Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

What is an audiophile in concrete day to day experience?

I was coming back home today.... I was in a hurry to listen my music....I opened up the system and I listen my favorite music (Bach organ and some jazz) lost in the music.... BUT I was slightly semi consciously annoyed, without  my normal enjoyment and awareness of the sound, I was a bit disappointed by my system but the music was great....Suddenly after some hours, I discover why?

9 of my 10 Schuman modified generators and 3 modified lamps were off....To open up my system I must open up 8 switches, and sometimes I forgot some....The sound makes me coming back to my sense after sometime....


I open them up, and WOW, like a miracle the sound was enlightened with the music this time....


For those who think that all tweaks are placebo effects, dont count in them my Schumann Generators…. :)

Dear @mikelavigne : I’m a little late in this thread, anyway:

"" so for me and my system.......i’d say that the best vinyl sounds really the same as tape. when you play the best pressings, including 45rpm and direct to disc on vinyl, then play tape, it’s doing the same things. ""

Mike I don’t know if I’m missing something on your statement so please tell me if it’s that way:

Your statement really " disturb " me in the way we can read it because for me you are in reality telling that the vinyl experiences is better than tape.
Let me explain about:

in the recorded tape normally does not exist the RIAA eq. that one way or the other makes a signal heavy degradation in the vinyl pressed LPs and in the recorded tape the bass range comes in stereo and in the LPs comes in mono. Additional the recorded tape during system playback does not pass through ( again. ) that inverse eq. RIAA as all the LPs.

Those tape recorder characteristics makes a huge differences. So, common sense to me says the tape recorder is an inferior medium than the LP because even with all those signal twice RIAA eq. degradation and mono bass even the tape recorder experiences.
Again what am I missing here. Is it an absolute misunderstanding to your statement?

Thank’s in advance and your answer appreciated.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @mikelavigne  : Obviouisly that I trust in what you listen and what you like or diaslike in your room/syste. You builded to listen the way you want it, is a very personal overall choice. 

I always like to read your posts and I try to analize it and my last post is part of the analisis of what you said.



"" the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better.....""

It's not easy to disagree with some gentleman with your kind of " pedigree " but I have good objective and subjective reasons to disagree with you ( not in all. ) and in other threads I posted about. This link speaks about:


https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319018?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

down there we can read:


""" "This paper reports the results of a study that investigated listener perception and preferences for analog and digital recordings. Recordings were produced during concerts of three ensembles (mixed choir, string orchestra, and wind ensemble) and solo piano. Master tapes were recorded in the same concert hall using identical microphones and mixed to both digital audio tape and to analog tape using Dolby B noise reduction. Experimental excerpts were presented in digital and analog formats with a switching device that enabled listeners to alternate between the synchronized versions during the entirety of each excerpt. MANOVA and subsequent analyses indicated that digital presentations were rated higher in quality than the analog presentations (p <.001). Listeners demonstrated a greater difference in preference between digital and analog versions for wind band and piano concert examples than for choir and string orchestra examples. ................................................................................................................................................................................


Vinyl pressings are not a precise replication of the audio wave recorded in the master """



In other side you said:

"the current crop of direct-to-disc Lp offerings are untouchable by digital, as well as the few done to tape and offered as tape to the public. "

I can think that you have the Paramita LP digital recording ( 24/96. ) by Wind Music label.
Which opinion do you have on this specific LP quality performance levels against any non-digital recorded LPs?

Appreciated. Thank's.


R.

A 15 ips copy of a master tape is an incredible thing to hear. I do not think any turntable could match it. 

@rauliruegas

Mike I don’t know if I’m missing something on your statement so please tell me if it’s that way:

Your statement really " disturb " me in the way we can read it because for me you are in reality telling that the vinyl experiences is better than tape.
Let me explain about:

in the recorded tape normally does not exist the RIAA eq. that one way or the other makes a signal heavy degradation in the vinyl pressed LPs and in the recorded tape the bass range comes in stereo and in the LPs comes in mono. Additional the recorded tape during system playback does not pass through ( again. ) that inverse eq. RIAA as all the LPs.

Those tape recorder characteristics makes a huge differences. So, common sense to me says the tape recorder is an inferior medium than the LP because even with all those signal twice RIAA eq. degradation and mono bass even the tape recorder experiences.
Again what am I missing here. Is it an absolute misunderstanding to your statement?

tape heads have EQ in the same sense RIAA works for vinyl playback. it is a method to optimize the magnetic tape technology and the music frequency spectrum. playback gets adjusted to bring it into musical coherency. so both analog technologies have that in common. in fact; most phono stages can double as tape repro outputs with a different EQ to select. My King Cello is like that.

i completely agree that tape has the lower distortion potential, greater data density and can be better than the best vinyl. but to be clearly on another level than vinyl, 1/4", 15 ips needs to be almost perfect. when you get into this question, the line between these two formats is blurred, depending on the quality of each in your particular system. 13 years ago when i got into tape, almost every one of the tapes i acquired were clearly better than my vinyl; maybe 80-90%. some by a long way. since then, my vinyl has steadily improved, but my tape is similar as then. now i would guess that 60% of my tapes are better than my vinyl, and maybe only the top 20% are a lots better. but my vinyl is quite a bit better now. really a long way better.

understand that my tape collection widely varies in quality as many are grey market master dubs of unknown provenance. and the perfection of the transfers varies with the source and the method used. so my experience is not as much a refection on the format difference as the access to perfect dubbing and source perfection differences. none of my tapes are poor, but my vinyl is so good that an average tape might only be equal or less to a great pressing.

but i do have 8000+ records to choose from and 250 tapes. so there are thousands of absolutely fantastic records to choose from. statistically a big advantage.

the exception to this is 1/2" tape, 15ips, or 30 ips. here no matter what vinyl does, it cannot get there. there is a gap from all other media to 1/2" (or wider) tape. it’s crazy good.