Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other
One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:
Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital
I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?
High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two. Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?
This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
What happens if we consider albums that were recorded digitally? As I understand it, most music has been recorded digitally for the last 40 years. Let’s say it was recorded digitally at 96/24 and I have a download or stream at 96/24. Is it missing anything? Does vinyl have something that the digital doesn’t? If it does, is that good?
it’s not that simple. yet in some ways it is.
in the late 60’s solid state was replacing tubed gear for recording and mixing, and more and more multi-track and plugs-ins and such were used. so from there into the late 70’s it was still analog mostly but the process was changing. then early 80’s it’s all digital plus those previous changes.
so if you compare the golden age of 2 channel analog it’s mid 50’s to around 1970. you have the relative purity of the process and the gear. those recordings are hard for digital to compete with. plus in many ways the expectations to make ’live’ recordings were much greater on the artists. and more resources were devoted to the process by the labels. the best of this era can’t be touched by the digital era.
fast forward to today and still the artist and recording quality is paramount; with the format helping the sum of the whole to another level. how often do we get all these elements to line up? statistically since there are vastly more digital recordings today, the best of those will end up at the top of the heap; but all analog recordings still will potentially sound the best.
the current crop of direct-to-disc Lp offerings are untouchable by digital, as well as the few done to tape and offered as tape to the public.
vinyl and tape (when well done) have a palpability and presence digital misses. a rightness and ease. yet digital has degrees less of those things. it's 'good enough'.
does this mean a recording done with 96/24 or 192/24 (or dxd and Quad dsd) is worse than analog? all other things being equal......yes (some would reasonably beg to differ). but it’s very rare that all other things are equal. the best music well recorded still serves us well......regardless of the format. i love all my classical digital and it’s a big important part of my listening.
mikelavigne your posts are the best opinions I read about this subject....Not only you are not dogmatic or obsessive but your gear and room qualities can gives to you the real possibility of experimenting and experiencing about that debate most of the times badly informed... Thanks....
Thanks ricmci for perspective on SACD v CD. I’m still debating whether to get a regular CD transport to run thru dac or a full sacd player. Maybe more will opine on level of fidelity between sacd and Tidal mqa or hi res qobuz.
As to vinyl, yes, I agree that seems to be consensus but for now starting from scratch that rabbit hole is too wide and deep for me at present. Maybe in ten years upon retirement when I have more time to spend on it.....
"...whether to get a regular CD transport to run thru dac or a full sacd player."
I would buy SACD player. You could always play CDs through an external DAC, if wanted.
There are a few more ways. You could put your SACDs into a hard drive and not even need a SACD player. However, it would be a little itchy to have those discs laying around with nothing to play them on.
Thanks glupson. I don’t want to sidetrack the thread too much and to be clear, I don’t yet have any SACDs, and the CDs I have from 80s, 90s I don’t play because as of now I no longer have a modern player. I’m strictly Tidal streaming today, and happy enough.
But in the spirit of this thread and assessing fidelity of different playback options, my main question was *IF* SACD delivers a higher fidelity or sound quality listening experience than hi res Tidal or Qobuz streaming (that’s what I do not know), then I’d be interested in newly investing in SACD. If not, then no.
Hi quality analog would be ideal for reasons articulated by others but for time/inexperience/$$ reasons analog not in cards for me at present time but maybe in 10 years.
... does this mean a recording done with 96/24 or 192/24 (or dxd and Quad
dsd) is worse than analog? all other things being equal......yes (some
would reasonably beg to differ) ...
As you suggest, some would think your claim is debatable, but I think the debate would be purely academic. Here's why:
... the best music well recorded still serves us well......regardless of the format.
Exactly! And for any of the reasons I've previously cited in this thread, the best version of any particular commercial recording could be on CD, or SACD, or LP, or tape, or from a streaming service. There are so many variables.
No offence to Mike, but his room, his equipment, his sound, is still tuned to the sound he prefers, and that may even be a popular preference, but still a preference.
My personal experience when I have been working directly with musicians, and it is a view I have seen reported often (even here), is that when musicians hear recordings, they will identify high-res digital recordings as a more accurate representation of the sound of their playing. Note I did not say pleasing, I said more accurate. I find listening to our main system far more pleasing than reference headphones, but when I need to pick out fine details, the reference headphones are my go to, and even those I have a few of and they all sound different.
@kren0006, get the DAC. That will give you access to a larger body of music played through a component capable of supporting a wider range of formats including 24/192,4/8x DSD, etc. that are unlikely to be found in physical media.
Thanks, OP. That’s the plan regardless. Today I have Teac NT-505 but I plan to eventually move up to hopefully dCS Bartok for streaming. If an SACD player could provide even better quality playing SACDs than the Bartok can for streaming, then I’d consider getting an SACD player as well, but regardless streaming will be bulk of listening. Thanks again to all who responded.
to be fair.....over the years, there have been plenty of well-intentioned criticisms of my room and system, which i’ve appreciated and has helped me to overcome my own ignorance and move forward. i’ve written often about this issue.
i will leave it up to the readers to determine whether Amir’s comments fall into that category.
Let’s get real for a second. The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons. If anyone says it doesn’t he is a mere beginner.
I guess it is acceptable to metion experience/thoughts about SACD vs. CD here. No tape, though.
At the first listen, SACDs may sound strikingly "better". There simply feels there is "more of everything". I am not sure if that is because of mastering (or whatever other process may be involved in preparing material for SACD) or because of the medium itself. I will never know, but to me SACDs almost always sound like "more" than their regular CD counterpart. Those that are not that impressive, at least do not sound duller than a CD. Basically, if there is an option, I always buy a SACD and do not regret it. Anyone I presented with music at home, seemed impressed by SACDs.
That was an easy part. However, when comparing SACD and CD layers of the same SACD, on the same machine, it gets a little more slippery. I convinced myself that it is always worth choosing SACD layer, but I am not sure I would be able to discern the difference every time, if pressed to. That is why I am suspecting the processing before stamping may be as important as the medium itself, if not even more important. I assume, and have no knowledge of it, that preparing for SACD may make the engineer assume different expectations from customers and adjust the sound to them.
The most complicated part may be deciding if all those SACDs are, in fact, "better". I seem to like them more, but I cannot say that they are "more natural". They may be, but it is not that easy to claim for sure. Not even for classical music, although that is where I think they are definitely worth giving a shot.
If I were you and wanted to experiment, I would buy a SACD machine (basic ones can be really cheap), a few hybrid SACDs, and check the format out. If I liked it, I might buy a few more, but building the SACD library at this point is questionable endeavor for someone already familiar with streaming. There are plenty of DSF downloads out there and your DAC may be all you need.
I have had a very limited experience with Tidal (in audio stores), but from what I have heard selection and sound quality would not make me consider it at all. I think CDs, SACDs, or better downloads would be much better. Again, not much experience.
Here is just an example. It may be frowned upon as "not audiophile-worthy", but you can get some idea and it would not set you back by much...
"The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons."
No
offence to Mike, but his room, his equipment, his sound, is still tuned
to the sound he prefers, and that may even be a popular preference, but
still a preference.
That's true of any audio system. An illusion is the best any system can create, and even the best illusions are imperfect. So it is always about preference.
I find listening to our main system far more pleasing than reference
headphones, but when I need to pick out fine details, the reference
headphones are my go to, and even those I have a few of and they all
sound different.
Same here. At least with headphones, you eliminate any effects that are the result of room acoustics.
"so if you compare the golden age of 2 channel analog it’s mid 50’s to around 1970. you have the relative purity of the process and the gear. those recordings are hard for digital to compete with. plus in many ways the expectations to make ’live’ recordings were much greater on the artists. and more resources were devoted to the process by the labels. the best of this era can’t be touched by the digital era."
I would tend to agree. All of that cramming more and more tracks onto the same tape (ofen 1/4 inch) can’t have helped things, nor the bouncing down that was regularly employed increasingly throughout the late 60s/70s. Nor the loss of that ’live’ sound after innumerable takes. No wonder the lo-fi Nebraska sounds so fresh.
I think the main issue is whether the industry has even ever cared about sound quality? All the evidence I’ve seen suggests that sound quality was always a minor, maybe even a trivial concern for them. And it wasn’t all Phil Spector’s fault.
What about the artists themselves? Certain bands like Pink Floyd and Steely Dan seem to have cared about their sound, maybe a few others like Dylan and Kate Bush too, but how many of the others? Obviously, not too many.
Apparently a new Dylan album is out soon. Should be interesting to see how it sounds / was recorded etc.
As an aside, I think you were quite brave on taking that controlled cable (or was it messing with your mind?) challenge. Especially with the results posted online.
A far more civil discussion than most. It can happen. I’d be curious to know the age and sex of most posters. I suspect most here are males over fifty or sixty. I’m over sixty. As you might have guessed: I‘d bet the hearing of many here is limited. (my dog whistle app tells me my high end hearing is going)
Does hearing, gear, the source or does the room matter? Yes. It’s all interconnected and those who proffer to enjoy the music may be the most sage. Good for those of you that can hear and chase the nuance. Great fun!
Is my room and gear like mikelavigne’s ( love your set up and I’m scheming on something similar that won’t get me divorced so in other words forgetaboutit) or millercarbon‘s, er no.
Do I love music and listen many hours a day. Y E S. Do I read, listen and tweak. Yes. Do discussions like this inspire. Yes? Do I have a soft spot for the likes of “ that casette guy” (pocket protector too?) geoffkait? Sure!
As an aside, I think you were quite brave on taking that controlled cable (or was it messing with your mind?) challenge. Especially with the results posted online.
brave.....or stupid and naive. that was 13 years ago.....but Amir drug it up to get under my skin. i’ve made myself vulnerable to ner’do-wells that way.
when you have a 20 year posting history using your real name, being open about the highs and lows of your experiences, with 25,000 posts over 5 forums, there are going to be stumbles. no one held a gun to my head and made me hit send on any of those posts. i asked for it.
"The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons."
Michael Green has entered the building.
‘Fraid not globular, son of glub, MG and I are polar opposites on most things. Yes, I know what you’re thinking: what about this? What about that? Endless drivel. 5400 and counting of drivel. No offense.
"Yes, I know what you’re thinking: what about this? What about that?"
Wrong again. I was thinking how Michael Green and you are very similar in your unrelenting convictions.
By the way, asking what about this or that is how the world progressed. Well, there has to be balance in the Universe. Me for exploration and learning, you for solidified three topics. Cavemen unite!
Now, to be fair, you do learn. If that is what copying my ideas and words could be called. If you could only do it sooner than a month after I post it, you would earn straight Cs.
Even if not all people like mikelavigne system, I think it is largely resolving enough for most people to decide for themselves the difference between vinyl and digital...
Like he said and I think the same, in most case we enjoy digital all of us, and never mind, most system dont have the resolving power to be a fair judge, without speaking about all the other synchronisations and sources problems to compare...
We can enjoy music on any medium, this is wise words, they will not end this debate tough, that for me is futile and unessential, because too much factors are at play for an experience to be convincing, except in exceptional case with a top audio system like the system of mikelavigne...
The key problem in audio, exceeding all the others, is how to embed any systems, mechanically, electrically, and acoustically....All the rest is arguing without final answers and even with no possible final answers in some case....
"Even if not all people like mikelavigne system..."
I'd gamble and bet it is not a bad one.
"...most system dont have the resolving power to be a fair judge,"
I feel that "cheaper" systems may actually reveal the differences more than ultra-expensive (and consequently not crappier) ones can.
$300 turntable vs. $300 CD player difference may be more pronounced than $100 000 CD (combination of all those clocks etc.) player vs. $100 000 turntable. I have never heard that kind of turntable, but I have heard cheap ones. CD players seem better to me.
Glupson I understand your point.... But my point concern the possibility to solve the dilemma once and for all of us with the complex conditions implicated and the refine resolving system that none of us can afford...
For your point I said like you just said myself all the times that differences in scale price/S.Q. ratio makes impossible to claim victory for one or the other camp for the reason you just alluded to...I will not even mention the complex conditions that are implicated...
In the beginning the only thing I said was that probably mikelavigne is right about the vinyl and tape superiority... But in the usual normal day for all of us digital is very good and the way to go for me....
My 24 bucks dac rightly embedded sound better than half of the turntables on earth probably.... :) But probably sound bad or less natural compared to a turntable of a high level in a high level system in a high level room....This is the thing suggested by the experience of mikelavigne...It is not the gospel for sure but an interesting testimony...
Everyone seems to know what a system sounds like just by the photos. Interesting.
The resolving power of a system in a good room is only that, a microscope.... This dont means that we will like the sound....This means that it will be more easy to ears some minute differences.... :) even if we dont like his tonality or imaging or etc....
With the photo it is easy to guess that the mikelavigne system is at least more resolving that your system and mine....For the S.Q. on all count this is another story....I must go now, I wish to you and glupson the best..... My best to all....
"Everyone seems to know what a system sounds like just by the photos. Interesting."
Who is "everyone"? Nobody here claimed such knowledge.
mikelavigne did say how his system sounds, but that is not based on pictures only. I said I would be willing to bet it is good, mahgister expects it to be really good, roberttdid found a link where someone did not think it is as good.
When someone describes his system in words, they’re still just words. Words mean different things to different people. Highly resolved, transparent, Low noise floor, holographic soundstage, they’re just words. Words tend to lose their meaning, especially audiophile words. Most of them are way overused. As of you know what a system sounds like by someone’s description of it. You won’t know what a system sounds like until you are actually there. “My system sounds fabulous” seems to the war cry of the audiophile.
For what it is worth Mike, I am not terribly "welcome" on the ASR website as I far too often called out the errors in either Amir's measurements and/or conclusions based on his measurements. It was pretty brave having him over given his reputation and you can't win all hearts. I find him pig-headed, and rare to admit his errors, but not dishonest, and his feelings about your system, while perhaps tainted by bias, may have very well been honest. We all have different likes.
The reason why, with rare exception I choose to be anonymous online, is working in an industry that crosses technical and creative boundaries in an era of cancel culture, I can't afford to "piss-off" someone who may be a revenue stream for people that count on me, simply due to a difference of opinion, not to mention I have had colleagues cyber stalked purely because of those opinions, and we are not talking political/cultural opinions, we are talking purely about technical opinions and personal preferences.
My perspective on the differences come from being very close to the creation, and being true to what is being created, or at least the ability to be accurate. My feeling is if you have accuracy, you can always tune for preference, but you can't go the other way.
It was pretty brave having him over given his reputation and you can’t win all hearts.
the time he came for the meeting related in his comments, i never invited him or knew he was coming. we had already locked horns by that time and so his viewpoints were expected. he came with an agenda. big surprise.
some years prior to that, i had invited him over. but at that time he was not a listener, he was a techie who liked writing about hifi. trying to fix what he saw was wrong with audiophiles. so he arrived to listen, stayed 15 minutes, and left. he cared nothing about listening. he cared about being the smartest guy in the room.
some things never change. and i fully admit he is a smart guy.
Ha! I don't really know to be honest, other than its fascinating to read about such scenarios.
I mean I'd love to try something like the Harman blind speaker test, but yeah, there would be a considerable amount of trepidation beforehand.
Putting yourself and your preconceptions to a public test must be daunting for anyone. It's hardly surprising that reviewers persistently shy away from such tests.
However in their case, it's not really an excuse as it's their job. Something they signed up for and something they get paid for.
So yeah, it was good of you to do it, and share the results.
Hi G, Regarding Rumours in one month, I might pull out the SACD if I wanted to relax and not have to hassle with the vinyl. But I would probably reach for the vinyl, thinking there would be more musical engagement.
Hi M, Regarding my vinly pressing: its the 33 rpm version, and its analog sourced, and sounds amazing. Sorry you got stuck with a digital record.
What is an audiophile in concrete day to day experience?
I was coming back home today.... I was in a hurry to listen my music....I opened up the system and I listen my favorite music (Bach organ and some jazz) lost in the music.... BUT I was slightly semi consciously annoyed, without my normal enjoyment and awareness of the sound, I was a bit disappointed by my system but the music was great....Suddenly after some hours, I discover why?
9 of my 10 Schuman modified generators and 3 modified lamps were off....To open up my system I must open up 8 switches, and sometimes I forgot some....The sound makes me coming back to my sense after sometime....
I open them up, and WOW, like a miracle the sound was enlightened with the music this time....
For those who think that all tweaks are placebo effects, dont count in them my Schumann Generators…. :)
Dear @mikelavigne : I’m a little late in this thread, anyway:
"" so for me and my system.......i’d say that the best vinyl sounds really the same as tape. when you play the best pressings, including 45rpm and direct to disc on vinyl, then play tape, it’s doing the same things. ""
Mike I don’t know if I’m missing something on your statement so please tell me if it’s that way:
Your statement really " disturb " me in the way we can read it because for me you are in reality telling that the vinyl experiences is better than tape. Let me explain about:
in the recorded tape normally does not exist the RIAA eq. that one way or the other makes a signal heavy degradation in the vinyl pressed LPs and in the recorded tape the bass range comes in stereo and in the LPs comes in mono. Additional the recorded tape during system playback does not pass through ( again. ) that inverse eq. RIAA as all the LPs.
Those tape recorder characteristics makes a huge differences. So, common sense to me says the tape recorder is an inferior medium than the LP because even with all those signal twice RIAA eq. degradation and mono bass even the tape recorder experiences. Again what am I missing here. Is it an absolute misunderstanding to your statement?
Dear @mikelavigne : Obviouisly that I trust in what you listen and what you like or diaslike in your room/syste. You builded to listen the way you want it, is a very personal overall choice.
I always like to read your posts and I try to analize it and my last post is part of the analisis of what you said.
"" the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better.....""
It's not easy to disagree with some gentleman with your kind of " pedigree " but I have good objective and subjective reasons to disagree with you ( not in all. ) and in other threads I posted about. This link speaks about:
""" "This paper reports the results of a study that investigated listener perception and preferences for analog and digital recordings. Recordings were produced during concerts of three ensembles (mixed choir, string orchestra, and wind ensemble) and solo piano. Master tapes were recorded in the same concert hall using identical microphones and mixed to both digital audio tape and to analog tape using Dolby B noise reduction. Experimental excerpts were presented in digital and analog formats with a switching device that enabled listeners to alternate between the synchronized versions during the entirety of each excerpt. MANOVA and subsequent analyses indicated that digital presentations were rated higher in quality than the analog presentations (p <.001). Listeners demonstrated a greater difference in preference between digital and analog versions for wind band and piano concert examples than for choir and string orchestra examples. ................................................................................................................................................................................
Vinyl pressings are not a precise replication of the audio wave recorded in the master """
In other side you said:
"the current crop of direct-to-disc Lp offerings are untouchable by digital, as well as the few done to tape and offered as tape to the public. "
I can think that you have the Paramita LP digital recording ( 24/96. ) by Wind Music label. Which opinion do you have on this specific LP quality performance levels against any non-digital recorded LPs?
Mike I don’t know if I’m missing something on your statement so please tell me if it’s that way:
Your statement really " disturb " me in the way we can read it because for me you are in reality telling that the vinyl experiences is better than tape. Let me explain about:
in the recorded tape normally does not exist the RIAA eq. that one way or the other makes a signal heavy degradation in the vinyl pressed LPs and in the recorded tape the bass range comes in stereo and in the LPs comes in mono. Additional the recorded tape during system playback does not pass through ( again. ) that inverse eq. RIAA as all the LPs.
Those tape recorder characteristics makes a huge differences. So, common sense to me says the tape recorder is an inferior medium than the LP because even with all those signal twice RIAA eq. degradation and mono bass even the tape recorder experiences. Again what am I missing here. Is it an absolute misunderstanding to your statement?
tape heads have EQ in the same sense RIAA works for vinyl playback. it is a method to optimize the magnetic tape technology and the music frequency spectrum. playback gets adjusted to bring it into musical coherency. so both analog technologies have that in common. in fact; most phono stages can double as tape repro outputs with a different EQ to select. My King Cello is like that.
i completely agree that tape has the lower distortion potential, greater data density and can be better than the best vinyl. but to be clearly on another level than vinyl, 1/4", 15 ips needs to be almost perfect. when you get into this question, the line between these two formats is blurred, depending on the quality of each in your particular system. 13 years ago when i got into tape, almost every one of the tapes i acquired were clearly better than my vinyl; maybe 80-90%. some by a long way. since then, my vinyl has steadily improved, but my tape is similar as then. now i would guess that 60% of my tapes are better than my vinyl, and maybe only the top 20% are a lots better. but my vinyl is quite a bit better now. really a long way better.
understand that my tape collection widely varies in quality as many are grey market master dubs of unknown provenance. and the perfection of the transfers varies with the source and the method used. so my experience is not as much a refection on the format difference as the access to perfect dubbing and source perfection differences. none of my tapes are poor, but my vinyl is so good that an average tape might only be equal or less to a great pressing.
but i do have 8000+ records to choose from and 250 tapes. so there are thousands of absolutely fantastic records to choose from. statistically a big advantage.
the exception to this is 1/2" tape, 15ips, or 30 ips. here no matter what vinyl does, it cannot get there. there is a gap from all other media to 1/2" (or wider) tape. it’s crazy good.
"" the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better.....""
It’s not easy to disagree with some gentleman with your kind of " pedigree " but I have good objective and subjective reasons to disagree with you ( not in all. ) and in other threads I posted about. This link speaks about:
"one signal was sent to an analog cassette tape (Nakamichi MR3)......"
a cassette tape is 1/4" tape, 4 track, and auto reversing, running at 1 and 7/8th ips.
’4-track’ means 4 tracks on a 1/4" tape. those tracks are tiny, and the sound, while nice on a good cassette, is nothing to write home about.
every one of my Lp’s is better than 1/4" 2 track running at 7 and 1/2 ips. those tracks are twice the width of the 4-track, and it’s running 4x the speed and much more robust and solid sounding.
my tapes are all 1/4" 2 track, 15 ips (8x the speed of the cassette). a cassette deck weighs 10-15 pounds, and mechanically is a lightweight. my master recorders weigh 200 pounds, and are the most solid audio devices ever built. and the sound quality is relative to the weight difference.
this ’study’ has zero relevancy to the subject of this thread. this cassette player used is a competent playback machine for home use, but has no place representing SOTA analog playback performance.
@mikelavigne : Yes, zero relevance in the thread due to that recorder type. I missed it, my mistake. However at its level has its own relevance and meaning.
In the other issue then only the half inch tape beats top LPs. Yes, I’m aware of the tape heads eq. but I don’t imagine the LP superior quality performance against R"R when almost every one every where talks of the tape supeiority over the LPs. That I remember only D.Sax and you recognise the LP superior medium. So, I’m surprised about due all the limitations or real obstacles LP medium has during playback to pick-up all the recorded information in those LP grooves when the R2R is way direct with almost no " obstacles " during playback that permits to listen more recorded information than the one coming from LP playback that you know is losted in this LP process.
That’s ok with me at the end most of the time I listen to LPs and I’m satisfied with.
Please your opinion is way important on those digital recorded LPs by Wind Music label as that Paramita title. Can play in the same league that top recorded LPs?. I ask for Wind Music label because every single step in the recording process been really tookit with extreme care, knowledge and engineering skills on that whole process.
---1/4", 15 ips tape on a high quality RTR deck is superior to even the very best vinyl, when the source tape for the transfer is pristine, and the transfer is well done. tape is better. vinyl is not equal. even direct to disc vinyl does not measure up to the very best of this tape.
but what has changed is that the vinyl in my system has moved up so far now that the degrees of pristine for the source tape, and quality of the transfer, are simply higher to maintain that margin. so fewer of my tapes hold up as clearly better.
but.......the best tapes are on another level.
so vinyl does not equal tape.
and it takes a huge commitment to vinyl to get it to this point. so for most people tape is still the easiest access to the very best sound. unless you have a ’daddy’ vinyl set-up. then.........getting better tape than vinyl is harder than before.
i don’t personally know about that Wind Music Lp, Paramiter.
my opinion is that there are many modern digital recordings which have ended up as very good sounding Lps. and i buy quite a few of them and enjoy them. but......there is nothing like tape sourced or direct to disc Lps. so if i have a choice, i’m staying analog, but i’m happy to buy great music on vinyl that happens to be digitally recorded. the music comes first.
here is a tape sourced Lp i highly recommend that was recorded in 2015. it was recorded on a 24 track Studer A80, mixed on an analog mixing board to 2 track analog on a Studer 810. and then mastered to vinyl on an Ampex ATR-102.
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.
