How Would You Describe the Sound of Tape?

[Al M.]

I read the interview. In the interview he did not explain why.

We now have a much better knowledge of digital, how it differs from analog and how it became mature to a level that exceeds the best analog.

This doesn't tell us anything substantive.

As I read it, he actually does explain why, by implication. Basically he says that formats in the past which captured less information needed 'crutches' by over-gathering data, whereas high-resolution digital does not, because it captures more information:

It’s not necessarily ultra-resolution that’s the problem, it is how engineers react to the new possibilities it offers. In the past, when the best technology captured less information, engineers tended to over-gather data, placing equal emphasis (or worse, over-emphasis) on all aspects of the potential mix. Then, to compensate for the lack of visual and other sensory information (the data our sight, skin, and scent collect at live performances), they created layers—depth of field—via supporting microphones, EQ, and dynamic alterations. They could offer focal points everywhere simultaneously, often incoherent in imaging and perspective.

Remember when HDTV came out? By capturing more information, the new visual transparency revealed too much of the actors’ make-up. This changed the “grime departments” at television shows forever, and vastly complicated the tasks of set decoration, lighting, and more. With ultra-resolution audio, engineers now have to come up with more subtle accents, more sophisticated mixes. That has not happened across the board. Timbres, transients, and imaging are still being overproduced, as if high-res did not exist; the make-up is showing. Analog—and DSD, in a way—comes with a nice layer of “lingerie,” a term I use for differences between real life and the “ultimate/naked” truth of high-resolution audio.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

As I read it, he actually does explain why, by implication. Basically he says that formats in the past which captured less information needed 'crutches' by over-gathering data, whereas high-resolution digital does not, because it captures more information:

It’s not necessarily ultra-resolution that’s the problem, it is how engineers react to the new possibilities it offers. In the past, when the best technology captured less information, engineers tended to over-gather data, placing equal emphasis (or worse, over-emphasis) on all aspects of the potential mix. Then, to compensate for the lack of visual and other sensory information (the data our sight, skin, and scent collect at live performances), they created layers—depth of field—via supporting microphones, EQ, and dynamic alterations. They could offer focal points everywhere simultaneously, often incoherent in imaging and perspective.

Remember when HDTV came out? By capturing more information, the new visual transparency revealed too much of the actors’ make-up. This changed the “grime departments” at television shows forever, and vastly complicated the tasks of set decoration, lighting, and more. With ultra-resolution audio, engineers now have to come up with more subtle accents, more sophisticated mixes. That has not happened across the board. Timbres, transients, and imaging are still being overproduced, as if high-res did not exist; the make-up is showing. Analog—and DSD, in a way—comes with a nice layer of “lingerie,” a term I use for differences between real life and the “ultimate/naked” truth of high-resolution audio.

trying, and i say 'trying', to make the case that somehow multi-channel digital captures more data than 2 channel analog to my ears is a dead end. and then stretching that out to make the case that 2 channel tape captures too much data.....therefore "over-gathering" data....very over reaching right there.

reminds me of other current 'word salad' efforts. and does not ring true with my experiences.

multi-channel has it's proper uses and i respect and have heavily invested in those and glad i did. but musically they come in second best from where i stand. experientially multi-channel can be wonderful. but for my 8 hour a day obsession of listening to music i love it's not the right vehicle.

and i could make a good case that analog mono is the very best format for connecting to the music. your body would agree, even if your mind does not.

 

[microstrip]

trying, and i say 'trying', to make the case that somehow multi-channel digital captures more data than 2 channel analog to my ears is a dead end. and then stretching that out to make the case that 2 channel tape captures too much data.....therefore "over-gathering" data....very over reaching right there.

reminds me of other current 'word salad' efforts. and does not ring true with my experiences.

multi-channel has it's proper uses and i respect and have heavily invested in those and glad i did. but musically they come in second best from where i stand. experientially multi-channel can be wonderful. but for my 8 hour a day obsession of listening to music i love it's not the right vehicle.

and i could make a good case that analog mono is the very best format for connecting to the music. your body would agree, even if your mind does not.

The multichannel versus stereo is an extremely interesting subject, but IMO shares little with tape versus vinyl. In my experience I feel that proper recorded multichannel is closer to the real experience in terms of soundstage and envelopment, brings me more information about how things are performed, but I prefer stereo for my usual listening.

 

[M2M]

How would you guys describe the sound of Tape?

Thank you

Not sure which tape you referring because there are many, but I'm assuming tapes from analog era (because there are digital tapes).

Based on my long experience (from 70s) with Tape Cassettes, 8-Track, Betamax, and VHS (no experience Reel to Reel), Vs top CD players. I found all analogs have most important element, Satisfaction! All you need, and need no more!

Its important mention this, because CD have almost zero Satisfaction, but huge percentages in other elements: Enjoyment, Engaging, Excitement. More percentage found in analog. The results: 100% delusion and confusion! People enjoy CD but never satisfied. People not aware of this fact!

Have you ever sew people complaining against Tapes Cassettes! Despite the fact we ALL noticed a lot shortcoming in SQ! For my awareness, never & ever! But CD yes all the time, despite have high potential to produce ultimate sound production. Why? To me the answer is clear: satisfaction from tapes than CD!

I found all analog mediums share similar elements: Composed naturally, smooth curves (free from edginess or tightness), natural speed, naturally warm like you surrounded by good sized wood trees, never fatigue.

Digital never & ever sound composed (opposite), metallic, filled with edginess and tightness like setting in room 4m X 4m high reflective concreate wall, false refinement (flesh out due to its noises), wrong timing or speed, lack warmth.

You may able fix digital problems by spending on tweaks, $$$ huge of it, almost like buying car or house (Power Cord, Cablings, noises reductions, …). Analogue like tapes never & ever need anything!

Straight to main discussion: surprisingly, analog tapes better than Vinyl, this goes directly to Practicality matter!

Vinyl can offer perfect sound production (only one or two small shortcomings, and one or two advantage over all tapes). But not practical at all and, and should not used!

Many will disagree, I will explain:

At moment, users must do both: resolve and learn ALL technical issues (VTA, Compliance, Counterweight, adjustments, Aliment, PP settings, cleaning, flattening, …). Have you forgotten! these “technicality” belong the technicians ONLY! For home users, its not their field to: how I adjust or know this and that.

Further more: Vinyl is incredible sensitive to the force, nearly impossible human can avoid! Slight force from your hand, and in the blink of an eye, you accidently destroy your expensive cartridge from first instalment (it happened).

Not all cartridges have equal tonal. Despite the Tonal issue should never have ANY major influence in sound production, but many users consider it actually does (Ortofon vs Shelter Vs Soundsmith Vs Koetsu Vs Hana,… ). This create a HUGE confusion among many (Shelter 9000 undeniable true reference, but dry in term of composed sound!)

Cartridges costs going insanely expensive for what the do regarding their lifespan (Cadenza Bronze $2000 for just 1000h).

I'm not saying avoid Vinyl (I own VPI Signature 21)! I'm only saying consumer SUPPOSE consider better alternatives!

On the other hand, the tapes (like cassettes, VHS,,,): have only one head type, one sound tonal, incredibly cheap and easy to replace. You can slam tape compartment door same force when you slam car doors of Mercedes or BMW, but nothing happened to the tape head!

Plug and Play, no VTA or any form of learning or adjustments need. No RIAA Curve Equalizer, which mean, produce correct sound (theatrically Vinyl is less!), no Phono Preamp. Able do all recording stuff, close to Studio does. Incredible cheap around ($600 - $800), and in same time ultimately REFERENCE, and no better. For example, the tape in VHS is same in Reel to Reel.

Its very clear to all at moment! The industry delete (hide) all “right” mediums, and kept only the problems ones! CD or Turntable!

Mean: you either live with artifact (CD), or long road to get best sound (turntable).

 

[Rt66indierock]

Slight problem

“At each stage of analog copying, the dynamic range decreases by 3 dB,” I (Mark Waldrep) was incorrect.

John Siau wrote, “Actually, the dynamic range decreases by 3 dB each time the number of generations doubles.”

John's comment is common knowledge.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Im listening to a violin / piano concert in a restaurant in turkey , unamplified

Tape / tubes is the most natural.
A bit messy is the sound.
Digital and SS are simply to clean .
CAT comes close with tape

FMA however is better then live

 

[Al M.]

Not sure which tape you referring because there are many, but I'm assuming tapes from analog era (because there are digital tapes).

Based on my long experience (from 70s) with Tape Cassettes, 8-Track, Betamax, and VHS (no experience Reel to Reel), Vs top CD players. I found all analogs have most important element, Satisfaction! All you need, and need no more!

Its important mention this, because CD have almost zero Satisfaction, but huge percentages in other elements: Enjoyment, Engaging, Excitement. More percentage found in analog. The results: 100% delusion and confusion! People enjoy CD but never satisfied. People not aware of this fact!

Have you ever sew people complaining against Tapes Cassettes! Despite the fact we ALL noticed a lot shortcoming in SQ! For my awareness, never & ever! But CD yes all the time, despite have high potential to produce ultimate sound production. Why? To me the answer is clear: satisfaction from tapes than CD!

"People enjoy CD but never satisfied. People not aware of this fact!"

This "fact" only exists in your own head when it comes to other people, and you only speak for yourself, your own perceptions and your own tastes. Donl;t assume that your subjective perceptions are objective reality.

I am extremely satisfied listening to CD. For my playback system, see my signature.

 

[adrianywu]

"People enjoy CD but never satisfied. People not aware of this fact!"

This "fact" only exists in your own head when it comes to other people, and you only speak for yourself, your own perceptions and your own tastes. Donl;t assume that your subjective perceptions are objective reality.

I am extremely satisfied listening to CD. For my playback system, see my signature.

The problems with CD are not all related to the technology. Most CDs are mass market products and are often not produced with quality as a priority.

 

[jonathanhorwich]

The problems with CD are not all related to the technology. Most CDs are mass market products and are often not produced with quality as a priority.

This is so true. Between 2009 and 2012 I produced CDs of special and valued jazz performances. Getting the CD to sound good was a total bear. Everything from the unit that burned the master CD to the cable, to the program one used for digital work, to the computer, to the mastering engineer, all made a difference and either degraded the sound or did not. Most people or companies do not even run into this as they avoid the issues involved. I found it very time consuming and difficult. The result was worth it though.

 

[gadawg58]

I think a lot of it depends on how it album was mastered. That said, when I listen to digital I still sometimes find myself analyzing the sound .. trying to figure out what seems to be just a tad bit off. When I’m listening to tape ,.. I just sit back and enjoy! No matter how good my digital gets … the tape front end seems to be just out of reach it seems … just my 2c in my system.

George

 

[adrianywu]

I listened to Siegfried (Solti Ring cycle) on 4-track tapes over the past three nights. Just incredible sound and music. It does not make you think about audiophile stuff, just the music.

 

[Al M.]

The problems with CD are not all related to the technology. Most CDs are mass market products and are often not produced with quality as a priority.

Pop maybe (but then, for pop you often had mediocre mass market vinyl pressings back in the day as well).

Classical is mostly well taken care of. Jazz is generally good, too.

 

[Rexp]

I think a lot of it depends on how it album was mastered. That said, when I listen to digital I still sometimes find myself analyzing the sound .. trying to figure out what seems to be just a tad bit off. When I’m listening to tape ,.. I just sit back and enjoy! No matter how good my digital gets … the tape front end seems to be just out of reach it seems … just my 2c in my system.

George

Agreed it's down to the master, I have tapes that sound way better than the CD or file/streaming version and some are digitally recorded so can't blame the ADDA process.

 

[M2M]

One feature (overlocked and completely forgotten) I found in tape cassettes and VHS (also Vinyl), you can judge the type of recording equipment used, and see its limitation. Without distracting sound enjoyment in the same time.

I found each recording has its OWN unique character, personality, and charm. In another word different “expressions”, even if the album originate from same source.

Particularly this feature “alone” can have another impact and important for sound listening. For example, you give high esteem to particularly album not just because the music itself sound nice, but you realize the equipment used and recording engineering done a “professional” job.

Van Mccoy vs KC Sunshine vs Abba, a lot differences. (Beatles) Abbey Road vs Let it Be, not same. And Red Seal is a “lot” far from the rest!

Star Wars New Hope vs Empire Strikes Back vs Superman the Movie vs Alien vs Apocalypse Now vs Predator (87). All they sound (notably) different from each other in VHS (and in theater as well, played through analog mono at that time), from standpoint view of both; recording equipment and sound engineering's.

I found this feature undetectable in digital.

 

[Al M.]

I found this feature undetectable in digital.

This makes me question the quality of your digital.

Even just piano recordings all sound different on my CD playback.

 

[M2M]

Krell KPS 20IL ($12.000), Krell KAV300 ($5.500), Arcam DV137, Oppo 105D! Vs Tascam Tape cassette ($550), JVC VHS ($600), Pro-Ject RPM9!

Star Wars Trilogy digital DSD CD remastered, all three albums sounded almost identical, impossible, and wrong! In Tapes, all three sound a lot different from each other! New Hope 77 sounded punchier and hard. Empire Strikes Back 80 sounded exceptional smooth. Return of the Jedi recorded digital in 83!

Alien 80 sounded incredible dark and deep (for horror and thrill goal, to correspond with the dark image in film, make it perfect synergy as movie maker main intention in his script). In CD remaster sounded sunny day like MTV songs, compromise all important elements sound engineer create it!

 

[Rexp]

Krell KPS 20IL ($12.000), Krell KAV300 ($5.500), Arcam DV137, Oppo 105D! Vs Tascam Tape cassette ($550), JVC VHS ($600), Pro-Ject RPM9!

Star Wars Trilogy digital DSD CD remastered, all three albums sounded almost identical, impossible, and wrong! In Tapes, all three sound a lot different from each other! New Hope 77 sounded punchier and hard. Empire Strikes Back 80 sounded exceptional smooth. Return of the Jedi recorded digital in 83!

Alien 80 sounded incredible dark and deep (for horror and thrill goal, to correspond with the dark image in film, make it perfect synergy as movie maker main intention in his script). In CD remaster sounded sunny day like MTV songs, compromise all important elements sound engineer create it!

Yup, because most digital releases are poor you need tape and vinyl.

BTW If you're looking for good sounding digital releases, I've found Herb Reichert's recommendations in his reviews are pretty reliable :

by user | Stereophile.com

www.stereophile.com

 

[PHAA_]

complete. really complete.

you think other formats are like a mic feed but they are not complete in direct comparison. then when you hear a great tape live to 2 track on a really great deck, in a mature system, with a really low noise floor and actually flat extended bass you realize how short of complete the other format was. nothing else is even close when all the stars align. you just grin and realize your eyes are tearing up. powerful.

checking all the above boxes is not trivial. but many tape set-ups get the essence/feeling right in degrees with the right tapes.

the Golden Age of recorded music is all based on tape. it's a big part of it. and the purity of the 2 and 3 track tape recording process.

then there is 30ips 1/2" work parts which are pretty crazy good. 1" 2 track even better but only heard it once.

/\/\/\

“Complete”. That’s good.

It used to frustrate me, then make me laugh…now I just say “whatever”…because I am old enough to remember the “audio press” raving about digital (CD’s in particular) over analog although 90% at least of all the digital they were listening to was derived from tape. I don’t dislike “digital”. I spend a good deal of time transcribing LP’s to 24/192 and, once in a while, double rate DSD. And yes, the tape (system) has to be very well fettled, bass hump dealt with, quality tape with no drop outs, great heads, superb electronics, scrape flutter mitigated, biased properly etc. etc. but after that there is a naturalness, depth, detail and spaciousness that I have not heard bettered.

Sigh, someone is probably going to question my “credentials”: life long music lover, collector, listener, near life long musician, multi-instrumentalist, composer, recorded artist, blah, blah, blah…. From the bedroom, to college practice rooms, to dive bar stages to large auditoriums, to project studios to professional studios, I would hope after 50 plus years I would know what instruments actually sound like in various settings/spaces and with various production methods. I’m not unique in this way.

Nor am I trying to blow my own horn; however, I do feel that without a point of reference anything sounds good but not everything sounds “complete” and/or “natural”. I hope that makes sense to some reading this. If “point of reference” does not matter and “fidelity” to that point of reference doesn’t matter than I would agree with those who say tape is no better or perhaps even worse than other formats.

All that to say I agree:

Complete. Natural.

 

[microstrip]

The problems with CD are not all related to the technology. Most CDs are mass market products and are often not produced with quality as a priority.

This was mainly a CD player problem. CDs with exactly the same bit content could sound very different depending on how the information was encoded in the pits. One nice thing of CDs was that they could be mass produced and, in general, thirty years later have the same bit content.

 

[M2M]

/\/\/\

“Complete”. That’s good.

It used to frustrate me, then make me laugh…now I just say “whatever”…because I am old enough to remember the “audio press” raving about digital (CD’s in particular) over analog although 90% at least of all the digital they were listening to was derived from tape. I don’t dislike “digital”. I spend a good deal of time transcribing LP’s to 24/192 and, once in a while, double rate DSD. And yes, the tape (system) has to be very well fettled, bass hump dealt with, quality tape with no drop outs, great heads, superb electronics, scrape flutter mitigated, biased properly etc. etc. but after that there is a naturalness, depth, detail and spaciousness that I have not heard bettered.

Sigh, someone is probably going to question my “credentials”: life long music lover, collector, listener, near life long musician, multi-instrumentalist, composer, recorded artist, blah, blah, blah…. From the bedroom, to college practice rooms, to dive bar stages to large auditoriums, to project studios to professional studios, I would hope after 50 plus years I would know what instruments actually sound like in various settings/spaces and with various production methods. I’m not unique in this way.

Nor am I trying to blow my own horn; however, I do feel that without a point of reference anything sounds good but not everything sounds “complete” and/or “natural”. I hope that makes sense to some reading this. If “point of reference” does not matter and “fidelity” to that point of reference doesn’t matter than I would agree with those who say tape is no better or perhaps even worse than other formats.

All that to say I agree:

Complete. Natural.

100% True!