does someone want to make me a test tape?

FALKEN

FALKEN

*************************
I almost spent like, over a hundred bucks for one today.

Actually, I was going to get a 1/4" and a 1/2" and it would have been like three hundred bucks. for like 5 minutes of tape. ?????

I dont even know if its worth calibrating the 32? I mean, what if the meters are off? Then I'll just throw what already sounds good out of whack.

the fostex e-16 I don't think the meters could be off (because they are LED's); but I dont see how I could'nt just send tones in from the computer while recording (to get the record levels), then play it back for the playback levels. ?????
 
I dont even know if its worth calibrating the 32? I mean, what if the meters are off? Then I'll just throw what already sounds good out of whack.
Click to expand...
Calibrating the meters is part of calibration process.

Check your manual for the procedure and the required test gear.

Cheers! :)
 
FALKEN said:
turns out you can't delete the first post.
Click to expand...

You can completely alter a post though.

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1820106&postcount=1

By the way, you can't have a tape made because whatever errors are on the machine you make the tape on will be part of the tape.

It has to be an absolute standard reference, currently only made by MRL. A calibration tape is a tool like a ruler or scale. It must be true or the result will be off by the same measure that the faulty standard is off.

Same goes for discerning good and evil, and the nature of God, but that's another thread.
 
Last edited:
love the beard avatars.




so yay or nay to the computer method? I feel like I've asked this before...those are some expensive 'rulers'....I even already have one for the 1/2" its just sticky.
 
Nay

Part of he calibration process involves recording a 1 kHz sinewave onto a blank tape, but the other half of the equation still requires a standard reference tape with tones already on it recorded at a standard flux level.

So you cannot accomplish a complete calibration without the MRL tapes.

You can (if you want) usually assume that a machine that hasn’t been altered from the factory operating level is still pretty close. If you’ve owned a machine since it was new that’s easier to do. Most of us haven’t.

You can do half a calibration (I couldn’t because I wouldn’t sleep).

The quickest way to get an idea is to record a 1 kHz tone from your computer at 0 VU with the factory recommended tape. If it plays back within a dB or so of 0 VU everything is probably just peachy, as far as operating level goes.

It really pays off in spades to spend the money and get a “new-used” machine setup by an experienced technician. That’s part of the process of buying used that many people don’t follow through with.

Just keep in mind you’re getting a machine for a few hundred bucks that used to cost us several thousand… and that’s in 1980’s/90’s dollars. You can get most any modern recorder that hasn’t been abused restored to good-as-new or better condition. But you must have either the time & skills or the money to pay someone else.

It's worth it. :)
 
FALKEN said:
love the beard avatars.




so yay or nay to the computer method? I feel like I've asked this before...those are some expensive 'rulers'....I even already have one for the 1/2" its just sticky.
Click to expand...
That would be a big NAY.

Calibration tapes contain a very specific amount of magnetic flux per meter otherwised expressed as nWb and it it that standard of magnetic flux level that starts the whole ball rolling in terms of getting your repro levels to show 0vu on the meters and then get your recording levels and bias settings to equal what the reference repro levels are doing and then its calibrated.

If your other tape is getting sticky, it can be baked back to health. There's no need to discard it.

Cheers!
 
Beck,

Great post, man! :)

I almost had a tear in my eye at how nicely that was put together, much like I used to do on occasion when my life was a bit simpler then it is these days.

Cheers! :)
 
:o

But you can still say more in a paragraph than I can in a page. :)
 
guys,

I've been thinking.

I've been reading gearslutz and stuff. reading about frigging hardy and daking preamps, chandler mixers, it goes on and on over there....

and I have come to the conclusion that I can't trust any of those peoples opinions on gear, because they prefer to record with computers. right off the bat, I know their opinion probably isn't going to work for me.

we need to have a forum where we can discuss preamps, compressors, and all that stuff (even A/D conversion) from the perspective of an analogger. that would be sweet.
 
FALKEN said:
guys,

I've been thinking.

I've been reading gearslutz and stuff. reading about frigging hardy and daking preamps, chandler mixers, it goes on and on over there....

and I have come to the conclusion that I can't trust any of those peoples opinions on gear, because they prefer to record with computers. right off the bat, I know their opinion probably isn't going to work for me.

we need to have a forum where we can discuss preamps, compressors, and all that stuff (even A/D conversion) from the perspective of an analogger. that would be sweet.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention that.

I had an old and trusted customer in my store yesterday who brought me a two page test report on a new class D mono-block power amp and he wanted me to read the article to see what my opinion of the amp might be from my experience at deciphering techno-babel audiophile test reports.

I have to tell you, I have never seen such shallow and unscientific journalism used to describe an amplifier in all my life. :rolleyes: They were talking about the amp's clarity and bass characteristics with fancy three dollar words that even they didn't understand the meanings of and, at the end of it all, didn't even produce any THD or IM specs, much less any peak current capacity or power consumption specs. :rolleyes:

I told my customer that my opinion on the amp was that there must be something horribly wrong with it as the reviewers aren't telling us much of anything about the amp, its construction or its specifications and to top it off, it was the only journalistic review of the amp he could find in print or on the web; in short, watch out! :eek:

Now, to get back to your desire, Falken, to have a specific forum on these pieces from an analog recording enthusiast's perspective, I don't know if there's enough active members out there at this point to maintain a viable source of opinions and facts on all this stuff. It might be best just to bone up on your language skills and learn how to mire in the quagmire of modern day, digital recording enthusiast's speakeasy's.

Cheers! :)
 
........"we need to have a forum where we can discuss preamps, compressors, and all that stuff (even A/D conversion) from the perspective of an analogger. that would be sweet....."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Why not just discuss it here in the analog area. After all... those boxes, including a-d converters are metal, signal jacks, transistors, wire......analog.

I second the notion that equipment opinions are...opinions. Everyone's got one and, well, you know the saying. The practice of reading forum opinions on equipment can basically drive you crazy, waste your time, and not get you where you're trying to go.

I just spent the past couple of months checking out preamps. Not on forums, but here in the studio. I read all the yip-yapping about six or seven brands, and then got them all in here to test with my own mics, rooms etc. I had a Chandler, Portico, Adl600, Massenburg, and some others spread between 8 weeks. My goal was to find some preamp treatment that I liked for acoustic guitar. Particularly.. I was aiming for a big fat.....f-a-t guitar sound like found in the intro to one of Massenburg's engineering jobs (A song called "We Shouldn't Do This). That's one big fat guitar there. Did I also mention it's big and fat? Much bigger than I'm normally able to get.

Now....do I really believe I'm going to find a preamp that's going to "give" me that sound? Nope. In fact I already know that that particular guitar was captured via a Massenburg pre.

To get "that" sound (which I don't know if I've actually achieved)...my procedure was to get a bunch of well-respected pres in here, test them with a bunch of different mics (mono and stereo)...and with a bunch of different guitars with different condition strings, different thickness picks...and a few different players...and in a couple of different rooms....and with different types of eq..or no eq...compression...or no compression....AND...I spent days just crawling around on the floor in the dark in front of the guitar players (with my eyes closed) JUST so I could find different places to place the mics. HUGE difference in sound when you move a mic around to different places for an acoustic guitar...including behind the guitar player or over his/her shoulder.

THAT'S what I've been going through in testing preamps here. All those tests....times multiple preamps. One at a time. No way can I get THAT experience from reading opinions on Gearslutz.

The preamp was just part of the chain. I recorded all the results and I even grabbed some of the recordings via the built-in pres on the Tascam 3700 consoles. As well as simultaneously recorded the tests into Nuendo and 85-16 and Msr24. That should be interesting to hear. I was going to also record into Protools, but I don't like the 002 I have.

I haven't compared any of the pre tests yet because of the holidays and now, I'm swamped getting ready for Namm. I'm going to line up some additional pres at the show so I can do some more comparisons in February.

I actually have a gameplan....If all these tests don't result in THAT guitar sound I mentioned earlier, then I'll turn my attention to high end eqs or compression. If I STILL can't duplicate that sound with the equipment and expertise at my disposal, I'll end up going to some respected studio here in L.A, hand them the recording of that guitar sound and pay them to sit there for an hour or two and watch THEM figure it out with their equipment. I figure I'll see some useable equipment first hand, and watch the techniques so I can get some learnin'. Then I'll just go back to my place and model what they did.

Anyway...you can learn your craft with those kinds of experiments....or you can sit around reading opinions on internet forums all day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah...my opinion about tape calibration (after I just bashed "opinions").

I have several MRL calibration tapes, ac voltmeters etc, and I used to check the calibration on the Tascam machines here once a year or so. I finally stopped doing it because, there really is no need, beyond maybe a once through for a newly purchased used machine. Plus it's a boring way to kill time. Real boring.

I only use two different formulations of tape and I never re-bias. The only things that happen between different tapes in eq and level are so minute, that I just don't feel like spending hours checking the calibration on 50-80 analog tracks on all these machines here. If bias levels are off, it just means you're going to push the faders a little differently going in....and you'll probably never even notice.

The only time, historically, where calibration was a big deal was when one recorded at studio A, and then hauled the tape to a machine across town at studio B. Those days are sorta over now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top