Lp recorded to reel to reel improves quality of sound???
- Thread starter Nctim66
- Start date
no. reasons why?
1. recording to tape adds tape noise unless you're running dolby A (full range)
2. you're compressing the sound at three levels
a. the dynamic range of a tape is less than an LP
b. the frequency range of the tape is totally dependent on the recording speed
(I used to record at 7.5 since 3.75 sucked in my opinion/hearing and having heard 15IPS I gave up)
c. the tape itself makes a difference (Scotch black vs XYZ vs ABC)
3. the recording level vs frequency for tape is nowhere close to an LP
take any tape recorder - look at 20-20KHz specs - usually down around -20 db relative to 0db
which means you cannot record a 0db signal at 20khz but someone will always refute this.
having owned and played with about 6 Naks, several Revox 10" reel machines, and various others,
recording to LP was a distant Plan B and for portability (planes, cars, walking) before CDs
and DAPs.
don't believe me? take a 1980+ Nak (6xx, Dragon, etc) that supports metal tapes, use or not
Dolby B/C/S/XYZ, and record any test LP and record it at 0db. then play it back and watch the
meters and listen carefully.
and of course, you would be using a MC cartridge on a high-end arm through good electronics
into a really good recorder, etc.
1. recording to tape adds tape noise unless you're running dolby A (full range)
2. you're compressing the sound at three levels
a. the dynamic range of a tape is less than an LP
b. the frequency range of the tape is totally dependent on the recording speed
(I used to record at 7.5 since 3.75 sucked in my opinion/hearing and having heard 15IPS I gave up)
c. the tape itself makes a difference (Scotch black vs XYZ vs ABC)
3. the recording level vs frequency for tape is nowhere close to an LP
take any tape recorder - look at 20-20KHz specs - usually down around -20 db relative to 0db
which means you cannot record a 0db signal at 20khz but someone will always refute this.
having owned and played with about 6 Naks, several Revox 10" reel machines, and various others,
recording to LP was a distant Plan B and for portability (planes, cars, walking) before CDs
and DAPs.
don't believe me? take a 1980+ Nak (6xx, Dragon, etc) that supports metal tapes, use or not
Dolby B/C/S/XYZ, and record any test LP and record it at 0db. then play it back and watch the
meters and listen carefully.
and of course, you would be using a MC cartridge on a high-end arm through good electronics
into a really good recorder, etc.
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
While it is obvious that recording an analog source to tape could never improve fidelity, this particular statement, above, is not completely accurate.
Vinyl microgroove phonograph records typically yield 55-65 dB, though the first play of the higher-fidelity outer rings can achieve a dynamic range of 70 dB.*
Most modern tapes have specs in the 65-80db range**
*Day, Timothy (2002). A Century of Recorded Music: Listening to Musical History. Yale University Press. p. 23. ISBN 0-300-09401-9. see Wikipedia
**http://www.rmgi-usa.com/resources/Analog-Media/RMGI_SM_900.pdf, as an example of one you can still purchase (see Recording the Masters).
Last edited:
sigh. always one to do the counterfactual thing.
the OP posited copying to tape from LP. this is in the context of real-world equipment.
maybe (not a definite yes) that in zero degrees kelvin (no motion brown noise or
otherwise) and in a faraday cage, etc
cannot compare "typical" LP to some tape unavailable "specs" - in the 80s when I had access to
both a dragon and a Revox 10 incher and the best the Revox could do is about 66db
the and the dragon was better - due to the then new cassette tape formulations
(you could hear the difference -and I don't count louder noise floors as more
dynamic range). there was no dolby+metal-tape for the reel to reels. is there in 2018?
the test was based on using 5 test LPs to calibrate the 0db recording on both, then to
play the cannon shots from the Telarc 1812. at that time, the only cart that could
track it was the Dynavector Ruby but only in a Black widow. other carts tried
which didn't work. groove jumpers.
we got exploded out of the seats as the Nak meters pegged (bing is your friend)
we argued about whether it was either 85 or 92db total.
you 'd have to have a tape capable of this, say, 90db LP range, plus 3db for the
added noise floor (maybe 0 if its a dbx compander or a full range DolbyA), and
a tape machine calibrated (with electronics headroom to handle it) to use
the best possible metal tape. (I prefer the Fuji over the TDKs but only
for sound quality not dynamic range)
note that the best NAKs can do is about 70 db signal to noise and only with Dolby,
so to record/capture a 90db signal you'd have to either lower the noise
floor AND increase the max signal handling up from 0db. I suppose
you could re-engineer the NAK circuits to lower the noise contribution
with selected active and passive components or re-design it as such.
for some of the many thousands of threads based on tests:
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=43717
he claims 80db on a current LP setup. then what tape machine and with what
tape formulation would be able to handle this and then the big dog test:
the Telarc 1812 Overture.
I have a copy of the 1812 LP and a TDK cassette metal tape for anyone to
try. conditions apply. no PMs, post here any better ideas, facts, and corrections
to my 30+ year old experience. I can man-up if even slightly wrong but only for
empirical results (mainly to counteract the 20 trillion URLs you can pick to TC)
My test results are now 30 YO and there may be a tape machine (not theoretical)
that delivers a 100db (measurable) dynamic range but let's limit it to tests
that we can reproduce not just read about.
the OP posited copying to tape from LP. this is in the context of real-world equipment.
maybe (not a definite yes) that in zero degrees kelvin (no motion brown noise or
otherwise) and in a faraday cage, etc
cannot compare "typical" LP to some tape unavailable "specs" - in the 80s when I had access to
both a dragon and a Revox 10 incher and the best the Revox could do is about 66db
the and the dragon was better - due to the then new cassette tape formulations
(you could hear the difference -and I don't count louder noise floors as more
dynamic range). there was no dolby+metal-tape for the reel to reels. is there in 2018?
the test was based on using 5 test LPs to calibrate the 0db recording on both, then to
play the cannon shots from the Telarc 1812. at that time, the only cart that could
track it was the Dynavector Ruby but only in a Black widow. other carts tried
which didn't work. groove jumpers.
we got exploded out of the seats as the Nak meters pegged (bing is your friend)
we argued about whether it was either 85 or 92db total.
you 'd have to have a tape capable of this, say, 90db LP range, plus 3db for the
added noise floor (maybe 0 if its a dbx compander or a full range DolbyA), and
a tape machine calibrated (with electronics headroom to handle it) to use
the best possible metal tape. (I prefer the Fuji over the TDKs but only
for sound quality not dynamic range)
note that the best NAKs can do is about 70 db signal to noise and only with Dolby,
so to record/capture a 90db signal you'd have to either lower the noise
floor AND increase the max signal handling up from 0db. I suppose
you could re-engineer the NAK circuits to lower the noise contribution
with selected active and passive components or re-design it as such.
for some of the many thousands of threads based on tests:
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=43717
he claims 80db on a current LP setup. then what tape machine and with what
tape formulation would be able to handle this and then the big dog test:
the Telarc 1812 Overture.
I have a copy of the 1812 LP and a TDK cassette metal tape for anyone to
try. conditions apply. no PMs, post here any better ideas, facts, and corrections
to my 30+ year old experience. I can man-up if even slightly wrong but only for
empirical results (mainly to counteract the 20 trillion URLs you can pick to TC)
My test results are now 30 YO and there may be a tape machine (not theoretical)
that delivers a 100db (measurable) dynamic range but let's limit it to tests
that we can reproduce not just read about.
Last edited:
Poinzy
Super Member
The only reason to record LP's to tape is to preserve the LP's. Running the signal through yet another preamp and then recording it to tape causes signal degradation.
On the other hand, maybe the spinning tape reels open up a whole new dimension in the sound, like something out of Harry Potter....
On the other hand, maybe the spinning tape reels open up a whole new dimension in the sound, like something out of Harry Potter....
2N697
Active Member
From the things that I have read through the years (no testing or measurements), what most people are hearing as an improvement is actually some form of "coloration" which is going to be dependent on the individual's hearing. (I believe this has always been a major argument between solid state and tube advocates?) Noise reduction, "click and pop" removers, equalizers, etc, might all give results that are more pleasing to some ears but never a more accurate reproduction. And along the lines of what Bob mentioned above about tracking; if the audio is being consistently played at very high volumes, the tape made from the LP could very well sound better because of the distortion that is being fed back to the turntable from the speaker(s). ( This assumes the recording was made with a low listening volume.)
correct.
we tend towards the sound (from the music) that creates a positive feeling. that can
be loud (1000W/ch on BIG JBLs/CV's D9s and death metal) that rattles fillings and chest
cavities.
there's tube euphonics that make turns certain music into liquid presentations - this is
my weakness. along with sound stages that are deep, wide, and tall. like with symphonies
where each recording sounds different because of the sound environment around the orchestra.
I gave up the reel/cassette chase when I couldn't get the dynamic ranges up without
getting the noise levels down. I could always hear the tape noise.
then came CDs, early ones (AADs for example) came with tape noise that drove me nuts
at low passages and higher volumes. later ones got better.
maybe I'm ignoring the pops and tics, and age-related loss of hearing, or simply blocking
anything other than the music.
But the goal is to search for that level of sound that's been missing for a long time
do enjoy the music
we tend towards the sound (from the music) that creates a positive feeling. that can
be loud (1000W/ch on BIG JBLs/CV's D9s and death metal) that rattles fillings and chest
cavities.
there's tube euphonics that make turns certain music into liquid presentations - this is
my weakness. along with sound stages that are deep, wide, and tall. like with symphonies
where each recording sounds different because of the sound environment around the orchestra.
I gave up the reel/cassette chase when I couldn't get the dynamic ranges up without
getting the noise levels down. I could always hear the tape noise.
then came CDs, early ones (AADs for example) came with tape noise that drove me nuts
at low passages and higher volumes. later ones got better.
maybe I'm ignoring the pops and tics, and age-related loss of hearing, or simply blocking
anything other than the music.
But the goal is to search for that level of sound that's been missing for a long time
do enjoy the music
and for a second opinion from here at AK, try post 19:
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/reel-to-reel-unsure-whether-i-need-one.830182/
sums up from a different angle what I tried to do 30+ years ago. complete empirical answer
to dynamic range of LPs, revoxs, running at moderate to insane speeds, and trying to
record the massive dynamic ranges of Telarc LPs.
Note that telarc used digital recording, best in its day and overcame tape recorder limitations
and if you listen carefully, no tape hiss and a major contribution to expanding the dynamic
range.
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/reel-to-reel-unsure-whether-i-need-one.830182/
sums up from a different angle what I tried to do 30+ years ago. complete empirical answer
to dynamic range of LPs, revoxs, running at moderate to insane speeds, and trying to
record the massive dynamic ranges of Telarc LPs.
Note that telarc used digital recording, best in its day and overcame tape recorder limitations
and if you listen carefully, no tape hiss and a major contribution to expanding the dynamic
range.
Markoneswift
Quartz locked n ready to rock
I enjoy the added warmth of recording some CD tracks to reel. Tracy Chapman sounds sublime recorded onto reel in my opinion and it suits my system really well. I don't bother recording LPs as they already have a warmth of their own 
Markoneswift
Quartz locked n ready to rock
And yes warmth could equal distortion; noise etc but I still like the way it presents.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
If it is, your machine is not properly set up and aligned and biased right. A proper machine will have flat response across the audio range. It will add or subtract nothing or very little.
Haven't read all the posts, but I could care less what science is involved. I've had many R2R recordings (from LP) sound better. Like some mentioned, "sounded better to me" rather than measured better. Can't explain it audibly, though I know it shouldn't be possible, it does!
Sums it up for me
I don’t look for improvement when I capture vinyl onto tape. The key for me is to have a really good vinyl kit (TT, cart and phonostage) combined with a perfect vinyl copy of music I really like. Then it is great to be able to capture the experience on a well setup two track R2R machine at 15 ips. Does it sound better then the original vinyl? Maybe not, but if done right, it certainly does not sound worse. Plus you don’t have to wear the original vinyl, wear the stylus or worry about the setup of the vinyl kit. Not to mention you don’t have to flip vinyl!
Last edited:
