The Secret Society of Lathe Trolls

Karl Welty · Joined: 12 Nov 2007 Posts: 22

Heya,

Todays mini rant, or pet peeve...

Maybe its just fueled by economics, but this is something that used to bug the poop out of me. From long association with the Ampex List, and watching perfectly good recording *systems* being parted out as components... the electronics modules being yanked, record and playback circuits being disabled, and then the unit being used as a "Phat tube mic pre, dude". Awesome condition 350 or 351's, transports consigned to the scrap heap, and electronics being hashed.

It takes a substantial amount of work to gather the bits together, un-do the poorly executed cobbles, and actually make them into *recorders* again.

Is it just me ? Do I have too much appreciation for the past ? Or are things such as my beloved Ampii mearly footnotes in history, doomed to a disposable mentality in the rush towards things better (such as lossy MP3 systems which imo dont even muster as much fidelity as a poorly aligned 8-track cartridge player) ?

Now that I am paying attention, I am seeing the same thing with Disc recorders... as have been seen with Neve consoles. The parts are worth more as parts, not as a system... but at what point (if at all) do we have a reason to gripe about it ?

Everybody needs spare parts. But what think ya, should fully functional integrated *systems* be parted out or sold as a *system ?

Thanks,

Karl

Doug 6N · Joined: 21 May 2007 Posts: 64 Location: Washington

Hi Karl:

Ah! Ya hit a nerve here with me. Smile

I like to see equipment kept intact as much as possible. I've spent most my life in another feild but with the same issues.

What really bugs me is the people who know nothing about vacuum tube electronics except for having read that they "Have awesome vacuum tube sound" Find an old tube amp and fire it up. It's full of off value resistors and leaky capacitors and poorly functioning electrolytics. It produces a mellow sound with absence of highs and added low end hum. Then God! Yeah! Man! this is it just listen to that. Now against that, the crummy mp3 sounds pretty good.

As to parting this equipment out. What on earth happens to the parts?. I see them change hands for obscene amounts of money on Ebay. Ok now what do ya do with the $500 input transformer??

I have a sarcastic anwere to that as this is what some audio wizard? explained to me. You take the ultra modern $10k Preamp and Matching $20k power amp. Now ya put that $500 1940 vintage transformer between them. Now just see how that warms up the sound and gives it that vintage quality. It does?? Sure! ( Sarcasm )

Karl. I'm assembling a 1947 Presto System. In good repaired condition it will work pretty good and it will be 98% original except for replacing those off value resistors and leaky capacitors. This then will be what was heard in 1947 when properly used.

We are listening to lots of remastered recordings that were originally made on this type of equipement as well as many other brands of older and newer equipment.

I've nothing against digital in general. I think Analoque and Digital compliment each other.

But please use the equipment as it was intended. The old cannot do what we can do digitaly in general. But we can use both if look at how each should be used to gain the best advantage in what we want to accomplish with the sound.

Doug

Karl Welty · Joined: 12 Nov 2007 Posts: 22

Yup.... and Yup.

With a properly calibrated and aligned recording system, its goal is that the output should be equal to its input. Not "warmer", "phatter", "more distorted", "more brash or strident", but an accurate representation of its input source.

Those who love the "warm and wooly" sound of a off spec piece of vacuum tube electronics are most likely dealing with a device which has component values that have drifted or vastly shifted from its original condition... and I honestly think they would be startled by how GOOD it could sound if brought back to original specs (ie output=input).

I appreciate the use of color and altered timbre in the creative role of recording and/or production. With my digital system I have all manner of plug-ins which can do alot of damage in a great big hurry... and in my mind, thats what they are for.

I would like to reach, as a goal which perhaps will never be met, the ability to cut a disc which on playback was equal to the tonal balance of its original input.

As a recordist/engineer/producer... I would then (and only then) consider myself "buff". To record some performances as a musician direct to disc, and arrive at similar results... even more "buff".

But (imo) using a preamp module as nothing more than an esoteric fuzz box... go get yourself a fuzz box.

Karl

Karl Welty · Joined: 12 Nov 2007 Posts: 22

And as a side bar... for better or worse I just won an auction on Ebay for a Presto 6N Lathe (with what appears to be a diameter EQ unit) with pedestal, a 90A amplifier mixer, and another large footprint item to try and find room for.

In all... I think its a good thing.

Guess this means I'm gonna try and get up to speed on cutting discs, should be a fun Fall/Winter.

Karl

cuttercollector · Joined: 11 Jun 2006 Posts: 265 Location: San Jose, CA

I agree with all that has been said. I hate to see old systems being ripped apart for the perceived "magical" qualities of some components.
I deal a bit with non-technical artists who are always looking for the latest widget to make their tracks sound cool. I have always tried to follow the philosophy of properly using even relatively modest equipment to best advantage and gotten good results. To do this you have to know something about why it works the way it does, and how to work around some of the inherent limitations.
One could ask a rather global question about what we on this forum are doing fooling around with this first recording medium anyway.
By all objective measurement, disc recording at it's current state of the art doesn't spec as well as modern digital recording. In the case of something like a properly restored Presto system operating at 78 rpm, the actual cut lacquer MIGHT reach a frequency response of 40-10Khz +/- quite a few dB, a s/n ratio in the high 40s the first few times you play it back, not to mention low frequency artifacts from the turntable, distortion at about 2-3% on peaks and not much below 1% best case, wow and flutter perhaps in the single digit point-something range.
So, do we actually like this better than the CD? I am aware that a state of the art cut lacquer disc has "soft" boundaries as far as all the specs are concerned and can possibly exceed the CD in some areas sometimes.
I have experienced this myself by copying really good albums to digital at 24/88.2 and then dropping it back to CD 16/44.1. Something seemed to be missing from the stereo image and high frequency openness, not to mention transient response. My own theory is that with all analog recording processes, because there are not hard limits as in digital - exactly THIS loud THIS soft THIS high and THIS low, but instead the signal to noise depends on what frequency you are talking about, there is a gradual increase in distortion rather than a brick wall etc. it gives the psycho-acoustic illusion of being better than it actually is. Somewhat like vanishing perspective in a painting. You think the frequency response keeps on going etc.
I have heard what studio master tapes sound like cut with no signal alteration to an excellent disc cutting system and there is something that just sounds "right" to our imperfect human ears about analog recording, even sometimes very limited ones such as the old Presto or even lesser systems. Yes we can hear the limitations but we can somehow listen through those as opposed to something like a low bit rate MP3 file which is very hard for me to tolerate.
For whatever reasons, I have loved records since I was 3 (50 years ago) and am happy to see them become accepted and even "cool" again.
I have just tried to share a little practical experience and "Ohm's law" level theory with those just starting to experiment on this forum.

Karl Welty · Joined: 12 Nov 2007 Posts: 22

Greetz,

You said:

"Yes we can hear the limitations but we can somehow listen through those as opposed to something like a low bit rate MP3 file which is very hard for me to tolerate."

Its the swirl which kills it for me. What a low bit rate file does in the top end. It may well do a similar lossy thing to the lows, but it's the top end which fatigues me.

Having done sound design for theatre as well as conventional music recording, I have had numerous instances of listening to digital audio for 16 to 18 hours at a whack. Production schedules needing to be met, not by desire. Even with the then standard of 16/44.1 I found that I could tolerate analog (for that duration) easier than digital.

I've noticed my shoulders tighten, neck cramps, and headaches as it went along... not withstanding time-crunch stress or simply sloppy posture.

Analog absolutely has its artifacts, regardless of format. But I seem able to "tune them out" more easily than I can with digital. I have a much better (digi) system these days, and lots more monitoring options to break things up... and dont have a director looming over my shoulder wanting miracles... but the "fun" factor pyschoacoustically seems to tilt towards analog.

Digital is the medium I do almost all my work for outside clients with. When I am listening to music for my own enjoyment, its an analog format 90 percent of the time.

Imo... I find the surface noise of a 78 far more tolerable than the top end swirl of a low res MP3. YMMV.

Karl

Doug 6N · Joined: 21 May 2007 Posts: 64 Location: Washington

Cuttercollector you make an interesting point. Probably not a solid answere to why we take on this vintage gear. I bet everyone of us has a different reason.

Cutting records was something I was interested in as teen. Oh! By the way I'm just 5 years older then you. Smile

I was fooling around with old home record cutters. The intrest went into hibernation until this past may.

That is when I discovered the Lathe Trolls Site. How I found it is an even longer story. Very Happy

This got me to thinking about the Presto 6N I got in 1988 and had been sitting around since then. It came from the home studio of an aquaintance he had bought it new in 1947.

Finding the trolls site I realized others shared an intrest in these. I have been able to find everything I wanted and needed to put this thing back in service through people on this site.

I like this old analoque technology. I'll be the first to admit it does'nt meet modern specs. However properly repaired it can sound almost as good as when new. Maybe slightly better as we now have better components then the originals in many cases. I speak mainly of caps and resistors.

I have an intrest in many types of music from cylinders to techno. Playing the music on what it was played on at the time is fun and it sounds good within it's capabilities. Now if I take that Presto 90B and play modern electronic music through. It is'nt quite up the challenge. Smile

If I play music that was around in it's day that sounds good. Even a lot of much newer stuff sounds acceptable. Is it Hi Fi? Not really. But for what ever reason it's fun to listen to.

Not only that. But those of us who sport record cutters and other exotic vintage audio in our front rooms. Ya got to admit. It can make quite the conversation peice. Smile

Recently I was talking to a young person who'd grown up after the demise of the phonograph record. I was talking about cutting a record. So I brought this person up to my apartment. Gave a quick demonstration of cutting a record. This was an amazing feat to this person. Very Happy

They also got to listen to 8 track tapes and a wire recorder.

Yep! All this had it's limitations. But think of the fact that often the music on reissued CD's was originally recorded on equipment much like this.

Must not have been too bad. Were still listening to it. Smile

Doug

Amp Doc · Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 109 Location: UK

Hello... I have read something on the net quote "The biggest threat to cd is the revival of vinyl wich is slowly gong up while cd is is slowly going down in sales. new digital formats are taking over from cd but vinyl gets stronger every day" Ye Ha .
_________________
!Work or Bang Time!

Karl Welty · Joined: 12 Nov 2007 Posts: 22

Also of note. Our ears are analog. They convert compression/expansion of air into electrical impules which our brains can process.

As an analogy... we "heard" the sabre tooth tiger long before we "saw" it. Often times if we saw it, it was too late and we were dinner. So those cave creatures we used to be (which survived) did so by having an enhanced sense of hearing... direction cues, distance, altitude, proximity.

Any of the analog formats store the information (input) in an "analagous" fashion to the original. Modulations of a groove wall, domains of magnetism, etc.

My thought has often been... things get lost in translation. The words that an auto translating typing program spit out are often "correct" but do they convey the same meaning and nuances as the original spoken language ?

Digital is correct. Look at the math. Heck yes, it is correct.

Its just not right all the time.

Ymmv

Karl

JayDC · Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:01 am Post subject:

digital vs. analog via pie.

You have a nice warm yummy pie. The pie is analog.

Converting analog pie to digital pie.

Slice the pie into 882 tiny slices, then eat about 441 slices.

Take remaining 441 slices of pie, merge them together into a whole pie again. Place your digital pie into the fridge.

This is a great trick, nobody notices that you ate a bunch of the pie, because it still looks like a whole pie.

You may also choose to dither the digital pie. To do this take whip cream, and fill the cracks in with it. This will provide the illusion that the pie was never cut.

emorritt · Joined: 09 Nov 2006 Posts: 61 Location: Louisiana

Sorry for being long winded, but keep in mind I'm not 'blogging' just trying to humorously express my opinions on old equipment and "digital" issues. Please don't anybody take this any other way Smile

Yes, I hate to see vintage equipment that is "complete", except for... (fill in your favorite missing parts here and add the eBay tag "but the cabinet is MINTY!!") Granted, since the equipment we're interested in isn't made any more and hasn't been for a long time, it does take a certain degree of "parts only" units to keep the rest of the existing equipment working and complete. And yes, seeing kids (at least compared to me) chopping up vintage electronics to 'get that tube sound' at times I kinda hope they get their pinkys between plate voltage and ground.

As far as the analog vs digital flavor this thread took on, my $.02 worth is that I think digital's place is as a production tool. You can digitize a good representation of "analog" sound by using tube preamps, various EQ settings, etc., but it's sooooo much easier to 'cut and paste' and apply effects in post without having to literally cut and paste tape or endlessly 'bounce' tracks to add this or that - I know - I been there... ARP2600 and all!

But (and as Pee Wee once said, "everybody's got a big BUT - and I'm gonna tell ya about my big but) I've always felt that on the distribution end vinyl should have been maintained and developed, and CD's should have been the new cassette tape. For those of us who remember vinyl pressings and how good they sound when properly cared for and played back correctly, we're all guilty of copying songs or albums for our friends first on reels, then 8 tracks, then on cassettes. They weren't as good as listening to the album, but it "did".

Any tech can prove with meters, oscilloscopes, and yes, even digital waveform analysis that a cut record made by a professional on industrial equipment has the same characteristics as a CD. With the wider dynamic range digital sources that are available now (and notice I said 'wider dynamic range' and not 'higher quality'!), refurbished cutting electronics, and rebuilt heads, we can cut on a record exactly what a CD will reproduce. People claim CD's "free of clicks and pops" - well, take care of your lacquers or pressings, maintain and change your stylus, and ground your turntable - and a cut record will perform better than a CD when it comes to overall sound quality. AND foithermore (sorry for the Durante reference you young'ns won't get) when CD's become damaged, obsolete, and we finally reach the point where music is nothing but a blitter of copy-protection-encoded ones and zeros residing on silicon wafers, and there's a scarcity of digital decoding/recovery/transcoding/error correcting/whatevering hardware and software, we'll still be able to reproduce recordings made in 1932, but not in 2007.

Wouldn't it be interesting if one day the RIAA woke up and realized that nowadays everybody has CD burners, everybody has the internet, everybody can copy, rip, tear, burn, file-share, and otherwise hack, steal, or whatever you want to call it professional artist's music, but once upon a time not everybody had a recording lathe in their bedroom, a record press in their basement, or a black-market packaging and shipping department in their garage, and music was only copied on lesser-quality tape. It wasn't so easy to make a lossless, perfect, exact copy of the latest Yes album and give to all your friends - which in itself isn't as great of a financial loss for the record companies as someone digitizing and posting a song or album on the internet where thousands can freely access the music.

Digital basically opened up a can of worms for the record companies that I truly believe they didn't expect. It wasn't that long ago that the first CD recorders for a PC were $2000. I don't think the RIAA expected that one day you could get one for around $25, high quality blanks for a few cents each, and make something at home of equal quality to what the major labels are putting out. Then along comes the internet, and you simply compress it, post it, and distribute it. Digital formats are very convenient, easy and small to store and travel with, but for high quality, long term usage, IMHO analog wins.

I work daily with both analog and digital tools. The digital side of things makes production much easier than it ever was, but I still don't favor data files or digital formats for distribution and storage, mainly from an archival standpoint. Recovery and restoration of damaged grooved recordings and analog magnetic recordings is fairly easy, but once we reach the chore of recovering lost digital information you run into so many technical issues, media roadblocks, and formatting parameters that have to be considered I'd probably tell a customer at that point, sorry... it's gone.

Karl Welty · Joined: 12 Nov 2007 Posts: 22

1000 years from now... someone could use a nail attached to a paper cup and retrieve data off an album. 1000 years from now that same fellow could wrap wire around the same nail (bent back on itself) creating a coarse gap and retrieve data off of magnetic tape (which hasnt been erased) by connecting an amplification stage to it.

I worked in libraries for 13 years. Archival issues and concerns continue.

Working in digital allows me to never have to think about executing another window edit. It was fun, life on the edge and all that... but doing them seemed to take years off my life in terms of stress.

And I think I finally cane up with an analogy about artifacts which works for me.

Listening to analog... its the music with an "overdub" much like the snapping or popping of a camp fire or hiss of steam. The music itself hasnt been altered, but added to by the additional noise elements. I can listen through the overdub to the music itself.

With crappy digi (LoRes MP3, etc) the character of the top end itself is altered. Its not still there in the beckground, it has been replaced *by* the artifacts.

I work with digi every day. I wouldnt have it any other way from a production standpoint. Too much power = speed = satisfied client with fewer billable hours = return business and word of mouth.

But once all those decisions have been made, it would be marvelous to hire an intern who could fill the audio role of "negative cutter" in film... have them go at the analog tape... and re-create what was decided on in digital. Not gonna happen.

In the meantime... I love campfires and hissing steam overdubs. Smile

Karl

emorritt · Joined: 09 Nov 2006 Posts: 61 Location: Louisiana

Karl it sounds like you come from a similar background to me. I worked originally in production, then did a stint in higher education as a media and educational technology lab coordinator/engineer in the campus library. That's where I learned the true beauty of analog storage. Throughout history there have been a few analog formats; cylinder, disc, film, tape, and wire. Magnetic media works in a similar manner and needle/groove technology works in similar manners. Optical recordings on film are fairly self-explanatory as well. Ever since the digital age, there have been so many data rates, file formats, storage media, etc. for both picture and sound that I definitely don't want to work in an archive in my next lifetime. 7 degrees from MIT or DeVry wouldn't help you at that point.

I think that if some of the inventive energy poured into the new digital technology would have been put into further development of vinyl compounds or derivatives thereof, and magnetic tape coatings and formulations, there would be suitable long-term analog storage media at this point in time. Even taking a vintage tape, digitizing it, tweeking the weaker portions of the frequency spectrum, then laying the result back to tape would to me be smarter than digitizing and letting the original deteriorate to nothing, keeping the digital file and hoping that someday in the future it will still be able to be played back.

I guess one positive outcome of the digital age is that as according to Sir Arthur Sullivan, "so much hideous and bad music may be put on record for ever" - well it HAS been (enter Britney Spears, et al...) and hopefully since it's all digital at this point, some day the graces of time will render obsolete the capabilities to reproduce the... ahem... "artistry" of such performers.