Reel to Reel decks

Interesting discussion. I am struck by the definition of the source being assumed to be some kind of fixed quantifiable thing. Most of us audiophiles who enjoy "live music" are often disappointed as the acoustics of many venues can be horrible to the point of rendering a mush of sound and echoes. It is easy to see how a recording at the mixer could be vastly superior to the original, "live" event. I don't believe there will ever be a method to perfectly reproduce a musical event with all its nuances. Every method "colors" the music. We have seen the pursuit of accuracy strangle the life out of digitally recorded music. Transferring to a different media can make it better, which I believe is the case with reel to reel.

Petepappp,
While I agree that "live" is often not better than a recording of the same event but I think it has been more an issue of tape recording of a recording being better than the recording itself.

I am inclined to agree with Mike (as I mentioned a couple of months ago) that the perception of "bigger" and "better" is probably a matter of R2R output stage synergy with preamp (when compared to the phono stage (something which would go to something Ralph a.k.a Atmasphere said on another thread a few days ago)), or pleasing distortion/filtering performed by the tape playback method, rather than the tape having created a better recording than the one it was just recorded from.

As many note, there is nothing wrong at all with preferring the way one piece of equipment sounds compared to another, but that conclusion is a matter of preference rather than 'quality' of format as defined in some objective way.

I understand what you are saying and the process of recordings of recordings has to introduce some error each time. I also have no interest in debating Mr. Karsten, (think I might be at a slight disadvantage), I guess I am saying there may also be a problem with trying to apply objective standards to a predominantly subjective experience. I have many times experienced, both with my own recordings and others, r to r copies which are definitely more dynamic than the vinyl originals, whatever the cause may be. Highly accurate equipment sometimes equals analytical, lifeless sound. Admittedly subjective.

I suppose if I threw in, "Maxell XLII, Position "EE" tape into this equation, that would realy "discombobulate" some minds. With this tape, the soundstage is so "holographic", that you feel as though you can walk among the musicians.

I think the piece of this puzzle that might be missing is that there is not just a synergy between different media and equipment but also the reproduced sound and human auditory physiology and the resulting perception of it by the human brain. Is a recording better because it is mechanically measured to be more accurate when compared to a source, or when it evokes the perception of "walking amongst the musicians"?