Why not magnetic tapes in stead of vinyl records?

Sounds like there is a need here to set the record straight, if you will pardon the expression :)

first:

The reason for the 14" transcription LPs and 12" tonearms to play them came from a time when live radio programs and performances were recorded, mastered, and stamped to send out to radio stations all over the country. A radio station could easily stamp 100 or more transcription LPs and send them out overnight, where 100 tape duplications would have taken 4500 minutes, or 75 hours.

There is more to it than the above- 14" lacquers are also used to make 12" records. A 12" arm is awfully handy for sorting out whether a test recording made in the outside inch is viable- if so you can proceed with the cutting method without playing the actual cut to be pressed.

Nonsense.

Assuming the source is an analog session or master tape, tape to tape copying can produce a copy that's just one lossy step removed from the original.

OTOH, manufacturing a vinyl LP involves many more lossy steps:
1. the session/master tape is played through an equalizer circuit to impart the RIAA (or other) curve
2. the equalized signal drives a cutter head
3. the movements of the cutter head cut the grooves on a master disk
4. the master desk is used as a mold to produce a metal stamper
5. the stamper is used as a mold to produce a vinyl LP

Further, additional lossy steps are required for the consumer to play back the LP:
6. the stylus must track the modulations in the groove
7. the cantilever (which is never perfectly rigid, and which pivots imprecisely within an elastic suspension) must reproduce the movements of the stylus at the armature end of the cartridge
8. the cartridge converts physical motions of the cantilever to an electrical signal
9. the signal is reverse-RIAA equalized
10. the signal is amplified back up to line level.

Only now is the signal compable to the one coming from a playback tape deck, i.e., suitable for the line level input of a preamp.

Tape reproduction and playback can involve as few as 2 lossy transfers (record/play back). Vinyl reproduction requires at least 10.

Direct-to-disk LP recordings eliminate step #1. Even this small reduction results in audible increases in resolution, s/n ratio and dynamic range... which proves the point: every lossy step impairs realistic reproduction.

Whether any particular consumer tape setup is as good as a particular vinyl setup is a different question. Whether the cost of tape copies is affordable or the hassles worthwhile are different questions still. But tape is the inherently superior medium.

There are a couple of points to be addressed here. Tape and LP both require EQ during record and playback. The problem here is that the tape used in the home is rarely a copy of the master, usually its a copy of the working copy; IOW most tapes played by audiophiles are 3rd generation copies, not 2nd generation. LPs are usually made from the master tape if the LP was pressed in the same country as the tape was made. Although not a common practice the LP can be made from a 2-step process, which is often used in short runs.

Now what Mattmiller said that got this comment from Doug was the tape will never surpass LP in resolution. That is actually a fact (although rarely realized). The LP has much more capability (in this case defined as lower distortion, wider bandwidth and wider dynamic range) than tape. What LP does not have is convenience in the recording studio! This is why tape is used- you can go back and re-record it. If you mess up while doing direct to disk, the lacquer is so much junk. This is why direct-to-disk is unusual.

Kijanki, while I find that my clients prefer the analog tape to the digital recordings made from the same mix, its really not relevant as what we are talking about is 2-channel, not multi-channel.

^^ Kijanki, tape is a lot more practical than a Symphony Orchestra in the home. I think you knew that prior to posting though...

You may not care to 'go back' to tape but its not a step backwards in the opinion of many. To them, digital was a step backwards. This being the analog section of the website and specifically about LP vs tape, the digital stuff seems better suited for another thread.

Performance is often traded off for convenience in our world. We see it all the time in cars, cameras and many other technologies. It should not be any surprise that tape is one of the best-sounding formats that can be played in the home. And while I am keenly aware of how much better the LP can be, I also know that such performance on the LP is rarely realized.

Kijanki, I'm not having a cow- its pretty apparent you jumped in without reading the rest of this thread:

This thread is not about analog vs digital.

If you can store LPs you can store tape. FWIW though, tapes store a lot better in the attic than the basement.

You get analog recordings (as mentioned earlier on this thread) from places like the Tape Project http://www.tapeproject.com/

It has been projects like this one that has had a good number of audiophiles scouring the countryside for high end tape machines and a number of people make a business refurbishing them. There is even one manufacturer in Germany that makes a new machine (saw it at the Munich show in May).

We have had to respond to this because a number of our customers have requested that we set up switchable tape EQ in our preamps. The last one is using an Otari transport and the tape head outputs run directly into the phono/tape section of one of our MP-3s.

I've run Ampex tube machines for decades. Its pretty spectacular playing even pre-recorded (1/2 track) tapes from the 1950s.

I've tried to explain inconvenience of using R2R - nothing else. I don't have anything against analog but limited amount of available recordings made me concentrate on CD/computer playback. As for storing tapes in the attic - it is possibly the worst place to keep magnetic tapes since tapes are affected by high temperatures the most followed by temperature changes.

Kijanki, I speak from experience and I mentioned attics for a reason- tapes don't mind being heated up. In fact its a common practice in the studio to bake an older tape (with a polyester backing) as this chases moisture out of the tape and reduces sticking and shedding dramatically.

Once baked properly, the tape will likely play without shedding for months or several years before needing it again. Of course this practice only works if the tape is not totally shot to begin with...

I run an LP mastering operation; last year we did a reissue project of a local blues/folk musician (Spider John Koerner, for those keeping track, http://www.neros-neptune.com/spider-john-koerner-some-american-folk-songs-like-they-used-to-lp-cd/). The recording was not spectacular, but it was on reel to reel, stored that way in the attic of the artist since 1972. The tapes were in immaculate condition (surprise! -no baking needed!) despite being an early 'high output' formula.

Tapes don't mind being heated up one bit as long as its not excessive. Its a lot better for them than storing them in the basement! I still have cassette tapes in my old Bronco that are 30 years old and still play fine. I store them in the truck and they get heated (baked) there quite a lot. I have no doubt that is why they don't shed after all these years.

Kijanki, my recommendation is to work with tape for a while and then you will see that not only are my observations correct but also those of the NTA. (My statement was that tapes store in an attic much better than a basement, which is different from the argument you are making FWIW.)

A controlled environment is nice, the big deal being low humidity. For this reason I recommend that anyone storing tape consider the use of a pack of silica gel inside the plastic bag in which the reel of tape is stored. It might be hard to search on this but I have made this recommendation a number of times on this forum.

Kijanki, If your basement is controlled humidity then I would agree with you. Most basements though have much greater humidity (at least in this part of the world they do...) than the attic.

So what we are disagreeing about is whether the basement or attic is best. I don't think we disagree about the fact that lower humidity is better, or that baking a tape can often restore a sticky tape's functionality.

So let me put this another way. If you were to stumble across a box of tapes made in the 1970s at a garage sale, if they were stored in the basement its likely that the box is junk. If stored in the attic, its likely that many of the tapes in the box will still be usable.

The simple fact is though that all recorded media (LP, tape, magnetic disk drive and CD) are better off stored in a temperature controlled low humidity environment.