Jimbos Audio ramblings

[Macca]

Roger Nichols on the 3M: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_...ding_engineer)

''3M Digital Mastering System:

The Ry Cooder Bop Till You Drop album was the first digitally recorded pop album. It was recorded on the 3M 32-track digital recorder at Amigo studios in North Hollywood California. We booked the Village Recorder in 1981 to cut tracks for Nightfly and decided to try the 3M digital machine.

We ran a Studer A-80 24-track analog machine in parallel with the 3M for the test. After the band laid down a take we performed an a-b-c listening test. The analog and digital machines were played back in sync while the band played along live. We could compare the analog machine, the digital machine, and the live band.

The closest sound to the live band was the 3M digital machine. We re-aligned the Studer and gave it one more chance. The 3M was the clear winner. We rolled the Studer out into the street, (just kidding) and did the rest of the recording on the 3M 32-track machine. When it came time to mix, we mixed to the 3M 4-track machine.


The 3M 32-track used 1” digital tape and the 4-track used 1/2” digital tape. They both ran at 45 ips. I guess 3M wanted to sell you lots of tape. The digital audio was recorded at 50kHz 16bits. There were no 16bit converters in 1981, so the 3M system used a 12 bit Burr-Brown converter and 4bits of an 8bit converter as gain-ranging to produce the 16bit results.

The “brick wall” analog filters on the 3M machine hand-wound coils and took up most of a circuit board. They sounded good.

The biggest drawback to the 3M system was the minimal error correction. After a couple of months working on the same piece of tape, the error count started to rise above the correctable level. There were adjustments on the front of the machine to fine tune the decoding of the data recorded on tape.

You could adjust each track for the least amount of correctable errors and then transfer the tape digitally to another 3M machine. You now had a clean error-free tape to work on for a couple of months.''

https://web.archive.org/web/20021020...Q_2001_08.html

[Barry]

But the point is there is something 'wrong' with the recording. That is true: exactly why is another matter.

[Macca]

But the point is there is something 'wrong' with the recording. That is true: exactly why is another matter.

I'm going to have to get a copy of this I suppose.

[struth]

sure there is an 180gm version vinyl; dunno if it was remastered or not or if its different. a lot of folk seem to like original one anyway so who knows..

[Macca]

sure there is an 180gm version vinyl; dunno if it was remastered or not or if its different. a lot of folk seem to like original one anyway so who knows..

looks like there is only one remaster - Japanese release 2007

All others are the original including the 180 gm vinyl

https://www.discogs.com/master/65222...-Till-You-Drop

[Jimbo]

loads of the original around cheap on Discogs - yep £5 on discogs take your pick - 1382 copies available!

[Barry]

If you're not a fan of Ry Cooder then I would trouble.

I would however be interested to know what was the first vinyl release recorded using digital techniques.

[Jimbo]

In the twilight hours.......

A48F3CD0-74A3-48F3-8EB8-F1D7275D0E1A by , on Flickr

[Jimbo]

Strange thing room acoustics, just when you think you know what you are doing and you think you have got the best out of your room something happens and you question what you know and what you have been recommended. Through trial and error and work with the acoustic panels I have improved the sound of my system marginally but getting your system to play nicely with your acoustic space ( room ) is not an exact science and tonight I have surprised myself yet again.

As it is closely approaching Christmas I have had to reconfigure my furniture placement and the room in general to accommodate the obligatory Christmas tree. This year we decided to buy a real one - ah that must be it I thought, real trees have a different acoustic signature to artificial - just kidding. No what happened was this. I moved my listening position two feet backwards and moved another sofa further in front between my speakers and bang the balance of my system changed unexpectedly for the better.


I know furniture can have a big difference but this was a surprise because if you were sitting where I am now you would say it shouldn't work but then I remembered Bass is omnidirectional and therefore not as critical as treble and midrange for positioning. Case in point many folk put subwoofers in very unusual places and they work.

So with the room furniture repositioned a few feet back and forward depending on its previous position I have now gained a very significant improvement and may well keep the room the same as a consequence. What I am talking about is a better general balance of sound across the audio spectrum and better sense of space and depth/positioning/imaging in the recording. In fact on a few tracks the whole ambience of the sound stage sounded way better than before.

So for a free upgrade all I did was move a few bits of furniture! Amazing how influential room acoustics etc can be on what you hear. And as I have said before considerably more effective than many upgrades I have made with electronics or cables.

[Wakefield Turntables]

Well done Jim! I'm still at "bodger" level when it comes to room treatment. I have a thick rug sitting in front of my ported Tannoy 15" MG cabinets and two large accoustic panels sitting directly opposite the main driver in the Tannoy cabinets. I also have two very very rough corner traps. I've not moved things around, as I can't! I don't have the space. Any new accoustic treatment would probably be on the ceiling, behind the speakers or maybe more side panels. Things sound very good already but I suppose things could always sound better.