❤ I don't have any digital tape recorders in my collection. (I have many analog machines.) I certainly wouldn't turn away that Sony DASH machine, but I would *LOVE* to own a Studer C37. Right now, my first and only Studer is a B67 MkI. I dream of someday adding a C37 or A80 or an A800-series machine to my collection!
Cheers, I find these all over the place, the DASH was off Ebay, of a shady character, the C37 came from a private studio, I often get offered machines like these, I just cant take everything.
This is an awesome comparison. Someone finallyy had the wherewithall to compare a wonderful analog to a dgital machine. Studer just made some awesome gear. Considering the possible audio transparency issues of the youtube medium, its hard to make a fair judgement, but i tend to go with the Studer hands down. Besides, it will out last the Sony. Nice shootout! Thanks for posting.
Thank you! there is very little difference once TH-cam has added its compression but at a later date, I should be able to do a HD video test. The EMI's, I have almost all the different ones, the ones you speak of are more than likely the L2's and the RE321's (Or an L4), lovely machines, check my other videos and you will see them.
I would have to say that the Studer wins hands down. My replay system was a fully refurbed Onkyo TX-4500 and Acoustic Research AR-4x speakers. GREAT JOB, as usual!
Thank you for this video! I'm from Russia, I love analogue machines and would buy Studer C37, if not for it's large sizes. I remember there was a "compact" version of C37. Yes, C37 sounds much warmer and more realistic that Sony. I have Studer A710 and ReVox G36, and I can say that they left CD well far behind.
I love your demonstrations. I do find it odd that one with such an affinity for antique tape recorders generally likes the most digital of all digital productions (sampled dance music).
We had two Sony 24 track digital reel to reels at the studio I worked at Reflection Sound. When the studio closed 6 years ago I was shocked how little $$ we got for those decks. They still sounded great after not being used for over 17 years.
I was shocked too, I see sometimes people try and sell these digital machines for high values, yet they don’t understand the reason analogue machines are more sought after, after all, if I wanted a perfectly digital sound, I am better using a PC. Not to say these digital monsters are not interesting, I too had a PCM3424 machine and loved all the lights and such, but after spending weeks getting it fully working and eventually came to sell it, it was heart-breaking how little it was worth, considering all the extra test tapes and tools it had to go with it.
@@Seblington We used those DASH decks for about two years. When we told our clients we were closing and they should come pick up their masters a couple of them wanted to drop the multitracks into a hard drive. I had to wheel the DASH decks out of storage and patch them into our Neve console. All the while having no idea if they worked. Ultimately I had to patch them into our studio panel in our live room. They worked flawlessly and sounded amazing. I had to get a friend of mine to run the tape decks in the live room while I ran Protools and the console.
Studer had more character. Sony on the other hand was closer to cd sound - more neutral. Great comparison video. These posts are fun to watch and listen! Thanks Seblington.
@thomhidd ... or you were saying that just because the older Studer can't reach the same frequency response, in which case I perfectly understand your point and agree that in order to hear a difference, we need a source that at least actually carries any difference that a recorder may show against the other.
I did do a blind test, had the speakers in another room, out of 5 people, 1 thought the C37 was the master, 3 couldnt tell the difference but one worked them all out saying the Sony sounded as sharp as the original where the Studers dynamic range was warmer but at the same time not as accurate, these tests were performed over many different recordings and source, including one from mic of a guitar player and some speech.
A real surprise I expected for it to be harder with each machine to distinguish it from the source. Both these machines need to be realigned!!! My heavily tweaked to an eyebrow Tandberg TD20-A SE would blow them both away!!!!
Cheers, the C37 is something else, the Sony DASH is still here, and faulty, I have given up for now with keeping it working and aim to get a second or third 3403 and make the best out of them, once I have done that I will probably use it more.
Say, what's the model of that Technics power amp with the huge VU meters? It looks a lot like one I repaired back in high school for a teacher. Bloody thing weighed a ton! MASSIVE toroid transformer. Awesome vid, BTW. I enjoy all your RTR vids, as usual. :)
Interesting comparison, I could not hear much difference. It would good to hear the test with some more dynamic music. TH-cam has really improved and uploads everything in stereo now with an optional High quality link to it.
@thomhidd , why do you say you'd need much more than 16/44.1 at the source to be able to hear any difference, sounds like you are assuming the Sony is more capable than that. But isn't the Sony's limit just the same:16/44.1? I understand that there is always a minor loss, even with the finest recorders, but your sentence made me aks for some clarification, which I would appreciate. Thank you.
Thanks for the vid, v interesting. How on earth you all think you can hear the characters of these machines is beyond me though. This is a youtube video, 90% of what im hearing is the audio compression alg used to make the video. Not to mention that it seems like the machine output levels arent matched either, the sony being louder than the studer. I love how people form such strong opinions based on these hugely flawed tests. Long live audio opinion.
Both machines are good the but my preference is analogue every time it's only when you hear the same source instrument typically a guitar ,played back through digital and analouge at the same time that you can appreciate how much more dynamic range there is on analouge tape
It's normal that they sound the same, the limit is the cd, not the machines, but apart from that, studer sounds better as i expected, because sony, being digital, it has to reconvert the signal from analog to digital (and low quality digital being 16/44.1). Also, from what I can hear, the studer transport is MUCH smoother.
great video! i would go with the studer any day! it got that magic tape glue ... just got myself a studer a271. not quite what you have. but more easy to use and it spices digital mixes very nice. have a great day! don
Maybe the C37 sounds better because it looks better? it's very difficult to hear a difference between the two machines especially on TH-cam but when you hear the live recordings made which have not been re digitized, there is a noticeable difference between the two recorders and in the end of the day both sound amazing, it's all down to preference really, digital clarity or warm valves.
I do agree, this machine could do with a capping, the PSU is noisy and there is a lot of hiss from the amps once they warm up, its one of thoes projects I havent got around to yet.
that´s olders "home recording reel to reel tape tubes like gruding TK-47 and others like that" will work well for recording voice (singing), old style (elvis styles) with all the saturation of the tube time? all warm weight and harmonics that recordings used to had? to play, i can see the video of this, is excellent, but to record i don´t know if will had the same sound quality, or near that´s olders profissional studios recordings using a condenser and preamp
Computer followed by the Sony followed by the Studer, though I have to admit that the Sony & the Studer both sound Excellent & I do believe both Machines are every bit the Equal of the Compact Disc! Just my ears though!
You need to to listen on headphones you can hear the difference much more clearly and for me the Studer wins hands down. I agree it would benefit from the replacement of a few of the capacitors, it will make all the difference as might checking the actual anode load resistors might be way out of spec and a change of valves might make a whole heap of difference as well.
The computer source is obvious. There's a brittleness there. By the time it gets to either tape machine, much of that is smoothed over, seems to me a bit too much on the Sony. There's more upper mid presence on the Studer, as well as a warmth in the lower mids that only tubes and caps can create. I was expecting the Sony to sound better, but frankly aside from the lower noise floor, the Studer wins. Unsurprising.
Donald Fagen's Nightfly was one of the first DDD's. I think the older PCM DASH recorders do have a distinct sound that were involved in making some truly great 80s records. Not too many all time classics have been recorded in the modern 192 / 384 digital era.
Though its through this web-site........I can hear a slight high frequency distorting on the Sony where as the Studer duzn't seem to have it....it seems a little richer. GOOD STUFF MATE CHEERS
Maybe Studer sound better on that type of music, but it has low frequency roll off due to the head contour effect, and high frequency compression of high levels. The compressed sound is much more pleasant for the ear, that is why some claim that it sounds more analog :)
It depends. If we compare to the traditional digital (44..1k /14 or 16 bit) maybe you are right. But if we compare to the precise studio digital formats (24bit on multibit DAC using 192kHz or higher sample rate) it is like AM radio :)
@@BorisRibov right and then connect the output to a dc motor on the capstan and now you have an audio recorder! The "magic" of analog recorder sound is not the electronics, or tone, or distortion, or whatever.... When you have rotating masses moving heavy reels of tape the physical contraption gives you the most linear passage of time possible. More accurate than digital recording. Maybe unless you have a multi $k wordclock... but cell phone DAC are ragged at the wind. Point a heatgun at a cell phone playing your song and listen to the tempo of the song against the speed of the heat gun. R2R records time more accurately.
@raanan17 I agree. I can hear the differences on my Imac speakers!!.... but then again I do this for a living. Know what to listen for !! Dont get me wrong - I actually thing the Sony format was good too - just not in the same way. If you want the sound of the C37 - then thats what you need to use!
Don't know why, but, to me, the Sony sounds nice but somehow as if it has a sort of FM radio quality, if I can say this way. The Studer seems to have a lot of character and the sounds seem amazignly vivid. Just different, but I love the Studer, in this context.
WOW! I just did this AGAIN, this time thru my JBL 4311's, and the Sony is way harsh, and the Studer sounds like it has a slight High Freq roll off. Kick ass for 1961, tho. Studer wins again! The Sony is HARSH beyond tolerance.
@thomhidd On the other side, definitions like "much more" or "much better" sometimes may make some confusion; someone may even be lead to believe that a machine which needs "much more" in order to deliver "the same" is less than ideal. It may make believe the Sony is not that precise: if it needs much clearer information from the start in order to output with good fidelity, than i might be not as hi-fi. But it's hard to think so about the Sony. Although none of my DDD cds sound good.
The Studer had nicer sounding mids. You really couldn't notice until the "jump cut" toward the end where the vocal and instrumentation were louder. . I'd still like to have a DASH machine tho. Its gonna be a forgotten format before too much longer.
I refer back to this video to ground myself from time to time. So many aspects about it just bring me back to the life force that makes reproducing music all the more poignant.
Audiophile? NEVER!!! I love my sound but don't go crazy, to me, both sound fantastic though the Sony has more drop out due to being out of calibration ( this one has long gone, I have 2 more now)
Most records roll off at 16KHz due to limitations of their design, both these machines are mastering machines which are used to make records from so the only real rue test is a live source though a high quality microphone. I will be doing a video sometime this year which will feature a live recording, but even then the limitations are with the compression of TH-cam, cant win!
Seblington OK get a Tandberg TD20A SE and tweak it for best range 10-40K and lowest phase error. Use Electrovoice ribbons Neumann’s , Sehnheisers. Telefunken U-47 and AKG condensers
Great machines, and great test, but i think, the studer is better. Maybe this test would be more interesting, if the source is a high(er) definition ( 96 or 192khz) sound. Sorry for bad english
hi in our student radio we have a J37 and C37 (quiet few of them) but actualy, only 2 C37s are working :( i would love to make them all work, especially the J37, but most of them are only suitable for spare parts (only torso, switches, motors are left) if you have a information source like schemes, spare part dealers or so, if you be so kind and send it to me. the more of these wonderful machines are saved today, the better ;) very nice vid
I'm musician I can tell you that analogue sounds is far better in the basses and the s sounds. . Also with these recordings.. the s sounds are much, much better on the studer!!!
Great demo, I certainly couldnt tell the difference under the test conditions at least. Studer c37s were still very much in evidence at BBC radio Manchester in the 80s. I wonder where you found all of this gear? I can remember when the first ¼in DASH machines appeared in the 80s and they were hugely expensive.
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
I also think live sound would be the way to go (a drum kit and sax) but to the folks out there, do this at home! didn't you notice that TH-cam sound is crap????
A friend of mine recently put up that album which is usually just sitting in my record cabinet. I must say I generally dislike the sound of it. It's harsh and obtrusive. Even for a record.
STUDER C 37 Presenting a more open clarity sound SONY............ the sound is a bit muddy ........... and treble sound ......shrill ........... If I had to choose I would choose SOUND STUDER
Of course it makes sense don't be silly dude. Both machines are working under the same conditions advances and limitations that youtube provides. You sound like one of those crazy audiophiles.
yup you can hear the digital embarrasement on the dash!! anyone not hearing that chunk of sound put together on a bit limited frequency range needs real speakers, monitors or ears. In the studer you can hear everything right on it's place in sound frequency, in digital you get all the sounds invading eachother to get a fair psace in that limited virtual place of I/O's. listen to the vocal reverb and echo and stereo wide range, it would be even more evident if there was a drums in the recording.
It's a pity that this comparison or A/B test must be listened through the "bottleneck" of such a low sampling frequency-low bitrate mpeg audio channel that TH-cam offers, because this conditions makes completely useless the test. The typical "gliiliilgliii" of variable bitrate mpeg recordings or streamings coming from beats between high frequencies from program signal and sampling frequency masks differencies at all. You are so lucky to can hear both great machines "in situ" during A/B test.
checkabreak Tandberg!!! TD20A SE shootout with Teac 80-8. I used to work on Teac , Grundig Revox Akai Scully Ampex Concertone-Berlant Sony Tandberg Uber Panasonic Pioneer Nagra, and I have a Tandberg. Excellent tape handling, even on brittle acetate tapes. Very like the Scully but the Tandberg is portable and the Scully needs a pick up truck! Ampex is OK on play but murder on fast wind and braking.
While it's fun to see these vintage machines working, anyone who thinks they can make a meaningful comparison of the audio performance is kidding themselves. The audio here is compressed AAC digital at 125 kbps, and can't come close to providing the full fidelity of either recorder. Also, by using a redbook CD as the original source (16bit 44.1 kHz), you aren't even close to exploiting the full performance of the analog machine. A direct recording of a live performance would be more meaningful
if the STUDER is in original condition then the comparison is useless, the difference between a recapped machiene and an original is HUGE!!!, i've recapped a few machienes myselve and all i can say is that the charactaristics of the STUDER will change DRASTICALLY, 16khz should wound like a nice silver layer on top of the music , pretty much the same as the SONY but softer, PSU recap is also VERY important, is this your machiene?
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
![เจ้าผู้เดียว - ดิด คิตตี้ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q0NLCYKBOTo/mqdefault.jpg)
The vocals sound a lot warmer and more detailed on the C37. Thank you for the comparison.
❤
I don't have any digital tape recorders in my collection. (I have many analog machines.) I certainly wouldn't turn away that Sony DASH machine, but I would *LOVE* to own a Studer C37. Right now, my first and only Studer is a B67 MkI. I dream of someday adding a C37 or A80 or an A800-series machine to my collection!
Cheers! I love both these recorders, the C37 though is one I prefer.
Cheers! I would love to get a second Sony and Studer to make the ones I have better (Noise no the capstan on the Sony and paint job on Studer).
Cheers, I find these all over the place, the DASH was off Ebay, of a shady character, the C37 came from a private studio, I often get offered machines like these, I just cant take everything.
This is an awesome comparison. Someone finallyy had the wherewithall to compare a wonderful analog to a dgital machine. Studer just made some awesome gear. Considering the possible audio transparency issues of the youtube medium, its hard to make a fair judgement, but i tend to go with the Studer hands down.
Besides, it will out last the Sony. Nice shootout! Thanks for posting.
Skvělý přístroj.Vždy jsem si ho přál mít. A teď ho mám. Je ve skvělém profi stavu. Pásků mám taky hodně,tak už se těším na toho mazlíka.
So cool!! You're a wizard!!
Thank you! there is very little difference once TH-cam has added its compression but at a later date, I should be able to do a HD video test. The EMI's, I have almost all the different ones, the ones you speak of are more than likely the L2's and the RE321's (Or an L4), lovely machines, check my other videos and you will see them.
I would have to say that the Studer wins hands down. My replay system was a fully refurbed Onkyo TX-4500 and Acoustic Research AR-4x speakers.
GREAT JOB, as usual!
Gorgeous track. Gonna buy the CD.
Seblington, what software are you using on your computer? Love the smooth waveform!
Thank you for this video! I'm from Russia, I love analogue machines and would buy Studer C37, if not for it's large sizes. I remember there was a "compact" version of C37.
Yes, C37 sounds much warmer and more realistic that Sony. I have Studer A710 and ReVox G36, and I can say that they left CD well far behind.
I just like the song :-)
I love your demonstrations. I do find it odd that one with such an affinity for antique tape recorders generally likes the most digital of all digital productions (sampled dance music).
We had two Sony 24 track digital reel to reels at the studio I worked at Reflection Sound. When the studio closed 6 years ago I was shocked how little $$ we got for those decks. They still sounded great after not being used for over 17 years.
I was shocked too, I see sometimes people try and sell these digital machines for high values, yet they don’t understand the reason analogue machines are more sought after, after all, if I wanted a perfectly digital sound, I am better using a PC. Not to say these digital monsters are not interesting, I too had a PCM3424 machine and loved all the lights and such, but after spending weeks getting it fully working and eventually came to sell it, it was heart-breaking how little it was worth, considering all the extra test tapes and tools it had to go with it.
@@Seblington We used those DASH decks for about two years. When we told our clients we were closing and they should come pick up their masters a couple of them wanted to drop the multitracks into a hard drive. I had to wheel the DASH decks out of storage and patch them into our Neve console. All the while having no idea if they worked. Ultimately I had to patch them into our studio panel in our live room. They worked flawlessly and sounded amazing. I had to get a friend of mine to run the tape decks in the live room while I ran Protools and the console.
Cheers! you too!
Studer had more character. Sony on the other hand was closer to cd sound - more neutral. Great comparison video. These posts are fun to watch and listen!
Thanks Seblington.
Cheers!
Cheers! its hard to tell on these videos, I tried to keep the volumes the same to make the tests fair.
It's called Say You Don't Mind by Colin Blunstone from 1972.
@thomhidd ... or you were saying that just because the older Studer can't reach the same frequency response, in which case I perfectly understand your point and agree that in order to hear a difference, we need a source that at least actually carries any difference that a recorder may show against the other.
I did do a blind test, had the speakers in another room, out of 5 people, 1 thought the C37 was the master, 3 couldnt tell the difference but one worked them all out saying the Sony sounded as sharp as the original where the Studers dynamic range was warmer but at the same time not as accurate, these tests were performed over many different recordings and source, including one from mic of a guitar player and some speech.
A real surprise I expected for it to be harder with each machine to distinguish it from the source. Both these machines need to be realigned!!! My heavily tweaked to an eyebrow Tandberg TD20-A SE would blow them both away!!!!
Cheers, the C37 is something else, the Sony DASH is still here, and faulty, I have given up for now with keeping it working and aim to get a second or third 3403 and make the best out of them, once I have done that I will probably use it more.
I do love the sound of tape though the only way you will get better results than CD is to record something live, then yes there’s a difference.
Say, what's the model of that Technics power amp with the huge VU meters? It looks a lot like one I repaired back in high school for a teacher. Bloody thing weighed a ton! MASSIVE toroid transformer. Awesome vid, BTW. I enjoy all your RTR vids, as usual. :)
Many people say the same, the C37 sounds even better in real life.
Cheers :-)
Interesting comparison, I could not hear much difference. It would good to hear the test with some more dynamic music. TH-cam has really improved and uploads everything in stereo now with an optional High quality link to it.
hi is the sony very heavy is i have some betacam they are heavy decks
Cheers! i must do some more vids soon.
@thomhidd , why do you say you'd need much more than 16/44.1 at the source to be able to hear any difference, sounds like you are assuming the Sony is more capable than that. But isn't the Sony's limit just the same:16/44.1? I understand that there is always a minor loss, even with the finest recorders, but your sentence made me aks for some clarification, which I would appreciate. Thank you.
Thanks for the vid, v interesting.
How on earth you all think you can hear the characters of these machines is beyond me though. This is a youtube video, 90% of what im hearing is the audio compression alg used to make the video.
Not to mention that it seems like the machine output levels arent matched either, the sony being louder than the studer. I love how people form such strong opinions based on these hugely flawed tests.
Long live audio opinion.
Both machines are good the but my preference is analogue every time it's only when you hear the same source instrument typically a guitar ,played back through digital and analouge at the same time that you can appreciate how much more dynamic range there is on analouge tape
It's normal that they sound the same, the limit is the cd, not the machines, but apart from that, studer sounds better as i expected, because sony, being digital, it has to reconvert the signal from analog to digital (and low quality digital being 16/44.1).
Also, from what I can hear, the studer transport is MUCH smoother.
great video!
i would go with the studer any day!
it got that magic tape glue ...
just got myself a studer a271.
not quite what you have.
but more easy to use and it spices digital mixes very nice.
have a great day!
don
من اروع الاجهزه
Maybe the C37 sounds better because it looks better? it's very difficult to hear a difference between the two machines especially on TH-cam but when you hear the live recordings made which have not been re digitized, there is a noticeable difference between the two recorders and in the end of the day both sound amazing, it's all down to preference really, digital clarity or warm valves.
I do agree, this machine could do with a capping, the PSU is noisy and there is a lot of hiss from the amps once they warm up, its one of thoes projects I havent got around to yet.
that´s olders "home recording reel to reel tape tubes like gruding TK-47 and others like that" will work well for recording voice (singing), old style (elvis styles) with all the saturation of the tube time? all warm weight and harmonics that recordings used to had? to play, i can see the video of this, is excellent, but to record i don´t know if will had the same sound quality, or near that´s olders profissional studios recordings using a condenser and preamp
Thats something I will do soon, with so many projects on though it may take a while to getting round to replacing the caps.
Soundforge, great program made by Sony.
Computer followed by the Sony followed by the Studer, though I have to admit that the Sony & the Studer both sound Excellent & I do believe both Machines are every bit the Equal of the Compact Disc!
Just my ears though!
You need to to listen on headphones you can hear the difference much more clearly and for me the Studer wins hands down. I agree it would benefit from the replacement of a few of the capacitors, it will make all the difference as might checking the actual anode load resistors might be way out of spec and a change of valves might make a whole heap of difference as well.
The computer source is obvious. There's a brittleness there. By the time it gets to either tape machine, much of that is smoothed over, seems to me a bit too much on the Sony. There's more upper mid presence on the Studer, as well as a warmth in the lower mids that only tubes and caps can create. I was expecting the Sony to sound better, but frankly aside from the lower noise floor, the Studer wins. Unsurprising.
Donald Fagen's Nightfly was one of the first DDD's. I think the older PCM DASH recorders do have a distinct sound that were involved in making some truly great 80s records. Not too many all time classics have been recorded in the modern 192 / 384 digital era.
Though its through this web-site........I can hear a slight high frequency distorting on the Sony where as the Studer duzn't seem to have it....it seems a little richer.
GOOD STUFF
MATE
CHEERS
I agree with tetrodobeam on basically all of that.
Maybe Studer sound better on that type of music, but it has low frequency roll off due to the head contour effect, and high frequency compression of high levels. The compressed sound is much more pleasant for the ear, that is why some claim that it sounds more analog :)
at least it doesn't sound as bad as digital
It depends. If we compare to the traditional digital (44..1k /14 or 16 bit) maybe you are right. But if we compare to the precise studio digital formats (24bit on multibit DAC using 192kHz or higher sample rate) it is like AM radio :)
@@BorisRibov dude are you even kidding me the higher your clock speed the less accurate each sample is go pick up a soldering iron
So, let set the clock speed to zero.
@@BorisRibov right and then connect the output to a dc motor on the capstan and now you have an audio recorder! The "magic" of analog recorder sound is not the electronics, or tone, or distortion, or whatever.... When you have rotating masses moving heavy reels of tape the physical contraption gives you the most linear passage of time possible. More accurate than digital recording. Maybe unless you have a multi $k wordclock... but cell phone DAC are ragged at the wind. Point a heatgun at a cell phone playing your song and listen to the tempo of the song against the speed of the heat gun. R2R records time more accurately.
@raanan17 I agree. I can hear the differences on my Imac speakers!!.... but then again I do this for a living. Know what to listen for !! Dont get me wrong - I actually thing the Sony format was good too - just not in the same way. If you want the sound of the C37 - then thats what you need to use!
beautiful tape decks, there's no sound like that of reel tape
Don't know why, but, to me, the Sony sounds nice but somehow as if it has a sort of FM radio quality, if I can say this way. The Studer seems to have a lot of character and the sounds seem amazignly vivid. Just different, but I love the Studer, in this context.
Studer sounds more natural....
The Technics is the 900s Reference, I have 3 of these stereo blocks, I like the big meters :-)
WOW! I just did this AGAIN, this time thru my JBL 4311's, and the Sony is way harsh, and the Studer sounds like it has a slight High Freq roll off. Kick ass for 1961, tho. Studer wins again! The Sony is HARSH beyond tolerance.
sony seems to have a fraction more middle then the C37, but then what do I know.
@thomhidd On the other side, definitions like "much more" or "much better" sometimes may make some confusion; someone may even be lead to believe that a machine which needs "much more" in order to deliver "the same" is less than ideal. It may make believe the Sony is not that precise: if it needs much clearer information from the start in order to output with good fidelity, than i might be not as hi-fi. But it's hard to think so about the Sony. Although none of my DDD cds sound good.
the studer sound more natural!... *listened with a reference headphone*... I know youtube is also digital. .but def.. the studer!
Whatever you choose to use, youtube will compress it.
Fact is that any serious tapedeck should waaaaay outperform the CD.
I'm sure these two will :)
The Studer had nicer sounding mids. You really couldn't notice until the "jump cut" toward the end where the vocal and instrumentation were louder. . I'd still like to have a DASH machine tho. Its gonna be a forgotten format before too much longer.
I refer back to this video to ground myself from time to time. So many aspects about it just bring me back to the life force that makes reproducing music all the more poignant.
agreed
Audiophile? NEVER!!! I love my sound but don't go crazy, to me, both sound fantastic though the Sony has more drop out due to being out of calibration ( this one has long gone, I have 2 more now)
Most records roll off at 16KHz due to limitations of their design, both these machines are mastering machines which are used to make records from so the only real rue test is a live source though a high quality microphone. I will be doing a video sometime this year which will feature a live recording, but even then the limitations are with the compression of TH-cam, cant win!
Seblington OK get a Tandberg TD20A SE and tweak it for best range 10-40K and lowest phase error. Use Electrovoice ribbons Neumann’s , Sehnheisers. Telefunken U-47 and AKG condensers
Great machines, and great test, but i think, the studer is better. Maybe this test would be more interesting, if the source is a high(er) definition ( 96 or 192khz) sound. Sorry for bad english
hi
in our student radio we have a J37 and C37 (quiet few of them) but actualy, only 2 C37s are working :(
i would love to make them all work, especially the J37, but most of them are only suitable for spare parts (only torso, switches, motors are left)
if you have a information source like schemes, spare part dealers or so, if you be so kind and send it to me.
the more of these wonderful machines are saved today, the better ;)
very nice vid
I'm musician I can tell you that analogue sounds is far better in the basses and the s sounds. .
Also with these recordings.. the s sounds are much, much better on the studer!!!
Great demo, I certainly couldnt tell the difference under the test conditions at least.
Studer c37s were still very much in evidence at BBC radio Manchester in the 80s.
I wonder where you found all of this gear? I can remember when the first ¼in DASH machines appeared in the 80s and they were hugely expensive.
@Gtrtech .... then you should have been at the Sony Whitfield sell off a couple of years ago. You could have had one for £50.
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
I also think live sound would be the way to go (a drum kit and sax) but to the folks out there, do this at home! didn't you notice that TH-cam sound is crap????
SOLOMOON Yes and banjo and xylophone and harpsichord.
A friend of mine recently put up that album which is usually just sitting in my record cabinet. I must say I generally dislike the sound of it. It's harsh and obtrusive. Even for a record.
STUDER C 37 Presenting a more open clarity sound
SONY............ the sound is a bit muddy ........... and treble sound ......shrill ...........
If I had to choose I would choose SOUND STUDER
@capstancappy11 16khz at 240p is almost imposable to hear anyway
Of course it makes sense don't be silly dude. Both machines are working under the same conditions advances and limitations that youtube provides. You sound like one of those crazy audiophiles.
yup you can hear the digital embarrasement on the dash!! anyone not hearing that chunk of sound put together on a bit limited frequency range needs real speakers, monitors or ears. In the studer you can hear everything right on it's place in sound frequency, in digital you get all the sounds invading eachother to get a fair psace in that limited virtual place of I/O's. listen to the vocal reverb and echo and stereo wide range, it would be even more evident if there was a drums in the recording.
Studer wins
I would be, I will send you a PM
Filmed in potato-vision
High frequency sound better of Studer C37
It's a pity that this comparison or A/B test must be listened through the "bottleneck" of such a low sampling frequency-low bitrate mpeg audio channel that TH-cam offers, because this conditions makes completely useless the test.
The typical "gliiliilgliii" of variable bitrate mpeg recordings or streamings coming from beats between high frequencies from program signal and sampling frequency masks differencies at all.
You are so lucky to can hear both great machines "in situ" during A/B test.
Hello, will send you a pm
yeah the studer is better
Ok cool. Nice machine regardless love to have a STUDER for now my Teac 80-8 will do lol Long Live Analog !! :D
checkabreak Tandberg!!! TD20A SE shootout with Teac 80-8. I used to work on Teac , Grundig Revox Akai Scully Ampex Concertone-Berlant Sony Tandberg Uber Panasonic Pioneer Nagra, and I have a Tandberg. Excellent tape handling, even on brittle acetate tapes. Very like the Scully but the Tandberg is portable and the Scully needs a pick up truck! Ampex is OK on play but murder on fast wind and braking.
While it's fun to see these vintage machines working, anyone who thinks they can make a meaningful comparison of the audio performance is kidding themselves. The audio here is compressed AAC digital at 125 kbps, and can't come close to providing the full fidelity of either recorder.
Also, by using a redbook CD as the original source (16bit 44.1 kHz), you aren't even close to exploiting the full performance of the analog machine.
A direct recording of a live performance would be more meaningful
computer
if the STUDER is in original condition then the comparison is useless, the difference between a recapped machiene and an original is HUGE!!!, i've recapped a few machienes myselve and all i can say is that the charactaristics of the STUDER will change DRASTICALLY, 16khz should wound like a nice silver layer on top of the music , pretty much the same as the SONY but softer, PSU recap is also VERY important, is this your machiene?
This confronting is unfair seen that the source is a shitty cd, get a master on tape and try again
+Betamax Flippy Yea, I know, really it needs a live source.
Invite some musicians to a party :D
But wait... is the c37 mono?
Nope, its stereo, Mono versions are available but this isn't one of them.
Cheers!
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
Thomas Hidderley If you use CD use Digital Systems and Solutions Ultrabit Gold CD treatment and other products see audiogeorge.com.