Recording Steinway grand piano - damper noise

[Hugh Robjohns]

When I went on sessions with Mike we used two Sony systems, as Mike always insisted on running a back-up.

Very wise. I used to run two video recorders, but I only had the one PCM701 adapter. And I still try to have a backup recorder for anything live.

He also had the Audio & Design mixer, and the Level Modifier, which enabled him to do crude digital editing, fades etc.

I still have the little digital mixer. Useful little box, actually, even today!

Was the PCM/F1 fully 16 bit?

Designed originally as 14-bit machines (although not adequately dithered at 14 bits, actually) but switchable to 16-bits which is what everyone used. Because these were the days of questionable A-D quality, they also employed permanent pre-emphasis which boosted the high end enormously on record, and then pulled it back on replay. Consequently, it was really easy to clip recordings accidentally on things like cymbal hits and applause, because a generous headroom at mid and low frequencies really wasn't at high frequencies!

I had to make do with a Casio portable DAT machine, which TBQH, was pretty bad, you could hear digital break up on reverb tails quite clearly, as it run out of bits!

No... that's a classic sign on not being dithered properly. Dithering wasn't commonplace in recorders, A-Ds converters or digital editors/workstations until the end of the 80s and into the early 90s.

H

[The Elf]

I used the cheaper PCM501 and Betamax VCR for mastering. The problem I always faced was avoiding stop/start clicks between recordings. It was a relief when DAT arrived!

[Hugh Robjohns]

It wasn't designed or intended for professional use -- it was a consumer unit. Sony had the PCM1600 (and later the 1610 and 1630) systems recording to U-matic tape for professional use, complete with a dedicated editing controller (which was actually a modified video-editing controller!)

So editing on the F1 format t was a serious challenge to say the least, and clicks were a common problem. HHB came up with their CLUE editing system which helped, but it was extremely clunky by modern standards https://americanradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Audio/Archive-Studio-Sound-IDX/IDX/80s/Studio-Sound-1984-09-OCR-Page-0026.pdf#search=%22clue%20editor%22

[The Elf]

We managed to scrape through - I had tricks to prevent the clicks!

[Hugh Robjohns]

[Aural Reject]

We managed to scrape through - I had tricks to prevent the clicks!

I always find a good cough covers a multitude of sins....

[Tim Gillett]

...But the rush to 'go digital' was because the improvement in sound quality over the typical 1/4-inch analogue tape recorders of the day was massive. Yes, the noise floor was lower and dynamic range greater, but the more significant benefits were zero wow & flutter -- so piano and organ recordings were finally tolerable! ...

Generational losses affected every aspect, but I wouldn't have said analog recorded piano and organ music had been intolerable. Poor W&F was more the problem in poorly maintained pro, or cheap consumer, gear. By the 80's even top amateur cassette decks had close to inaudible W & F. It didn't need to be 0% to be inaudible. This misunderstanding perhaps goes hand in hand with the idea that some people have (literally) perfect pitch. Nobody has that.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Perhaps I exaggerated slightly for effect...

At the BBC we were obviously using top notch tape recorders all maintained to within a micron of their bearings...

...but the sense of solidity and stability in musical sources like pianos and organs, when we first switched to digital recorders, was definitely noticed and appreciated by all of us recording engineers and the programme producers.

I doubt the public would ever have noticed or cared -- and as you say W&F on any decent machine was pretty low in the 80s -- but we all appreciated and preferred the micro-pitch stability when we did those A/B comparisons.

H

[Tim Gillett]

Did you do it with rigour and check each parameter separately? Eg: tape dropout is always there to some degree and increases with frequency. It can easily be mistaken for flutter.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Erm... let me think....

[Martin Walker]

It's always 'only me'...

I've picked up so many mastering 'faux pas' over the years that have apparently slipped by some of the most famous, experienced and professional of mastering engineers.... It does make me wonder sometimes...

It's not just mastering - I still remember receiving an audio interface for an SOS review some years ago and noticing its distinct lack of bottom end, which I subsequently measured at -3dB @ 45Hz.

I informed the manufacturers and they said I must have made a mistake, as this particular unit had already been shipped to two other magazines and received favourable reviews that had been published, and around 300 units had already been sold to end users with no complaints. However, they said they would check, just to humour me.

I got a phone call the next day to inform me that the production line had been halted, and that all 300 shipped units were being recalled to have various coupling capacitors increased in value

Martin

[Hugh Robjohns]

Good spot Martin. It's exactly that kind of careful thoroughness from reviewers that has given SOS the uniquely well deserved reputation it enjoys. When I read some reviews in our competitors' magazines I sometimes wonder if their reviewers even unpacked the product and plugged it in!

[James Perrett]

I doubt the public would ever have noticed or cared -- and as you say W&F on any decent machine was pretty low in the 80s -- but we all appreciated and preferred the micro-pitch stability when we did those A/B comparisons.

As a listener in my teens or early 20's I heard an obvious difference between live and recorded material on radio which was mainly down to sharper transients. These differences became less noticeable with the advent of digital recording.

[Arpangel]

By the 80's even top amateur cassette decks had close to inaudible W & F. It didn't need to be 0% to be inaudible. This misunderstanding perhaps goes hand in hand with the idea that some people have (literally) perfect pitch. Nobody has that.

I have to disagree with you there, that's simply not the case. Wow and flutter on cassette tape was always an issue, and still is regarding things like piano and organ.
I had high end decks from Tascam, JVC, Nakamichi, and Denon, and none of them had wow and flutter that wasn't obviously noticeable. Although the best of the bunch was Denon.
I have organ recordings made from the 60's onwards that sound very good indeed, made on reel-to-reel machines, even when played on vinyl. Good top notch analogue is fine, as long as it's well maintained, and you're using a good high end turntable for records.
But I was surprised at how much of an improvement I noticed overal regarding wow and flutter when I used a Technics SL1210 turntable, the direct drive, and tremendous torque really did improve speed stability, like going from analogue to digital in this respect.

[The Elf]

Good spot Martin. It's exactly that kind of careful thoroughness from reviewers that has given SOS the uniquely well deserved reputation it enjoys. When I read some reviews in our competitors' magazines I sometimes wonder if their reviewers even unpacked the product and plugged it in!

I can recall one review I did for SOS where I can be very sure the previous magazine's reviewer never even powered the device up!

[Tim Gillett]

Re Arpangel post. " Obviously audible w & f " even on top, well maintained machines may have been your experience. But my general impression is that other weaknesses in cassette recordings would usually outstrip w & f. Poor signal to noise and print through come to mind. Loss of highs after multiple plays esp. with Type 1 formulations. Tape dropout. Dolby tracking problems so bad that many gave up on Dolby and put up with the noise and distortion. Not issues for you?

[Tim Gillett]

Using mobile here in Sydney so limited posting ability. Arpangel, do you still have any such cassette recordings with said w & f? Tim.

[Martin Walker]

Good spot Martin. It's exactly that kind of careful thoroughness from reviewers that has given SOS the uniquely well deserved reputation it enjoys. When I read some reviews in our competitors' magazines I sometimes wonder if their reviewers even unpacked the product and plugged it in!

I can recall one review I did for SOS where I can be very sure the previous magazine's reviewer never even powered the device up!

And I recall one large distributor telling me that the review hardware sent to one UK magazine and reviewed favourably was returned with its shrink wrap intact!



Martin

[Arpangel]

Re Arpangel post. " Obviously audible w & f " even on top, well maintained machines may have been your experience. But my general impression is that other weaknesses in cassette recordings would usually outstrip w & f. Poor signal to noise and print through come to mind. Loss of highs after multiple plays esp. with Type 1 formulations. Tape dropout. Dolby tracking problems so bad that many gave up on Dolby and put up with the noise and distortion. Not issues for you?

Strangely, noise, print through, didn't bother me that much, as long as they were within reason. The main use I had for cassette was recording albums for listening elsewhere, from a turntable, or CD, or for making compilations.
I stumbled over a JVC KD-11 cassette deck, and despite its low end price, sounded amazing and was my favourite cassette deck.
I'm particularly sensitive to wow and flutter, I used to record a lot of organ music, and it's difficult to believe, but this JVC out-performed high end decks in this respect, and I never had any cause to complain. Denon weren't bad, OK, but the worst I found was Nakamichi, great powerful up-front sound, but not good for critical applications like recording organ, piano etc, Nakamichi were great if you were into rock.
The only cassettes I have now are recordings I made of family members before they died, transferred from my Tascam 32-2B reel-to-reel, and tapes of my own music recorded on my portastudios. I never bothered to keep any of my mix tapes, or CD transfers.
It's quite ironic that I love wow and flutter now, and I'm constantly trying to make my piano recordings sound more distressed, turning down the varispeed on my portastudio.

[Tim Gillett]

All the brands you mentioned made fine decks, but w & f depended on model and equally condition. Cheap Naks were nothing special. A cheaper good Nak such as the 480 performed well (0.06%) but Nak's Dragon had the lowest w & f of any cassette deck, period (0.04%). Your JVC was 0.15%, over twice as bad as the relatively inexpensive Nak 480. But without maintenance w & f performance deteriorated in all decks. It's the same today.

[Arpangel]

All the brands you mentioned made fine decks, but w & f depended on model and equally condition. Cheap Naks were nothing special. A cheaper good Nak such as the 480 performed well (0.06%) but Nak's Dragon had the lowest w & f of any cassette deck, period (0.04%). Your JVC was 0.15%, over twice as bad as the relatively inexpensive Nak 480. But without maintenance w & f performance deteriorated in all decks. It's the same today.

I know, I'm as puzzled as anyone, I can remember standing in my local hi-fI shop as I'd just bought a Nakamichi Dragon and brought it back, one of the salesmen was puzzled too, and another just said "look, FFS just give him his money back it sounds awful" that's exactly what he said. We tried alternatives with no success, so I got a top of the range Denon instead and that was OK. I have owned various Nakamichis, an early one was the best, a 600, but it developed a fault and I couldn't be bothered to get it repaired.
That particular Dragon I had obviously wasn't right, and had a major fault, but this was cropping up on them all too regularly.
I used to know lots of happy Nakamichi owners, and they do sound good generally, but honestly, not for what I wanted them for, if they did, I'd orobably still have one, as they are design classics, beautiful things.

[Tim Gillett]

It only takes one minor fault, one adjustment slightly out, even a tiny piece of cotton accidentally left on a shaft or roller after cleaning can be enough to ruin performance. Its often that simple.

[Arpangel]

Do you have the original Earthsounds version? or the Classic FM one?

This one:

Mine arrived this morning! after being hidden from me by the caretaker for days!
He puts our post in draw, but he put it in a different one this time, I was just about to contact Amazon to ask them where it was!
It's the same one as Hugh has, John is engineer, I didn't know Tony Faulkner was editing too.
Can't wait to hear it!

[Arpangel]

I just listened to this CD, lots to do, so just got around to it.
First thing that struck me was a lack of ambience, it's very dry.
Also the rendition is strange, the pianists grace notes are way too staccato, they need to be more legato.
Apart from that, the actual recording quality is difficult to judge, as there is so little ambience.
This approach doesn't suit Saties work at all, exactly the opposite in fact.
Sorry to all involved, but that's just my opinion.

[Hugh Robjohns]

To quote the former BBC DG John Birt, I fear you are "tainted by experience".

Your expectations and presumptions of the work obviously don't sync with those of the performer and producer. But that's fine -- it's your point of view, formed by your personal experiences.

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that I really like the intimate setting, which I think suits the works perfectly. And I like the interpretation and performances too -- staccato grace notes and all...

But the bottom line for me, is that it is the most enjoyable of the four CD versions of Satie's works I have available here.

Although those DC offsets are still very distracting...