]

I was recording some lossless audio from my pc to cassette earlier in the day and got to thinking. Since we're dealing with analog audio and tape distortion, I've always felt it was okay to let it peak in the red occasionally. In the past, I've been known to hit as high as +6 on peaks and not have it audible. With digital I wouldn't even approach 0dB. Anyways, what do you tapeheads record at? For the record, I'm using TDK SA90 Type II (CrO2) cassettes and a decent Teac deck. No dolby. Any tips?

[niklasthedolphin]

Depending on if your meters are peak reading or VU reading meters.

My best Answer is: Listen after tape.........Use your ears.........the spot in the audio file where the highest peak is.

You're right that digital can never be beyond 0 dB.

I wonder why you record digital files onto analogue tape, though??

"dolph"

[zenith2134]

My deck uses LED peak meters. I record onto analogue tape in an attempt to 'warm-up' some of my lifeless digital recordings. I know, it makes little sense, but I like the effect.

[macster]

Depending on if your meters are peak reading or VU reading meters.

My best Answer is: Listen after tape.........Use your ears.........the spot in the audio file where the highest peak is.

"dolph"

Sounds like a good idea.

m~

[vinyldavid]

I have never had problems with peaks hitting +3, as long as it is not sustained....

I was taping with a +5 MOL last night and it sounded great!

[NAD613]

My NAD's owner manual says the peak should be +4, but I think that's where 0 is on most other cassette decks. I made a few tapes before I read the owner's manual, using 0 as the peak, & the tapes were very quiet.

[niklasthedolphin]

Metal tapes can take higher peaks and higher average reading (VU) befor saturated than other tape types. Chromium takes more peaks/VU readings than Ferro before saturated.

Peak meters are reading out the peaks of the signal. Quite logical.
VU meters are reading out average signals over a period defined by some industrial norm or by the manufacturer.

Some VU readings have peak hold. Smart and useful.

Peakmeters are, IMHO, more useful than VU meters.

On my TCD 910 I usually saturate type IV tapes up to max +6dB.
Cr tapes up to +3dB
Fe tapes I keep close to zero mayby +1 or 2 dB.
TCD 910 have peak meters.

On my Revox I keep them a bit lower, maybe 1 dB, all in all.

My TCD 440A has seperate peak Reading meter scales for Metal showing the compensation that metal allows around 3 dB more saturation.

My Lyrec machine is peak reading LED. Green up to 0dB. Yellow from zero to 8dB. Red from 8dB to 12dB and above.
Machine has NAB/ICIR and have input/output calibration options (balanced).
Some pro R2R tapes was possible to load heavily befor saturation.

FeCr. I treat as if it was Cr when it comes to saturation.
I have calibration ability for FeCr.

Now I was inspired to listen to tapes again. Damn this great hobby.

Sonny Rollins' Alfie got on.

"dolph"

[Mr. Lin]

My deck uses LED peak meters. I record onto analogue tape in an attempt to 'warm-up' some of my lifeless digital recordings. I know, it makes little sense, but I like the effect.

No, I think it does make sense. But so far, has it worked?

My Nak has digital meters, and I almost always set the levels so it peaks around +4 or +5. Occasionally with lesser tapes this doesn't work out, but with most type II and better tapes it seems to be the way to go, and it helps lower the noise floor. Like dolph said, if the end result sounds good, it is good.

[zenith2134]

Yes, for some reason it makes the tunes sound more musical. Something about the medium of analog tape...just adds body to the sound.

[niklasthedolphin]

It's fine with me if you like the altering of the sound characteristic that your decks do.
Just don't forget the everlasting truth:
The copy is never better than the original.

"dolph"

[zenith2134]

True, it is impossible to get a 'better' replica, but hell maybe its the added distortions I'm after here. Sorta how guitarists and Hifi enthusiasts continue to use vacuum tube amplification all these years later, in the age of ultra-high-speed solid state devices and SACD players. Gimme some tape saturation any day!

[Mr. Lin]

The copy is never better than the original.

"dolph"

Unless it is.

[niklasthedolphin]

Unless it is.

Please explain, Mr. Lin?

And by the way, Zenith2134:
Who says that tube amps are not as true to the reference as as solid state amps?

"dolph"

[Mr. Lin]

Please explain, Mr. Lin?

And by the way, Zenith2134:
Who says that tube amps are not as true to the reference as as solid state amps?

"dolph"


I simply trust my ears. In theory nothing should be better than the original, but I've made tapes recently that simply sound better than the source, period. Now, if you're talking about master tapes, that's a different story. But in the OP's case, "warming up" some poor-sounding computer files, although it's subjective, is probably going to make them sound better. Again, just as with the never-ending cable debate, I disregard what people say and trust my ears.

As to your question for Zenith: That would be the people who say that what we enjoy about the sound of tubes is distortion. However, according to what I just said above, that does not necessarily mean it won't sound better than solid state.

[niklasthedolphin]

I simply trust my ears. In theory nothing should be better than the original, but I've made tapes recently that simply sound better than the source, period. Now, if you're talking about master tapes, that's a different story. But in the OP's case, "warming up" some poor-sounding computer files, although it's subjective, is probably going to make them sound better. Again, just as with the never-ending cable debate, I disregard what people say and trust my ears.

As to your question for Zenith: That would be the people who say that what we enjoy about the sound of tubes is distortion. However, according to what I just said above, that does not necessarily mean it won't sound better than solid state.

Our ears are the most valuable when it comes to enjoyment of music and our common hobby.

Nevertheless, just because the very best analogue source (R2R) sounds better than the very best ever digital music file it doesn't mean digital can't sound good.

I have digital files in high to very high resolution and they sound better than all mediocre tape decks.
My normal operation resolution for recording digital audio is 24 bit / 96 or 192 khz sampling.
However, I have some files in DXD format.
Here the resolution is 24BIT/352.8kHz.
Resolution is the most important factor when we talk digitalized music next after what the original reference the file was created from sounded like.
And upsampling or converting to higher bitrates doesn't count.

I couldn't care less about discussions about sound quality when bring up "some poor-sounding computer files". You can do whatever you like to them and I will blindly believe you if you say they suddenly sound miraculous good after transferring them to analogue.

I have MP3 files that sound better than many CD's, SACD's or any other digital format only because the reference from where they were digitized was sublime analogue intimate recordings "to die for".

But when you alter the characteristic of well sounding sources, may it be digital or analogue, then you are not going for being true to the original reference but instead you are being true to your own preference.

"dolph"

[Scorpion8]

The copy is never better than the original.

Unless it is.

This is one of those non-self-evident truths. The fact that the copy is never better than the original may deal entirely with measureables. Of course, a generation copy can only degrade in signal quality, signal loss, noise growth and so forth. But there seem to be trans-sonics, harmonics or other additions when taping a digital source that seem more pleasureable to many, many people. More depth, more fullness.

And it works for many people, so they are happy with their music. That alone is enough.

It was the old Julian Hirsch at Stereo Review that insisted if you could hear it, he should be able to measure it. Tell that to the high-end cable afficianados....

And ps -- I'm not one of those, but I do prefer my music off tape.

[Acoustic]

Our ears are the most valuable when it comes to enjoyment of music and our common hobby.

But when you alter the characteristic of well sounding sources, may it be digital or analogue, then you are not going for being true to the original reference but instead you are being true to your own preference.

"dolph"

Well worded dolph. The altering the characteristics of the source..... I call that the "Bose Effect". That is, when people have to listen... err alter... the source signal to have all highs and lows.... to WOW them. Which they consider "better"... then they end up not liking any other systems sound because it's tooo bland.

[Fast Forward]

evidently NAKs have good headroom I have no problem letting them jump to +5,+6

[Web Police]

I agree, what matters to me is how it sounds to each individual listener. And of course everyone hears differently or we would all own the same equipment and agree on what sounds better and or worse. :-?

I let the peaks jump to 5 or 6 or more with metal tapes and try to keep the mto 3 or 4 with Type II Tapes. Type I I keep closer to 0.

[Acoustic]

evidently NAKs have good headroom I have no problem letting them jump to +5,+6

To say something on topic... I agree: +5, +6 with type Type I's and II's, and up to +8 with Type IV... on my Nak's. Interesting note that many many times when I get used blank tape and check what's on there before erasing... the levels barely ever get to 0... I think sometimes folks see the red on the VU meters (analog and LCD) and think it's like there tachometer on there car and think they should go there.

[niklasthedolphin]

This is one of those non-self-evident truths. The fact that the copy is never better than the original may deal entirely with measureables. Of course, a generation copy can only degrade in signal quality, signal loss, noise growth and so forth. But there seem to be trans-sonics, harmonics or other additions when taping a digital source that seem more pleasureable to many, many people. More depth, more fullness.

And it works for many people, so they are happy with their music. That alone is enough.

It was the old Julian Hirsch at Stereo Review that insisted if you could hear it, he should be able to measure it. Tell that to the high-end cable afficianados....

And ps -- I'm not one of those, but I do prefer my music off tape.

This will end up philosophical.

I believe we now need to come up with each our definition on the term "BETTER".

My definition in the context of recording music is to be true to the original so that an A/B test, using your trained ears, will reveal no difference. The closer you get to the sublime of this, the better.

If any of your definitions is based on personal preferences in how it sounds when it sounds the best, that's indeed also legitimate.

And down the track when this discussion of philosophical character has been deciphered, we will end up concluding that there is no such thing as objectivity.

In my country it's 4 in the night.

May you all have a great day over there.
Goodnight.

"dolph"

[Mr. Lin]

Nevertheless, just because the very best analogue source (R2R) sounds better than the very best ever digital music file it doesn't mean digital can't sound good.



Dolph, this is something I heartily agree with you on. I happen to be an analog lover who also loves digital for its strengths (the horror!). And what you say about a recording being true to the source is of course correct, although as you also said "there's no such thing as objectivity," so to my ears it's sometimes possible that a copy of a copy could end up sounding better to me, if it's done properly. Neutral is supposed to reign supreme in the audio world as the only true way, yet it doesn't. While I value neutral sound for what it is, which is true to the recording, there's neutral, and there's boring neutral, which I can't stand. Music needs life IMHO.

[Marc Hugo]

Please explain, Mr. Lin?

And by the way, Zenith2134:
Who says that tube amps are not as true to the reference as as solid state amps?

"dolph"


Well that's easy.

Firstly, a "soundfile" is not the original.

Secondly, a sound file not only had to go through a succession of ADCs or DDCs to get to where it is, but it quite likely had to weather a brutal deduction of data, in all likeliness via a version of passive adaptive sub-band coding. As it goes through this obstacle course, it gains substantial odd-order/masking distortion that cannot be filtered in the digital domain. This is a big subject, but be sure, a lack of harmonic distortion (and familiar analogue type noise) does not obviate the infusion of, nor negate the effect of non-harmonic (odd order) distortion. I will source Dave Berriman's articles on this.

Thirdly, take it from me - I have worked with sound monkeys in theatres and studios. They tailor the sound via the desk onto the mix-down format. And it's their jaded, juiced up opinion as to how it should sound. That is all. They wouldn't know an audiophile if... well you know the rest.

My opinion. Play with the sound to your hearts content. Analogue record head op-amps filter out odd-order distortion as an undesigned, unintentional by-product of the recording process.

Go well guys - Marc

[niklasthedolphin]

Well that's easy.

Firstly, a "soundfile" is not the original.

Secondly, a sound file not only had to go through a succession of ADCs or DDCs to get to where it is, but it quite likely had to weather a brutal deduction of data, in all likeliness via a version of passive adaptive sub-band coding. As it goes through this obstacle course, it gains substantial odd-order/masking distortion that cannot be filtered in the digital domain. This is a big subject, but be sure, a lack of harmonic distortion (and familiar analogue type noise) does not obviate the infusion of, nor negate the effect of non-harmonic (odd order) distortion. I will source Dave Berriman's articles on this.

Thirdly, take it from me - I have worked with sound monkeys in theatres and studios. They tailor the sound via the desk onto the mix-down format. And it's their jaded, juiced up opinion as to how it should sound. That is all. They wouldn't know an audiophile if... well you know the rest.

My opinion. Play with the sound to your hearts content. Analogue record head op-amps filter out odd-order distortion as an undesigned, unintentional by-product of the recording process.

Go well guys - Marc

Before Firstly:

A Soundfile is not the original but closer to the original than an analog tape recording copy of the sound file in subject.

After secondly:
There still exists studios with the sound engineerings craftmanship and the soul put into their job and the outcome can be recordings to die for. Otherwise we just go back in time when this was a more common phenomenon.

At least, that's what I aim at when I sit behind the recording gear on live events (knowing that I am not up there among the very best).

"dolph"

[no1maestro]

I got into this discussion a little late but I find it really interesting. I think that Dolph has it basically correct. I would just be a little more concise in terminology; the "original" is what it is, good or mediocre. If you want a copy of that "original" performance then you do whatever to keep as close as possible to that performance.

Now let's say that the performance yielded a recording that isn't what you had in mind; you now have the opportunity to change or "correct" that recording via a number of ways. You can limit, eq or do any number of changes. Most of my recordings of my groups were done in the analog era and only the last few years have been done in digital so I'm learning the new tricks slowly.

I have been able to "save" many of the older recordings by introducing processing in a very limited way; reverb for the dry ones, limiting for those recorded too "hot" and eq for those which were way out of balance.

None of these re-recordings are completely true to the original so they aren't ideal to the idea of the original but they are much more "listenable" to my ear. In a perfect world the original recording would be optimum and then we only have to try our best to clone it.

Maybe we should differentiate between pleasant sounding recordings and those that are true to the source. Just my old fashioned thoughts!!

[zenith2134]

Dolph, I have to disagree about the original soundfile thing: An analog recording of a live event is CERTAINLY more realistic than a digital one. (assuming 48kHz, 24 bit). How can digital ever sound better in theory, when it's just a mere representation of the original event (Which is Analog!)

The numbers don't lie. Why don't tape recorders have a bitrate? It's assumed to be infinite. To each his own.

[niklasthedolphin]

I got into this discussion a little late but I find it really interesting. I think that Dolph has it basically correct. I would just be a little more concise in terminology; the "original" is what it is, good or mediocre. If you want a copy of that "original" performance then you do whatever to keep as close as possible to that performance.

Now let's say that the performance yielded a recording that isn't what you had in mind; you now have the opportunity to change or "correct" that recording via a number of ways. You can limit, eq or do any number of changes. Most of my recordings of my groups were done in the analog era and only the last few years have been done in digital so I'm learning the new tricks slowly.

I have been able to "save" many of the older recordings by introducing processing in a very limited way; reverb for the dry ones, limiting for those recorded too "hot" and eq for those which were way out of balance.

None of these re-recordings are completely true to the original so they aren't ideal to the idea of the original but they are much more "listenable" to my ear. In a perfect world the original recording would be optimum and then we only have to try our best to clone it.

Maybe we should differentiate between pleasant sounding recordings and those that are true to the source. Just my old fashioned thoughts!!

Dolph, I have to disagree about the original soundfile thing: An analog recording of a live event is CERTAINLY more realistic than a digital one. (assuming 48kHz, 24 bit). How can digital ever sound better in theory, when it's just a mere representation of the original event (Which is Analog!)

The numbers don't lie. Why don't tape recorders have a bitrate? It's assumed to be infinite. To each his own.


Everytime you limit, normalize, equalize, pan, compress, clean up, add effects, reduce noise or other stuff, you are compromising other parametres more important than what you add or edit.

I am used to do recordings on R2R as well as on stand alone Hard Disc recorder and I can facilitate the sound with any of those mentioned editing features as well as many others.
The thing about digital recording is not to edit anything if possible and to keep it in the highest bitrate and sample rate available and also do the editing in that resolution.

Even then, you won't reach the potential of sound quality (understood as true to the origin) as you do in good R2R recorders.

BUT.................when the music already has been digitalized, there is no way back. What is ruined is ruined.
Did the 16 bit / 44.1 kHz digitalizing remove all the overtones, you will never be able to recreate them by recording the digital file to analog eqipment.

I agree that the reference is/was when the studio session or the concert took place. This event will always be analogue, unless we're dealing with an electronic musical instrument device directly coupled to digital hardware that record/store the signal.

But as soon as these tones get over the rim of the scene and flows into your ears the reference will transform into a personal preference influenced by each persons experience of the event, the experience influenced by whatever life had to give each particular person, hidden in subconsciousness, mental state and memory and will be indefinable for us to discuss further.

When we talk digital encoding and resolution by means of numbers to define bitrate and sample rate, we define how small pieces of minced meat we got out of the original analog sound.

The lower the bitrate and samplerate, the bigger pieces of meat the less quality.

You will never be able to recreate the great grill steak we started up with as the analogue reference.

(excuse me my methaphor)

But how do we define the difference between the sound quality of 2'' R2R recording at 60 ips on ½ track and the (lack of) sound quality of a mediocre cassette deck with only 1 motor, 2 heads, 1 capstan, 1,875 ips, 1/8'' tape width and maybe even operating 4 tracks like on some of the Tascam ones.

If that is not mincing the meat, it is , for sure, to destroy it in another way.
Cutting it down untill very little little meat left, burned on the grille, dropped on the ground by accident and completely covered in Thousand Island dressing with no taste of the real steak left in the end.

Compare 24BIT/352.8kHz and 1 bit/44.1 kHz and lets call the second one digital compressed compared to the first. Not the kind of compression like when packing in e.g. MP3.

If that's understandable, the the cassette will for sure also be compressed (analoguewise though) compared to the R2R.

Compare the mediocre cassette to 24BIT/352.8kHz digitalized and try to convince yourself that the cassette is best of the two.
Doesn't really works that way, does it?

Nope.
Of course we all will experience the digital file to be best sounding here.

There's no doubt, though, that when conditions are the best, Tape is more natural and better sounding than digital sound...............IMHO.

I hope I made my point clear.

"dolph"