Is this guy for real?

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 30, 2015

Bruce B said:
Live from Axpona

"And then there was the seminar that followed the panel on high-resolution audio called “Discover the Reel Truth” moderated by Myles B. Astor, PhD. I met Computer Audiophile’s Chris Connaker in the hall on Sunday and he told me that my head would have exploded at what was being pulled over on the attendees of this seminar. The description from the webpage says it all, “Audiophiles seeking the Holy Grail, the ne plus ultra of sound, need look no further than 15-ips/2-track reel-to-reel tape. These 21st century, real time duplicated, second or third generation [tapes], simply are as close as one can get to the original recordings.” It wasn’t a joke…these people either can’t read specification sheets or have never bothered to listen to real high-resolution audio. Second or third generation tapes of original recordings? Give me great quality transfers to high-resolution PCM digital files and forget losing fidelity through another generation. Save costs, complexity, and arrive at better sound with high-resolution PCM. Wow."

Real HD-Audio by Mark Waldrip

This guy can have his own opinions on formats, but actually putting down seminar speakers?

He has his opinion, based on what he hears, and Astor has his opinion, based on what he hears. But this guy also has all the data in his court, and saw seminar speakers represented as experts, selling their opinions as facts, against the available facts. Yes. He's for real.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 30, 2015

tomelex said:
Lets not forget that there is a lot of processing going on when taping too. If you just pass a sinewave to a tape and to hrd then hrd wins in the most common measurements. What I have preached for years is that plain old stereo simply, even if the signal is pure, can not do but just a so so job of replicating the real event. Now, what tape does and what vinyl does is add things in a way that sound pleasing to many folks. There are a hell of a lot of effects going on at the studio before we ever get the so called master tape, and these are there to "make" and "help" plain old stereo SOUND better, not be more accurate to the original air wiggle that hit the mic.

I don't think there is anything to refute in what I said, but maybe someone has some insight we are all missing.....

Or more a more accurate replication of the original master. And "sound better" is, of course, opinion. We're all entitled to those, of course. But when "experts" represent their opinions as objective reality, it's not unreasonable for those who disagree to ask for something objective to back that up. Are the most common measurements enough? Probably not. Are more comprehensive measurements enough? Maybe not. But they're what we've got. And everything else is subjective and should not be presented, by "experts," as objective reality. When the subjective is presented as objective reality, the "experts" deserve to be called out on it, and yes, those who call them out are "for real." And that's not really opinion, though your mileage may still vary.

Tim

Andre Marc · Apr 30, 2015

TBone said:
He certain has; talked to him a few years ago, truth be told I enjoyed his Paul Rogers stories far more than his take on audiophilia. I can still remember his claim that analog tape was = 12 bit digital. His boutique recordings sound wonderful, as they should considering the provenance ... but his opinions don't translate well with real-world audiophile issues. Still, a very interesting chap ...

tb1

Interesting indeed. He told a story about the Merchants Of Cool album that he says he carefully mixed and mastered with Paul Rodgers and the jerk offs at the record company kept asking for more compression,

I saw Bad Co on that tour up real close and the album was an excellent representation of the shows.

I'm guessing it was recorded to Pro Tools.

c1ferrari · Apr 30, 2015

Andre Marc said:
Once they started with high speed dubs, all bets were off. Real time dupes sounded very good.

High speed dubs...me, no likey!

c1ferrari · Apr 30, 2015

Fitzcaraldo215 said:
Don't know about that, but he has been recording for some time. I would assume, more likely, he is quite familiar with much higher quality mag tape than that, although his tastes today run to Mch done in PCM. He loathes DSD.

PCM may very well be preferred by some/many pros because it assumes their workflow, e.g., editing, etc. DSD may not be for these folks.

Bruce B · Apr 30, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
He has his opinion, based on what he hears, and Astor has his opinion, based on what he hears. But this guy also has all the data in his court, and saw seminar speakers represented as experts, selling their opinions as facts, against the available facts. Yes. He's for real.

Tim

You weren't there Tim, so it's pure speculation on your part what experts presented as opinion.

I never said a thing about data or measurements. You're out of touch Tim. Please read the thread.

c1ferrari · Apr 30, 2015

TBone said:
I can still remember his claim that analog tape was = 12 bit digital. tb1

Well, quantum mechanics, notwithstanding...analog isn't quantized nor sampled -- 12-bit digital Okay @ DSD sampling rates

c1ferrari · Apr 30, 2015

Alan Sircom said:
I know at least one UK demonstrator who used reel-to-reel who, on finding he had taken the box full of blank tapes instead of recorded tapes with no time to get the recorded tapes in time for the show opening, spent the evening transferring iTunes files to tape. Quite a few people thought it was the best sound at the show, and far better than the turntable he was demonstrating.

Provenance...AAA

Hi-FiGuy · Apr 30, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
a

really Amir.....words do not come close to making the case. too bad you were not with the Tres Amigos and did not hear the 15ips 1/4" dub of 'Riders In The Storm' in my room. that would say more than any words on a page. no digital can do that.

Nothing in life I would love to hear more, on a kit such as yours,one of the all time classics.

I will be in Seattle in August visiting family.....

c1ferrari · Apr 30, 2015

amirm said:
I am not asking if digital is better than tape. I am asking if you start with a tape and make a second and third generation copy whether it will be better than PCM conversion of the original tape.

I would discount one advancing no generational loss exists between dubs. How about this, Amir...taking a digital signal and have it undergo multiple conversions? From what I understand, there will also be a sonic consequence.

At one time, when analog, i.e., analog tracked, mixed, and mastered, magnetic tape and vinyl media were what was available for mass consumption -- there was no decision as to reproduction...it was analog.
I am now, rather reproduction agnostic -- if my source is AAA, then analog repro; if the source is digitized at any point, then reproduction in that specific digital format -- no cross platform, e.g., DSD --> PCM or PCM --> DSD, conversions.

Andre Marc · Apr 30, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
a PCM copy is not very close to a direct analog dub done right and played back thru state of the art decks. I have many dozens of examples.

Bruce could comment on a dxd PCM (352-32???) copy and how close that might come; however that is not what Mark is talking about. certainly the dsd or 2xdsd comes closer but still not really close. a great vinyl mastering will come closest of all.

none of those digital copies are bad, they are all degrees of very good. but they are not tape or vinyl.

generational losses are real but much less than you are inferring. in fact; if I do a transfer from 1/4" to 1/2" with my 2 decks the 1/2" copy can sound better.

really Amir.....words do not come close to making the case. too bad you were not with the Tres Amigos and did not hear the 15ips 1/4" dub of 'Riders In The Storm' in my room. that would say more than any words on a page. no digital can do that.

"Riders In The Storm" by what artist if I can ask.

Bruce B · Apr 30, 2015

Andre Marc said:
"Riders In The Storm" by what artist if I can ask.

The Doors

c1ferrari · Apr 30, 2015

Bruce B said:
Then you have the working master, the production master, the EQ'd master, the running master (this may be also called the working master) and the layback master.... Very confusing.

Yeah! Why can't we get dubs of the flat stereo mix master, preferrably with no NR? Or a safety of it??

Andre Marc · Apr 30, 2015

Bruce B said:
The Doors

Then he meant "Riders ON The Storm". I'm guessing they played "Lite My Fire" and maybe
"Hello I Luv You" as well?

c1ferrari · Apr 30, 2015

tomelex said:
Lets not forget that there is a lot of processing going on when taping too. Now, what tape does and what vinyl does is add things in a way that sound pleasing to many folks. There are a hell of a lot of effects going on at the studio before we ever get the so called master tape, and these are there to "make" and "help" plain old stereo SOUND better, not be more accurate to the original air wiggle that hit the mic.

I don't think there is anything to refute in what I said, but maybe someone has some insight we are all missing.....

Let's acknowledge studio/producer/label/artist 'processing' is not constrained to the analog recording chain! :b

Bruce B · Apr 30, 2015

Andre Marc said:
Then he meant "Riders ON The Storm". I'm guessing they played "Lite My Fire" and maybe
"Hello I Luv You" as well?

Tape was "LA Woman"

Andre Marc · May 1, 2015

Bruce B said:
Tape was "LA Woman"

I know. I was having some fun lol. I'm a Doors fanatic.

esldude · May 1, 2015

He simply has the opinion a professionally done 96/24 recording of the original master tape is of superior fidelity to a professionally done high quality 15 ips recording of the original master tape.

Do you guys have the opinion a 15 ips 2 track 2nd gen tape is better than a 96/24 copy? I would not expect the tape to be of higher fidelity. I would not expect the 2nd gen tape to be of equal fidelity.

esldude · May 1, 2015

Mike Lavigne said:
generational losses are real but much less than you are inferring. in fact; if I do a transfer from 1/4" to 1/2" with my 2 decks the 1/2" copy can sound better.

really Amir.....words do not come close to making the case. too bad you were not with the Tres Amigos and did not hear the 15ips 1/4" dub of 'Riders In The Storm' in my room. that would say more than any words on a page. no digital can do that.

So you are claiming a transfer from 1/4 to 1/2 inch improves sound over the 1/4 inch you copied? Why not copy it several times and improve it some more? This only makes sense if 1/2 inch has some coloration you find desirable. Certainly not a description of fidelity.

So how many generations with your equipment would it take for generational losses to cause the tape to 'merely' equal the digital copy of the master tape?

rbbert · May 1, 2015

esldude said:
He simply has the opinion a professionally done 96/24 recording of the original master tape is of superior fidelity to a professionally done high quality 15 ips recording of the original master tape...

Actually Mark Waldrip consistently says and writes that open reel tape is not hi-res at all, presumably because of the noise...

Is this guy for real?

New Member

New Member

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Member Sponsor

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads