Does Reel to Reel tape sound superior to vinyl?

[mkane]

 

[blownsi]

I've not heard it beat vinyl. Obviously there is a large difference between a format's capability and what I actually come across at the thrift store some 40 years later. Most tapes I find are recorded at 3.75 and are sourced from either a poor vinyl setup or a mediocre tuner. Add in some tape degradation and I'd say 75% of the tapes I've come across don't even beat cassette.

 

[Cosmicmes]

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.

I owned a number of cassette players in the seventies and eighties. They weren't high-end, but far from junk. And when I made copies from LPs, I was always on the hunt for the "best" tapes. So after that drawn out prelude, did you notice a degradation in the sound quality from time or repeated playing? I did, although many spent plenty of time in my car, in Miami. Thoughts?

 

[restorer-john]

The problem as I see it is this: what are you going to record, and from what source to prove to yourself that RtR is better or worse than vinyl? Realistically, your source has to be digital, most likely CD.

Only the guys, in the studio, with the master tapes can truly compare, and we all know that the master tapes are technically better than the vinyl, no matter who mastered or pressed or otherwise 'breathed over' the vinyl release, because the master is- the Master. Anything different is wrong.

Where the master tapes have survived, and are in fantastic condition, there can't be a doubt which is better. Where you are listening to a multiple generation, high speed duplicated, azimuth challenged, oxide shedding and stretched facsimile of the original, the untouched, carefully cared-for LP may well be better- but that is rare.

As for a carefully dubbed, bias adjusted, high quality cassette or equivalent RtR recording of a CD, compared to a vinyl copy of the same material, same era, there is no comparison- the tape recordings are way better. DMM helped vinyl, but it was doomed by the march of digital.

A decent RtR, with or without NR, running at high speed, >/=15IPS, makes anything coming out of a microgroove sound pretty poor.

Vinyl was a cheap distribution media, that's all. A piece of plastic, pressed with a reasonable representation of the original performance, retrieved by dragging a stone along a trench and amplifying the movements it makes to reproduce sound. Nothing high tech. No technological breakthroughs.

 

[phantomrebel]

"Where the master tapes have survived, and are in fantastic condition, there can't be a doubt which is better."

Master tapes can vary in quality as well. A retired recording engineer told me that production master tapes were engineered down (compressed or truncated dynamic range* along with the proper amount of equalization applied) in order to fit the vinyl format. This wasn't just so needles wouldn't jump out of the groove, but also to accommodate the technical limitations of a cutting lathe. Limiters and compressors needed to be applied. From the digital world, we know less information is lower quality. Perhaps in a future with HD vinyl (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/03/15/high-definition-vinyl-will-soon-become-a-reality/) this won't be as big of an issue. In any event, this engineering is done on a production master, so these tapes are different than the "session" master (anybody ever heard one of these in an A/B comparison?). How good the production master, and subsequent lp record, is depends greatly on the quality of the engineer so there is a lot of variability out there in all formats.
The same "less information=lower quality" logic applies to the cassettes vs. reel tape argument discussed above: an 1/8th inch, 1-7/8 speed thin tape simply cannot hold as much information as a 1/4 inch, 7.5 IPS tape. That is a physical reality so any cassette sounding better than an open reel tape is simply a matter of perception, degradation, equipment, or poor production/ engineering. Same rule applies to home-recorded tapes.

*Dynamic range of LP records 55-65 dB whereas professional master tapes 80-90dB (110dB with noise reduction).

 

[Cosmicmes]

The problem as I see it is this: what are you going to record, and from what source to prove to yourself that RtR is better or worse than vinyl? Realistically, your source has to be digital, most likely CD.

Only the guys, in the studio, with the master tapes can truly compare, and we all know that the master tapes are technically better than the vinyl, no matter who mastered or pressed or otherwise 'breathed over' the vinyl release, because the master is- the Master. Anything different is wrong.

Where the master tapes have survived, and are in fantastic condition, there can't be a doubt which is better. Where you are listening to a multiple generation, high speed duplicated, azimuth challenged, oxide shedding and stretched facsimile of the original, the untouched, carefully cared-for LP may well be better- but that is rare.

As for a carefully dubbed, bias adjusted, high quality cassette or equivalent RtR recording of a CD, compared to a vinyl copy of the same material, same era, there is no comparison- the tape recordings are way better. DMM helped vinyl, but it was doomed by the march of digital.

A decent RtR, with or without NR, running at high speed, >/=15IPS, makes anything coming out of a microgroove sound pretty poor.

Vinyl was a cheap distribution media, that's all. A piece of plastic, pressed with a reasonable representation of the original performance, retrieved by dragging a stone along a trench and amplifying the movements it makes to reproduce sound. Nothing high tech. No technological breakthroughs.

Thanks for your well reasoned, thoughtful response. You've given me a LOT of food for thought.

 

[smurfer77]

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

The problem as I see it is this: what are you going to record, and from what source to prove to yourself that RtR is better or worse than vinyl? Realistically, your source has to be digital, most likely CD.

Only the guys, in the studio, with the master tapes can truly compare, and we all know that the master tapes are technically better than the vinyl, no matter who mastered or pressed or otherwise 'breathed over' the vinyl release, because the master is- the Master. Anything different is wrong.

Where the master tapes have survived, and are in fantastic condition, there can't be a doubt which is better. Where you are listening to a multiple generation, high speed duplicated, azimuth challenged, oxide shedding and stretched facsimile of the original, the untouched, carefully cared-for LP may well be better- but that is rare.

As for a carefully dubbed, bias adjusted, high quality cassette or equivalent RtR recording of a CD, compared to a vinyl copy of the same material, same era, there is no comparison- the tape recordings are way better. DMM helped vinyl, but it was doomed by the march of digital.

A decent RtR, with or without NR, running at high speed, >/=15IPS, makes anything coming out of a microgroove sound pretty poor.

Vinyl was a cheap distribution media, that's all. A piece of plastic, pressed with a reasonable representation of the original performance, retrieved by dragging a stone along a trench and amplifying the movements it makes to reproduce sound. Nothing high tech. No technological breakthroughs.

I think these two posts are some of the most clearly distilled arguments for the superiority of tape. There is, from a technical standpoint, no ambiguity on the matter beyond ignorance (and I mean that in the literal sense, not the mean sense - and don't take that the wrong way, I was ignorant of the knowledge involved until a year or two ago!).

 

[50nstillhifi]

I remember trying my hand at some "amatuerish" live recording... using really basic equipment. A cassette deck.. AIWA, stereo microphone... JVC, and a realistic mixer/microphone board.

Immediately, I learned an "undeniable acoustic truth" about live versus prerecorded media recording.. dynamic range, sensitivity. Tape compression is a reality that separates the mechanics and haves from the have nots where equipment is concerned .. and application thereof of acoustic theory.

Therefore, I must agree with prior posts, you will experience "good sound" in the realm of what you like or are used to as "good".

But where it comes to the experts.. there IS a science that must be applied to get good sound reproduction whether finalized on vinyl.. tape.. or in digital processes.

 

[johnebravo]

I owned a number of cassette players in the seventies and eighties. They weren't high-end, but far from junk. And when I made copies from LPs, I was always on the hunt for the "best" tapes. So after that drawn out prelude, did you notice a degradation in the sound quality from time or repeated playing? I did, although many spent plenty of time in my car, in Miami. Thoughts?

My own experience was that if your tapes spent a much time in a car (with those repeated temperature fluctuations) or if you weren't really committed to regularly demagnetizing the deck heads, the tapes could suffer for it.

 

[vwestlife]

Vinyl was a cheap distribution media, that's all. A piece of plastic, pressed with a reasonable representation of the original performance, retrieved by dragging a stone along a trench and amplifying the movements it makes to reproduce sound. Nothing high tech. No technological breakthroughs.

Vinyl also has the problem of inner groove distortion and limited playing time. Beyond 18 minutes per side, compromises need to be made. Beyond 22 minutes, the compromises become significant. That's why most albums from the '60s and '70s are only 40 - 45 minutes long. And it's always a disappointment when you come across an album whose major hit is the last song on a side. You know it'll sound much worse than if it was the first track on the side, especially if it's uptempo.

 

[pmdclassics]

This is a "Heavy" thread man! I love both vinyl and R2R tape.

I've been spinning oodles of records since 69 and I have never heard the first track on an LP sounds better than the last track, never. But maybe my ears aren't quite as sharp as the average audiophile??

I am amazed how much money an original rock reel will bring on Ebay. I have not had any luck obtaining a survivor factory release reel. The sound is great but you can just tell something is off with the 40 year old tape. When I create my own 10" reels at 7.5 isp off of vinyl I do notice a bit of a warmer sound coming off the Reel vs the vinyl.

Either way both tape and vinyl are worth pursuing.

 

[twiiii]

Except for direct to disc recordings from Sheffield, most if not all stereo recordings were captured on tape first and then mastered to disc. In each step of the process from master tape to making the final LP there was a loss in quality when high numbers of discs for the listening public were being made. The same goes for commercial 1/4 trk stereo tapes mass produced for the listening public. Most of the time the LP out performed the 1/4 trk stereo tape.

 

[DougMac]

I have some albums on both pre-recorded 7 1/2ips tape and LP. I play the tapes with a good quality Teac X100r or Akai deck and play the albums on a Technics SP-15 broadcast turntable with a high quality Audio Technica cart. Some of the tapes sound pretty good, but never as good as the LP. I know this is anecdotal, but the very nature of producing pre-recorded tapes puts them at a disadvantage.

I also have some pre-recorded 3 3/4 tapes and no matter what deck I play them on, they sound pretty bad.

 

[bigx5murf]

R2R was probably just too expensive for anyone but the serious enthusiast, or commercial use. My R2R machine, a sony tc-755 had an MSRP of $700 in the mid 70s. When you calculate for inflation, that's over $3300 today. How many people today you know spend that on a single source? I love my R2R deck, but it gets way less use than my TTs. Heck it gets less use than everything, and I pretty much just show it off to guest.

 

[stoutblock]

There is something about an open reel machine that tells you and everyone else that you made it in life. Sometimes I just load a blank tape and let the reels go round and round while playing an iPod in the background. People watch in amazement and often comment on how superb it sounds. Ah, reel to reel, there is nothing really like it is there?

Vinyl comes close, but most anyone can have one of those

 

[Cosmicmes]

There is something about an open reel machine that tells you and everyone else that you made it in life. Sometimes I just load a blank tape and let the reels go round and round while playing an iPod in the background. People watch in amazement and often comment on how superb it sounds. Ah, reel to reel, there is nothing really like it is there?

Vinyl comes close, but most anyone can have one of those

Your FZ quote pretty well sums it all up, no?

 

[stoutblock]

Your FZ quote pretty well sums it all up, no?

It is a very deep meaning quote...

 

[kaplang]

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.

Don’t leave out Sticky Shed Syndrome. Vinyl doesn’t succumb to that condition.

 

[MaxxVolume]

Don’t leave out Sticky Shed Syndrome. Vinyl doesn’t succumb to that condition.

SSS only affects certain tapes, not all of them....

 

[Old Ears too]

When I was young, my dad told me to record any albums I got on the first playing of the album. I have both r2r and cassette machines which rival each other for quality of sound reproduction. What I miss most is the ease with which I was able to dup stuff off any medium, be it vinyl or tape or radio too.