Comparing Reissued LPs to Analogue Productions Tapes

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes, but the other thing is I feel more comfortable taking LP advice over tape advice. Easier to investigate too. The reason is that tape knowledge is restricted by the available software, while the LP knowledge base is huge. So I can ask the general what to buy, and buy it, cost aside, while after listening to the tape titles and some samples from usual sources I have zero interest in tape.

so what you are saying is you have not found a 'General' in the tape landscape.

and opinions about tape titles are valuable relative to the holders access to vinyl comparisons, and the equipment they might have. so it takes some investigations to vet it.

and tape will never have that wide spread knowledge base since so many of the best tapes (of popular titles) are grey market, so information about the best tapes is restricted. it's out there but not really open and freely shared.

vinyl has no such limits. i don't blame you for your conclusions. but tape still has the highest ceiling of performance. but it's not relevant for everyone.

 

[bonzo75]

The General is a general, or maybe colonel, of tapes. He is close to all the recording studios and the quality control guys who worked at the labels, the ERC guys, etc. You have to be to get this level of vinyl pressings and test pressings. He owns telefunken m10 or is it m15 kind of tape machines etc

I believe it is not possible to get this level of knowledge on tape, as it is on vinyl, because of the limitations on availability of tape. Vinyl is vast. I am not disagreeing that if you played the same performance on tape vs LP the tape could sound better, but that is not even my point. I could pull out another LP of the same piece better than that tape, for which tape doesn't exist

 

[bonzo75]

If two Decca engineers are compared, both who have recorded the same performance from the same master using the same equipment, you find that one is better than the other. Which is why collectors collect by the deadwax matrix that denotes the engineers.

So why would some solo guy making a copy of that tape sound better, just because it is tape? There can be a lot lost there. I assume you tape guys also prefer one source over the other, since some sources don't get it right

 

[DexterMiller]

If two Decca engineers are compared, both who have recorded the same performance from the same master using the same equipment, you find that one is better than the other. Which is why collectors collect by the deadwax matrix that denotes the engineers.

So why would some solo guy making a copy of that tape sound better, just because it is tape? There can be a lot lost there. I assume you tape guys also prefer one source over the other, since some sources don't get it right

The lathe-cutting/disc-stamping process, even in the days it coexisted with pre recorded reel to reel being a remotely mainstream consumer product as it ever got (circa: 1960-1973), had NOTHING to do with the role of the tape duplicating business. The mastering sources were entirely SEPARATE.
Even 120ips-dubbed, quarter-track/7.5 tapes were -at worst- made from third generation safety copies of the master itself...and you know what(!): most of them (if they've managed to be well preserved over 40+years) sound immediately BETTER than the bass-thin and sludgy/compressed vinyl counterpart of the same era ! They should...the tape was an (unaltered dynamically) electrical duplicate of a CLOSER source to the original; rather, than, a mechanical facsimile (the record) requiring the variable whims of a cutting engineer's involvement to get it to: 1. fit under 24 mins. a side and, 2. have it able to play back on the worst consumer turntables of the day (to prevent as many store returns -then- as possible).
A clean, 7.5ips reel of a commercial album 50 years'-old can transfer to a cdr and sound better (surprisingly, a majority of the time) than a 21st century reissue of the same thing made by a record label!

 

[astrotoy]

As most of you know, I am a very serious, addicted, classical music fan. I started with vinyl and with over 15,000 records of which 90+% are classical. I have very complete collections of original Decca, EMI, RCA, Mercury, Lyrita, etc. However, I do not have uber complete collections like the General. For example, I have the famous EMI Klemperer Mahler Ninth Symphony, but I don't have 8 copies of it, so my one copy is all I can play. Knowing how hard it is to find even one good copy of most of these records, I was blown away when he pulled out multiple copies of these super rare albums, one after another.

When Classics Records came out with their reissues of the RCA Living Stereo titles in the early '90's I jumped on board, even though I had or later would have almost all of them in original pressings. The bottom line was that after all the variations in vinyl types and thicknesses, I found that I thought the 45RPM pressings (I think I have just about all the classical titles that were issued that way and some of the jazz and pop titles) were the best of those reissues. Chad has gone back and done an excellent job (IMHO) with his reissues over the past few years also. Some of the early Classics reissues in 33 suffered from an irritating high frequency emphasis (LSC-2313 Venice and LSC-1806 Also Sprach were two egregious examples) but the 45 reissues tamed that problem. In any case, it is extremely difficult and expensive to find originals of many of these albums that are in close to pristine condition. Now I am learning that my 45 collection is getting more valuable also! One very irritating aspect of the 45's is their very short playing times, sometimes just a few minutes and seldom over 10 or 15 minutes. In the worst cases (my choice for absolute worst is the Heifetz Beethoven Violin Concerto 1st movement) there is a fade down in the middle of a passage and the side ends, followed by fade back up on the next side.

A couple of comments about tape. If you are looking for classical music on commercial 15ips 2 track tape, there isn't much. Most of it are recordings done by the companies selling the tapes, led by Ed Pong's tapes from his Ultra Analogue Company. The only commercial label that has been releasing classical tapes from its own catalogue that I know is Opus 3 and I have 11 of their classical albums (22 reels). Both Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds/Ultra Tape have released "famous" classical recordings, and I have just about all of them. For the latter two, I also have the original vinyl and the RCA reissued (45's for the one that have been reissued that way). But they are a very small number (I have 8 classical albums from AS/UT (16 reels) and a similar number from TP. My experience with comparing tapes to the original vinyl or the 45 reissues is that the vast majority of the time, the tape is better, but a few times (both AS/UT and TP) the vinyl is better.

More later.

Larry

 

[Ron Resnick]

Very interesting, Larry. Thank you!

 

[Ron Resnick]

If two Decca engineers are compared, both who have recorded the same performance from the same master using the same equipment, you find that one is better than the other. . . .

I’m really not sure what you’re talking about. I am just learning about tape myself, so I defer to the General and to MikeL and Ki and Larry and Bruce, etc., but I think there should not exist the random or deliberate variability you are suggesting.

If both engineers understand the level and equalization of the master tape, and have maintained and aligned properly the record machine they are copying to using the test tones on the master tape, and they are using the same brand and formulation of tape, they should get the same sonic result on the tape copy. (Except that I understand that each succeeding generation of tape copy carries with it a slightly higher level of noise or hiss than the tape from which it is copied.)

I think you are implying that tape dubbing involves as much creativity and variability as manning the mixing desk during a session recording or riding the cutting lathe to cut a lacquer during musical passages that are too high in amplitude for the vinyl mastering system to accommodate automatically.

I don’t think tape copying, assuming proper alignment and care regarding the other variables I mention above, is nearly as variable as you are suggesting. Yes, obviously, it’s possible to screw up any number of things if one is (like me) a novice on tape, but that is why I plan not to copy my own tapes.

 

[Bruce B]

I’m really not sure what you’re talking about. I am just learning about tape myself, so I defer to the General and to MikeL and Ki and Larry and Bruce, etc., but I think there should not exist the random or deliberate variability you are suggesting.

Bonzo is right.... there are just too many variables in this tape thing. There are no Studer tape machines that sound like mine. Just as most (all?) tape machines in the big studios are custom modified. I like to dub through my Doshi, though I have done machine-machine. That's one variable there. Even tape formulations vary, though Mulan is getting more consistant now. What I have also run across is that a lot of master (safety/production) tape does not have tones, so I have to que up to a loud passage and set my levels from there. You also have different brand heads... (not going there), and most of the tapes that are done today have to work on a wide range of equipment. I know Ed likes to run high levels, as do I. I know stampers can wear and the first press is much better than number 999. Same with tape machines.....

 

[Ron Resnick]

Bonzo is right.... there are just too many variables in this tape thing. There are no Studer tape machines that sound like mine.. . .

Bruce, I think these are answers to different questions. All you are saying here is that different playback machines sound different. But surely that is at least as true of vinyl front-end playback as it is of tape machine playback. When do we ever argue that all vinyl replay front-ends sound the same?

And I acknowledge as well the variability due to different brands of tape and different tape formulations. But that is no different than acknowledging that different brands and formulations of 35mm films yield different looking negatives or slides.

My reply to Kedar’s post was by way of saying the assertion in the post doesn’t tell us anything. I interpreted Kedar’s post to include, at least implicitly, the suggestion that two engineers couldn’t make a virtually identical sounding copy from the same repro machine to the same record machine if they tried, and I just don’t believe that’s the case.

On the other hand if Kedar is suggesting that different analog replay front-ends sound different, then that, too, is completely obvious, and there likely is at least as much variability in the sound of different vinyl front-ends as there is in the sound of different tape reproducers.

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce, I think these are answers to different questions. All you are saying here is that different playback machines sound different. .

No Ron.... I'm saying the Playback machine of the source tape AND the Record/dupping machine. There are too many variables in each one of these machines. Forget levels..... what is the wire they use from the head to the electronics.. what are the brand caps they use in the signal path... what is the brand interconnect between the two (or more) machines during dupping, what is the ????????? and on... and on....
Not every production is done on the same machine... I know of Ampex, Studer, MCI, Sony....are there others that use different machines to produce tape?

 

[astrotoy]

The lathe-cutting/disc-stamping process, even in the days it coexisted with pre recorded reel to reel being a remotely mainstream consumer product as it ever got (circa: 1960-1973), had NOTHING to do with the role of the tape duplicating business. The mastering sources were entirely SEPARATE.
Even 120ips-dubbed, quarter-track/7.5 tapes were -at worst- made from third generation safety copies of the master itself...and you know what(!): most of them (if they've managed to be well preserved over 40+years) sound immediately BETTER than the bass-thin and sludgy/compressed vinyl counterpart of the same era ! They should...the tape was an (unaltered dynamically) electrical duplicate of a CLOSER source to the original; rather, than, a mechanical facsimile (the record) requiring the variable whims of a cutting engineer's involvement to get it to: 1. fit under 24 mins. a side and, 2. have it able to play back on the worst consumer turntables of the day (to prevent as many store returns -then- as possible).
A clean, 7.5ips reel of a commercial album 50 years'-old can transfer to a cdr and sound better (surprisingly, a majority of the time) than a 21st century reissue of the same thing made by a record label!

Welcome to WBF, Dexter. Sounds like you are another tape buff. I am constantly surprised how good 7.5ips 4 track stereo tapes sound, even those which are 50+ years old. Almost all of mine are classical, where very few were subject to a lot of play and almost none were done at 3.75ips.

Larry

 

[bonzo75]

If both engineers understand the level and equalization of the master tape, and have maintained and aligned properly the record machine they are copying to using the test tones on the master tape, and they are using the same brand and formulation of tape, they should get the same sonic result on the tape copy. (Except that I understand that each succeeding generation of tape copy carries with it a slightly higher level of noise or hiss than the tape from which it is copied.)

It is during the cutting process they differ. And one engineer can get on a more dynamic range to the LP than the other, so on the LP you can hear more concert hall ambience and breath from one while the other will sound more flat. You will be able to confirm this if you repeat the same experiment with another LP made by the same engineers. What each cutting engineer does is an art, and not exactly documented.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is during the cutting process they differ. And one engineer can get on a more dynamic range to the LP than the other, so on the LP you can hear more concert hall ambience and breath from one while the other will sound more flat. You will be able to confirm this if you repeat the same experiment with another LP made by the same engineers. What each cutting engineer does is an art, and not exactly documented.

I agree with this post. But it has nothing to do with tape duplication.

 

[panreels]

Welcome to WBF, Dexter. Sounds like you are another tape buff. I am constantly surprised how good 7.5ips 4 track stereo tapes sound, even those which are 50+ years old. Almost all of mine are classical, where very few were subject to a lot of play and almost none were done at 3.75ips.

Larry: I have to agree with you on how great 7 ½“ 4 track tapes can sound, I have the RCA 2 track tape of Victory at Sea and the 4 track RCA reissue, and I was surprised on how much better the 4 track sounded, of course this isn’t true for all 2 track tapes, I have a lot of 4 track and 2 track pre-recorded tapes and I do copy most of the 4 track tapes to 2 track because I don’t like flipping tapes over, do you or anyone else copy 4 tracks to 2 tape track

 

[astrotoy]

Larry: I have to agree with you on how great 7 ½“ 4 track tapes can sound, I have the RCA 2 track tape of Victory at Sea and the 4 track RCA reissue, and I was surprised on how much better the 4 track sounded, of course this isn’t true for all 2 track tapes, I have a lot of 4 track and 2 track pre-recorded tapes and I do copy most of the 4 track tapes to 2 track because I don’t like flipping tapes over, do you or anyone else copy 4 tracks to 2 tape track

I have copied most of my early 2 track RCA's and others to 15ips 2 track. Only have a few of those. I don't have a way of recording 4 track stereo at this point and my record machine is set up for 15ips 2 track tapes. Never thought of transferring 7.5ips 4 track stereo to 2 track. The early days of consumer tape were pretty variable in terms of quality control. My early 4 track London classical tapes in the blue boxes (like London blueback albums) are all on acetate and they are not of the quality of my early Decca albums of the same era. Same with many of my Mercury and RCA 4 track tapes although there are some really nice ones. As time went on, the QC really improved, even though they were moving to transistor electronics and mylar tape.

I recently pulled out of storage my old Akai GX747dbx R2R that I bought new in the early '80's. Plugged into a much better front end with much better interconnects than when it was new, I was surprised how good the tapes sound. The Akai is a reversing machine, but unfortunately the auto reverse mechanism doesn't work and I have to push the reverse play button before the tape ends to avoid rethreading.

I have about 500 reels of old commercial 4 track stereo tapes most bought for a song, and even some of the handful of 3.75ips tapes sound surprisingly good.

Larry

 

[c1ferrari]

Okay, so who/what is this “General”?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Okay, so who/what is this “General”?

He is zerostargeneral, a member of WBF. Kedar published a couple of weeks ago a detailed report on his visits to zerostargeneral’s system: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...r-vyger-original-lps.27231/page-4#post-551332

zerostargeneral likely has the largest collection of vinyl in the world, and he likely is the world’s leading authority on original vinyl pressings.

 

[c1ferrari]

He is zerostargeneral, a member of WBF. Kedar published a couple of weeks ago a detailed report on his visits to zerostargeneral’s system: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...r-vyger-original-lps.27231/page-4#post-551332

zerostargeneral likely has the largest collection of vinyl in the world, and he likely is the world’s leading authority on original vinyl pressings.

Much obliged, Ron.

 

[bonzo75]

Much obliged, Ron.

I was using experiences from the general to do my bit in Saving Private Ron

 

[c1ferrari]

I was using experiences from the general to do my bit in Saving Private Ron

Hehe - perhaps, you mean...Commandant Ron!
BTW, I'm looking into a drum kit.