[PStamler]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:51:44 AM UTC-5, adam79 wrote:
Is it the Norelco Carry-Corder 150? I did some research; it was released in 1964.

Sounds right. It would have been a Philips in Europe.

Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:

Only *you* are claiming 100 years of obsolesence when they are still
selling in the hundreds of millions every year!
And have you heard about this great new thing we have now called the
internet where information is stored on millions of servers around the
world?

Information may be stored on millions of servers worldwide as a general
concept. Unfortunately, a *lot* of those files are only stored on one or
two servers and their backups. Potentially, all it takes is a slip of the
finger to lose that information for ever.

This particularly applies to music by relatively unknown bands.



Well the likes of www.fu-fme.com is no more, but remains available on at
least a few archive servers.

geoff

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:31 AM, Trevor wrote:
Not sure if
my CD player even works now, the drawer was a little sticky years ago, no
big deal now :-)

See! Pretty soon they'll all be like yours.

I expect all the ones made 20 years ago will be. But it can be fixed if it
was necessary. It's not. I have a hundred other ways to play/rip disks. That
doesn't look like ending any time soon. Will still happily bet it won't
before I'm dead.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
And have you heard about this great new thing we have now called the
internet where information is stored on millions of servers around the
world?

Information may be stored on millions of servers worldwide as a general
concept. Unfortunately, a *lot* of those files are only stored on one or
two servers and their backups. Potentially, all it takes is a slip of the
finger to lose that information for ever.

This particularly applies to music by relatively unknown bands.

Right, but we were talking about the Red Book specs for the data encoding,
not the music itself. I'm betting there is less chance of losing forever
music recorded these days, than happened with Edison cylinders though. Small
production numbers and many broken or thrown away meant many recordings are
gone forever. And it's probably worse with tape, since many tapes were
recorded over because of the cost of new tape.
Every media format has it's pro's and cons of course, but only digital
allows you to make an unlimited number of *identical* copies.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Steve King" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Pretty much sums up your attitude. Mike prefers something else, and
it's a "problem".

I have no issue with *whatever* he prefers, simply his attitude that
he is entitled to voice his preference, but no one else is entitled
to a different one.
Nor do I think much of your snide/pointless remarks for that matter.
But hey, if that's how you get your jollies, don't let me stop you,
sure don't bother me.

Your preference always seems to be attached to why someone else is stupid.
That's why we anxiously await your posts;-)

If you actually read them you'd realise I'm not the one who jumps in and
adds nothing but ad hominem attacks. I simply argue my case until someone
else adds nothing but a personal attack on me, for reasons known only to
them, or because they can't address the debate in any other way, but feel
left out if they don't!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
First off, nobody makes a CD player now.

Rubbish, you haven't looked too hard have you!

Actually... this brings up a question! I would like a standalone CD
player
that isn't crap and has a conventional tray (unlike the Sony rackmount
player
which sucks the disc in like a car transport).
Must be rackmount or rackable. What's in the shipping rack right now is
a
first generation Magnavox (the 14-bit 4x oversampling stuff) and while
it's
fine, it's been in regular use for a long time now.
Wired remote would be nice, but not essential.
Any suggestions? Please, no Gemini or Numark crap.

Yes the Tascam 500B also has slot load, why is that an issue though? Perhaps
the Tascam CD200iB? It's a tray.
A google search will turn up scores of alternatives however. Others may be
able to offer some first hand experience, I don't own anything recent.
But there are still plenty out there in various forms, especially those
aimed at DJ's.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/25/2013 3:03 AM, Trevor wrote:

Every media format has it's pro's and cons of course, but only digital
allows you to make an unlimited number of *identical* copies.

That's the most sensible thing you've said in this thread. But of course
those unlimited digital copies aren't going to make themselves. If you
have the only recordings of your band and you don't preserve them,
they'll probably go when you do.




--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Perrett]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:32:32 +0100, Mike Rivers wrote:


But any decent engineer with the coding system details could design one
from
scratch, just as many have done in the past.

Really? Can you give me an example? Given the number of different
technologies involved in making a CD player, I really doubt that any
single engineer or technician could make one. And what makes you so sure
that the "coding system details" will survive 100 years of obsolescence?


This thread just happened to remind me of a book on my shelf called
Compact Disc and Digital Audio Technology written by Sony's Eurpean
service centre which contained fairly comprehensive details of CD, DAT,
DASH, EIAJ and PCM1610 formats. Since this looks as good as new after 25
years, it should last another 100 years easily (if it doesn't get thrown
away).

Technology moves on so we won't necessarily need lasers or magnetic heads
to read these things in 100 years - just, with the advent of lasers, as we
no longer need needles to play discs or cylinders.

James.

--
http://www.jrpmusic.net

[James Perrett]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:07:31 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:


It's amazing, though, how many of the first generation of CD-R discs have
already failed and are no longer playable.
--scott

Are you talking about Taiyo Yuden discs that have been properly stored or
are you talking about the manufacturers that came along after Taiyo Yuden?
I've not had any problems with genuine Taiyo Yuden discs but some of the
discs that came along in the late 90's were pretty dire.

James.
--
http://www.jrpmusic.net

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
James Perrett wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:07:31 +0100, Scott Dorsey wrote:


It's amazing, though, how many of the first generation of CD-R discs have
already failed and are no longer playable.

Are you talking about Taiyo Yuden discs that have been properly stored or
are you talking about the manufacturers that came along after Taiyo Yuden?
I've not had any problems with genuine Taiyo Yuden discs but some of the
discs that came along in the late 90's were pretty dire.

Of the two failures, one was a Cassette House brand and I'm not sure what
the other was. The Cassette House blanks were $10 when the major brands were
selling for $25 and up. Both were 63 minute ones.

I'm not sure when I first started seeing T-Y and Mitsui blanks. For a while
I was using a lot of the Verbatims which had higher initial error rates but
claimed better lifetime in accelerated aging tests.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

James Perrett wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:32:32 +0100, Mike Rivers wrote:


But any decent engineer with the coding system details could design one
from
scratch, just as many have done in the past.

Really? Can you give me an example? Given the number of different
technologies involved in making a CD player, I really doubt that any
single engineer or technician could make one. And what makes you so sure
that the "coding system details" will survive 100 years of obsolescence?


This thread just happened to remind me of a book on my shelf called
Compact Disc and Digital Audio Technology written by Sony's Eurpean
service centre which contained fairly comprehensive details of CD, DAT,
DASH, EIAJ and PCM1610 formats. Since this looks as good as new after 25
years, it should last another 100 years easily (if it doesn't get thrown
away).

Technology moves on so we won't necessarily need lasers or magnetic heads
to read these things in 100 years - just, with the advent of lasers, as we
no longer need needles to play discs or cylinders.

Don't believe the publicity, really good laser playback of discs and
cylinders is still a dream.

Nobody has yet been able to tell me how a laser is supposed to
distinguish between the layer of dirt on the surface and the harder
material beneath it, which contains the actual recording. That is one
of several reasons why laser playback has been showing great promise for
at least the last 10 years but has never fulfilled it in practice.

The best optical playback of a cylinder that I have heard so far was
part of a PhD project at Southampton University, but it was a brand new
cylinder and the playing and processing took 2 months.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/25/2013 9:20 AM, James Perrett wrote:

This thread just happened to remind me of a book on my shelf called
Compact Disc and Digital Audio Technology written by Sony's Eurpean
service centre which contained fairly comprehensive details of CD, DAT,
DASH, EIAJ and PCM1610 formats. Since this looks as good as new after 25
years, it should last another 100 years easily (if it doesn't get thrown
away).

I have far more confidence in the survival of print media than of
digital media.

Technology moves on so we won't necessarily need lasers or magnetic
heads to read these things in 100 years - just, with the advent of
lasers, as we no longer need needles to play discs or cylinders.

There really hasn't been too much success with laser playing of
phonograph disks. The concept has been proven but the signal-to-noise
ratio isn't very good. And this is on a medium where an analog
representation of the data is visible to the naked eye. Maybe it's just
me and my observation of obsolete technology over the last 50 years, but
I just don't have much faith in anyone taking the initiative to build
something to read CDs 100 years from now, much less having good success
in actually playing them.

We can only speculate, but history, I think, is on my side here.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

I just don't have much faith in anyone taking the initiative to build
something to read CDs 100 years from now, much less having
success in actually playing them.

I think you're being overly pessimistic.

As the demand for physical media declines, there will be a movement to collect
"everything ever published" and store it in an accessible form -- probably on
solid-state drives or those "laser cubes" we keep hearing about, but never
see.

[PStamler]

I know there are seed repositories, preserving plant biodiversity against the possibility of worldwide catastrophe, either natural or human-caused. I've thought for a while that there should be similar repositories of technical books on all topics, from how to grow wheat to how to make steel to how to make a CD player. Those books should be in some form that resists degradation, and doesn't require pre-existing technology to rad them. (In other words, if they're stored on hard drives, you'd need to have a manual on how to read and decode, say .pdfs. If that manual was on the drive, you'd be SOL.)

Storage on *paper*, in a helium atmosphere at low temp & controlled humidity, would probably work. Or archivally-processes microfiche. There are more possibilities, but somebody should be thinking about this.

Peace,
Paul

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 4/25/2013 3:03 AM, Trevor wrote:
Every media format has it's pro's and cons of course, but only digital
allows you to make an unlimited number of *identical* copies.

That's the most sensible thing you've said in this thread.

One up on you then! :-)

But of course those unlimited digital copies aren't going to make
themselves. If you have the only recordings of your band and you don't
preserve them, they'll probably go when you do.

Possibly, just as many old analog recordings have done. Can't say I'll be
too worried after I'm gone.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Steve King" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Pretty much sums up your attitude. Mike prefers something else, and
it's a "problem".

I have no issue with *whatever* he prefers, simply his attitude that
he is entitled to voice his preference, but no one else is entitled
to a different one.
Nor do I think much of your snide/pointless remarks for that matter.
But hey, if that's how you get your jollies, don't let me stop you,
sure don't bother me.

Your preference always seems to be attached to why someone else is stupid.
That's why we anxiously await your posts;-)

If you actually read them you'd realise I'm not the one who jumps in and
adds nothing but ad hominem attacks. I simply argue my case until someone
else adds nothing but a personal attack on me, for reasons known only to
them, or because they can't address the debate in any other way, but feel
left out if they don't!

Trevor.

There is no "case" for your opinion when you feel as if you must trash
Mike or anyone else here for enjoying analog recording. **** that ****.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

James Perrett wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:32:32 +0100, Mike Rivers wrote:


But any decent engineer with the coding system details could design one
from
scratch, just as many have done in the past.

Really? Can you give me an example? Given the number of different
technologies involved in making a CD player, I really doubt that any
single engineer or technician could make one. And what makes you so sure
that the "coding system details" will survive 100 years of obsolescence?


This thread just happened to remind me of a book on my shelf called
Compact Disc and Digital Audio Technology written by Sony's Eurpean
service centre which contained fairly comprehensive details of CD, DAT,
DASH, EIAJ and PCM1610 formats. Since this looks as good as new after 25
years, it should last another 100 years easily (if it doesn't get thrown
away).

Technology moves on so we won't necessarily need lasers or magnetic heads
to read these things in 100 years - just, with the advent of lasers, as we
no longer need needles to play discs or cylinders.

Don't believe the publicity, really good laser playback of discs and
cylinders is still a dream.

Nobody has yet been able to tell me how a laser is supposed to
distinguish between the layer of dirt on the surface and the harder
material beneath it, which contains the actual recording. That is one
of several reasons why laser playback has been showing great promise for
at least the last 10 years but has never fulfilled it in practice.

The best optical playback of a cylinder that I have heard so far was
part of a PhD project at Southampton University, but it was a brand new
cylinder and the playing and processing took 2 months.

A postgrad lesson in delayed gratification.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
There is no "case" for your opinion when you feel as if you must trash
Mike or anyone else here for enjoying analog recording.


Unlike you I don't attack the person, I simply state an opnion. If you don't
like that opinion, fine. But simply attacking me without adding anything
constructive, or even stating why you don't agree with that opinion, says a
lot more about you than it does about me! Especially when you think there is
"no case" for anyone elses "opinion" if it doesn't match yours. Are you
serious? Unfortunately I think you are.

**** that ****.

And yours!!

Trevor.

[Luxey]

On Thursday, 25 April 2013 16:22:50 UTC+2, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
James Perrett wrote:

Nobody has yet been able to tell me how a laser is supposed to

distinguish between the layer of dirt on the surface and the harder

material beneath it, which contains the actual recording. That is one

of several reasons why laser playback has been showing great promise for

at least the last 10 years but has never fulfilled it in practice.

Did not follow whole discussion, so this may come off topic ...

Laser beam has it's wavelength, and lense it goes through has it's focal point. That's how. It does not read anything that's not in focal point, because other things does not put reflected beam in proper phase. At least that's how I'd do it.
Why do you exclude CD and DVD technology, or you think it's nothing to do with lasers?

[Luxey]

On Friday, 26 April 2013 10:09:47 UTC+2, Luxey wrote:

Why do you exclude CD and DVD technology, or you think it's nothing to do with lasers?

Sorry for above sentence, now I see what the discussion evolved to.

I still stand behind "the wavelength/ focal pont" idea.

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Don't believe the publicity, really good laser playback of discs and
cylinders is still a dream.

Nobody has yet been able to tell me how a laser is supposed to
distinguish between the layer of dirt on the surface and the harder
material beneath it, which contains the actual recording. That is one
of several reasons why laser playback has been showing great promise for
at least the last 10 years but has never fulfilled it in practice.

It's not THAT bad. I have access to a Finial and it's a handy thing for
worn records. You're right that it is absolutely terrible about rejecting
noise from any dirt or debris, but impulse noise reduction has become pretty
good in the past decade.

What is cool about it is that you can play back one section of a groove wall,
so with very worn 78s it's often possible to find one section with
comparatively low distortion, something you can't really do effectively with
a stylus.

My inclination is to set the playback system up for lowest distortion, even
at the cost of noise, because you can deal with the noise to some extent in
post-processing and you can't deal with the distortion issues.

The best optical playback of a cylinder that I have heard so far was
part of a PhD project at Southampton University, but it was a brand new
cylinder and the playing and processing took 2 months.

It gets better every day. A decade ago I would never have expected that
to work at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:

Unlike you I don't attack the person, I simply state an opnion. If you don't
like that opinion, fine. But simply attacking me without adding anything
constructive, or even stating why you don't agree with that opinion, says a
lot more about you than it does about me! Especially when you think there is
"no case" for anyone elses "opinion" if it doesn't match yours. Are you
serious? Unfortunately I think you are.

Sure, Trevor, but you state that opinion as if it was gospel, you ridicule
others for holding other opinions, and you beat people over the head with
your opinion even when it's only vaguely related to the subject of the thread.

This makes it almost impossible to discuss analogue recording here because
you interrupt the threads and start talking about how terrible analogue
recording is. We've heard all that before, we don't need to hear it again.

You're welcome to hold your opinion, that's fine. Just please stop beating
other people over the head with it and interrupting conversations to inject it.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Don't believe the publicity, really good laser playback of discs and
cylinders is still a dream.

Nobody has yet been able to tell me how a laser is supposed to
distinguish between the layer of dirt on the surface and the harder
material beneath it, which contains the actual recording. That is one
of several reasons why laser playback has been showing great promise for
at least the last 10 years but has never fulfilled it in practice.

It's not THAT bad. I have access to a Finial and it's a handy thing for
worn records. You're right that it is absolutely terrible about rejecting
noise from any dirt or debris, but impulse noise reduction has become pretty
good in the past decade.

I saw the first demonstration of the Finial in the UK. It was being
sold as the answer to an archivist's dream (contactless playback) but
the designer had only allowed for 12" and 7" records at 33.3 and 45 rpm
with the reflectivity of vinyl. Apparently nobody had told him that an
archive might contain 78s made of shellac and other compounds, recorded
at any speed from 1rpm to 120 rpm and any size from 3" up to 21" in
diameter.

If it now plays 78s, that is a big improvement, but impulse noise
reduction is only allowed for the 'playback' copy, not for the 'archive'
copy.


What is cool about it is that you can play back one section of a groove wall,
so with very worn 78s it's often possible to find one section with
comparatively low distortion, something you can't really do effectively with
a stylus.

I've been doing that quite effectively for well over a decade by using
different sized styli and analogue switching.

The really clever trick would be to use the whole length of the recorded
groove to work out the averge cross-section and, from that, deduce the
profile of the cutter. Then the samples at various positions on the
groove wall could be weighted according to how well they corresponded to
the cutter profile, so that any damage caused by needle playback and
suface scratches could be eliminated.


My inclination is to set the playback system up for lowest distortion, even
at the cost of noise, because you can deal with the noise to some extent in
post-processing and you can't deal with the distortion issues.

I have often wondered whether it would be possible to make a practical
way of reverse-engineering some forms of waveform distortion. In theory
anything except hard clipping ought to be reversible, but in practice it
would be very difficult to do. If done exactly right, it ought to undo
the intermodulation distortion too - there's something to ponder over.


The best optical playback of a cylinder that I have heard so far was
part of a PhD project at Southampton University, but it was a brand new
cylinder and the playing and processing took 2 months.

It gets better every day. A decade ago I would never have expected that
to work at all.

It was certainly an ambitious project, but the results were quite good.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor
wrote:
Unlike you I don't attack the person, I simply state an opnion. If you
don't
like that opinion, fine. But simply attacking me without adding anything
constructive, or even stating why you don't agree with that opinion, says
a
lot more about you than it does about me! Especially when you think there
is
"no case" for anyone elses "opinion" if it doesn't match yours. Are you
serious? Unfortunately I think you are.

Sure, Trevor, but you state that opinion as if it was gospel,

I state it no differently than you, or others here do. It just doesn't match
the Analog Audio Advocacy guidlelines you and a few others adhere to.


you ridicule others for holding other opinions,

That's a bit rich! I have never done so except in reply to others, unlike
Hank who doesn't even bother with the discussion, goes straight to the
ridicule!


and you beat people over the head with your opinion even when it's only
vaguely related to the subject of the thread.

Also a bit rich coming from you! Your irony detectector needs work.


This makes it almost impossible to discuss analogue recording here because
you interrupt the threads and start talking about how terrible analogue
recording is.

What a load of crap, I haven't even said that, (analog was sure better than
nothing in it's day!) and I've never started a "digital is better than
analog" thread, unlike all those in the Analog Audio Advocacy group who
should simply start a new AAA news group IMO.


We've heard all that before, we don't need to hear it again.

Ditto!!!

You're welcome to hold your opinion, that's fine. Just please stop
beating
other people over the head with it and interrupting conversations to
inject it.

Ditto!!!

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor
wrote:
Unlike you I don't attack the person, I simply state an opnion. If you
don't
like that opinion, fine. But simply attacking me without adding anything
constructive, or even stating why you don't agree with that opinion, says
a
lot more about you than it does about me! Especially when you think there
is
"no case" for anyone elses "opinion" if it doesn't match yours. Are you
serious? Unfortunately I think you are.

Sure, Trevor, but you state that opinion as if it was gospel,

I state it no differently than you, or others here do. It just doesn't match
the Analog Audio Advocacy guidlelines you and a few others adhere to.


you ridicule others for holding other opinions,

That's a bit rich! I have never done so except in reply to others, unlike
Hank who doesn't even bother with the discussion, goes straight to the
ridicule!


and you beat people over the head with your opinion even when it's only
vaguely related to the subject of the thread.

Also a bit rich coming from you! Your irony detectector needs work.


This makes it almost impossible to discuss analogue recording here because
you interrupt the threads and start talking about how terrible analogue
recording is.

What a load of crap, I haven't even said that, (analog was sure better than
nothing in it's day!) and I've never started a "digital is better than
analog" thread, unlike all those in the Analog Audio Advocacy group who
should simply start a new AAA news group IMO.


We've heard all that before, we don't need to hear it again.

Ditto!!!

You're welcome to hold your opinion, that's fine. Just please stop
beating
other people over the head with it and interrupting conversations to
inject it.

Ditto!!!

Trevor.

Scott is way too kind with an asshole the likes of you.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor
wrote:
Unlike you I don't attack the person, I simply state an opnion. If you
don't
like that opinion, fine. But simply attacking me without adding
anything
constructive, or even stating why you don't agree with that opinion,
says
a
lot more about you than it does about me! Especially when you think
there
is
"no case" for anyone elses "opinion" if it doesn't match yours. Are you
serious? Unfortunately I think you are.

Sure, Trevor, but you state that opinion as if it was gospel,

I state it no differently than you, or others here do. It just doesn't
match
the Analog Audio Advocacy guidlelines you and a few others adhere to.


you ridicule others for holding other opinions,

That's a bit rich! I have never done so except in reply to others, unlike
Hank who doesn't even bother with the discussion, goes straight to the
ridicule!


and you beat people over the head with your opinion even when it's only
vaguely related to the subject of the thread.

Also a bit rich coming from you! Your irony detectector needs work.


This makes it almost impossible to discuss analogue recording here
because
you interrupt the threads and start talking about how terrible analogue
recording is.

What a load of crap, I haven't even said that, (analog was sure better
than
nothing in it's day!) and I've never started a "digital is better than
analog" thread, unlike all those in the Analog Audio Advocacy group who
should simply start a new AAA news group IMO.


We've heard all that before, we don't need to hear it again.

Ditto!!!

You're welcome to hold your opinion, that's fine. Just please stop
beating
other people over the head with it and interrupting conversations to
inject it.

Ditto!!!

Scott is way too kind with an asshole the likes of you.

And you'll never change Hank, that's the best you can do, but still have to
chime in of course.
Asshole would be far too nice a description of your antics.

Trevor.

[philip minehan]

Originally Posted by jazzbo

Good morning all,

Is there anyone doing live (classical/jazz) recording using reel to reel tape stuff? I'm just asking. Thanks for all responses.

jazzbo

I'm in a Jazz trio in Melbourne Australia. Our bass player has old 2 and 8 track reel to reel equipt that he tapes us with.
I'm personally into the modern technology (Logic 9 on a Mac) due to its capabilities and user friendliness and had always scoffed at his old 'clunkers'. We also record from other digital devices (Zoom).
Despite my scepticism of his old analogue Reel to Reels I find they give a much warmer, more luscious (for want of a better word 'gorgeous') sound than the digital devices. I find the digital recording in comparison to be dry and 'clinical'. After band sessions the band listen to his initial recordings rather than the digital recordings.(I then take away the digital recording for further processing).
However with post production and editing requirements, obviously digital wins hands down. One's work rate is improved exponentially in the computer environment and with various EQ plug-ins in Logic 9 we do end up with a comparable 'luscious' sound/product.
But if your bands good enough and you were confident you aren't going to require any post production or editing I'd just go with the old Reel to Reel option.
(ps. Tapes are getting hard to get, relatively expensive and they corrode)
"Music is the Best". FZ