It’s a supreme irony that the single most important advantage that CDs have ON PAPER -dynamic range - which is obviously (on paper) what, 40 or 50 times greater than vinyl or audio cassette? You know what I’m talking about. 90 dB dynamic range and 90 dB Signal to Noise Ratio. It sure sold me. OK, the irony is with all the aggressive dynamic range compression over the past twenty years the dynamic range of the highly touted CD has been compacted down to all red for many CDs, some SACDs, quite a few LPs. One need only take a gander at the Official Dynamic Range Database to see what the industry has wrought. But the situation is even worse than that. Even with uncompressed CDs the sound quality of digital lacks the color, tonality, and fullness in the bass that vinyl and cassettes provide as a matter of course. The King has no clothes. |
Geoffkait, I've been trying to put across the "emotional involvement"(of analog) idea for a long time. I used examples such as: thinking about the next song, or doing something else, and admiring the quality of the sound-all of which is an indication of digital's lack of "emotional involvement". Some people think digital is more accurate. To them I say, if it doesn't get this immeasurable quality, how can you say it's more accurate? |
Bingo! I liken digital to the Porterhouse steak that Jeff Goldblum sent through the transporter pod that came out in the second pod in the movie, The Fly. It was molecularly discombobulated and reassembled. It look like steak, it cooked like steak. But it didn’t taste like Porterhouse steak. It tasted horrible. |
Good vinyl can have as much as 70dB dynamic range on the outer edge.Its easily higher than that (I run an LP mastering operation); but compression and tape are often the reasons why you don't see that in practice. Direct to disc recordings will not solve playback problems, one of the reasons why it was virtually abandoned.Nothing solves playback problems on the record side :) The reason you don't see much in the way of direct to disk is simply because its really hard to do! Musicians have to play all the tracks on a side perfectly and that's assuming you don't overcut because a performer is playing 10db louder in record than he was when the levels were set! So its a bit of a trick but when it all comes together its magic. |
+1 atmasphere. A good example is the Sheffield Labs D2D of Dave Grusin "Discovered Again." Listen to the D2D recording, and then listen the Seffield Labs "Treasury" recording of that same album. The Treasury version is from the backup tape recording of that same session. The D2D record is light years ahead of the tape version, sonically. Absolutely no contest..... |
Lol. These speakers are better than thoes... This format is better than that... Artist don’t care how it’s "untended" to be heard. Format is not not part of thier intention, becoming a famous artist, or expressing art or opinion through music is the intention wether live or recored, and cd wasn’t always around to be format "of choice for intention" My Avalon are NOT better than my ADS, MY upgrades Lascala are not BETTER than my Altec model 19 (when comparing orange to orange) There is no bad speaker, or bad stereo, there is only a poor APPLICATION. mp3 has a place, receivers have a place, inexpensive gear has a place ect. Tube vs. Solid state, there is no better or worse. This stuff aint human it can be better or worse. It’s our own individual preference. My OPINION does not make it better or worse because it cant be either. Application Application Application Ever thought we have been chasing a pipe dream with the "best" system? Maybe one is more "accurate" Or smooth, or open, or articulate, or less fatigued, or dynamic, some can be measured. It’s not better, it’s diffetent, and not my preferred sound. I’ve owned, or still own and currently run all the systems I’ve mentioned. Always have 4-6 completely different setups hooked up in my home at different locations. Some are vinyl only, solid state and tube alike. Horn and cone alone. Expensive and inexpensive, not Better and worse. My point, if your all missing it, is the terminology. Incorrect use of the term causes chasing of tail in audio pursuit For ME. So, I’ve decided within myself to use it for what it was INTENDED, Which is my employment. I really like my Lascala setup with tube mono amps, Fisher 400cx preamp, And I thoroughly enjoy a receiver and ADS speakers, For the garage? There is no BETTER application (to me) of gear that a simple cheap integrated and Bluetooth media access to my networks. (Which has 3tb of high res access) cheap and convenient! Btw, I'm not looking for agreement, or cosigners. My OPINION is not a discussion. I've expressed how I feel from 30 years of listening and running (chasing) thousands of pieces and the "better"bug. Dont let the better bug bite, spend your time listening to the music instead. The wheel hasnt been changed in a long time, yup. Round does indeed work best. Still, the fuzz on my ADS domes no longer rules my life, acceptance was not the key. Un-acceptance was. I simply will not accept the better bug, and my life is better for it. Even in aspects OUTSIDE audio. For the most part... cuz I do relapse from time to time..;) Bye |
| Post removed |
Really great discussion. Personally I prefer tape to vinyl. I am an analog junkie, but tape, especially master tapes sound best. I also love using cassette. I have hundreds and hundreds from over the years that still sound wonderful. I have an audio buddy that records every LP on the first play to TDK SA cassette, then he gives the LP's away as gifts. His tapes, all made on an Advent 201 and sound great. He's been doing this for over 40 years. The Advent is his main source for playback and I must say it sounds really good. I have an Advent as well (and many others) but would never consider it my primary playback. inna, did you mention what machine you were using? I'm curious. I love tape. It sound better (to me) than any CD. In fact my favorite CD's are usually copied to 15ips half track reel to reel, which somehow makes them infinitely more listenable. Enjoy your cassettes. I certainly do! Norman |
When you transfer vinyl to reel to reel, it sounds better on playback. The same goes for CD. Many professional audiophiles have concluded there is nothing better than reel to reel. Since I just enjoy the results, and breaking down each element of why it sounds better takes the pleasure out of basking in the sound of a good reel, I can't help you on specifics. |
Inna, this Bud's for you; https://www.google.com/search?q=Studer+A+80&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=k_1u13n4VS...: |
Many years ago I noticed that the tape seemed to do something nice to the sound of vinyl. Turned out the reason was because I was using headphones and the turntable didn’t like the vibration from the speakers. So I went about the process of providing for a vibration-free stand, platform and turntable and then the difference vanished- in fact went in favor of the LP. Stand: custom Sound Anchors on Aurios Pro bearings platforms: UltraResolution Technology (n.l.a.) |
I would be remiss if I did not mention that this whole thing could simply be another case of copies always sounding better than the originals. You know, like copies of CDs always sounding better than the originals. I know, I know, you thought that was some kind of aberration. Just one of those things, just one of those craaazy things...🎼 |
I just cranked my reel up (a Technics RS-1500), and right off the bat Lee Morgan's trumpet was in the listening room; I didn't have to make any effort to know that the reel was better than anything else I have, it just is. If I didn't own a reel, I wouldn't buy one; there are a lot of things you have to know when you own a reel. Although I have learned those things, I still have to go over the check list in my mind when I get involved with the R to R. Magnetism is so taboo, and you have to demagnetize the heads. When you do this, you have to remember to move all your recorded tapes a good distance away, or you will mess them up; over the years I've accumulated quite a few, so that's a headache. Bigger is better. When you compare the size of a cassette tape head, to the size of a R to R tape head. Stereo half track sounds better than stereo quarter track, assuming that both tape decks are of the same quality. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=662&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=caUcWrqIBKrVjwSFgIiw...: When you compare the convenience of all the digital methods of record and playback, one has to be an extreme audiophile to opt for reel, but for those who must have the very best, there it is. |
Tostadosunidos, to begin to answer your question, I had to turn on the reel and relax in the 'sweet spot' with music emanating from that source. First question, "Is it vinyl, or CD"? I can only tell by remembering when I recorded it. If I don't have the record, it must be CD. CD's are generated from the computer to line in on the reel. Records are recorded the old fashioned way. Years ago when audiophile PC was a hot topic, I replaced cards in my computer with audiophile cards per the PC forum here and Stereophile. Right now I'm listening to Jimmy Smith "Angel Eyes", the CD from the reel. 1 Stolen Moments 7:00 2 You Better Go Now 5:15 3 Angel Eyes 8:00 4 Bess, Oh Where's My Bess 4:10 5 Slow Freight 5:47 6 Tenderly 6:25 7 Days Of Wine And Roses 7:00 8 L'il Darlin' 6:57 9 What A Wonderful World 4:25 Bass – Christian McBride Drums – Gregory Hutchinson Executive-Producer – Lola Smith Guitar – Mark Whitfield Organ – Jimmy Smith Producer – Don Sickler, Richard Seidel Trumpet – Nicholas Payton Trumpet, Flugelhorn – Roy Hargrove When I focus on the center channel, Jimmy Smith is in the house with that loud and very wide dynamic frequency range like no other organ. (When you record from CD to two track, you have actually expanded what was on the CD without distorting it; same music, just bigger with a wider dynamic range, plus you have also lost any "digitalis".) Jet black background as well, no tape noise on a good deck. What I'm hearing can not be measured, it is the emotional aspect of the music; I've gone beyond what reviewers talk about when describing components, frequency response etc. but into the story line of the song. Now that I'm into "Angel Eyes", no longer am I in this listening room, but in one of the bistros in a time long past, sitting on the same bar stool, where I sat contemplating one of the "Angel Eyes" I've known. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihZHR63UmNI When you got the right rig, music can take you wherever you want to go. As to your original question, it's impossible to get better than live, you have gone past the limits of logic. |
If you are saying that transferring cd's or vinyl to tapes sounds better then you are saying that the transfer is not an accurate transfer and that the distortion that the tape is adding is one that pleases you. There is nothing wrong with that but you do have to admit that you just introduced a uphonic distortion. Now if you are saying that a live mic feed is more accurately captured on tape, rather than vinyl or digital then you are saying that tape is a more honest format for capturing truth. IMO, tape using Dolby S is right up there with the best. However, most here are reporting on the former not the later. I doubt that tape is correcting for the flaws in vinyl or digital and, in that case, it is the processing distortion you are enjoying. Not that there is anything wrong with that. |
While recording from anything to tape some coloration is inevitably added but it's not the whole story and it's not necessarilly what is found pleasing. Tape recorder 'rearranges' the elements of the incoming signal and lays them down to tape. This rearranged source might in some respects give better soundscape. Something like that, in its own way, might also happen when you record digital from digital. In other words, processing may yield better results. Do you know what some crazy Japanese do? They have 100 volts wall current over there. They take it up to 230 volts with one step up transformer and then take it back down to 100 volts with another and claim that it sounds better. This is just an analogy and an example of a rather primitive current processing. Things are not that simple. |
f you are saying that transferring cd's or vinyl to tapes sounds better then you are saying that the transfer is not an accurate transfer and that the distortion that the tape is adding is one that pleases you. There is nothing wrong with that but you do have to admit that you just introduced a uphonic distortion.Many years ago when I had CD and cassette in the same system, I used to tame the bright, hard, cold sound of CDs by recording them to cassette. That worked fairly well. Back in those days my theory was that the CD could not record the ultrasonic noise that was part of the digital experience (while my speakers could do it easily); these days my theory is that the cassette limited bandwidth and so was unable to reproduce aliasing (which is interpreted by the ear as brightness and hardness). I'm certain that the cassette was not true to the original, but it rendered the CDs listenable, so it was useful :) |
With tape everything stays within the domain of electromagnetic energy, with vinyl there is a conversion of mechanical energy. Do you think nothing is altered in the conversion ? We really need tape and vinyl experts here. Maybe we should invite Walter Davis of LAST and others I don't know who to clarify it all and explain in more or less plain English. |
@inna not sure I go along with you 100% on your detective work. The reason I say that is tape is a magnetic medium inasmuch as the tape stores information magnetically, not electromagnetically. And the tape head reads the information on the tape magnetically, not electromagnetically. Obviously somewhere along the line the information is converted to an electromagnetic signal for output to headphones or speakers, like any other medium. Digital is optical to electromagnetic signal. Vinyl is mechanical/magnetic to electromagnetic signal. |
Inna, when I bought my Technics, they were almost giving reels away, and since you have been inquiring they've gone way up. I recommend that you get as current a model as possible; for example if Technics, get a RS 1700, 2 track of course. They are made to be repaired, mine has never left home, I have the repair manuel. The Otari I have is 2 piece 4 track; that's for professional work and very complex, not easy to repair. If you buy one that's not up to spec, there are places that can do that for you quite reasonable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFC-60HvOJM Here is a fantastic 2 track Otari; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp_Zpdxvuc |
With tape everything stays within the domain of electromagnetic energy, with vinyl there is a conversion of mechanical energy. Do you think nothing is altered in the conversion ?@inna There is a conversion of an electrical signal to magnetic, and then that magnetic field is stored on the tape. Do you think nothing is altered in the conversion? Tape heads and tape are non-linear. To linearize either one, bias is added in the form of a high frequency signal that is at once so high that it can't be recorded and will not interfere (hetrodyne; i.e. 'birdies') with harmonics of the signal to be recorded. The Germans sorted this bit out during WW2 (BTW you can see one of three known Nazi tape recorders at the Pavek Museum in St. Louis Park Minnesota. If you are ever in the Twin Cities as an audiophile its a must-see). There is a certain amount of harmonic distortion associated with recording; the amount varies depending on the permeability of the record head and the formula of the tape. 3% is not uncommon at 0VU. Solid state machines need a bias trap to keep the bias signal away from the record head driver circuit- the head driver transistor can otherwise be saturated. Tubes are immune to this problem- IMO this is one reason why tube machines can make better recordings all other things being equal (which in practice they never are). In comparison to vinyl, tape has less bandwidth (on top and the bottom) and less dynamic range- it is also noisier unless the LP has been abused. This is why its practical to use an analog tape as a master for an LP- the LP encompasses the performance of the tape medium. The limitation of the LP is in playback, not record- and that is where one runs into distortion, mistracking and the like, which is highly variable depending on the setup and quality of the pickup apparatus. A good playback will have no mistracking regardless of the program material. One thing tape can do quite well is out of phase bass. It this occurs in an LP, the groove walls can get so close together that they can knock the stylus out of the groove. For this reason, circuits exist to sense out of phase bass and then cause mono operation below a certain frequency. I have found that if the engineer spends enough time with the project, there is usually a way to master it without using the processing, but engineering time is expensive, so the processing is usually left in place (BTW, its a passive process). Out of phase bass is a problem with multi-tracked recordings if the engineer isn't careful. Lately there have been a lot of 10.5" reel to reel titles becoming available; the advertised provenance being that they are dubs from working copies (there are a lot of Russian titles claiming this on ebay right now) and they are going for serious cash. I am of the opinion that if you get a title that is in fact actually dubbed from a legitimately good source using quality gear that the result is spectacular. But a lot of these dubs I've been seeing don't measure up to that- I would be not at all surprised to find that many of them are mastered from a CD; some of them I've heard are oppressive on top compared to the original LP. |
Conversion of electrical into magnetic and back to electrical is not the same as conversion of mechanical into electromagnetical. Ralph, you know it better than I do. As for if something is altered in any case - probably. To use an analogy, converting water into ice is not the same as converting water into wood or stone. " The limitation of the LP is in playback " is a big understatement, I think. Yeah, I would never buy dubs from ebay, from Russia or China or US. |
Atmasphere, here are the specification on my tape deck; Reel to Reel Tape Recorder (1977-87 Technics RS-1500US Specifications Track system: 2-track, 2-channel, stereo/monaural system Motor: 2 x reel, 1 x capstan Reel size: 5 to 10.5 inch reel Equalization: NAB Tape speeds: 3 3⁄4 7 1⁄2 15 ips Wow and flutter: 0.018% (15 ips) Frequency response: 30Hz to 30kHz (15 ips) Signal to Noise Ratio: 60dB Total harmonic distortion: 0.8% Input: 60mV (line), 0.25mV (mic) Output: 0.775V (line) Dimensions: 446 x 456 x 258mm Weight: 25kg How do you compare these specs to whatever it is you are referring to? |
This has all the information on vinyl and reel to reel comparisons; https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend |
Geoffkait, let me be most specific; I was referring to my deck which is a 2 track. One of my posts explains the differences in the size of the heads in 4 track and 2 track. The heads are larger in 2 track than 4 track. The playback of the 4 track will be identical to the record. The play back on the 2 track will be identical to the record, except the sound will be bigger because of the playback heads. That doesn't only go for the records, it also goes for you speakers, they will sound bigger because the source is bigger. A small screen TV may not be better than a big screen TV, but you can see and enjoy more detail. Think of the fundamental difference between a cassette deck and a reel, assuming high end in both cases, the reel sounds better mostly because of the larger heads. In the past, most decks were 4 track allowing you to record and playback in both directions, thereby saving money on the cost of tape. 2 Track records in one direction and that's it. Since what has been recorded on 2 track is the same identical information that's on the record, you may not consider it better, but bigger sounds better to everyone listening. |
Bigger, or fuller, or both is the right term, I think. Smoother too. Cassette decks also have very slow speed. But for a cassette some Naks and Tandbergs are very impressive, especially with Vertex tape and no dolby. And that's with captured lamp power cord. Ralph is a little attached to vinyl but he knows what he knows. Orpheus10, when I am ready I will almost certainly go after Studer. The most important reason is transport. But also other things, including the availability of parts and of tuners who could make it almost like new. It should last me as long as I do, at least. |
