The real reasons were pretty simple if you think about it and they were durability and production oriented. You can not mass transfer from tape to tape. To high speed dub from tape to tape, you lose frequency response. Significantly so depending on the speed. Secondly, the vinyl can be mass produced depending on your pressing capacity. For instance, a 45 minute session to replicate 1:1 from tape for maximum fidelity would take 45 minutes....maybe 2:1 would be negligible loss of frequency which would take the transfer to 22.5 minutes. It might take 30 seconds more or less for good vinyl....you can see real quickly that it is simply a matter of economics. The second reason is tapes degrade over time whereas most vinyl is stable indefinitely. Regards.
Why not magnetic tapes in stead of vinyl records?
My understanding is that previously, original recordings were captured on magnetic tapes. The recording is then transferred to a metal stamper, which then creates the vinyl records we use at home. But, why don't they just copy the magnetic tape to other magnetic tapes and sell us those? I mean the same size and everything that the engineer uses. Then, audiophiles (at least some) would have nice magnetic tape players in stead of turntables.
I know people did use reel to reel for some time. I remember cassettes. But I don't believe people ever had an interface to play the big magnetic tape reels at their homes.
I know people did use reel to reel for some time. I remember cassettes. But I don't believe people ever had an interface to play the big magnetic tape reels at their homes.
- ...
- 55 posts total
- 55 posts total