The Reel-to-Reel Tape vs LP Paradox

[MylesBAstor]

There's been something happening here as I continue to upgrade my tape front-end. Tapes that were so-so all of a sudden start to bloom as the equipment is improved. Some tapes that were veiled, murky, average transparency, closed-in all of sudden sound magical. And great tapes become aural heaven.

Funny thing is that I don't necessarily find or experience the same sort of improvements with the turntable front-end. Here good albums continue to improve but average albums continue to sound well average. What gives or am I crazy?

[Skylab]

Well, there is that point of diminishing returns on every curve in Audio reproduction. When I got my current (now for over 5 years!) vinyl playback system, it was a noticeable step up from what I had, but the final piece, an upgraded phono pre, didn't yield as big a difference in several tries as I had imagined it might after I went to the Benz LP-Smr cartridge.

But I was somewhat surprised how much better my Studer A807 sounded than my Tascam BR-20. Both were calibrated and aligned but the Studer was also recapped. I'm having the BR-20 fully redone and then we will see. So I guess my experience, although on a lower level and more limited base than yours, is somewhat similar. For me though all of my 15 ips 2-track RTRs - the two mentioned and a Revox B77MkII and a Tascam 3030 - all sound pretty fantastic almost all the time

[dminches]

Neither your or Rob's comments surprise me. It seems like tape has the most information which can be revealed by system changes. At least that's what my ears tell me for my system.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Could it be a case as well whereby tape gear hasn't matured as much as vinyl gear?

[Joe Pittman]

Could it be a case as well whereby tape gear hasn't matured as much as vinyl gear?

I have given this thread a lot of thought and I would agree John that maturity is a significant factor. I would describe this variable as evolution rather than revolution. Tape has not had the intense attention that vinyl has had especially in recent years. I would say that tape stopped serious evolution after the Studer A820 time period. If tape continued to evolve since then and with a "DARPA" sized budget, tape would be even more amazing. Products like the external preamps such as Doshi, etc., are moving the medium forward.

[Rust]

Not really a surprise as development of turntables/arms/cartridges/phono-preamps has been a continuous process while further development of pro/prosumer/consumer R2Rs pretty much stopped in the late 70s. Basically thirty years of new and improved technology is being applied to the 30+ year old base machines.
This reflects on not only the improvements made, but the initial build quality of the original decks.

[Joe Pittman]

There's been something happening here as I continue to upgrade my tape front-end. Tapes that were so-so all of a sudden start to bloom as the equipment is improved. Some tapes that were veiled, murky, average transparency, closed-in all of sudden sound magical. And great tapes become aural heaven.

Funny thing is that I don't necessarily find or experience the same sort of improvements with the turntable front-end. Here good albums continue to improve but average albums continue to sound well average. What gives or am I crazy?

Myles, as I improve my vinyl system, previous poor recordings/pressings get better. Turning lemons into lemonade.

1. Tape has the highest resolution. I think there is a fairly big gap between vinyl and tape as it regards absolute resolution or data. IMHO, tape has the highest real data storage compared to vinyl and digital at this moment in time. You can only go so far with poor LP's. If you are starting with more potential resolution with a poor tape, maybe get a bigger gap in performance with tape.

2. There are several major advantages to tape as Myles has pointed out before. Vinyl is a much more mechanical process involving plain old physics. The vinyl transducer, the stylus is subject to limitations due to mass and it's maximum acceleration, which limits the leading edge/transients of music etc.

3. Tape and vinyl are fundamentally different in how they work over time. Tape is constant tape speed or CLV technology (constant linear velocity) and much easier to maintain near perfect speed and pitch stability with it's capstan refinement. Vinyl on the other hand rotates at a fixed speed in what is called CAV technology (constant angular velocity) which results in the stylus seeing a constantly varying linear speed from the outside-to-inside groove. A signals physical length gets shorter as it approaches the inner groove (less resolution/data). It's almost impossible to accurately mimic the original cutting lathe speed at any point in time. You could say vinyl is never actually at the correct speed... Tape is more pitch perfect and stable over time. Where most music hits its climax at the end, vinyl is at it's worst performance capability (inner grooves), whereas tape is still at it's best.

Vinyl compared to tape is apples and oranges.

[jonathanb]

While tape has a higher resolution ceiling, vinyl has an advantage in that a 65 year old LP can be played without fear of it decomposing.

[Bruce B]

Tape, stored correctly, will have no loss....

[Marcus]

How do you store tapes correctly Bruce? Can't they be put on the same shelf as LP's?

[Rob]

There's been something happening here as I continue to upgrade my tape front-end. Tapes that were so-so all of a sudden start to bloom as the equipment is improved. Some tapes that were veiled, murky, average transparency, closed-in all of sudden sound magical. And great tapes become aural heaven.

Funny thing is that I don't necessarily find or experience the same sort of improvements with the turntable front-end. Here good albums continue to improve but average albums continue to sound well average. What gives or am I crazy?

this reads more like a rhetorical question, I think we all know the answer in absolute terms, tape is better than vinyl and at the highest level the disparity is even greater. I think there are many well founded and accepted technical explanations for this and if your vinyl is cut from tape--as most are--its now just a copy of a copy with all of vinyl's shortcomings piled on top.

This isn't what some 'philes like too hear because they've spent so much time and money reaching their own apex of vinyl appreciation. I've been chasing vinyl rainbows for a long time, with all manner of vinyl playback set-ups and everyone of them has brought many hours of sonic bliss. when access to good tape repro entered the scene (for me) all bets were off, tape is just so much closer to the real thing.

[Joe Pittman]

I wanted to point out that ultimate LP potential is with direct-to-disc with no tape recording and thus no multi-generation losses. However, LP's limitations of CAV versus tapes CLV and the mechanical limitations of LP's due to physics and other factors, even the best LP can't match the best tape.

It isn't a paradox so much as it is a question of compromises and economy.

[defdum&blind]

Joe, post #10 makes me think about the Sheffield reissues from a backup tape recorded at the original direct to disc sessions. The qualifier "best tape" may not have been the case in the Treasury reissues. The example I could use is the Dave Grusin reissue which I found ordinary. Also would a vinyl disc read by a laser eliminate mechanical limitations?

[astrotoy]

I wanted to point out that ultimate LP potential is with direct-to-disc with no tape recording and thus no multi-generation losses. However, LP's limitations of CAV versus tapes CLV and the mechanical limitations of LP's due to physics and other factors, even the best LP can't match the best tape.

It isn't a paradox so much as it is a question of compromises and economy.

Agree with Joe's comments and Johnny's. A few fine points and elaborations.

First, commercial tape releases from the '50's to late '70s (7.5ips 4 track stereo) have many shortcomings that are different from vinyl, but nonetheless lower the quality. They are closer to apples to apples with regular vinyl, certainly closer in the much larger number of titles and the price (only two or three times the retail price of the equivalent record). I only have accumulated a fair number of classical tapes, but from what I have accumulated, it appears that for the big labels, they released most albums in both vinyl and R2R in the late '50's to the late '70's.

Second, Johnny's point about the development of tape playback vs vinyl playback are IMHO true. The goal of the companies making pro tape machines in the analogue era (1950's to early 1980's) was to produce superior recording equipment and electronics, while playback electronics were secondary. Today, most all of the companies who issue 15ips 2 track tapes are using vintage electronics in their record chains. If they use newer electronics and heads, it is in the playback stage. Second generation tapes (safety masters) recorded in the 1950's and 1960's can sound astoundingly good when played with the top playback equipment. Through an excellent current audiophile system, the sound quality is certainly better than the playbacks done in the recording studios of 40-50 years ago.

Two companies which release both vinyl and 15ips 2 track R2R are Yarlung (I have several of their albums in both) and Opus 3 ( here the vinyl is from the '80's and '90's and the R2R are copies of the running masters of which I have a few of both). So direct comparisons can easily be made.

Third, many people complain about the lack of media available in 15ips 2 track. At last count there are a few hundred titles, including some by the top artists of their day. However, this swamps the number of direct to disc albums, of which I have many (like all of the D2D Sheffields which I think did more D2D than just about anyone else). So, even for standard audiophile pressings, we are talking about a fifth generation copy from the running master (lacquer, father, mother, stamper, record), while a tape is usually a first generation from the running master, and sometimes the same generation as the running master.

Super TT/arm/cartridge/phono pre combinations will usually far exceed similar R2R/tape prepros, but, of course, that difference in money will quickly go to buying a nice collection of R2R tapes.

Larry

[stellavox]

Myles,

Over your lifetime, you've spent immeasurably more hours listening to vinyl.

I submit you have "gotten used to" the medium along with its the INCREMENTAL improvements.

Along comes tape. Perhaps your internal hearing mechanism is still reacting / adjusting to what I'll call the "quantum perceptual leap" offered by this "new" medium. Continued listening / re-listening undoubtedly alters initial impressions. Good - isn't that what life is all about?

I'm certainly still, and hope to remain, a "kid in THIS candy shop"!

Charles

[MylesBAstor]

this reads more like a rhetorical question, I think we all know the answer in absolute terms, tape is better than vinyl and at the highest level the disparity is even greater. I think there are many well founded and accepted technical explanations for this and if your vinyl is cut from tape--as most are--its now just a copy of a copy with all of vinyl's shortcomings piled on top.

This isn't what some 'philes like too hear because they've spent so much time and money reaching their own apex of vinyl appreciation. I've been chasing vinyl rainbows for a long time, with all manner of vinyl playback set-ups and everyone of them has brought many hours of sonic bliss. when access to good tape repro entered the scene (for me) all bets were off, tape is just so much closer to the real thing.

My intent wasn't to denigrate vinyl per se but to point out an interesting difference between the two analog mediums.

It just seems that upgrading the tape front-end results in greater sonic improvements than to the vinyl front-end. And the same goes with sources with average sounding tapes all of a sudden sounding much better relative to vinyl. Now I just wish I had more tapes.

[MylesBAstor]

I wanted to point out that ultimate LP potential is with direct-to-disc with no tape recording and thus no multi-generation losses. However, LP's limitations of CAV versus tapes CLV and the mechanical limitations of LP's due to physics and other factors, even the best LP can't match the best tape.

It isn't a paradox so much as it is a question of compromises and economy.

I've often read about D2D being the ultimate analog source but I think that's more in theory than reality. D2D is still subject to the basic cutting and playback issues you mentioned earlier for normal LPs. Also I think D2D are also very subject to the electronics used with making a D2D disc. And of course other things related to the basic musicianship.