that roger nichols site is unbelievable

a half-step removed from mfrs of 'hi-fi' cables

>>"Digital Atomics is very meticulous about the quality of their work. Every effort is made to insure that each tape is transferred to archival media at the highest possible resolution resulting in an archival copy that will be indistinguishable from the original...If no additional resolution is obtained or necessary, then 16 bit storage will be the final format."

'we will clone it, unless sketching it out with a crayon is easier'

this is the product of great desperation, so i feel marginally bad for him on that front. sort of.

Most record companies are not aware of the fact that if you re-master a digital tape (the original mixes) you are producing a 24 bit high resolution signal inside the mastering console, even if the original mix is only 16 bits. This high resolution version can be re-released in the new high resolution format.

Oh, those foolish record companies! I'd like to see the math on this one. Does the extra 8 bits of precision get stored in the mastering console? Why don't I just "archive" my masters as MP3's? When archeologists digging through the charred remains of the Earth "need" them, I can just safely assume they'll magically transform them into "state of the art" high resolution versions using this new math. Anyone who has ever converted MP3's to WAV files can attest to the fact that the information lost in the original translation can only be roughly guessed at or interpolated. Or anyone who has ever tried increasing the resolution of a 72 dpi JPG for the web and printing it on a laser printer. It looks peachy, let me tell ya.

And who the fuck am I going to sue in 267 years when my white funk band's 17 minute cover of "Paint the White House Black" won't play back on my archival Discman?

Tim, are you referring to such Hi-Fi sites as this?

http://www.silveraudio.com/design.htm

http://www.magnan.com/column.shtml

All those big words just convinced me that I need to start spending $300 a meter on all my cabling needs...

Dan

danmohr wrote:

Tim, are you referring to such Hi-Fi sites as this?

http://www.silveraudio.com/design.htm

http://www.magnan.com/column.shtml

yes, tho this guy is the king, so far as i have found:

www.vansevers.com

of course you can make a speaker cable that will fuck with the signal before it comes out of the speaker. you can add passive networks to the signal path and enclose them in a plastic box at the end of your cable. i have heard various speaker cables that color sound in this way, usually by adding high end, which will fool people into thinking normal cable is missing something.

has anyone ever looked inside the connectors on the monster 'bass guitar' cable? i tried one once, and it sounded extremely muddy. i was pretty sure there was a low-pass filter in there someplace, but i wasn't going to buy one just to find out.

probably you can make a power cord that divides out part of the wall AC and thereby lowers the AC voltage to the amp, the DC rails of the amplifiers in the amp, and the sound of the amp in the process. easy to do w/tube amps, not so easy w/SS if they are properly regulated....

but, obviously, these devices are not 'overcoming' some flaw in the reproduction process. they are coloring the sound as surely as one would by turning a loudness knob.

i'd really like to do a blind a/b test sometime with various cords that do NOT have these 'corrective' networks in them (but purport to be extra-specially great) and plain old 14 gauge copper wire (properly shielded and terminated with nothing special).

tm

Wow. Just, wow. That guy is quite a piece of work. You know, as much as I would like to shell out $450 for a mechnically tuneable power cable, I just can't decide what "flavor" I'd like: "warm", "neutral" or "detailed." And the Yngwie Malmstein testimonial is not really winning me over.

Dan

Not to derail the slamming of Roger Nichols and/or Steely Dan [a worthy and noble pursuit], but can I again ask for information about the not-so modern formulations, or at least those for not-so-high levels (911, 468, 406, and, well, ever more on 456 if there is more to say)? Especially with the current Emtec news, should I be concerned about stockpiling any of their product for my forseeable needs?

Bear

Slightly off-topic, but I had to relay this somewhere...I was talking to one of my company's founders the other day about home audio systems. Keep in mind that this guy made *tons* of cash a few years back, and obviously searches for people to rip him off daily.

He told me that he just found the most amazing improvement to his home audio setup - a $50 set of 3 inverted graphite cones, which he seats his *CD player* on. He says the difference in sound quality is amazing.

Only the fact that I want to keep my job kept me from laughing in the poor sucker's face.

this is a common "tweak" in audiophile circles. It goes on the principle that putting things (speaker stands, equipment shelves, etc.) on points reduces the vibration trasferred to them by outside sources.

I don't really think it's that stupid of an idea. And it seems so common-place these days in audiophile-land that I hardly take a second look. In fact, my home speaker stands rest on four sharp pointed tips, and I built those myself.

russ

The practice of ballerinas going "en pointe" in order to maintain their stability while performing is based on this same concept. Stiletto heels have a similarly stabilizing effect on the wearer.

Ballerinas are typically very stable but degenerate more quickly than certain brands of tape. Vibration characteristics vary widely depending on the choice of music and beverage. Actual audio can range from extremely delightful to totally unacceptable. Squeeze gently to test.

Gone Fission wrote:Not to derail the slamming of Roger Nichols and/or Steely Dan [a worthy and noble pursuit], but can I again ask for information about the not-so modern formulations, or at least those for not-so-high levels (911, 468, 406, and, well, ever more on 456 if there is more to say)? Especially with the current Emtec news, should I be concerned about stockpiling any of their product for my forseeable needs?

Bear

Hey:

We use BASF 911 for our 1/2-inch stereo machines daily. It has a similar MOL (Maximum Output Level) to 456, and was intended as a practical equivalent.

406 is slightly lower in MOL, and slightly higher in noise than either.

468 is not a current product, I think.

For any tape, you should set recorder bias as a matter of routine, as tape batches even of the same type can vary slightly. It also ensures that drift, head wear and component tolerances don't interfere with your alignment on a day-to-day basis.

I'm not a proponent of banging the tape with as much level as I can -- I prefer to operate the tape within its linear range. Feel free to do otherwise, but I can't give you any advice in that regard.

I have seen an incredible amount of utter bullshit written about "tape compression" and such, and how hitting the tape hard makes your "tracks" "phat," and how one brand of tape or another is The Sound. This bullshit saddens me, as it is a distraction from the best attributes of tape recording: it works, the recordings are faithful, and the system can take some abuse or oversight without much trouble. Romanticizing it or attributing to it some kind of Sound Magic is a red herring and belies an interest in avoiding the real issues we have to contend with when making records.

-steve

best,
-steve