I’m entertaining the idea of purchasing a reel to reel to record my albums on and also use to possibly soften the digital age a bit. Does anyone know where or if NEW blank tapes can be purchased? Are there any thoughts on a resurgence of R2R and if blank media will become more easily accessible?
Here again Cleeds you are referring to my statement and my statement alone; no one else stated any thing that would incite you to make the statement ... I did not say that there was information which was not on the LP.
I’m not sure to what statement you refer or why you would think it was in response to you. When I respond to someone here, I usually quote them to make it clear. I wish you would do the same. Regardless, there’s at least one user here who seems to claim that an analog tape dub contains information not on the original:
If I am reading and interpreting this correctly, I do not believe anybody is claiming that it contains more information than the original.
Rather that the information has always been there but a 15ips tape record on high quality gear reveals some of the hidden or masked details and information that was not audible on the source .
In regard to information present, and not heard clearly; I recall being at a high end emporium and requesting them to play my CD of Santana's "Abraxas". This was my CD; I bought the LP Abraxas when it came out; to say that I was familiar with the album would be an understatement; the background music that had been barely audible on all the rigs I had, was cleanly audible here. There were certain sounds that I have not heard clearly audible before nor since, and that was from a CD.
Keep in mind that this was in a "High end Emporium"; which meant that every detail in audio had been addressed; the electronics were "top of the line" Audio Research, and even the CD player was ARC. The speakers were Thiel, and the price of all that equipment was far beyond my reach, but I heard it on that day.
... I recall being at a high end emporium and requesting them to play my CD of Santana’s "Abraxas". This was my CD; I bought the LP Abraxas when it came out; to say that I was familiar with the album would be an understatement; the background music that had been barely audible on all the rigs I had, was cleanly audible here. There were certain sounds that I have not heard clearly audible before nor since, and that was from a CD
That’s not at all hard to believe. An LP and its CD counterpart are often mastered differently.
When I record these files, the information is there, it’s just not very audible. It is more in the background. Recording the file to tape seems to bring out more detail of the recording than is present through a digital player for the file.
Understood. But if what you hear from an analog tape dub differs from what you hear from the source itself, that difference is distortion. And it’s fine you find the tape preferable. I get it. I’m a tape guy, too.
LP and CD both came from the "Master tape"; I think the only difference is obvious; one is digital, and the other is analog.
You may well be correct - but not necessarily. After all, the LP wasn’t made directly from the master tape, right? It would have to go through an RIAA EQ network, and almost certainly some amount of limiting or compression, if only to protect the cutter head.
Abraxas is a great album btw, and one of my favorites. Great art, too.
How does introducing distortion into a recording enhance or increase the overall musicality of the music? I would think an increased in distortion would have a negative effect not a positive one.
There is such a thing as "euphonic distortion" and some people may prefer the result to a more accurate signal. There use to be freeware called AddDistortion - I’m not sure if it’s still available. It worked only in mono, but was useful in understanding the audibility and qualities of different kinds and amounts of distortion. There have also been AES papers on this subject.
One of the reasons I gave away most of my cd's was the engineer who mixed the cd used either compression and/or did not allow the original mix to shine through. Michael Fremer at Stereophile/Analog planet has done an exhaustive amount of research on this and I'm sure the reason why all but only the best cd's are inferior to the original LP and the analog master tapes is out there. I am certainly no expert but from what I have heard, a cd mix, even if its from the master tape directly, is subject the mixing engineers opinion as to what sounds good. If it's not true to the master tape/LP, then it's not for me. This is why I am gearing up to sample a dupe of a master tape. Those who have had the good fortune to own or sample one of these tapes have raved about the dynamic range.
As far as using my (pro or semi pro) Otari or Technics (after refurbishment) decks to record a compilation tape from LP and/or hi res music files, I plan on doing the same, mainly for the convenience. I have recorded hi res (Flac,DSD) music files from one of 3 stand-alone hard drives (total size of the all files, approx 6 tb) via my Asus laptop running Jriver music player through the integrated DAC within my moderately priced Marantz PM7005 to my TEAC X-1000R and when switching from Tape to Source, I can hear virtually no difference in sound quality.. and this through my "B" system. I expect even better results when I do the same via my "A" system: Otari MX5050Bii2, soon to arrive Yamaha A-S2100 Solid State integrate amp, BMC PureDac and GoldenEar Triton 1 speakers.
I know this appears somewhat academic to many, especially to those considering re-entering the R2R genre, but I find it is great fun determining what provides the best sound through my system.
Finally, a nod to all those contributing to this conversation... most of you know far more than I do about the subject, and I am enjoying the real and theoretical knowledge presentation.
The distortion one hears on CDs (mostly) comes directly from the playback CD player. They never really ironed out all the kinks. Let me put it another way. The distortion is not (rpt not) on the CD or the original recording. As the little mice in the movie Babe, say, “That’s just the way things are.”
I have restored both of my R2R decks, Techincs RS-1500 2 track and Revox PR99 MkII. And I can say without a doubt that there is no "euphoric distortion" generating circuit in either deck.
I’m sure there’s no circuit in either deck designed to generate distortion, be it euphonic or "euphoric." The distortion - however slight or pleasant - is just a consequence of imperfect electronics.
I don’t think the term existed 35 or 40 years ago ... Sorry I am going to have to call BS on that one.
You might want to do some research on this matter, which dates back to at least the 1940s. For example, see Brockbank, Weiss (if I recall correctly) from the IEEE journal. This is a very well-studied field.
My experience is that many CDs kill the LP versions. Columbia classical is one label that excels on CD. Example, Mitropoulos conducting Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet. Original first stamper and later stamper Columbia, Odyssey reissue, first CD issue all sound muddy to an extreme. The latest CD issue 100% clears up the mud and presents an exquisite sounding recording which is on the master tape obviously. The reason I have so many CDs now is because of the excellent remastering of classical and many jazz CDs (like Mode LPs were only mono, the later stereo issues were dreadful pressings, now issued in superb CDs). Also, Marston mastering of 78s is phenomenal, playing acoustic recordings back correctly is a huge pain and owning/storing 100,000 78s is too great a challenge.
I hated CDs until the early 2000s when I heard players which made the digital tracks sound more like analog. Now I own an EAR Acute and think about upgrading to a COS Engineering DAC unit which was mind-blowingly good.
There are two parts to a deck; the mechanics and the electronics; hence "Studer Levinson" might be the best home deck made.
Some people think that buying a professional deck is best, but that's a big mistake because of the complexity of professional decks that makes them a mistake for home use.
I wont upgrade for two reason; I've recorded many reels of tape, and I know when you record and playback on the same machine, the speed is always perfect, and the new machine might not like these reels of tape.
The other reason is now that I've modified the electronics, I like the results; not that I don't always dream of a new reel; that's the way it is.
I don't know if anyone with open reel decks uses LAST tape head preservative but I do with my Nakamichi, before playing each cassette. I send my deck for service every three years or so, and despite having thousands of hours on it, the technician says that the head wear is negligible. This is of course not a substitute for head cleaning, though it cleans too. It also sounds a touch better. When recording I sure treat erase and record heads too with the LAST. It only takes a few seconds to apply, no hassle at all, great stuff. There is in addition LAST tape preservative, but I can't apply it with cassettes, with reels you can. Walter Davies of LAST, nice man by the way, said that he had used his own preservatives for all his reels and decks for many years.
geoffkait14,555 posts03-31-2019 2:39pm"The distortion one hears on CDs (mostly) comes directly from the playback CD player. They never really ironed out all the kinks. Let me put it another way. The distortion is not (rpt not) on the CD or the original recording. As the little mice in the movie Babe, say, “That’s just the way things are.”"
I hear ya geoffkait. I have heard that theory as well. However, I have a more realistic example: After having collected several Beatles cd's, and not really having compared the relatively new format with my then-still fairly new LP's, I noticed something while playing "Tell Me Why" on the CD,..... it seemed as though something was missing... I couldn't put my finger on it, so I did an A/B comparison. And there it was... on the LP, Ringo is tapping away on the ride cymbal. On the cd, the ride cymbal was basically non-existent. In this case, I think the omission can be contributed to the mixing engineer rather than any shortcoming of my gear. It was then I realized that CDs are a very subjective format... if the mixing engineer decides he'd like to be "creative" and put his own spin on the artists work, he did so. It was clear that was the case with the Beatles CD as I know the song very well, having grown up with Lp's and 45's. Perhaps contemporary cd's are better, IMHO since most artists are more involved with how their CDs are mixed and processed.
A quick a/b comparison through my complete cd collection (which wasn't very big and still isn't') verified this discovery as being common. It was then I wrote off cd's, for the most part, as the inferior format. I do have some contemporary cd's that are absolutely stunning in their sound, so perhaps this lack of fidelity pertains mainly to the early days of CD production.
Hi-Resolution music files, in my experience, are more often better than the LP version I have, especially if played via a high-quality DAC. Probably because a lot of those files have been edited (not by me) to remove pops, clicks and such from the original, high quality pressing to make, at least to my ears, a perfect, dynamic, noise-free recording in digital form.
In regard to HI-Rez files, they're as good as the upper end of the cartridge, tonearm, TT thing; so therefore, if you do not have an "upper echelon" analog rig, the Hi-Rez will be better.
This 15 IPS thing has become addictive, I just might go completely 15 IPS; "Mo money, mo money, always mo money"
LAST is easily bought directly from thelastfactory.com or from needledoctor.com and some others too, I think, like elusivedisc.com and musicdirect.com. I usually buy directly from Walter - he makes more money this way, price is always the same everywhere.
After this thread just go read about guys comparing $10k cartridges and saying that they all sound quite different. Of course, they all sound different, it is different colorations. None of those cartridges sound right, that should be the point. The same with tables and arms. But if they start thinking like that their enthusiasm will go down big time along with inflated egos.
Cartridges that sound different does not mean wrong. There are bigger differences in high end speakers $100,000+. Solid state versus Tube, my Tandberg versus my Technics RR, an Ampex 300 versus a Revox or Teac RR. They all sound significantly different. I favored the Tandberg RR and cassette decks because of their full, warm sound and excellent S/N without Dolby. However, I also want reliability so I'm using a Technics RR now and a Nakamichi 7 cassette deck. My enthusiasm hasn't shrunk and I'm not known for having a big ego, rather a suppressed ego. Maybe your're the one with a big ego, RR over everything else.
For a man with a suppressed ego you are quite bold, maybe you underestimate yourself. Anyway, please don't get personal. And you don't have a pro deck, maybe you should get one ? Just get a nice Studer and you will know the difference.
@inna, you are so right about Walt Davies. He had a hi-fi shop in the 70’s, and I bought my Revox A77 (which I still own!) from him. His Last products (for LP’s, styluses, CD’s, tapes, and recorders) are all excellent.
And what am I going to play on a nice Studer, my own recordings, or buy some $500 reissues? Maybe you're very wealthy, but even my friends with $850,000 and $1,200,000 audio system/rooms don't play RR. One is analog only and the other has digital only formats. I listen to analog and digital formats. I have limited mental abilities but use them to most educated extent. So being forthright is a benefit using the knowledge that I have accumulated. I'm constantly in doubt but have acclimated to my intellectual limitations. I am constantly learning. You must be a rich genius to know that a Studer is superior sounding to a Tandberg and a Technics. I've heard Ampex 300s and Studer's in studios that I've appraised/recorded in and they can sound superb, but so can my inferior RRs.
Yeah. I talked to him couple of times thru emails, his reply was very friendly and so detailed that at some point I couldn't continue following him because he was getting into chemistry. He was also very straightforward. We can't really talk much here about speakers but it is a huge subject. I believe that speakers should be both transducers and musical instruments, this might be a utopia to properly design them like that but I think it's the right direction. Instruments do sound different, take two good guitars, as an example. Not right or wrong, simply different, and they have every right to be that. So do equally good but different speakers. Ideally, signal that reaches the speakers should always be the same or at least very similar, and then you choose the preferred sound of your 'instrument' - speakers. Another thing about playing vinyl is that it is very difficult to find best table/arm/cartridge/cable match With tape deck and pre-recorded reels you will come closer to that ideal. Besides, think of the simplicity of the set-up - deck, power amp and speakers. And minimum cabling, not to mention that deck reacts less to wall current quality fluctuations than turntable and to external vibration. You should still deal with internal vibration, of course. Another reason to get a deck with the best transport you can find and afford. Electronics can be modified. Anyway, vinyl can sound truly excellent, we are just talking about something even better, sometimes much better.
When you record good CD's to reel at 15 IPS, the playback is pure "analog". If you recorded a bad CD the playback would still be analog, but why bother, that's why I specified "good" CD's, once a bad CD, always a bad CD.
This transformation of CD's to fantastic analog is truly unbelievable, and I'm enjoying it to the hilt; as a matter of fact, I just ordered new tape.
Ralph, I don't fully trust your hearing and your neutrality and
objectivity. Tape is overall superior to any LP pressing in real world.
As for theoretical possibilities, I don't know, but there is always an
issue of playback. Put $200k vinyl set-up against $25k Studer and the
vinyl will lose big time, not just lose.
@inna , I run a recording studio with a number of tape machines as well as a Scully lathe equipped with a Westerex 3D cutter. My perspective is probably a bit different from yours. I play master tapes, dubs, cut lacquers and play them back on my system at home. Test pressings we get back are variable but its clear that QRP rules the roost with making the pressings with the lowest noise- a noise floor with which tape simply cannot compete. I can record 35KHz easily on LP, but can't do that on the tape machines. We use a Technics SL1200 with a Grado Gold for playback in the studio; any LP we cut has to be able to play back on a machine like that. So I don't agree at all that $200k vinyl playback can be bested by tape; a lowly Technics can beat tape easily. But it all has to do with provenance, which I apparently did not do a good job of explaining to @benjie
atmasphere you seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth here. In
earlier posts you praise the qualities of vinyl and the downfalls of
tape. In response to my question about a master tape I have vs the vinyl
album you now list all of the problems with vinyl and talk about how
great tape is and how much you love tape. You seem to want to have it
both ways to support your position....
....All of the quotes that I
have listed in my previous posts which are directly from manufactures
and magazine articles, you state them as "false". You know the saying, "
You only know what you can show ". Well I am showing my evidence to
support my position. All you are showing me is your opinion and ***a bunch
of technical facts*** that really don’t mean anything in the real world of
listening to music on a home stereo.
My position is, Analog tape is king! Prove me wrong.
(emphasis added) 'Technical facts' are like other kinds of facts, things that are real. That is why we (and you) use the word 'fact'. Again, you are confusing provenance of individual media, construing it with **all** media of the same type. Its easy to find plenty of reel to reel recordings that really aren't that good! Not to say that they were bad, but a lot of pre-recorded reel to reel stuff done back in the 60s and 70s just wasn't up to snuff with the LPs of the same thing. But! If you were to get a dub of any of those recordings today on 15IPS you might find that it sounds excellent and better than the LP.
Pre-recorded cassette tapes also were terrible, but if you recorded the cassettes at home off of the LPs, they sounded just fine.
The reason is *provenance*; where and how the individual example of the media came into being. I gave you facts about why the LP is a superior media in terms of noise floor, bandwidth and distortion, but at the same time gave you reasons why its often not realized. But one must not make the mistake of assuming that just because its often not realized that it therefore is inferior.
Anyone using 1/2" or 1" deck ? Big difference ?
Yes. When you hear what 1/2" brings to the table you won't want to go back to 1/4". BTW, 30i.p.s. has problems playing bass. @cleeds
That some here have noted some of the inherent limitations of tape
doesn’t mean we think it’s "so flawed." As you stated, there is no
perfect
recording method.
When creating a newly remastered LP, it makes
sense to start with the original analog master. No copy made from that
master can be higher quality than the original. That’s not to say that
you might not prefer a copy of the original, but it can’t contain
musical information not present on the master.
^^ This +1
You may well be correct - but not necessarily. After all, the LP wasn’t
made directly from the master tape, right? It would have to go through
an RIAA EQ network, and almost certainly some amount of limiting or
compression, if only to protect the cutter head.
LP does not need limiting or compression compared to tape. But it often gets used to reduce mastering costs. The head can be blown up by carelessness and limiting or compression has nothing to do with that. @gusser
One of the reasons I gave away most of my cd's was the engineer who
mixed the cd used either compression and/or did not allow the original
mix to shine through.
CDs employ compression as there is an expectation they will be played in a car. Its an industry thing and part of why analog usually is more dynamic and interesting bycomparison. @benjie
I am sorry but I can’t go with you on this one. I have restored both of
my R2R decks, Techincs RS-1500 2 track and Revox PR99 MkII. And I can
say without a doubt that there is no "euphoric distortion" generating
circuit in either deck. I don’t think the term existed 35 or 40 years
ago.
When in record mode the primary distortion component of reel to reel (at 0 VU) is the 3rd harmonic, which the ear treats very much the same way as the 2nd; it adds 'richness'. @inna
Walter Davies of LAST, nice man by the way, said that he had used his
own preservatives for all his reels and decks for many years.
Yes- very nice. He might still have a letter from me about the LAST head preservative I sent to him many years ago. I was doing an on-location recording and my machine had a worn head; I used LAST on the head to improve head wrap and it worked a charm- no loss of high frequencies and the recording was successful. Good stuff.
When in record mode the primary distortion component of reel to reel (at
0 VU) is the 3rd harmonic, which the ear treats very much the same way
as the 2nd; it adds 'richness'.
Yes, that's the euphonic distortion that I referred to, and which often explains some people's preference for analog tape.
Pre-recorded cassette tapes also were terrible, but if you recorded the cassettes at home off of the LPs, they sounded just fine
I am afraid that I just cannot agree with a blanket statement like that.
I have a LOT of pre recorded cassettes and find them to be just about as variable as vinyl, there are definitely clunkers but there are some really well done examples as well.
I have two different playback decks, a Nak and an Akai and both show the differences in quality of tapes fed through them.
Why does this distortion not exist in digital or analog LP recordings? What is unique about a R2R’s recording circuit that causes this to happen?
It’s not really the recording circuit that causes this distortion. I know that you may not want to hear this, but the distortion common to analog tape recording is a function of the nonlinearity of the tape itself. The use of bias increases linearity and - as you may know - is only applied during recording, not playback.
Magnetic tape is also challenged with high level (approaching 0 dB) HF. The use of EQ is a technique to improve that performance.
One way that I think there is great similarity between LP and analog tape is that both systems seem to have profound, although different, limitations ... on paper. In practice, they both can result in extraordinary performance. The experiences of tape users in this thread is an indicator of that.
I am afraid that I just cannot agree with a blanket statement like that.
@uberwaltzYes, its all about provenance. @benjie The 3rd harmonic in tape machines has to do with the nature of the record and playback heads, both being inductive devices. If a 2nd order shows up, its a sign that something is wrong with the machine.
That piece of s... Technics with Grado is nothing really, DJ toy at best.
@inna
Yes- precisely the point. When mastering an LP you can't do it so that only the very best pickups will do the job. The groove you cut must be easily played on an average machine and the Technics is a pretty good 'average'.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
