Comparing Stereo Recorders |
|
ASHLEY JAMES NO PREFERRED CHOICE |
Was it a valid exercise ?
Yes it was. One thing I feel I ought to say is that when you listen to anything
for long periods of time, then if what you're listening to does have imperfections
they assume greater proportions than in the short period of time that we had here.
I also think that if I was in familiar surroundings, then it's possible that I may
have been able to have sorted out the differences between one format and the next.
But I think that today's exercise does prove that the differences are quite small
if one looks at it subjectively.
You didn't prefer any format to the others ?
No I didn't. In the period of time available I wouldn't wish to be dogmatic ; it would be wrong to do that. I thought there was an overall slight loss of sparkle on all the recorded formats from the original, and I underline the word slight.
One thing you did comment on was that you thought format C (Otari with Dolby SR) sounded slightly duller.
Yes, but I would have liked to have listened for longer
to be sure of that.
As you're involved in loudspeaker technology and consequently come up against
the problems of reproducing bottom end, how did the formats perform in this respect
?
I thought the bass was nicely displayed and quite accurate
but I do feel it was mixed a little high. I think that's common to a lot of jazz
recordings but that's my personal opinion.
To summarise then ?
I think one has to say that although people get wound up
about irritations in any reproducing medium, there has to be a point at which we
say 'Come on chaps, we can go too far with this' because the differences were
quite small. I don't think that even if I'd listened for a long time that I would
have ended up saying that I definitely didn't want any of the formats.
Are you surprised by the results ?
Now that I know that I identified one of the analogue formats
I am surprised less because I would have hoped that I would have been able to do
that - and I'm glad that I did. But I must say that I thought the difference between the analogue and digital would have
been greater.
Studer + Dolby SR |
Sony DASH |
Otari + Dolby SR |
Studer DASH |
Mitsubishi ProDigi |
|
Format |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
Preference |
1st |
1st |
1st |
1st |
1st |
JOHN EDEN PREFERRED CHOICE : STUDER DASH |
Was it a valid exercise?
Yes it was. I think if one good thing
is to come out of this, and my opinion is similar to the others here, then it's that
we have now arrived at a point where there is such a high standard from all the manufacturers
that there are only slight differences between them. And that a lot of the bickering
that goes on between particular format users is not really valid. The systems sound
great, whatever the manufacturer, and it would be better if we could get the manufacturers
to co-operate more and just standardise. MADI should be the way ahead.
You chose format D as your favorite
which I can now tell you was the Studer DASH. Are you surprised ?
Not surprised, I did make the comment that I didn't think it was necessarily the
most accurate, but there was a certain emphasis in the top end and the imaging that
I liked.
What were you listening for ?
Realism, to the original source and what I considered to be the most pleasing
sound with the most transparent top end and most accurate bass definition. I have
never heard the DASH system before. All the systems were incredibly close. An evaluation
like this could have benefited from using longer listening periods and different
types of programme material. My format preference on say rock material may have been
completely different to what I chose with jazz.
Now that you have shown a slight preference for the Studer DASH, will that change
anything for you ?
I don't think so. At present I master
on 1/2inch and Sony DAT 2500 and I'm happy with them. I'm also happy with my multitrack
situation : a Mitsubishi X850 and 24 track analogue MCI. It gives me the best of
both worlds. This evaluation might cause me to try a 2 track DASH format in the studio.
Were you surprised by just how similar the formats sounded?
Yes, I was very surprised. I expected
to hear far greater differences, particularly between the analogue and digitals.
It just goes to show!
Studer + Dolby SR |
Sony DASH |
Otari + Dolby SR |
Studer DASH |
Mitsubishi ProDigi |
|
Format |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
Preference |
2nd |
2nd |
2nd |
1st |
2nd |
DAVID JACOB PREFERRED CHOICE : MITSUBISHI ProDigi and OTARI with DOLBY SR |
D (Studer DASH) did stand out differently. What was interesting about that is that it drifted in speed compared to the other ones. In fact the two that I thought were analogue (B : Sony DASH and D : Studer DASH) did drift in speed compared to the others - which I thought were digital. So that's kind of confirmed my suspicions. It was not enough that I could hear a pitch change but it was enough that I could tell they didn't line up later in the tape. I know that's cheating but it helped me. If I'm right then an Otari analogue, which I thought was B (Sony DASH) and a Mitsubishi digital, which I thought was A (Studer + Dolby SR), sound almost identical.
I thought D (Studer DASH) was the Studer with SR. C (Otari + Dolby SR) and E (Mitsubishi) I couldn't tell any difference: I thought they were the Studer DASH and Sony DASH. I haven't used any of these formats professionally so I'm just guessing.
Normally I mix onto 701 because it's cheap, convenient and it works - it sounds great. I don't understand what it is people don't like about them. If I walk into a studio and there's a 701 in the reproduce chain, I can't tell the difference and I don't care who knows it.
I can understand why people don't like
701 if they don't use pre-emphasis but if they do, I just don't get it. And what's
great is that pre- emphasis is a very simple way of getting noise reduction into
people's homes. When they listen on their own CD players the pre-emphasis switches
so you've got on-the spot noise reduction.
Studer + Dolby SR |
Sony DASH |
Otari + Dolby SR |
Studer DASH |
Mitsubishi ProDigi |
|
Format |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
Preference |
2nd |
2nd |
1st |
3rd |
1st |
|
The Sony PCM 701 ES is a PCM encoder which, coupled to a VCR, enables you to record digital audio as if it was an ordinary video signal. The device also extracts the digital audio message from the video signal, the other way round, for playback. Other machines, such as the PCM F1 and above all, the PCM 1630, work on the same principle. | ||
Sony PCM F1 with power supply |
|
The converters of the 701 ES, which is a machine of the mid-80s (remember that the
article was written in 1989) are really really bad according to today's standards,
and.... even according to those days, they weren't really good, but as the guy says
: 1) He doesn't care if people don't like that sound. 2) He is right, it's darn cheap ! |