Too Late For Analog?

[Mike Lavigne]

I appreciate all of the comments. Some of them are even relevant to the OP . Those who had specific advice seemed to lean toward not heading down the vinyl path. I'm somewhat surprised that more didn't suggest R2R or have an opinion regarding its superiority over other forms of reproduction.

i met Steve Williams in 2003, and since then i had encouraged him to get into vinyl.....i even gave him an Lp as a hint. i felt that with such a wonderful system, he owed it to himself to hear what it could really do. then (i think) three years ago he saw that i had got into RTR tape with the Tape Project and we spoke about that. i think his attraction was the much lower expense to get into RTR tape and even better performance. the software was more expensive and harder to get; but for him it allowed him to 'scratch the itch' of ultimate performance without the major commitment of top level vinyl.

in your situation with the 'family' challenges and (as i recall) the 'city vibration' issues, i can see that tape could be a way to 'scratch the itch' wihtout jumping into vinyl.

PM me and we can connect if you'd like to talk in detail. there is a large tape culture in NYC that you can tap into.

 

[Steve Williams]

Why would you need another preamp

 

[naturephoto1]

Why would you need another preamp

Steve,

I presume that you are referring to my comment regarding the preamp. I only have suggested that because of all of the discussion on this forum and also reading amongst other places on line including the Tape Project where it has discussed and recommended to not only get one of the R2R tape machines modified to reach the "ultimate" performance but to also to get one of the recommended Tape Head Preamps for the best performance.

Rich

 

[Steve Williams]

I thought that was what you meant.

 

[microstrip]

microstrip

I will answer your last post and fade in the background ... The thing is taking all the air of a discussion about faith... Science is invoked only when convenient to apparently support the faith .. Rejected if it doesn't fit ,so this will be my last on the subject ...

Since you decided to fade in the background, I will not address your strange baseline concept. But it is curious that the arguments I have used were based in the "Sound Reproduction" book of F. Toole. Happily real scientists usually have open minds even in faith matters...

 

[Steve Williams]

i met Steve Williams in 2003, and since then i had encouraged him to get into vinyl.....i even gave him an Lp as a hint. i felt that with such a wonderful system, he owed it to himself to hear what it could really do. then (i think) three years ago he saw that i had got into RTR tape with the Tape Project and we spoke about that. i think his attraction was the much lower expense to get into RTR tape and even better performance. the software was more expensive and harder to get; but for him it allowed him to 'scratch the itch' of ultimate performance without the major commitment of top level vinyl.

in your situation with the 'family' challenges and (as i recall) the 'city vibration' issues, i can see that tape could be a way to 'scratch the itch' wihtout jumping into vinyl.

PM me and we can connect if you'd like to talk in detail. there is a large tape culture in NYC that you can tap into.

Mike

I still have that Louis Armstrong album and have even been able to play it a few times at my house during audio club meetings when some members brought a TT.

It was indeed excellent. Mike you know I haven't given up on the idea but for now I am loving my Studer and the production of my head amp is almost finished

 

[microstrip]

Steve,

I presume that you are referring to my comment regarding the preamp. I only have suggested that because of all of the discussion on this forum and also reading amongst other places on line including the Tape Project where it has discussed and recommended to not only get one of the R2R tape machines modified to reach the "ultimate" performance but to also to get one of the recommended Tape Head Preamps for the best performance.

Rich

I use a Bottlehead Eros tube tape head preamplifier to listen to the Tape Project tapes in my A80. However an interesting option is just having the standard electronics modified with better quality components - if I am correct it is the approach of Bruce in his A80. The Studer machines are excellent for this type of modifications as the recording and playback amplifiers are modular - I recently bought two playback modules to modify, keeping the standard ones untouched for comparison.

 

[naturephoto1]

I use a Bottlehead Eros tube tape head preamplifier to listen to the Tape Project tapes in my A80. However an interesting option is just having the standard electronics modified with better quality components - if I am correct it is the approach of Bruce in his A80. The Studer machines are excellent for this type of modifications as the recording and playback amplifiers are modular - I recently bought two playback modules to modify, keeping the standard ones untouched for comparison.

Something to consider, but I would only have space for one of the better Prosumer RTR; I do not think that i could squeeze one of the Studio Quality machines in my room with all of the other components.

Rich

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I use a Bottlehead Eros tube tape head preamplifier to listen to the Tape Project tapes in my A80. However an interesting option is just having the standard electronics modified with better quality components - if I am correct it is the approach of Bruce in his A80. The Studer machines are excellent for this type of modifications as the recording and playback amplifiers are modular - I recently bought two playback modules to modify, keeping the standard ones untouched for comparison.

i use the King/Cello repro unit with my Studer A-820, which i love. Bruce thinks his stock A80 is best. stock A80's i've heard are not at the level of my Cello/A-820 to my ears but i've not heard Bruce's.

i also owned a dPV (Tim deParavicini) modified Technics RS-1700 that was very good.

there is the new tape repro unit from DeHaviland, and the Bottlehead units.

many ways to go to skin the cat. pretty much becoming like phono stages (in fact my King/Cello is also a world class phono stage). adding a great optimized analog output stage to an RTR deck pretty much takes you to audio Nirvana. having a great system, with great speakers and electronics puts you in a position to add something like this and have it all!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Since you decided to fade in the background, I will not address your strange baseline concept. But it is curious that the arguments I have used were based in the "Sound Reproduction" book of F. Toole. Happily real scientists usually have open minds even in faith matters...

I'm neither Frantz, nor Floyd Toole, but I can assure that if your argument, as I understand it, is that the unmixed, unprocessed, unmastered....unaltered tape recording of the "live feed" is somehow more natural or more accurate than the feed itself, and you've referring to Mr. Toole as support of that argument, you've misunderstood Mr. Toole.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I'm neither Frantz, nor Floyd Toole, but I can assure that if your argument, as I understand it, is that the unmixed, unprocessed, unmastered....unaltered tape recording of the "live feed" is somehow more natural or more accurate than the feed itself, and you've referring to Mr. Toole as support of that argument, you've misunderstood Mr. Toole.

Tim

Tim,

Please read the previous posts, specially #176 . I (and I think I can say some other people who addressed the subject) did not refer to accurate or natural (strange word !) as I was addressing perceptual factors, what I think you usually call preferences.

BTW, the full tittle of the F. Toole book is "Sound Reproduction - The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms".

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Please read the previous posts, specially #176 . I (and I think I can say some other people who addressed the subject) did not refer to accurate or natural (strange word !) as I was addressing perceptual factors, what I think you usually call preferences.

BTW, the full tittle of the F. Toole book is "Sound Reproduction - The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms".

I did read post #176 and that was, in fact, what my response was based upon. And I still think either you are misunderstanding Toole, or I am misunderstanding you, because Toole knows that a live feed from the microphones in the booth to the monitor system in the control room is, by definition is a purer representation of the performance happening in that booth than that same mic feed recorded onto tape then played back on the same monitor system. He understands that nothing can be added to exactly the same signal chain by the insertion of a generation of tape but compromise. Now if you're talking about a finished recording - after processing, mixing, mastering, etc, potentially being greater than the "live feed," yes that's quite common, but it's a completely different conversation.

Yes natural is a strange word, and about as useful as "musical." I used only because it is often used in this hobby as a substitute for more precise language, when precision doesn't support the argument being made.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

because Toole knows that a live feed from the microphones in the booth to the monitor system in the control room is, by definition is a purer representation of the performance happening in that booth than that same mic feed recorded onto tape then played back on the same monitor system. He understands that nothing can be added to exactly the same signal chain by the insertion of a generation of tape but compromise.

But even this thinking is flawed. Producers and Engineers choose the mic and recording chain on what THEY feel what it should sound like. So what is actually played and what is captured on the mic feed can be totally differenet.
Engineers choose a U47 for an upright bass and through a Neve mic pre and Sontec EQ and Pultec Comp before it even GETS to the monitor, much less the tape.

 

[mep]

To me, the words natural and musical are general terms used to describe how something sounds. I don't think they were intended to be used as a surgeon's scalpel to make precise cuts at descriptions. If someone says a system sounds musical, it means to me that the system is probably worth listening to. Ditto for natural. I view both of those terms as compliments to how a system sounds. Some systems don't sound musical or natural-they sound like crap (how's that for precise language?). Which words are needed at any given time to describe something audible depends on what type of information is either being asked or conveyed. The more precise the question, the more precise the answer.

Back to the original point of this thread: Is it too late for analog? My answer to that is only if you want it to be. There are more brand new LPs available for sale right now than the majority of people have money to buy. In other words, there is no shortage of music to go buy. There are also tons of brand new turntables, tonearms, cartridges, and phono sections for sale at all price points. If you like the sound of analog, there is no reason why it would be "too late" to get started. The only reason I think the argument for it being "too late" for analog would be if there was no source for new software and hardware and your only source for LPs was flea markets and Ebay. As far as I'm concerned, if you love the sound of analog, this is a great time to jump in.

 

[microstrip]

I did read post #176 and that was, in fact, what my response was based upon. And I still think either you are misunderstanding Toole, or I am misunderstanding you, because Toole knows that a live feed from the microphones in the booth to the monitor system in the control room is, by definition is a purer representation of the performance happening in that booth than that same mic feed recorded onto tape then played back on the same monitor system. He understands that nothing can be added to exactly the same signal chain by the insertion of a generation of tape but compromise. Now if you're talking about a finished recording - after processing, mixing, mastering, etc, potentially being greater than the "live feed," yes that's quite common, but it's a completely different conversation. (...)

Tim

If you read the opinions of Faulkner or Bruce they do not refer to purer representation, neither Toole in the pages I refer, neither me. I accepted their opinion as they formulated it - they had a better perception of the musical experience, better sound, call it what you like, through the tape.

If this happens a reason must exist and part of it should lie in the "tape processing". I used the Toole quotation to show that your "purer" is not the objective, neither the best sound reproduction. The previous sentence was "None of us ever placed our ears where the microphones were located to capture the sounds, nor would we want to, we were almost certainly at a distance, in an audience."

I repeat myself : IMHO, if reliable people find that an analog tape loop is better we should think why, not stating it is not possible.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But even this thinking is flawed. Producers and Engineers choose the mic and recording chain on what THEY feel what it should sound like. So what is actually played and what is captured on the mic feed can be totally differenet.
Engineers choose a U47 for an upright bass and through a Neve mic pre and Sontec EQ and Pultec Comp before it even GETS to the monitor, much less the tape.

Of course. That doesn't change the fact that the feed from the mics will only degrade when recorded to tape.

Tim

 

[mep]

At the risk of sounding off the wall again,

I offer that plain old stereo, ie two speakers, is such a weak representation of the actual event as far as reproduction (everything you hear between the speakers happens in your head processor...there needs to be a third center channel IMO, at the least),

that the distortions added by the LP process (less seperation, groove modulation and room pressurization effect and other things such as excessive dynamic swings and oscillating recoveries etc), including beloved tape (distortions there easily 2% and odd order for "bite and clarity") can and IMO do make it "sound better".

Analog does this. Digital does something different but not necessarily this IMO. So, not too late for analog or any other distortion generating device that can make the "sound" better or more exciting.

Tom

Here we go again. Analog sounds good because of all of the distortions mixing together. And yet another jab at stereo reproduction. Tom, why don't you start a binaural place on this forum and see how many people will join you. Maybe you could find a few guys and you could all trade the same ten or eleven binaural recordings that exist between you guys.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If you read the opinions of Faulkner or Bruce they do not refer to purer representation, neither Toole in the pages I refer, neither me. I accepted their opinion as they formulated it - they had a better perception of the musical experience, better sound, call it what you like, through the tape.

Are you talking about this?

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Many times we have taken the same exact source (either live or master tape) and recorded it in every know digital format all the way to 32/384kHz in PCM and DSD 128fs. Everytime we think the analog tape sounds better and gives a more relaxed, musical feeling.

...then you've misunderstood Bruce as well as Toole. He's talking about a preference for analog tape over any digital recording format, he's not saying that a tape recording of the mic feed is better than the mic feed itself. Or at least that's what he appears to be saying. Let's ask:

Bruce -- same mics, same positions, same instruments, played back through the same monitoring system. Are you saying it's better on tape than it is straight to the board?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Are you talking about this? (...)
Tim

No, Tim, I am not talking about this . Please read the thread again and do not change what I have said. Apologies if you do not understand it, the debate is now also finished for me.

From the text referred in post #160 :

"During the recording sessions we had plenty of time to do listening and I was not alone in being shaken how good and tuneful the analogue tape replay sounded compared with our 176k2/24 dCS + hard-disk replay. The funny thing was that if I graded A/B/C blind (that being A=direct before recording, B=after recording to analogue, C=after recording to pcm) I had consistently a marginal preference for the B (off analogue tape) rather than the direct. It was no simple mapping of fidelity or measurable response or dynamics. Using A/B/X the pcm scored well. But if you were more interested in Schumann than A/B/X absolute spectral replication then listening to long takes the A80 was the winner for me, for the producer and the pianist which surprised all three of us. "

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, Tim, I am not talking about this . Please read the thread again and do not change what I have said. Apologies if you do not understand it, the debate is now also finished for me.

From the text referred in post #160 :

"During the recording sessions we had plenty of time to do listening and I was not alone in being shaken how good and tuneful the analogue tape replay sounded compared with our 176k2/24 dCS + hard-disk replay. The funny thing was that if I graded A/B/C blind (that being A=direct before recording, B=after recording to analogue, C=after recording to pcm) I had consistently a marginal preference for the B (off analogue tape) rather than the direct. It was no simple mapping of fidelity or measurable response or dynamics. Using A/B/X the pcm scored well. But if you were more interested in Schumann than A/B/X absolute spectral replication then listening to long takes the A80 was the winner for me, for the producer and the pianist which surprised all three of us. "

My apologies, Micro, I re-read the post you pointed me to. This other one does, indeed, indicate that Bruce liked the tape better than the direct feed. He was surprised. I'm not. There are plenty of recording engineers out there who love the colorations of tape, of tube microphones, of analog boards, and even vinyl. If those colorations enhance the experience for them, I'm happy, but I didn't mean to "change what you said," micro. You referred me to post # 176, in which you said...

You seem to forget that the main objective of sound reproduction - to recreate the experience, not to make physics demos. Understanding the laws of physics should help us to do make it better, but as the physics has to be convoluted with psychoacosustics, you cannot apply the rule that the less the better. A better sound should be judged by a better recreation.

Let's slide past the physics snark, the slight twist on the old "You don't agree with me? You listen to charts!" argument. I don't take "reproduction" and "re-create" as substitutes for preference or perception. I take them on their meaning. YMMV. This is old ground. I'll withdraw now myself.

Tim