The pecking order

[cjfrbw]

I don't have R2R in my system, but hearing it in Steve's and other systems, and having had modest R2R in my own system for 15 years in the past, I agree with the pecking order.

I have had the odd experience of hearing the tape project's "Waltz for Debbie" on three different high end systems, two with Alexandrias, and I much prefer my 50 cent thrift copy pops and all on my home vinyl system. That still does not negate the general pecking order, maybe an exception that proves the rule or something to that effect.

 

[Fast/Forward]

I have no objective observation to offer here.

Subjectively though, we have a loaner tape from Bruce for our R2R and there are tracks on it that are so enjoyable, so "high fidelity," that I am at a loss for words. Indeed, we made those tracks the primary demo material for our Mark Levinson/Revel system, making the digital second priority. I don't have an explanation for the observation as I don't have the digital versions of the same file to compare. It matters not in that I have the R2R and it exceeds the level of fidelity I desire in listening to the music. I was just listening to it yesterday and it was indeed the high-frequencies that caught my ear in the one track. It has a certain quality that I was not used to (in a good way). Maybe it is just the recording. I don't know. But the total package works and works very well.

BTW, there are passages in some tracks that peg the VU meter to the right. So much so that at first we thought the deck was broken. Then our main designer came and explained that when in his music recording business (he has a small studio), he would use that tactic on tape to get a nice effect on drums and such. It is remarkable to see that meter peg to the right yet not hear what in digital which would be a disaster. So perhaps it is the lack of the hard limit. I don't know. What I do know is what I said: that the tape achieves a very high level of satisfaction, its specs to be damned.

This is the first time I have been able to evaluate tape properly. The reason is that it has music that I like and am familiar with. The stuff that comes out of Tape project and such don't appeal to me and as a result, doesn't engage me in a serious way.

I wish there was a time when we could all get together and hear the same things. Without that point of reference, it is hard to make progress on these discussions. Summer is beautiful in Seattle. Maybe we should have an event here, making a tour of our place, Bruce, Mike, etc. What say you?

Amrim, I welcome your thoughts and reactions in this thread as they are so free from cliche. I just loved your description of tape saturation/overload in which the meters are pegged "in the red

". To have someone so firmly entrenched in digital saying that something is going on in an analogue format as the numbers

(zeros& ones) don't always add up is refreshing!
I understand Mark's concern in keeping this thread focused yet I would welcome comments from those like yourself or Bill who may have personal experience with the three formats selected for ranking when ranking even though they may not be active in all three formats. We all gain from this exchange even if conclusions are subjective. IMO
And look what you started, now I'm using smilies. (But I don't see them in the preview mode, just the urls.)

.

 

[fas42]

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

Of course there's a straightforward way of assessing such claims of sonic signatures, and superiority: use tape to capture digital playback and vinyl playback, ditto for digital to record analogue tape and vinyl; rather expensive and long winded to do the exercise for vinyl, but possible. Then do all the double blinds, etc, to see how many will be fooled: original vs. copy of that format.

Frank

 

[treitz3]

Please allow me to slide back in for just one second and add a quote from someone who I have personally held in high regards with this subject....

The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to good analogue reproduction.

That said, I think I'll slide back out now. Enjoy the music.

 

[bblue]

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.

Bruce, what type source did you use in those comparisons? I can think of numerous ways such a test can be misleading depending on how each one was derived. Can you elaborate a bit?

One issue which is often sidestepped when people state their preferences, is do they like it best, or is it the most accurate to the original? Most audiophiles have never heard what tracks in a good studio sound like before being committed to tape. After getting used to that sound, to hear a tape playback (especially 15ips 2track 1/4" or multitrack using the same track wdiths) of it is quite disappointing... so much loss. Then it gets copied again during a mix, more loss, signal compression and distortion. Some folks may like that sound, but it isn't accurate to the original, it is more than vinyl is, but that's not saying a whole lot.

It really makes me wonder, for those folks, if what is 'missing' in a really excellent 192-384k digital transfer and its playback through studio grade equipment, is various distortion products and artifacts that are the norm in analog formats. And of course, their interpretation by the tape playback electronics. It's inconceivable to me that an excellent if not transparent digital transfer of a TAPE master complete with all its artifacts can't be accomplished.

--Bill

 

[bblue]

And I can quote you just as many, if not more, engineers who have the exact opposite point of view. So what? And if Doug is so pro-digital, why's he back cutting LPs again? After he swore off vinyl a decade ago.

Greater income and use of his extremely expensive equipment that was in storage. He's no fool.

And sorry, I really don't take any engineers word for it. They've set the industry back decades. Digital is convenient, nothing else, both at the studio and playback end. Most engineers have not heard a good high-end system--ever! If they did, we wouldn't see the crap that is foisted on us today.

I'm sorry Myles, but that is baloney.

Yes there are some pretty worthless engineers around who do little to improve the landscape but there are some leaders too. Bob Katz, Ken Scott, Keith Olson, Bernie Grundman and many others who have worked very hard to move professional audio forward. They still have to do other work to have an income so that means fitting in to the music industry 'scene' and having to output crap at times. That's just the way it is. Things are getting much better though, as the quality awareness of better audio in the studio is being realized by some labels. It's the music industry mentality, not the engineers, that are pushing the crap on us.

And the bottom line, I've been in both studio and high-end audio for 25+ years too. That gives me a little different perspective on things.

Have you ever tried tried to mix on an audiophile-type playback system? And produce an output which will also sound good on lesser gear? In most cases you can't. The studio environment and good pro engineers depend on a particular environment to be able to judge what things will sound like once they leave the premises. The monitors don't necessarily have to be of great audiophile quality, but well tuned to the room, consistent with their presentation, and brutally critical. You get to understand them. A Mastering environment is usually similar but with better monitoring in excellent rooms (usually). Most audiophiles are not using professionally tuned rooms and therefore can only be critical about what they like in their own environment. Not what it will be like to the rest of the world listening. Pro engineers (real pro's) are the ones that make all the great works we listen to possible. Whether or not you have any respect for them.

--Bill

 

[MylesBAstor]

Bruce, what type source did you use in those comparisons? I can think of numerous ways such a test can be misleading depending on how each one was derived. Can you elaborate a bit?

One issue which is often sidestepped when people state their preferences, is do they like it best, or is it the most accurate to the original? Most audiophiles have never heard what tracks in a good studio sound like before being committed to tape. After getting used to that sound, to hear a tape playback (especially 15ips 2track 1/4" or multitrack using the same track wdiths) of it is quite disappointing... so much loss. Then it gets copied again during a mix, more loss, signal compression and distortion. Some folks may like that sound, but it isn't accurate to the original, it is more than vinyl is, but that's not saying a whole lot.

It really makes me wonder, for those folks, if what is 'missing' in a really excellent 192-384k digital transfer and its playback through studio grade equipment, is various distortion products and artifacts that are the norm in analog formats. And of course, their interpretation by the tape playback electronics. It's inconceivable to me that an excellent if not transparent digital transfer of a TAPE master complete with all its artifacts can't be accomplished.

--Bill

And they'd be even more disappointed comparing the studio recording to the digital. Sorry. We just won't agree on this. Both/all formats have their artifacts; the ear can listen through some and not through others, depending upon the person. It's just like Jon Dahquist once said; it's easier for the ear to listen though a coloration if it's consistent. You know the old saying: If it measures good and sounds good, it is good; if it measures good and sounds bad, then you're measuring the wrong thing.

And I've yet to hear a good digital copy of a tape. And if Bruce can't do it, let me tell you, no one can. There's no one out there that takes more care and experiments more than Bruce in my experience.

 

[FrantzM]

There has been few honest and candid posts here.. Many of these posts look to me like boasts.. I will bow out after this a few things first.

There are some implications I don't think are appropriate in many replies. One of them is that those vested in digital shouldn't apply. It is not even veiled. The idea of a pecking order IMO suggests a hierarchy. Should that hierarchy be that of analog reigning supreme? What about those who feel that digital is as good or superior, their opinion shouldn't be counted ? Why not? Because their system is not resolving enough? How do we know the resolution on one's system?
On this, thesecond implication inthis thread is that those with a different view onf the current prevailing pecking order have not been exposed to the best in analog. Says who? What are the basis of such a position. Better what are the objective basis of such?

I could go on. I will stop. AS I said earlier this very idea of a pecking order invited to debate we know will never be settled (actually it has, since with knowledge removed the most ardent partisans of analog would be at a loss to distinguish the current analog medium, from a digital copy.. e;g .. The very candid and to me eye opening comment from Michael Fremer when its Rockport was digitized)... I do however that if there is a pecking order it has to be diferent from people to people and that to me is key.

I will note in passing that I find c1Ferrari .. Him of the unusual font and font colors. . His pecking order has a digital medium before Vinyl .. Actually , his number 2 slot .. Interesting, honest and to me telling to the point of shouting.

I am entirely vested in digital. iI do come however from an analog-lover viewpoint. Anyone who has seen my posting in the AVS can attest to that. I changed my view based on my listening habits and listening experience. HRx did it for me. Knowledge removal changed many of my views too as I became more aware of the power of biases.. I do not require such for others .. It was , however, for me liberating ...
Out for now

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce, what type source did you use in those comparisons? I can think of numerous ways such a test can be misleading depending on how each one was derived. Can you elaborate a bit?--Bill

The sources I've used are a live studio feed from an SSL9k going into an ATR-102 or A80, PM2 going into a Sadie workstaion and a Grimm AD1 or EMM Labs ADC8IV going into a Sonoma workstation. Also have used live feeds from location recordings and also thousands of tapes sent from the labels to digitize.

 

[microstrip]

As an amateur audiophile, sharing all the sins that most of this group of WBF members seem to enjoy, I am appreciating this thread and found it really en-lighting. Every one is openly presenting his opinion and exposing his reasons. As most of the members are long time posters in this and other forums, I easily understand their reasons and what is behind their arguments.

Also as a non audio specialist, I found Steve remark " pressurizes your room like no other audio format" very interesting, and IMHO true. I have tried to transmit this idea in other threads with the concept of "sounding powerful", probably not so successfully. I hope that this "pressurize" concept will deserve a more in depth debate.

Now the bad news: may be soon I will be able to increase our healthy entropy - I have just borrowed a Korg MR2000S. Now all I need is the help of Bruce to explain me the best way of converting DSD 128fs in PCM 24/192 before starting to post ...

My thanks to Mep and the contributors for starting this thread!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are some implications I don't think are appropriate in many replies. One of them is that those vested in digital shouldn't apply. It is not even veiled. The idea of a pecking order IMO suggests a hierarchy

You think? How about the fact that it really doesn't matter how much experience you have with R2R, if it's not in your system today, your opinion is considered invalid according to the thread rules? Who, believing digital is as good as R2R would have a R2R, given the high expense of the hardware and the low availability of software? No one. So clearly no one who doesn't think R2R is worth a very substantial investment to play a very tiny fragment of their music collection was welcome. That alone completely fixed the outcome. Then there are the facts of that title, "pecking order," and that it was posted not in the R2R forum, but in General Audio. Protestations to the contrary, I suspect the thread was created for the purpose of mutual back-slapping at the exclusion of the "uninitiated" and uninhibited by the facts.

The food fight was inevitable. Expecting less would be evidence of questionable judgement, at least.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Not to put a dampener on this thread, BUT I was at my local record show on Saturday....about a 150 thousand records available for purchase ( maybe more)......when was the last time that you went to your local RtoR show...? How many titles available?

While this point may not be relevant to the quality of the presentation of the media in our systems, I personally have little to no interest in RtoR simply due to the lack of available media. Personally, I would much prefer to maximize my vinyl system and leave it at that.....just IMHO.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry. Double post.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Not to put a dampener on this thread, BUT I was at my local record show on Saturday....about a 150 thousand records available for purchase ( maybe more)......when was the last time that you went to your local RtoR show...? How many titles available?

While this point may not be relevant to the quality of the presentation of the media in our systems, I personally have little to no interest in RtoR simply due to the lack of available media. Personally, I would much prefer to maximize my vinyl system and leave it at that.....just IMHO.

Perhaps the point. I have no doubt that a master or even a second or third generation dub at 15 ips is the best analog has to offer the humble consumer....ah, but that's not really the situation. Analog really doesn't have that to offer the consumer. What analog has is an extremely limited, extremely expensive offering of quality 15ips and a nearly as limited offering of vintage 7.5 tapes of questionable quality.

Nearly guarantees that everyone in this thread who meets the criteria for participation will nod their heads in agreement. All others' opinions are pre-dismissed. Neat, that.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) While this point may not be relevant to the quality of the presentation of the media in our systems, I personally have little to no interest in RtoR simply due to the lack of available media. Personally, I would much prefer to maximize my vinyl system and leave it at that.....just IMHO.

Although as you wisely say the point is not relevant to the main point, for most of us the RtoR is part of the audiophile mirage - but this time an acoustical not an optical phenomena. Although very limited in availability, the idea of getting the maximum performance, may be only ion a few tittles is challenging.

A financial nonsense? Surely yes. .

Disclaimer : Please include IMHO four times (one per line average) in this message and disseminate them randomly. Just in case someone feels offended ...

 

[rbbert]

Another point to ponder is the analog generational losses in copying the 15 ips 1/4" half-tracks; since the master should be copied rarely, that means distributed copies will come from a 1st gen dub at best, making them 2nd gen at best.

 

[microstrip]

Another point to ponder is the analog generational losses in copying the 15 ips 1/4" half-tracks; since the master should be copied rarely, that means distributed copies will come from a 1st gen dub at best, making them 2nd gen at best.

Very true. It happens with the TapeProject tapes. It is why I will enviously write in green every time I will answer to someone reporting he owns a 1st gen master copie ...

 

[garylkoh]

Based on the OP, I shouldn't be posting because I don't own a R2R, and my only experience with it was as a kid helping my dad thread his Akai. But Amir's post is enlightening - he bought the deck despite the specifications. Not because of the specifications. I listened to it with Bruce's tape when I visited Madrona, and it does do something special that the digital did not. It may not sound better, but I preferred to listen to the music on tape. Admittedly, there was no A/B comparison as we didn't have digital versions of the music we had on tape, but I think that most of us gathered that evening was quite taken with music playing from that R2R deck - and it wasn't something special. Just an ordinary Otari MX-5050. I have to admit that even I am tempted to just go out and buy one. But I know that's going to be a really slippery slope.

 

[Ron Party]

Do it, Gary. Particularly for someone like you, who is in the industry, I think you will be glad you did.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Do it, Gary. Particularly for someone like you, who is in the industry, I think you will be glad you did.

Absolutely. I don't have one because it is so impractical; because there is so little one can actually do with it. But if I were a speaker manufacturer, that would be excuse enough. I have zero desire for vinyl. 15ips R2R is analog at its best.

Tim