Reel to Reel decks

Mikelavigne, when I described my recording ritual, "headphones and recording in silence"; you understood that as my reason for "playback better than source phenomenon". (my fault) I will now describe and give my reasons for this phenomenon.
This only occurs with 2 track reel at a speed of 7 1/2 IPS or higher. This is partially the result of tape width. A cassette has narrow tape, a reel has wider tape. Most reels record in 2 directions; they use 1/2 the tape in the forward, and the other half of the tape in the reverse direction. 2 track uses the complete width of the tape in one direction. If you can compare the difference in the sound of a cassette and a reel, you will see where I am going with this. The sound of a reel is bigger and fuller, this is before we get to 2 track. If you have not carefully observed this difference, it will be impossible for you to conceive the "Phenomenon, playback better than source", with 2 track.
Audio "phenomenon" in the "hi end" must be heard to be believed. Before I became an "Audiophile", I thought they were crazy people who had more money than sense. After I went to a "hi end" emporium, I became one. Logic and reason can lead to conclusions that are shockingly wrong. Some phenomenon have to be witnessed.
Fish swim, birds fly, tigers hunt; I am an "Audiophile", I listen.

Enjoy the music

Orpheus10 wrote;

This only occurs with 2 track reel at a speed of 7 1/2 IPS or higher. This is partially the result of tape width. A cassette has narrow tape, a reel has wider tape. Most reels record in 2 directions; they use 1/2 the tape in the forward, and the other half of the tape in the reverse direction. 2 track uses the complete width of the tape in one direction. If you can compare the difference in the sound of a cassette and a reel, you will see where I am going with this. The sound of a reel is bigger and fuller, this is before we get to 2 track. If you have not carefully observed this difference, it will be impossible for you to conceive the "Phenomenon, playback better than source", with 2 track.

trust me; i get it. i'm a tape head, here is a picture of my tape deck family. but.....as good as i know a 1/4" 15ips 2-track recording of a source can be, it's not better than the source, or even totally equal. and in the case where a tt has no audible feedback effect from speaker feedback there is no logic to claiming a tape recording of it will improve it. it may introduce pleasing artifacts which some might prefer, but physics is physics. the step of recording degrades any source to some degree.

and in my particular case; my Rockport tt betters my RTR decks ocasionally even on 15ips 1/4" master dubs where both the Lp and master dub had the same source. not all the time, but sometimes.

now; if somehow your tape deck output electronics are better than your phono stage, or some other signal path in-equality is happening, then anything is possible. i suspect it is much more likely that your phono stage is better (more refined sounding) than your tape deck's signal path.

Orpheus10,

i went back and read some of your posting on threads relating to reel to reel to try to better understand your perspective. i read some responses to some of your comments.

i don't presume to tell you how you feel about anything; but it seems you use the word 'better' to describe 'different in a way i prefer'.....which i can relate to and agree with. if you simply 'prefer' the sound of recording your vinyl onto 2-track tape then please enjoy. but it's the point of insisting it's 'better' in objective ways where the conflict occurs.

yes; if a tt is sufficiently negatively affected by speaker feedback then a case can be made that a 2-track tape recording made with headphones could be better in some ways (but not all ways). but that would mostly indicate that you need to improve the isolation scheme of your tt to make it less prone to that speaker feedback.

Mikelavigne, apparently, we are seriously trying to communicate as opposed to proving a point.
Let us go to photography. If you magnify an excellent photo, it will be bigger. My playback on the 2 track is "bigger" than the original, also the electronics in the reel have been upgraded. The playback is equivilant to an equipment upgrade. Is "bigger" better?

Let us go to photography. If you magnify an excellent photo, it will be bigger. My playback on the 2 track is "bigger" than the original, also the electronics in the reel have been upgraded. The playback is equivilant to an equipment upgrade. Is "bigger" better?

a bigger soundstage would generally considered to be better. and i would say that when there is a sense of presence and ambience (and room energy) that happens right before the music starts, that is an aspect of soundstaging that is always better. but sometimes you get an elongated or stretched soundstage, a 'U' shape, or maybe a 20 foot wide piano....so there are cases where a bigger soundstage is not better. better is better. and more real is better. but much of that is very subjective and system dependant. some would say live music does not 'stage' like recordings can.

your photography analogy is a good one. magnifying a photo does make it larger; but if the resolution and clarity of the photo is not sufficient then the magnification loses the sense of reality. the question is 'what is right?'.

getting back to how your RTR might be better; it could be as simple as the analog output on your tape deck could synergize with your preamp better than your phono stage. i have no idea of that but it's possible it's a signal path issue and not a format issue. or it could be that your tt/arm/cart/phono stage are not as high quality as your tape deck.

my point is that when you make generalizations as universal truths about recording Lps onto tape you need to consider whether it applies to some, or to most, or to all cases and qualify it; or guys like me will come along and call you on it. i have no doubt you are hearing what you are telling us. but exactly the implications of that is in question.