Does Reel to Reel tape sound superior to vinyl?
- Thread starter twoengine
- Start date
Soren Hammer
B&O-infected
There never existed any 2 inch 2 channel deck for practical use. 90% of all masters were done on 1/4" or 1/2", and the odd album here and there done on 1" (Paul McCartney's Flaming Pie was one of them.)
The studio engineer would mix the multitrack tape down to a stereo mix - frequently used decks in the 70's and 80's were made by Studer (A80 and A800 series) and MCI (JH24).
Then the stereo master would be duplicated in real time and then put away in a vault. Tapes for making record stamp mothers were duplicated from the safety master tape. Even 1st pressings are a long way down the generation chain: master tape - safety duplicate - record factory master - stamper mother - negative stamping matrix and then the final record... Most master tapes were recorded on 30 IPS, and Ampex 456 was very popular because of how it compressed peaks when driven hard.
Regarding the tape speed; a lot of rock albums have been recorded on 15 IPS because of the better bass response achieved.
I have a R2R, a Sony TC540. Not a high-end machine, but it works well.
To me it's a similar thing to playing vinyl. The only reason to do it is to enjoy that whole tactile experience of interacting with a mechanical, analog device.
Others will surely disagree, but to my ears nothing sounds better than a CD.
I can buy old 1800-ft, 1/4-in tapes at a local thrift store for $2 each. It's fun to record a bunch of stuff to it and have it on tape, so I can pull one out of the box, thread, wind it on, and play. At 3.5 in/sec 1800 ft. works out to 3 albums with space left over on side 2 for additional songs from other sources. It's cheaper than cassettes.
It's also more fun than the instant gratification of a dropping in a CD, and if I am playing music while walking around the house and taking care of business the fidelity is plenty good enough.
R2Rs are still cheap. I paid $15 for mine a couple of months ago at GW. I have since seen another for $18. I have also seen them priced high fo course, but like anything with vintage audio you can generally trade time for money.
To me it's a similar thing to playing vinyl. The only reason to do it is to enjoy that whole tactile experience of interacting with a mechanical, analog device.
Others will surely disagree, but to my ears nothing sounds better than a CD.
I can buy old 1800-ft, 1/4-in tapes at a local thrift store for $2 each. It's fun to record a bunch of stuff to it and have it on tape, so I can pull one out of the box, thread, wind it on, and play. At 3.5 in/sec 1800 ft. works out to 3 albums with space left over on side 2 for additional songs from other sources. It's cheaper than cassettes.
It's also more fun than the instant gratification of a dropping in a CD, and if I am playing music while walking around the house and taking care of business the fidelity is plenty good enough.
R2Rs are still cheap. I paid $15 for mine a couple of months ago at GW. I have since seen another for $18. I have also seen them priced high fo course, but like anything with vintage audio you can generally trade time for money.
Well, I was being kind of ... rhetorical. But thanks for this, interesting post. I guess my point was, comparing consumer R2R to vinyl by talking about original studio tapes is kind of silly. Which I guess your post kind of highlights.
I've never seen a 2 inch deck in reel life (ha, no fun intended). Would love to see one in action someday...
Jody Thornton
Just Enjoying the Music
(I can't believe people are actually buying cassette decks, thinking they're audiophile gear.)
Anytime you do a transfer to another medium, there's going to be a degradation of the original recording. It's just a matter of degree.
I do agree about signal degradation from source to tape. But to universally say cassette can never be of audiophile quality is to generalize. Many MANY top flight cassette decks can capture the entire 20-20,000 Hz range even at 0 dB with Type II tape, yield low noise (I'll get back to that one), and even have low wow and flutter. Plus many cassette decks yield better extended bass response than open reel can.
Generally, cassette is not an audiophile format per se, but there are decks that indeed CAN give open reel a run for its money.
As for noise, there are a couple models, one being a mid-80s Onkyo model that achieves a 60 dB S/N ratio without NR. And though the purists hate noise reduction, there are implementations of Dolby B and C that work as they should (without saturation of highs)
Jody Thornton
Just Enjoying the Music
Many tapes in fact have suffered badly in storage, whereas vinyl can be cleaned and played in pristine condition. I've seen enough cassettes in storage that have seen decreased amplitude and print through to say, tape doesn't last a lifetime by any means.
Agreed, I have 50+ year old records that are dead quiet. Just like anything else, it's how you care for them. Personally, I hate tape hiss which is why I was never a huge fan of RTR's but I do love having one around
The problem with consumer r2r tapes (commercially released albums on tape) is that most of it is, as mentioned before, 5th or 6th generation by the time you're hearing it.
Plus, more often than not, you're playing it on a consumer grade machine.
I have heard many original/first generation 15 IPS tape recordings played on a well-maintained Ampex ATR-102 that would send your head spinning, they sound so phenomenal.
Vinyl is an inferior medium...which is why the studios made master tapes vs. records.
Plus, more often than not, you're playing it on a consumer grade machine.
I have heard many original/first generation 15 IPS tape recordings played on a well-maintained Ampex ATR-102 that would send your head spinning, they sound so phenomenal.
Vinyl is an inferior medium...which is why the studios made master tapes vs. records.
tuttebenne
Active Member
Just recently I was blessed with the opportunity to listen to a protection copy of AJA. No telling how many generations from the true master this tape was, but there was no comparison between it and ANY vinyl version of that album I have ever heard, including audiophile 180 gram issues, MFL issue, or any of the original pressings. The tape came from the estate of a radio station exec and was 1/4 inch 15ips I heard things on that recording that I never heard off the vinyl. It was an incredible experience.
tom3
Super Member
Big Carpenter's fan here, have 45s, albums (stereo and SQ), stereo and quad 8 tracks, CDs. Just got a couple R2R A&M tapes at 7 1/2 ips in mint condition. Pretty much beats all the other formats for clean quality sound with full stereo that really compliments their music and production. Old 4010s showing response at 16k hertz even. Superb stuff there.
Neither will ever outperform the original Sony Betamax. I'd love to own a small form factor R2R (i.e. RT-707), but one has not crossed my path yet. I could pick up 10-20 blank 7"ers at my local thrift in 1 visit. One of these days. Speaking of SFF, is the 707 the only one out there?
Thank you for saying this. I get quite angry when people condemn cassette out of hand . I've had many experiences with the caliber of deck and tape you are talking about and have always been amazed at the sound quality one can squeeze from the format. It's a shame the naysayers seem to be talking out of a negative collective mentality and with no experience of the numerous top performing decks and tape that cassette as a format definitely had.
Mitkraft
Super Member
I interned at a recording studio in the late 90's. Although we were getting into digital with ADAT's and DA88's, our main studios primary recorder was a sony 2" multi-track. I can't remember how many tracks, I want to say 32 but maybe it was just 24. It was one cool beast and so was the board that drove it! The tapes really were expensive though. So much so that we often re-used them when time came to no longer hold on to a particular recording. I'm sure that's how many long lost recordings/masters get lost.
The funny part is that back in those days (as is typical of pro audio engineering) we weren't really concerned with fidelity in the same way that audiophiles are. We were more concerned with the engineering, the performance in the studio, the quality of the production, the mix...etc. I'm always amazed at the wide gap between the lengths the high-end audio consumer will go to and the lack of concern to such detail in the professional audio world. I mean, sure the pro pays for good gear, but they won't think twice about using a $10 mic cable to connect a $20K piece of gear. It makes you wonder, do you really need a speaker cable or interconnect that costs 10 or even 100 times the price of the cables used to make the recording in the first place?
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Reel to Reel was not mass market due to a decent machine in 1967 money being $500 or more, pre-recorded tapes being extra cost (Usually $7.95 each) and not being available on every music title or genre. And tapes were not discounted, back then you could buy 2 LP discs for the price of one tape. And blank tape was around $5 a reel at cheapest for good tape.
I think that's a bit overstated, Kent. Not to be too argumentative, but the 1967 Allied catalog (http://www.alliedcatalogs.com/catalogs/1967-260b/) shows many fine open reel decks with the average price being around $159 to $200, and machines with built in amps and speakers somewhat higher. The 1967 machines that went up to $500 were either niche items (reel and 8-track in one unit,) machines with scads of convenience features like auto-reverse, or true semi-pro machines that only the most seriously afflicted hi-fi nut would find mandatory. And the average price for a reel of Scotch 111 was only $2.29. Kodak and RCA brands were priced similarly.
I also remember stores like Sam Goody and King Karol in NYC frequently having sales on their pre-recorded open reel stock as well. Maybe smaller stores didn't discount pre-recorded tapes much, but it was common in the bigger chains in places like NYC.
Not cheap for 1967 by any means, but still much more affordable than your figures, though I agree with your basic premise.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
$200 bought you a single motor machine yes, but those machines were no better than a $79 rumbly budget record changer. Quality cost money. Until you bought a quality 3 motor, 3 head machine, vinyl was comparable or better quality on less expensive equipment. My reality was NOT NYC. Tapes where I lived were special order, you paid list price. 8 tracks got small discounts. Tapes cost extra.
