| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Didital Things » Reel-to-Reel Tape vs. Raw Better Digital (14 posts, 1 page)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  How to record FM broadcasts...  Left to center...  Off Air Audio Forum     125  603268  11-04-2005
  »  New  High Definition Tape Transfers..  New from High Definition Tape Transfers...  Musical Discussions  Forum     10  59807  07-24-2006
  »  New  Transfer: The reel-to-reel operas wanted...  I'm interested...  Didital Things  Forum     8  45092  09-10-2006
  »  New  DA architecture: True Multibit vs. anything else...  If it might…....  Didital Things  Forum     17  96245  12-09-2007
  »  New  Reference Recordings “digital master” and Berkeley's ne..  The Berkeley Audio DAC’s processor....  Didital Things  Forum     13  112724  01-17-2008
  »  New  New sample 24/96 downloads from HDTT..  Or shall I say will you bat?...  Didital Things  Forum     20  78803  02-10-2008
  »  New  The optimum Sampling Rate for bass...  Lynx can handle up to 200.000Khz...  Didital Things  Forum     3  22497  02-19-2008
  »  New  K2HD -yet, another CD format with ‘master tape’ paranoi..  K2HD -yet, another CD format with ‘master tape’ paranoi...  Didital Things  Forum     0  12599  07-09-2008
  »  New  The UnipheyeMusic and Studio Master Reference.....  DSD converted to PCM really has poor objective performa...  Didital Things  Forum     5  26675  02-19-2009
  »  New  Chesky Records went "raw files"...  Chesky Records went "raw files"....  Didital Things  Forum     0  11046  04-16-2009
  »  New  The High Resolution PCM files business, where?..  Really bad...  Didital Things  Forum     31  105834  09-29-2009
  »  New  The Andrew Rose’s “Pristine Audio” and the XR Mastering..  Paying le mortgage...  Didital Things  Forum     1  16169  11-24-2009
  »  New  A CD playing audio person must have 2 DACs..  Upsampling vs. oversampling...  Didital Things  Forum     1  11617  08-23-2010
11-16-2007 Post mapped to 2 branches of Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 5879
Reply to: 5879
Reel-to-Reel Tape vs. Raw Better Digital

I was pointed out to an endeavor of Type Project where the guy who trade Bottlehead kits is trying to promote contemporary 15ips master dubs and staff eBay machine with Bottlehead-level of electronics.

http://www.tapeproject.com

It is not bad idea itself and I was interested what those guys do. I did not have success. I show up at their forum and made two posts after witch I was booted.

http://www.tapeproject.com/smf/index.php/topic,250.0.html

I admit that the Bottlehead guy’s proposal to "do something" or "do not do something" in order to “get people to pay attention to own opinion” made me to laugh. Since that guy has his opinions and views ONLY as saleable commodities he truly does not know better. It truly surprised me that I was banned from that site as I usually never get banned. I usually feel the Moronity of communities very sensitively and then, since I loose interest, I provoke with my behavior to ban me. It was not the case with Tape Project and I truly did not have any sinister intentions or expectations. The Bottlehead guy (DocB) still decided that my presents might be "bad for business" (he is the guy who speep in bad with the AA dirt) and he made a point by prohibiting me to post at that forum. Well, it is not too difficult to “arouse” me and he will not have an opportunity to make a second first appearance. Therefore in all my sincerity I would wish to Bottlehead guy to go fuck himself and the only interest I would have to his project if he hang himself on his freaking tapes.

However, the frustration I had not from the fact that another industry whore  got scared that someone refuses to kiss his ass but the fact that the conversation was only about to turned into interesting direction. In there was a guy “High and Outside” to whose post I made a reply but did not manage to post it – I was banned. My reply was following:

// **************************   begin of the post  **********************************

 High and Outside wrote:
   I am very familiar with the higher resolution digital files, since I have been doing all their mastering for the last couple of decades. We edit the material at the higher resolution--sometimes 88/24, sometimes 176/24--and use that as the source for the CD master.

Well, analog (would it be tape or LP) are wonderful media to preserve the initial quietly of… 24bit format. AD conversion to 15ips tape of raw files brings much better quality then DSP down-processing of raw files. I wonder if the Tape Project people consider this direction as I am sure today there are  much more available interesting recording and all of them are digital, some of them were recorded not by the typical Morons and actually are very usable (if they  are raw and never were “mastered”) I presume that properly recorded 24/88 file might be as good sourced for Tape Project  (in contexts) as analog Master Tapes.

 High and Outside wrote:
   Keep your ear to the ground, there may be developments soon that will allow the home listener to hear those recordings at their native resolution, but those developments won't come from The Tape Project. The Tape Project will not be using the digital files as a source for our tapes. We work only from original analog sources.

Well, it is your chose but I feel that it might be more a tribute to “kosherism” and irrational snobbism then exercising of an actual comment sense. The best examples of high 24-28bit machines (yes, there are true 24bit processors today) are capable to deliver tremendous quality. Even the originals 4-bit DSD (before Meitner killed it converting it in commercials CASD crap) was able to deliver phenomenal results. I think the Tape Project boys might be very much in position to deal with subject of objectionable digital using high speed tape as own assessment tool. I would like for instance to hear the Tape Project tapes on a reasonably good mashie drive a good 24-bit AD and then DA processors and see if any difference might be auditable. I perfectly understand the unhappy faces of reel-to-reel people who might read this but I am arrogantly proposing that I know most of reference points that many of the Tape Project users impose to Quietly of Sound I very much doubt then that would see any difference between properly made 24 bit 2X and 15ips. I do feel that tape still have advantages in “spacing of Sound” but how many playbacks out there are able to handles “space”, particularly those who use Bottlehead-level electronics and the typical Bottlehead-level yellow drivers? The question is not as rhetorical as some people might feel.

// **************************   end of the post  **********************************

Let me to expend a little on the subject. I like good Sound but I hate paranoia with irrelevant fetish. No one argue that high speed tape is phenomenal format… but  as many tape presentations I have heared during the last  few years none of them demonstrated Sound that I would consider interesting -I feel that I am able to get more noble result from 16bit CD, not to mention more advanced formats.  Surely it does not say anything negative about high-speed tape opportunities but it does portrays the things in perspective, particualsy if a person owns 5 crappy tapes with $300 for each…

What in this subject is very interesting for me is how very high quality 15ips or 30ips, properly recorded, related in it's absolute quality to raw 24/88 files? I have a good machine, properly tweaked and serviced by knowledge people. I made a number of experiments trying to assess the maximum possible quality I was able to get out of analog and run it into AD/DA, comparing the results. I have to admit that I have no tapes that would serve quality (aufio and musical) at THE demanded level. I do not use demo tapes and do not “compare the sounds”. However, when I take a good quality source and record in via my high-biased machine on BASF SM468, ½ track, 15ips, Bogen head…. I have a lot of “loosing in Sound”.

There is an urban myth that an average person can’t imagine the “quality of master tapes”. I did hear some of them and it was ... truly good and in some case it was.. not good.  However, I would add to the same “urban myth” the following comments:

1)     An average person can’t imagine the quality of properly sounding record inhalation.
2)     An average person can’t imagine the quality of properly setup phonographs playing good preserved 78s
3)     An average person can’t imagine the quality of properly sounding raw  and not edited 24/88 made at good AD/DA
4)     An average person can’t imagine the quality of properly broadcasting live FM played on good tuner/antenna

I would personally, if it were up to me, vote for the quality of live FM… it truly kills all other know to me formats…

So, if to drop the idiotic "tape fetish" then where the high-speed tape stay today in tirms of Audio quality in relation to other formats and particularly in relation to the "raw" 24/88?

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,063
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 2
Post ID: 5881
Reply to: 5879
Good examples prove there are ways to get good results
from both digital and analog tape formats, but as time goes by it may be easier to get good digital source material.

So far the best recorded sound I have heard was (years ago) via Mark Levinson's (justly celebrated, IMO) Studer/Revox rigs; however, some digital playback I heard at a friend's studio a couple of years back ran a very close second.

What I wonder is just how the good digital recordings are done - what sets them apart - , not to mention the playback chain, which included an IDAT in the case mentioned above.  There seem to be so many formats, and I am totally ignorant about inter-compatibility.

While I long avoided analog-to-digital-to-anlog LP transfers, or even DA LPs, I must admit that I do have some ADA Impulse label jazz LPs that are very good.

FM sucks in San Diego; I don't even have a tuner set up yet.

Given sonic parity, I guess I would apply cost/benefit criteria.

I am glad someone is keeping alive the dream of easily sharing good-sounding recorded material.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Paul S
11-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 487
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 3
Post ID: 5882
Reply to: 5879
Live FM
The interesting thing about the Bottlehead people is that they are pretty good guys. "High and outside" is I think Paul Stubbelbine, who is an expert at mastering.  He remastered my girlfriend's last album.  I was very impressed.  His in-studio monitor system is much like yours: many horns and each with dedicated DSET, everything hand-made.

I was also surprised that you knocked the Tape Project repertoire:  I always liked David Oistrakh's performance of Scottish Fantasia.

Anyway, I think you were really not in the appropriate level of the forum.  The Bottlehead fellows are actually very much advanced in their knowledge, but they are selling to an audience just making the jump from mid-fi to DIY, reflected by the other person's comment in that forum "What do all these numbers (44, 88, 24,...) mean???" 

To the point, your musing about digital versus analog, which is better at this particular level of refinement?  I think really the point is moot.  Unless you buy into the Bottlehead project which requires you to buy their machine to play their tapes (and this is really a tiny niche market) we can only get what is available, and that is digital. 

Adrian
11-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 4
Post ID: 5883
Reply to: 5882
As good as any other obsession…

Well, I did not mean to express any specific attitude to Bottlehead people - the only experience I had to them was a few years ago visiting their meeting right here in Boston (I did not know what Bottlehead wa all about at that time). The meeting was revoltingly boring and I ran away from there after the first 30 minutes. Beside that Bottlehead people I have seen demonstrated strong attitude that I have seen only among the idiots who devoted to the Amway conventions. Is it a consequence that the Amway- Bottlehead guy – the DocB is so concern how to “get people to pay attention to own opinion”?

I was glad that this Paul Stubbelbine picked my sentiments about “raw digital”. When people say digital then imply 44/16 and it is highly unfortunate format in comparing to tape. However, the 88/24 bit, and particularly if it was not edited, “mastered” or exposed to any following DSP or any kind, no noise redaction, preferably not even resaved, is very far from what people recognize as “digital”.  Not a lot of people know but all first denegation of SACD, before the ~2002 were made from 2x/24bit PCM files, no meter how much they screamed about the “master tape directly to DSD”. (Actually the DSD already did not exist at that time – it was abandoned for the SACD crap.)

 Paul S wrote:
What I wonder is just how the good digital recordings are done

 drdna wrote:
To the point, your musing about digital versus analog, which is better at this particular level of refinement?  I think really the point is moot.

And this is exactly why I brought it up and it is not really digital versus analog but rather high-speed wide-track analog tape vs. properly implemented 24Bit  2x-4x digital with no further processing. People do have idea how tape sound, up to recently the master dubs were available for sale. I heard a few WFMT 15ips “first tapes” and it was extremely good. However, very few are familiar with the quietly of original raw high resolution digital files. Whatever is being sold to public as DVD-Audio or other high resolution formats are just horrible parody on what is possible at 24bit and 2x sampling rate.

When I do my 24bit recordings then the recordings are very transparent to the quality of source.  The live FM sounds different from tape. The all little differences in of tape are perfectly picked by digital. A few days ago I had a guy in my listening room who all his life played tapes and who has a lot of experience in the subject. So, I played him different digital track and then one raw transfer from tape. He immediately said that it was tape. So, where are the boundary of “better digital” and where the superbness of high speed tape stops to be a rational and become self-obsessive mania?

Frankly I am willing to answer this question or at list try to. That tape guy, kind of like what he heard and he is planning to return to my home trying to re-listen his high-speed master dubs on my playback. I am planning to run a loop to my DWA and then along with him to play his tapes right along with their 24/88 raw digital copies. Thanks Guy, his Placette allows to flip the identically sounding channels and truly compare the outcome. Frankly that was my initial aim why I popped up at the Tape Project forum but it looks like the “little industry-raped mind” was too enthusiastic in his ego-trip… Well, he is not the first one across which I have no problems to step over…

 drdna wrote:
I was also surprised that you knocked the Tape Project repertoire:  I always liked David Oistrakh's performance of Scottish Fantasia

Hm… You will see not much you will see. We are all within 50 years of copyright  gap and all “better” performances were in the hands of “big boys” who, perhaps unfortunately, do not give a damn about little Tape Project and alike.  If they have stolen (it was recorded in 1962) the dubs of that tape then it is fine but how much more of it are you think you will be able to see? I do not see any rational for a person to run a reel-to-reel machine unless he has a sizable selection of tapes, otherwise it will be similar to my local Moron that know who has a very good turntable setup and 10 LPs that was hand selected for him by HP. They do generate the “good sounds”, but no more then that…

If those Tape Project people will be willing to rise attention of wider public then few Audio Groupies  to whom they have sold the Bottlehead kits  and who asking for “upgrade” then they would need to run tapes from any  good sources that care good music – master tapes, raw high resolution digital tapes/files, sound-check tapes, of-air  master tapes…If course it would require to sell different definition of “quietly” but  I am sure that the Tape Project people are in the same salve-sheep as many other and they would not be able to handle it. So, far they are trying to ignite the tapy-tapy-tapy obsession. It is as good as any other manias…

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,063
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 5
Post ID: 5884
Reply to: 5883
What is available in 88/24?
At first the high cost kept me away from HS tape; then, it was the poor selection of decent, well recorded material, which is still quite expensive.  Like others, I have heard some rumors about "master tapes", but I have actually seen few and heard still fewer.  And of the master tapes I have heard, some were poorly done to begin with and some had deteriorated.

But is the digital situation is better, really, in terms of available material?  It's not yet in my world.

The best case for digital, IMO, given sonic parity, is that theoretically any number of "identical" copies can be made from a master very quickly and at relatively low cost.  But this alone is a POWERFUL draw.

So, where do we get good digital "masters", good 1st generation dubs, or good "docking stations", and then how do we play them back in a way that preserves the miracle?  Off-air recording is not all that easy to do well, although the idea certainly remains very attractive, given no copyright issues.

Best regards,
Paul S
11-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 6
Post ID: 5885
Reply to: 5882
Juts to address a myth

 drdna wrote:
The interesting thing about the Bottlehead people is that they are pretty good guys. "High and outside" is I think Paul Stubbelbine, who is an expert at mastering.  He remastered my girlfriend's last album.  I was very impressed.  His in-studio monitor system is much like yours: many horns and each with dedicated DSET, everything hand-made.
It is not exactly accurate. He use Magico monitors and with 91dB sensitivity and 4R impedance I would be very surprised it I see any SETs in there. It even more interesting that his Magico speakers are sitting right next to the wall. I wonder if his Magico come as the “SACD-ready”… Surely the fact of Magico does not automatically disqualify him from anything but it shell be named. I do know the Magico loudspeakers and I would like nobody use them as “references monitors”.

http://www.paulstubblebine.com/home/index.php

Sorry the off the topic, sort of…
Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 7
Post ID: 5886
Reply to: 5884
I don’t think you understand how complex question you ask.
 Paul S wrote:
So, where do we get good digital "masters", good 1st generation dubs…
The problem is that industry, it it’s absolutely dominating majority, does not recognize even the existence of such a thing as “digital master". The original record file does not consider not as anything relic but rather as a first step in the long journey of “mastering”. Those peoples (using juts a first level of listing assessment) do not consider that EQ, limiting, compression, artificial reverberations, digital change volume, upsampling, downsampling, change resolution, rendering, engaging any of DSP operation pretty much destroy permanently the very fine nuances of sonic signature. Take any good recorded file and change gain for 0.1 dB on just one channel – it kills everything mortal in Sound of this file…

I spoke with some studio and they admit that they do not even keep the original raw files as the feel that further improvements “made it better anyway”. I asked one of those guys why he doing his wife “as is” and do not expose her to some plastic surgeries . He does not want to talk to me anymore, I wonder why..

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-18-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 487
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 8
Post ID: 5887
Reply to: 5885
Downward progression
 Romy the Cat wrote:
He use Magico monitors and with 91dB sensitivity and 4R impedance I would be very surprised it I see any SETs in there. It even more interesting that his Magico speakers are sitting right next to the wall. I do know how Magico loudspeakers and I would like nobody use them as “references monitors”


Oh, I see you are absolutely correct.  I am very puzzled.  As it says on the website, the mastering studios relocated to a new location.  Maybe there was no room for the old set-up.  I was only in the old studio a few years ago.  I swear it was all these gigantic speakers and each with its dedicated vacuum tube SET all done up with this precarious looking copper and gold wiring.  Everything totally hand-made. Paul had a very good ear and was really obsessed with sound, so I have no idea why he would switch to the set-up he has in the new studio.  The old studio was enormous, so I am just guessing lack of space and maybe he got the Magico speakers for free for promoting them?

 Romy the Cat wrote:
The problem is that industry, it it’s absolutely dominating majority, does not recognize even the existence of such a thing as “digital master". The original record file does not consider not as anything relic but rather as a first step in the long journey of “mastering”. Those peoples (using juts a first level of listing assessment) do not consider that EQ, limiting, compression, artificial reverberations, digital change volume, upsampling, downsampling, change resolution, rendering, engaging any of DSP operation pretty much destroy permanently the very fine nuances of sonic signature.


This is quite true.  Much like a Xerox photocopy.  The first one almost looks accurate, but each subsequent copy of a copy is worse and worse.  I think the real question may be what parameters must be achieved and maintained to minimize this damage to the digital code?

Adrian
11-18-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 9
Post ID: 5889
Reply to: 5887
The dissected arrays of sounds for sale.
 drdna wrote:
Oh, I see you are absolutely correct. I am very puzzled. As it says on the website, the mastering studios relocated to a new location. Maybe there was no room for the old set-up. I was only in the old studio a few years ago. I swear it was all these gigantic speakers and each with its dedicated vacuum tube SET all done up with this precarious looking copper and gold wiring. Everything totally hand-made. Paul had a very good ear and was really obsessed with sound, so I have no idea why he would switch to the set-up he has in the new studio. The old studio was enormous, so I am just guessing lack of space and maybe he got the Magico speakers for free for promoting them?
It not necessary might be correct. For a person who serves with his products the industry need to have multi- horns DSET-driven monitoring acoustic system is very unwise thing to do. SETs, with this dominating second harmonics and velocity-centric loudspeakers are not what users of his products will have out there in the fields. So, I feel that Magico with it’s idiotic hipper-resolution, overly-extended upper range (good for high-speed tape?), soft- suspended drivers that create very characteristics “industry bass” and no lover-mid was very right choice for mastering studio monitors. In studios they hardly listen music but they rather trace sonic bags and register sounds at Fist Lever of listening perception. As far as I might say from Magico small monitors those speakers were made with aim to the preference of very “those-type” of the people – the people who appreciate in audio their beloved “high quality” dissected arrays of sounds. BTW, this one of the reasons why they can not recognize the problem with DSP post-processing of the raw files.…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-18-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,063
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 10
Post ID: 5890
Reply to: 5886
Pretty much as I suspected.

So are we trying to decide how it should be done so we can roll our own?  Because I was simply amazed years ago by the little Sony "Pro Walkman" tape recorder, which could literally create and play back material that was sonically better than most records (and comercial tape dubs) of the day.  I will not say that I ever heard good commercial tapes for the Pro Walkman, but that appears to be the accross-the-board problem for both tape and digital, so the choice then becomes ease of implementation, including 2nd generation transfers/dubs, quality of re-reproduction (ie, dubs), and the lifespan of the format.  I also never heard any 2nd generation dubs from the Walkman, but I assume they would be at least as bad as most of the reel-to-reel dubs I have heard, which are also done "high speed" commercially, meaning the record companies typically transfered the whole reel in mere seconds.  Still, and against all odds, I have heard a few good ones.  I have also heard a few nice original off-air analog tapes, I think all 7 1/2 ips.

Best regards,
Paul S

11-18-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,325
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 11
Post ID: 5891
Reply to: 5890
I do have interest in tape but…

The issues with tape speed are complicated. I have no recordable NAB equalized headblock for my Stellavox SU8 and I can only play NAB tapes: 2 and 4 track.  My recording headblock is IEC equalized 2 track only.  As I said I never was able to get out of tape recording the identical quality to the source material, with digital I can.

A recording at 7.5ips do not do well as they are loosing quite a lot at highs. The 15ips is much better but still flipping recorder from line to real-time tape input there is a clear difference. The 30ips is the speed to use and it have to problem with highsbut it begin to loose bass, in fact bit time loose, not only in trims of quantity but also quality . I admit that my recording headblock is 15ips equalized and perhaps it should be recalibrated for 30ips. But who can play 30ips?! One act opera is 12 large reels – it need to be flipped as frequently as 78s, and for what?

I do have interest tape, with the best possible result from ¼ inch tape, BUT only as a perspective sources to have high quality material and then to transfer it to my Raw 88/24.  It is possible that Raw 88/24 would not be able to do it properly, that is why I am wondering how good Raw 88/24 would stand against high-speed reels.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-18-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,063
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 12
Post ID: 5892
Reply to: 5891
Practical considerations
I have heard great recordings done and played back on +/- "portable" 15 ips machines, so I know it can be done.  Also, there are so many ongoing QC issues with 30 ips that it about cancels the theoretical advantages, IMO.  But if it can be done more easily and with less bulk and less fiddling around with some sort of "instant" 88/24 RAW, then why futz with tape at all?  I mean, it's not like anyone cares about the tape itself, right?

To show how little I know about 88/24 RAW recording, let me ask if/how you can record off-air with it, and then how do you "format" it and trasnsfer it?  Further, if this is easily done, why has it not happened?

If good off-air recording were possible straight to some sort 88/24 RAW "format", and copyright issues were magically suspended, then I would consider this a great gift to music lovers.  I think the copyright issues kick in if the files are transferred.

Practically speaking, we want the easiest method that will yield acceptable results, right?

I only mentioned tape in view of the ridiculous mess the "industry" has so far worked on/with digital with respect to sound quality, including both generational dubbing and playback and the archiving of  digital "masters" to date.  I haven't priced the nice reel-to-reel rigs for a while but I assume the vintage guys have tied everything up by now.  Also, master tapes of good music are not only few and very far between but $$$$$$$, so for me "recording" would pretty much be about off-air recording rather than listening to pre-recorded reels, practically speaking.  There are still lots of LPs and CDs out there for pre-recorded fare, and I am squared away with playback for both of these established formats.

I will ask my son's friend again about "pro" digital recorders, which have dropped rather dramatically in price over the last couple of years, and also the "pro" stuff has gotten much smaller and simpler, I think, FWIW, although I can't say whether it is within reach of Joe Public yet.  I think they paid about $15,000 for their IDAT, or it cost that much new, anyway.

Best regards,
Paul S
11-18-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 487
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 13
Post ID: 5893
Reply to: 5892
Reel To Reel: Impractical, Archaic
 Paul S wrote:
I was simply amazed years ago by the little Sony "Pro Walkman" tape recorder, which could literally create and play back material that was sonically better than most records.
I also have used a professional DAT recorder with good results for live recordings. It seems that if you are just making a recording and playing it back, things are generally pretty good. The problem is really in duplication.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
A recording at 7.5ips do not do well as they are loosing quite a lot at highs. The 15ips is much better but still flipping recorder from line to real-time tape input there is a clear difference. The 30ips is the speed to use and it have to problem with highs but it begin to loose bass, in fact bit time loose, not only in trims of quantity but also quality. But who can play 30ips?! One act opera is 12 large reels – it need to be flipped as frequently as 78s, and for what?
Yes, the limits of reel to reel are that tape speed defines your frequency response and tape width your signal to noise ratio in an audible way.
 Romy the Cat wrote:
I do have interest tape, with the best possible result from ¼ inch tape, BUT only as a perspective sources to have high quality material and then to transfer it to my Raw 88/24. It is possible that Raw 88/24 would not be able to do it properly, that is why I am wondering how good Raw 88/24 would stand against high-speed reels.
Are the compromises better or worse than with 88/24? This is probably not an important question. It is really unlikely you will record and play back on 1” 15 ips reel to reel. You will be in a house full of tapes of “neighbor with a banjo” recordings. I think the question really only comes up because we want the best possible fidelity for EXISTING masters for old recordings to make new copies. If you plan to transfer to 88/24 eventually, it makes no sense to add an intermediate step.
 Paul S wrote:
Practically speaking, we want the easiest method that will yield acceptable results, right? For me "recording" would pretty much be about off-air recording rather than listening to pre-recorded reels, practically speaking.
Ditto. I use the DAT running at the maximum sample rate and play back at the same. This precludes a subsequent transfer to CD but I am not using it to make copies, just for myself.
11-18-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,063
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 14
Post ID: 5894
Reply to: 5893
So, the "format" and sub-generational stages/dubs are the stickers
OK, there are a few acceptable ways to record stuff and play it back +/-simply and easily, directly.

Is this easily done with 88/24 RAW?

How to format/master and dub (ie, share) remains the big question.

So how would one record off-air, save the material and create "acceptable" copies that could be subsequently played back at an acceptable level of quality, not to say re-dubbed?  What sort of gear would all participating parties have to own in common?

Best regards,
Paul S
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  How to record FM broadcasts...  Left to center...  Off Air Audio Forum     125  603268  11-04-2005
  »  New  High Definition Tape Transfers..  New from High Definition Tape Transfers...  Musical Discussions  Forum     10  59807  07-24-2006
  »  New  Transfer: The reel-to-reel operas wanted...  I'm interested...  Didital Things  Forum     8  45092  09-10-2006
  »  New  DA architecture: True Multibit vs. anything else...  If it might…....  Didital Things  Forum     17  96245  12-09-2007
  »  New  Reference Recordings “digital master” and Berkeley's ne..  The Berkeley Audio DAC’s processor....  Didital Things  Forum     13  112724  01-17-2008
  »  New  New sample 24/96 downloads from HDTT..  Or shall I say will you bat?...  Didital Things  Forum     20  78803  02-10-2008
  »  New  The optimum Sampling Rate for bass...  Lynx can handle up to 200.000Khz...  Didital Things  Forum     3  22497  02-19-2008
  »  New  K2HD -yet, another CD format with ‘master tape’ paranoi..  K2HD -yet, another CD format with ‘master tape’ paranoi...  Didital Things  Forum     0  12599  07-09-2008
  »  New  The UnipheyeMusic and Studio Master Reference.....  DSD converted to PCM really has poor objective performa...  Didital Things  Forum     5  26675  02-19-2009
  »  New  Chesky Records went "raw files"...  Chesky Records went "raw files"....  Didital Things  Forum     0  11046  04-16-2009
  »  New  The High Resolution PCM files business, where?..  Really bad...  Didital Things  Forum     31  105834  09-29-2009
  »  New  The Andrew Rose’s “Pristine Audio” and the XR Mastering..  Paying le mortgage...  Didital Things  Forum     1  16169  11-24-2009
  »  New  A CD playing audio person must have 2 DACs..  Upsampling vs. oversampling...  Didital Things  Forum     1  11617  08-23-2010
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts