Help me w/reservations about taking the R2R tape plunge...

[spiritofmusic]

Sure Ron, this thread is really whether I can justify spending $ooo's on a deck that atm I would only want to play at most a dozen tapes.
Now ironically at $300-$600 per title I couldn't afford to stock a vast library, but a spread of choice would be great. I could envisage 15-20/yr if moderate choice was there, and not every tape was top $ price ($250 ok, all $500 not so much).
I actually logged onto the UltraAnalogue website, and this is more like it.
I'm just a tad disappointed that there aren't at least a little more Blue Note or Windham Hill type artists on tape.
Michael Hedges "Aerial Boundaries", or some Wayne Shorter would get me chomping at the bit .
A promise of a trickle of Bartok string quartets, Bach harpsichord/organ works would get me frothing at the mouth .

 

[Ron Resnick]

I really can't see how a general enthusiast could have a higher level of experience in this area than him.

This is a subjective hobby. The incomparability of interpersonal utility teaches us that I cannot prove that I like vanilla ice cream more than you like chocolate ice cream.

Different people will come to different conclusions about sound quality. Each of us approaches these issues with different listening preferences and different audio system objectives.

A friend of mine knows that Redbook CD is the best format for him. I do not disagree with him -- that Redbook CD is the best format for him. To solve my personal sound quality equation I believe that CD is not the best format for me.

I have no desire to persuade or push anybody off of their listening preferences and conclusions. I do not think we will be able to make any practical or intellectual progress toward understanding more deeply our beloved hobby by suggesting that because a professional says x, then anyone of us hobbyists who disagrees with x is, ipso facto, wrong.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Am I right in thinking the UHA decks are plug and play, ie out of the box, set up, interconnect to preamp, rock and roll? Or do they need additional spend on tape headamp?

Yes, the UHA deck is plug and play. (But someone will have to show me how to thread the tape!)

 

[Ron Resnick]

IMHO having just a stock deck and tapes is a poor investment. We would be paying a fortune for the tapes and they would sound inferior to a good digital player. Only if you had a well cared and aligned machine and a decent head amplifier you will notice the extra quality of top tapes. Only the top reel machines have really good electronics. The most expensive item of owning a tape reel deck is labor. We run into it for the sound quality, and are fortunate that we can get some excellent music in this format, but in a very limited catalog.

My personal foray into tape is predicated solely on the hope that playing back on tape whatever music I am able to acquire on tape will result in greater emotional involvement and musical satisfaction than I could achieve by playing back that music on vinyl. (But I am secretly hoping that direct-to-disc vinyl still beats tape!)

I am hoping that the UHA deck renders untrue that the most expensive item of owning a tape reel deck is labor. (I hoped we say that only about exotic cars that leak priceless European fluids on the garage floor!)

 

[spiritofmusic]

This is the way I see it.
In the 80's and early 90s, while digital held sway over analog, and lp was on the verge of extinction by the upstart cd, I drove people around me crazy that the warmth of lp that was sorely missing from cd was information, not colourations inherent to the cartridge and the grooves as analog detractors argued. The number of people that I drove to mental distraction at work and parties yammering on about this is endless .
Then in the 00's, cd players started evolving to a much more analog friendly presentation, and there was at last a reasonable choice to be had: Reimyo, Emm Labs, Linn CD12, AMR, Playback Designs. And then my current cdp of choice came along, the Eera Tentation which really bridged the warmth gap to analog w/out losing what makes digital compelling too. And I own it to this day, so happy am I w/it.
And interview w/the designers of the time revealed a common thread that this warmth I decried being lost on early cd replay was indeed information - ambience, tone, reverb, decay etc. And they had found ways to wring that extra magic, which at least gave a semblance of lp replay.

Now dsd, and dsd x2, x4 has come along. I heard it for the first time a few months ago via a Golden Gate dac played thru 45's tube amps/AG Duos horns and loved the experience, a real jump twds the analog warmth of lp replay was being wrought, in many ways highly successful. Esp tonal purity, and seamlessness of sound. For the first time, digital didn't sound like dots w/my brain having to join them up, but had a continuousness and "creaminess" that only lp at that point could replicate.
So, if I was a digital diehard, maybe having never listened to lp before (too young/too resistant), dsd would be amazing, a lot of analog magic will now be there, w/all the stuff I might have loved about pcm before.

Consider the parallel in analog. Tape has always been better then vinyl, de facto by dint of it being the medium that all our favourite albums were recorded on if you're of a certain age, but also because it really holds vastly more information than is in our beloved lp grooves. So effectively. 90% of my library was on tape before I bought it on lp. But ask me in the 80s whether I would have considered it, and no would have been the immediate answer, nothing could sound better than my beloved tt. Back to those 80s arguments, but in reverse.
I contend that the extra continuousness in the sound that is wrought going from pcm to dsd is replicated in the same way in the analog realm going lp to tape. Maybe even more so.

Now if the jump from my records to tapes really is larger than going from cd's to dsd, I don't think my brain will be able to cope .

But, this choice is SO frustrating.

My thought is to maybe find a reconditioned Nagra, Studer A810, UHA deck, match it w/a tube preamp, invest in these dozen titles I really like, and hope at least half a dozen interesting chamber pieces/string quartet performances appeal to me each year, and maybe the odd fantastic title will surface (Michael Hedges "Aerial Boundaries" please!). A library of 50 tapes over a decade would be great.

Final thought, as Ron says, let's draw a breath before we say that current SOTA dsd x4 matches top tape via tubes. I wouldn't put any money on that just yet. At the very least, a GG needs to be the dac to compare IMHO.

 

[spiritofmusic]

My personal foray into tape is predicated solely on the hope that playing back on tape whatever music I am able to acquire on tape will result in greater emotional involvement and musical satisfaction than I could achieve by playing back that music on vinyl. (But I am secretly hoping that direct-to-disc vinyl still beats tape!)

I am hoping that the UHA deck renders untrue that the most expensive item of owning a tape reel deck is labor. (I hoped we say that only about exotic cars that leak priceless European fluids on the garage floor!)

Ron, you recently met "Ruby", my 1968 classic Citroen DS21, and, yes, it leaks expensive fluid all over the garage floor !

I'm a sucker for the Golden Age of analog technology.
My car is a prime example, often voted 3rd most important car of all time, and many famed car designers' favourite car in history.
My Barco crt projector is late 90's vintage, and beats any digital projection below $50k.
My Pioneer HLD X0 laserdisc player even though beaten by Oppo Blu Ray video ruled the roost for two decades, beating much dvd replay despite having a worse spec. An emblem of when Pioneer ruled the AV world.
The build quality on these, historical significance, and wide ranging influence, cannot be matched by any modern day components, short of spending astronomical amounts of cash. And w/mature technology that analog became/still is versus ever shifting digital standards (I know guys who have gone thru several digital projector upgrades in just a few yrs).

And so, R2R/tape and me are made for each other.

Gosh, I'm doing my best to convince myself .

 

[rockitman]

Yes, the UHA deck is plug and play. (But someone will have to show me how to thread the tape!)

Tape threading is very easy on the UHA/Tascam BR-20T deck.
When threaded properly, it will look like this

 

[Ron Resnick]

That does look pretty easy. Thank you, Christian!

 

[Blizzard]

Blizzard, respectfully, spiritofmusic asked a narrow question about the practical availability of popular classical music on reel-to-reel tape. I did not interpret his question as soliciting a re-litigation of the merits of digital playback.

As someone who uses all-tube electronics, who presently is vinyl only, and who has just begun buying tapes, I can assure you that convenience does not appear anywhere on my list of high-end audio objectives!

Well I suppose if you can afford it, just get 1 of everything in each room Why not? But don't be shy to share comparison results.

 

[Blizzard]

This is a subjective hobby. The incomparability of interpersonal utility teaches us that I cannot prove that I like vanilla ice cream more than you like chocolate ice cream.

Different people will come to different conclusions about sound quality. Each of us approaches these issues with different listening preferences and different audio system objectives.

A friend of mine knows that Redbook CD is the best format for him. I do not disagree with him -- that Redbook CD is the best format for him. To solve my personal sound quality equation I believe that CD is not the best format for me.

I have no desire to persuade or push anybody off of their listening preferences and conclusions. I do not think we will be able to make any practical or intellectual progress toward understanding more deeply our beloved hobby by suggesting that because a professional says x, then anyone of us hobbyists who disagrees with x is, ipso facto, wrong.

Maybe true, but until you actually make the comparisons with the same gear, how are you supposed to know how they sound?

 

[amirm]

One thing about tape decks: they have orders of magnitude more mechanical parts than turntables! Tons and tons of complexity to handle bi-directional control of the tape at different speeds. And gentle handling of the tape. The enemy of all of this is lack of use. If you do get the deck, you need to use it often. Otherwise the mechanism will gum up and start to act up. And that acting up can result in nastiness like your expensive tape spooling on the floor!

If it does fail, think about where you have to send it to be repaired. We are fortunate to have tape guru Ki Choi next to us. If you do not, think about that a bit before taking the plunge.

 

[amirm]

Consider the parallel in analog. Tape has always been better then vinyl, de facto by dint of it being the medium that all our favourite albums were recorded on if you're of a certain age, but also because it really holds vastly more information than is in our beloved lp grooves. So effectively. 90% of my library was on tape before I bought it on lp.

That is true but you are never going to get access to those master tapes. What you get is a second generation copy of said tape. The master tape also most likely was not a 1/4 like you will be buying.

Now if the jump from my records to tapes really is larger than going from cd's to dsd, I don't think my brain will be able to cope .

There is no way you can jump from LP to tape. With 0.00001% of content available on tape that you can buy on LP, no way can it remotely replace your record collection. As I said, tape should be purchased as an adjunct to your everyday system. Think of it as special liquor you get out for special occasion. You are not going to have it with every meal .

But, this choice is SO frustrating.

It shouldn't be really. If you are heavily into this hobby, then you should get a tape deck at some point. It will be an amazing conversation piece when friends come over. You will be able to enjoy playing content on it that you can buy. And the lovely total experience of watching it play that cannot be replicated in any other format. And importantly, you will never be told, "well, you don't know what you are missing with tape."

 

[Al M.]

And interview w/the designers of the time revealed a common thread that this warmth I decried being lost on early cd replay was indeed information - ambience, tone, reverb, decay etc. And they had found ways to wring that extra magic, which at least gave a semblance of lp replay.

I follow you here.

For the first time, digital didn't sound like dots w/my brain having to join them up, but had a continuousness and "creaminess" that only lp at that point could replicate.

Here you lose me. I never understood the complaint about lack of continuousness in digital. Perhaps some of it is due to the misconception about the digital waveform being a staircase; yet in fact, if you put an oscilloscope at the output of a DAC you will see that the continuous waveform is perfectly restored. And I just don't hear that supposed lack of continuousness either. Yes, digital sound can have some unaccustomed hardness (distinct from the artifact of electronic harshness and 'haze' in early digital replay), but guess what, unamplified live music often just sounds hard or sometimes perhaps even 'grainy' too (e.g., brass, human voices, some woodwind playing), except in the smoothest sounding venues. So if digital reproduces that, it's realism, not lack of continuousness -- the best analog with the best recordings/pressings can do that as well, but too often analog sounds unrealistically 'inoffensive' to me. A part of the lack of realism of some analog is for me precisely the inoffensive 'creaminess' that you applaud -- on the other hand, some timbres of unamplified live music could be described as 'creamy' indeed, and should be reproduced as such.

 

[Ron Resnick]

One thing about tape decks: they have orders of magnitude more mechanical parts than turntables! Tons and tons of complexity to handle bi-directional control of the tape at different speeds. And gentle handling of the tape. The enemy of all of this is lack of use. If you do get the deck, you need to use it often. Otherwise the mechanism will gum up and start to act up. And that acting up can result in nastiness like your expensive tape spooling on the floor!

Eeesh! So it really is like an exotic Italian sportscar! (The worst thing you can do is let them sit, unused.)

 

[microstrip]

(...)
And so, R2R/tape and me are made for each other.
(...)

My first serious R2R tape machine - a Teac XR1000R was accidental. At that time I wanted to dispose of a lovely Kiseky Ruby cartridge and the only interested person had no money to spend on it, but suggested an exchange for the like new machine. I took it, recorded and played a few tapes - the auto reverse mechanism was great, three hours continuous play-time! - and sold it. Bye bye tapes...

A few years ago I learned about the Tapeproject people and the enthusiasm of a few people towards this media. I had got a mint Akai 747 and became a subscriber, and started reading about tape technique. I learned from the experts who participate in the Tapeproject forums, started reading about the great people who developed the great studio machines and pushed the tape technique - Jay McKnight became my hero. When I discovered and testified that a Studer PR99 sounded better than the Akai I entered the professional world - once you "feel" the A80 tape transport there is no return, although strictly looking at traditional measurements would tell otherwise.

The archives of Fred Thal "Studer list" were a great reading moment and several tape sites, mainly the Magnetic Reference Laboratory (MRL) Home Page http://home.comcast.net/~mrltapes/ and included links, were part of my discovery. We can learn a lot from the tape mechanims case study - the classical industry measurements were wow and flutter, frequency response and distortion. However, they were not enough to grade the sound quality of machines - some of them sounded fundamentally better than others. Another form of flutter called 'scrape flutter', not normally included in traditional wow and flutter measurements was mainly responsible for this effect. Jay McKnight exhaustively studied scrape flutter and tape compliance, and developed measurement techniques and instruments to quantify it.

spiritofmusic, have an happy journey in the world of R2R!

 

[microstrip]

I follow you here.



Here you lose me. I never understood the complaint about lack of continuousness in digital. Perhaps some of it is due to the misconception about the digital waveform being a staircase; yet in fact, if you put an oscilloscope at the output of a DAC you will see that the continuous waveform is perfectly restored. And I just don't hear that supposed lack of continuousness either. Yes, digital sound can have some unaccustomed hardness (distinct from the artifact of electronic harshness and 'haze' in early digital replay), but guess what, unamplified live music often just sounds hard or sometimes perhaps even 'grainy' too (e.g., brass, human voices, some woodwind playing), except in the smoothest sounding venues. So if digital reproduces that, it's realism, not lack of continuousness -- the best analog with the best recordings/pressings can do that as well, but too often analog sounds unrealistically 'inoffensive' to me. A part of the lack of realism of some analog is for me precisely the inoffensive 'creaminess' that you applaud -- on the other hand, some timbres of unamplified live music could be described as 'creamy' indeed, and should be reproduced as such.

Al. M.,

Many people use the word "continuosness" with a meaning similar to what Harry Pearson of referred as "coherency ". He had a great article about what was addressing in conrad johnson ART preamplifier review. As you say, unfortunately continuosness is a dangerous word when debating digital sound, as most of the time always gets mixed with steps ...

 

[amirm]

Eeesh! So it really is like an exotic Italian sportscar! (The worst thing you can do is let them sit, unused.)

Exactly and for the same reasons! Anything mechanical needs to be used or it will develop problems.

 

[Al M.]

Al. M.,

Many people use the word "continuosness" with a meaning similar to what Harry Pearson of referred as "coherency ". He had a great article about what was addressing in conrad johnson ART preamplifier review. As you say, unfortunately continuosness is a dangerous word when debating digital sound, as most of the time always gets mixed with steps ...

I am not sure how HP uses the term, but lack of coherency is the least of my worries with respect to my digital playback. In fact, I'd rather say the timbral spectrum sometimes sounds too coherent, i.e., when it lacks the fine resolution from real instruments. String quartet recordings being a prime example.

(The best analog is better on timbral fine resolution than my digital playback -- I haven't heard the best digital yet I should add -- but even it falls quite a bit short of the real thing.)

 

[Bruce B]

One thing about tape decks: they have orders of magnitude more mechanical parts than turntables! Tons and tons of complexity to handle bi-directional control of the tape at different speeds. And gentle handling of the tape. The enemy of all of this is lack of use. If you do get the deck, you need to use it often. Otherwise the mechanism will gum up and start to act up. And that acting up can result in nastiness like your expensive tape spooling on the floor!

If it does fail, think about where you have to send it to be repaired. We are fortunate to have tape guru Ki Choi next to us. If you do not, think about that a bit before taking the plunge.

That's why you get one of Greg's decks that Coke with a warranty!

Several of us have massochistic behaviors and go the Studer route!!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Maybe true, but until you actually make the comparisons with the same gear, how are you supposed to know how they sound?

With that I agree!