Will Magnetic Tape Eventually Go Full Circle


I was born in 1959. I have seen many technologies go full circle. In the late 1960s/early 1970s, tubes were pretty much pronounced dead. In the mid 1980s turntables were a thing of the past. Reel to reel tape was replaced by cassettes.

In pro sound, acoustic pianos were replaced by electric pianos. Hammond organs became too "big and bulky" and could be purchased for less than a thousand dollars or, were literally given away. Synthesizers took the place of Rhodes and Hohner pianos promising "one keyboard can do it all". Studer and Wollensack "consoles" were replaced by 64 track digital mixdown boards.

Now? Tube amps are some of the most highly sought after amongst audiophiles. There are now more manufacturers of turntables, tonarms, cartridges and analog "tweaks" than ever before.

Hammond organs in fully restored condition are selling in excess of $10,000. The most respected Rhodes pianos are the 1966 tube amp models now selling for $2500+. And, both Hammonds and Rhodes pianos are in extremely high demand and highly sought after. Hell, even Steely Dan recorded their latest release insisting on analog tape, and they had to search high and low to find studios still skilled and capable of using such technology.

Will tape eventually find it's way back? Don't laugh. If I told some of you older audiophiles back in the mid 1980s that by the year 2000 turntables would experience a major regain in popularity, would you had believed me?

Let's consider a few things: You can record ANY two channel format onto magnetic tape, analog or digital. Copy protection? Would become an irrelevant point. Near the tail end of cassette recorders being produced, some extremely impressive machines were available. 65db dynamic range, 20hz-20,000hz frequency reponses, Dolby B,C,DBX, and HX (headroom expansion) noise reduction systems were regularly installed on the higher end recorders. Signal to noise ratios were far superior to ANY analog rig.

My last cassette recorder, a Sony ES TC-K870 (which I still own), would actually calibrate, bias and EQ, (automatically!) to any tape being used on that particular recording. It even had "CD direct" inputs and would make tapes almost indistinguishable from the original recordings.

And the funny part about all this? "Music piracy" was unheard of back then. Music companies focused no efforts on "copyright protection", because then, it was not an issue.

O.K. So tapes only lasted about 10, 15, 20 years before sonic degradation set in. That would be about the only fallshort I could think of. Cassettes were small, at least smaller than a CD. They played in portable players, car players and home systems. Blank cassettes, even the best (remember TDK "MARs" with their "aluminum laboratory reference tape mechanisms") were very inexpensive to purchase.

Is this whole thread THAT far fetched? Will music companies eventually find ways to incorporate copy protection onto LPs also?(shudder) Is Buscis2 off on another crazy ass rant?

In 2010 will we all be raving over the latest Tascam 3 head, dual capstan, auto reversing, outboard power supply, self calibrating cassette machines? Stranger things have happened.

What are your views?



128x128buscis2

Showing 1 response by elektron

No, but until sample rates match up to the "pixal" count of analog, magnetic tape will be with us. Sound is recorded on analog magnetic tape much like FM broadcasting, with a high frequency carrier modulated by the audio. The bit rate of digital consumer formats to date cannot fully match the ability of analog magnetic tape to capture and reproduce the analog waveforms, ultra complex audio waveforms rife with harmonics and overtones. Not the cassette tape, in this case, but half inch format two track at 15 or 30 ips.
Think of digital as sampling the complex waveforms, taking snapshots of them if you will, and converting to binary format. Playback requires taking the data and turning it back into analog waveforms that get amplified and drive speakers. Leaving inherent tape noise and all the other negatives out of the equation, how many samples is it going to take to accurately sample the original waveforms in the first place? How accurately are the samples going to be put back together to reconstitute the original? Answer: more samples than the mathematics predicts. My guess is that sampling into the gigahertz range will be necessary.

About life of magnetic tape: the long life of mag tape you mention really applies to the tape formulations prior to the high output tapes that came along in the late 60's and 70's. The Elvis masters are a good example. Some of this Scotch (3M) product holds up even today. The higher output formulations had a problem with the binder becoming unstable resulting in it falling off the plastic backing.

The Hammond B3 is a good example of analog versus digital.
I have yet to hear a digital sampler synth or other keyboard that claims to be "THE" B3 sound live up to the claim. The harmonic richness of the tone wheels and draw bars played through a vacuum tube amp cannot be easily emulated. Close, but no cigar. More often, not close.

This same analog versus digital thing is what is keeping vinyl LP's alive. Despite the drawbacks: dust, inner grove distortion, degradation, etc ad infinitum, the LP delivers the analog sound, sound pleasing to the ear, sound that is analog all the way.

Kind of like the difference between a filet mignon and a chopped up, reconstituted, reformed filet mignon. It just ain't the same thing, try as you may.

It's getting better, but...

Don't get me wrong. I love the convenience of the CD, and DAC technology keeps coming along.

Maybe in 10 or 20 years the debate will be over. We'll see. Meanwhile, analog remains the format of choice for lots of mastering applications, often demanded by the producer or artist. It won't take over the world, but by the same token, it won't go away either.