Several years ago I wanted to get back into reel to reel tape listening as my old TEAC bit the dust. I purchased a used Otari MX-5050 from a dealer who had set it up to use in an audio show. Not only did I get the deck but also a Tape Project tape (half track @ 15 ips) of False Accusations by the Robert Cray Band. When I first played it back I couldn’t believe the sound coming out of my Magnepan 1.7s. I never heard anything so clear and dynamic come from my system, and I have a pretty good set-up (McIntosh SACD/CD player and preamp driving a Classe CA300 amp, with a VPI HW19 Mk IV turntable with SME 309 tone arm and a Shelter 501 Mk II cartridge). There was no tape hiss, great bass, and a coherency from low to high frequencies that just made very other medium pale in comparison. I have a good many of the old Ampex reel to reel prerecorded tapes from when I was in college in the 70’s as well as a good number of LP’s and numerous CD’s and SACD’s. I did manage to get a few more 15 ips half track tapes from Acoustic Sounds that sound great and I have compared them to the SACD versions of the same recordings - the tapes beat them hands down. Plus I love the hands on feel of threading the tape and everything that goes with it. It is expensive to buy the high end tapes, but sometimes it pays to splurge.
@@andershammer9307 Yeah, it is expensive, but worth it. The Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds have a wide variety, and now Horch House is finally back on the scene. I think Horch House has some 7.5 ips tapes also, but I can't remember whether they are half-track or quarter-track. I'd be leary of buying "Master" dupes from eBay. In the latest Absolute Sound (May/June 2022) Robert Harley has a good reply to a reader who thinks Open Reel is no match for PCM Hi-Rez files. Hint: He says that open reel at 15 ips and half-track is better! Good luck in finding the money to splurge. I'm being tight with my funds right now so I understand completely.
Production, mixing and engineering is the key, and modern day audio engineers don't get paid enough to do proper masters... The sales aren't there.... The R2R in question did get a proper master
RtoR is still limited by the bandwidth, and there will always be some minimal speed variation. Also the dynamic range will never match DSD.....That's why we no longer use tape for recording music
Ok ... But I suspect if You had the Opportunity of using an "old" CALREC "Soundfield" Microphone. But the ONLY condition would be You NEEDED to use ANY Reel to Reel (Your Choice). You would jump at the offer. Thoughts ?
@@gabriellegiovanni7899 Paul is right, everything depends on the skills of the Engineer and his knowledge on his gear, you should watch this : It's a mix done with worth 1 000 000$ of Analogue gear and a custom Console fed mostly with API Gear vs Universal Audio Plugins (in their LUNA DAW), the test was done with the same mics and Y cables to make a complete match (download the WAV multitracks in the description, and listen on a good system), it's only a matter of taste, but never on the gear used : th-cam.com/video/F1mzXWf4OEw/w-d-xo.html
Oh, for crying out loud! Never listen to a techie about music. The last time I took my wife to the Rocky Mountain audio fest we listened to every kind of digital there could possibly be including DSD. She grew up in a musicians family doing live music and I was a professional classical musician. The only room that sounded to either one of us like real music was the Nagra room spinning vinyl. And my wife could not give a rat’s *** about the technical aspect of any of it.
lol but what would a musician know anyway? Their not audiophiles. They don't know about gear, so they couldn't possibly know what they are hearing. I mean, next people might even ask one of those "music composers" for their insights. I mean what the heck does a music composer even do anyway? What could they possibly know about sound? :P
The thing about vinyl and other analog is that it is imperfect like your memories. There is surface noise and dirt and life effects the recordings. Some of the stuff I grew up listening to just doesn't sound right on top end gear, it's subjective of course but music is that way. I get what Paul is saying but I think he'll understand when I say life has surface noise, that's a John Peel quote. Enjoy the hobby but are you chasing music or sound? I do believe music is about more than sound. Happy Easter.
Yes, Go to any live concert and there will be noise. From my experience every medium is imperfect. You just trade off one problem for another problem. I have LPs made back in the late 70's that were made from a digital tape sampling at 50K and these sound pretty much exactly the same as what I hear from a live symphony orchestra.
@@andershammer9307 That's interesting. I'm aware that most "remastered" 70s recordings get "digitized"! Often to unacceptable degrees. Unless done by their original mastering / recording engineers or artist, the new product gets changed from it's original. It's difficult to improve a pond an original anyway. I have Return to Forever remastered. It was done with Chick and Stanley! In this case the slight change was welcomed. More detail and dynamics brought forth. I've heard the opposite results too, on other "remastering" attempts. I even have classic copies of LP to CD as so-called remastered? A sales pitch. Unfortunately, one just can't honestly believe or call it until one gives it a personal listen?
You’re right again Paul. Someone else commented about the difference between the noise floor a realtor real versus DSD. I haven’t read that article by Jonathan Valin either but I know what you’re saying is absolutely correct. It is up to the recording engineer and mixing engineer to bring out all of the greatness of the recording. It also means that every microphone used in the recording has to be polarity correct if they are polarized all the way through to the speakers that we listen to the music through.
If you are doing music as an art, tech specs are in the second place, ATR 102 give you a color that it is a part of your creation. I chose a mic not for how it is flat or low noise, just how voice or instrument I want IT must to sound.
My personal opinion; If you don’t mind a little hiss, they are really equal when it comes to the sound quality component. There’s a few upsides of reel to reel though. Tape distortion is one of them, which can be very fun to play with, and of course with biasing and/or using different tape formulations (much like photographic film) you can slightly tweak the sound to your flavour. Even though bias and eq’ing can make tapes sound very similar, they still have their own ‘feel’. A Maxell UD for instance will always sound a little cleaner, faster and thinner than an ampex 456, which sounds a little more rounded and ‘sweet’. Also using old broadcast tapes (Like PER525 by BASF) on lower speeds creates a very typical grittiness that really suits some music. Much like grain suits some photos. I also found that using a higher end 2-track consumer machine (Revox A77, TEAC A-3300SX, Tandberg TD20A) at high speeds (15ips) creates a looseness to the bass that is really hard to reproduce. Tape has its place, it has a ‘sound’, even though it’s got a full, flat frequency range. And last but not least; You can’t fake as easily with tape, musicians better get their shit right. (currently listening to a vinyl recorded recorded from a Tascam MSR16 to a Telefunken M15A by a friend of mine. He’s still looking to borrow an MSR16 to redo these mixes ;)).
Mr. Paul McGowan. I'd like to add. The last High-End Show I attended in NYC had a full digital playback system by non other than Technics! It was the purest reproduction of Elvis Presley's studio takes that confused belief? Elvis sound like he was literally in the adjacent sound room laying down tracks! It was a revelation to experience. I'm not even an Elvis collector! But, I was convinced beyond any shadow of doubt..digital is king! Of course it was originally recorded on magnetic tape! Lol [Technics R1 Reference System]
IT must come down to the "source". If it's recorded on reel 2 reel, then i guess it would sound closest to the Master, when played back on a good Reel 2 Reel. ✌️♥️🇩🇰
Hi Paul, I do recoreding in DSD or DXD and also do DSD transfer from analog master tapes for Fidelio 2xHD. Yes I can have great result for orchestra when I really need full dynamic and low noise of digital. For smaller group of musicians my personal taste is for the analog sound with no converter. There is a presence, timbre and a feeling that I like for hours without being tired that I don't get with converted sound. But I don't like any of the stock playback electronics of the Reel to Reel machine. The best digital for me it is when I fine tune my analog tube reel to reel ring and I convert to digital at the end without any digital processing. I do analog vinyl from tape and it is very easy to hear the difference between a digital DSD vinyl and a analog vinyl. It is very rare that a digital vinyl sound great. Having said that I understand you can use other kind of microphone to get a balance that will come close to all analog signal but ..
The quality and placement of the microphones is of such significance as to render the differences between DSD and PCM purely academic, although I appreciate the comparison here was to tape.
Aside from remastering from old audio tapes... Some few audio engineers still make use of tape saturation to achieve a desired compression effect in a well engineered recording, even when working mostly in the box. While magnetic tape is no longer necessary in new efforts, in tracking/mixing/mastering new recordings, but it may still be a useful tool in the toolkit, for some few. Some few, because it is not cheap to do well, and as a processing tool it may not get a lot of use, and for a lot of recorded material it offers no significant benefit.
It really doesn't matter even if R2R sounds better because there is so little source material, and what there is costs in excess of $300 per album. You can buy SACD at 1/10th of the price, it probably sounds better and there is infinitely more source material. It no longer makes sense to record vinyl (as I did years ago) because modern high quality turntables put almost no wear on a record, so just play the record. Even as inconvenient at records are, they are much more convenient than R2R. The only sensible purpose for a R2R is if you are recording live music and how many of us do that?
Guessing what reviewer heard was tape to dsd vs tape anyway and not straight to dsd, big difference my friend. Also most systems can't produce true dsd like a sabre dac.
When we eliminate all noise as done with digital, we also seem to eliminate a lot of what creates ambiance and a better soundstage. In turn, also create a more dry sound that could also introduce ear fatigue There’s stuff going on within the same realm as the noise that we actually want to keep. In a nutshell: Eliminating all noise is as we used to say like throwing the baby out with the bath water. There’s more aspects to great sound reproduction than simply eliminating all noise
Beyond just first generation record/ playback, RtoR suffers from the laws of physics of reduced bandwidth and S/N with each generation. That's one of the big issues with RtoR for home playback. Very few people would have access to master tapes, much less even the master 2channel mixdown tape. Even that would be protected with a sub master before release copies were produced. So retail tape releases of music tend to be 2-4 generations at best from the 2 channel master. And even then some were highspeed copies, not real time, reducing highend even more. A process was developed to use heat/ lasers to transfer magnetic domains between tapes for highspeed video tape production. It made a virtually perfect print with no generational loss. But was way too expensive to make it to RtoR audio.
Magnetic tape has so many flaws to it that the average person would not even know. Print through of magnetic layers of tape causing a delayed "ghost" image of audio to bleed through the layers. High frequency compression of the highest end of the bandwidth due to short wavelengths and slow speed. Low frequency distortion and humps in frequency response caused by the inductive reactance of the heads. I have many tape machines including Technics RS-1506, Pioneer RT-707, Pioneer CT-F1250, and Nakamichi Dragon. They are all flawed, but fun never the less. My digital recording software records in PCM and I can get results better than any consumer grade equipment that I have. I would have to agree with Paul with the quality of the recording is the recording engineer that makes the most difference, even with a flawed medium.
Sadly there are a lot of great analog advancements that got forgotten. If demand stayed high, I bet the price of that process would have dropped as it got used more and more.
@@zulumax1 What you call a "print through" causing a "ghost" image is rather not a disadvantage of magnetic recording technology but user fault of storage in near magnetic field like speaker magnets or any accidental magnetization. Without additional magnetization the low fields of recording have no chance to be repeated on even nearest layer of tape. I use R2R since 1969 and on tapes even stored untouched 10 years could not observe such thing. . But it was ;possible on LP recordings when loud row is next to following silent one. In case of recording that to tape some falsely may account it to magnetic technology
@@zulumax1 May be I should tell that I use R2R since 1969 untill till now and I have already 10 R2R eight of them 3 or 4 head, and I record my all tapes. But what impact would it have? Just check occurence of magnetic histeresis to understand my point in which rare condition it may happen and it is not fault of technology. In AES information from about 1994 magnetic recording lasts 500 (five hundred) years as it was laboratory confirmed. Many people say that it is needed long time to get that magnetization. That is why in short time it is not observed. But explanation to role played by that time I did not find in any materials. Why?
I used to be in the dyed in the wool analog camp but that's all changed with the latest gear out there. And frankly, I have reassessed all of my early Telarc Sound Stream, Denon recordings on vinyl. Listening to them recently made me think that I wrote them off prematurely, maybe even dismissed them for being digital. I have to say that if you want to easily hear the difference between the two formats, try a piano recording. something where a key is struck hard and held down for the duration of the note. That tells you almost everything about the difference. That Concert grand will smack you in a way tape cannot plus the long decay of the note will waiver on the tape and more than likely get worse with age, whereas the DSD just perfectly or as near as perfect in a recording medium gets, playback that sustained note. It's funny how a lot of musicians hear this but not audiophiles. Audiophiles need to get out more often to hear real music. The latest equipment today also is making me look in the past at some of the earliest digital machines. Now if I can only find working players with TDA1540-1 chipsets in them.
I would argue - I listen to LPs and compare them to CD with TDA 1541. Do not use or have DSD. And in LP recordings I observe in some recordings very slow silnencing of recordings to full silence before next track comes in, like no insertion of full silence brake .It is hardly even heard in silent listening but it is nice to follow in quaet room . I never noticed such low loudness levels recorded on CDs and seems to me it may be deliberately avoided due to CD technology.
@@Mikexception So if I understand you correctly, your saying that LP's fade to black (silence), better than a compact disc can. That CD can't fade to black as well as an LP can. But what I was talking about is that a digital recording on an LP will fade to silence as well if not better than an analog tape and that digital technology handles sustained notes like a piano note that's struck and held over a long period better than tape. On another note, what cd player do you use that uses a TDA1541 DAC? It has to be old.
@@mortlach186 I have Bang & Olufsen Ouverture set produced up to 2004. it has double laser ray and is best of what I used any time. Other my colege has 10 years later Maranz and Denon but I do not hear there any noticeable advantages. I am telling about my personal impression which occured in real life while you are talking about rather your expectation. In my audio practice 90% my expectations in past I found wrong but that's me. I was talking about fading which lasts around 30 seconds and is noticed only with attention , not single note. If on CD disc are two different names of tracks obviously cannot be continuity of reproduction which can be and is always in analog, In analog is no 0/1. R2R speed obvioulsy waives a but not all of them are equaly good or bad. Best LP turnatables reach 0,15% margin while my R2R thanks to producer past engineers 0,2% and I consider it equal. I play electronic grand piano at my home so I have direct comparison real to recorded and this waiving I simply can't notice. Even worse case is in guitar where note lasts much longer than piano but also in guitar is not noticeable. But it has to be maintained. Example in my B&O R2R even capstain roller is turning on two ball bearings. Like in no other. No belts in transport are used and in most R2Rs belts are used and it increase waiving. When talking about technology assume we are talking about best of best solutions, not simplifications. .
Oh boy, Mr. McGowan: I, just, woke up from, recuperative, napping - and, to my delight, noticed this segment in my queue. You are, absolutely, ensuring that my, in-the-planning-phase, setup is approaching the Holy Grail of music reproduction. I am, humbly, much obliged...
How long do Reel to Reel tapes physically last? Some reel to reel websites mention wear on the masters and recreating a copy of the Masters. Is there much more wear on a Reel to Reel tapes than vinyl? Also, there are different playback speeds and tape head configurations which also affects sound quality and prices of the recordings.
Stored properly in humidity and temperature controlled places, indefinitely. Digital is hardly forever. Corruption, laser rot and so on. I have had reel to reel 2 track last over 40 years and still play great today. Same with Cassette.
Regardless of the Format ..... the Transducers in the Recording Chain Can't be Ignored. As well as the "MIC" ing methods also Shouldn't be ignored. Paul, thanks for acknowledging what's "normally" ignored. But hey .... most Folks want an Easy Answer. But Audio like most things in Life are NOT B & W, but complex and nuanced. ;-)
Stereophile magazine made a CD where you got to hear the differences between many different types of microphones and one one sounded good to me and it was an EAR mic.
I understanded "medium" in the review as something physical and not digital. o he was not comparing to DSD for instance but for probably Physical Mediums ... ?
Absolutely correct, Paul - how a recording is engineered is far more important than the medium it is recorded on to. But quality digital is now better than analogue. It wasn't ten to fifteen years ago, but it's progressed enormously.
Nope. Totally wrong. I have the best digital playback system (Taiko Extreme) and one of the best Turntables (Nagra TT) -- I can tell you vinyl analog is better -- at least on the Nagra.
I don't know. I have heard the United Home Artists reel to reel a few times at shows. Nothing that I have ever heard comes close to what I heard from those playback systems.
In my practice both - CD and analog are capable to make identicaly "real" reproduction. Only in high reverberation I feel difference. That is why typical studio recordings I enjoy equally from CD and analog but complicated hall or symphony concerts or electronic like Vangelis are clearly more amazing from analog beacuse of lot of silent details hanging around .
@@Mikexception Do check out the UHA reel to reel sometime. The tapes are direct transfers, and cost 300 + per, and are darn well worth it. I have heard lp players in the tens of thousands. They don't touch what the UHA deck can do.
@@craigellsworth3952 Any media source is worthy as much as at maximum we are capable to get out of them. It means once something is totally nivelated it can't be regained and heard any more. Such case is less possible in analog where is total convertions do not occure at all. Efforts of different users also are obviously not equal.
As Long as there weren't any CD recorders or Solid State recorders, I recorded on high end Cassette decks. It was possible to make a perfect recording on such a deck. By that I mean you couldn't tell the difference between the tape and source. To get such results, it took a few things to consider that were very important. First thing is the use of a very good Metal tape in combination with Dolby C and Dolby HX pro. As far as I know TDK MAX is the best. Next thing is to clean the heads and Capstans and demagnetise the heads. Finally adjust the bias and level. As you can see, a lot to consider if you want your analog deck to perform.
I think direct to disc LPs are closer to the real thing than any other medium. I own 24 reel to reel machines and I also own a lot of direct to disc LPs and Those LPs are more dynamic then any medium I've heard but reel to reel can get pretty close.
reel to reel was never for the general consumer. DSD fills that gap. I don't enjoy digital audio regardless of how it's processed. Good luck finding reel to reel albums. Just take your online streaming subscriptions and be happy, most people appear to not have much patience for the upkeep maintenance of tape in 2022.. it would be a logistical nightmare for them. And when the music landscape is mostly produced in a digital box.. doesn't matter to have tape in your life. Would be backwards.
I own a recording studio, and worked with high-end multitrack tape decks for years. They can sound very good if maintained properly, but I am extremely glad to be rid of them (did keep a two track to access mixes on tape). Analog tape decks add distortions to the sound, and the recording degrades with each play. That's a simple, unarguable fact.
Very true in theory and cannot negate that with each reproduction tape plays worse. Apparently I cannot confim it in practice - my tapes sound exactly as 50 years back . But sure tapes add distortions but again in measurements, , not listening practice. . - after copyng from CD to tape, due to lower clarity I do not return to CD reproduction which sounds foggy in compare to my R2R and it is unpleasantly listenable .May be it is such characteristic of my R2R - I bless it. . Anyway to clear theory problem I think also dirigent of symphony orchestra cannot controll all musicians in coherent time because the view if his gasture is delayed to each musician differently due to speed of light.
Can I have that Studer then:) Everything is information in the universe. When I look at Paul here he is made up of pixels but looks pretty dang reel ( get it). I guess if you have more “ information “ it just gets more “ real” to us. Was looking at an old senior portrait of my mother in law from the early sixties and I marvel at the beauty of the thing . Much more impressive than an I phone pic imho. I don’t know, I like both
isn't it just semantics!! there's lots of variables depends on the tape deck type, how you running it through a dedicated preamp. Paul is not right and probably not wrong either
I've owned a reel-to-reel tape deck fo 30 years. Beautiful machine but the biggest problem is the quality decay of the tapes no matter how well kept. After 25 years the first tapes became too bad to keep. Eventually I moved on to a digital system with no records, discs or tapes.
Tapes do not decay if R2R has high technology of mechanical transport preventing tapes from mechanical overloading - unfortunately I know only two types of recorders which are up to that. One type is reels horizontal type position with carrefully solved problems of windings of tape. That one I enjoy in Bang Olufsen and it is used in studio class R2R like Studer. Populary welcomed vertical positiontype is also possible and was well done but it is very sophisticated and was found by me only in german Uher. Many types of R2R look often nice but they hurt tapes.
Well as we know sound quality is debatable I also feel analog and tape is a superior format to any digital playback system. I have heard the best in both and I feel just the opposite that digital will never be as good as well recorded and mastered analog recording and playback system. If you go to any high end trade show, and Paul knows this most rooms are playing analog tape. Why because it sound better than than digital. Sorry Paul have to go against you on this subject. And encourage your viewers to hear it for themselves.
No I did not mention the brands and models of both the reel to reel and digital formats I have listened to and compared by I can assure you they are both state of the art both in the professional domain in one of the best mastering studios today at Bernie Grundmans mastering facility and I have worked in designing and selling the very best in consumer high end audio. So both are the best representation of digital and analog playback. I am not the only one who feels analog is a superior format there are many of the most respected engineers and audiophiles who prefer analog over digital. Bernie Grundman being one of them. Sorry it’s not even close. People need to get over the numbers and not let that be the determining factor in sound quality. Numbers don’t tell you everything, and are just about zero indication of sound quality.
@@Hal9000Comp I think the clue may be also in persons who say opinion for both kinds of saving material; - people who prefer digital are rised in digital and will always prize digital more than analog. - may be because they had never realy good experience in analog which requires a bit different speakers and EQ to show the best. .
Frequency response that would blow it off the map? You're only talking a slight extension in the most extreme highs and lows. Not exactly a huge difference. As far as dynamic range, I don't know how the stats stack but I know from music production experience, you literally don't need more dynamic range than a reel to reel has already. Most genres of music don't need anywhere near it. I'm doubtful even recording extremely dynamic music like a symphony would need more than a good reel to reel could offer. About the only thing that I'd guess would be noticeable is a lower sound floor DSD in the most quiet passages. In that regard it could give the impression of higher resolution. Because it's 2 completely different technologies, it's hard to say which would have the better resolution though. Analog devices don't need to sample and good ones usually have a surprisingly high digital resolution equivalent. Like how the inexpensive 35mm film that used to be used in 1990s consumer grade portable cameras, actually turned out to have a higher resolution than even today's good digital consumer's cameras. I'd be very curious to hear DSD head to head with a good wide tape reel to reel. Have you done any psychological tests? Like measure the brain activity of people listening to DSD verses all analog produced recordings on reel to reel? Now THAT would be some interesting info.
You have NO CLUE about true high end sound, Paul. I can tell you without any uncertainty (since I own both mediums) - ANALOG DESTROYS DIGITAL. It's simply not even close - if you have a world class turntable the sound will exceed even the best digital playback systems. I have a Taiko Extreme with a world class DAC and all the latest software. Vinyl sounds better ;)
When does music become false? When do your ears become lazy? When do you stop listening to people telling you what you are hearing? When "will" you enjoy your music?
@0:19 "I haven't read that review" ...and you posted this video? Paul, there is no shortage of people that bash gear that they never listened to, calling it snake oil, etc. In a way, you did the same thing, to a lesser degree. Without knowing what Jonathan Valin wrote in his review, and without you listening to that specific reel-to-reel deck, and without knowing which tape formulation he used in his listening tests, etc, it is not proper for you to claim that DSD is king. Well, it is, based on your experience -- but not when comparing it to a deck that you never heard. From your experience, which granted is vast, you have concluded that DSD is king, and decisively so. But how many reel-to-reel decks have you used to draw your conclusion? And most importantly, and the crux of the matter, is that you declared DSD king, compared to a deck that you never heard -- and that deck (according to Jay, in Orlando Florida) was reviewed by a highly respected reviewer for a highly respected magazine. In such a case, it behooves you to at least have read the review before declaring a winner. For all we know, Jonathan compared that deck to DSD? Just as no two amps sound the same, and no two pre-amps sound the same, etc... ...no two reel-to-reel decks sound the same. And you substituted your reel-to-reel deck (sitting next to you) for the one that Jonathan reviewed. That is no way to measure the sonic character of the deck in Jonathan's review. And which interconnects are you using with your reel-to-reel deck? Is it Audioquest's William E. Low Signature interconnects? Are your tape heads clean, de-magnetized, azimuth aligned? There are loads of variables, and you did not read Jonathan Valin's review before posting this video -- not good. I also did not read his review, because I could not find it. But I would not post a video, responding to that review, until I did find it.
" But how many reel-to-reel decks have you used to draw your conclusion?" - analog recordings on tape have been well studied in regards to their physical characteristics, as have all commonly used recording mediums. These things are not secrets. Volumes of AES reports over several decades describe recording and playback choices. People may _like_ RtR for their own music choices, but that is simply idiosyncratic humans doing their thing. "But I would not post a video, responding to that review, until I did find it." - Paul is responding to a *letter* that he received, not to Valin's article.
@@TheDanEdwards "analog recordings on tape have been well studied in regards to their physical characteristics, as have all commonly used recording mediums. These things are not secrets. Volumes of AES reports over several decades describe recording and playback choices." "Studied" is not auditioned. Reading a report is not listening. That something is not a secret does not make it relevant. If you were to purchase a reel-to-reel deck, would you go by what was "studied"? Or would you go by whichever one your ear deemed to sound the best? Why has Paul deemed DSD better than reel-to-reel, without ever basing his decision on those volumes of reports? "People may like RtR for their own music choices, but that is simply idiosyncratic humans doing their thing." How does that apply to touting one piece of gear over another piece of gear that was not auditioned? "Paul is responding to a letter that he received, not to Valin's article." Jay in Orlando Florida's letter was about Valin's article. Ergo, Paul was commenting on Valin's article, without having read Valin's article. The whole reason Paul made the video was based on Jay's letter. And it was not about the definition of "What is a 'letter?'". The video was based on the content of the letter. That content was about Jonathan Valin's review of a reel-to-reel deck. To then write that Paul was not responding to Valin's article is nonsense.
What are we trying to do here? In all formats - get as close to the original sound as possible. That was Quads spiel back in the early 70's. It's just not possible (altho Quad were better than most) to re-create the sound of a symphony orchestra say or even a rock band, in your living room. All you can hope for is an electronic version of the original sound - paired down - in your living room, or wherever.. That's not to say you can't get a great sound by spending many many thousands of dollars/pounds on a system, but never think you'll achieve a like-for-like sound of a full orchestra or rock group in a small room. It aint gonna happen.
I'm sure DSD is better than reel to reel. Unfortunately, the artists whose albums I own, don't perform now, so DSD masters are not an option. What I find curious, is that when I browsed some DSD catalogs, they had DSD recordings of dead artists from the 1940s. The only thing they could have done, is DSD a record, or if a reel to reel exists, DSD that, which is no better than the original master. So there would be no benefit of the DSD recording if the record exists.
Who's right? It depends on who's ears are being used.. The comparison would have to be a reel to reel off of a first gen master vs a dsd off is an analog master. I prefer analog. Even with DSD, I can still hear a digital-ness. Am I using a super high end equipment in the 5 figure range? No but neither is 99.9999% of anybody else.
You are right, Paul. DSD or 192/24 pcm, blow the Execellent Studer out of the water! The old Studer was good enough for Analog on vinyl, but any digital recording in modern times, just walks away. Keep up the good info work.
I can back up Paul 100% on this one. And also support the comments of many in this thread. FWIW I actually worked for Ampex Audio systems in my very younger years. Fun summer job in High School ( 61 -> 64 ). By nature all audio tape must be compatible. Many times this is done by having only one manufacturer, lets say 3M. So Fuji Mastering tape may in fact be 3M tape. And if your manufacturing audio tape it's gotta work on legacy tape drives ( Ampex 300, Studer, Pioneer, ect ect ). So the tape has been the same since at least as far back as the 50's. Due to this defacto standard tape the bias, tape speed and width, all are going to have performance limits. Lemme give a stab at it: 30Hz -> 15,000Hz under any and all conditions. Tape hiss, maybe a 30db noise floor, if your really lucky Dynamic range, pray for 70dbs including the 30db hiss. Good luck DTS, CD or any digital format is gonna beat tape like a drum. Ain't even close.
Have you looked at specs of any good reel to reels from the mid 70's up to today ? With EE tape you can get 80dB S/N and frequency response way out to 30K or higher.
@@andershammer9307 The media is the medai and 3M has not changed it since the 50's. I ask you. How are you going to get 80db s/n and 30K upper freq with a bias freq of 100Khz. Not even God can do that.
Everything aside, have you ever gone through playing reel to reel music? Each reel is about $600, which is ridiculously over-priced. Then it comes to preserving the reels, demagnetising the heads after each play ... adjusting .... which deprives you of a relaxed moment for listening to your favorite music ... On the other hand, when it comes to DSD, there is no way to be sure that the original recording has been done in DSD or just converted from a poor recording ... Sometimes, I think listening to a PCM from a CD or even MP3 format through a proper DAC makes you wonder if we are not dealing with musical myths! As all sound as good as the DSD you bought and downloaded ....
Tape will never have the noise floor of DSD. It's a physical reality. Tape will never have the dynamic range either because of physics. These are immutable facts, pun intended. However, opinions about these facts are dynamic. Still, digital is going to win because the good factors of tape have been very well modeled and can be applied to digital. It took a while for digital to get there but it mostly there and it is surpassing analog. Indeed, one place it seems to fall short is a new problem of too many choices and too much freedom. But that is a human failing and not a failing of the medium.
BTW, this is not to say that digital does not need high quality analog support. It does. The other physical reality is that the world is analog and only analog devices can get the signal to the digital converters, so analog will forever be a factor. So, record with high quality analog gear into well supported digital converters and you are good to go.
Tape may never spec. as well but it can sound better. A Tandberg TD20A SE can provide 80dB S/N with no noise reduction. Also I have some DBX records that are capable of 100dB of S/N.
My biggest problem with DSD and it is probably a problem with the recording engineers is that the increased dynamic range often has the softer lower volume parts of a song drowned out by the louder sections. Frequency response is another thing with few people being able to hear above 15Khz and older people like myself struggling to hear above 12Khz. I'm not saying that Paul is wrong it's just personal preference which means everyone is right for themselves.
@@michaelklit7799 if you have hearing tests confirming your range then you are lucky. Where I worked most of the people over 50 had varying amounts of high-frequency hearing lose. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy good recordings. I wish you luck and continued good hearing.
@@Wizardofgosz The other thing that concerns me are the multiple digital conversions that go on in order to mix a DSD recording. In every conversion some information is lost. Is this ultimately a problem I don't know but in the end is that a DSD recording or a DSD version of a manipulate PCM recording.
The 'trick' in making truly great recordings is using errors inherent in one piece of equipment to make up for deficiencies in another piece of equipment.
Been around audio over 50 years, and DSD is nowhere close. 2 track reel to reel. United Home Audio your Studer and even the recreated Mara Machines. Day to day, Reel to Reel is amazing. On the bench DSD may look impressive, but DSD will not be where it needs to be. Sure, Microphones, and technique and other factors will come into play. Nothing wrong with PCM or DSD. I am in the digital realm more often than not. Reel to Reel is expensive, eats up space, tapes are a bitch to get. PCM or even DSD is easy and relatively inexpensive compared to Reel to Reel. I have had my share. Granted I will never have a Nagra or Otari, or United Home Audio. But for me at least, what few shows are left, I head always for a Reel to Reel source 1st. Just nirvana for me. Your mileage may vary. No arguing, just music, okay?
I'm of the set that Digital recording can equal and often surpasses magnetic tape as a medium of capturing and playback of sound. However, great high resolution digital achievement is not reached to it's full potential in run of the mill Rebook CD format. Higher capture rates always sound truer to it's original source than what's commercially available. Now, if we're talking compression rates. "Loudness War" CD's sound like garbage to uncompressed magnetic tape! "Real to Reel" tape machines were never inexpensive..or convenient to handle or store. Finally, who's still recording in analogue these days? Maybe, Lenny Kravitz is? He once said so in a music publication. That was years ago now. Who's to say if he has "upgrade" since to higher digital rates? My bet is he probably has?
Here’s The Absolute Sound article about the Metaxas & Sins Tourbillon T-RX reel to reel: www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/kostas-metaxas-t-rx-tape-deck Available at the low low asking price of $36k
What Paul says about the microphones (and a skilled studio engineer) is completely accurate.
Several years ago I wanted to get back into reel to reel tape listening as my old TEAC bit the dust. I purchased a used Otari MX-5050 from a dealer who had set it up to use in an audio show. Not only did I get the deck but also a Tape Project tape (half track @ 15 ips) of False Accusations by the Robert Cray Band. When I first played it back I couldn’t believe the sound coming out of my Magnepan 1.7s. I never heard anything so clear and dynamic come from my system, and I have a pretty good set-up (McIntosh SACD/CD player and preamp driving a Classe CA300 amp, with a VPI HW19 Mk IV turntable with SME 309 tone arm and a Shelter 501 Mk II cartridge). There was no tape hiss, great bass, and a coherency from low to high frequencies that just made very other medium pale in comparison. I have a good many of the old Ampex reel to reel prerecorded tapes from when I was in college in the 70’s as well as a good number of LP’s and numerous CD’s and SACD’s. I did manage to get a few more 15 ips half track tapes from Acoustic Sounds that sound great and I have compared them to the SACD versions of the same recordings - the tapes beat them hands down. Plus I love the hands on feel of threading the tape and everything that goes with it. It is expensive to buy the high end tapes, but sometimes it pays to splurge.
I can't afford to splurge these days but I'd like to try one of those tapes. I have a Revox and a TEAC that is 2 track 15 IPS.
@@andershammer9307 Yeah, it is expensive, but worth it. The Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds have a wide variety, and now Horch House is finally back on the scene. I think Horch House has some 7.5 ips tapes also, but I can't remember whether they are half-track or quarter-track. I'd be leary of buying "Master" dupes from eBay. In the latest Absolute Sound (May/June 2022) Robert Harley has a good reply to a reader who thinks Open Reel is no match for PCM Hi-Rez files. Hint: He says that open reel at 15 ips and half-track is better!
Good luck in finding the money to splurge. I'm being tight with my funds right now so I understand completely.
Production, mixing and engineering is the key, and modern day audio engineers don't get paid enough to do proper masters... The sales aren't there.... The R2R in question did get a proper master
RtoR is still limited by the bandwidth, and there will always be some minimal speed variation. Also the dynamic range will never match DSD.....That's why we no longer use tape for recording music
Ok ... But I suspect if You had the Opportunity of using an "old" CALREC "Soundfield" Microphone. But the ONLY condition would be You NEEDED to use ANY Reel to Reel (Your Choice). You would jump at the offer. Thoughts ?
The studios that sound the best have gone back to analogue mastering.
@@gabriellegiovanni7899 Yeah? which ones?
@@gabriellegiovanni7899 Paul is right, everything depends on the skills of the Engineer and his knowledge on his gear, you should watch this : It's a mix done with worth 1 000 000$ of Analogue gear and a custom Console fed mostly with API Gear vs Universal Audio Plugins (in their LUNA DAW), the test was done with the same mics and Y cables to make a complete match (download the WAV multitracks in the description, and listen on a good system), it's only a matter of taste, but never on the gear used : th-cam.com/video/F1mzXWf4OEw/w-d-xo.html
Foo fighters say otherwise.
Oh, for crying out loud! Never listen to a techie about music. The last time I took my wife to the Rocky Mountain audio fest we listened to every kind of digital there could possibly be including DSD. She grew up in a musicians family doing live music and I was a professional classical musician. The only room that sounded to either one of us like real music was the Nagra room spinning vinyl. And my wife could not give a rat’s *** about the technical aspect of any of it.
lol but what would a musician know anyway? Their not audiophiles. They don't know about gear, so they couldn't possibly know what they are hearing. I mean, next people might even ask one of those "music composers" for their insights. I mean what the heck does a music composer even do anyway? What could they possibly know about sound? :P
You are right Paul ... DsD rocks ... Send that studor to me.....🤩
The thing about vinyl and other analog is that it is imperfect like your memories. There is surface noise and dirt and life effects the recordings. Some of the stuff I grew up listening to just doesn't sound right on top end gear, it's subjective of course but music is that way. I get what Paul is saying but I think he'll understand when I say life has surface noise, that's a John Peel quote. Enjoy the hobby but are you chasing music or sound? I do believe music is about more than sound. Happy Easter.
Yes, Go to any live concert and there will be noise. From my experience every medium is imperfect. You just trade off one problem for another problem. I have LPs made back in the late 70's that were made from a digital tape sampling at 50K and these sound pretty much exactly the same as what I hear from a live symphony orchestra.
@@andershammer9307 That's interesting.
I'm aware that most "remastered" 70s recordings get "digitized"! Often to unacceptable degrees.
Unless done by their original mastering / recording engineers or artist, the new product gets changed from it's original.
It's difficult to improve a pond an original anyway.
I have Return to Forever remastered. It was done with Chick and Stanley! In this case the slight change was welcomed. More detail and dynamics brought forth.
I've heard the opposite results too, on other "remastering" attempts.
I even have classic copies of LP to CD as so-called remastered? A sales pitch.
Unfortunately, one just can't honestly believe or call it until one gives it a personal listen?
You’re right again Paul. Someone else commented about the difference between the noise floor a realtor real versus DSD. I haven’t read that article by Jonathan Valin either but I know what you’re saying is absolutely correct. It is up to the recording engineer and mixing engineer to bring out all of the greatness of the recording. It also means that every microphone used in the recording has to be polarity correct if they are polarized all the way through to the speakers that we listen to the music through.
I got my OneClock! LOVE IT. Thank you Paul!
If you are doing music as an art, tech specs are in the second place, ATR 102 give you a color that it is a part of your creation. I chose a mic not for how it is flat or low noise, just how voice or instrument I want IT must to sound.
He is correct mainly on microphone and studio setup every sound engineer hear different too
My personal opinion; If you don’t mind a little hiss, they are really equal when it comes to the sound quality component. There’s a few upsides of reel to reel though. Tape distortion is one of them, which can be very fun to play with, and of course with biasing and/or using different tape formulations (much like photographic film) you can slightly tweak the sound to your flavour. Even though bias and eq’ing can make tapes sound very similar, they still have their own ‘feel’. A Maxell UD for instance will always sound a little cleaner, faster and thinner than an ampex 456, which sounds a little more rounded and ‘sweet’. Also using old broadcast tapes (Like PER525 by BASF) on lower speeds creates a very typical grittiness that really suits some music. Much like grain suits some photos. I also found that using a higher end 2-track consumer machine (Revox A77, TEAC A-3300SX, Tandberg TD20A) at high speeds (15ips) creates a looseness to the bass that is really hard to reproduce. Tape has its place, it has a ‘sound’, even though it’s got a full, flat frequency range.
And last but not least; You can’t fake as easily with tape, musicians better get their shit right.
(currently listening to a vinyl recorded recorded from a Tascam MSR16 to a Telefunken M15A by a friend of mine. He’s still looking to borrow an MSR16 to redo these mixes ;)).
Mr. Paul McGowan. I'd like to add. The last High-End Show I attended in NYC had a full digital playback system by non other than Technics!
It was the purest reproduction of Elvis Presley's studio takes that confused belief?
Elvis sound like he was literally in the adjacent sound room laying down tracks! It was a revelation to experience. I'm not even an Elvis collector! But, I was convinced beyond any shadow of doubt..digital is king!
Of course it was originally recorded on magnetic tape! Lol
[Technics R1 Reference System]
IT must come down to the "source". If it's recorded on reel 2 reel, then i guess it would sound closest to the Master, when played back on a good Reel 2 Reel.
✌️♥️🇩🇰
Hi Paul, I do recoreding in DSD or DXD and also do DSD transfer from analog master tapes for Fidelio 2xHD. Yes I can have great result for orchestra when I really need full dynamic and low noise of digital. For smaller group of musicians my personal taste is for the analog sound with no converter. There is a presence, timbre and a feeling that I like for hours without being tired that I don't get with converted sound. But I don't like any of the stock playback electronics of the Reel to Reel machine. The best digital for me it is when I fine tune my analog tube reel to reel ring and I convert to digital at the end without any digital processing. I do analog vinyl from tape and it is very easy to hear the difference between a digital DSD vinyl and a analog vinyl. It is very rare that a digital vinyl sound great. Having said that I understand you can use other kind of microphone to get a balance that will come close to all analog signal but ..
Thanks!
The quality and placement of the microphones is of such significance as to render the differences between DSD and PCM purely academic, although I appreciate the comparison here was to tape.
Aside from remastering from old audio tapes... Some few audio engineers still make use of tape saturation to achieve a desired compression effect in a well engineered recording, even when working mostly in the box. While magnetic tape is no longer necessary in new efforts, in tracking/mixing/mastering new recordings, but it may still be a useful tool in the toolkit, for some few. Some few, because it is not cheap to do well, and as a processing tool it may not get a lot of use, and for a lot of recorded material it offers no significant benefit.
It really doesn't matter even if R2R sounds better because there is so little source material, and what there is costs in excess of $300 per album. You can buy SACD at 1/10th of the price, it probably sounds better and there is infinitely more source material. It no longer makes sense to record vinyl (as I did years ago) because modern high quality turntables put almost no wear on a record, so just play the record. Even as inconvenient at records are, they are much more convenient than R2R. The only sensible purpose for a R2R is if you are recording live music and how many of us do that?
Guessing what reviewer heard was tape to dsd vs tape anyway and not straight to dsd, big difference my friend. Also most systems can't produce true dsd like a sabre dac.
Now I have to search for a video on oversampling between these two formats...and what that actually means Paul. LOL
When we eliminate all noise as done with digital, we also seem to eliminate a lot of what creates ambiance and a better soundstage.
In turn, also create a more dry sound that could also introduce ear fatigue
There’s stuff going on within the same realm as the noise that we actually want to keep.
In a nutshell: Eliminating all noise is as we used to say like throwing the baby out with the bath water. There’s more aspects to great sound reproduction than simply eliminating all noise
It’s probably a good idea to make 2 channel analog back ups of all final stereo mix down master.
Beyond just first generation record/ playback, RtoR suffers from the laws of physics of reduced bandwidth and S/N with each generation. That's one of the big issues with RtoR for home playback. Very few people would have access to master tapes, much less even the master 2channel mixdown tape. Even that would be protected with a sub master before release copies were produced. So retail tape releases of music tend to be 2-4 generations at best from the 2 channel master. And even then some were highspeed copies, not real time, reducing highend even more.
A process was developed to use heat/ lasers to transfer magnetic domains between tapes for highspeed video tape production. It made a virtually perfect print with no generational loss. But was way too expensive to make it to RtoR audio.
Magnetic tape has so many flaws to it that the average person would not even know. Print through of magnetic layers of tape causing a delayed "ghost" image of audio to bleed through the layers. High frequency compression of the highest end of the bandwidth due to short wavelengths and slow speed. Low frequency distortion and humps in frequency response caused by the inductive reactance of the heads.
I have many tape machines including Technics RS-1506, Pioneer RT-707, Pioneer CT-F1250, and Nakamichi Dragon. They are all flawed, but fun never the less. My digital recording software records in PCM and I can get results better than any consumer grade equipment that I have.
I would have to agree with Paul with the quality of the recording is the recording engineer that makes the most difference, even with a flawed medium.
Sadly there are a lot of great analog advancements that got forgotten. If demand stayed high, I bet the price of that process would have dropped as it got used more and more.
@@zulumax1 What you call a "print through" causing a "ghost" image is rather not a disadvantage of magnetic recording technology but user fault of storage in near magnetic field like speaker magnets or any accidental magnetization. Without additional magnetization the low fields of recording have no chance to be repeated on even nearest layer of tape.
I use R2R since 1969 and on tapes even stored untouched 10 years could not observe such thing. . But it was ;possible on LP recordings when loud row is next to following silent one. In case of recording that to tape some falsely may account it to magnetic technology
@@Mikexception I collect tape machines, repair and align them. It is a well known phenomenon, not something new.
@@zulumax1 May be I should tell that I use R2R since 1969 untill till now and I have already 10 R2R eight of them 3 or 4 head, and I record my all tapes. But what impact would it have?
Just check occurence of magnetic histeresis to understand my point in which rare condition it may happen and it is not fault of technology. In AES information from about 1994 magnetic recording lasts 500 (five hundred) years as it was laboratory confirmed.
Many people say that it is needed long time to get that magnetization. That is why in short time it is not observed. But explanation to role played by that time I did not find in any materials. Why?
What "decent" PCM converter would you recommedn today?
I used to be in the dyed in the wool analog camp but that's all changed with the latest gear out there. And frankly, I have reassessed all of my early Telarc Sound Stream, Denon recordings on vinyl. Listening to them recently made me think that I wrote them off prematurely, maybe even dismissed them for being digital. I have to say that if you want to easily hear the difference between the two formats, try a piano recording. something where a key is struck hard and held down for the duration of the note. That tells you almost everything about the difference. That Concert grand will smack you in a way tape cannot plus the long decay of the note will waiver on the tape and more than likely get worse with age, whereas the DSD just perfectly or as near as perfect in a recording medium gets, playback that sustained note. It's funny how a lot of musicians hear this but not audiophiles. Audiophiles need to get out more often to hear real music. The latest equipment today also is making me look in the past at some of the earliest digital machines. Now if I can only find working players with TDA1540-1 chipsets in them.
I would argue - I listen to LPs and compare them to CD with TDA 1541. Do not use or have DSD. And in LP recordings I observe in some recordings very slow silnencing of recordings to full silence before next track comes in, like no insertion of full silence brake .It is hardly even heard in silent listening but it is nice to follow in quaet room . I never noticed such low loudness levels recorded on CDs and seems to me it may be deliberately avoided due to CD technology.
@@Mikexception So if I understand you correctly, your saying that LP's fade to black (silence), better than a compact disc can. That CD can't fade to black as well as an LP can. But what I was talking about is that a digital recording on an LP will fade to silence as well if not better than an analog tape and that digital technology handles sustained notes like a piano note that's struck and held over a long period better than tape. On another note, what cd player do you use that uses a TDA1541 DAC? It has to be old.
@@mortlach186 I have Bang & Olufsen Ouverture set produced up to 2004. it has double laser ray and is best of what I used any time. Other my colege has 10 years later Maranz and Denon but I do not hear there any noticeable advantages.
I am telling about my personal impression which occured in real life while you are talking about rather your expectation. In my audio practice 90% my expectations in past I found wrong but that's me.
I was talking about fading which lasts around 30 seconds and is noticed only with attention , not single note. If on CD disc are two different names of tracks obviously cannot be continuity of reproduction which can be and is always in analog, In analog is no 0/1.
R2R speed obvioulsy waives a but not all of them are equaly good or bad. Best LP turnatables reach 0,15% margin while my R2R thanks to producer past engineers 0,2% and I consider it equal. I play electronic grand piano at my home so I have direct comparison real to recorded and this waiving I simply can't notice.
Even worse case is in guitar where note lasts much longer than piano but also in guitar is not noticeable. But it has to be maintained. Example in my B&O R2R even capstain roller is turning on two ball bearings. Like in no other. No belts in transport are used and in most R2Rs belts are used and it increase waiving.
When talking about technology assume we are talking about best of best solutions, not simplifications. .
Oh boy, Mr. McGowan:
I, just, woke up from, recuperative, napping - and, to my delight, noticed this segment in my queue.
You are, absolutely, ensuring that my, in-the-planning-phase, setup is approaching the Holy Grail of music reproduction.
I am, humbly, much obliged...
How long do Reel to Reel tapes physically last? Some reel to reel websites mention wear on the masters and recreating a copy of the Masters. Is there much more wear on a Reel to Reel tapes than vinyl? Also, there are different playback speeds and tape head configurations which also affects sound quality and prices of the recordings.
Stored properly in humidity and temperature controlled places, indefinitely. Digital is hardly forever. Corruption, laser rot and so on. I have had reel to reel 2 track last over 40 years and still play great today. Same with Cassette.
@@xray111xxx Thanks for your reply.
Regardless of the Format ..... the Transducers in the Recording Chain Can't be Ignored. As well as the "MIC" ing methods also Shouldn't be ignored. Paul, thanks for acknowledging what's "normally" ignored. But hey .... most Folks want an Easy Answer. But Audio like most things in Life are NOT B & W, but complex and nuanced. ;-)
Stereophile magazine made a CD where you got to hear the differences between many different types of microphones and one one sounded good to me and it was an EAR mic.
@@andershammer9307 ???
@@RoaroftheTiger I still have a copy of the CD and it lists all the different types of microphones. I think there are about 30 of them.
I understanded "medium" in the review as something physical and not digital. o he was not comparing to DSD for instance but for probably Physical Mediums ... ?
Absolutely correct, Paul - how a recording is engineered is far more important than the medium it is recorded on to. But quality digital is now better than analogue. It wasn't ten to fifteen years ago, but it's progressed enormously.
nope
DAC always loses information
Nope. Totally wrong. I have the best digital playback system (Taiko Extreme) and one of the best Turntables (Nagra TT) -- I can tell you vinyl analog is better -- at least on the Nagra.
A reel to reel deck is what I need next. I'll connect it to my preamp using a DSD cable. Then all my bases will be covered.
this is a rerun. Anyway dig the Hiromi.
Hi Paul, have you heard?...latest metal type tape/cassete have awesome DR cd quality! ;))
I don't know. I have heard the United Home Artists reel to reel a few times at shows. Nothing that I have ever heard comes close to what I heard from those playback systems.
In my practice both - CD and analog are capable to make identicaly "real" reproduction. Only in high reverberation I feel difference. That is why typical studio recordings I enjoy equally from CD and analog but complicated hall or symphony concerts or electronic like Vangelis are clearly more amazing from analog beacuse of lot of silent details hanging around .
@@Mikexception Do check out the UHA reel to reel sometime. The tapes are direct transfers, and cost 300 + per, and are darn well worth it. I have heard lp players in the tens of thousands. They don't touch what the UHA deck can do.
@@craigellsworth3952 Any media source is worthy as much as at maximum we are capable to get out of them. It means once something is totally nivelated it can't be regained and heard any more. Such case is less possible in analog where is total convertions do not occure at all. Efforts of different users also are obviously not equal.
So exactly how old IS Jonathan Valin?
🧐 lol What you talkin about Willis....Different strokes for different folks.
As Long as there weren't any CD recorders or Solid State recorders, I recorded on high end Cassette decks. It was possible to make a perfect recording on such a deck. By that I mean you couldn't tell the difference between the tape and source. To get such results, it took a few things to consider that were very important. First thing is the use of a very good Metal tape in combination with Dolby C and Dolby HX pro. As far as I know TDK MAX is the best. Next thing is to clean the heads and Capstans and demagnetise the heads. Finally adjust the bias and level. As you can see, a lot to consider if you want your analog deck to perform.
RIP analog tape. Digital has +20db of resolution. You really hear the source.
@@DaveMichalakChannel Last time I was surprised how low loudness sounds I could enjoy from LP - from CD I never heard like that
I think direct to disc LPs are closer to the real thing than any other medium. I own 24 reel to reel machines and I also own a lot of direct to disc LPs and Those LPs are more dynamic then any medium I've heard but reel to reel can get pretty close.
reel to reel was never for the general consumer. DSD fills that gap. I don't enjoy digital audio regardless of how it's processed. Good luck finding reel to reel albums. Just take your online streaming subscriptions and be happy, most people appear to not have much patience for the upkeep maintenance of tape in 2022.. it would be a logistical nightmare for them. And when the music landscape is mostly produced in a digital box.. doesn't matter to have tape in your life. Would be backwards.
I’ve noticed that recently todays video and another recent video have been repeated quickly. I hope Mr Paul is okay.
I own a recording studio, and worked with high-end multitrack tape decks for years. They can sound very good if maintained properly, but I am extremely glad to be rid of them (did keep a two track to access mixes on tape). Analog tape decks add distortions to the sound, and the recording degrades with each play. That's a simple, unarguable fact.
Very true in theory and cannot negate that with each reproduction tape plays worse. Apparently I cannot confim it in practice - my tapes sound exactly as 50 years back . But sure tapes add distortions but again in measurements, , not listening practice. . - after copyng from CD to tape, due to lower clarity I do not return to CD reproduction which sounds foggy in compare to my R2R and it is unpleasantly listenable .May be it is such characteristic of my R2R - I bless it.
. Anyway to clear theory problem I think also dirigent of symphony orchestra cannot controll all musicians in coherent time because the view if his gasture is delayed to each musician differently due to speed of light.
Can I have that Studer then:)
Everything is information in the universe. When I look at Paul here he is made up of pixels but looks pretty dang reel ( get it). I guess if you have more “ information “ it just gets more “ real” to us.
Was looking at an old senior portrait of my mother in law from the early sixties and I marvel at the beauty of the thing . Much more impressive than an I phone pic imho. I don’t know, I like both
Is this video a repost?
yeah Ive seen this within the last month.
isn't it just semantics!! there's lots of variables depends on the tape deck type, how you running it through a dedicated preamp.
Paul is not right and probably not wrong either
I've owned a reel-to-reel tape deck fo 30 years. Beautiful machine but the biggest problem is the quality decay of the tapes no matter how well kept. After 25 years the first tapes became too bad to keep. Eventually I moved on to a digital system with no records, discs or tapes.
Tapes do not decay if R2R has high technology of mechanical transport preventing tapes from mechanical overloading - unfortunately I know only two types of recorders which are up to that. One type is reels horizontal type position with carrefully solved problems of windings of tape. That one I enjoy in Bang Olufsen and it is used in studio class R2R like Studer. Populary welcomed vertical positiontype is also possible and was well done but it is very sophisticated and was found by me only in german Uher. Many types of R2R look often nice but they hurt tapes.
Well as we know sound quality is debatable I also feel analog and tape is a superior format to any digital playback system. I have heard the best in both and I feel just the opposite that digital will never be as good as well recorded and mastered analog recording and playback system. If you go to any high end trade show, and Paul knows this most rooms are playing analog tape. Why because it sound better than than digital. Sorry Paul have to go against you on this subject. And encourage your viewers to hear it for themselves.
I have been to several shows.
Reel to Reel is rarely used.
No I did not mention the brands and models of both the reel to reel and digital formats I have listened to and compared by I can assure you they are both state of the art both in the professional domain in one of the best mastering studios today at Bernie Grundmans mastering facility and I have worked in designing and selling the very best in consumer high end audio. So both are the best representation of digital and analog playback. I am not the only one who feels analog is a superior format there are many of the most respected engineers and audiophiles who prefer analog over digital. Bernie Grundman being one of them. Sorry it’s not even close. People need to get over the numbers and not let that be the determining factor in sound quality. Numbers don’t tell you everything, and are just about zero indication of sound quality.
@@Hal9000Comp I think the clue may be also in persons who say opinion for both kinds of saving material; - people who prefer digital are rised in digital and will always prize digital more than analog. - may be because they had never realy good experience in analog which requires a bit different speakers and EQ to show the best. .
REELY !!!
Frequency response that would blow it off the map? You're only talking a slight extension in the most extreme highs and lows. Not exactly a huge difference. As far as dynamic range, I don't know how the stats stack but I know from music production experience, you literally don't need more dynamic range than a reel to reel has already. Most genres of music don't need anywhere near it. I'm doubtful even recording extremely dynamic music like a symphony would need more than a good reel to reel could offer. About the only thing that I'd guess would be noticeable is a lower sound floor DSD in the most quiet passages. In that regard it could give the impression of higher resolution.
Because it's 2 completely different technologies, it's hard to say which would have the better resolution though. Analog devices don't need to sample and good ones usually have a surprisingly high digital resolution equivalent. Like how the inexpensive 35mm film that used to be used in 1990s consumer grade portable cameras, actually turned out to have a higher resolution than even today's good digital consumer's cameras.
I'd be very curious to hear DSD head to head with a good wide tape reel to reel. Have you done any psychological tests? Like measure the brain activity of people listening to DSD verses all analog produced recordings on reel to reel? Now THAT would be some interesting info.
You have NO CLUE about true high end sound, Paul. I can tell you without any uncertainty (since I own both mediums) - ANALOG DESTROYS DIGITAL. It's simply not even close - if you have a world class turntable the sound will exceed even the best digital playback systems. I have a Taiko Extreme with a world class DAC and all the latest software. Vinyl sounds better ;)
When does music become false? When do your ears become lazy? When do you stop listening to people telling you what you are hearing? When "will" you enjoy your music?
@0:19 "I haven't read that review"
...and you posted this video?
Paul, there is no shortage of people that bash gear that they never listened to, calling it snake oil, etc.
In a way, you did the same thing, to a lesser degree.
Without knowing what Jonathan Valin wrote in his review, and without you listening to that specific reel-to-reel deck, and without knowing which tape formulation he used in his listening tests, etc, it is not proper for you to claim that DSD is king. Well, it is, based on your experience -- but not when comparing it to a deck that you never heard.
From your experience, which granted is vast, you have concluded that DSD is king, and decisively so. But how many reel-to-reel decks have you used to draw your conclusion?
And most importantly, and the crux of the matter, is that you declared DSD king, compared to a deck that you never heard -- and that deck (according to Jay, in Orlando Florida) was reviewed by a highly respected reviewer for a highly respected magazine. In such a case, it behooves you to at least have read the review before declaring a winner. For all we know, Jonathan compared that deck to DSD?
Just as no two amps sound the same, and no two pre-amps sound the same, etc...
...no two reel-to-reel decks sound the same.
And you substituted your reel-to-reel deck (sitting next to you) for the one that Jonathan reviewed. That is no way to measure the sonic character of the deck in Jonathan's review.
And which interconnects are you using with your reel-to-reel deck?
Is it Audioquest's William E. Low Signature interconnects?
Are your tape heads clean, de-magnetized, azimuth aligned?
There are loads of variables, and you did not read Jonathan Valin's review before posting this video -- not good.
I also did not read his review, because I could not find it. But I would not post a video, responding to that review, until I did find it.
" But how many reel-to-reel decks have you used to draw your conclusion?" - analog recordings on tape have been well studied in regards to their physical characteristics, as have all commonly used recording mediums. These things are not secrets. Volumes of AES reports over several decades describe recording and playback choices.
People may _like_ RtR for their own music choices, but that is simply idiosyncratic humans doing their thing.
"But I would not post a video, responding to that review, until I did find it." - Paul is responding to a *letter* that he received, not to Valin's article.
@@TheDanEdwards "analog recordings on tape have been well studied in regards to their physical characteristics, as have all commonly used recording mediums. These things are not secrets. Volumes of AES reports over several decades describe recording and playback choices."
"Studied" is not auditioned. Reading a report is not listening.
That something is not a secret does not make it relevant.
If you were to purchase a reel-to-reel deck, would you go by what was "studied"? Or would you go by whichever one your ear deemed to sound the best?
Why has Paul deemed DSD better than reel-to-reel, without ever basing his decision on those volumes of reports?
"People may like RtR for their own music choices, but that is simply idiosyncratic humans doing their thing."
How does that apply to touting one piece of gear over another piece of gear that was not auditioned?
"Paul is responding to a letter that he received, not to Valin's article."
Jay in Orlando Florida's letter was about Valin's article. Ergo, Paul was commenting on Valin's article, without having read Valin's article.
The whole reason Paul made the video was based on Jay's letter. And it was not about the definition of "What is a 'letter?'". The video was based on the content of the letter. That content was about Jonathan Valin's review of a reel-to-reel deck. To then write that Paul was not responding to Valin's article is nonsense.
Really 🏴
High end reel to reel is like Macintosh amps.. show off pieces for the rich. That's why you never see them in the wild.
What are we trying to do here? In all formats - get as close to the original sound as possible. That was Quads spiel back in the early 70's. It's just not possible (altho Quad were better than most)
to re-create the sound of a symphony orchestra say or even a rock band, in your living room. All you can hope for is an electronic version of the original sound - paired down - in your living room, or wherever..
That's not to say you can't get a great sound by spending many many thousands of dollars/pounds on a system, but never think you'll achieve a like-for-like sound of a full orchestra or rock group in a small room. It aint gonna happen.
I'm sure DSD is better than reel to reel. Unfortunately, the artists whose albums I own, don't perform now, so DSD masters are not an option. What I find curious, is that when I browsed some DSD catalogs, they had DSD recordings of dead artists from the 1940s. The only thing they could have done, is DSD a record, or if a reel to reel exists, DSD that, which is no better than the original master. So there would be no benefit of the DSD recording if the record exists.
All music starts out ANALOG !
😃
Who's right? It depends on who's ears are being used.. The comparison would have to be a reel to reel off of a first gen master vs a dsd off is an analog master. I prefer analog. Even with DSD, I can still hear a digital-ness. Am I using a super high end equipment in the 5 figure range? No but neither is 99.9999% of anybody else.
You are right, Paul. DSD or 192/24 pcm, blow the Execellent Studer out of the water! The old Studer was good enough for Analog on vinyl, but any digital recording in modern times, just walks away. Keep up the good info work.
I can back up Paul 100% on this one. And also support the comments of many in this thread.
FWIW I actually worked for Ampex Audio systems in my very younger years. Fun summer job in High School ( 61 -> 64 ).
By nature all audio tape must be compatible. Many times this is done by having only one manufacturer, lets say 3M. So Fuji Mastering tape may in fact be 3M tape. And if your manufacturing audio tape it's gotta work on legacy tape drives ( Ampex 300, Studer, Pioneer, ect ect ). So the tape has been the same since at least as far back as the 50's.
Due to this defacto standard tape the bias, tape speed and width, all are going to have performance limits. Lemme give a stab at it:
30Hz -> 15,000Hz under any and all conditions.
Tape hiss, maybe a 30db noise floor, if your really lucky
Dynamic range, pray for 70dbs including the 30db hiss. Good luck
DTS, CD or any digital format is gonna beat tape like a drum.
Ain't even close.
Have you looked at specs of any good reel to reels from the mid 70's up to today ?
With EE tape you can get 80dB S/N and frequency response way out to 30K or higher.
@@andershammer9307 The media is the medai and 3M has not changed it since the 50's. I ask you. How are you going to get 80db s/n and 30K upper freq with a bias freq of 100Khz. Not even God can do that.
Everything aside, have you ever gone through playing reel to reel music? Each reel is about $600, which is ridiculously over-priced. Then it comes to preserving the reels, demagnetising the heads after each play ... adjusting .... which deprives you of a relaxed moment for listening to your favorite music ...
On the other hand, when it comes to DSD, there is no way to be sure that the original recording has been done in DSD or just converted from a poor recording ...
Sometimes, I think listening to a PCM from a CD or even MP3 format through a proper DAC makes you wonder if we are not dealing with musical myths! As all sound as good as the DSD you bought and downloaded ....
There is NOTHING better than 16/44.1 if you KNOW what you are doing.
Yup, all your converter will convert to 1bit 11.MHz ADC or DAC.
Tape will never have the noise floor of DSD. It's a physical reality. Tape will never have the dynamic range either because of physics. These are immutable facts, pun intended. However, opinions about these facts are dynamic. Still, digital is going to win because the good factors of tape have been very well modeled and can be applied to digital. It took a while for digital to get there but it mostly there and it is surpassing analog. Indeed, one place it seems to fall short is a new problem of too many choices and too much freedom. But that is a human failing and not a failing of the medium.
BTW, this is not to say that digital does not need high quality analog support. It does. The other physical reality is that the world is analog and only analog devices can get the signal to the digital converters, so analog will forever be a factor.
So, record with high quality analog gear into well supported digital converters and you are good to go.
Tape may never spec. as well but it can sound better. A Tandberg TD20A SE can provide 80dB S/N with no noise reduction. Also I have some DBX records that are capable of 100dB of S/N.
My biggest problem with DSD and it is probably a problem with the recording engineers is that the increased dynamic range often has the softer lower volume parts of a song drowned out by the louder sections. Frequency response is another thing with few people being able to hear above 15Khz and older people like myself struggling to hear above 12Khz. I'm not saying that Paul is wrong it's just personal preference which means everyone is right for themselves.
What is old people?. I can easy hear beyond 15k, and I'm 47 and doing mastering.
@@michaelklit7799 if you have hearing tests confirming your range then you are lucky. Where I worked most of the people over 50 had varying amounts of high-frequency hearing lose. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy good recordings. I wish you luck and continued good hearing.
@@Wizardofgosz The other thing that concerns me are the multiple digital conversions that go on in order to mix a DSD recording. In every conversion some information is lost. Is this ultimately a problem I don't know but in the end is that a DSD recording or a DSD version of a manipulate PCM recording.
I heard a Studer machine once and it wasn't as good as a Tandberg TD20A which I own.
The 'trick' in making truly great recordings is using errors inherent in one piece of equipment
to make up for deficiencies in another piece of equipment.
there is a good reason that the industry won't use DSD, it's crap
Copy
Been around audio over 50 years, and DSD is nowhere close. 2 track reel to reel. United Home Audio your Studer and even the recreated Mara Machines. Day to day, Reel to Reel is amazing. On the bench DSD may look impressive, but DSD will not be where it needs to be. Sure, Microphones, and technique and other factors will come into play. Nothing wrong with PCM or DSD. I am in the digital realm more often than not. Reel to Reel is expensive, eats up space, tapes are a bitch to get. PCM or even DSD is easy and relatively inexpensive compared to Reel to Reel. I have had my share. Granted I will never have a Nagra or Otari, or United Home Audio. But for me at least, what few shows are left, I head always for a Reel to Reel source 1st. Just nirvana for me. Your mileage may vary. No arguing, just music, okay?
I'm of the set that Digital recording can equal and often surpasses magnetic tape as a medium of capturing and playback of sound.
However, great high resolution digital achievement is not reached to it's full potential in run of the mill Rebook CD format.
Higher capture rates always sound truer to it's original source than what's commercially available.
Now, if we're talking compression rates. "Loudness War" CD's sound like garbage to uncompressed magnetic tape!
"Real to Reel" tape machines were never inexpensive..or convenient to handle or store.
Finally, who's still recording in analogue these days? Maybe, Lenny Kravitz is? He once said so in a music publication. That was years ago now. Who's to say if he has "upgrade" since to higher digital rates? My bet is he probably has?
Clueless
Here’s The Absolute Sound article about the Metaxas & Sins Tourbillon T-RX reel to reel:
www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/kostas-metaxas-t-rx-tape-deck
Available at the low low asking price of $36k