They did mention the "new releases" by the Tape Project. They failed to mention each tape costs $450 each. Elitist indeed. I guess I'll just have to stick to vinyl if I want analog.
That is a pretty scary number, so I can see why you'd want to avoid whipping it out casually. You'd really have to like an album to shell out the price of an entry-level turntable for every single one. I won't dispute that tape has advantages compared to vinyl, but in general, I think many of us are happy with making those compromises for the price we pay.
Toys for rich audiophiles? Well, if you can afford a $15K tape deck perhaps $450 master dubbed tapes aren't an issue.. If this was more mainstream there might be some hope for affordable refurbished machines with modern electronics. Sadly, with high-resolution streaming becoming widely available, affordable R2R modern machines are out of the question since the market will be so small. That said I'm glad there's folks keeping the R2R flame flickering.
My experience with pro machines is limited but I once heard a Studer that I restored and it sounded awful with a very forward midrange like bad solid state. My Revox A77 sounded better.I have alot of consumer reel to reels and I think my Tandberg TD20A sounds best. I have a lot of original RCA and Mercury tapes which sound great but due to tape hiss the LPs sound better.The best sounding recordings I have in terms of dynamic range and an alive sound are direct to disc LPs. I have never heard a CD with the dynamic range of these LPs.
Tape really didn't die well - if you can't get the master quality on tape, which is what you're actually getting with digital master tracks and which was the main reason "digital" was invented in the first place - lossless multiplication! - (and you can't possibly get that unless you're buying the actual analogue master tape), you also shouldn't be paying for that 2nd gen. trash.
Myles Astor, I see. I've left tape long ago, and never looked back... My main issue with tape (and all analog media) is the hiss, I hate hiss. Maybe when you dub using 50ips or more, the information is mostly intact (probably close to 99% or more), but a "master" when used to dub 1000 copy, will not sound the same after 1000th copy, and the copy will sound even worse. I'm not saying that the tape it self is bad, but the limitation of an analog media is there, and it bothers me personally, thus my first comment :) But, at the end of the day, each to one's own. I don't like analog media, others do. I just find the limitation to be not worth my time, that's all :)
Will read more about the modern way of tape copying process. The last time I dub a tape was 15 - 20 years ago, some are on compact cassette, some on 1" tape, and everything in between. Most of my analog collection today are on compact cassettes, the 1" tape reel is MIA. I remember back then, 1" reel (forgot the length) was only good for 15 - 20 mins of audio when ran at 50ips (IIRC, or was it 60? hmm...) that was so long ago. As for the 1000 number, by experience, when I dub my old tape (this is back in the olden days), once I got into ~100 or so copies, my "master" changed quite a bit - especially at the highs - and here in Indonesia, everyday is a humid, sticky day. The change is exponential however, after ~200 copies, the sound of my 1" tape is more or less the same as my high speed dub on a Type IV compact cassette - Thus my assumption of 1000 copies.
Interesting point... I was thinking about a reel to reel... But your comment worried me a bit! If I make a recording of a record or cd... is that what happens to tape, the copy degrades the more I play it? What causes this to happen, wear, tape stretching, play back head steals information slowly... ect Would be interested in your thoughts on this!
Frank James As he stated his experience is from past. The factor many miss is that in those old days they had quite lower knowledge than today and they were not too much critical to conditions they had tolerated just because of generaly lower quality of sources . I was a fan of magnetic recording 40 years ago and today again but today I care for machines and tapes with much more knowledge and that is a must. . When I repaired my reels (apparently I have 5pc stereo 3 headers) I always come to my CD as the last in a queque and that is for ma the example that reels are at first not worse than CD. I simply love the the secret charm of "uncountanable" :). And the wear - If not damaged mechanically nor tape is leaving magnetic dust tape lasts hundreds plays and no sign..
They did mention the "new releases" by the Tape Project. They failed to mention each tape costs $450 each.
Elitist indeed.
I guess I'll just have to stick to vinyl if I want analog.
That is a pretty scary number, so I can see why you'd want to avoid whipping it out casually. You'd really have to like an album to shell out the price of an entry-level turntable for every single one. I won't dispute that tape has advantages compared to vinyl, but in general, I think many of us are happy with making those compromises for the price we pay.
Wish i knew someone with a tape machine i would love to hear these new AP tapes!
This year the digital world will have something big, very big. when digital can capture the analog to its nanoseconds. :)
Toys for rich audiophiles? Well, if you can afford a $15K tape deck perhaps $450 master dubbed tapes aren't an issue.. If this was more mainstream there might be some hope for affordable refurbished machines with modern electronics. Sadly, with high-resolution streaming becoming widely available, affordable R2R modern machines are out of the question since the market will be so small. That said I'm glad there's folks keeping the R2R flame flickering.
39:15
My experience with pro machines is limited but I once heard a Studer that I restored and it sounded awful with a very forward midrange like bad solid state. My Revox A77 sounded better.I have alot of consumer reel to reels and I think my Tandberg TD20A sounds best. I have a lot of original RCA and Mercury tapes which sound great but due to tape hiss the LPs sound better.The best sounding recordings I have in terms of dynamic range and an alive sound are direct to disc LPs. I have never heard a CD with the dynamic range of these LPs.
Tape really didn't die well - if you can't get the master quality on tape, which is what you're actually getting with digital master tracks and which was the main reason "digital" was invented in the first place - lossless multiplication! - (and you can't possibly get that unless you're buying the actual analogue master tape), you also shouldn't be paying for that 2nd gen. trash.
Does no one remember that with every tape read, the "master" worsen... Each "master" copy is a degraded copy of a degraded "master"?
Myles Astor, I see. I've left tape long ago, and never looked back... My main issue with tape (and all analog media) is the hiss, I hate hiss. Maybe when you dub using 50ips or more, the information is mostly intact (probably close to 99% or more), but a "master" when used to dub 1000 copy, will not sound the same after 1000th copy, and the copy will sound even worse. I'm not saying that the tape it self is bad, but the limitation of an analog media is there, and it bothers me personally, thus my first comment :)
But, at the end of the day, each to one's own. I don't like analog media, others do. I just find the limitation to be not worth my time, that's all :)
Will read more about the modern way of tape copying process. The last time I dub a tape was 15 - 20 years ago, some are on compact cassette, some on 1" tape, and everything in between. Most of my analog collection today are on compact cassettes, the 1" tape reel is MIA. I remember back then, 1" reel (forgot the length) was only good for 15 - 20 mins of audio when ran at 50ips (IIRC, or was it 60? hmm...) that was so long ago.
As for the 1000 number, by experience, when I dub my old tape (this is back in the olden days), once I got into ~100 or so copies, my "master" changed quite a bit - especially at the highs - and here in Indonesia, everyday is a humid, sticky day. The change is exponential however, after ~200 copies, the sound of my 1" tape is more or less the same as my high speed dub on a Type IV compact cassette - Thus my assumption of 1000 copies.
Interesting point... I was thinking about a reel to reel... But your comment worried me a bit!
If I make a recording of a record or cd... is that what happens to tape, the copy degrades the more I play it?
What causes this to happen, wear, tape stretching, play back head steals information slowly... ect
Would be interested in your thoughts on this!
Frank James
As he stated his experience is from past. The factor many miss is that in those old days they had quite lower knowledge than today and they were not too much critical to conditions they had tolerated just because of generaly lower quality of sources . I was a fan of magnetic recording 40 years ago and today again but today I care for machines and tapes with much more knowledge and that is a must. . When I repaired my reels (apparently I have 5pc stereo 3 headers) I always come to my CD as the last in a queque and that is for ma the example that reels are at first not worse than CD. I simply love the the secret charm of "uncountanable" :). And the wear - If not damaged mechanically nor tape is leaving magnetic dust tape lasts hundreds plays and no sign..
Very interesting and informative Mike....
You say "When you repaired your reels" Does this happen often?
Or did you mean "prepared" your tapes?
9:40 this guy he gets on my nerves I do not like him
Interestingly, I met a woman once...
I asked her about all this audiophile stuff.
She suggested I try a CD. It was a revelation.