The world of analog tape just gets better and better

[Bookumdano2]

Man, this is cool. Does the Celemony guy just sit in a cave all year, inventing this stuff?-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqpMmDkLzWw

 

I sent some 1969-74 studio track tape files to an engineer we all know for some remixing. He says ..."you might want to transfer these multitracks from the tapes again, this time on a better machine without so much wow and flutter." I said "what wow and flutter". I didn't hear it but he did. I still don't hear it and I've been around for a long time. Athough I have plenty of studio tapes where I do hear it. The fact that SOMEONE can hear wow/flutter in enough varying degrees for it to be distracting to the music means tools needed to be invented. And voila (I mean viola), I spot this program.

 

Anyway, Celemony Capstan seems to be yet another new fantastic 2011 tool for the analog tape world. I'm not digging the price though.

[raagam]

Maybe someone should create and market an analog tape plug-in that simulates -- rather than removes -- wow and flutter (instead of just creating saturation / distortion / warmth effects). It would be the audio equivalent of fake film scratch filters, or Hipstamatic effects.

[BushmasterM4]

The wow and flutter on the demo is quite noticable. I do alot of tape to digital transfers and always play, then rewind the tapes first to get them adjusted to the deck I use. Sometimes it requires a few passes before recording. But I guess there is bound to be a tape that just wont play right and this plug in would be the ticket. I have yet to have one.

[Anderton]

Well, you're a little late to the party

 

We scooped everyone, and posted this on April 18 - I checked out the program with inventor Peter Neubacker at Frankfurt Musikmesse, in an unused lunchroom.

 

[video=youtube;HWr-_UsaCZ8]

 

It's really impressive in person to watch the flutter just...go away...

[Bookumdano2]

Well, you're a little late to the party

 

4 months late. Doesn't surprise me. I always forget that there are other forums and areas around this joint.

[blue2blue]

 

Maybe someone should create and market an analog tape plug-in that simulates -- rather than removes -- wow and flutter (instead of just creating saturation / distortion / warmth effects). It would be the audio equivalent of fake film scratch filters, or Hipstamatic effects.

They're out there. Vinyl simulates turntable W&F.

 

I think I've seen a tape plug in that does, too. Me, one of the things I really liked about digital from the first time I recorded my acoustic guitar into my first DAT was the lack of flutter on full digital recordings. I really like that 'sound.' It's like this feeling of solidness to me. I never realized until that day how much the flutter in my old decks bugged me. And, since I bought a used 8 track 1/2" a little while later I had a chance to continue my acquaintance with flutter. Multitracking to digital did, however take plenty of getting used to... really, it was years.

[MikeRivers]

 

Maybe someone should create and market an analog tape plug-in that simulates -- rather than removes -- wow and flutter

 

 

It's been done. There was a Yamaha/Steinberg plug-in maybe 4-5 years ago that was a "tape simulator" that had a flutter option, and the new Apx from Waves also does.

 

Before you get too enthusiastic about Celemony Capstan, check the price. It's about $4500.00 which, to me, makes it a good program for someone else to own. For the occasional job, you could send it to Plangent and get not only the speed variations removed, but scrape flutter as well.

 

The two work on different principles. Both are quite complex, but the simple explanation is that Capstan is like very fast-acting pitch correction using the material on the tape as a reference to itself, while Plangent is actually speed correction using tape bias as the reference.

[raagam]

guess i'm late to the party, too! thanks.

[Beck]

Good for fixing a recording on a defective machine I suppose, but frankly the demonstration seems as staged as a TV infomercial. You just don't get that kind of obvious wow & flutter on well made and maintained machines. It doesn't happen. What I'm hearing in that video is doctored to sound like utter {censored} as an extreme example so anyone can hear a dramatic improvement with the product being pitched.

 

Real world wow & flutter never was a problem on properly running machines. You can't hear it. No one can.

[Anderton]

It's to be used for restoration, not as a matter of course. In other words, if you CAN hear a problem, you use it.

[MikeRivers]

 

the demonstration seems as staged as a TV infomercial. You just don't get that kind of obvious wow & flutter on well made and maintained machines. It doesn't happen. Real world wow & flutter never was a problem on properly running machines.

 

 

Not every recording was made on a well maintained recorder, and some people have the desire to salvage (and improve, if possible) recordings made with lesser equipment. Famous artists who have been around for 40 years recorded demos on home recorders that they decide they want to issue. There are "air checks" - recordings of live radio shows - that were made on home equipment by a fan. There are cassettes of live shows. There are video programs that aren't flutter-free. Sometimes the original is gone and all you have is a copy made on a lower quality recorder.

 

Lots of reasons to have a recording that needs some help. The other thing you need besides a tool to correct the problems is the justification for doing so. At the current cost of reducing flutter, it' the kind of step that a Bruce Springsteen would take to issue some of his home demos. It's not the sort of thing that a private Grateful Dead tape collector is likely to do (unless he's a wealthy Hollywood plastic surgeon or something).

 

 

You can't hear it. No one can.

 

 

The best thing I liked about digital recording when I started using it was how much better a solo piano sounded. While I couldn't actually hear the flutter, when I heard a recording without flutter, I could hear the difference and understand what I wasn't hearing.

 

Given the way the demonstration is presented (an on-line streaming video) I'm not surprised that they picked something that's dramatic. The first demo I heard for the Plangent process consisted of a recording that they purposely buggered up by tapping the take-up reel with a pencil eraser. When they process a pretty good studio recording, the improvement is more subtle and tends to be more about high frequency flutter that occurs right at the head rather than basic transport problems.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Not every recording was made on a well maintained recorder, and some people have the desire to salvage (and improve, if possible) recordings made with lesser equipment.

 

 

...which is probably why he wrote: "Good for fixing a recording on a defective machine".

 

As far as recorded piano goes, I still think the George Winston recordings on Ackerman's label (I forget the name) are some of the best sounding piano recordings I've heard. YMMV.

 

I have had cassette decks, and they don't have wow and flutter problems either. I never heard anyone saying wow and flutter was a problem on anything until people started recording digitally and extolling the virtues of digital by saying their shiny new digital rig didn't have "wow and flutter" or "hiss" or whatever.

 

'Course, I never had a problem with hiss either, but that's another story.

[blue2blue]

 

...which is probably why he wrote: "Good for fixing a recording on a defective machine". As far as recorded piano goes, I still think the George Winston recordings on Ackerman's label (I forget the name) are some of the best sounding piano recordings I've heard. YMMV. I have had cassette decks, and they don't have wow and flutter problems either. I never heard anyone saying wow and flutter was a problem on anything until people started recording digitally and extolling the virtues of digital by saying their shiny new digital rig didn't have "wow and flutter" or "hiss" or whatever. 'Course, I never had a problem with hiss either, but that's another story.

I may not be sensitive about much, but I have to say that speed variations are something that really bug me. I never had a tape machine that didn't have noticeable flutter problems, including my nice, relatively new 40-4 and the 'pro' cassette deck that cost me the equivalent of ~$1200 in the '90s.

 

The very first thing I noticed when I made my first acoustic guitar recording to DAT in 1989 was the lack of flutter. (And looking above, I note that Mike's comment that I bolded had anticipated my own comment.)

 

 

(FWIW, I usually hate time-based effects like chorus, flange and stuff. I started recording others professionally in the early 80s and it was the era of the Roland Jazz Chorus. I simply could not understand why so many very competent jazz guitarists would do that to their sound -- and their timing.)

[UstadKhanAli]

Maybe you had a particularly sensitive ear for wow and flutter? Or perhaps I didn't?

[MikeRivers]

Maybe you had a particularly sensitive ear for wow and flutter? Or perhaps I didn't?

 

Using a circular polarizer can de-sensitize you to flutter after a while, even years before you ever had a circular polarizer.

[UstadKhanAli]

Or even knew what one was!

[gubu]

I reckon that this company is on the verge of developing 'anti-suck' software, I really do. Soon, you'll just be able to import totally garbage recordings and drag them into the non-suck area of the screen, turning your out of tune, badly played, recorded and mixed pet project into 'Graceland' or 'Sgt. Pepper' or whatever.

[blue2blue]

Maybe you had a particularly sensitive ear for wow and flutter? Or perhaps I didn't?

It does really bug me. I ended up owning my share of cassette decks -- the relative convenience -- and utter cheapness of the media -- was enticing -- in much the same way that I heard and put out a lot of 128 kbps mp3s at the end of the last decade.

 

I still vividly remember the first time I saw a 'hi fi' stereo cassette deck from Sony. It must have been someplace in the end of the 60s (I remember it as '69 or so) and I was visiting the hi fi store I'd spent much of my early teen years in (the owner was a saint -- other stores would tolerate me for a while but when I'd give adult shoppers advice on brands the store didn't carry, it could produce tension... and then there was the arguing with the salesmen issue... I never really learned)...

 

There, sitting next to and attached to a beautiful rig with MacIntosh separates feeding gorgeous old JBL's (this was, of course, long before the evil Harman empire oozed over and absorbed JBL and many of the other classic nameplates) was this Sony stereo cassette deck. It was, IIRC, ~$600 (~$3700 today)... and it sounded like crap. No high end. And hideous flutter.

 

They sorted out the flutter thing to some extent but I've never, ever owned a cassette deck that didn't mangle live acoustic guitar recordings. I guess it doesn't bother some folks -- like I noted, a lot of folks willingly apply flutter type effects (chorus, flange, etc) to their guitars (and sometimes that can be sort of OK in an underwatery kind of way... but don't ever try to tell me that a chorus/flange or fake Lesley sounds like a real Lesley).

 

Anyhow, yeah, timing issues bug me. Maybe it's the psychic pain caused by my first proper turntable, a Garrard POFS which had not just flutter and wow but also a nasty habit of slowing down as the day wore on. (Ask me if I learned my lesson: no... I turned around and bought a friggin' Lab 80 after saving my lawn mowing, chore, and door-to-door organic cleaning product money for almost 18 months. It was a better POS. But a POS nonetheless. I finally wised up and bought a Dual.)

[BushmasterM4]

Im still hoping to score a Nakamichi Dragon to play all my old cassttes on. Very interesting decks, unique loading and pressure mechanism eliminates noise and wow and flutter. Never had the pleasure of listening to one.

[WRGKMC]

There was more bad tape gear manufactured then good gear for sure. I may have come across 3 consumer grade cassette decks I considered as

high quality in the 6 years I did repairs fill time. All had glass heads and one was a Tamburg, one was a Sharp and one was a Sony.

That was one unit out of all the hundreds of models over a range of years they manufactured. Tamburg were surely the best of the bunch.

 

With reel to reels, the Stereo units should have been calibrated to a test tape. That may have been done at a factory to play back commercial recordings.

As soon as you get some head wear those settings drift so anything recorded on a deck with worn heads wouldnt track properly on another deck.

The symptoms playing back can range from having one channel louder than another, frequency imbalance between the two tracks, one channel fading in and out or completely warbled and washed out sound. Tape wear is the other item. The edges of the tape get worn and dont ride in the tape guides properly.

 

When it comes to playing back tapes made on different models you're often luckeyif you get good tracking. Multi track units are a completely different story. Manufacturers often used their own alignment methods and playing back one multitrack back on another manufacturers deck could be a complete failure.

 

You can also have a head tilted forward, backwards or side to side. If the head is tilted forward for example, besides stretching the tape on one side from the extra friction you can have phase issues between the recorded tracks.

 

I can tell you this. I do not miss doing head calibrations and glad nothing like it exists in digital. They are a ball buster even when you know what you're doing and when it comes to cheezy consumer junk and bending the head mounts to get the tracking right, forget it. Its just a schitty crappy electro mechanical method of storing sound I do not regret its passing.

 

The only good times were when you werent having to maintain the gear and you were just happy you had something to record with that was running good for awhile, not that the method itself was easy to work with. There are so many things they "Could" have done to improve tape technology but didnt. Manufactures had to have turnover of equipment to stay in business. If they designed something good it's cost would equal three or four cheaper units that would equal the same lifespan.

[JeffLearman]

Ah yes, the grand old days of magnetic tape!

 

Anyone want to make me an offer on a TASCAM 40-4?

[MikeRivers]

 

There was more bad tape gear manufactured then good gear for sure.

 

 

Why single out tape? Just because we're talking about it? There were more bad amplifiers, turntables, and especially speakers manufactured than good. Lots of mediocre CD players, too, and don't get me started on software.

 

 

As soon as you get some head wear those settings drift so anything recorded on a deck with worn heads wouldnt track properly on another deck.

 

 

When the heads wear out, you should replace them. When the tires on your car wear out, you should replace them, too.

 

Cassette was never meant to be a professional format, but like so many other developments in audio, because consumers wanted better quality, eventually they got good enough so that they could be used for some professional work. But they still suffered the basic limitations of the format and they can only get so good. TASCAM had to get special dispensation from the pope to run a cassette at 3-3/4 ips for their Portastudios. Some cassettes were better than some reel to reels, but a good reel to reel recorder was better than any cassette.

 

The people who say they were so glad to replace analog tape with digital aren't the ones who worked with professional tape recorders, their tape experience was with cassette, consumer, or semi-pro reel-to-reel.

 

When it comes to playing back tapes made on different models you're often luckeyif you get good tracking.

 

 

When it comes to cassettes, you're lucky if you get good tracking. The low speed and narrow tape make it very difficult. There was at least one cassette deck that didn't rely on the guides and pressure pads built into the cassette, but rather pulled the tape out, ran it over a real capstan and controlled the tension, but it was still narrow tape running at low speed.

 

 

Multi track units are a completely different story. Manufacturers often used their own alignment methods and playing back one multitrack back on another manufacturers deck could be a complete failure.

 

 

What, specifically, are you talking about here? There are standards for equalization, speed, and reference fluxivity. TASCAM used CCIR equalization for their 1/2" 8-track recorder while Otari used NAB, but play the tape with the right standard and it'll play correctly. Nakamichi had their own EQ curve on many models and that didn't play back correctly on other cassette decks. Is that what you're talking about?

 

You can also have a head tilted forward, backwards or side to side. If the head is tilted forward for example, besides stretching the tape on one side from the extra friction you can have phase issues between the recorded tracks.

 

 

That's a maintenance issue.

 

 

I can tell you this. I do not miss doing head calibrations and glad nothing like it exists in digital.

 

 

I guess you never experienced a misaligned DAT recorder.

 

 

There are so many things they "Could" have done to improve tape technology but didnt.

 

 

I dunno about that. The Ampex ATR-100 series was pretty advanced. In fact, the MR-70 was mighty good. And so were the Otari and Studer multitrack machines. It's hard to imagine that they could have taken analog recording any further than that. Now I won't say that it's better than digital always, but I don't think you're giving it a fair shake.

[BushmasterM4]

 

Why single out tape? Just because we're talking about it? There were more bad amplifiers, turntables, and especially speakers manufactured than good. Lots of mediocre CD players, too, and don't get me started on software. When the heads wear out, you should replace them. When the tires on your car wear out, you should replace them, too. Cassette was never meant to be a professional format, but like so many other developments in audio, because consumers wanted better quality, eventually they got good enough so that they could be used for some professional work. But they still suffered the basic limitations of the format and they can only get so good. TASCAM had to get special dispensation from the pope to run a cassette at 3-3/4 ips for their Portastudios. Some cassettes were better than some reel to reels, but a good reel to reel recorder was better than any cassette. The people who say they were so glad to replace analog tape with digital aren't the ones who worked with professional tape recorders, their tape experience was with cassette, consumer, or semi-pro reel-to-reel. When it comes to cassettes, you're lucky if you get good tracking. The low speed and narrow tape make it very difficult. There was at least one cassette deck that didn't rely on the guides and pressure pads built into the cassette, but rather pulled the tape out, ran it over a real capstan and controlled the tension, but it was still narrow tape running at low speed. What, specifically, are you talking about here? There are standards for equalization, speed, and reference fluxivity. TASCAM used CCIR equalization for their 1/2" 8-track recorder while Otari used NAB, but play the tape with the right standard and it'll play correctly. Nakamichi had their own EQ curve on many models and that didn't play back correctly on other cassette decks. Is that what you're talking about? That's a maintenance issue. I guess you never experienced a misaligned DAT recorder. I dunno about that. The Ampex ATR-100 series was pretty advanced. In fact, the MR-70 was mighty good. And so were the Otari and Studer multitrack machines. It's hard to imagine that they could have taken analog recording any further than that. Now I won't say that it's better than digital always, but I don't think you're giving it a fair shake.

 

 

That cassette deck that pulled the tape out was the Nakamichi Dragon. Damn things still fetch up to $1500 today

[MikeRivers]

 

That cassette deck that pulled the tape out was the Nakamichi Dragon. Damn things still fetch up to $1500 today

 

 

There's a guy who built a wire playback assembly on to an Ampex chassis. There are better than commercial products for playing this valuable old stuff, but while you can make the best of what's recorded on the medium, you can't do anything about what it was recorded on 50 years ago.

[WRGKMC]

 

I dunno about that. The Ampex ATR-100 series was pretty advanced. In fact, the MR-70 was mighty good. And so were the Otari and Studer multitrack machines. It's hard to imagine that they could have taken analog recording any further than that. Now I won't say that it's better than digital always, but I don't think you're giving it a fair shake.

 

 

Again I was refuring to consumer grade stuff there. Pro grade went about as far as they could with the medium. Everything else was pretty much import stuff that cut corners to keep production costs low.