no other source can sound better than self-recorded master tape

[makaiyumtony]

Hi there
In a high end audio system when most of things already in top of the line, but still looking for improve, because there is no dead end for audio hi fi, then the only way is go for the source, record your own master tape, this day you can get a pro reel to reel recorder like STUDER, AMPEX etc., in a very reasonable price, with a tape type 456 or 499 ,2 track, speed 15,and two high quality MIC and tube pre amp,can record things in very high quality, play back by a high end system will make you lost intrest for a while in listen to vinyl ,pictures show the system that we in use for recording .
STUDER A80 recorder,ROYER ribin tube MIC, home make MIC tube pre amp, WE437A+WE300B all silver transformers,
place, side of a in-door swimming pool (6000 sqft two storage high in one side down to one storage high in other end)
tony ma

[jcx]

actually few pros rely exclusively on old analog machines anymore - maintenance, calibration/alignment, tape availability all conspire to make current results likely less than the medium was capable of in experienced hands using it daily decades ago

modern digital studio workstation ADC with 96 or 192K sample rates and delivered 20+ bit resolution beat any decades old workhorse analog machine performance on S/N, distortion, audio frequency flatness, reliability/repeatability/usability

literally countable on you fingers # of exotic analog machines costing >US$100K have been built with super wide heads and very high speed tape that challenge some (single digit $K) digital audio recording products on some specs - not all


for more obscure, but common, analog recording errors try looking at Plangent Processes
where digital processing of original studio master tapes is shown to reduce audible artifacts of the mechanical recording process

enjoy your tape hiss, amplitude compression, line noise, scrape/flutter FM modulation, print through...

and don't drop the reel or gum up the head as the "bits" fall off of old tape

[makaiyumtony]

[QUOTE=jcx;2157585]actually few pros rely exclusively on old analog machines anymore - maintenance, calibration/alignment, tape availability all conspire to make current results likely less than the medium was capable of in experienced hands using it daily decades ago

modern digital studio workstation ADC with 96 or 192K sample rates and delivered 20+ bit resolution beat any decades old workhorse analog machine performance on S/N, distortion, audio frequency flatness, reliability/repeatability/usability

literally countable on you fingers # of exotic analog machines costing >US$100K have been built with super wide heads and very high speed tape that challenge some (single digit $K) digital audio recording products on some specs - not all

We do had experienced , record both at the same time, same MIC and same pre amp one out-put to STUDER other to top of the line TEACAM CD RECORDER and also copy from tape to CD too. end up our choice is for more emotion and more like real sound, so analog is still our favor

[kevinkr]

I've heard both live recordings at 24/96 and analog recordings of the same material at 15ips on a modified Ampex, and the analog recording seemed to bring a bit more sense of the space and timbral accuracy to the recording. Unfortunately I do not remember exactly what the original digital recording chain comprised, but it was definitely high end. (Danish Audio ADC IIRC)

IMHO Teac/Tascam (Teacam?) CD recorders don't represent anything close to SOTA on the digital end of things, so I am not sure comparing it to a good analog R2R is fair. I will also add that the few Tape Project tapes I've heard sounded better than anything I've yet heard, but I have not heard them on my system either..

[SY]

We do had experienced , record both at the same time, same MIC and same pre amp one out-put to STUDER other to top of the line TEACAM CD RECORDER and also copy from tape to CD too.

Question in my mind is, which sounds more like the mike feed?

[StigErik]

Thats looks like an odd way to set up two figure-8 mics...

[oshifis]

I can not imagine an acoustically worse environment than a swimming pool... No carpets, no curtains, just bare brick walls...

[StigErik]

I use my audio system for listening to my favourite (has been already) recorded music, not "high end audio"... For anything to sound good, you need the greatest musicians.

Now would you please bring the Studer and record Handel's Messiah with Gardiner and the Monterverdi Choir over again. Thank you very much.

Maybe I'm being a bit hostile now, and I'm sorry for that... the thing is that I've been doing "audiophile" minimalist recordings like this myself, but totally lost interest in it. The problem is that you simply CAN'T get the chance to record really great performers this way. I have a load of recordings I've done myself, but never bother to listen to them since the musical performances are what they are.

[jlsem]

Originally Posted by SY

Question in my mind is, which sounds more like the mike feed?

How does one tell? Does the analog mike feed sound more like an analog mike feed than a digital mike feed?

John

[jlsem]

Originally Posted by kevinkr

I've heard both live recordings at 24/96 and analog recordings of the same material at 15ips on a modified Ampex, and the analog recording seemed to bring a bit more sense of the space and timbral accuracy to the recording. Unfortunately I do not remember exactly what the original digital recording chain comprised, but it was definitely high end. (Danish Audio ADC IIRC)

IMHO Teac/Tascam (Teacam?) CD recorders don't represent anything close to SOTA on the digital end of things, so I am not sure comparing it to a good analog R2R is fair. I will also add that the few Tape Project tapes I've heard sounded better than anything I've yet heard, but I have not heard them on my system either..

The Tape Project master tape dubs are the best sources I've heard as well, especially the Decca classical recordings. Current digital recordings of classical performances pale miserably when compared to those engineered by Kenneth Wilkinson nearly fifty years ago.

John