The pecking order

[Fast/Forward]

Hello! It's the new kid in town! Get ready to take aim!

Here goes, IMHO,

1. Reel to Reel
2. Vinyl
3. Digital

Media used in my own comparison. Miles Davis’ “Kind Of Blue”; Columbia (USA) 2 track stereo 7.5 IPS reel tape GCB 60, Columbia (USA) Quarter track 7.5 IPS reel tape CQ 379 (2 copies), Columbia (Canada) first pressing mono CL 1355 (2 copies) and stereo CS 8163, 33.3 RPM LPs, Classic Records CS 8163 stereo 45RPM, Columbia (USA) 1960’s reissue and a Columbia Master Sound gold stereo CD CK 52861.
I believe that this ranking will remain the same regardless of the quality of the playback chain. It is indisputable that each medium is a copy. Earlier arguments present distortion as an aspect to be considered. That said, it can be said that each medium is, no matter how high the fidelity still a distortion (apparently with it's own sonic signature) of the original sound source.
So my thoughts on this and why I ranked my favorite distortions.
From a personal experience in a recording studio, being present during rehearsal, recording and playback of the master tape and later listening to the redbook CD it was clear as day to me that the analogue reel tape was superior in fidelity to the CD in reproducing the acoustic instruments and vocals.
From my experience in listening to these recordings via different media through four decades of pursuing higher fidelity in various media and audio equipment my ranking has remained the same. A few years ago I heard Patricia Barber’s MFSL “Cafe Blue” gold (?) disc played immediately before the MFSL vinyl version on a SOTA system. My host asked what i thought as my mouth was hanging open. My response based on the CD version was that ”I could tell somehow that the drum kit was tuned and I didn’t even play drums!” (And yes the vinyl was better!) Until then I was dismissive of digital recordings being considered high end so I have not given digital the acknowledgment and exposure I should.
There might be cause to include laserdisc as an analogue (optical) media. The few comparisons I am able to make between laserdisc vs. redbook digital (optical) or hard drive have been won by the 12” disc.

 

[c1ferrari]

Hi Franz

c1ferrari

I am not sure I am reading you right .. SHould I infer from what you posted here that what you heard from the DSD (DIgital) was so close to the 15 ips that , to paraphrase you..
So as to be free of misunderstanding, may I ask what was your previous belief schema?

Analog R2R (AAA) --> vinyl --> digital

Amended:

Analog R2R (AAA) --> DSD --> vinyl --> RBCD

 

[Bruce B]

I have done literally thousands of transfers for labels and artists and no amount of money that I can throw at digital can capture the true essence of tape... or even vinyl. I have had dozens of audiophiles, pros and novices in the studio and did fast switching between formats to show what can and cannot be done with digital. This is my opinion, but it does come with over 3 decades of listening.

 

[fas42]

I have done literally thousands of transfers for labels and artists and no amount of money that I can throw at digital can capture the true essence of tape... or even vinyl. I have had dozens of audiophiles, pros and novices in the studio and did fast switching between formats to show what can and cannot be done with digital. This is my opinion, but it does come with over 3 decades of listening.

The trouble is that digital playback is extremely susceptible to interference, far more obvious auditorily than with the analogue mediums, the slightest "misdemeanour" knocks the stuffing out of digital playback, instantly becomes grey, flat, boring, can't-be-bothered-listening-to-this. I've only spent over 25 years wrestling with this mongrel of a problem, so have a fair bit of experience with it.

The very fact that you've got a setup where you can do fast switching between the media is enough to muck up any chance of the digital sounding as good as it should. That's certainly been my experience; as I said, the industry still hasn't got it to work right, at least going by the last few times I've had a listen to ambitious components ...

 

[treitz3]

Hello to all involved in this thread. No offense intended whatsoever to anybody who has offered an opinion here but it personally cracks me up when folks get into these types of "format war" discussions. It is clear to me that over the years, nothing ever really comes of it and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Some folks will always prefer some formats over others [for whatever reasons, known or unknown to the public] and throughout my observations, no amount of information, observations, proof/facts, empirical evidence or measurements can sway those folks' stance.

Here's my stance if anybody even remotely cares. Each format discussed here each have their own sets of deficiencies as well as attributes and I can appreciate all 3 of the formats discussed in this thread for what they can each bring to the table. Nothing wrong with a sincere appreciation of all of the formats and what they can bring to the table, especially since some albums or selections are only available on one of them.

Enjoy the music.

 

[Bruce B]

The very fact that you've got a setup where you can do fast switching between the media is enough to muck up any chance of the digital sounding as good as it should. That's certainly been my experience; as I said, the industry still hasn't got it to work right, at least going by the last few times I've had a listen to ambitious components ...

How can you muck up 3 different sources, on their own dedicated power leg, going into an EMM Labs Switchman 3 calibrated to within .05v?

I have spent over $100k on digital over the past couple of years with the latest/greatest equipment. I pay strict attention to detail, even making sure cables are laying straight, cleaning heads after EVERY tape pass and even doing tape transfers though headphones because I didn't want to disturb the air molecules around the tape heads from the woofers pushing air past them! (ok... the last one may be a little stretch). I've had to do this because Winston and David demand the very best. It's a big PITA, but I've learned alot along the way.

I'm with you Frank... I still think digital has a long way to go.

 

[Ron Party]

Tom, great post. This thread is another in the queue where opinions are stated as fact, no data is presented in support of the opinions, and the complete absence of humility is in full display.

To Mark, the OP, I know a food fight was not that which you were seeking. I for one am sorry your thread has to a degree ended up as such.

 

[mep]

Ron/Trietz-I think that some people who are outside the scope of my target audience have misinterpreted the meaning of the thread. This is not about “format wars” or anything close to that. This is all about preference. I simply wanted to know if other people on this forum who have the capability to play back the three formats I mentioned agreed with my pecking order. And low and behold, the few that have the capability have pretty much agreed with me. It was never my intent to offer any “proof” that one format was superior to other formats and back that up with some scientific evidence.

And I was and am pleasantly surprised that Amir chimed in with his personal experience of listening to tape at his store and using tape to demo the expensive gear that he sells. And it only makes sense that you will demo with whatever source material you have that will show off your systems to their fullest extent.

I own all three formats because I do enjoy all of them, but I do have my preferences for what I think the pecking order is. For those that have put all of their eggs in the digital basket, it only makes sense to me that some of these people will want to come out swinging because that is the only thing they have to listen to and they want to believe they have the superior source. Again, I was just interested in hearing from people who own all three sources and see if we had anything nearing a consensus of opinion which we all know is damn near impossible in this hobby.

 

[Ron Party]

For those that have put all of their eggs in the digital basket, it only makes sense to me that some of these people will want to come out swinging because that is the only thing they have to listen to and they want to believe they have the superior source.

True, but only in part.

First, everyone, not only those with the eggs/basket you described, came out swinging and apparently for the same reason. I write "for the same reason" because I haven't read any supporting data. Science is, again, the dirty word here.

Second, those with the eggs/basket you described came out swinging for a second reason, to-wit: the assertion of opinion as fact. It is this absence of humility that I personally find, well, humiliating.

If one posts words to the effect of "I prefer tape first, then vinyl, then RBCD"' without more, it is perfectly clear it is an expression of opinion. But the *without more* part is where the problem begins. So when someone alleges something as fact, e.g., tape is more accurate to the source than digital, well as you well know in this or virtually any blog, one will be called on to the carpet to support that position with data. No data is presented, however, and instead we have a food fight.

So, with what are we left? Another futile, religious war.

 

[Fast/Forward]

Hello to all involved in this thread. No offense intended whatsoever to anybody who has offered an opinion here but it personally cracks me up when folks get into these types of "format war" discussions. It is clear to me that over the years, nothing ever really comes of it and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Some folks will always prefer some formats over others [for whatever reasons, known or unknown to the public] and throughout my observations, no amount of information, observations, proof/facts, empirical evidence or measurements can sway those folks' stance.

Here's my stance if anybody even remotely cares. Each format discussed here each have their own sets of deficiencies as well as attributes and I can appreciate all 3 of the formats discussed in this thread for what they can each bring to the table. Nothing wrong with a sincere appreciation of all of the formats and what they can bring to the table, especially since some albums or selections are only available on one of them.

Enjoy the music.

No offense taken.

What format war?

It was this sort of discussion which led to the creation of The Tape Project” and the reel format to be chosen as the preferred medium “[for whatever reasons, known or unknown to the public] “ to making the highest quality (sound and materials) fidelity format.

Since then a number of high end audio electronic manufacturers are using reel tape in demonstrating their equipment “[for whatever reasons, known or unknown to the public]” and much of this audio gear is winning “Best Of...” from reviewers, audio magazines, webzines and yes even the public! “[for whatever reasons, known or unknown to the public]”.

Several manufacturers who do not use these tapes/ or “master tapes” none the less have used references to them them in ad copy, again “[for whatever reasons, known or unknown to the public]”.

So it seems some folks despite no objective proof have been swayed. All it takes is an open mind and ear. As stated in my earlier post all three formats I feel are viable and can enjoyed!

If there is a “format war” then IMHO, it was won during WW II with the
invention of the open reel format and not in the 30’s with Nyqvuist’s theory or the wax cylinder, or various speed vinyl/acetate formats.

Enjoy the Music!
Enjoy your format of choice!
Enjoy cracking up! ;-)

 

[mep]

True, but only in part.

First, everyone, not only those with the eggs/basket you described, came out swinging and apparently for the same reason. I write "for the same reason" because I haven't read any supporting data. Science is, again, the dirty word here.

Second, those with the eggs/basket you described came out swinging for a second reason, to-wit: the assertion of opinion as fact. It is this absence of humility that I personally find, well, humiliating.

If one posts words to the effect of "I prefer tape first, then vinyl, then RBCD"' without more, it is perfectly clear it is an expression of opinion. But the *without more* part is where the problem begins. So when someone alleges something as fact, e.g., tape is more accurate to the source than digital, well as you well know in this or virtually any blog, one will be called on to the carpet to support that position with data. No data is presented, however, and instead we have a food fight.

So, with what are we left? Another futile, religious war.

Again Ron, I think you are missing my point. This is about preferences. This is about what those that have all three sources available to listen to believe. This was not a thread devoted to proving one format is better than another, just simply asking the question in which order you would rank the three sources. As you well know, beliefs and scientific evidence are two different things. I was/am interested in hearing what people believe who own all three sources.


As for “Another futile, religious war,” it wouldn’t have been a war if only the target audience I was seeking replied to the thread. We certainly aren’t at war with each other. It’s other people who don’t own all three formats who feel compelled to jump in and ask for proof. For those of us that own the three formats, the only proof we need is our ears. We don’t need to consult measurements and graphs to tell us what we should believe and what we think should sound superior.


And frankly, I’m somewhat surprised that people who only are invested in digital feel compelled to jump in a thread that was never intended for them and have now twisted around my intent and are demanding some type of proof when all I asked for is what people believe sounds best in their house in descending order.

 

[treitz3]

F/F.....Wow, take a step back and breathe.

It is quite obvious offense was taken and there are those that can not take some comments without flying off at the mouth. That said, I think I'll just simply slide out of the discussion and join into ones that have a little bit more intellect along with an adult tone to them.

Enjoy the music.

 

[Ron Party]

Mark, I understand exactly all of your points. My second to last paragraph remains accurate.

 

[mep]

Mark, I understand exactly all of your points. My second to last paragraph remains accurate.

If the pecking order is clearly shown as your preference vice stating it as "fact," I don't think your second to last paragraph is accurate. I hope that I clearly stated that mine is an order of preference. I have no "proof" to show that one format is superior to another, only what I prefer. I just simply wanted to know if others who are in a position to render judgement felt the same way. This is not a scientific discussion nor was it intended to be. People who aren't in a position to judge are making judgements and that is what I clearly didn't want to happen and I tried to set the ground rules accordingly. My wishes weren't respected and now those who are on the outside looking in are demanding some type of proof from those of us who are expressing our opinions on what we believe. I find this interesting to say the least.

 

[Fast/Forward]

F/F.....Wow, take a step back and breathe.

It is quite obvious offense was taken and there are those that can not take some comments without flying off at the mouth. That said, I think I'll just simply slide out of the discussion and join into ones that have a little bit more intellect along with an adult tone to them.

Enjoy the music.

treitz3 thanks for your concern but my breathing is fine! Truly, on my part there was no offence taken. My comments were typed carefully and slowly. Hey, sometimes I crack up too when I read something funny!
Chill dude! ;-)

 

[Ron Party]

I completely agree with your first sentence but, as I posted before, people did not limit their posts to statements of preference. Allegations of fact were made.

 

[amirm]

First, everyone, not only those with the eggs/basket you described, came out swinging and apparently for the same reason. I write "for the same reason" because I haven't read any supporting data. Science is, again, the dirty word here.

To the extent people consume music that is recorded *differently* on these formats, I see no basis in "science" that invalidates their observations of something other than digital being better. Further, if the analog formats color the sound in a perceptually pleasing way, that is also supported by science.

In that regard then, it is fair to say that if you don't consume music in the other formats, you cannot have a basis in this regard. I know that applied to me until I got a R2R. As I shared, the music that I hear from that format is sublime. Prior to that, I would have told you that could not be the case given the anemic specs relative to digital. Indeed, I almost didn't get the deck after seeing such dismal specs. But somehow, the specs vanish when I listen to these tracks. Right now, I put my money on better recording due to lack of worry for clipping. There may be other perceptual causes.

 

[fas42]

How can you muck up 3 different sources, on their own dedicated power leg, going into an EMM Labs Switchman 3 calibrated to within .05v?

I have spent over $100k on digital over the past couple of years with the latest/greatest equipment. I pay strict attention to detail, even making sure cables are laying straight, cleaning heads after EVERY tape pass and even doing tape transfers though headphones because I didn't want to disturb the air molecules around the tape heads from the woofers pushing air past them! (ok... the last one may be a little stretch).

Bruce, I certainly can't pass comment on well your setup should perform. But, have you tried an experiment along the lines of reducing all interference in the studio to an absolute minimum, and seeing how the digital performs. This means powering down absolutely everything, and pulling the plug, not related to a very direct playback chain. Only one source, DAC, amp, speakers: no switchers. And each of these powered elements connected to a separate mains spur. Very importantly, all RF sources down as well: cell phone, cordless phones and stations off. Sounds extreme, but it might tell you something; and then again, it might tell you nothing.

Got a friend convinced of all this: when I go for a listen he shuts the whole house down ...

Frank

 

[c1ferrari]

Mark

This is all about preference. I simply wanted to know if other people on this forum who have the capability to play back the three formats I mentioned agreed with my pecking order.

Upon first blush and subsequent examination, this was my interpretation of the test question

 

[Ron Party]

To the extent people consume music that is recorded *differently* on these formats, I see no basis in "science" that invalidates their observations of something other than digital being better.

We know each format imparts it's own sonic signature. So what? Where is the evidence to support a claim of superiority or inferiority?

Further, if the analog formats color the sound in a perceptually pleasing way, that is also supported by science.

We know this, too. So what? Same question as before?

In that regard then, it is fair to say that if you don't consume music in the other formats, you cannot have a basis in this regard.

Consume? In light of the language you included after the above quote wherein you describe your personal experience/awakening with R2R, I think I understand you, and I have no problem with Mark seeking to limit his thread as he did.

But somehow, the specs vanish when I listen to these tracks. Right now, I put my money on better recording due to lack of worry for clipping. There may be other perceptual causes.

Perhaps.