Pre Calibration

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveMac
  • Start date Start date
SteveMac

SteveMac

New member
I been trying to think this out but I'm not sure if my head is working right. ;) If you run some test tones directly to your recorder and play it back and the levels and frequencies are the same (and "correct" by spec) coming out as they were going in, wouldn't that tell you if your deck was set up right before actually buying an MRL tape? What part am I missing?
 
SteveMac said:
I been trying to think this out but I'm not sure if my head is working right. ;) If you run some test tones directly to your recorder and play it back and the levels and frequencies are the same (and "correct") coming out as they were going in, wouldn't that tell you if your deck was set up right before actually buying an MRL tape? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

You're not alone in your thinking. I've run such a test procedure on my 3440 and 388 and was getting near mirror images between what I was inputting (as external signals) and what I got printed to tape. I was able to confirm that both recorders didn't stray since being setup for Maxell UD 35. If I were to change to a different tape, however, then I'd definitely want to get an MRL tape. ;)
 
SteveMac said:
I been trying to think this out but I'm not sure if my head is working right. ;) ...?
Click to expand...

If you don't give a crap about any other head but yours (your machine's head , that is), then YOUR head is working right, and you don't need MRL nor MRI. If you give a crap about somebody else's machine(s) head(s) (assumingly, that the owner(s) of those machines share the same crap giving with you) , then you need MRL. But if you are sure that your tapes will never be played on any other machine but yours and still give a crap about other machine's heads, then you may need MRI...just to check if your head is allright , because why on earth do you care about someboy else's headaches while knowing for sure, that that somebody will never have a chance to get one (headache, caused by trying to play your tapes, that is) :D )
Now, Steve, after you've read the above, you may say, that I need MRI. You'd be right, if you say so ! :) And I had it. Guess what, - They have not found much there :D heh heh heh

Speaking of 'universal standards', some people do keep up with them, because it makes them feel like they are a part of a bigger picture ;)

later, man
:cool:
 
When you actually "dig a little deeper" (below the surface) there's plenty of truth and good advice contained in the good Doc's reply. ........ and I wouldn't have it any other way! :D ;)
 
cjacek said:
When you actually "dig a little deeper" (below the surface) there's plenty of truth and good advice contained in the good Doc's reply. ........ and I wouldn't have it any other way! :D ;)
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree Daniel,..... HOWEVER! If things don't seem right I like to try everything possible to find out for sure if it ain't me before having to go in for an MRI. :D
 
For a machine of unknown condition an MRL calibration tape is indispensable. For one, you can’t align a tape head without one. As for flux level, adhering to standards is less important if your studio is a closed system… that is, if your tape will only be used on your machine. In fact industry standards aren’t necessarily optimal. Standards are there to keep everyone on the same page of interoperability. In truth, a given machine can do better than established standard, and thus you can tweak and peak your machine to exceed manufacturer specs.

You can glean a lot from the fact that your tracks play back at the same level they were recorded, but it is nice to know what your true operating level really is. You can only set that with an MRL tape. Chances are your machine hasn’t drifted much in its lifetime, and if it sounds good it probably is.

On the other hand, the history of an unknown machine could involve previous owners screwing around inside while not knowing what they were doing. For this reason I always set a new machine to factory recommended specs as a first step. After that, I have a standard reference as a base to experiment from.

I wish there was a way, but you can’t set azimuth, zenith and wrap, nor can you be sure of the flux level setting without an MRL tape. If these mechanical things are out of spec you can experience phase cancellation, higher crosstalk, higher modulation noise, and poor high frequency response. By tweaking all these things you also minimize tape hiss and distortion.

I like to setup every machine that passes through my hands at least once. After that it is mostly a matter of periodic checks.

The fundamental reason one needs an MRL tape is to have a true reference from which to compare… the same as having a standard tape measure in woodworking or having a standard method for calibrating speedometers in cars.

~Tim
:)
 
I've been having some problems and I don't know if it's me or a piece of equipment. Playback on the deck is quiet and things sound basically good. I've done some good recordings but I've never been satisfied with the acoustic guitar or bass sounds I'm getting. I've solved this partially by going direct out of the mixers channel but I've had this problem in the past where the acoustic can sound scratchy and distant . While playing a mix for a friend he commented he thought the acoustic might have too much reverb on it and the whole mix was dry. I knew then it wasn't just me hearing things.

I think, and hope it's the mixer. When I compare my old analog recordings the sound qualities of the old recordings are better in a way. It seems I have to double things up to get the excitment and dynamics of the old deck I use to use which was a TEAC 34sx which ran at 71/2 ips. It takes two acoustic guitars to make the 38 sound as lively and as fat as it took only one on the old deck. Which of course actually can make the recording more messy, doubling things up. I don't know if it's because of the deeper low end response on the TEAC moving at 71/2. . But the acoustic just sounds fatter and smoother. Not thin, distant and scratchy.
 
may I rant a bit :p ?
Steve, I see any tape recorder in 'double' .... and I don't mean to say, that alcohol level in my blood stream never goes bellow established standard level, aka noramal....
What I mean, by 'doubled' is that a tape recorder is a recorder and it is also a pretty sophisticated and "customizable" signal processor. So what I mean to say here is, that maybe your "problem" is that you are missing that nice signal processor-within, that your teac34sx running at 7.5ips was providing, whether your teac was "properly set-up" or screwed-up by somebody who had no idea what he was doing. BTW, Screwing up a unit without knowing what you are doing while achieving a desirable effect is a form of customization, while "proper set-up" of a unit based on technical knowledge, that leads to the loss of a desirable effect is a form of screwing up :D .

of course, maybe there other reasons for why you are not getting the result you wish (or expect) with acoustic guitar and/or bass.

Now, rough analogy. Imagine you are an old farmer making your own marinated pickles and tomatos. hah hah ... can you imagine that? well, try. :D
So, say you've got an old rusty balance scale but no weights. So you've collected a few different size rocks and marked them as "tiny", "small", "medium", "big", "super" or something like that.... and you use your scale and you rocks as weights when putting together all the Ingredients for the mix in your marinade bucket. And so over the time you've developed your Recipies of your special sweet and hot marinated pickles and tomatos. And so your recipies look something like: three "smalls" or salt, one "medium" and one"tiny" of sugar, seven "tinies" of pepper, eight "bigs" of pickles....etc. :D
Now, say, you've lost your rocks. Now you are screwd, man. :D You still have The scale is "a recorder" part, the rocks are (were) "the way the recorder was set (or had specific characteristics as a signal processor-within). You "system" worked great for you in your barn. And you still have all your recipies (say, your tapes), but you can not use them (without the rocks) to make those hot and sweet pickles and tomatoes (to get the sound of your recordings as it used to be).
Now, If you get yourself a perfect standard set of weights (which would be an MRL tape) - you are still screwed and it will not help you a bit in your situation. But you can start all over. Then, in the future, if you lose your weights or if your scale finaly falls a part, then you can get a new set of weights and a new scale and still use your recepies to make the legendary Steve's Own Pickles ... and you can write a book of recipies, sell it and get rich and then you would not have to worry about growing pickles and tomatos anymore and maybe start making movies or something... ;)
I know, that the analogy is full of holes and cracks, and if it was a boat it would not make across the creek. But the buttom line is: If you are not going to share (or sell) your recipies, but just want to make and share (or sell) marinated pickles, then you'll be just fine with a "set of rocks"... just don't lose them ;)
 
I’m curious as to what else has changed with your equipment or acoustic environment since you were getting the sound you liked. What, if anything, is different besides not having the TEAC 34?

SteveMac said:
I've been having some problems and I don't know if it's me or a piece of equipment. Playback on the deck is quiet and things sound basically good. I've done some good recordings but I've never been satisfied with the acoustic guitar or bass sounds I'm getting. I've solved this partially by going direct out of the mixers channel but I've had this problem in the past where the acoustic can sound scratchy and distant . While playing a mix for a friend he commented he thought the acoustic might have too much reverb on it and the whole mix was dry. I knew then it wasn't just me hearing things.

I think, and hope it's the mixer. When I compare my old analog recordings the sound qualities of the old recordings are better in a way. It seems I have to double things up to get the excitment and dynamics of the old deck I use to use which was a TEAC 34sx which ran at 71/2 ips. It takes two acoustic guitars to make the 38 sound as lively and as fat as it took only one on the old deck. Which of course actually can make the recording more messy, doubling things up. I don't know if it's because of the deeper low end response on the TEAC moving at 71/2. . But the acoustic just sounds fatter and smoother. Not thin, distant and scratchy.
Click to expand...
 
Mike, I appreciate your analogy, really, thanks. I think I need to find those old rocks again. I'm trying to actually gather some of them back again. But, I find it hard to believe that the 38 couldn't get at least a similar sound. Don't get me wrong either, the 38 sounds better in most ways it's just certain characteristics. I wouldn't want to go back to a teac 3440sx.

Tim, some of the things that changed. The rug was not there when I used the 3340sx I put it in after that and just tore it back up again recently. So that's the same as it was. I used to use a Traynor YBA bass head on vocals and bass which I don't have anymore. It's of course not meant for direct recording but that's how I used it. I tracked guitar and vocals at the same time live to one track so guitar bleeding through the tube on the vocal mic could be a factor. I no longer have the M35 which I used and I also would track with the M35 eq . And of course the 3440sx which the slower speed could have affected it. I have various types of tape that I used then and I don't know which I used for which recording. Mostly 456 but I had 457 and 499 too. I spliced finished songs onto new reels so theres no way for me to tell which type of tape it is.

My trouble is I can't seem to get things to fit neatly in place as easily as I used to. I can get one thing to sound greatt while another pops out of place. I put that back and the other falls out. Very frustrating. I've been recording for a long time and hate to think I've actually got worse at it.

If you know of a host that I could put up a few clips of the new and old I'll put them up. I'm pretty sure you'll hear the difference even through an MP3
 
SteveMac said:
Tim, some of the things that changed. The rug was not there when I used the 3340sx I put it in after that and just tore it back up again recently. So that's the same as it was. I used to use a Traynor YBA bass head on vocals and bass which I don't have anymore. It's of course not meant for direct recording but that's how I used it. I tracked guitar and vocals at the same time live to one track so guitar bleeding through the tube on the vocal mic could be a factor. I no longer have the M35 which I used and I also would track with the M35 eq . And of course the 3440sx which the slower speed could have affected it. I have various types of tape that I used then and I don't know which I used for which recording. Mostly 456 but I had 457 and 499 too. I spliced finished songs onto new reels so theres no way for me to tell which type of tape it is.
Click to expand...

There’s a significant change in the signal chain. The M35 is out of the picture. 499 vs. 456 on the same machine will result in a different frequency response. All those things you listed could add up to a different sound. People often stumble upon a sound they like by accident.

One thing that stands out though is the absence of the second mic you used for vocals.

Using a close mic for the direct sound and a distant mic to capture the room ambience is a good technique for acoustic or electric guitar. This results in a richer sound -- well sometimes. It actually depends on the room. The arrangement not only thickens the sound, but also can cancel some frequencies and reinforce others, resulting in something that happens to work.

Sometimes people accidentally get a great sound, but that sound will change depending on what part of the room you are in. It can be frustrating trying to recreate these accidental successes.

Try a second mike at various positions and try to record in the same part of the room as before. Have you added any acoustic treatment, like foam, etc?

What do you have instead of the M35?

Do you change guitar strings often? Were they new and sparkly before? (never mind if they’re nylon) :)

Most of all I suspect your ears are missing the second mic.
 
Yeah!!

7.5ips will have a "warmer" more bass-saturated sound than 15ips, on any day, given that all other things are the same.

The mix/match of 456/499 on the reels leaves certain things about expected frequency response to be a little uncertain, at best.

The M-35, with all it's "vintage" EQ and features, would help impart a "sonic fingerprint" on the tapes that's pretty unique. For those who know the M-35, I think that pretty much goes without saying!!

;)
 
Thanks Superbeatballer for the link. I'm mixing something down to cd and then I'll have to see if I have the software to make an MP3.

Tim, Thanks for the feedback. I've actually tried the two mic thing with some success. There are definately alot of important changes from the old set up that would make a huge difference. The vocal mic on the old set up was gated so I don't think the guitar was going through at all times full force. I'm using now an M308. I'm trying to get some of the gear back that I used to use. I found a Traynor pa head from the same time as the YBA. I'm waiting for it to get fixed. It's very similar in design but it has a mixer output so if I use that with a speaker hooked up at the same time it should be safe.

I actually stand recording in the same spot that I used to record on. Ahh the memories. :D The sound was an accident in a sense but it was worked at at first and fine tuned and I have several recordings I did with the same sound. So, it wasn't just a one song thing.
 
A Reel Person said:
7.5ips will have a "warmer" more bass-saturated sound than 15ips, on any day, given that all other things are the same.

The mix/match of 456/499 on the reels leaves certain things about expected frequency response to be a little uncertain, at best.

The M-35, with all it's "vintage" EQ and features, would help impart a "sonic fingerprint" on the tapes that's pretty unique. For those who know the M-35, I think that pretty much goes without saying!!

;)
Click to expand...

I agree Dave on everything you've said there. I actually have a friends 3440 here I'm going to do some recording on it with different tape and speeds.

Which of those tapes gets more saturation. The 499? Most of my recordings were done on 456 and 457. I never paid attention to tape back then I just bought what they had at the store.
 
456/7 should give a more "saturated" sound than 499,...

with 499 having a "glassier" sound.

Sorry for the cliches! :eek:
 
Wait! :eek: Is not possible to get the same type of bass at 15 as it is at at 71/2? I was just listening back to some of my old reels and, not to pat myself on the back, but was amazed by how good they sounded. I think I'm regressing, or decompensating. :o
 
Well,... sure!!

The caveat is that 7.5ips "seems" more bass-saturated, because there's a more agressive rolloff of the high frequencies.

The 15ips recording has the "same" bass (relatively speaking), but the higher tape speed extends the rolloff frequencies a few K higher, therefore the 15ips recordings seem "brighter".

..............;)
 
A Reel Person said:
The caveat is that 7.5ips "seems" more bass-saturated, because there's a more agressive rolloff of the high frequencies.

The 15ips recording has the "same" bass (relatively speaking), but the higher tape speed extends the rolloff frequencies a few K higher, therefore the 15ips recordings seem "brighter".

..............;)
Click to expand...


The problem is, what you seem to hear is really what you hear. :D Is it possible to seem to hear the bass like it sounds at 71/2. Because the 15ips is definately a boon in the noise and hiss dept and the sound is quite a bit clearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top