Why no interest in reel to reel if you're looking for the ultimate sound?
This thread has been dormant for a while. This is my post Christmas treat - archiving my 15 IPS CBS master of Floyd’s Wish You Were Here - 192/24 digital archive via a Prism Sound Lyra 2 A2D and a Dolby SR 15 IPS 1/4 in copy onto new RTM LPR90 tape stock https://i.vgy.me/qOmjXe.jpg |
Here are links to some of my favorite places I go to for pre-recorded master tape copies. Analog Productions just announced upcoming Norah Jones and Oscar Peterson releases amongst other interesting titles. https://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&start=1%20&CategoryID=406 https://tapeproject.com/catalog/ https://elusivedisc.com/music/reel-to-reel-tape/ https://www.internationalphonographinc.com/master-tape-copies https://www.yarlungrecords.com/product-category/analog-tapes/ https://ultraanaloguerecordings.com/new/shop-by-category/ http://www.opus3records.com/am_list.html |
Since this topic was brought up in a thread that had nothing to do with CDs, perhaps the author of this post, @geoffkait can tell us how a low cost CD player, in a car, travelling on the roads of Detroit (notorious for bad roads), can play, without skips, drop-outs, and other irregularities one would expect if the data could not be corrected by the error correction and had to be interpolated? Even the most highly sound isolated car has vibration far beyond the home environment, not to mention the sound levels reaching the mechanism? I wonder if anyone else could weigh in on the miraculous technology that allowed such wonder in the early 90s? geoffkait23,308 posts06-18-2020 10:40amWithout a whole lotta tweaking CDs can’t really compete with much. The three basic necessities are mechanical isolation - isolate the player, isolate everything! - stiffening and damping of the disc Itself and first and foremost: elimination of the scattered background laser light. Then you’d have a fighting chance. As fate would have it I sell the only comprehensive solution to the scattered light problem and have The Mystery Tweak for problem no. 2 but can’t reveal it; otherwise it wouldn’t be a mystery, would it? Even cassettes have a great many variables, it’s never easy! |
Without a whole lotta tweaking CDs can’t really compete with much. The three basic necessities are mechanical isolation - isolate the player, isolate everything! - stiffening and damping of the disc Itself and first and foremost: elimination of the scattered background laser light. Then you’d have a fighting chance. As fate would have it I sell the only comprehensive solution to the scattered light problem and have The Mystery Tweak for problem no. 2 but can’t reveal it; otherwise it wouldn’t be a mystery, would it? Even cassettes have a great many variables, it’s never easy! One final thought: there are no absolutes. Everything is relative - A. Einstein |
"
Vinyl does not sound like analog tape." that statement is very funny. I would be inclined to think the same with an inexpensive phono stage but not with a decent stage. if you compare the 45 rpm pressings to the 15 ips tape they are much closer than a hi rez down load. I have done several transfers of 15 ips to 24/192. the transfers sound very good, but a quick comparison shows its a copy . |
A fellow audiophile wanted a few of us to join him in his R2R quest. He had 2nd and 3rd gen tapews from some noteworthy recordings’ They sounded very nice but I ‘m not sure if they would be more resolving than my analog rig He want us to split the cost of tapes he already owned and duplicate copies down a level and have us pay equal for those I already have stellar copies, I don’t need a new toy, opportunity for it to break and very expensive and limited catalog. If I was a well know professional acoustic musician - compose demo or release quality stuff - I would be all over it |
Get a listen to
Bill Evans: Waltz for Debby or any other of the great titles and you will wean yourself off of vinyl. Here are the better sounding ones. https://www.audionirvana.org/forum/the-audio-vault/all-things-reel-to-reel/104-the-best-of-the-best |
| Post removed |
roberttdid, "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" Simply awesome. Difficult to suggest any improvements in lyric or scansion. Geoffkait should indeed be honoured by that loving tribute. As Geoff seems to be not only a leading light here but also for the vanguard of alt/fringe audio community, perhaps he could use this as an intro when he finally steps up and embarks on an online head to head with his polar nemesis, Ethan Winer. Ethan seems to be the modern incarnation of the audio critic himself, the late great Peter Aczel, whilst Geoff seems determined to follow in the shoes of his hero, Peter W Belt. That would be very much worth seeing. I'd like to also think that Paul Simon would have no objections. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 ... 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’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. |
My guess, off the top of my head, is that they found company. I hope they never get educated. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
Nice post @rauliruegas |
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. |
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. 😩 |
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. |
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. |
@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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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, |
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. |
