Hmmm...

[kipdent]

Please know I am not taking a defensive position for tape here; I just find this incredibly interesting. Even if 100% of listeners agreed with Mike's opinion in this post, the fact that mastered LPs are different than master tapes in being another generation away from the original and constrained somewhat by the lathe's capabilities and the physical limitations of the delivery media, this result might have a variety of explanations.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1036349020&openflup&2601&4#2601

Kip

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Please know I am not taking a defensive position for tape here; I just find this incredibly interesting. Even if 100% of listeners agreed with Mike's opinion in this post, the fact that mastered LPs are different than master tapes in being another generation away from the original and constrained somewhat by the lathe's capabilities and the physical limitations of the delivery media, this result might have a variety of explanations.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1036349020&openflup&2601&4#2601

Kip

agree that there are a variety of explanations for what is going on here. and if you read down a few posts past the one linked you'll see that i still say the best tapes better the the best vinyl.

in addition to Rich, Bruce has also heard the NVS-Telos-Anna-darT in my room.

and my point is really how good this vinyl is; not that tape is now in some way 'less'.

and when you consider the vinyl investment it takes to get into this territory, tape is much better bang for the buck performance wise.

as far as the vinyl mastering process and how this or that is not possible or at least hard to believe; my response would be that it turns out that there is alot more information in those grooves than we ever thought before....and don't underestimate vinyl.

 

[U47]

Golden Age of LP

I just had the pleasure of listening to Mike's rig(with 200 hours on the Anna) last weekend and was amazed at how much better the sound was compared to the best vinyl I've ever heard anywhere. The Lp playback did indeed better the tape in most cases. The tape was really delicious, but the vinyl just had a bit more vividness and life, the exact opposite of what I always hear with a tape/vinyl comparison.

Quite an achievement and kudos to Mike, Mr. Durand and Jonathan for bringing the level of analog to such a high state.

Rich

 

[jdza]

That is what I said:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?766-Too-close-for-comfort

I have been thinking about this a lot. Whilst I have no doubt that my equipment is not in the same league as Mr. Lavigne's the same was found. Clearly it is impossible for the LP to be better than the source.

I think there are 3 issues here. Firstly;as Audiophiles we simply do not give the Pros enough credit. For every horror story of pizzas being eaten on Master Tape boxes there are thousands of untold ones about tapes stored and cared for in climate controlled spaces.Spend any time with the old Studer Lists or on Gear Slutz and see how fanatically dedicated to their craft these people really are .

Related to this is the so called "Master Dubs" most enthusiasts seem to have. But are they really ? Is it really from the master? Did someone smuggle an Akai into a Studio and tapped something off for himself,was the master dub found in the trash one they threw out because of poor quality or was it an umpteenth generation , horribly re equalised ( because their machines will be stuffed so boost the highs)and sent to some hapless African or Middle European country for LP pressing. I can tape something off another tape,DAT,CD or cassette,scribble something on a box and flog it as a master dub-who will know-especially years later? How ethical are those that sell these anyway? I have been very lucky with especially one fantastic source but have also had some horrible experiences with others.

Finally if a LP needs no be cut the engineer will carefully re-align azimuth on the machine and adjust the levels according to the recorded test tones for perfect reproduction of that tape. How many of us do that? On the odd occasion that I have matched the type of machine with the type of source machine and went through the whole alignment thing for that specific tape, the results have simply blown vinyl away.

 

[Soundproof]

What jdza said:

On the odd occasion that I have matched the type of machine with the type of source machine and went through the whole alignment thing for that specific tape, the results have simply blown vinyl away.

 

[Steve williams]

Related to this is the so called "Master Dubs" most enthusiasts seem to have. But are they really ? Is it really from the master?

I bet this is a factor for sure

 

[jtinn]

I bet this is a factor for sure

Lets just say it is not a factor at all.

What about the playback device? What if the weakness is now all of a sudden found to be that the output electronics of the tape machines have been bettered by the output from a particular vinyl playback? Better speed accuracy, speed consistency and vibration control from the table, better resonance control, tracking and tonality from the tonearm and greater resolution, etc. from the cartridge?

Hmmm....

 

[Soundproof]

No "Hmmm" there.

Tape master > cutting tape master adjusted for the lathe > cutter EQ curve > lacquer > master > mother > stamper > your vinyl record at 33 1/3 > re-EQ'd. (There's also a reason why we like 45 rpm)

Tape master > dubbing master > your tape at 15ips (and 7 1/2 can be pretty darn good).

Let's see - advances in vinyl playback have bridged all those intermediate steps that the quick&convenient vinyl format (compared to tape) imposed upon the source?

Someone needs to have his tape playback checked.

The above are ideal conditions. The source can have been dubbed again, and again, before the process, for both formats. Maybe a new DMM-production on exquisitely produced half-speed mastered highest quality vinyl could begin to approximate what is possible with a "next to master tape copy at 15ips."

 

[jtinn]

Someone needs to have his tape playback checked.

Maybe, but there are three other tape machines there, all four are in pristine condition. Also, previously there were four other turntables in that room that did not produce the same results.

It is a short flight from Oslo to Seattle. Hop on a plane and listen for yourself

 

[FrantzM]

No "Hmmm" there.

Tape master > cutting tape master adjusted for the lathe > cutter EQ curve > lacquer > master > mother > stamper > your vinyl record at 33 1/3 > re-EQ'd. (There's also a reason why we like 45 rpm)

Tape master > dubbing master > your tape at 15ips (and 7 1/2 can be pretty darn good).

Let's see - advances in vinyl playback have bridged all those intermediate steps that the quick&convenient vinyl format (compared to tape) imposed upon the source?

Someone needs to have his tape playback checked.

The above are ideal conditions. The source can have been dubbed again, and again, before the process, for both formats. Maybe a new DMM-production on exquisitely produced half-speed mastered highest quality vinyl could begin to approximate what is possible with a "next to master tape copy at 15ips."

Agreed ... Just can't be so ... when it comes to analog in the here and now, Tape Rules.

 

[Soundproof]

Agreed ... Just can't be so ... when it comes to analog in the here and now, Tape Rules.

Two things to think about, in that respect.

The needle does not travel across the surface of the vinyl at a uniform speed. It has a higher surface speed at the outer groove, and it is gradually reduced as the needle moves towards the inner groove. (Don't confuse 33 1/3 with distance traveled across the surface.)
Tape moves across the playback head at a uniform speed.

This alone makes the notion that vinyl is capable of a matching performance more than strange, as the frequency resolution of vinyl is not uniform, no matter what your rig is capable of. The limitation is in the medium, not the playback.

Second point. Lathe dub masters had the frequency headroom limited on purpose, in order for the cutter to stay inside the envelope of the lathe. They reduced the frequency content of what was on tape, in order to stay inside what vinyl could reproduce during the golden age of stereo.
Later, in the 70s, they developed methods that made it possible for lathes to cut finer resolutions with greater accuracy, but these were usually derided as producing vinyl that was too sharp/bright, compared to the audiophile treasures. (Later to be called "too CD-like.")

It was, however, much closer to the frequency headroom of the tapemaster ... and the original instruments.

Tape died as a medium for wide commercial distribution not because it was inferior to vinyl, but because it was much more expensive to manufacture, process in copying, and buy - and because it wasn't as convenient as "just flipping over an LP."

Stamping vinyl copies was much faster and a lot cheaper than making tape dubs - and that's why vinyl won out, while it also sounded "good enough" for the mass market.

 

[stellavox]

Were you listening to dupes Rich made, or his "originals"?

if dupes then you're "hearing" the "limits" of Rich's duplication setup. If "originals", then I'd fault their provenance.

Charles

 

[MylesBAstor]

Two things to think about, in that respect.

The needle does not travel across the surface of the vinyl at a uniform speed. It has a higher surface speed at the outer groove, and it is gradually reduced as the needle moves towards the inner groove. (Don't confuse 33 1/3 with distance traveled across the surface.)
Tape moves across the playback head at a uniform speed.

This alone makes the notion that vinyl is capable of a matching performance more than strange, as the frequency resolution of vinyl is not uniform, no matter what your rig is capable of. The limitation is in the medium, not the playback.

Second point. Lathe dub masters had the frequency headroom limited on purpose, in order for the cutter to stay inside the envelope of the lathe. They reduced the frequency content of what was on tape, in order to stay inside what vinyl could reproduce during the golden age of stereo.
Later, in the 70s, they developed methods that made it possible for lathes to cut finer resolutions with greater accuracy, but these were usually derided as producing vinyl that was too sharp/bright, compared to the audiophile treasures. (Later to be called "too CD-like.")

It was, however, much closer to the frequency headroom of the tapemaster ... and the original instruments.

Tape died as a medium for wide commercial distribution not because it was inferior to vinyl, but because it was much more expensive to manufacture, process in copying, and buy - and because it wasn't as convenient as "just flipping over an LP."

Stamping vinyl copies was much faster and a lot cheaper than making tape dubs - and that's why vinyl won out, while it also sounded "good enough" for the mass market.

You're right about the safeties sent for mastering. What they're talking about however, are dubs made today from a second generation, extremely well made copy similar to the Tape Project and there's no limiting.

 

[MylesBAstor]

That is what I said:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?766-Too-close-for-comfort

I have been thinking about this a lot. Whilst I have no doubt that my equipment is not in the same league as Mr. Lavigne's the same was found. Clearly it is impossible for the LP to be better than the source.

I think there are 3 issues here. Firstly;as Audiophiles we simply do not give the Pros enough credit. For every horror story of pizzas being eaten on Master Tape boxes there are thousands of untold ones about tapes stored and cared for in climate controlled spaces.Spend any time with the old Studer Lists or on Gear Slutz and see how fanatically dedicated to their craft these people really are .

Related to this is the so called "Master Dubs" most enthusiasts seem to have. But are they really ? Is it really from the master? Did someone smuggle an Akai into a Studio and tapped something off for himself,was the master dub found in the trash one they threw out because of poor quality or was it an umpteenth generation , horribly re equalised ( because their machines will be stuffed so boost the highs)and sent to some hapless African or Middle European country for LP pressing. I can tape something off another tape,DAT,CD or cassette,scribble something on a box and flog it as a master dub-who will know-especially years later? How ethical are those that sell these anyway? I have been very lucky with especially one fantastic source but have also had some horrible experiences with others.

Finally if a LP needs no be cut the engineer will carefully re-align azimuth on the machine and adjust the levels according to the recorded test tones for perfect reproduction of that tape. How many of us do that? On the odd occasion that I have matched the type of machine with the type of source machine and went through the whole alignment thing for that specific tape, the results have simply blown vinyl away.

Not in Mike's case.

 

[Soundproof]

You're right about the safeties sent for mastering. What they're talking about however, are dubs made today from a second generation, extremely well made copy similar to the Tape Project and there's no limiting.

That's quite clear from what I write, I should think. What I'm questioning is the notion that modern vinyl rigs are so sophisticated that they can reinvent content that has been eliminated due to the vinyl process.

With tape dubs such as those from Tape Project and Opus 3, we are getting as true a copy as it's possible to get these days, unless we have the original masters in hand.

 

[MylesBAstor]

if dupes then you're "hearing" the "limits" of Rich's duplication setup. If "originals", then I'd fault their provenance.

Charles

To me, the "definitive" listening session (if there is such a thing) would be to compare the Tape Project release with an original pressing or say 45 rpm remaster (now that's not always fair since the album may be horribly e-Eq'd such as the case of The Band release). So the pairs that might be interesting for comparison:

Bill Evans Waltz for Debby
Arnold Overtures (though I'm not crazy about the sound of the original LP)
The Band Stage Fright

 

[Steve williams]

Lets just say it is not a factor at all.

What about the playback device? What if the weakness is now all of a sudden found to be that the output electronics of the tape machines have been bettered by the output from a particular vinyl playback? Better speed accuracy, speed consistency and vibration control from the table, better resonance control, tracking and tonality from the tonearm and greater resolution, etc. from the cartridge?

Hmmm....

JTinn

we are friends buddy but honestly I have to agree with others here.

 

[Steve williams]

Might I ask the obvious (for me at least) is whether this is a color issue between Mike's Wave Kinetics/Telos/Anna config vs R2R (IOW a pick your flavor issue)

 

[jazdoc]

Is it just me or is anyone else bored with online bantering about which medium is 'better'? My experience is that such conversations are inconclusive, produce way more 'heat' than 'light' and are highly unlikely to change anyone's opinion. Perhaps we should celebrate diversity and allow everyone to enjoy their particular sonic preference? Shouldn't we honor individual priorities, accepting that we were just born this way. The world would be much less interesting if we all shared the same taste.

In that spirit, I would congratulate Mike L on pushing the analog envelope to the point where vinyl can compete with tape. It amazes me that 25+ years after being left for dead, vinyl/analog is better than ever, with increasing availability of new tape and vinyl. This in addition to the tremendous volume of legacy software that can be acquired for a relative bargain prices compared to the costs of other entertainment. Ironically, analog will be the last surviving physical medium.

 

[Steve williams]

Is it just me or is anyone else bored with online bantering about which medium is 'better

I agree but it was a post put up to suggest that Vinyl is indeed better with Mike's configuration but I do concur with your notion