Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!rentsch
From: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Question About Tape Freq Response
Message-ID: <100@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 20:08:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.100
Posted: Sun Sep 29 20:08:47 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 03:32:19 EDT
References: <7000007@petrus.UUCP>
Reply-To: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch)
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 53
Summary: 

In article <7000007@petrus.UUCP> copp@petrus.UUCP writes:
>It appears from the advertising (am I too gullible?) that the
>tape manufacturers are almost continuously improving their product,
>at least the high end response.  On one hand this sounds great;
>on the other hand, would you applaud if speaker, cartridge, amp,
>etc., manufacturers kept boosting the highs by an additional db
>every six months?  If nothing else, doesn't this ever-increasing
>high-end response play havoc with Dolby tracking?


The issue of being gullible arises not out of whether the claims of
the manufacturers (with regard to frequency response etc.) are true,
but out of accepting these consequent "improvement" at face value.
(It should be said that most people are gullible in this respect.)

Tapes certainly have gotten better in the sense that they have more
dynamic range, wider frequency response, better signal to noise
ratio, and so forth.  The question is, does this "improvement" make
the tapes sound better?  Other things being equal, of course, the
answer is yes.  Equally of course, however, other things are *not*
equal.  (Which other things?  I'm glad you asked....)

For one thing, wider dynamic range means the tape is more sensitive
to magnetic fields -- has to be, to record the weaker magnetic
fields of the weaker signals.  Unfortunately, this means more
sensitive to stray magnetic fields as well, which may cause
print-through or other problems.

For another thing, the recording tape of today uses more tightly
controlled particle size than, say, tape of twenty years ago.  While
the *average* signal-to-noise ratio is better, the more uniform
particle size means the resultant hiss will tend to have a
characteristic frequency, and so may actually be louder in the
frequency range in question, even though the average s/n ratio is
better.

[Pesons who would argue that these are good reasons to do digital
rather than analog recording are kindly invited to step into the next
room and keep their comments to themselves.  I also think that digital
recording is the way to solve these problems, but not at 50kHz,
thank you very much but no thanks all the same.] 

Notice that I have *not* said that this makes the tapes sound worse.
This may be true, or it may not be, depending on the listener.
Whether or not the sound is "worse" depends on how you weight the
various influences.  If your ears have a big dip at 14-16kHz, and this
happens to coincide with the characteristic hiss frequency, then
obviously this will be less important to you than to some other
person whose ears have a rise in the same range.  And so forth.

Are tapes better?  By some measurements, yes; by all measurements,
no.  Let your ears decide.  And remember, contrary to manufacturing
hype, 'progress' doesn't always result in 'improvement'.