Tapes handle more information

flez007 said:

A friend came by to listen, he owns a quite decent system but is more a music lover than an audiophile (I respect his opinions a lot), I played TP1 - Arnold Overtures to him, he said a wise word: " LPs can't store all this information" while listening to the tape, I must assume he was right!

Click to expand...

Goes to show we do in fact know what sounds good, and perhaps a little more than what is credited. !

It is the ultimate medium to capture the analog sound wave. Digital is only an approximation, albeit a good one, but falls short to RTR tape. This is my experience. My vinyl rig is very close. It doesn't quite get the bass density and extension of the tape (well mastered of course).

tomelex said:

For once I would love to see actual, real specs, including IMD, for tape mastered at 15 or 30ips no matter. My suspicions tell me that tape is woefully inadequate in even a simple IMD test when compared to hi rez digital, but alas, no one comes clean in the tape measurement department, and measurements , no matter how simple, can not be disputed when compared like against like.

Maybe tape is maybe it isn't, again, never saw any proof. And those tiny magnets in the tape, they line up one way or the other, just like little binary digits...

therefore, to me tape is better than high resolution digital is an audio myth until measurements prove otherwise.

I would agree, strictly speaking, that LP can not store (or be read back) as much info as tape BTW.

Tom

Click to expand...

specs you say ? LOL. You need to listen to studio master tapes at 15 ips on a well sorted system before rendering an opinion.(I have seen no evidence you have any credible listening experience in this regard). RTR colored ? Perhaps your experience is with consumer 3.75 or 7.5 ips tape ? In those instances ...the majority at least sound like crap...no matter how good the tape repro machine is. The pecking order is this Tom....Master RTR->Vinyl->Hi-rez (bring on the bit depth conversation being only noise LOL)->red book. It is as simple as that if you consider the music that really matters in history....50's-early 80's...all on tape.

tomelex said:

For once I would love to see actual, real specs, including IMD, for tape mastered at 15 or 30ips no matter. My suspicions tell me that tape is woefully inadequate in even a simple IMD test when compared to hi rez digital, but alas, no one comes clean in the tape measurement department, and measurements , no matter how simple, can not be disputed when compared like against like.

Maybe tape is maybe it isn't, again, never saw any proof. And those tiny magnets in the tape, they line up one way or the other, just like little binary digits...

therefore, to me tape is better than high resolution digital is an audio myth until measurements prove otherwise.

I would agree, strictly speaking, that LP can not store (or be read back) as much info as tape BTW.

Tom

Click to expand...

Bob Ohlsson a recording engineer gave an interview for Tape-OP magazine in which he was asked about digital his reply below:

Well here’s a classic tape op interview question for you: how do you feel about digital?

Frustrated. (laughs) There’s so many great things about it and yet - there was a thing at the AES called ‘When Vinyl Ruled” - this was incredible. I hope to heaven that they let them do it again but I can see how a lot of manufacturers would not let them do it again. T

They set up a state of the art 1962 control room and played back a bunch of old three-track safety masters from that era. The sound destroyed everything at the show. I mean, it was a no-brainer better than anything we’re doing now, it’s sickening. And at one point, Doug Botnik, who used to be at Sunset Sound turned to me and said, “Man I remember the first time I tried to do a session on a transistor board I wanted to slit my wrists.” (laughs)"

AES article on the above mentioned control room :

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/mtgschedules/109conv2000/109th-vinyl-report-1.html

The demonstration at the 109th AES (Audio Engineers Society) Convention.



I'll leave it at that.
.

I'll just say that until you hear a studio deck(Ampex and I'm totally biased) that has been truly optimised you can't say that tape is not the best format available. Playing prerecorded (crap) 7.5 ips tapes on a my Ampex will blow someones mind pure and simple. Noisy crappy? I suggest switching tape machines. End of rant.

tomelex said:

Measurements trump ears, every time.



Tom

Click to expand...

That's your problem Tom...you are a slave to specs....Open up your mind and your ears...break free and you may find sonic happiness. You spec only guys who disregard the most important factor...the sound and your ears are quite funny and for lack of better expression...annoying.

Kind Regards...

tomelex said:

Measurements trump ears, every time. Even simple, basic measurements are far superior to any body ears when it comes to determining if replication is accurate. If you want to talk musical, my ears (my being mine, being johns, beckys, berts, sams, freds, etc )are better than anybody elses.

If tape is superior, its measurements will be superior, end of story in the real world, but in the world of religion, faith and the sun circling around the world are one in the same, same goes with audiophile religion.

I've spent a life time measuring electronic things, and therefore i am the one who laughs when someone tells me that ears somehow can better determine than measurements the accuracy or the replication of a signal vs measurement tools.

Anybody out there who can claim to determine an audio frequency down to less than .005hz, or .001db, or a simple distortion of a tone to .0001% with their friggen ears is insane.

Musicality, thats preference and a free for all. I don't doubt you all hear "better sound" with tape decks, but that does not mean it is accurate, and if it is not accurate, then it calls into question the whole point of current plain old stereo's illusion since you would expect the most accurate signal to produce the most convincing illusion or why do we have two channel stereo in the first place...
m



Tom

Click to expand...

Problem is, you can't hear measurements. You can stare at a real time analyzer all day long and not know what's playing. So you also wouldn't know what instruments were affected by spikes and dips since you have no clue what instruments are playing in the first place. You could look at soundstage networks loudspeaker measurements all day and not know what speakers they represent. For the hobbyist then, measurements have far less utility other than added assurance. Quite different for the men and women that are actually designing and building the equipment.

Measurements may be more accurate however conclusions drawn from them are a different matter.

Your entitled to your opinion as well as I am to mine .My opinion is better that's all .If you have the equipment to measure you had better produce those measurements shouldn't you .Otherwise your bleeding on the wrong thread.

tomelex said:

Measurements trump ears, every time. Even simple, basic measurements are far superior to any body ears when it comes to determining if replication is accurate. If you want to talk musical, my ears (my being mine, being johns, beckys, berts, sams, freds, etc )are better than anybody elses.

If tape is superior, its measurements will be superior, end of story in the real world, but in the world of religion, faith and the sun circling around the world are one in the same, same goes with audiophile religion.

I've spent a life time measuring electronic things, and therefore i am the one who laughs when someone tells me that ears somehow can better determine than measurements the accuracy or the replication of a signal vs measurement tools.

Musicality, thats preference and a free for all. I don't doubt you all hear "better sound" with tape decks, but that does not mean it is accurate, and if it is not accurate, then it calls into question the whole point of current plain old stereo's illusion since you would expect the most accurate signal to produce the most convincing illusion or why do we have two channel stereo in the first place...

Click to expand...

Describe your concept of accurate. How does it sound ? The word in your context seems irrelevant to the conversation of sound quality. Here's the deal....you quote your specs and theories yet you haven't actually heard the two mediums analog vs digital on the same WELL sorted system....preferably your system. Now we know you never had a good tape player, so why render such an uninfomed opinion on sound quality (hint: what matters most) ? It reflects badly on your intergrity and credibility. Mathematical measurements are fun to look at on paper, They doesn't translate well to what we hear. If all your after is great specs and to hell with what sounds best...good on you !

We started going through this in a recently closed topic. " More information" isn't the correct terminology here, because 24/96 PCM digital has "more information" storage than 30 ips 1/2" stereo analog tape. That has little to do with the sound, though, because since we are discussing quite different technologies for storing audio recordings, the actual amount of information stored by each doesn't directly correlate with the eventual sound quality.

rbbert said:

We started going through this in a recently closed topic. " More information" isn't the correct terminology here, because 24/96 PCM digital has "more information" storage than 30 ips 1/2" stereo analog tape. That has little to do with the sound, though, because since we are discussing quite different technologies for storing audio recordings, the actual amount of information stored by each doesn't directly correlate with the eventual sound quality.

Click to expand...

And it will continue because one person insists on a MEANINGLESS measurement. If that's what designing was all about, we could have stopped in 1965. Everybody should own a Marantz 7T here since it had vanishing distortion.

MylesBAstor said:

And it will continue because one person insists on a MEANINGLESS measurement. If that's what designing was all about, we could have stopped in 1965. Everybody should own a Marantz 7T here since it had vanishing distortion.

Click to expand...

You say (think?) it's meaningless because you're considering it from a different POV. I've been persisting in pointing this out not because I think you are wrong, but in fact because I think the current thinking about PCM digital is wrong. I think that given the comparative information storage capabilities that PCM digital, even 24/96 to say nothing of higher res formats, should be able to equal or better analog tape, and the fact that it doesn't means (to me) that present ADC and DAC is lacking. Obviously, YMMV.

rbbert said:

You say (think?) it's meaningless because you're considering it from a different POV. I've been persisting in pointing this out not because I think you are wrong, but in fact because I think the current thinking about PCM digital is wrong. I think that given the comparative information storage capabilities that PCM digital, even 24/96 to say nothing of higher res formats, should be able to equal or better analog tape, and the fact that it doesn't means (to me) that present ADC and DAC is lacking. Obviously, YMMV.

Click to expand...

I think we're not talking about the same thing R. I'm referring to THD as being the King and gold standard for evaluating equipment.

And of course that ignores that the THD for the speakers is orders of magnitude higher.

See:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_1/thiel-pcs-speakers-1-2005.html

Or from SS on how they measure speakers:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

Why don't you listen to a professional deck Tom instead of worrying about how it measures? If you heard something that sounded better than any source material that you have ever heard, would you really need a piece of paper with some measurements on it in order to confirm what you just heard?

Same old argument. We have fidelity to the recording, which is both audible and measurable. We have what some people like, a pretty limited number of people, it would seem, given the evidence of the Harman study now rattling about in three threads on this board, if I have that count right. There's no need to discuss the integrity of that study again, it has been discussed nearly to death and every objection has been answered by careful methodology and sub studies that anticipated all the problems raised here, probably more, and dealt with them in the study. The Harman study is extremely well-designed, very thorough and clearly indicates a direct and statistically sound correlation between fidelity to the recording and listener preference.

So it provides, at least, very strong evidence that most people's preferences aren't in line with the rather small group I will, for lack of a better term, call the analog Audiophile crowd.

You guys love old tapes and vinyl and the technology that plays them. It has a sound that moves you. There's no need to analyze it, and no need to justify it beyond that. Why do the measurements have to be wrong, or incomplete or irrelevant? Why does tape have to have a greater capacity for information than digital, even when that is mathematically absurd? Why does anyone who doesn't hear what you hear have to have heard this specific deck or that specific turntable or your specific system for their opinion to be valid? Why does "what you like" have to be more like an "original event" you didn't hear and probably isn't on the recording anyway? Why can't you just like it?

Why does everyone have to be wrong for you to be right? I'm not trying to start another difficult thread, I really want to know. I have guitars. One of my favortes iis a cheap, Chinese-made mutt with no credibility at all. It sounds great and I love it and I feel no need to find some reason why it is better than my Custom Shop Gibson to enjoy every moment I play it. You guys have some of the best, most expensive audio equipment in the world. Why do you need to discredit everything that doesn't support or agree with it's superiority?

Tim

I haven’t met or heard of anyone who has actually heard 15 ips 2 track tapes and didn’t come away highly impressed with the sound quality. I don’t see how talking about Harman comes into play unless you are inferring that the sound of tape is not really accurate and Harman’s trained listeners therefore wouldn’t like it.

Also, there is a huge difference between how much information you can store vice how much information you capture to be stored. People that have heard tape feel that more information was captured on the tape than what can be heard from a digital file regardless of how many bits and the sampling frequency. Digital was pronounced as being “perfect” from the day it was introduced by Sony/Phillips and it keeps getting more perfect every year doesn’t it?

The vast majority of the world’s great music exists on tape. It’s how it was recorded. Getting as close to possible to those tapes has to be heard to be appreciated. Maybe as digital becomes more perfect every year it will eventually sound just like you were spinning the master tape. We are not there yet regardless of how good the measurements say it should sound. The measurements for the first CD player indicated the CD player should sound perfect. Anybody want to buy a first generation CD player? I have one with perfect measurements I will gladly sell you.

It seems you can’t start a thread on this forum to discuss the virtues of listening to tape without the same people jumping in who don’t own pro decks nor any tapes to play on them commenting on what they think the sound quality of tape is compared to digital. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Having heard many 15 and 30 ips recordings, on 1/2" and 1" tape, and seen numerous measurements of same, I can safely say tape can capture a lot more dynamic range with much less distortion than an LP record. And, a top-flight digital system can capture well more than tape. I am not sure it matters in the real world...

The scary thing for me is that tape does not last forever, and the lousy quality of digital remasters is in my mind largely a function of the remastering, not a comment upon the lack of quality of the original tape nor the digital system. This is one area in which I am in complete agreement with the purely-subjective crowd, if there is such a thing, when they say digital sound sucks. It is not due to the medium, but to the recording technique. I have some CDs that sound incredible, at least to me, and some that are best used for target practice.

Frankly, as a medium, tape is much easier to deal with than LPs, and I am surprised it has not enjoyed a resurgence surpassing vinyl.

All IMO - Don

p.s. No shock to anyone here I am sure, but I strongly disagree with the "you can't hear measurements" comments implying measurements do not yield useful information or that they cannot be correlated to listening.

I don't think you even need a pro deck; I think a refurbished Technics 1500 will give very good performance on 1/2 track 1/4" tape.

I just don't think that R2R tape is a viable medium for future audiophile home listening. I know I sound like a broken record, but I really do anticipate higher res digital surpassing it, possibly/probably within the next five years. For one thing, it should reduce the generational loss between the master and the home listening copy (among other benefits).

While it is fair bit of work, I do have a tape deck and fancy measurement gear. I can measure what folks want. But I don't think it is necessary. On classic audio measurements, tape will lose to digital. I hope everyone agrees on this.

Subjectively, tape sounds wonderful despite its specs especially on classic recordings that used to be analog. Any capture of it on digital would be a second gen copy. It may sound identical or a bit different.

I pan to do an AB test of recording digital on tape one day and performing an AB test. Do folks think the tape will sound the same, worse or better?