Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Best regards, -DJ |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
"DJ" wrote in message
... Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Best regards, The one definitive comparison I've had is the Verdi Requiem played by The Philadelphia Orchestra under the direction of Eugene Ormandy, and featuring Maureen Forrester, Richard Tucker, and George London along with the Westminster Choir. I own both the double length 7-1/2 ips Columbia Stereo Tape, and the Stereo SACD, which was among the early Columbia releases of this technology. I did a careful comparison of the two in the early days of SACD (2002), along with reviews of LP vs SACD and CD vs SACD, as well as a review of the Sony XA222ES SACD player itself. Here is the excerpt from the tape comparison: "The Verdi Requiem with Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra is one of the most beautiful of pieces of music ever written, IMO. The performance is ravishing. I have long owned the 7 1/2 ips prerecorded tape....the SACD is more transparent (I calculate the tape is probably a fourth or fifth generation) and somewhat flatter and more "neutral" in tonality. The tape has a nice fat midrange that is probably an artifact of the several generations of copying..but is ravishing nonetheless. On balance I prefer the tape by a smidge, but consider the SACD as probably more accurate and certainly superb and musical in its own right." Hope this helps. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:25 -0700, DJ wrote
(in article ): Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Best regards, -DJ Good master R-R tapes recorded half-track at 15"/sec from good microphones are very good indeed. Quarter-track commercially available R-R tapes, on the other hand, are generally recorded at 7.5"/sec and since they are copies of copies usually are very noisy compared to CD (unless they are encoded with Dolby "B" or DBX noise reduction, but those systems are not without their problems either), Commercial R-R tapes generally lack good high-frequency extension, were usually duplicated on cheaper tape formulations that tended to shed oxide after a while, and broke easily. I don't know if any new or recently mastered R-R tapes are available today or not, but if so, I suspect that they are much better than the stuff produced during R-R's heyday. But I would also expect them to be expensive, and for what it's worth, you'd be better off sticking to CD. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
On Sep 30, 6:48*pm, "DJ" wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? *If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? *Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Best regards, -DJ Assuming that you are referring to consumer 4-track 1/4" reel-to-reel machines,they have reasonable quality, at least in a historical context. Compared to modern digital recordings, they have a significantly higher noise level, considerably more distortion with high signal levels and a much more uneven frequency response, especially at the low end. Playback through speakers is reasonably good but noise can be problematic with headphones, especially for classical recordings. Overall quality is noticeably better than most cassette decks. Note that professional tape recorders provide significantly improved results, especially when running at 15 or 30 ips compared to the 3.75 or 7.5 ips speeds of consumer units. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
DJ wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Best regards, I own about 30 reel-to-reel tapes, some dating to the early 60s, some to the Dolby B days of Barclay-Crocker. They all sound just fine, except the early acetate tape ones that have frilled. I've never heard a master tape. The tapes, even the B-C ones, hiss. But other than that, they lack the crap that the LP provides ... no clicks, pops, and scratch. I like the tapes better than the typical commercial LP. I have a good enough ... not super expensive, but a good Thorens and an old Shure V-15 ... LP setup that the very best audiophile LPs played only a few times ... sound as good. There are many, many cases on major labels where the tapes have music that is mostly missing from the LPs: that is, the bass.B-C remastered and did it right. The tapes in general are inferior to CD reissues of the same material, except where some bozo used the LP master tape to make the released CD, and it has no bass. The bottom line is that I am have felt no need to buy CDs or MP3s of performances I have on tape that is not acetate. I just rip the tapes to my computer. Doug McDonald |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
jwvm wrote:
Assuming that you are referring to consumer 4-track 1/4" reel-to-reel machines,they have reasonable quality, at least in a historical context. Compared to modern digital recordings, they have a significantly higher noise level, considerably more distortion with high signal levels and a much more uneven frequency response, especially at the low end. Playback through speakers is reasonably good but noise can be problematic with headphones, especially for classical recordings. Overall quality is noticeably better than most cassette decks. Yep. For a decent quarter track consumer deck in top operating condition (not likely) and running at 7.5 ips, expect a FR of about 40 to 18 Khz within a 3 dB range with less than 3% THD and 0.03 % wow and flutter at a level of about -10 VU. These were once respectable figures, and if you listen casually, it's acceptable. At 3 3/4 speed you are better off with a "high end" cassette deck, and that is not saying much. For maximum enjoyment, a half track running at 15 ips is very good, but very expensive to use in that your tape time is significantly reduced. Beware of any "old" tape: even the good formulations are hit and miss. A new 10" reel will set you back about $50 USD, maybe more, but maybe less if you buy them by the dozen. Never try and get an old consumer deck repaired (and they all need repair) unless you are serious about finding someone who can do the work. You get what you pay for, and you will pay a lot. That being said, you can usually get a Teac, Pioneer, or Technics serviced properly, somewhere. I'm not sure about ReVox. Last time I looked, a B-77 overhaul from Studer cost as much as the machine, new. And Studer is probably not interested in working on them, anymore. They used to have a service center in Nashville; I've no idea what they are up to, now. On the upside, they look pretty cool in a system, and are a reminder of an era when hi-fi was actually something most people were interested in. Michael |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
Sonnova wrote:
DJ wrote Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Good master R-R tapes recorded half-track at 15"/sec from good microphones are very good indeed. Quarter-track commercially available R-R tapes, on the other hand, are generally recorded at 7.5"/sec and since they are copies of copies usually are very noisy compared to CD (unless they are encoded with Dolby "B" or DBX noise reduction, but those systems are not without their problems either), Commercial R-R tapes generally lack good high-frequency extension, were usually duplicated on cheaper tape formulations that tended to shed oxide after a while, and broke easily. I.e. it was basically crap. I don't know if any new or recently mastered R-R tapes are available today or not, but if so, I suspect that they are much better than the stuff produced during R-R's heyday. But I would also expect them to be expensive, and for what it's worth, you'd be better off sticking to CD. You can barely buy tape anymore ! Even the pros are having trouble getting anything of decent quality since Ampex/Quantegy went down. Graham |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
DJ wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? You mean home 1/4" ( 2 track or 1/4 track) ? If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Very inferior (except maybe for the vinyl). Graham |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
jwvm wrote:
"DJ" wrote: Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Assuming that you are referring to consumer 4-track 1/4" reel-to-reel machines,they have reasonable quality, at least in a historical context. Compared to modern digital recordings, they have a significantly higher noise level, considerably more distortion with high signal levels and a much more uneven frequency response, especially at the low end. Playback through speakers is reasonably good but noise can be problematic with headphones, especially for classical recordings. Overall quality is noticeably better than most cassette decks. Note that professional tape recorders provide significantly improved results, especially when running at 15 or 30 ips compared to the 3.75 or 7.5 ips speeds of consumer units. I know a London studio with an Ampex ATR100 (probably the pinnacle of pro mastering machines) that has a ONE INCH stereo headblock. That's 1/2" of tape for each track and it does 30 ips. Even that barely gets used now. Graham |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
On Sep 30, 6:48*pm, "DJ" wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? *If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? *Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Best regards, -DJ I keep a Revox A77 - as it happens, the "road-deck" version with the built-in speakers and amps - not a bad machine at 7.5ips and capable of some very good recordings using only the on-board mike & line inputs. Pre-recorded commercial consumer-level tapes are markedly inferior to contemporary vinyl - even some high-end cassette offerings as very few of them incorporated any sort of noise reduction systems. Accordingly, I would not invest in such a machine to play commercially recorded tapes *UNLESS* you have a trove of them and need that capacity. I barely use the Revox (and, yes, it is in very good shape, capped, calibrated, biased and aligned) - maybe once or twice *per year* and then only because I can. I also have a Revox cassette deck which gets about the same amount of use for about the same purposes - other than I can rip a cassette for my wife's car if she wants one. My car has a CD player, only, as does the camper. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:25 -0700, DJ wrote (in article ): Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience. Best regards, -DJ Good master R-R tapes recorded half-track at 15"/sec from good microphones are very good indeed. Quarter-track commercially available R-R tapes, on the other hand, are generally recorded at 7.5"/sec and since they are copies of copies usually are very noisy compared to CD (unless they are encoded with Dolby "B" or DBX noise reduction, but those systems are not without their problems either), Commercial R-R tapes generally lack good high-frequency extension, were usually duplicated on cheaper tape formulations that tended to shed oxide after a while, and broke easily. I don't know if any new or recently mastered R-R tapes are available today or not, but if so, I suspect that they are much better than the stuff produced during R-R's heyday. But I would also expect them to be expensive, and for what it's worth, you'd be better off sticking to CD. For a the better part of a decade (the 1960's), I bought commercial R-R tapes (1/4", four-track) in preference to LPs, mostly caught up by R. D. Darrell's reviews in High Fidelity magazine. At first I had a nice Ampex deck, and later replaced it with a Revox. As that medium disappeared, I went back to LPs. I kept that tape collection until a few years ago. My experience, in general, was that the LPs had better high frequency extension and sometimes better bass. The tapes had a more stable stereo image and a full, solid mid range that was quite attractive. The background hiss on the tapes didn't bother me as much as the cracks and pops on my LPs, despite a meticulous effort at LP cleaning with a Nitty Gritty machine. Some of the Barclay-Crocker tapes were quite good, but the majority of the R-R commercial tapes were made by Ampex, and their average was lower, I thought. After CDs came out, I had a chance to compare recordings in all three formats. Some of the first CDs were not re-mastered very well, I thought; but as CDs improved, I preferred the new format to both of the older ones. I would not advise buying R-R tape equipment and old R-R tapes in hopes of catching some of the old magic. It has been surpassed, I think. Best wishes, Ed Presson |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Where does a good reel-to-reel recording compare?
"DJ" wrote in message
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? Decades of it, mostly with semi-pro reel-to-reel, but some with pro gear as well. If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Cassette is the worst. If nothing else gets you, then the modulation noise will. Vinyl is only a little better, all things considered. If wear wasn't a problem, then it would be much better than cassette. 7.5 ips quarter track is better than vinyl but not all that transparent. 15 ips half-track (pro RTR tape) is almost sonically transparent if carefully used. If carelessly used within bounds, or used for effect, 15 ips half-track can be euphonic. 16/44 digital done right is completely sonically transparent and even a little ways into overkill. All *higher resolution* forms of digital are just more overkill, or provide more latitude for screw-ups. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|