Tape/tapemachine noise , how low can you go ?

[DonH50]

Sounds like a good topic for another thread. The "pressurization" is undoubtedly the tape noise floor that lets you know somethings coming. Digital playback has much lower noise floor and much better LF response but rolls off fast over 20 kHz. I have no idea what the impact of supersonic "ambience" is on our perception; I would think not a lot since most of us can't hear that high and most rooms roll off such sounds fairly quickly. But, I do not know. IME the LF pumping you get with piano, drums, organ, plucked strings etc. is much better with digital than analog systems but YMMV! I do not know a lot about psychoacoustics. - Don

 

[Edward Pong]

I think analogue tape actually can record a lower noise floor, not digital... the very low level sounds are not recorded in digital while analogue tape can. That's why one hears much more low level detail in a good master tape...

I think one should not confuse a very quiet "no sound" before the music starts with a low noise floor. Remember, in any room, without any "sound" there is still the sound of "silence" The digital no sound just means it cannot record those low level signals...so in fact the noise floor is higher in digital recordings...only in an anechoic chamber is there no sound...

 

[rad]

yes; I do believe that generally analog (the better the analog the more the advantage) represents a more 'complete' picture of the original event. the word I'm using is more 'complete', not more 'accurate' at particular points. I believe our ears and bodies are more concerned with complete than strictly accurate. it's the missing 'stuff' in between the accurate moments that is what holds digital back from matching analog in this area.

I'm not saying that digital is not wonderful in terms of ambient information, it's simply noticeably less wonderful than good analog at this.

+1

 

[rad]

I believe it's these very low level sounds (details) where the real music lives & this is what gives us the information where we perceive a sound as live (real) or reproduced. The more of this extreme low level detail that can come thru in a recording - the more it will sound real & you'll have the feeling "you are there".... IMHO

+1

 

[Bruce B]

...only in an anechoic chamber is there no sound...

Nothing is "sound-proof", except in a vacuum and space. An anechoic chamber has sound, even if it is below 1dB

 

[Edward Pong]

as close as we can get to "no sound"....

 

[DonH50]

I think analogue tape actually can record a lower noise floor, not digital... the very low level sounds are not recorded in digital while analogue tape can. That's why one hears much more low level detail in a good master tape...

I think one should not confuse a very quiet "no sound" before the music starts with a low noise floor. Remember, in any room, without any "sound" there is still the sound of "silence" The digital no sound just means it cannot record those low level signals...so in fact the noise floor is higher in digital recordings...only in an anechoic chamber is there no sound...

I disagree but it is partially definition. We can detect signals below the noise floor of the system, whether discussing hearing or radar and telecommunications. However, I suspect a good radar or EW system can pull more out of the noise than we can, but I have no data to show how good we are at that. A signal 60 dB below full scale is pretty quiet, and 40 dB below that is very, very quiet...

The concept that analog tape provides a lower noise floor than digital is incorrect IME/IMO.

None of this means there are not valid reasons to prefer tape, or any analog medium, but lower noise floor is not one of them.

I think Amir has presented a chart on numerous occasions showing hearing thresholds very low.

Sound of silence, wasn't that a song?

 

[andromedaaudio]

I ve been rolling tapes this weekend and have been comparing the A 80 versus the B 62 and the conclusion is , the B 62 is consideraby quiter .
With the B 62 you only hear the very light motornoise (standing close )but virtually no tapepath noise , with the other machine there is some tape " drag " noise , despite the more extensive tape path /roller design , checked all the bearings by hand and at first feel there does not seem to be a problem .
Only thing i can think of is that the springtension of the siderollers is a bit to high with the A 80 causing drag, i might open it and maybe lowering the tension if that s possible and grease those bearings (or roller bushings ? ) as well
The B 62 is a wonderfull thing, an efficient/compact design plus the meterbridge is much more solid then on the A 80

Regarding a new ref tapemachine which would be based on something like the B 62 1/4 inch i am sure one(company with know how) could built a absolutely SOTA machine for 100 K $ without amplification electronics , its not that complicated


DSC_0254 by andromeda61, on Flickr

 

[andromedaaudio]

Had a interesting conversation with the owner of restoration shop in holland , i might bring the A 80 and B 62 for further restauration up to new condition if possible , new heads new bearings ....and a swith to play bypassing the VU meters