Ralph, I don't fully trust your hearing and your neutrality and
objectivity. Tape is overall superior to any LP pressing in real world.
As for theoretical possibilities, I don't know, but there is always an
issue of playback. Put $200k vinyl set-up against $25k Studer and the
vinyl will lose big time, not just lose.
@inna , I run a recording studio with a number of tape machines as well as a Scully lathe equipped with a Westerex 3D cutter. My perspective is probably a bit different from yours. I play master tapes, dubs, cut lacquers and play them back on my system at home. Test pressings we get back are variable but its clear that QRP rules the roost with making the pressings with the lowest noise- a noise floor with which tape simply cannot compete. I can record 35KHz easily on LP, but can't do that on the tape machines. We use a Technics SL1200 with a Grado Gold for playback in the studio; any LP we cut has to be able to play back on a machine like that. So I don't agree at all that $200k vinyl playback can be bested by tape; a lowly Technics can beat tape easily. But it all has to do with provenance, which I apparently did not do a good job of explaining to
@benjie atmasphere you seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth here. In
earlier posts you praise the qualities of vinyl and the downfalls of
tape. In response to my question about a master tape I have vs the vinyl
album you now list all of the problems with vinyl and talk about how
great tape is and how much you love tape. You seem to want to have it
both ways to support your position....
....All of the quotes that I
have listed in my previous posts which are directly from manufactures
and magazine articles, you state them as "false". You know the saying, "
You only know what you can show ". Well I am showing my evidence to
support my position. All you are showing me is your opinion and ***a bunch
of technical facts*** that really don’t mean anything in the real world of
listening to music on a home stereo.
My position is, Analog tape is king! Prove me wrong.
(emphasis added) 'Technical facts' are like other kinds of facts, things that are real. That is why we (and you) use the word 'fact'. Again, you are confusing provenance of individual media, construing it with **all** media of the same type. Its easy to find plenty of reel to reel recordings that really aren't that good! Not to say that they were bad, but a lot of pre-recorded reel to reel stuff done back in the 60s and 70s just wasn't up to snuff with the LPs of the same thing. But! If you were to get a dub of any of those recordings today on 15IPS you might find that it sounds excellent and better than the LP.
Pre-recorded cassette tapes also were terrible, but if you recorded the cassettes at home off of the LPs, they sounded just fine.
The reason is *provenance*; where and how the individual example of the media came into being. I gave you facts about why the LP is a superior media in terms of noise floor, bandwidth and distortion, but at the same time gave you reasons why its often not realized. But one must not make the mistake of assuming that just because its often not realized that it therefore is inferior.
Anyone using 1/2" or 1" deck ? Big difference ?
Yes. When you hear what 1/2" brings to the table you won't want to go back to 1/4". BTW, 30i.p.s. has problems playing bass.
@cleeds That some here have noted some of the inherent limitations of tape
doesn’t mean we think it’s "so flawed." As you stated, there is no
perfect
recording method.
When creating a newly remastered LP, it makes
sense to start with the original analog master. No copy made from that
master can be higher quality than the original. That’s not to say that
you might not prefer a copy of the original, but it can’t contain
musical information not present on the master.
^^ This +1
You may well be correct - but not necessarily. After all, the LP wasn’t
made directly from the master tape, right? It would have to go through
an RIAA EQ network, and almost certainly some amount of limiting or
compression, if only to protect the cutter head.
LP does not need limiting or compression compared to tape. But it often gets used to reduce mastering costs. The head can be blown up by carelessness and limiting or compression has nothing to do with that.
@gusser
One of the reasons I gave away most of my cd's was the engineer who
mixed the cd used either compression and/or did not allow the original
mix to shine through.
CDs employ compression as there is an expectation they will be played in a car. Its an industry thing and part of why analog usually is more dynamic and interesting bycomparison.
@benjie I am sorry but I can’t go with you on this one. I have restored both of
my R2R decks, Techincs RS-1500 2 track and Revox PR99 MkII. And I can
say without a doubt that there is no "euphoric distortion" generating
circuit in either deck. I don’t think the term existed 35 or 40 years
ago.
When in record mode the primary distortion component of reel to reel (at 0 VU) is the 3rd harmonic, which the ear treats very much the same way as the 2nd; it adds 'richness'.
@inna Walter Davies of LAST, nice man by the way, said that he had used his
own preservatives for all his reels and decks for many years.
Yes- very nice. He might still have a letter from me about the LAST head preservative I sent to him many years ago. I was doing an on-location recording and my machine had a worn head; I used LAST on the head to improve head wrap and it worked a charm- no loss of high frequencies and the recording was successful. Good stuff.
