ATARI XL/XE + recording studio :)

[yerzmyey]

There wasn't any Atari XL/XE song on my "Strange Light Under My Bed" album, so after years I decided to correct this mistake, haha.

http://chipmusic.org/yerzmyey/music/the-missing-piece-atari-8bit--recording-studio

 

The only instrument/sound-source and the only sequencer used here: ATARI 600XL (well, 64Kb of RAM required anyway).

 

Recording-studio effect used: track-by-track recording / filters / phasers / choruses / flangers / delays / echoes / reverbs / equalizers / compressors / limiters.

 

ATARI soft used:

- Chaos Music Composer (CMC) by Pelc and Marok

- NeoTracker by EPI.

 

So the old good XL still can be used for the professional musical purposes if required.

 

PS: As usual, if anybody's interested how the original tracks sounded - I can upload them into some SendSpace or whatever.

Without the bassline, sadly - I deleted it by mistake. Ah well.

[re-atari]

There wasn't any Atari XL/XE song on my "Strange Light Under My Bed" album, so after years I decided to correct this mistake, haha.

http://chipmusic.org/yerzmyey/music/the-missing-piece-atari-8bit--recording-studio

 

The only instrument/sound-source and the only sequencer used here: ATARI 600XL (well, 64Kb of RAM required anyway).

 

Recording-studio effect used: track-by-track recording / filters / phasers / choruses / flangers / delays / echoes / reverbs / equalizers / compressors / limiters.

 

ATARI soft used:

- Chaos Music Composer (CMC) by Pelc and Marok

- NeoTracker by EPI.

 

So the old good XL still can be used for the professional musical purposes if required.

 

PS: As usual, if anybody's interested how the original tracks sounded - I can upload them into some SendSpace or whatever.

Without the bassline, sadly - I deleted it by mistake. Ah well.

Not really on topic, but I remember the German magazine 'Happy Computer' ran a short article with photo late 1984, stating Japanese Hifi manufacturer Nakamichi had designed a device to connect their equipment (very high quality and therefore extremely pricy cassettedecks) to an Atari 800XL. I don't recall the article mentioned how it was connected and/or what Nakamichi wanted to achieve with this device. AFAIK it was never seen in the wild, I never read anything about it either later on. Maybe it was only intended for inhouse use, maybe it's just vaporware.

 

I should still have this magazine stored away on my attic. I bought Happy Computer just about from nr. 1 right until the publisher stopped it, and still have them all.

 

re-atari

Edited June 8, 2015 by re-atari

[fujidude]

Yeah I remember back in the day. Nakamichi had a cassette deck they called "The Dragon." Expensive... I want to say I recall around a cool 1 grand right around 1990.

[mani]

Hi yerzmyey,

 

The mp3 sounds amazing. Nice one!

 

Mani

[re-atari]

Yeah I remember back in the day. Nakamichi had a cassette deck they called "The Dragon." Expensive... I want to say I recall around a cool 1 grand right around 1990.

Even more amazing is that these days a Dragon still fetches $ 1000 easily. It is a true collectors' item, as very few were sold. The Dragon (and every Nakamichi for that matter) were technically very advanced, but the introduction of DAT (Digital Audio Tape) around 1987 made analog cassette technology obsolete.

 

There still are people collecting Nakamichi's, probably because of the myth surrounding the manufacturer's name. A well-kept ZX-7 or ZX-9 will set you back several $ 100's.

 

re-atari

[fujidude]

Ahh the nostalgia. Around 1993 I bought myself a better cassette deck. I didn't have $1,000 to spend, but I did spend around $400. I got a Sony ES series twin deck with all the bells and whistles. It had Dolby B, C, and S. It also had multiple motors (4 I think) and even separate monitor heads if I recall correctly. It was model TCWR701ES. Not sure how long the Dragons were manufactured, but this Sony had Dolby S which was really new at the time. So if the Dragon didn't, this deck might have been better, at least in some ways.

 

[yerzmyey]

Hehehehe, here is how the elements sounded originally

https://www.sendspace.com/file/38gfrw

(Recorded from real XL machine of course ).

[+Stephen]

Ahh the nostalgia. Around 1993 I bought myself a better cassette deck. I didn't have $1,000 to spend, but I did spend around $400. I got a Sony ES series twin deck with all the bells and whistles. It had Dolby B, C, and S. It also had multiple motors (4 I think) and even separate monitor heads if I recall correctly. It was model TCWR701ES. Not sure how long the Dragons were manufactured, but this Sony had Dolby S which was really new at the time. So if the Dragon didn't, this deck might have been better, at least in some ways.

 

Nice. I still have (and frequently use) my Sony TC-WE625. It's not a crazy expensive deck, but it has served me well.

[fujidude]

Unfortunately, I lost my Sony deck to water damage. I do have a second hand Kenwood KX-W6030 that I picked up with the intent to sample in my many cassettes and turn them into .mp3s. Deck is still on a shelf. I haven't finished sampling in my LPs yet! LOL.

 

I'm going to check out that one you have too. It's kind of fun meeting people that have a lot of the same old school interests. Do you record stuff onto tape yet, or just listen to what you have already?

 

I checked it out. It seems like a decent enough deck. I'm sure it gets the job done well.

Edited June 9, 2015 by fujidude

[re-atari]

Ahh the nostalgia. Around 1993 I bought myself a better cassette deck. I didn't have $1,000 to spend, but I did spend around $400. I got a Sony ES series twin deck with all the bells and whistles. It had Dolby B, C, and S. It also had multiple motors (4 I think) and even separate monitor heads if I recall correctly. It was model TCWR701ES. Not sure how long the Dragons were manufactured, but this Sony had Dolby S which was really new at the time. So if the Dragon didn't, this deck might have been better, at least in some ways.

It makes sense that not everyone can afford to spend, would want to spend or can justify spending $ 1000 on just one item in a hifi set.

 

But, while Sony made some amazing cassettedecks, I somehow feel they are nowhere near a Dragon. On analog cassettedecks high sound quality depends on more than just good noise reduction. A steady and even tape transport between the 2 capstans, perfectly lined up R-W heads, optimal azimuth, and the right amount of bias are all important as well.

 

The mechanics of the top range Nakamichi's were so sophisticated it would bring tears to your eyes, and moreover they could adjust all these parameters automatically for each individual tape. It was really amazing to see my ZX-7 do these adjustments before making a recording. I regret selling it off a few months back when I moved to a new house and had to scale down my collection.

 

re-atari

[fujidude]

The Sony deck I had, had some kind of calibration thing it could do for a cassette. It wasn't a mechanical calibration though, just a bias calibration specific to a particular type of tape. The Dragons I'm sure were much better now that you mention stuff like that.

[re-atari]

The Sony deck I had, had some kind of calibration thing it could do for a cassette. It wasn't a mechanical calibration though, just a bias calibration specific to a particular type of tape. The Dragons I'm sure were much better now that you mention stuff like that.

That is one of the more important parameters, I'm sure your Sony made good recordings! I think Nakamichi showed its competitors how cassette technology could be optimized to its very limit. As with all equipment, at some point the quality level can be pushed further only by using very expensive technology. The big increase in cost then doesn't relate anymore to the tiny increase in quality. And then only people with perfect hearing could hear (or pretend to hear) the difference. Usually it's the same people that claim golden loudspeaker cable at $ 100 per meter which is blessed by the pope himself on a full moon night, sounds better than 2,5 mm2 cable. Some people just want to be scammed.

 

Sadly all Nakamichi's technological achievements were in vain, as analog cassette technology was slowly but surely getting obsolete when CD players got affordable in the late '80's and by the introduction of DAT in '87. IIRC the manufacturer went bust in the early 90's.

 

I do recall a Nakamichi 5-CD changer CD-Rom drive in the late '90's, but that device was nothing special. Quite possibly some manufacturer just bought the rights to use the once famous company name.

 

re-atari

[576XE]

Hi!

 

I'm sorry, but if you know WHY vinil is better then DIGIT then no problem to find why Nakamichi is NOT a SONY.

 

The Main idea of Nakamichi is to exclude intervention into passage of sound. No more no less. UTOPIA or PERFECTIONALIZM!

They wanted maximally ORIGINAL SOUND on output! Do you remember this ~0,0001% of intermodulation distorsions?

 

The philosofy of others was absolutely another. Dolby, for example, wanted to SYNTHESIZE OUTPUT to something sounds LIKE original.

And the best of his decisions was Dolby SR with MINIMAL intervention into sound too.

 

And remember that bad input signals with DOLBY produced terrible output!!!

 

Dolby make very importand breakthrough when decided simply divide pare (or more. no means) of INPUT signals in 4, 5, 7, 9 independant channels on the stage of pre-amplification.

Outputs then after power amplification translated onto different speakers. Absolutely no cross-distorsions and no need in ~0,0001% at all.

 

By the way. I prefere the way of Dolby! He is really innovator!

 

Very long ago I read that the preference of stereo above mono was 1,75. (Never reached 2) but was absolutely distinguishable.

And the paradox is that quadro preference above mono(Sic!) was 1,77-1,78 and NEVER reached 2 too!

Absolutely not linear dependancy!

 

Thus now, we see the real breakthrough in multychannel playback and 3-d sound synthesys and It's R.Dolby with others!

 

And don't kill pianoist!!! It's only my opinion.

 

All the best.

[re-atari]

Hi!

 

I'm sorry, but if you know WHY vinil is better then DIGIT then no problem to find why Nakamichi is NOT a SONY.

 

The Main idea of Nakamichi is to exclude intervention into passage of sound. No more no less. UTOPIA or PERFECTIONALIZM!

They wanted maximally ORIGINAL SOUND on output! Do you remember this ~0,0001% of intermodulation distorsions?

 

The philosofy of others was absolutely another. Dolby, for example, wanted to SYNTHESIZE OUTPUT to something sounds LIKE original.

And the best of his decisions was Dolby SR with MINIMAL intervention into sound too.

 

And remember that bad input signals with DOLBY produced terrible output!!!

 

Dolby make very importand breakthrough when decided simply divide pare (or more. no means) of INPUT signals in 4, 5, 7, 9 independant channels on the stage of pre-amplification.

Outputs then after power amplification translated onto different speakers. Absolutely no cross-distorsions and no need in ~0,0001% at all.

 

By the way. I prefere the way of Dolby! He is really innovator!

 

Very long ago I read that the preference of stereo above mono was 1,75. (Never reached 2) but was absolutely distinguishable.

And the paradox is that quadro preference above mono(Sic!) was 1,77-1,78 and NEVER reached 2 too!

Absolutely not linear dependancy!

 

Thus now, we see the real breakthrough in multychannel playback and 3-d sound synthesys and It's R.Dolby with others!

 

And don't kill pianoist!!! It's only my opinion.

 

All the best.

I remember Nakamichi didn't adhere to the IEC standard for cassette recordings, which resulted in a raised frequency curve from 5 khz upwards. If you played back a cassette recorded on a Nakamichi on a non Nakamichi deck, it would sound 'dull' or 'moldy', just like there was no high. The other way around, the recording would sound very 'fresh' or 'sharp'.

 

In the past I have tinkered with electronics on several Nakamichi cassettedecks, and it's my conclusion that the reason they sounded better than any of the competition is because of the very advanced way the recorder adjusted critical parameters like bias and azimuth to the optimum for each individual cassette. Add to that of course the very high quality tape transport mechanics.

In this view I was very amazed to notice Nakamichi had used JRC 4558 dual opamps and carbonfilm resistors in their electronics. These never were particular high end (noisy). At the time metalfilm resistors and much better opamps alternatives, like the TL072 or TL082, were readibly available at only slightly higher cost. Nakamichi could even have gone the last mile by using Ne5532's, which were the best available back then. These were were a bit more expensive, though, but hey, were not talking about budget equipment here.

 

On my 581ZX I swapped several polypropylene and mica capacitors, which are known to deteriorate (soften up) over the years, for styroflex types (the best available for audio). For some reason or another these days styroflex caps seem not to be available anymore. Never got around to swapping the opamps for better types, though. I sold off my entire Nakamichi collection several months ago.

 

I don't quite understand what you mean to say about Dolby, but that may just be due to the language barrier Admitted, the Dolby type of noisereduction was a form of companding with all its inherent disadvantages. But there were worse noisereduction systems available, like DBX with its noisepumping on silent passages. All I can say, is that in my Nakamichi's standard Dolby B/C IC's were used (uA7300). IMHO Dolby B and C did their job (reducing noise) well. DBX, Telefunken's Highcom or CBS's CX never really took off.

Ray Dolby has played a very important role in the development of home audio equipment . Just remember how awfull cassette recordings without any form of noisereduction sounded. And what a huge step forward Doly Digital and Dolby Pro Logic meant in your home cinema. He is rightly so placed in the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame.

 

As for the debate between analog vs. digital music, I think the renewed interest in vinyl has (to a certain extent) to do with nostalgia. Don't get me wrong, I still have my 2 high end record players and every LP record I ever bought in my possession. I always handled them with great care and treated my LP´s with very expensive stuff to remove dust from the grooves. They´re all in storage at the moment, nostalgia has up to now prevented me from getting rid of it all. The same goes for my Davoli tube amp and my tube radio.

 

I recall in 1982 a discussion arose between the Dutch Nakamichi importer (Transtec) and a Dutch journalist (Armand van Ommeren?) about sound quality. The discussion centered more or less around what you say in your second and third sentence. As is often the case, the discussion quickly deteriorated into semantics, though.

 

The debate which is better: analog or digital music, isn't new either. It started right after the introduction of the CD Player in ´81. A similar discussion started when lossy sound (MP3) was introduced. I recall an article in the German magazine ´C'T Magazin Fuer Computertechnik´ about 10 years ago. They conducted a series of double blind tests in cooperation with music industry producers, Hifi critics and musicians, which showed even these experts could not distinguish anymore between a CD and a high samplerate MP3 (320 kbps and upwards).

 

 

Absolutely no problem with your opinion, everybody is entitled to have one!

I do think I have gone slightly off-topic, however... But that´s just my opinion

 

re-atari

[576XE]

Sorry for my English (or it's absence).

 

In my post I never tried to say that some kind of recording is preferable.

This is obviously holywars no more.

 

Simply in modern times we have digital sound sources almost everywhere.

Do we need to record them in analogous way? No sence.

 

Do we need to convert some record originally recorded on multytracks highspeed type recorder into DIGITAL copy?

No sence.

 

As far as it's concern Nakamichi I absolutely agrreed that they only adjusted apparatus for the concrete exemplair of tape, thus getting highest performance for recording/playing process.

 

I wanted to say about Dolby that he spended tens of years for investigating a way to make digitally converted sounds for being perceived like natural.

Not sounded, but perceived.

 

For example we never hear natural environmental sounds from two or more loudspeakers.

And a question arises how to make people to hear sounds like in nature? How to prepare 3d sound environment from 2 or more loudspeakers?

I know that mathimatical modelling of acoustics begins in 40th years of 20 century. (In war purposes of course).

 

I proudly say that even now I have shellacks disks I even don't know it's real production name (not vinil anyway) singles for 78 rpm with Chaliapin's records.

(But I have not Pathephone or Grammaphone)

 

Something like His Master Voice

 

Best wishes

[fujidude]

"WHY vinyl is better than digital" It is, and it isn't. By digital, I'll take that to mean compared to CD (44.1KHz, 16-bit, 2 ch). Sound from Vinyl is superior to digital in just one way; within it's dynamic range, the volume has infinite possible levels. CD is limited to 65,536 levels. But consider that the density of unique volume levels (amplitude) within a given dynamic range, distinguishable by humans, is not infinite. 65,536 levels in this realm is more than sufficient to have differences in levels that are imperceptible to people.

 

To compare the concept to vision, it would be like looking at the most perfectly smooth surface you have ever seen. No doubt it looks quite smooth, like a mirror for example. But, if your eyes (and brain) were capable of infinite resolution, you would see an uneven surface consisting of individual molecules and atoms. But you cannot discern such detail, so it does seem absolutely smooth. In other words, the one "advantage" that vinyl has over CD isn't one that actually even matters at all. The CD spec was not randomly chosen. It was engineered specifically to properly, and transparently (to humans), reproduce audio in the range of human hearing. That's why the sample rate is 44.1KHz. It needs to be at least double the highest frequency to be reproduced. For a scientific explanation of why that works that way, there is information to be found all over. The sample size, 16 bits was chosen because 65,536 unique levels within the dynamic range to reproduce is beyond the resolution of human hearing.

 

Now, for all the rest of the specifications that describe the accuracy reproduced sound, CD is superior to vinyl: dynamic range, frequency response, wow and flutter, signal to noise ratio, and the list goes on.

 

If you want to get into the idea that the inherent inaccuracy of vinyl is more pleasing than digital, well, then that is a purely taste or preference issue and cannot be debated. When it comes to preference, there is no right or wrong, true or false, or similar.

[ricortes]

hehe, I still have a couple of tube amps to go with my Yamaha home theater style amp. Here is my take on it: Musicians optimized the sound for what was available at the time. For instance, I have had the pleasure of listening to chamber music in an Austrian castle. The music was composed for the instruments and environment and you would be hard pressed to find a more satisfactory place to hear it.

 

Likewise each era has its own equipment that available at the time it was produced. Listening to say Muddy Waters vinyl on a tube amp is the way it should be done. It will just sound right.

 

If you can get away with it, listening to something like The Grateful Dead's "Live Dead" album should be done in a room the size of a barn if not an auditorium.

 

Most new equipment is so good you can get away with just about any original recording. The problem now is all the old recordings are getting 'Digitally Remastered' which is a euphemism for maxing volume and minimizing the amount of low volume sections on the recording. It is pretty visible if you just load it into audio editing software. Lot's of musicians like Neil Young had railed against the practice.

[576XE]

fujidude, you are right.

 

I have SACD (Super Audio CD) player with highest audio frequency for about 120KHz.

Strange kind of little pisk. Like Fuga fush...

 

Peoples with hard ear membranes can hear it someway.

 

Tangerine Dream and some other exotic groups like it.

 

I even don't want to go into technical depths.

 

This kinds of discussions are infinite.

[re-atari]

I proudly say that even now I have shellacks disks I even don't know it's real production name (not vinil anyway) singles for 78 rpm with Chaliapin's records.

(But I have not Pathephone or Grammaphone)

 

Something like His Master Voice

You should treat these disks very carefully, as they are true collector's items! Trying to playback them on a grammophone will probably damage them further, as a grammophone has a large and heavy needle, about the size of a nail.

I don't know the actual name of these disks either, only that the material they are made of is called 'schellack'. It is made from ground up beetleshields (no joke), and it is very britle.

 

I remember some 30 years ago my sister had a woman neighbor who had literally crates and crates full of these disks. This neighbor was a retired concert pianiste and she had stored the entire collection in crates on the corridor. Quite a sorry thing to see. She would not part with them, though, and donate her collection to a museum or something like that. If only to preserve the disks for the future. There must have been very rare recordings in her collection.

I wonder what ever happened with this collection. Chances are it simply ended up in a dumpster.

 

re-atari

[576XE]

There was a strange history which meet us on every step.

 

My father was a professional musician for about 43 years. He worked in Red Army Chorus of singers and dancers etc. ... too long name.

My mother was a professional musician too and worked in Academic Sveshnikov Chorus.

 

Once upon a time being on vacation we all met two very old ladyes.

When we introduced ourselves it was found that they are sisters and russian Comtesses.

They said us that they live too hard for old ladies and offered us something to buy from them.

 

Father decided to help them and bought some really rear things.

We met them few more times later.

...

And that's all.

 

Saying about shellack disks I think they are so rough that I can't imagine how to play them with Shure or Pickering needle.

They will broaken in seconds.

[+Stephen]

Now, for all the rest of the specifications that describe the accuracy reproduced sound, CD is superior to vinyl: dynamic range, frequency response, wow and flutter, signal to noise ratio, and the list goes on.

 

If you want to get into the idea that the inherent inaccuracy of vinyl is more pleasing than digital, well, then that is a purely taste or preference issue and cannot be debated. When it comes to preference, there is no right or wrong, true or false, or similar.

CD is in no way superiour to CDs in frequency response. Vinyl will easily playback signals to 60kHz and a CD is sharply clamped at 22.1 by Nyquest theorem, but the usable range is below this. BTW - the turntable the guy uses for these tests is by all means a shitty one as well. Nothing even remotely esoteric.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

[fujidude]

CD is in no way superiour to CDs in frequency response. Vinyl will easily playback signals to 60kHz and a CD is sharply clamped at 22.1 by Nyquest theorem, but the usable range is below this. BTW - the turntable the guy uses for these tests is by all means a shitty one as well. Nothing even remotely esoteric.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

 

None of us can hear 60KHz, so it is meaningless. Even so, I have never seen LPs or phonograpsh that could produce 60KHz content. Show me the specs of your phonograph. I'll bet it is less than 20KHs (maybe 18KHz or so). CDs are useable to 22.1KHz just fine.

[AtariGeezer]

 

None of us can hear 60KHz, so it is meaningless. Even so, I have never seen LPs or phonograpsh that could produce 60KHz content. Show me the specs of your phonograph. I'll bet it is less than 20KHs (maybe 18KHz or so). CDs are useable to 22.1KHz just fine.

I had a N.A.D phono cartridge on my Technics turntable that was rated with a frequency response from 10Hz to 48Khz and it sounded Great!!!

It was tested on a special LP that had a wide frequency range. In the 80's, my hearing was that good to tell the difference

[fujidude]

I had a N.A.D phono cartridge on my Technics turntable that was rated with a frequency response from 10Hz to 48Khz and it sounded Great!!!

It was tested on a special LP that had a wide frequency range. In the 80's, my hearing was that good to tell the difference

 

You may think it was that good, but I'll bet you it was nowhere near 48KHz. I could certainly believe better than 20KHz though. But anyway, people play LPs. LPs do not have that kind of frequency range. I used to own some NAD gear (preamp/tuner and an amp). That tuner was the best tuner I have ever come across, before or since.

[AtariGeezer]

 

You may think it was that good, but I'll bet you it was nowhere near 48KHz. I could certainly believe better than 20KHz though. But anyway, people play LPs. LPs do not have that kind of frequency range. I used to own some NAD gear (preamp/tuner and an amp). That tuner was the best tuner I have ever come across, before or since.

Actually, it was that good... Each NAD cartridge came with it's own printout of it's frequency response. If I still had it, I'd post a pic of it just to show that in fact it was that good

Edited June 23, 2015 by AtariGeezer