If tape is so good why does it record so poorly?

[Kingrex]

I was at Vertere's, where he played back a LP that was recorded from digital. He also played back the digital from the same dac (benchmark) that it was recorded from. The LP sounded better.

He explained that if we go to Abbey road studios where this recording was done, we won't hear this difference and they will sound at the same level. He explained the reason happens because of quality of playback in consumer systems. The digital system in a studio has much lower loss of signal, and the same dac used at his place is compromised during playback.

I wondered about this but it does not make sense to me. Are you not using said compromised DAC to make the transfer to tape. You captured all the losses onto the tape.

In my mind, the best playback media in your home is the one played back on the best source in your home.

And that is my hesitation with making my own tape copies. If I don't have good equipment, I will make copies that don't sound very good.

 

[bonzo75]

I wondered about this but it does not make sense to me. Are you not using said compromised DAC to make the transfer to tape. You captured all the losses onto the tape.

No it was moved to the LP in studio

 

[adrianywu]

I was at Vertere's, where he played back a LP that was recorded from digital. He also played back the digital from the same dac (benchmark) that it was recorded from. The LP sounded better.

He explained that if we go to Abbey road studios where this recording was done, we won't hear this difference and they will sound at the same level. He explained the reason happens because of quality of playback in consumer systems. The digital system in a studio has much lower loss of signal, and the same dac used at his place is compromised during playback.

I think this is basically the problem I have come across. I can understand what makes a tape recorder better, or a turntable, but I cannot figure out what makes a digital playback system better. Different filters ? Upsampling ? I have no idea. I have friends who spent six figure sums on a dCS stack. And now, there is Wadax. How much "better" are they compared to equipment that cost 1/10th or even 1/100th of their price ? I have also not found many new hi-rez digital recordings that I like, taking into consideration the quality of the sound as well as the performance. Are most audiophiles playing mostly digitally remastered "classics" or new digital releases ? To be honest, I have lost interest in new recordings since the 1980s when I noticed that those recordings did not sound as good as the earlier analogue recordings. So, I end up still playing mostly Decca, EMI, Mercury, RCA, DGG recordings from the analogue era, and rock, folk and pop music from my youth. Unlike some of my friends, I never replaced my LPs with CDs.

 

[bonzo75]

To be honest, I have lost interest in new recordings since the 1980s when I noticed that those recordings did not sound as good as the earlier analogue recordings. So, I end up still playing mostly Decca, EMI, Mercury, RCA, DGG recordings from the analogue era, and rock, folk and pop music from my youth. Unlike some of my friends, I never replaced my LPs with CDs.

Yeah, the old recordings are the best and a system that starts with a transparency to recordings approach will sound the best, but it just gets too expensive and if someone does not already have a collection of them, near impossible.

 

[Eichenbaum]

If you have a recorder, testing is very easy. Record on tape and compare. If you prefer tape, that's fine, if you prefer the digital file, that's fine too. You'll never know until you hear both sounds.

 

[Kingrex]

Between Bonzo and Adrian the crux of the thread is tread upon. Your best source should playback the best.

Even if you do understand tape, it does not duplicate near as well or as inexpensively as digital.

I would say digital is the same as any source in that with thoughtfulness, you can get excellant results with a fraction the cost of other more expensive pieces. But I would argue the same is true of tape and vinyl.

And, if you had a really good digita systeml set up well, and compared it to your RP1 with Exact cartridge and the Rega Fono preamp, your going to say digital is way more natural and musical than vinyl. There are definitely thresholds.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, each of us makes the decision about how to balance convenience versus sound quality.

Many of us are happy to have the best in sound quality and convenience!

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

sq is the inverse of convenience imo

 

[Ron Resnick]

Please let's not devolve this thread about tape into another analog versus digital discussion. Thank you.

 

[Atmasphere]

Yes.

Two things are happening here. First, the 3rd harmonic that is typical of any tape machine adds a bit of richness (its treated by the ear the same as the second). If the digital has aliasing problems (which manifests as high frequency intermodulations) a tape machine helps filter them out. So it should be no surprise that someone might prefer the R2R recording of a digital file as opposed to the file itself- studios maintain tape machines for exactly this purpose.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have also not found many new hi-rez digital recordings that I like, taking into consideration the quality of the sound as well as the performance.

If we are not attracted by new recordings, then digital is surely a waste of time and resources. LP covers are great and LP collecting can be fun.

Are most audiophiles playing mostly digitally remastered "classics" or new digital releases ? (...)

I don't know what must play, but I mainly listen to digital releases. I spent many years listening to the best performances of the 60´s and 70's and still appreciate them, but find enormous pleasure listening to modern performances by very skilled people. As well as recordings that could not be possible using the old analog technology.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Two things are happening here. First, the 3rd harmonic that is typical of any tape machine adds a bit of richness (its treated by the ear the same as the second). If the digital has aliasing problems (which manifests as high frequency intermodulations) a tape machine helps filter them out. So it should be no surprise that someone might prefer the R2R recording of a digital file as opposed to the file itself- studios maintain tape machines for exactly this purpose.

Very interesting, Ralph! Thank you!

Does something similar explain why some people prefer to play a digital recording after it has been re-mastered to vinyl versus through a DAC?

 

[Atmasphere]

Does something similar explain why some people prefer to play a digital recording after it has been re-mastered to vinyl versus through a DAC?

Possibly. But when an LP release is done, if the producer was minding his Ps and Qs, a different digital master would have been used, one that lacks the DSP that often gets added; sometimes EQ but most commonly compression. In a commercial digital release, there is usually the assumption that the recording will be played in a car and so compression is used to help overcome road noise. There is no such expectation with vinyl so the producer is free to get rid of the compression. IME the only DSP that master should have is normalization.

Without knowing the particulars of a recording I can't speculate further.

 

[Kingrex]

I got Jonathan's direct copy of master Dave Miller Guitar Trio. This is an amazing copy of a tape. So clean and quiet. Very much Iike the real thing in your room.

And the music is pretty good. I'm happy to play it more than once.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Possibly. But when an LP release is done, if the producer was minding his Ps and Qs, a different digital master would have been used, one that lacks the DSP that often gets added; sometimes EQ but most commonly compression. In a commercial digital release, there is usually the assumption that the recording will be played in a car and so compression is used to help overcome road noise. There is no such expectation with vinyl so the producer is free to get rid of the compression. IME the only DSP that master should have is normalization.

Without knowing the particulars of a recording I can't speculate further.

Thank you very much for your reply and explanation!

 

[Foxbat]

I got Jonathan's direct copy of master Dave Miller Guitar Trio. This is an amazing copy of a tape. So clean and quiet. Very much Iike the real thing in your room.

And the music is pretty good. I'm happy to play it more than once.

Yes, very, very nice tape indeed.

 

[Kingrex]

I think I have my whole system fairly well tuned at this time. My wife went to give a speech to a bunch of venture capitalist today, so I had a chance top open up my system and really listen for a couple hours.

I know this concept has gone around and around. Beaten pretty good. But I noted today that my master tape copies play at a significantly higher level than my vinyl and digital. The gap between my vinyl and digital is closer than the gap between Vinyl and Tape. Could it be the source material. Sure, it has a part to do with it. But the general tone of each source component is very distinct. You can hear what the tape is doing that my vinyl just wont do configured as is. Maybe with a new phono pre and a new cartridge. But even then, there is something about the tapes and how the material is laid on them and comes back off that is just a league ahead. At least as I have it all configured now. I think my Vinyl would also need a new stand to compete.

Now, If Tim Leinbaugh of Music Technology can find time to make the double speed Nakamichi cassette machine he mused about. I like mix tapes. I am the type to want variety. Some album are amazing front to back and structured how the artist wanted. But I still enjoy mixing it up. Since 15 ips tapes really need to be played through to keep the tension even, I need a tape to dub onto. I hope his cassette can do the trick.

 

[Carlos269]

I think I have my whole system fairly well tuned at this time. My wife went to give a speech to a bunch of venture capitalist today, so I had a chance top open up my system and really listen for a couple hours.

I know this concept has gone around and around. Beaten pretty good. But I noted today that my master tape copies play at a significantly higher level than my vinyl and digital. The gap between my vinyl and digital is closer than the gap between Vinyl and Tape. Could it be the source material. Sure, it has a part to do with it. But the general tone of each source component is very distinct. You can hear what the tape is doing that my vinyl just wont do configured as is. Maybe with a new phono pre and a new cartridge. But even then, there is something about the tapes and how the material is laid on them and comes back off that is just a league ahead. At least as I have it all configured now. I think my Vinyl would also need a new stand to compete.

Now, If Tim Leinbaugh of Music Technology can find time to make the double speed Nakamichi cassette machine he mused about. I like mix tapes. I am the type to want variety. Some album are amazing front to back and structured how the artist wanted. But I still enjoy mixing it up. Since 15 ips tapes really need to be played through to keep the tension even, I need a tape to dub onto. I hope his cassette can do the trick.

A pretty straight forward exercise is to take your favorite vinyl and record it on reel-to-reel magnetic tape at 0db. When you playback the tape you will find much of that missing magic. That euphonic magnetic tape compression & soft saturation that creates extra warmth & harmonics and that tape-head bass bump that we all enjoy. Magnetic tape is very enjoyable.

 

[Kingrex]

A pretty straight forward exercise is to take your favorite vinyl and record it on reel-to-reel magnetic tape at 0db. When you playback the tape you will find much of that missing magic. That euphonic magnetic tape compression & soft saturation that creates extra warmth & harmonics and that tape-head bass bump that we all enjoy. Magnetic tape is very enjoyable.

In my system the vinyl has a touch of cupped sound in the midrange when compared to tape. And the resolution is not near the same. On Vinyl, guitars might stand out and stand up. They capture your attention and seem to have detail up the wazoo. The tape blends those guitars into the performance while delivering a much more precise recreation of the harmonic structure that fills out the music. Its not added detail. Detail is never added in a step back generation. Its detail that is there you don't realize on the vinyl.

My analog productions 45 rpm Cat Stevens Tea for the Tillerman for example. Where Do The Children Play. I like this album alot. I also have original pressings. When I found a first Generation 1/2" copy of the master tape, Island ILPS9135 I bought it. There is no question the tape is far more engaging. it is very different to listen too. It reminds me of when I heard Mikes Led Zeppelin. It pours forth information. There is so much more to listen for because all if it is intelligible. Some of the detail I feel is missing on the vinyl might be there. But you have to focus for it. It requires attention to hear it. With the tape its just there, and it makes much more sense a whole for it to be there. Its sensed as missing in the vinyl. What caught my attention in this song was a very subtle guitar note that is more a chord harmonic note that is so delicately touched after the primary note, I never heard it before. Not until I was playing my tape. It probably is in the vinyl, but as I played the tape today, it was a holly XhiX that's amazing realization. It is very clean and easy to digest and recognized.

That is why I say the vinyl has a little cupped midrange. Its like it highlighting. Trying to hard to resolve. Part of that resolution is dynamics. I think my vinyl is presenting a tad to much contrived dynamics. But I could also say, while the tape has enormous scale, its speed does not seem as fast as the vinyl. That speed for me is interpreted as a midrange bump. And it is delightful. But in the end, your giving up way to much balance and overall, well blended detail to reach for it. In all honesty I wish a tad more speed came with the tape. At least in my system, tape presents much different than vinyl. And it is perceived on many levels as much better. It does lack a touch of speed that would be a nice add.

 

[Carlos269]

In my system the vinyl has a touch of cupped sound in the midrange when compared to tape. And the resolution is not near the same. On Vinyl, guitars might stand out and stand up. They capture your attention and seem to have detail up the wazoo. The tape blends those guitars into the performance while delivering a much more precise recreation of the harmonic structure that fills out the music. Its not added detail. Detail is never added in a step back generation. Its detail that is there you don't realize on the vinyl.

My analog productions 45 rpm Cat Stevens Tea for the Tillerman for example. Where Do The Children Play. I like this album alot. I also have original pressings. When I found a first Generation 1/2" copy of the master tape, Island ILPS9135 I bought it. There is no question the tape is far more engaging. it is very different to listen too. It reminds me of when I heard Mikes Led Zeppelin. It pours forth information. There is so much more to listen for because all if it is intelligible. Some of the detail I feel is missing on the vinyl might be there. But you have to focus for it. It requires attention to hear it. With the tape its just there, and it makes much more sense a whole for it to be there. Its sensed as missing in the vinyl. What caught my attention in this song was a very subtle guitar note that is more a chord harmonic note that is so delicately touched after the primary note, I never heard it before. Not until I was playing my tape. It probably is in the vinyl, but as I played the tape today, it was a holly XhiX that's amazing realization. It is very clean and easy to digest and recognized.

That is why I say the vinyl has a little cupped midrange. Its like it highlighting. Trying to hard to resolve. Part of that resolution is dynamics. I think my vinyl is presenting a tad to much contrived dynamics. But I could also say, while the tape has enormous scale, its speed does not seem as fast as the vinyl. That speed for me is interpreted as a midrange bump. And it is delightful. But in the end, your giving up way to much balance and overall, well blended detail to reach for it. In all honesty I wish a tad more speed came with the tape. At least in my system, tape presents much different than vinyl. And it is perceived on many levels as much better. It does lack a touch of speed that would be a nice add.

You are describing differences between vinyl and tape versions of the recordings. What I asked you to do is to record your favorite vinyl on tape and then play it back and describe those differences. Try that and let us know what you hear. Are your reel-to-reel decks equipped to record? Or are they only set-up for playback? After you get done with comparing the vinyl to the recorded version on magnetic tape then do the same by recording from one of of your digital sources. Comparing two different commercial formats of a recording is not an apples-to-apples comparison because they are derived from different mastering, to suite the media (NAB, IEC, AME vs. RIAA, for example), but a recorded version played back on the same system that it was recorded on will give you a clearer insight into the differences in the quality of your sources (vinyl vs. tape vs. digital) in your system.