Does Reel to Reel tape sound superior to vinyl?
- Thread starter twoengine
- Start date
My opinion is in most all cases a factory tape sounds better than the record. Just the manufacturing process of a record alone lends itself to lesser fidelity than going from a master tape to another tape. It seems less information is lost in the tape to tape process as it is the same medium.
As far as success, records have been around longer than consumer reels. In general, the decks were expensive and more complicated to operate and maintain that a record player. If you bought an album just for a couple of songs, it was easier to drop the needle than fast forward/rewind. Let's face it, R2R's are kind of a PITA. If memory serves, the last consumer R2R's were made in the early 80's so they are now at least 30 years old and most require work to get them operating properly.
I have a few of the same records and tapes that are factory recordings of the same vintage and in great condition. In every case, the tape sounds much better to me than the record. I hear better separation of instruments and vocals without the pops and scratches. I also hear more information in the tape that was obviously lost in the record making process.
Just my $.02, I'm sure others more experienced than I will weigh in.
As far as success, records have been around longer than consumer reels. In general, the decks were expensive and more complicated to operate and maintain that a record player. If you bought an album just for a couple of songs, it was easier to drop the needle than fast forward/rewind. Let's face it, R2R's are kind of a PITA. If memory serves, the last consumer R2R's were made in the early 80's so they are now at least 30 years old and most require work to get them operating properly.
I have a few of the same records and tapes that are factory recordings of the same vintage and in great condition. In every case, the tape sounds much better to me than the record. I hear better separation of instruments and vocals without the pops and scratches. I also hear more information in the tape that was obviously lost in the record making process.
Just my $.02, I'm sure others more experienced than I will weigh in.
Kyluckyman
Well-Known Member
My dad was a sales manager for Ampex during the late 60's and 70's. He had a lot of their equipment including two reel to reels. He encouraged me to record my new albums on first play then listen to the tape when I wanted to hear the album. I did that some, but it was far more convienient to listen off his Dual 1229 plugged into his Ampex system.
My dad was big on low distortion amplifiers. Today I finally understand where he was coming from.
So I agree with Jenkster that turntables were just more convienient. I think tape took off when cassettes were invented.
My dad was big on low distortion amplifiers. Today I finally understand where he was coming from.
So I agree with Jenkster that turntables were just more convienient. I think tape took off when cassettes were invented.
Yep, I spent countless hours making cassettes. Now I don't have a cassette to my name. My ex-wife probably tossed them years ago.
I was the beneficiary of some of my Uncle's albums which were played once as he put them on tape. The tapes are long gone but most of the albums survived the Northern California heat.
on the Dual 1229, great table! My friend has one of the big Ampex consoles with Altec speakers. The only thing he didn't get working, the R2R.
I was the beneficiary of some of my Uncle's albums which were played once as he put them on tape. The tapes are long gone but most of the albums survived the Northern California heat.
on the Dual 1229, great table! My friend has one of the big Ampex consoles with Altec speakers. The only thing he didn't get working, the R2R.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9409563/reel-to-reel-tape-retro-audio-trend
A friend of mine just sent me this link of an interesting article, "Reel to Reel, the new vinyl." It's from last year so it has probably been discussed on this forum before. It is an interesting read. It makes me feel pretty good about spending just a tick over $300 to get my deck up and running.
A friend of mine just sent me this link of an interesting article, "Reel to Reel, the new vinyl." It's from last year so it has probably been discussed on this forum before. It is an interesting read. It makes me feel pretty good about spending just a tick over $300 to get my deck up and running.
eddisc
Super Member
TRIAL BALLOONS - no mfg. going on from all I've read... YMMV!!! More on this at TH's...They're making new R2R decks:
MaxxVolume
Lunatic Member
The other advantage R2R has is the durability of tape....no matter how carefully you handle your LPs, vinyl will always be a constantly-deteriorating medium....tape usually fares a bit better.
Soren Hammer
B&O-infected
Horch House have quoted prices and roughly stated which kind of features they expect to have, it is definitely going to be a real product.
The pedestal design is very inconvenient in a home audio system though...
50nstillhifi
Super Member
Hmmmmm..... ?
The only way my reel to reel sounds good is if I taped from a "good source"
..... to include the vinyl.
The only way my reel to reel sounds good is if I taped from a "good source"
..... to include the vinyl.
That's ridiculous. Tapes and vinyl will both outlast out lifetimes.
Poinzy
Super Member
R2R became THE recording medium for music studios, before digital came along. Inevitably, original information was lost once the master recording was committed to vinyl. HOWEVER, if you record YOUR vinyl to R2R, you will experience even more degradation. R2R won't fix the defects in your original vinyl recording. It'll just add noise. The same goes for cassette, which is vastly inferior to R2R in terms of fidelity. (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.
R2R didn't succeed like vinyl because you can't just stamp out a recording on R2R, like you can on vinyl.
As a consumer playback format Reel to Reel tape was much harder to mass produce than vinyl. A pressing plant could knock off way many LP's in a given time frame than R2R tape duplicators could. R2R tape duplication was never done in real time which meant high-speed duplication which reduced the quality of the finished tape. R2R tape duplication was also much more labor intensive which meant much higher retail prices. To try and offset those high prices, the cheapest tape stock was used and the target playback speed (for many of the majors who produced consumer R2R tapes) was knocked down to the slowest acceptable speed (3 3/4 ips) thereby negating any sound quality advantage R2R tape had over LP's. Packaging also tended to be as simple as possible with the barest of information, omitting liner notes, pictures, credits etc. Tapes were also much bulkier compared to LP's.
I'm not even taking into account how the average R2R duplicating master could be many generations further from the mixdown master tape than would be the case with LP manufacturing, which was another minus.
On the playback end, it was somewhat fiddly. Vinyl was easy; stack it on the changer, flick a switch and you were off and running. Tape took more effort and knowledge for the average Joe. Until cassettes came along, tape was really only a hard-core audio perfectionists medium.
But when it was done right.... mmmmmm.
Not so sure about that. I have a bunch of LP's from the 50's, including early 50's. Some of these, like the Columbia 6-eyes, are in amazingly good condition and sound wonderful. At the same time, I have a few hundred reels of tape, going back to the early 60's in some instances. The tape is very much a mixed bag. A lot of the older tapes are brittle and break easily (including studio tapes). There are some with acetate coming off, and some backed tapes with the backing a huge mess (sticky shed). The LP's from the period, if cared for, seem not to suffer from any ill effects merely by virtue of the passage of time; the tapes do.
To the original question, I am not an expert and my system is far from an audiophile system. And I love tape decks (I have six reel-to-reels and just bought a seventh that hasn't arrived yet). I have a few tapes that have simply amazed me (studio tapes). But in general I think I like the sound of vinyl better. Hard to pinpoint why. Very subjective. Both seem capable of performing better than my old ears could detect...
Blue Shadow
Waiting for Vintage Gear from this century
Obviously, tape is back. AK is talking about it, this thread, other threads about why it wasn't THE thing and records were back then and other topics. The interest is growing. For each few folks that ask about it on the forums there are a couple of folks that are buying their first in years tape machine whether that be an 8-track, cassette or reel to reel.
The cost is more now than then but adjust for inflation the $65 10½" metal reels loaded with a great new tape are cheaper than Maxell sold for back then. Machines can be found cheap today and many are barely used. A simple major service, points plugs condenser lube and oil change and one can frequently be in business. Other machines take to a new set of caps and more major work but most don't have worn out heads, which can usually be lapped to renew them at least once.
all that and you have a machine. A big wheel to wheel machine 7" or 10" can play those prerecorded tapes although in the 45 years I have had an rtr I haven't done this. They are known to be better sounding then the albums in the 7½ ips format, generally. The slower speed tapes, 3-3/4 ips maybe not so much.
Nub to nubs are coming back, too. Something just cool about a cassette and there are a bazillion prerecorded cassettes out there and about 21 of them are in great shape, not having been subjected to the car interior environment on a sweltering summer day.
The ability to record the next sound you want to hear has been a main reason I have had tape gear. Some of those tapes recorded in the early 80s sound excellent today and have the songs from the albums I wanted to hear and surprisingly NONE of the songs I didn't want to hear back then and still don't want to hear today.
But my friend, who carried around a couple blank cassettes when he visited in order to make a tape of the new albums has recorded the full album. His theory is if you don't like one of the songs on an album, it either isn't old enough or you haven't heard it enough. Fine, but wrong. But he does have a very nearly unused collection of high quality tapes with newer albums recorded on some very nice cassette decks. I expect many of these tapes to sound better than the vinyl they were taken from because the vinyl was still being played and played and these tapes were not.
On a great machine, rtr specifically, the tape and vinyl will sound so close it is a non-issue. Convenience of the album or uninterrupted listen on a tape may be the deciding factor as to what to listen to, unless one needs to be mesmerized watching the double M Maxell logo reels spinning. BTDT, worth it in my book.
The cost is more now than then but adjust for inflation the $65 10½" metal reels loaded with a great new tape are cheaper than Maxell sold for back then. Machines can be found cheap today and many are barely used. A simple major service, points plugs condenser lube and oil change and one can frequently be in business. Other machines take to a new set of caps and more major work but most don't have worn out heads, which can usually be lapped to renew them at least once.
all that and you have a machine. A big wheel to wheel machine 7" or 10" can play those prerecorded tapes although in the 45 years I have had an rtr I haven't done this. They are known to be better sounding then the albums in the 7½ ips format, generally. The slower speed tapes, 3-3/4 ips maybe not so much.
Nub to nubs are coming back, too. Something just cool about a cassette and there are a bazillion prerecorded cassettes out there and about 21 of them are in great shape, not having been subjected to the car interior environment on a sweltering summer day.
The ability to record the next sound you want to hear has been a main reason I have had tape gear. Some of those tapes recorded in the early 80s sound excellent today and have the songs from the albums I wanted to hear and surprisingly NONE of the songs I didn't want to hear back then and still don't want to hear today.
But my friend, who carried around a couple blank cassettes when he visited in order to make a tape of the new albums has recorded the full album. His theory is if you don't like one of the songs on an album, it either isn't old enough or you haven't heard it enough. Fine, but wrong. But he does have a very nearly unused collection of high quality tapes with newer albums recorded on some very nice cassette decks. I expect many of these tapes to sound better than the vinyl they were taken from because the vinyl was still being played and played and these tapes were not.
On a great machine, rtr specifically, the tape and vinyl will sound so close it is a non-issue. Convenience of the album or uninterrupted listen on a tape may be the deciding factor as to what to listen to, unless one needs to be mesmerized watching the double M Maxell logo reels spinning. BTDT, worth it in my book.
Any tape machine requires alignment. Some very high end recorders did most of it automatically.
I would say maintenance after set up is more important and time consuming with reels than tables. Some require oil periodically, all need the heads and pathway cleaned preferably on a regular basis. This is especially true if you do a lot of recording. There is also the recoding mechanism with reels that is not applicable to tables. There is just a lot more going on in a Reel to Reel deck.
Hi,
might I ask the question!!!! What was being played to drive the master cutter for ANY vinyl record?? It seems to me that it would be a tape. Either a 1/2" or a 1/4" Master tape at either 15 or 30 IPS. If I have this wrong then will someone please enlighten me.
I was given to understand that multi track recorders were used for the sessions and then this was mixed down using those vast desks to a stereo 2 track master (or quad if we are going to quibble).
If a tape is driving the master cutter, is that not the best quality that was available. Why would anything else be used??!! I know there are now better digital equivalents but....... It would also seem to me that vinyl cutters compressed the signals if the preemptive cutter speed compensation could not cope with transients. This being the case the reel master will always be better. So as far as I am concerned if you are looking at the best medium for analogue then the tape has got to beat the vinyl as it is the first generation copy. If a reel recorder can record to this standard then I would like to have one of those please!!!! In fact I have 4!!!!
Vinyl still is a damn good medium but I still think that good tape recording will still pip it at the post.
I am from an engineering background and not from the studio/audio industry. I still love the fact that such quality of music can be attained with basically sticky tape and rust!!!
GPS16
might I ask the question!!!! What was being played to drive the master cutter for ANY vinyl record?? It seems to me that it would be a tape. Either a 1/2" or a 1/4" Master tape at either 15 or 30 IPS. If I have this wrong then will someone please enlighten me.
I was given to understand that multi track recorders were used for the sessions and then this was mixed down using those vast desks to a stereo 2 track master (or quad if we are going to quibble).
If a tape is driving the master cutter, is that not the best quality that was available. Why would anything else be used??!! I know there are now better digital equivalents but....... It would also seem to me that vinyl cutters compressed the signals if the preemptive cutter speed compensation could not cope with transients. This being the case the reel master will always be better. So as far as I am concerned if you are looking at the best medium for analogue then the tape has got to beat the vinyl as it is the first generation copy. If a reel recorder can record to this standard then I would like to have one of those please!!!! In fact I have 4!!!!
Vinyl still is a damn good medium but I still think that good tape recording will still pip it at the post.
I am from an engineering background and not from the studio/audio industry. I still love the fact that such quality of music can be attained with basically sticky tape and rust!!!
GPS16
Well, if you have a 1/2 inch (or more likely 1 inch or even 2 inch) original master tape, and a deck that can play it, then more power to you. Otherwise, I think you're dealing with some form of "compression" regardless....
