Is this guy for real?
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
Mark is a friend and one of the strongest advocates of high fidelity music. In other words, "he is one of the good guys." What he says about a PCM copy being superior to a second or third generation dub has merit in principal. Are we saying that those analog dubs are superior? If so, why?
Amir, words don't answer that question. neither do numbers. you have to listen. then it jumps out and stomps your previous ignorant bias. that is if you investigate deep enough to find top level tapes and decks. and there are plenty out there to listen to if you care about it.
listening to just any guy with a tape deck proves nothing.
i'd enjoy getting Mark in my room. I have a number of his AIX PCM hirez files; and they are nice.
but my dsd and 2xdsd is better, then my vinyl and then the tape and it's gets better and better. it's not hard to hear the way it goes.
I have plenty of second or third gen 15 ips reels from the master. They sound fantastic and still beat digital A/D's quite handily. Dubs of reels done on good equipment don't degrade nearly as much compared to cassette tape generation dubs...that most of us are familiar with.
The whole premise of my complaint was him putting down his peers in a public forum and calling other work (by his peers), not hi-rez. I could give a RA what he thinks about different formats! Not Professional at all....
I get your professional angst toward this guys arrogance and lack of professionalism. but the root cause of his comments is his lack of first hand knowledge of the current state of what he speaks about. the rest of us care about a self proclaimed authority spouting baloney on a subject we do care about.
I want to make sure you are answering the right question Mike. I am not asking if digital is better than tape. I am asking if you start with a tape and make a second and third generation copy whether it will be better than PCM conversion of the original tape. Whatever goodness you think tape imparts to the sound has already happened in the first generation. You would have to make a case that either subsequent copies keep improve that, or that the PCM conversion is so bad as to undo the sound of the original tape. Is this what you are saying?
Not sure where this came from. I am asking who wants to take a position and has done the comparison and can explain the results because in absence of that, what Mark is saying is not controversial in my book.
Well, this tells me that you misread my post then. Please read above and confirm this is what you still think when it comes to later generations of a tape.
I am not following you Bruce. Myles is not his peer. And the derogatory part of that remark was from Chris:
"And then there was the seminar that followed the panel on high-resolution audio called “Discover the Reel Truth” moderated by Myles B. Astor, PhD. I met Computer Audiophile’s Chris Connaker in the hall on Sunday and he told me that my head would have exploded at what was being pulled over on the attendees of this seminar. The description from the webpage says it all, “Audiophiles seeking the Holy Grail, the ne plus ultra of sound, need look no further than 15-ips/2-track reel-to-reel tape. These 21st century, real time duplicated, second or third generation [tapes], simply are as close as one can get to the original recordings.” It wasn’t a joke…these people either can’t read specification sheets or have never bothered to listen to real high-resolution audio. Second or third generation tapes of original recordings? Give me great quality transfers to high-resolution PCM digital files and forget losing fidelity through another generation. Save costs, complexity, and arrive at better sound with high-resolution PCM. Wow."
Who has he put down here? Yes he is expressing a strong opinion in favor of PCM over copies of the tape but what else is he going to say if that is his opinion? Do the people who believe DSD is better worry that they are putting down their peers who believe in PCM audio???
a PCM copy is not very close to a direct analog dub done right and played back thru state of the art decks. I have many dozens of examples.
Bruce could comment on a dxd PCM (352-32???) copy and how close that might come; however that is not what Mark is talking about. certainly the dsd or 2xdsd comes closer but still not really close. a great vinyl mastering will come closest of all.
none of those digital copies are bad, they are all degrees of very good. but they are not tape or vinyl.
generational losses are real but much less than you are inferring. in fact; if I do a transfer from 1/4" to 1/2" with my 2 decks the 1/2" copy can sound better.
really Amir.....words do not come close to making the case. too bad you were not with the Tres Amigos and did not hear the 15ips 1/4" dub of 'Riders In The Storm' in my room. that would say more than any words on a page. no digital can do that.
Last edited:
Mike, I have been to your house and have heard your tapes. And have my own more modest deck. I really enjoy the sound. The question and I am repeating myself is the fidelity of the second and third generation tapes which was the description of said session. Do you have a digital capture and second and third-generation tape that you have done? That is the topic I commented on.
a long time ago (3-4 years ago) very briefly as I recall. if you really want to know about this. visit when you have some time to take a deep breath.
every one of my tapes is at least 3 generations from the master except the Tape Project (2 generations mostly) and a few I have that were made from recent recordings. so my opinion about tape is based on tapes at least 3 generations from the original.
there is a master, and then there is a 2nd gen safety; maybe some of my tapes were dubbed from a 2nd gen safety. but likely most are off dubs from that safety (so at least 4th generation).
and they are magnificent for the most part.
so the whole generation argument is a dead end. it's just a rationalization for those too lazy to investigate, or with major agendas. and generational truths from 20-30 years ago and that those tape formulations is different for today and todays tapes and heads.
How about this Mike. We rope in Bruce to create a copy of a tape and a digital master. We then get together and listen. I buy the food and we enjoy arguing about which one is better. Deal? 
Which makes it even worse. It's hearsay and Chris can't defend himself. It's like a bunch of kids on the school ground.
I understand your bias now Amir. Read further and it states: It wasn’t a joke…these people either can’t read specification sheets or have never bothered to listen to real high-resolution audio. Second or third generation tapes of original recordings? "
And then again about Cookie's vast amount of work. You can defend your friend all you want, but you do not speak unkindly of someone's life's work!
As wrongheaded as Neil Young is with his PonoMusic site and the false elevation of CDs to high-resolution status”,
As I watched the video, I was surprised that Alan didn’t use high-end equipment. I’m not an expert on state-of-the-art turntables and preamps but it seems to me that given the historic nature of this recording AND the importance of getting this final transfer done right, they might have sought out studio equipped with state-of-the-art gear. I’m not say that Alan isn’t competent but I think it could have been done better.
The moderators called me out for saying the same thing about another forum member here!
Here's more:
I don’t know anything about the sample rate, word length, or equipment used during the transfer but I can be pretty sure that they didn’t use the Plangent Process or the latest ADC with the project. It’s a shame…
Talking about Paul McGowan: "If you’ve been a reader of this blog for a while, you’ll know that I’ve written critically about Paul’s fixation on DSD and what I perceive as illogical design decisions in some of their recent products"
I could go on and on Amir about this guys lack of Professional conduct.
Last edited:
Bruce, where is that stuff written? I am not seeing them in the link to his blog page in the first post.
you might be right as far as how we label the safety. it might be considered 1st gen, not 2nd gen.
of course, the master is most times a copy of the work parts....not the original recording.
the problem is that from what I've been told; even when we are told that the master was used to make the copy, it's typically a safety (or safety of a safety) that is what is sent out to get mastered by these re-issue houses, not the real master. so the provenance of any tape is highly questionable unless we have personal knowledge about the specifics. there are exceptions of course.
lots of the underground tapes originate from safeties sent to various countries for native pressings back in the day. these safeties get dubbed, then a guy knows a guy. and a dub gets sent around or sold to a collector. which tape is this? is this the dub or the actual safety? and then when it was originally sent to that country was it a 1st gen safety, or a safety of a safety?
10 or 20 countries doing original pressings and getting safeties don't all get 1st gen safeties.
I see where you are coming from especially if the title was done in multi track...so you have the separate track masters, then when it's mixed down to two track it's a 1st gen and then a safety of that would be gen2.
Then you have the working master, the production master, the EQ'd master, the running master (this may be also called the working master) and the layback master.... Very confusing.
Similar threads
- Sticky
