Assuming one's source is vinyl, or CD, or cassette, or 8-track, or me playing the piano... will the tape (recorded with the speakers off) playback sound better than the original source did when it was played back by itself (or played)? Maybe. My comments only apply to previously recorded sources like LP, that can be affected by vibration. So a tape will never sound better as a copy of another tape, although it can sound better than a CD because it can filter the digital noise that a CD player cannot. Sorry for my tardy response... |
Okay, I understand that what I'm hearing is impossible. But the explanations aren't cutting it either. The most dramatic example of what I laid out above is a Gerry Mulligan tape, "Feelin' Good" on the Limelight label, a 3 3/4 ips "mistake" (I didn't know it was recorded at the slow speed before I bought it on Ebay.
Now, this is Mulligan with strings, and at 3 3/4 ips, the strings define "shrill" and "wiry" and have made the tape mostly unlistenable. Yet the 2-track 7 1/2 ips dub (from one Otari to the other) simply transformed it. And the 2-track dub of Miles' "Sketches of Spain" has transfixed everyone who has heard it. Cue the Twilight Zone theme. |
One always uses headphones when making a tape. Vibration degrades all analog. If you are playing a record, and listening at the same time, the sound is degraded to a minute degree. If you record in silence, this does not occur. |
Since bumblebees were told they can't fly, they could explain this phenomenon better than anybody. |
Orpheus10 said; One always uses headphones when making a tape. Vibration degrades all analog. If you are playing a record, and listening at the same time, the sound is degraded to a minute degree. If you record in silence, this does not occur. i agree that vibration and reasonance can degrade analog, particularly an Lp. but it's wrong to say that it is a problem in every case. some tt's are designed to effectively eliminate that issue. i've recorded my Rockport tt with the speakers playing and while monitoring with headphones. there is no audible difference. in other words; feedback from speakers playing is not an issue for this turntable 'to the degree of being audible'. i would not argue that in theory there is some feedback, only that it's not significant enough to justify recording it. which is why making a copy has zero value, even with top level gear. the copy cannot be as good. my other turntables use mass and footers to reduce feedback and are effective if not quite as perfectly. |
I've made some copies of vinyl on my mci jh 110 at 30ips and tascam br-20 at 15 ips, sound excellent but the vinyl sounds clearly better (wish there was not so much of a difference and think it could be tweaked to be closer..vpi aries/benz/george wright phono ag). Making copies of tapes is a something I still need to do (for sticky shed syndrome tapes, acetates or generally valuable/fragile tapes), tape takes a lot of time and effort, I think I have too many machines! Right now I am focusing on my mci jh110 which I feel sounds better than the tascam br20, technics rs1500 or otari mx5050 but no real comparisons have been made (just an initial impression), somehow I got sucked into the tape vortex (I just bought 5 boxes of 7" reels from an old radio station that I need to go through, they sit next to the 10 boxes of tape I got with the mci). |
Andy_P, my 2 track Technics 1500, has new transistiors, pinch rollers, and the capacitors were replaced with "Black Gates". There might be a difference between your deck and mine. |
Orpheus10, FWIW, they finally did figure out where they went wrong with the math on bumblebees, about 20-25 years ago- the Reynolds number was wrong. |
Orpheus10, good to hear about the rs1500 upgrades. I really like the rs1500, my first plan had been for outboard bottlehead electronics but will focus on transport performance then think about the playback electronics. The J corder decks made me think about possible upgrades to the stock electonics, I haven't even had the chance to use my 1500 much, there are a few corrosion spots on the two tape roller bearing housings that come in contact with tape so I stopped using it until I can replace/address that. Tape is great |
Mikelavigne, when I described my recording ritual, "headphones and recording in silence"; you understood that as my reason for "playback better than source phenomenon". (my fault) I will now describe and give my reasons for this phenomenon.
This only occurs with 2 track reel at a speed of 7 1/2 IPS or higher. This is partially the result of tape width. A cassette has narrow tape, a reel has wider tape. Most reels record in 2 directions; they use 1/2 the tape in the forward, and the other half of the tape in the reverse direction. 2 track uses the complete width of the tape in one direction. If you can compare the difference in the sound of a cassette and a reel, you will see where I am going with this. The sound of a reel is bigger and fuller, this is before we get to 2 track. If you have not carefully observed this difference, it will be impossible for you to conceive the "Phenomenon, playback better than source", with 2 track.
Audio "phenomenon" in the "hi end" must be heard to be believed. Before I became an "Audiophile", I thought they were crazy people who had more money than sense. After I went to a "hi end" emporium, I became one. Logic and reason can lead to conclusions that are shockingly wrong. Some phenomenon have to be witnessed.
Fish swim, birds fly, tigers hunt; I am an "Audiophile", I listen.
Enjoy the music |
Orpheus10 wrote; This only occurs with 2 track reel at a speed of 7 1/2 IPS or higher. This is partially the result of tape width. A cassette has narrow tape, a reel has wider tape. Most reels record in 2 directions; they use 1/2 the tape in the forward, and the other half of the tape in the reverse direction. 2 track uses the complete width of the tape in one direction. If you can compare the difference in the sound of a cassette and a reel, you will see where I am going with this. The sound of a reel is bigger and fuller, this is before we get to 2 track. If you have not carefully observed this difference, it will be impossible for you to conceive the "Phenomenon, playback better than source", with 2 track. trust me; i get it. i'm a tape head, here is a picture of my tape deck family. but.....as good as i know a 1/4" 15ips 2-track recording of a source can be, it's not better than the source, or even totally equal. and in the case where a tt has no audible feedback effect from speaker feedback there is no logic to claiming a tape recording of it will improve it. it may introduce pleasing artifacts which some might prefer, but physics is physics. the step of recording degrades any source to some degree. and in my particular case; my Rockport tt betters my RTR decks ocasionally even on 15ips 1/4" master dubs where both the Lp and master dub had the same source. not all the time, but sometimes. now; if somehow your tape deck output electronics are better than your phono stage, or some other signal path in-equality is happening, then anything is possible. i suspect it is much more likely that your phono stage is better (more refined sounding) than your tape deck's signal path. |
Orpheus10,
i went back and read some of your posting on threads relating to reel to reel to try to better understand your perspective. i read some responses to some of your comments.
i don't presume to tell you how you feel about anything; but it seems you use the word 'better' to describe 'different in a way i prefer'.....which i can relate to and agree with. if you simply 'prefer' the sound of recording your vinyl onto 2-track tape then please enjoy. but it's the point of insisting it's 'better' in objective ways where the conflict occurs.
yes; if a tt is sufficiently negatively affected by speaker feedback then a case can be made that a 2-track tape recording made with headphones could be better in some ways (but not all ways). but that would mostly indicate that you need to improve the isolation scheme of your tt to make it less prone to that speaker feedback. |
Mikelavigne, apparently, we are seriously trying to communicate as opposed to proving a point.
Let us go to photography. If you magnify an excellent photo, it will be bigger. My playback on the 2 track is "bigger" than the original, also the electronics in the reel have been upgraded. The playback is equivilant to an equipment upgrade. Is "bigger" better? |
Let us go to photography. If you magnify an excellent photo, it will be bigger. My playback on the 2 track is "bigger" than the original, also the electronics in the reel have been upgraded. The playback is equivilant to an equipment upgrade. Is "bigger" better? a bigger soundstage would generally considered to be better. and i would say that when there is a sense of presence and ambience (and room energy) that happens right before the music starts, that is an aspect of soundstaging that is always better. but sometimes you get an elongated or stretched soundstage, a 'U' shape, or maybe a 20 foot wide piano....so there are cases where a bigger soundstage is not better. better is better. and more real is better. but much of that is very subjective and system dependant. some would say live music does not 'stage' like recordings can. your photography analogy is a good one. magnifying a photo does make it larger; but if the resolution and clarity of the photo is not sufficient then the magnification loses the sense of reality. the question is 'what is right?'. getting back to how your RTR might be better; it could be as simple as the analog output on your tape deck could synergize with your preamp better than your phono stage. i have no idea of that but it's possible it's a signal path issue and not a format issue. or it could be that your tt/arm/cart/phono stage are not as high quality as your tape deck. my point is that when you make generalizations as universal truths about recording Lps onto tape you need to consider whether it applies to some, or to most, or to all cases and qualify it; or guys like me will come along and call you on it. i have no doubt you are hearing what you are telling us. but exactly the implications of that is in question. |
Mikelavigne, while I am not familiar with your other decks, the RS 1500 is a professional deck that can be worked on. It looks industrial on the inside; new electronics are easy to install. New pinch rollers are a good idea, if still available.
Enjoy the music. |
Interesting discussion. I am struck by the definition of the source being assumed to be some kind of fixed quantifiable thing. Most of us audiophiles who enjoy "live music" are often disappointed as the acoustics of many venues can be horrible to the point of rendering a mush of sound and echoes. It is easy to see how a recording at the mixer could be vastly superior to the original, "live" event. I don't believe there will ever be a method to perfectly reproduce a musical event with all its nuances. Every method "colors" the music. We have seen the pursuit of accuracy strangle the life out of digitally recorded music. Transferring to a different media can make it better, which I believe is the case with reel to reel. |
Petepappp,
While I agree that "live" is often not better than a recording of the same event but I think it has been more an issue of tape recording of a recording being better than the recording itself.
I am inclined to agree with Mike (as I mentioned a couple of months ago) that the perception of "bigger" and "better" is probably a matter of R2R output stage synergy with preamp (when compared to the phono stage (something which would go to something Ralph a.k.a Atmasphere said on another thread a few days ago)), or pleasing distortion/filtering performed by the tape playback method, rather than the tape having created a better recording than the one it was just recorded from.
As many note, there is nothing wrong at all with preferring the way one piece of equipment sounds compared to another, but that conclusion is a matter of preference rather than 'quality' of format as defined in some objective way. |
I understand what you are saying and the process of recordings of recordings has to introduce some error each time. I also have no interest in debating Mr. Karsten, (think I might be at a slight disadvantage), I guess I am saying there may also be a problem with trying to apply objective standards to a predominantly subjective experience. I have many times experienced, both with my own recordings and others, r to r copies which are definitely more dynamic than the vinyl originals, whatever the cause may be. Highly accurate equipment sometimes equals analytical, lifeless sound. Admittedly subjective. |
I suppose if I threw in, "Maxell XLII, Position "EE" tape into this equation, that would realy "discombobulate" some minds. With this tape, the soundstage is so "holographic", that you feel as though you can walk among the musicians. |
I think the piece of this puzzle that might be missing is that there is not just a synergy between different media and equipment but also the reproduced sound and human auditory physiology and the resulting perception of it by the human brain. Is a recording better because it is mechanically measured to be more accurate when compared to a source, or when it evokes the perception of "walking amongst the musicians"? |
Petepappp, I just got some new Rhino CD's of some old recordings; these are recordings I heard in the 50's. They have never sounded this good; it's like I can walk among the musicians. This has to do with the recording process, and nothing to do with the "digital analog debate". |
I think you are right, along with the different media, "or quality thereof, 100% agree with Maxell high bias tape comment", I think there are a number of factors that can be involved in a great recording. Digital recordings of high definition files on superior media, ie. "Japanese Taiyo Yuden cd media", can also produce amazing results. Different copies of the same vinyl pressing can sound entirely different,variations in the pressing process I suppose. Equipment compatibility I'm sure is a factor. The interesting part of this discussion for me is maximizing results,while dealing with an industry that produces recordings for the masses and generally not for audiophiles. Listening to the recording,the equipment, and the music, I'm guilty. |
FWIW, you don't want to just 'change tape' for a different sound (unless maybe you are looking for an effect??). To get the best out of the machine, if you use a different formulation the machine should be calibrated properly to use that tape. Otherwise you will get frequency response and distortion colorations. |
The best sounding source must be master tape, the best sounding recorded tape in market is the third copies from the master tape like Tape project's product and I don't know how many generations from the master were those before 1970's 4 track 7.5ips tapes but if you have a good machine they still sound better than vinyl but hard to keep in good condition, so if you looking the top sound quality in play back, then create your own master tape, buy a pro machine like Studer(price are really bargain today) and a pair pro Mic with tube pre amp record live music will have a perfect sound in play back |
Tonykyma, I have to say I am moving in this direction. I have a nagra iv-l full track 1/4" and seeing that head coverage makes me realize the potential (not using yet, waiting for a pinch roller). I have some 14" 1/2 track masters and they are an eye opener in terms of what is possible the closer you get to the original tape (these are just people that recorded some music and not people that are known). But the results are obvious. I keep thinking, lets see, my sister can play a violin and does play in some groups, my dad knows some old country songs that I could record, why not just make some high quality recordings to listen to? |
Hi Andy we are not pro just for fun still a lot to learn, We did used two systems in the same Mic and amp in the same time digital and analog in recording. result in best of cause is master tape but the CD recorded after from the master tape still better than the direct recorded in the same digital recorder (Tascam), maybe my play back system are good for analog more than digital (all tube amps in 4 ways horn system) tape recorder of cause the most important in recording but Mic and pre amp also change the level of quality even the Mic's cable too, really a lot of things for try and learn! |
Hi Tonykyma, I also don't have a background in pro audio recording. In my post I mentioned 14" 1/2 track but meant 1/4" 1/2 track. With the nagra I like that it is portable and opens up more opportunity for recording (the iv-l can take two mics). I think making your own live recordings would be both very challenging and exciting, I am looking forward to learning.
Something that I have been wondering about that is not obvious to me but also addresses some of the discussion in this thread is about making dubs of say master tapes. It has been debated that a dub cannot be better than the original and I leave that for others to debate. My question is suppose I have a 1/4" 1/2 track master and I want to make a dub. Let's say the master is fragile and valuable (only want to play it once to make a dub for example). If I make a dub I would want to use that dub to make other play copies (so my dub would be my working master). My thought is that it would be better to make my master dub onto 1/2" 1/2 track rather than 1/4" 1/2 track. My thought is that subsequent dubs would be better from the 1/2" tape than a 1/4" tape with less chance of loss? It seems intuitively correct but I don't have any experience to verify that (I don't have 1/2" heads but they are available for my machines). |
Hi Andy, although I am not pro but I learned some from the pro , if you have 1/2" tape then better use as the master, store in reverse condition (fast forward first and record and store, time to play back same fast forward first and play, that will keep tape better for longer), for more copies, dub from the master to a dub master in a 1/4 , in making copies better dub in same speed (you can use fast speed for less time but in quality down a little bite ) those small sound quality different can be notice only by higher level play back system or by people's individuality. try more different things to do in recording for to get the answers maybe we can as good as the pro's doing sometime |
.
You guys kill me. Just when I think I'm "there", someone mentions the "Maxell XLII, Position "EE" tape with its holographic imaging. Now, I want to "take a walk among the musicians". I am so curious and I really want to experience that sensation. All of this means more money for a good tape machine, and even more money for the surely expensive Maxell blank tapes. I started reading this thread for the hell of it because I owned a reel to reel machine a long time ago. I wanted to see what the dinosaurs of hifi were discussing, since of course tape and tape machines were supposed to be long since obsolete. It's been 25 years since I've had a reel to reel machine, and I knew that I'd never look back, much less go back. I must admit this thread has been very informative and very intriguing. Now I'll get to work doing my homework on finding a suitable machine. Thanks to all of you for the info you've provided for me to re-discover reel to reel. Then again, no thanks to all of you for the money it's going to cost me to get re-involved. I'm just thinking of the money than I could have saved if I'd never read this thread.
. |
Digital technology is doing successfully in vision and communication, when CD was doing great because at that time most people listen to cassette tape and low level vinyl system in solid state amp, but after people found out CD with tube was much better then tube gear came back, later high level vinyl system with tube amp can beat most of CD so that is why most of the high end market full of vinyl system now. reel to reel machine is no more on production now, a pro machine like Studer is very bargain in price even less than a small mid level cartridge but most machine in transistor amp, now people try to play with tube again, I believe this will be top of all in sound quality, the only problem is the source, tape your own is one of the way |
.
I don't think I'll be taking that walk among the musicians after all. It seems that a used reel of the Maxell tape mentioned above is about $65. Extra if you want it bulk erased. That walk is a little too rich for my blood.
. |
Mitch4t, I'm with you. I bought that tape ages ago retail. There is no way I would pay what they are asking, and it's not even new. |
When it comes to reel to reel I know nothing. Could you people tell me which one would sound better, assuming the same model of course - two track at 7.5 ips or four track at 15 ips? In other words, speed or tape width? |
Inna, I would pick two track at 7.5. Somehow the image seems bigger with two track. |
The best is 15/ 2 track, but not too many soft wear to choose tape project or record your own, next 7.5/ 2 track, you still can get some pre-recorded tapes from E-bay, sound recording quality very good but 30 to 40 years old stuff depend how it keep. 7.5/4 track, more tapes in the market, good sound as vinyl's sound. 3.75/4 track, still better than CD |
Thank you both. Well, there is Studer A-810 here for sale - a bit too much; would be a great choice, I guess. There is also Technics RS-1500 on ebay that plays 4 track tapes in addition to 2 track play/record; and Revox PR99. |
I hope it's not too self promoting, but there is also an Otari for sale on Audiogon... |
Studer A810 is a very popular model it come out from radio station or studio mostly, this gear look like a digital machine more than a analog one it has a digital CPU to control the whole thing, but make sure the built in recharge battery still work, that is the power supply for the CPU after switch off, price will be very bargain compare to it's golden time |
Make sure you can get parts and service before you buy. |
Hi Tony,
I just saw your modified studer tube output electronics on the what's best f-rum, it looks like you did a great job and hope to someday be able to get to that diy level with one of my own decks. |
Hi Andy
I also did modification on a Revox PR99, just changed all the coupling cap to Solen fast cap about 10 caps out-put change to monitor out and a CCIR/NAB switch that can play Tape Project's tape,three years ago, with very good result, of cause there are no room for those big caps, I had took off all the record PCB to get room, I will show pictures later
tony ma |
Tony, just saw your schematic and will follow that thread to read comments from other studer owner's, I watch with interest, external playback electronics is expensive (bottlehead is the most accessible with eros kit) so to see diy is very exciting and inspiring. I know many upgrade existing circuits and for me that is my diy level although I have not tried yet. Thank you Tony for sharing with us on this thread and elsewhere, it is very much appreciated (all input is appreciated, I thank all of you for sharing your experiences with your machines)
Andy |
I'm not sure if I missed anyone saying it but there is a beauty and coolness to RTR decks. Its the same sort of thing that makes someone buy one piece of gear over another. You cannot rule out how the gear looks.
Its been a lot of years since I owned a RTR deck and I miss it. I just like threading the tape and the excellent sound quality to a decent RTR deck. I believe the Tape Project started out charging $200 per release when the site was first put up. I guess they found more than a few customers.
I agree with MikeL that the only way to get the best from any media is the original. To that end a high speed dup of a 2 track stereo master should be the best us mortals could do. If properly done it should be superior to any LP (considering the multiple steps a LP goes through before vinyl is pressed).
Of course that presumes that the same care is taken at each step of production for both the RTR dup and the LP.
Ed |
I thought about starting a new thread, but I don't think there's enough interest to warrant it. Anyway, my dad showed up at Easter with a reel-to-reel for me. I'd asked him awhile back if he still had any around. We ran a community theater in the 80's and 90's, and we used reel-to-reel to run sound before switching to digital. I told him I wasn't picky--I just wanted one if he was looking to get rid of them anyway. I assumed he would unload plastic Teac that they bought somewhere around 1990. Turns out he gave that one and others away to community theaters over the years.
There was one left, apparently. He showed up with this massive box that weighs a ton. It's old and rather messy, but way cooler than anything I recall. Which is to say, I don't remember this thing at all. It's an Akai Cross-Field X-355D. He said they bought it used rather expensively when they first opened the theater and then replaced it fairly quickly--I doubt it's seen action since 1985 (much like his 1978 Peugot 103 moped, which is in similar condition and currently decorating my front porch). The sealed Maxell 35-90 recording tape is a nice bonus, only one reel though.
How should I proceed? It turns on, but I hear stuff turning inside. Should I open this thing up and give it a going over with Deoxit? Should cease all further action and have it properly serviced? I caught the link at the beginning of this thread for the Project, so I'll check it out. I'm just accustomed to coming here for audio advice first, since I already know I like the environment. :) Curious how this thing will do with my passive pre . . . |
Akai was I think a rebranded Roberts. Man, that's going BACK.
If it turned on without smoking, give the mechanism a try.
If it is a '3-motor' the mechanicals will be somewhat less complex than say....my Tandberg 3000x which is a single motor drive that has no pressure pads. The feed reel gets a little 'backspin' from the motor. The mechanism looks like a giant watch.
It'd cost 300 or 400$ to get it back in shape.
If the Akai surges or has any signs of rust or decay, get it serviced. Any rubber parts can decay, too. Pulleys and drive belts.
I have no idea about parts or service, but it is probably available to the person with deep pockets. I found a site which has a selection of serviced R-2-R and will work on your machine.
Want a DBX compressor / expander? Pretty much the DBX version of an external Dolby. I don't know if it works, but free is free! |
Hello Poprhetor,
Congrats :-) Community theatre...very hip. It might be a fun project to restore your R2R as well as a genuine challenge. Either way, I think you'll benefit and enjoy the journey.
Regards,
Sam
|
Thanks for the responses, guys. I'll be chewing my lip for awhile on this one. I don't have anything to test it with yet. I guess that's step two. We'll see how it goes. |
I had an Akai, and parts were hard to get in the 70's. |
I would open up the back and try to get some oil on anything in there that moves, especially capstans and such. Blow out all the dust, clean whatever contacts and surfaces you can. Then try out a tape.
I was playing my old Teac 2340SX this past weekend. What a nice, natural, analogue sound, even though there is tape hiss at the top end. Oh well, you can't have everything. |
Thanks for the tip. I typically use Pro-Shot 1 Step Gun Cleaner and Lubricant as a general household oil-based lubricant. Any reason I should use something else? |
