Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Didital Things
In the Thread: Reel-to-Reel Tape vs. Raw Better Digital
Post Subject: Reel To Reel: Impractical, ArchaicPosted by drdna on: 11/18/2007
 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.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site