Tapes handle more information

[RogerD]

I played one of my favorite CD's tonight and then played the same music on a Columbia prerecorded 7.5 ips tape. The verdict was don't bring a knife to a gun fight,as the tape just absolutely blew the CD away,in every category most would judge a reproduction by. I used my Ampex 350/440C deck playing the 4 track tape. The DAC was my Mundorf modified Monarchy NM24 with Amperex holland 1952 D-getters. The music is Concierto de Aranjuez,John Williams,Eugene Ormandy Columbia Masterworks.

The tape is maybe at best 3rd generation and the CD is taken from the Analog master and digitally remastered, you wouldn't think that the tape would produce several magnitudes better sound but it does. As the gentleman said in the OP's first post analog tape is a far better vechile for capturing large amounts of micro detail that digital can't and is unable to reproduce.

 

[Soundproof]

I played one of my favorite CD's tonight and then played the same music on a Columbia prerecorded 7.5 ips tape. The verdict was don't bring a knife to a gun fight,as the tape just absolutely blew the CD away,in every category most would judge a reproduction by. I used my Ampex 350/440C deck playing the 4 track tape. The DAC was my Mundorf modified Monarchy NM24 with Amperex holland 1952 D-getters. The music is Concierto de Aranjuez,John Williams,Eugene Ormandy Columbia Masterworks.

The tape is maybe at best 3rd generation and the CD is taken from the Analog master and digitally remastered, you wouldn't think that the tape would produce several magnitudes better sound but it does. As the gentleman said in the OP's first post analog tape is a far better vechile for capturing large amounts of micro detail that digital can't and is unable to reproduce.

Please, Roger! These 7.5 ips tapes are getting expensive enough as it is.

Sheesh.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I played one of my favorite CD's tonight and then played the same music on a Columbia prerecorded 7.5 ips tape. The verdict was don't bring a knife to a gun fight,as the tape just absolutely blew the CD away,in every category most would judge a reproduction by. I used my Ampex 350/440C deck playing the 4 track tape. The DAC was my Mundorf modified Monarchy NM24 with Amperex holland 1952 D-getters. The music is Concierto de Aranjuez,John Williams,Eugene Ormandy Columbia Masterworks.

The tape is maybe at best 3rd generation and the CD is taken from the Analog master and digitally remastered, you wouldn't think that the tape would produce several magnitudes better sound but it does. As the gentleman said in the OP's first post analog tape is a far better vechile for capturing large amounts of micro detail that digital can't and is unable to reproduce.

Actually the OP's post said that tape was far better at capturing detail than vinyl.

I assume Columbia is no longer making these, so this is a vintage 7.5 ips tape you're talking about?

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I have been an audiophile for most of my life .. 40 plus years being an audiophile .. Can someone please explains to me what are the "micro-dynamics' and the "micro-details" ... Is there a threshold at wich a given sound level is termed micro? .. What is the difference between "details" and "micro-details"?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I've finally stopped fighting this one, Frantz, as it is nearly useful compared to musical, euphonic and PRaT. I just assume they mean very small dynamic changes (though these won't be much of a challenge for any decent system) and itty, bitty, barely audible details. What I would love to hear, however, is someone pointing to a specific detail that can clearly be heard over the inherent noise of tape or vinyl that is inaudible in digital. I won't be holding my breath.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

Micro-detail is "information" = any information,even silience,and distance.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Micro-detail is "information" = any information,even silience,and distance.

A broad enough definition to be almost anything. Still, I'll be happy to work with two out of three. Show me the analog media that has more "micro-silence" than even 16/44.1. Point to the detail audible on tape or LP that is rendered inaudible on a digital copy of that tape or LP. Distance? Too many people confuse noise with ambience for that one to mean anything at all.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I've finally stopped fighting this one, Frantz, as it is nearly useful compared to musical, euphonic and PRaT. I just assume they mean very small dynamic changes (though these won't be much of a challenge for any decent system) and itty, bitty, barely audible details. What I would love to hear, however, is someone pointing to a specific detail that can clearly be heard over the inherent noise of tape or vinyl that is inaudible in digital. I won't be holding my breath.

Tim

Tim,

Buy the classical "La Folia" of Paniagua. I (and surely many others) would happily point exact timing of interesting micro-details. But you are going the wrong way - no one will claim about inaudibility of micro-details. Knowledge audiophiles will refer how the different media and systems handles the micro details.

 

[RogerD]

The missing link is space and time and to render more of it,requires bandwith(ability to store information) and tape has more,it must because of the 3 dimensional quality of the reproduction. I listen differently because my system is designed to enhance this quality.

 

[microstrip]

Hi

I have been an audiophile for most of my life .. 40 plus years being an audiophile .. Can someone please explains to me what are the "micro-dynamics' and the "micro-details" ... Is there a threshold at wich a given sound level is termed micro? .. What is the difference between "details" and "micro-details"?

FrantzM,

Harry Pearson wrote several essays on this theme in The Absolute Sound. But as soon as you formulate your question asking for a defined threshold I see why in 40 years you still are asking for an explanation.

You can also do your research the modern way - google micro-details, micro-dynamics and Burmester simultaneously and as you know very well the sound of this equipment you will find what people usually mean by these words.

Or just look for excellent posts of our contributor Gary L Koh in this forum about the micro-thinks.

 

[amirm]

FrantzM,

Harry Pearson wrote several essays on this theme in The Absolute Sound. But as soon as you formulate your question asking for a defined threshold I see why in 40 years you still are asking for an explanation.

You can also do your research the modern way - google micro-details, micro-dynamics and Burmester simultaneously and as you know very well the sound of this equipment you will find what people usually mean by these words.

Or just look for excellent posts of our contributor Gary L Koh in this forum about the micro-thinks.

I am strong defender of audio gear resolving smallest detail. So think of me as a friend of this point not the enemy. Between us chickens, this is a wonderful marketing term that paints a picture in the minds of the reader and that is it. The right explanation if it applies is what Tim gave which is the reference to resolving all the detail there is. There is no micro vs macro view of audio. It is a continuum of system fidelity. I know of no solution that gives us full "macro fidelity" but lose the "micro fidelity."

Yes, there will be many people who swear on a bible that there is such a thing. But remember, when you are responding to other camp, you have to assume that type of proof doesn't amount to anything . This is one of my beef's with these arguments. Both sides use metrics and rules in their world to convince the other side! Why would an atheist believe that God exists because you swore on a bible? Makes no sense, does it? So you don't want to quote TAS, or "just listen" proofs. Yes, the other side does the same thing by using methodology that this camp doesn't accept. To make forward progress then, we need to close the gap. Here, we have to at least point to some technical explanation of "micro-dynamics" and some amount of science behind it. If it is all, "well, it is true" then it is not an argument .

 

[flez007]

Please, Roger! These 7.5 ips tapes are getting expensive enough as it is.

Sheesh.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hi

I have been an audiophile for most of my life .. 40 plus years being an audiophile .. Can someone please explains to me what are the "micro-dynamics' and the "micro-details" ... Is there a threshold at wich a given sound level is termed micro? .. What is the difference between "details" and "micro-details"?

Answered that before. Check Aaron Copland's book on music. What we call micro dynamics are what musicians call dynamic accents.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lo...epage&q=aaron copland dynamic accents&f=false

 

[MylesBAstor]

Answered that before. Check Aaron Copland's book on music. What we call micro dynamics are what musicians call dynamic accents.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lo...epage&q=aaron copland dynamic accents&f=false

And as previously mentioned is brought to the fore by the silence between the notes or smearing. Caps are real culprits in smearing or as Keith Johnson calls it, settling time.

http://www.spectralaudio.com/fimag_2.html

 

[JackD201]

Some real world examples: triangles, ride cymbals played low, steel brushes on drums, subtle vibrato, resonances like those from guitar bodies, woodwind reads, bowing technique, decay trails, low frequency reverberation, in some cases overdubs of harmonies sung by the same singer. Basically details typically masked but revealed as distinguishable in systems and environments that are more resolving. Basic test is, if you can hear this things clearly with a good set of headphones, you should be able to hear them in-room.

 

[microstrip]

I am strong defender of audio gear resolving smallest detail. So think of me as a friend of this point not the enemy. Between us chickens, this is a wonderful marketing term that paints a picture in the minds of the reader and that is it. The right explanation if it applies is what Tim gave which is the reference to resolving all the detail there is. There is no micro vs macro view of audio. It is a continuum of system fidelity. I know of no solution that gives us full "macro fidelity" but lose the "micro fidelity."

Yes, there will be many people who swear on a bible that there is such a thing. But remember, when you are responding to other camp, you have to assume that type of proof doesn't amount to anything . This is one of my beef's with these arguments. Both sides use metrics and rules in their world to convince the other side! Why would an atheist believe that God exists because you swore on a bible? Makes no sense, does it? So you don't want to quote TAS, or "just listen" proofs. Yes, the other side does the same thing by using methodology that this camp doesn't accept. To make forward progress then, we need to close the gap. Here, we have to at least point to some technical explanation of "micro-dynamics" and some amount of science behind it. If it is all, "well, it is true" then it is not an argument .

Amir,

I do not want to prove anything to the other camp - I just pointed a few places and ways to show points I consider interesting, and share my perspective.

As as an aside, I find strange that people expect to make real " forward progress" in sound reproduction and prove arguments to others in forums, just exchanging a few lines of posts. The semantics and experiences associated with micro-something or macro-something is useful if it enables us to communicate concepts and our views, not to be used in court or formal teaching.

IMHO, resolving detail can not be explained as a binary audible or not audible think. The point you refer about being marketing terms is worth a debate in a separate thread.

BTW, the only enemies I recognize as so in forum debates are impolite or rude people. All others are friends!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Amir,

I do not want to prove anything to the other camp - I just pointed a few places and ways to show points I consider interesting, and share my perspective.

As as an aside, I find strange that people expect to make real " forward progress" in sound reproduction and prove arguments to others in forums, just exchanging a few lines of posts. The semantics and experiences associated with micro-something or macro-something is useful if it enables us to communicate concepts and our views, not to be used in court or formal teaching.

IMHO, resolving detail can not be explained as a binary audible or not audible think. The point you refer about being marketing terms is worth a debate in a separate thread.

BTW, the only enemies I recognize as so in forum debates are impolite or rude people. All others are friends!

i could not agree more.

just listen to a digital cymble, then on high level vinyl or tape. overtones and decay is missing on the digital. the metalic quality of the tone is missing on the digital. the fine details are blurred on the digital. the life and energy are missing comparitively.

even comparing various cartridges and arms, the rendering of these type details vary a great deal. and they are so easy to hear. even between digital players or digital formats these things vary.

this micro-detail is everywhere in music, and brings the musical message to life. micro-dynamics and micro-detail are important.

not to say that good digital cannot do all these things too. it sounds so good one might assume that analog cannot improve it. but it does. it's only when you directly compare the various media doing these same things that you have the realization of the differences.

 

[rockitman]

it's only when you directly compare the various media doing these same things that you have the realization of the differences.

Hear Hear, I'll drink to that !

I am baffled by those purporting their media of choice is best when they haven't compared all 3 (RTR, Vinyl & Digital) at the highest level in their own systems or someone else's that does have all 3 well sorted media systems...Seems like of lot of that going around from the digital only (and is best crowd) The "Spec-ulators".

 

[amirm]

Do we think the engineers designing our gear are specifically creating circuits that extract micro-dynamics? If so, how do they test them?

 

[amirm]

Hear Hear, I'll drink to that !

I am baffled by those purporting their media of choice is best when they haven't compared all 3 (RTR, Vinyl & Digital) at the highest level in their own systems or someone else's that does have all 3 well sorted media systems...Seems like of lot of that going around from the digital only (and is best crowd) The "Spec-ulators".

I hope present company is excluded. This is the picture from our showroom:

I have heard it and know it can sound excellent.