Why no interest in reel to reel if you're looking for the ultimate sound?
@orpheus10 +2 on agreement with @sdrsdrsdr. look no further than all the prized tube microphones, tube mic preamps and tube playback electronics on the recording side. |
Music has always been very important to me, when I was in high school it helped to visualize my fantasies about this girl or that girl, or how marvelous my life would be when I became an adult. Now I just enjoy the music without the fantasies. My music is sounding better than ever because of "the quiet grid", I'm also listening more intently as a result of "the lock-down". Before I became an "Audiophile, combination Musiophile"; I had to add that music bit, because music is still more important than the equipment. The purpose of the equipment is to faithfully reproduce the music, not recreate it. BTW, I've been to numerous electronics schools as part of earning a living, I mention this because when I got into audio it was all about the "specifications" for me; I was always curious as to why those "dumb audiophiles" were paying so much for inferior equipment, when according to specifications my SS was far superior. It was not until my most prized SS preamp bit the dust, and I wandered into a high end emporium did I discover why those "dumb audiophiles" were spending so much money. "Specifications" be damned, it's all about what it sounds like. As a music lover, I quickly discovered "tubes" were what's happening regardless how much some pay for their SS equipment; SS may reproduce beguiling sounds, but not music. As far as I'm concerned, people who spend tons of money on SS equipment are hooked on beguiling sounds as opposed to the music that the artist created. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that most of the people on this forum are equipment lovers as opposed to music lovers; consequently, "if" I had the money to audition the ultra expensive equipment they review, I would probably be most satisfied with what I have. |
This thread is a little stale, but I’ll add my bit. To enjoy reel to reel, you don’t *need* 15ips half track master tapes. 7.5ips and even 3.75ips quarter track give you a landslide more dynamic range than vinyl and very little noise. As someone else said, reel to reel is like a treat to the ears, not the most practical thing for every day listening. Even 40 and 50 year old pre-recorded tapes still sound terrific. |
@orpheus10 The point of entry to reel to reel is so much more affordable than getting into vinyl.For me, the point of entry is getting a machine capable of playing the new 15 IPS master tape dub. A Tascam BR-20, Otari MX5050 BII, or Technics RS-1520 playing an Opus 3 sampler tape would be a good entry point to where the new owner can really appreciate how good tape can sound and superior to many vinyl setups. |
rauliruegas, orpheus10, Interesting exchanges going on there. Ultimately I think you’re both right! Digital is measurably better than analogue by any known yardstick, and ss amps distort way less than tube ones. Yet for all its superiority digital has failed to win the hearts of audiophiles worldwide. For whatever reason it has not been able to establish itself as a perfected version of analogue. Certainly not with audiophiles. This suggests one of two things, either it isn’t better than analogue in the areas it matters most, or we still don’t know how (or can’t be bothered) to get the best out of it. I strongly suspect it’s the latter, especially reading the first hand testimony of earlier posters such as topoxforddoc. The accuracy of digital is not in dispute but the implementation certainly is. Perhaps it’s because of this industry inability (or sheer unwillingness) to maximise the implementation of digital, (prob due to a lack of correlation between fidelity and profit) many audiophiles might still prefer the impressionistic tone of analogue and tube amps to the photo clarity of digital. Maybe it’s because that even a precise snapshot will always fall short of the real thing, whereas an impressionist depiction might get the essentials right, some prefer the latter. Same goes for r2r. It’s the big brother of the cassette deck and the daddy of all pre 80s vinyl. Analogue at its finest. Digital recording must be better intrinsically as all the evidence suggests, but it just hasn’t proved it yet, not on a mass scale. In fact you could argue that most modern recordings are themselves only an impressionistic attempt to create a palateable musical concoction with zero effort towards capturing anything like an accurate audio snapshot of an event. Case in point, the Giles Martin Beatles remixes/reimaginings of those 50+ year old recordings. This sort of audio trickery started with mono but really took off as we moved into 4 track and beyond. Today almost all digital content is recorded, or shall we say assembled, in this manner. So unless the recording industry begins to take digital recording seriously again (ie higher fidelity as opposed to merely a different means of concoction) on a large scale, there’s no risk of r2r, vinyl or tube amps disappearing anytime soon yet. |
I don't have a problem with digital recordings if recorded using proper techniques. (In classical music, too many distantly miked recordings have huge ambiance space but insufficient direct sound). I prefer a more immediate sound, as heard from about the 10th row of a concert hall or jazz club. I don't have a problem with digital music reproduction with high end DACs. I am a confirmed analog lover. I do have all tube pre-amp and amplification stages in both my audio systems for over 40 years. I tried some higher end SS amps and hybrid tube/SS amps in the past but prefer my all tube gear. |
Turntables are for real audiophiles, My dealer who has both a great quarter inch reel to reel tape machine and also a great turntable claims that his 45 rpm jazz records sound very close to his tape machine jazz recordings. With classic music, I myself have at least fifteen 45 rpm lp's that were transferred from 35 mm magnetic film tape which is over five times larger than the quarter inch tape that audiophiles are using. Initially the costs for a great turntable set up are quite high, but with the right amplification, speakers, and lp's you can recreate a live performance in your own home. |
rrcpa34 @cd318This is known as ostentatious ignorance. >>>>How so? Signal to Noise ratio is measurably much better. Dynamic Range is measurably much better. A lot depends on the source material, what with the loudness wars and everything. It also depends on WHERE THE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. It’s not 🍏 and 🍎 But all things being equal digital measures better. |
It was a fine attempt @cd318, but alas, you attempted a discussion about religion, and that never goes well. Are high-res digital recordings more accurate than tape? ... of course, but good luck within a given crowd of having that discussion. There will be the holy grail discussions of tape being the epitome of ultimate analog playback, with great vinyl only a bit behind, though exceptionally few will have heard the exact same recording played on tape and vinyl (they don't sound the same, close, but not the same, most likely due to lack of channel separation in vinyl, but could be due to RIAA inaccuracies in specific setups, or cartridge matching, or ...) Most audiophiles are older as well and have become accustomed to the sound of vinyl. The younger generation loves the "cool" factor of vinyl, but does not seem as drawn to the sonic characteristics. On solid state amplifiers and tube amplifiers, though, that is a much different discussion, at least if the SS amp is designed with typical SS design goals, and the tube amp is designed with more traditional tube design goals. The tube amplifier has higher distortion, but some of those distortion products are typically not offensive, but we don't listen to amplifiers, we listen to speakers, which normally have far higher distortion than the amplifier. Are you certain, at the system level, that the solid state amplifier in combination with the speaker is the lowest distortion? ... and we have not even gotten into potential impacts on frequency response and how that impacts the typical audiophile in the typical room. cd318952 posts05-19-2020 11:04amrauliruegas, orpheus10, |
We don't listen to measuring devices we listen to music. Ages ago when I was all about specifications I agreed with the SS people for just that reason; however, if my musical ears tell me one thing while electronic meters say another, I'm going to go with my musical ears and consider all else of no importance. |
Since I down-load my reel to hardrive for playback, I think I can speak to the difference between the two with authority. The direct reel playback is better by a hair, but not so much better that I don't enjoy the computer playback from the hard-drive. BTW, I use WAV which is the highest resolution and no longer available for HD down-loads. |
WAV is no higher resolution than FLAC, Apple Lossless, or any other truly lossless format. BTW, I use WAV which is the highest resolution and no longer available for HD down-loads. You can speak with authority on your setup for recording and ADC, and on your DAC and how that sounds. If you recorded a tape of a tape, there would be detectable differences as well. Since I down-load my reel to hardrive for playback, I think I can speak to the difference between the two with authority. |
My golden ears told me that WAV is better than FLAC when I compared the two HD down-loads; now I no longer use HD down-loads because they only offer FLAC. How brilliant of you to note that I can only speak with authority on my rig; you got anymore mind blowing observations left? That's my lock-down sense of humor coming out. |
@geoffkait You can measure all you want but there is one central truth: Music (sound) is analog and by changing that signal to digital something is lost. Something is lost once again when you change it back to analog so your ears can understand it. This is part and parcel of Newton's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is known as Entropy. It is immutable. Additionally, when you sample a analog signal, by definition, there is some period of time when you are NOT sampling. This information is lost forever. Yes, if the sampling rate is high enough - and in Redbook CDs it is not even close - you don't tend to notice these losses as obvious. The loss seems to be realized as a loss of "presence" or depth of soundstage or perhaps a certain "air", This is why vinyl has seen such a resurgence; it stays in the analog domain. Bench measurements have been shown over and over to be a distraction in audio. All that matters is your ears. |
No offence, rrcpa, but you don't seem to understand thermodynamics or sampling theory. When you record on tape, something is lost. Tape is neither infinite bandwidth nor infinite signal to noise, and even speed and level is not consistent, hence something is always "lost". Your statement, -- "there is some period of time when you are NOT sampling. This information is lost forever."-- , only shows your lack of understanding of how analog sampling in a system limited by bandwidth works. If the system is bandwidth limited, say 50KHz, far beyond anything ever shown to be detectable ever, and where most tape has no response either, then sampling at 192KHz will capture everything within the limits of the signal to noise and dynamic range of the A/D system. You can attempt to debate it, but unless you have an advanced math degree, it would probably be pointless. Redbook CD is sufficient to capture all the information up to 20KHz, again within the limits of it's SNR and dynamic range. Want to talk about a format where things are lost? ... let's talk vinyl. RIAA equalization and de-equalization coupled with potential for imperfect cartridge loading, tracking error, etc. throws away level information, and the limited channel seperation throws away a ton of data w.r.t. what should have been coming out of each channel. A significant majority of that "resurgent" vinyl was digital at some point of the process. Very little vinyl is pure analog. Measurements can tell us about accuracy, they can't tell us what you will like. Claiming that tape or vinyl is more "accurate" isn't supportable at the device level. Vinyl may modify the signal (and it most certainly does) in a way that is pleasant to a lot of audiophiles and there is certainly a resurgence in vinyl buying, but most of that is played are far from audiophile systems for nostalgia and cool factor. Music (sound) is analog and by changing that signal to digital something is lost. Something is lost once again when you change it back to analog so your ears can understand it. This is part and parcel of Newton's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is known as Entropy. It is immutable. |
rrcpa Music (sound) is analog and by changing that signal to digital something is lost.That does seem intuitively true, but that doesn’t make it true. I’m an analog guy at heart, so I understand your preference. Something is lost once again when you change it back to analog so your ears can understand it. This is part and parcel of Newton’s 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is known as Entropy ...Hmmm, that doesn’t apply here ... Additionally, when you sample a analog signal, by definition, there is some period of time when you are NOT sampling. This information is lost forever.Yes, that information is lost forever, that’s true. But the lost information is outside of the bandwidth of the system. The notion that there is otherwise information "lost" between samples can be shown to be false fairly easily, as I’ve explained here previously. If you want to see the proof for yourself, this guy did all of the work for you. |
As I’ve been saying lo these many months something is lost during the digital process of converting from analog but it’s not (rpt not) because of sampling or any such thing. It’s because the CD laser cannot read the data on the CD completely or accurately. But the data is all there on the CD. You just can’t retrieve it properly. However, I can hear what’s on the CD because I have solved the riddle of the Sphinx. I’m from the future where those problems no longer exist. Once you hear what’s actually on the CD it will freak you out. 😩 |
Dear @cd318 : """
For whatever reason it has not been able to establish itself as a perfected version of analogue.
Certainly not with audiophiles
""" That's not the purpose/target of digital media. Why should be that way when both mediums are way different? Are those audiophiles true expert audiophiles or only LP lovers accustomed to? @rrcpa : """ Music (sound) is analog and by changing that signal to digital something is lost. Something is lost once again when you change it back to analog so your ears can understand it. """ First about that lost in digital. The lost of information during LP playback exist at the cartridge stylus tip when ridding the groove modulations because that tiny stylus tip can't pick-up all the information recorded in those LP grooves and not only that but at that micro level the stylus tip jumps between grooves modulations, very tiny and microscopic level jumps: this is that the stylus tip momentaneous lost direct contact with the vinyl surface. Additional to that exist all what @roberttdid posted: """ let's talk vinyl. RIAA equalization and de-equalization coupled with potential for imperfect cartridge loading, tracking error, etc. throws away level information, and the limited channel seperation throws away a ton of data w.r.t. what should have been coming out of each channel ...""" and that losted information never can be recovered, is lost for ever. In the other side of your statement the human been ears listen not in " analog " but digital. Yes in the inner ear part we have an ADC mechanism for we can listen the sound as we know it. No we can't hear anlog information, we have to convert it in digital. Here we can read about: ................................................................................................................ "" By now, the audio signal has reached the inner ear, and that means the cochlea. This snail‑shaped organ is filled with liquid. Logically enough, it must be waterproof, in order to prevent any fluid leaking. This explains the purpose of the round window, a small, elastic membrane on the surface of the cochlea. Its purpose is to allow movement of the fluid inside the cochlea. Liquids are incompressible, and without this membrane, the fluid enclosed inside the cochlea would completely block the ossicle movements. Indeed, stiffening of the oval window can lead to hearing losses of about 60dB. Inside the cochlean we find the tectorial membrane, which moves along with the pressure variations of the cochlear fluid. As shown in Figure 3, above, this membrane is in contact with the cilia on the top of the hair cells. There are two kinds of hair cells. The outer hair cells are the actual receptors. When the tectorial membrane moves, so does the hair on the the outer cells. This movement is then encoded into electrical digital signals and goes to the brain through the cochlear nerve. The inner cells have a different role: when the audio signal gets louder, they stick themselves to the tectorial membrane in order to limit its movements, playing the role of another dynamic compressor.Figure 3: Inside the cochlea. This tectorial membrane exhibits a clever design. Its stiffness is variable, and decreases gradually towards the center of the 'snail'. This is a way of tuning the membrane to different frequencies. In order to understand the phenomenon, consider guitar tuning. When you want pitch of a string to be higher, you stretch it so it gets more tense, and stiffer. Generally speaking, stiffer materials are able to vibrate at higher frequencies. This makes the tectorial membrane a bank of filters, with an important result: outer cells are frequency‑specific, each group of cells being dedicated to particular frequencies. Also consider the inner cells, and their ability to attenuate the tectorial membrane's movement. They function as a frequency‑specific compressor — in other words, a multi‑band compressor! The tectorial membrane's decreasing stiffness towards its end serves another important purpose, which is frequency tracking. A particular audio frequency will set the membrane in motion at a particular position, and that vibration will be sensed by a specific set of outer cells. A comparatively lower frequency will set the membrane in motion closer to the centre of the 'snail', and that vibration will be sensed by another set of outer cells. The brain, by analysing which set of outer cells was put in motion, will then be able to tell that the second frequency was the lower one. Notice how, during this process, the tectorial membrane really acts in the manner of a filter bank, performing an actual spectral analysis of the input signal. Figure 4, below, illustrates the rough position of a few key frequencies on the cochlea.Figure 4: Filter bank frequencies on the cochlea. Harmonic sounds come as a set of regularly spaced pure tones: if the fundamental frequency is 100Hz, the harmonic frequencies will be 200Hz, 300Hz, 400Hz and so on. As shown in Figure 5, each one of those frequencies will correspond to a particular area of the tectorial membrane. Suppose a given harmonic sound comes with its fundamental frequency plus nine harmonics. In this case, no fewer than 10 distinct areas of the tectorial membrane will be set in vibration: this provides an abundance of coherent information to the brain, which will have no difficulty in quickly and easily finding the right pitch. This is what makes the human ear so powerful for pitch identification.Figure 5: Pitch tracking inside the cochlea. With the hair cells, we come to the end of the audio path inside the ear. Hair cells are neurons, and the purpose of the outer hair cells is to convert the mechanical vibrations that come from their cilia into nerve signals. Such signals are binary (all or nothing), and seem to be completely decorrelated from the analogue signals to which they correspond. In other words, they're digital signals, and the inner hair cells are analogue‑to‑digital converters. """" Btw, @cleeds very good link you posted. A true audiophile, at least, try to understand the whole digiatl medium and how it works and at the same time try to undersant the analog/LP/R2R medium and how it works and only then we audiophiles can understand the why's of its differences, advantages and disadvantages but at the end what it matters is the MUSIC and we true audiophiles must be aimed to listen digital medium along the analog one: not this or the other. Exist a superiority of one of those mediums over the other? certainly yes but who cares about when we can enjoy MUSIC in both mediums: we have two alternatives about ! ! Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Nice post @rauliruegas |
In regard to technical mumbo jumbo, I earned a living as an electronics technician, consequently I believed in specifications and I wondered why those dumb "audiophiles" paid so much money for tube electronics when my SS audio was so much better according to specifications. After going to a high end audio emporium and listening, I discovered that specs don't tell much when it comes to audio, and every since then, I realized that my two ears can tell me more than all the specifications they can throw out. |
orpheus10, your ears tell you what you like, and I honestly believe no one really questions that. Where the tensions rise, is when audiophiles assume that because they "like" something, that it must be more accurate, or more like "live music" or what they think live music should sound like. They will go so far as to make up technical claims, about things they have almost no knowledge about, then defend those claims with passion and vitriol. Tube vs. solid state amplifiers in an interesting paradigm. Very few audiophiles understand the complex relationship between amplifier transfer function with real speakers, how that impacts the performance of real speakers, what the overall result will be, the impacts of typically somewhat poor and rarely well tuned room acoustics on the overall system response, and then how equal loudness contours play into that overall system response at the typical levels most people will listen at. When people tell me they have speaker X and they much prefer tube amplifiers, then say "SS amps are crappy, the measurements don’t mean anything", I just smile and nod. The difference between me and them is they don’t have any clue of the "why" of why they prefer tube amplifiers in their setup, hence they slag SS amps and measurements, while I have a pretty good idea of the "why", and hence don’t slag measurements, because I know the right measurement, i.e. a room response graph at their typical listening volume, coupled with system level, speakers included distortion measurements, perhaps with some system level, speakers included transient measurements (including decay) would show exactly why they prefer the tube amplifier. This is why Bob Carver was able to modify a somewhat low cost amplifier to be sonically indistinguishable from an expensive amplifier. He matched the transfer functions of the two amplifiers with the real speaker loads. |
Most people don’t feel the need to broadcast their short attention spans nor their need to be coddled only with opinions or facts they like. geoffkait22,562 posts06-10-2020 10:52am |
My guess, off the top of my head, is that they found company. I hope they never get educated. |
It’s just that I don’t believe in reading a lot of pseudo intellectual, pseudo authoritative jibber jabber. I have other things to do, pal. Only 94 posts and you’re already stalking me and giving out free pseudo scientific advice like a regular. Not counting all the other names you had here before, of course. Mr. Roberttdid, Mr. Roberttcan, Mr. Atdavid, Mr. Whiner, whoever. Keep trolling, maybe eventually someone will buy into your brand of jibber jabber. |
roberttdid ... your ears tell you what you like, and I honestly believe no one really questions that ...Plenty of people here challenge audiophile preferences, which some measurementalists will explain away as "delusion," "tin-foil hat," insanity," and so on. Where the tensions rise, is when audiophiles assume that because they "like" something, that it must be more accurate ... They will go so far as to make up technical claims, about things they have almost no knowledge about, then defend those claims with passion and vitriol ...Lotsa measurementalists here do the same thing, then add to the vitriol with demands for scientific double-blind testing and on and on and on and on. There are plenty of people here who "make up technical claims" to support their beliefs - no side has an exclusive on that. |
It is science and engineering and Audio Research that crafts the sound YOU like, just like Pass crafts their amps to behave a certain way. It's not guess work. They tune the exact presentation with listener reviews, but it is engineering that guides that process. Besides it's fun to talk tech and trigger geoffkait. He really hates it when he is not the smartest person in the room and he can't get away with his usual mumbo-jumbo about scattered light and pet audio rocks. I think that is why is so angry all the time. |
roberttdid, "This is why Bob Carver was able to modify a somewhat low cost amplifier to be sonically indistinguishable from an expensive amplifier. He matched the transfer functions of the two amplifiers with the real speaker loads." A seminal moment in the history of high end audio. Many, much like Dr Zaius in the celebrated 1968 classic Planet of the Apes movie, would wish they could bury any evidence of this (and much more) so as to not disturb the paradigm that is in their interest to push. |
That would explain the smell Geoffkait ... Amazing the words that come out of the mouth of someone who hasn't done a ground up amplifier design .... oh well, to each his own. https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge Carver supposedly replicated a tube amplifier using a solid state amplifier. If you believe that one I’ve got some swamp land to sell you. At least get the story straight. Then again, maybe we should take with a grain of salt someone who believes this, as opposed to putting it down to more likely, nothing, or bad soldering. Plus, I had once upon a time picked up the differences between ½" of steel lead from a capacitor to a crossover as opposed to ½" of copper lead. |
Hello fuses, my old friend. Geoff has come to talk to you again. Because an electron softly creeping Induced a field while he was sleeping. And the direction, that was planted in his brain Still remains Outside the bounds of science With his Walkman he walked alone Through narrow hallways he calls home Neath the halo of the directional camp He dreams of cables but he has no amp And his eyes were stabbed by scattered laser light That CD wasn’t right It was outside the bounds of science And in the audio forums there he saw Ten thousand “philes”, maybe more “Philes” posting without considering That $15 for a $3 spring is price gouging “Philies” buying things, without even a care Because no one dared To question the bounds of science Robert said, ah you do not know Geoffkait’s posts, like a cancer grow Read his words that fail to teach you Collected thoughts designed to mislead you Because his words, like a teleportation tweak fail Or magic pebbles that are on sale Are outside the bounds of science |
