Radio 3: pre-echo on Liszt loud piano parts

[FrankF]

This thread is starting to sound like the great British Radio Bakeoff.

As soon as CDs came along, I gave up on tape as a lost cause.
However, putting on my Advocatus Diaboli hat, I also have some CDs with mysterious digital distortion on them: for example, the 5 vol. complete Erik Satie piano works on EMI, played by Aldo Ciccolini.
He recorded the complete piano works twice: once in the 60s (ADD), and then again in the 80s (DDD).
Now, guess which recordings have the digital distortion?
Yep! It's the later versions.
I can thoroughly recommend the 60s box set, however, if you can find it.
As Sylvian sang, it's full of the most poignant "désespoir agréable".

Getting back to Radio 3, it would be interesting to know which recordings of these works they recommend in Building a Library.

[MOF]

I guess the problem with any sort of sealant to lock out moisture re entry would be that it would have a thickness resulting in a minute separation of the oxide from intimate contact with the head face

I don’t think it was a sealant, it was there to change the chemical nature of the binder so that it didn’t hydrolise.

[MOF]

He recorded the complete piano works twice: once in the 60s (ADD), and then again in the 80s (DDD).
Now, guess which recordings have the digital distortion?

For a 60s recording it would have to be AAD.
Have you ripped the 80s recording into your computer to see the waveforms? It just might be the CD player distorting if the mastering took the peaks to extremely close to 0dbFS.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I also have some CDs with mysterious digital distortion on them: for example, the 5 vol. complete Erik Satie piano works on EMI, played by Aldo Ciccolini.
He recorded the complete piano works twice: once in the 60s (ADD), and then again in the 80s (DDD).

That doesn't sound right. The first letter describes the original recording format, the second is the mixing format, and the last is the mastering format.

A recording made in the 60s must have been AAD, not ADD...

Now, guess which recordings have the digital distortion?

It could be either, of course, and for lots of reasons -- all inexcusable, naturally -- but I'm guessing you're not a fan of the later recordings.

[Tim Gillett]

I guess the problem with any sort of sealant to lock out moisture re entry would be that it would have a thickness resulting in a minute separation of the oxide from intimate contact with the head face

I don’t think it was a sealant, it was there to change the chemical nature of the binder so that it didn’t hydrolise.

I'd be interesting to know more then.

[MOF]

I'd be interesting to know more then.

It was some years ago Tim, I’d have to trawl through all my paper copies. Maybe someone at SOS remembers who the author was.

[forumuser840717]

Possibly Roger Nichols's archiving work through Digital Atomics? They used to refer to using a vacuum dessication process.

It was done at a couple of places I worked too (in the UK) and I vaguely remember mentioning it on the forums a very long time ago but I've never written for SOS whereas Roger did.

[FrankF]

That doesn't sound right. The first letter describes the original recording format, the second is the mixing format, and the last is the mastering format.

A recording made in the 60s must have been AAD, not ADD...

It says the recordings were made between 1966-1971, then "digital transfers and mixing - 1991".
Does that make it AAD or ADD?

[forumuser840717]

He recorded the complete piano works twice: once in the 60s (ADD), and then again in the 80s (DDD).
Now, guess which recordings have the digital distortion?

For a 60s recording it would have to be AAD.
Have you ripped the 80s recording into your computer to see the waveforms? It just might be the CD player distorting if the mastering took the peaks to extremely close to 0dbFS.

It could be ADD if the original analogue recording were remixed/re-edited digitally. In classical world, the majority of sessions were mixed to stereo live, on the sessions, so the second letter commonly refers to the post production stage (normally just editing and perhaps a little mastering) rather than mixing in the more familiar pop sense of tracking-mixing-mastering.

I've done work re-editing/re-mastering old recordings from analogue tapes where the end result was identified as ADD even though the original release was AAA and happened before I was born!

[MOF]

I've done work re-editing/re-mastering old recordings from analogue tapes where the end result was identified as ADD even though the original release was AAA and happened before I was born!

Well according to this article you're breaking the trades description act. Apart from a short gap 1991-5 it's as Hugh mentioned above - recording, mixing and mastered format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

[MOF]

Thanks forumuser840717, it was Roger Nichols July 2006 article

As everyone knows by now, analogue tape suffers from 'sticky shed syndrome'. The tape companies suggested baking the tapes to enable playback temporarily. In 1992 I started using a vacuum process to recover these tapes; I enlisted one of the original scientists who developed Mylar and the oxide binders for DuPont to help develop it. It works perfectly and turns out to be permanent. Tapes processed in 1992 still play back perfectly today, without the increase in distortion as a result of baking.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It says the recordings were made between 1966-1971, then "digital transfers and mixing - 1991".Does that make it AAD or ADD?

Ah... okay then, if remixing was involved in 1991 that stage could have ended up on a digital format to make it ADD. Fair enough.

[Tim Gillett]

Thanks forumuser840717, it was Roger Nichols July 2006 article

As everyone knows by now, analogue tape suffers from 'sticky shed syndrome'. The tape companies suggested baking the tapes to enable playback temporarily. In 1992 I started using a vacuum process to recover these tapes; I enlisted one of the original scientists who developed Mylar and the oxide binders for DuPont to help develop it. It works perfectly and turns out to be permanent. Tapes processed in 1992 still play back perfectly today, without the increase in distortion as a result of baking.

Thanks for the Roger Nicholls quote, MOF and 840717. I can understand how vacuum would eventually remove the moisture from the tape, but I dont understand how this seemingly harmless vacuum process would also change the tape so that it no longer reabsorbed moisture.

[ef37a]

He recorded the complete piano works twice: once in the 60s (ADD), and then again in the 80s (DDD).
Now, guess which recordings have the digital distortion?

For a 60s recording it would have to be AAD.
Have you ripped the 80s recording into your computer to see the waveforms? It just might be the CD player distorting if the mastering took the peaks to extremely close to 0dbFS.

Yes, many years ago son and I burned CDs to play on a Philips CD480 (still got it) using Nero which by default normalized to 0dBfs and the machine would produce distortion on peaks. Played on the optical drive on the desktop, no problem. We found a way to stop normalization and burn a dB or so lower.

Dave.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I can understand how vacuum would eventually remove the moisture from the tape, but I dont understand how this seemingly harmless vacuum process would also change the tape so that it no longer reabsorbed moisture.

Nor me... there must be more to it...

I found this patent that describes a process which strips away the backing and claims to be a permanent fix.

And there's a discussion on a vacuum dessication process here.....

I'm sure there's more to be found on t'internet but I need to go out now so will continue the research later.

[MOF]

I dont understand how this seemingly harmless vacuum process would also change the tape so that it no longer reabsorbed moisture.

The hydrolysis was caused by a change in the binder chemistry. As I understood it a chemical was added to change that binder’s propensity to absorb moisture.
Tapes before 1985@ didn’t hydrolyse, I read that the EMI tapes that were used at Abbey Road in the 1950-60s used a binder derived from Whales blubber.

[James Perrett]

Tapes before 1985@ didn’t hydrolyse, I read that the EMI tapes that were used at Abbey Road in the 1950-60s used a binder derived from Whales blubber.

You're around ten years out - 1975 seems to be the changeover date. Certainly plenty of late 70's Ampex tapes require baking. The legend that I've heard said that Ampex used whale products up until the mid 70's. Certainly, from a UK perspective, Ampex tapes are the main brand to exhibit the hydrolysis problem - the only others that I've encountered were some later 3M tapes which I think were made in the US.

I wonder if there was a difference between European and US production processes which made this hydrolysis more prevalent in US made products? I also find that I have more issues with tapes from US archives - I don't know what they do over there, but US stored tapes are often a nightmare to transfer whereas tapes that have lived all their lives in the UK give far fewer problems.

[MOF]

You're around ten years out - 1975 seems to be the changeover date. Certainly plenty of late 70's Ampex tapes require baking. The legend that I've heard said that Ampex used whale products up until the mid 70's. Certainly, from a UK perspective, Ampex tapes are the main brand to exhibit the hydrolysis problem - the only others that I've encountered were some later 3M tapes which I think were made in the US.

I had 1985 in my head but I think you’re right as a year or two ago I laced up an old 4 track tape on my TEAC (bought in 1978) and it exhibited the classic signs of ‘sticky tape’.
I don’t think all tape manufacturers used the same binder as Ampex.