I believe you’re right. But really only at the edge of perception. Might have been better if you asked which we preferred without telling us beforehand. You know expectation bias and all that.
Listening over headphones my preference was as follows. But only just.
1 hint of lovely bloom over both 2 or 3
3 tad more warmth over 2
2 what you would expect from digital
Now I'm worried you might tell us that 2 was the reel to reel and 3 was the unaltered digital! 😃
|
Make a good quality digital recording of the tape and you should get a very good reproduction.
I do digital recordings of vinyl all the time and the results sound just like the original. |
I think your injecting noise into the small signals... Sometimes noise can sound good (think tubes)... And it is noise nonetheless... |
The results can sound just like the original. Minus the air and sweetness of course. Otherwise virtually identical. 😟 |
They can. I’ve transferred many cassettes to digital as well as records. Also a few hifi vhs. If you try it and do it right you will see. If you do it wrong then ....... |
I had a number of direct open reel copies of studio masters as well as some open reels I personally taped of live performances. I transferred all of those to digital some years back and was very pleased with the results -- I couldn't tell the difference.
As I noted on your vinyl threads, there is a difference between preserving on digital the sound quality of existing traditional analog sources versus trying to recreate that sound on digital without the intervening analog process. Frankly, I'm not sure I understand your goals, but it seems to be keeping you busy.
|
I think you have your answer already in the last 4 words of your statement. It is all in the mixing, and what you like is the mixing. The format is secondary in this case. Sam here again. I have a hi-res digital rip of the
rolling stones sticky fingers album from an original commercial reel to
reel tape from 1971 and the analog warmth and soundstage is as good as
it gets to my ears. loudness war free sound. |
mapman, "I do digital recordings of vinyl all the time and the results sound just like the original." What do you use? How do you do it? |
In my book, you just made a case against reel-to-reel.
I prefer #3, very closely followed by #2, and would take #1 as acceptable on AM radio or some other nostalgic moment. So, if I were into this, I would do everything as #3 but would not consider it "analog sound" at all.
Do not get me wrong, nothing sounds as good as your favorite song on AM radio in the middle of the night.
(above was listened to on a laptop computer with Sennheiser IE80 earphones, if that matters)
|
roberttdid
I think you have your answer already in the last 4 words of your statement. It is all in the mixing, and what you like is the mixing. The format is secondary in this case. Sam here again. I have a hi-res digital rip of the rolling stones sticky fingers album from an original commercial reel to reel tape from 1971 and the analog warmth and soundstage is as good as it gets to my ears. loudness war free sound. >>>>>Unfortunately for your “observation” your point is incorrect as the loudness wars has to do with mastering practices, not mixing. It was a war between level and dynamic range and musicality. I just pointed out yesterday the big advantage of cassettes (and obviously RTR tapes) is their inherent high dynamic range (And concomitant musicality) as they were virtually all produced prior to the start of the Loudness Wars. Except from wiki page on Loudness Wars, “In late 2008, mastering engineer Bob Ludwig offered three versions of the Guns N’ Roses album Chinese Democracy for approval to co-producers Axl Rose and Caram Costanzo. They selected the one with the least compression. Ludwig wrote, "I was floored when I heard they decided to go with my full dynamics version and the loudness-for-loudness-sake versions be damned." Ludwig said the "fan and press backlash against the recent heavily compressed recordings finally set the context for someone to take a stand and return to putting music and dynamics above sheer level." [18]“ |
Oh great, you can quote Wikipedia ... so cute when people who have never done anything related quote Wikipedia. Applying compression at the end of the process during mastering is but one aspect of loudness wars, and even then, depending on who is doing it, they will refer to the "product" as the "mix". *** Mixing *** marks the start of post-production, where an engineer carves and
balances the separate tracks in a session to sound good when played
together. With tools like ***EQ***, ***compression***, panning, and reverb at their
disposal, mix engineers reduce clashes between instruments, tighten
grooves, and emphasize important song elements. In some cases, they
might even layer drum hits with samples from outside the session or mute
redundant instrument parts. Sure, people are still making very loud tracks – and it’s still a very
valid goal for many producers out there to *** mix *** and master their music as
loud as possible. Truth is, I do tons of mixing and mastering work
every week, and to date, getting solicitations to make a *** mix *** as loud as
possible is still, hands down, THE most popular request I get. However,
with the boom of streaming services like YouTube, Spotify and Apple Music, for the average listener using streaming services, loudness simply doesn’t affect them anymore.
The perception of how loud a song is is based on the average level of the *** mix ***, rather than on the peak level of momentary transients (like drum impacts, for example). |
Way to miss the point. Your silly personal attacks aside. The point is that cassettes were produced prior to the Loudness Wars. Who cares which engineer is responsible for over compression? Can you be any more obtuse?
|
YOUR silly little attacks aside, and your obtuseness at not even remembering what you wrote 10 minutes ago, it seems YOU care who was responsible since you attempted to attack me just 1 post ago with a Wikipedia link no less. Troll.
>>>>>Unfortunately for your “observation” your point is
incorrect as the loudness wars has to do with mastering practices, not
mixing.
|
Wow, you’re even dumber than I thought. Which is saying something.
|
YOUR silly little and childish attacks aside, and your obtuseness at not even remembering what you wrote 10 minutes ago, it seems YOU care who was responsible since you attempted to attack me just 2 posts ago with a Wikipedia link no less. You are still just a troll.
>>>>>Unfortunately for your “observation” your point is incorrect as the loudness wars has to do with mastering practices, not mixing.
|
You can’t even keep up with the conversation. You’re a clumsy oaf.
|
YOUR silly little and childish attacks aside, and your obtuseness at not even remembering what you wrote 20 minutes ago, it seems YOU care who was responsible since you attempted to attack me just 3 posts ago with a Wikipedia link no less. You are still just a troll ... who hijacks threads for your personal amusement.
>>>>>Unfortunately for your “observation” your point is incorrect as the loudness wars has to do with mastering practices, not mixing.
|
Glupson
I use line out from pre-amp to an Art USB Phono + converter then USB in to laptop making sure high res stereo recording is enabled on the USB microphone device. I use Audacity software on the laptop to record, edit and process. Audacity is freeware and the ART device can be had on Amazon for <$100. It also functions as a phono pre-amp as needed. Very functional and flexible device. I then use Picard freeware and db Poweramp software to tag as needed.
I set levels and record in Audacity once the needle drops on side 1 then continue recording until side 2 is complete. Next in Audacity I delete out extra data between sides for a smooth transition between last track on side 1 and first on side two. Then I play the tracks to add labels to designate breaks between tracks at proper locations.
Then comes click removal followed by normalization to complete the processing. Next I export many to export each labeled track to a file in the target library directory. The files are loaded into Picard to autotag or if no suitable matches for tags can be found there I tag manually using dbpoweramp. Finally I run my Seagate backup software to get a backup of the new files right away and rescan my Squeeze Server library to pick up the new files in that library. Plex autoscans and picks up new files automatically. It takes me 20-30 minutes in general to complete the processing once recording is done. Results are quite good with a little practice and I think the results would suit most here.
|
The name of Robert Ludwig’s company is Gateway Mastering, not Gateway Mixing. Stay in school, roberttcan, roberttdid, whatever. http://www.gatewaymastering.com |
You are still just a troll ... who hijacks threads for your personal amusement and ego boost. If you truly cared about audio and audiophiles, you wouldn't hijack threads to promote your unrelated thoughts of the day.
>>>>>Unfortunately for your “observation” your point is incorrect as the loudness wars has to do with mastering practices, not mixing.
|
I am not a troll. 🤥 But these threads do amuse me. Is that so wrong? 😬 I will let you win one of these discussions if and when it suits me. 🤗
|
^^ Total troll. Does not matter what the thread is about, you will find a way to talk about something that interests you. " Is it possible to transfer analog tone and soundstage of vintage reel to reel to digital." .... has nothing to do with Cassettes, but you have been fixated on Cassettes so you bring it up. Ditto it seems for light scatter in CDs, even if the thread is about streaming. "What the signal is", seems to be another thing you throw into discussions no matter whether appropriate. You love Wikipedia, so what does Wikipedia say about a Troll, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] either for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
That is what you do here in a nutshell. Inflammatory - check, Digressive - check, Extraneous - Check, Off-Topic - Lots of checks .... usually mixed in with insults and personal attacks to provoke. Literally you are a textbook troll on these forums. |
Give my condolences to your liver, roberttdid, roberttcan, whoever you are. Good luck in your quest to be somebody. |
Personal attacks, rarely on topic, hijacks threads for own ego (like this one). Troll
Give my condolences to your liver, roberttdid, roberttcan, whoever you are. Good luck in your quest to be somebody.
|
Are you looking in the mirror? You did an excellent job describing yourself.
|
TROLL Are you looking in the mirror? You did an excellent job describing yourself. |
I’m going to do and end run around Mr. Smarty Pants 👖 roberttdid, roberttcan, atdavid, whoever he is and get back on track for just a second, and say that digitally remastered cassettes - they’ve been around like forever - are an excellent compromise between analog and digital. Very high signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, information retrieval !! and capturing much of the analog sound of the original source. The advantage of portable cassette playback - no angry PMs please - is it avoids all or most the pitfalls of CD playback, e.g., expense, power cords, speaker cables, interconnects, AC power, AC ground anomalies, fuses, transformers, Scattered light issues, fluttering disc issues. Having said that, pure analog tape usually has better high frequency performance and is less hard sounding that “digalog” type cassettes. |
Only a TROLL would post something about cassettes that was irrelevant and bordering on illogical when the topic is: Is it possible to transfer analog tone and soundstage of vintage reel to reel to digital. We get it geoffkait, it is all about you. It has never been about audio. |
It’s the tape, stupid. Try to keep up. You’re the one who’s making it about me. Thanks 😊 |
a TROLL is a person who starts flame wars or upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive, [1] **** extraneous, or off-topic messages **** TOPIC: Is it possible to transfer analog tone and soundstage of vintage reel to reel to digital. Geoffkait, The advantage of portable cassette playback - no angry PMs please - is it avoids all or most the pitfalls of CD playback, e.g., expense, power cords, speaker cables, interconnects, AC power, AC ground anomalies, fuses, transformers, Scattered light issues, fluttering disc issues. One of these things, is not related to the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong. |
Of course they’re related, silly goose. They are both tape. That’s what the discussion is about. The differences in sound quality between digital and tape. And whether the analog virtues of tape are transferrable. Try to keep up, roberttdid, roberttcan, Ethan Winer, whoever you are.
Except for your numerous personal attacks on me your contribution on to this thread has been (incorrectly) stating that CD mixing practices are responsible for overly aggressive dynamic range compression. |
Jackpot, Geof! I see your day has been made.
|
Are compact cassettes also considered reel-to-reel? They have two reels. At the same time, speed and sheer size may account for differences so, what are the opinions on that?
(this is my feeble attempt to derail boiling adversaries)
|
That’s very astute, glubson. You are to be congratulated. When, I don’t know. Or by whom. |
geoffkait,
You are welcome. I diverted rightful attacks on you and you can continue making fun of me. Well, if you only had some sense of humor.
By the way, what do you think, increase of admissions in about two weeks or not?
|
By the way, is this a new strategy of yours, you know, trying to defuse awkward situations rather than inflame them? I don’t think I’ve seen this side of you before.
|
Don’t be such a negative Nellie, everything’s fine. No admissions, no second wave. Catch the wave! Stock market almost back to pre pandemic levels. Rock on, dudes!
|
geoffkait, "Don’t be such a negative Nellie, everything’s fine. No admissions, no second wave." Are you telling me I have been preparing for nothing? Bummer! Still, I hope you are right. When is the time to stop wearing mask while being in public? |
roberttdid, "I think you have your answer already in the last 4 words of your statement. It is all in the mixing, and what you like is the mixing. The format is secondary in this case. Sam here again. I have a hi-res digital rip of the rolling stones sticky fingers album from an original commercial reel to reel tape from 1971 and the analog warmth and soundstage is as good as it gets to my ears. loudness war free sound."
So it's not the digital plug-ins but simply different mixes? I think it might be time for guitarsam to come back with his conclusion. |
Sam here thanks for the comments.
Based on my test, here are my conclusions.
(1) creating an impulse file from vinyl or tape and applying, to digital audio is not the most effective way of improving the sound of digital audio.
(2)
Playing a digital vinyl rip from my PC desktop with the volume turned all the way down and then taking a digital album and making a copy of the album on your computer while the vinyl song is playing in the background with the volume turned down and the vinyl frequencies will be encoded onto the digital copy. the digital copy will sound more like vinyl.
Here are 3 digital audio samples from the same source 1 sample has vinyl frequencies encoded onto it as described above, the answer is in the clickable pic below the samples.
norah jones - painter song digital download 16/44
(1) http://u.pc.cd/nkXrtalK
(2) http://u.pc.cd/d0e7
(3) http://u.pc.cd/Sev
answer: https://postimg.cc/SjyMVkgn
|
