no hypothesizing about the existence and magnitude of most phonograph record signal chain errors is needed
the analog signal output of the your phono pre really has many technically measurable errors compared to the electronic signal fed to the pe-emphasis & cutting machine
there are JAES and other period trade magazine articles on modeling, measuring, and trying to mitigate the errors - there is no question that they exist and some are audible even to the untrained
LP playback reproduction of even the production master tape output is abysmal with tracing distortion, high frequency roll-off that add up to easily heard quality difference in outer vs inner tracks - ie. not even the same quality after 20 min of play
record centering, warp, wear, dirt, surface noise (not even including pops, scratches) that vary on every system and with every play, well known phonograph mastering process errors in lacquer cutting, plating, pulling, stamper replication, stamping and vinyl compounding variations...
even simple geometry is recognized with linear tracking arms giving superior accuracy of playback - but they have not "won" in the recent decade's high end phonograph player designs - clearly "audiophile" phono playback is competing on something besides technical signal reproduction accuracy
the analog signal output of the your phono pre really has many technically measurable errors compared to the electronic signal fed to the pe-emphasis & cutting machine
there are JAES and other period trade magazine articles on modeling, measuring, and trying to mitigate the errors - there is no question that they exist and some are audible even to the untrained
LP playback reproduction of even the production master tape output is abysmal with tracing distortion, high frequency roll-off that add up to easily heard quality difference in outer vs inner tracks - ie. not even the same quality after 20 min of play
record centering, warp, wear, dirt, surface noise (not even including pops, scratches) that vary on every system and with every play, well known phonograph mastering process errors in lacquer cutting, plating, pulling, stamper replication, stamping and vinyl compounding variations...
even simple geometry is recognized with linear tracking arms giving superior accuracy of playback - but they have not "won" in the recent decade's high end phonograph player designs - clearly "audiophile" phono playback is competing on something besides technical signal reproduction accuracy
I find it interesting that the thread-starter used a Studer A80. I always felt that our A80s sounded much better than our Nagra IV. The A80 has a beautifully stable platform for scraping the tape over the heads, but the audio electronics were nothing special, so I conclude that it was care in the transducer (head design and transport mechanics) that allowed them to sound good.
As other posters have pointed out, the art of aligning tape machines properly has mostly been lost and tape availability is not good. Last time I looked, there was only one tape manufacturer left. And as for where to get a reliable fresh alignment tape...
I like analogue because in the days when analogue was the only option, there were still genuine engineers who understood how to choose and place a microphone to get a good sound. When multi-track came in it provoked a "We'll fix it in the mix" mentality. Digital allows all sort of post-recording "fixes". But the worst culprit, and the reason we all love analogue is the increasing amount of compression applied to sell to the MP3 generation. Play a decent 70s recording, and there won't be much compression. Play a decent 50s recording, and there won't be many microphones, but they'll be carefully chosen ones in the right place, and there will be even less compression (because it was hard to do).
As other posters have pointed out, the art of aligning tape machines properly has mostly been lost and tape availability is not good. Last time I looked, there was only one tape manufacturer left. And as for where to get a reliable fresh alignment tape...
I like analogue because in the days when analogue was the only option, there were still genuine engineers who understood how to choose and place a microphone to get a good sound. When multi-track came in it provoked a "We'll fix it in the mix" mentality. Digital allows all sort of post-recording "fixes". But the worst culprit, and the reason we all love analogue is the increasing amount of compression applied to sell to the MP3 generation. Play a decent 70s recording, and there won't be much compression. Play a decent 50s recording, and there won't be many microphones, but they'll be carefully chosen ones in the right place, and there will be even less compression (because it was hard to do).
Please don't quote the entire post just above yours. Waste of space and time. Thanks!
Well, I guess that's a new one. I've seen a lot worse.
John
yes I felt the same thing, even worse sound from Studer A810 with IC and CPU compared to A80, but I did modified the out put section into tube circult with to-day's high quality parts, surprised in result, so I will keep it on till the whole things in tube
I once made a recording of a local singer-songwriter in which I fed identical signals to a Studer 1/2 track 15ips machine and also 24 bit 96KHz digital hard-drive (M-Audio so, granted, it's not top of the range studio material).
The digital sounded very good to everyone present at the playback (3-4 of the artists friends were present) until I switched to the Analogue..... "Wow! What an improvement" was the general consensus....
The digital sounded very good to everyone present at the playback (3-4 of the artists friends were present) until I switched to the Analogue..... "Wow! What an improvement" was the general consensus....
I record and master most of the projects in both formats, analog and digital, on Studer A812 with custom built electronics at 15ips/30ips and a digital setup with high-end mastering converters at 2496. In my experience the digital recording is closer to the source but for many project the tape helps the music to sound more pleasant from an aesthetical point of view.
I have a problem when people say tape and vinyl is more natural. It is not, it's subtle distortions and colorations can make music sound good/pleasant but not more natural. Natural is the way the source sounds and that is what should be reproduced if you are looking for natural.
chrissugar
I have a problem when people say tape and vinyl is more natural. It is not, it's subtle distortions and colorations can make music sound good/pleasant but not more natural. Natural is the way the source sounds and that is what should be reproduced if you are looking for natural.
chrissugar
Depend on the quality level of the MIC and MIC pre-amp on recording and the whole sound system in play back, I found the analog always close to the original than the digital because of the emotion difference
Bruel&Kjaer, Neumann U67, AKG C12 mics and Forssell mic pres are good enough? I think it is.
Of course a very refined analog front end will deliver more information to the recorder but if we talk about reproduction the only goal is to record/reproduce an as close as possible signal to what came out from the mic preamp.
I read your first posts and saw that you based your conclusions on comparing an A80 to a mediocre Tascam CD recorder and a limited digital format (CD) ? Do yourself a favor and if you want to know the state of real digital use some mastering quality converters at 2496 and I think you will be surprised.
Also if you want to check how close is each format to the source I recomend you to setup a listening room near the place you record the music, and feed the listening setup with tape, digital and mic preamp out. This way you compare the two recordings to the source and at least you have a clear view which one is more accurate. Comparing tape to digital without the reference has no value if you try to define which is more accurate.
I don't say tape can't sound subjectively better, just that what you think is better is not more accurate but a generated illusion by the tape medium.
chrissugar
Yes, We are not PRO just for fun. maybe our play back system is suitable for analog more than digital (horns multi amps 4 ways all tube all silver in sound path cables transformers, 0 feed back even in phono stage) in here CD play back can never compare to vinyl although with a top model of Sonic Frontiers, but even a 1/4 track 7.5ips old pre recorded tape can as good as vinyl, so we don't need invest too much in pro digital recorder , all we should do is a same market value level machine to a Studer A80 ( today's value) for compare, as the target of a DIYER, less money to get big result, I spend 6 months hand made a solid silver MIC cable, much better than the came with, a all tube (WE437A WE300B) home made MIC pre amp with silver transformer with 0 feed back can bite the top tube pre amp from the market that is what I try to say if no more rooms for up grate in the play back system then go for the source, also I believe there still a lot of mods in the tape recorder with fun
tony
tony
Hi,
If you should, let me know for I think, no, I'm convinced it's technically and logically impossible.
Cheers,
Those Tape Project tapes sounded great, most unfortunately heard in isolation. I still believe this is about as close to the sound of an original master as I have ever heard, (or are going to hear) but I am inexperienced in this regard. At home I have supposedly reasonably good CD, SACD, open reel tape and vinyl playback, but find myself gravitating mostly to vinyl these days. (Unfortunately I have no great recordings on tape)
For practical reasons I have pretty much given up on open reel tape because I don't have the resources or space for the machines. I have kept my ReVox G36 half track machine but everything else is gone..
I think in the context of comparison one also has to be very careful to take into account that some of the format differences heard may not just be the result of limitations inherent in the recording technology/format used, but also limitations in the equipment used to record/play it back. I think this issue often receives less attention than it should. FWIW Comparisons are most valid when the devices used for format comparison have comparable build/design quality in their respective time frames. i.e. You would compare devices from the same relative [perceived?] quality level in a given format, and not just whatever was conveniently at hand - which might otherwise tend to bias the result in a particular direction.
Last edited:
Buy a used DBX 100 series
I can understand why people might prefer analog to digital though. Harmonic distortion is a, "good sounding" distortion, at low amounts. Reel to reel's, tube gear, phono pickups all have it. I am not sure about this, but that MIGHT be what people are hearing with their 5 watt, $5,000 amplifiers.
The other side: I have a Crown CX-844 in need of big repairs so I don't use it, but I'll tell you one thing: I tested that unit, not freshly calibrated after being unused for 30 years. I cleaned the heads, and de-maged them, 15 IPS and at 0 VU! Notice I said 0 VU. ALL freq response tests on tape machines are done at -20 V.U. This lets them advertise deceiving distortion levels at much more impressive ratings. Of course the S/N specs are done at 0 VU. The crown came out +-2DB from 15 to 32K! @ 0 VU! (Maxell UD-XL180B tape was a BIG help. The tape was 35 years old). A Teac A-6300 machine started dropping off at 10K.
Now for what almost nobody mentioned: Signal to noise ratio. The best analog tape machine in the world, without DBX 100 series noise reduction, is still under 70 DB. When listening loud, when a low volume passage comes on, even with vinyl, it is still VERY AUDIBLE. When a DBX 100 series noise reduction unit was added back in the day, it pushed the S/N ratio up to the 90's. Close to entirely inaudible. I'm not talking about their silly dynamic range expanders in which you could hear audible breathing from the unit, I mean their Noise reduction units. - They were amazing. If you aren't using one of those, I would STRONGLY suggest getting on EBay and finding one.
Bottom line: What ever gets the job done the best, which at this time, IMO is digital. If some new analog format came out which was better, I would jump right on it. I used 2 Radio Shack condenser mikes, with a M-audio fire wire 410. With a cheap computer you're looking at $900. I recorded a drummer's cowbell, with a pause in the beginning. After experimenting with VU, I WACKED it. All you hear is dead silence then BAM! A hit so loud it will scare you out of your sox. LOL
As for recording records: I use a Spectral DMC-6 which goes in to the Megahertz, with a phono SN ratio in the low 90's, a Technics SL1210M5G, a Sumiko BP evo-3, through the Firewire 410 at normal c.d. spec. The result is a CD that sounds EXACTLY like the vinyl.
I'm not trying to offend you by saying this, but back in the day to record Paul Simon for instance they would never use a STUDER A80. Scully tape machines were the norm for all out pro-studios. They were literally the size of a small washing machine, and would rewind a 2" wide 10" tape faster than my Crown CX-844 can rewind a 1/4" tape.
I can understand why people might prefer analog to digital though. Harmonic distortion is a, "good sounding" distortion, at low amounts. Reel to reel's, tube gear, phono pickups all have it. I am not sure about this, but that MIGHT be what people are hearing with their 5 watt, $5,000 amplifiers.
The other side: I have a Crown CX-844 in need of big repairs so I don't use it, but I'll tell you one thing: I tested that unit, not freshly calibrated after being unused for 30 years. I cleaned the heads, and de-maged them, 15 IPS and at 0 VU! Notice I said 0 VU. ALL freq response tests on tape machines are done at -20 V.U. This lets them advertise deceiving distortion levels at much more impressive ratings. Of course the S/N specs are done at 0 VU. The crown came out +-2DB from 15 to 32K! @ 0 VU! (Maxell UD-XL180B tape was a BIG help. The tape was 35 years old). A Teac A-6300 machine started dropping off at 10K.
Now for what almost nobody mentioned: Signal to noise ratio. The best analog tape machine in the world, without DBX 100 series noise reduction, is still under 70 DB. When listening loud, when a low volume passage comes on, even with vinyl, it is still VERY AUDIBLE. When a DBX 100 series noise reduction unit was added back in the day, it pushed the S/N ratio up to the 90's. Close to entirely inaudible. I'm not talking about their silly dynamic range expanders in which you could hear audible breathing from the unit, I mean their Noise reduction units. - They were amazing. If you aren't using one of those, I would STRONGLY suggest getting on EBay and finding one.
Bottom line: What ever gets the job done the best, which at this time, IMO is digital. If some new analog format came out which was better, I would jump right on it. I used 2 Radio Shack condenser mikes, with a M-audio fire wire 410. With a cheap computer you're looking at $900. I recorded a drummer's cowbell, with a pause in the beginning. After experimenting with VU, I WACKED it. All you hear is dead silence then BAM! A hit so loud it will scare you out of your sox. LOL
As for recording records: I use a Spectral DMC-6 which goes in to the Megahertz, with a phono SN ratio in the low 90's, a Technics SL1210M5G, a Sumiko BP evo-3, through the Firewire 410 at normal c.d. spec. The result is a CD that sounds EXACTLY like the vinyl.
I believe that those noise reducer and feed back will also kill the emotion of music, I will take a receptive noise level judge by the ear rather than the number by the meter, if the play back system sound no different between analog and digital, then digital recording is fine, for analog lovers, today tape machine's price is really bargain , a pro machine cost less than a mil-level cart,
As for recording records: I use a Spectral DMC-6 which goes in to the Megahertz, with a phono SN ratio in the low 90's, a Technics SL1210M5G, a Sumiko BP evo-3, through the Firewire 410 at normal c.d. spec. The result is a CD that sounds EXACTLY like the vinyl.
That's interesting Dave, somehow the pros haven't figured it out as yet ......
Interesting observation Chris and having been involved somewhat many decades ago in the recording industry , you get to see just how bad analog can be in trying to replicate the original , digital for sure has saved the recording industry from this caveat ..
With that said I also have to a admit that good analog sounds more dynamic and real to me vs digital ... go figure !!!!!
We got a website of our recordings
Audiophile like to debate in sound quality digital vs analog, SS vs tube etc, but IMO the most things is the recordings' quality, it depend on the hall effect , music instruments, performer's skill and all the recording equipments, we did compare ours master dub tape to some other master dub tapes, although our performers can't be the same level of those well known in the world, but ours are better in sounding by a fine play back system, anyone if interest can take a visit to our web
ultraanaloguerecordings.com
tony ma
Audiophile like to debate in sound quality digital vs analog, SS vs tube etc, but IMO the most things is the recordings' quality, it depend on the hall effect , music instruments, performer's skill and all the recording equipments, we did compare ours master dub tape to some other master dub tapes, although our performers can't be the same level of those well known in the world, but ours are better in sounding by a fine play back system, anyone if interest can take a visit to our web
ultraanaloguerecordings.com
tony ma
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.