- RE: Barclay-Crocker - Peter Breuninger 07:09:52 08/14/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Barclay-Crocker posted by Dave Pogue on July 30, 2009 at 19:38:35
I have most, if not all, of the BC catalog and find that about 80% are very good. I use the Concord DBA-10 Dolby unit. It's the only one (I've found) that does not add a layer of grit to the sound.
Peter
- RE: Barclay-Crocker - Dave Pogue 08:10:08 08/14/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Barclay-Crocker posted by Peter Breuninger on August 14, 2009 at 07:09:52
That's a surprise. It sure LOOKS like something from Fisher-Price :-)
- RE: Barclay-Crocker - Dave Pogue 08:10:08 08/14/09
(0)
- Forgot to paste..... - powermatic 09:38:12 08/01/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Barclay-Crocker posted by Dave Pogue on July 30, 2009 at 19:38:35
You're not the only one who finds the Teac dolby units less than satisfying. Below is an excerpt from a poster on 'The Tape Project' forum....
"I also had a Teac AN-60 and AN-180. Not quite sure about what the AN-60 had inside, but I did not like its sound, it soured me on Teac RTR's, which I also tended to think sounded shrill and "transistory". I later found out the AN-180 was stuffed with nasty sounding UA-709 IC's in the signal path, which makes me glad I never used it, tho it did look nice~!"
"dammit"
- There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR - powermatic 09:22:05 08/01/09
(5)
- In Reply to: RE: Barclay-Crocker posted by Dave Pogue on July 30, 2009 at 19:38:35
was a solution for a problem that wasn't there-at least at 7 1/2ips and above. Too bad that BC felt it necessary-I've never been put off by tape hiss, in fact rarely even notice it. I think I enjoy my BCs a bit more than you, but no more than my normal tapes. And hey, was that you who had the collection of dead Teac outboard processors?
You might check with 'ironbut' (Steve) if you decide to sell your BCs-I think he's trying to complete his BC collection.
"dammit"
- RE: There's no question - michael22 19:25:44 08/14/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR posted by powermatic on August 01, 2009 at 09:22:05
I completely agree. By the time BC introduced their tapes, tape technology was advanced to the point that noise reduction was unnecessary. The requirement for an outboard decoder for most tape enthusiasts may have doomed the BC venture from the outset.
Three notes:
I had the pleasant opportunity to visit the BC facility in NYC and received a personal tour of the premises by one of the owners. Got to see the duplicating room in action ..
The Tower Annex in New York remaindered much of the BC catalog in the late 1980s. At the time, I picked up about a dozen titles, but haven't listened to them in years.
I have *never* heard a BC tape with the Dolby decoding ..
- RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR - Dave Pogue 09:42:09 08/01/09
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR posted by powermatic on August 01, 2009 at 09:22:05
Yeah, I had a 180 and two 60s (or 80s, I forget which) all of which died. The tech I was using at the time pronounced these things un-fixable. Plus a Nak NR-200 that didn't die but colored the sound so much it might as well have.
The Teac A2300SD is currently in the shop. I played a couple of BC's on the Otari last night and darned if they didn't sound pretty good un-decoded. Even working properly, the Teac processors were hardly uncolored. I always thought that an alternative to outboard Dolby units might be to run the signal through one of those Musical Fidelity outboard tone controls, with a slight treble cut. Never got around to trying it.
EDIT: Just saw your follow-up. So THAT was the problem, or one of them.
Edits: 08/01/09
- RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR - powermatic 10:03:22 08/01/09
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR posted by Dave Pogue on August 01, 2009 at 09:42:09
"...darned if they didn't sound pretty good,,,"
That's been my assessment-the brittle highs you'd expect aren't anywhere as prevalent as you'd assume. However, it must be said that, in my case, I've been recently trying some Tannoy Monitor Golds (12") in prototype cabinets, and they roll off sooner than my Magnepans (though they're very musical) so I'm sure that has a 'helpful' effect.
Interesting idea about that MF-is that the tube-based 'buffer' that they tout for CD use? I think it's 'tketcham' on 'vinyl' who speaks highly of that unit.
"dammit"
- RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR - Dave Pogue 11:12:07 08/01/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR posted by powermatic on August 01, 2009 at 10:03:22
I agree that the highs don't sound that brittle; they can sound a little bright, though, and I just wish to heck that B-C had never heard of Dolby.
That MF tone control unit is not the buffer you mention, but it was in the first-generation "X" series of cylindrical devices including the buffer, a couple of DACs, a PSU, phonostage and headphone amp.
Of course if I weren't one of those purists, I'd already have tone controls :-)
- RE: "...wish to heck that B-C had never heard of Dolby." Amen to that. /nt/ - powermatic 11:14:03 08/01/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR posted by Dave Pogue on August 01, 2009 at 11:12:07
.
"dammit"
- RE: "...wish to heck that B-C had never heard of Dolby." Amen to that. /nt/ - powermatic 11:14:03 08/01/09
(0)
- RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR - Dave Pogue 11:12:07 08/01/09
(1)
- RE: There's no question that, at least for me, the whole Dolby process vis-a'-vis RtR - powermatic 10:03:22 08/01/09
(2)
- RE: There's no question - michael22 19:25:44 08/14/09
(0)
Post a Followup:
