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?

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…

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.

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

Paul S wrote:

So, where do we get good digital "masters", good 1st generation dubs…

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”

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.