I totally agree...those of us who have Reel to Reel players (I inherited my Akai and Blue Note OP's from my Grand Father) it is a phonemal format. It is not for the lazy because it does take a little more work to enjoy but the sound is frankly unrivaled especially listening to my Gran Dad's recording of Trane, Getz,Miles, Ella and others it is phonominal. LUV your channel and objective view points....keep being U!🙏🏼
@@timothymayo7522 Yes! Agree. I bought a used TEAC 'open reel' deck as a fun toy which was fun to watch the machine running without actually listening to the audio. Back in the day (early '70s), these ELEGANT machines added class to your component system! I did play some commercially available tapes once in a while. One in particular had AMAZING FIDELITY, "Cabaret" running at 15ips would give a CD a run for its money, albeit running time was quite short even with auto-reverse on the 7" reels. But, the thing was a MONSTER, weighing in at about 50lbs. Everything built in "golden age of audio" was HEAVY, NO PLASTICS for me, thank you!
Hello Graig, I worked at a radiostation in Belgium (between 1985-1994). Most of the shows were live on the air. But we used VCR tape for our "in case of emergency". Everybody who had a show had to make sure that he had 2 "emergency tapes" as backup The main reason that we used VCR tape : It was wider than the normal reel to reel. And also that sometimes we could record 8 hours of music on that tape. (on slow speed) Reel to reel had one disadvantage... the tape could fail or break. That was very useful for our night programs. All we had to do was start the VCR player and we had non-stop music till the first man arrived in the studio. The quality was very good and had almost or no noise. Later we used DAT tape but that was not really a succes. And I remember those card system. We used it indeed for commercial and jingles. Wish those times could be back. Respect for your youtube channel and best regards from Belgium.
My first experience was at 7 years old, my grandmother had a small cabinet with an automatic stackable 45, RPM console. I was hooked the first time I discovered it. She had about 20 or 30 Scandinavian, folk dance and square dance records. I'm glad you rediscovered music again.
First time I heard Dark side of the moon was on reel to reel way back in 73. It never sounded better no matter what other format I heard on but then again my ears were 45 years younger!
Yeah, I agree! There are so many factors: quality of speakers, amp/receiver, even speaker wires and cables, not to mention human ear sensitivity/youth. But back in the day, when I had reel-to-reel, a tube amp/receiver and nice, warm speakers, that was the best! I also had some good headphones, but headphone technology has come a long way since 1970.
@@continentalgin I still have my Celestion Ditton speakers from 1970. Richest warmest sounding speaker I have ever owned and I've owed a few over the years but I always go back to those bad boys.
I had a chance to listen to a 15ips half track master of Dark Side of the Moon just a few years ago on an extreme high end system. I was completely unprepared for the fidelity that I heard and I've heard many fantastic systems. It utterly blew away ALL other mediums by a gigantic margin! I have never heard anything sound as good since.
It has nothing to do with your ears. A digital recording is dead it has no soul. It can't be felt in your heart. Now you know why analog feels better. It's not that it sounds better. It is not dead and that bit of soul from the performer can touch your soul especially when you close your eyes and listen with your heart .
love you Vinyl TV channa. I am 82 and have got back into vintage stereo equipment from 1967..I have just bought a Fluance RT85 TT and I am blown away with the sound my old records produce...well done Craig...
Craig Warner Yes indeed. You can explain to someone HOW it works (the stylus converts the grooves into an electrical signal etc), but no one can explain WHY it works
"This should not work but it does" :) I have been thinking similar things. I remember first blowing my mind when I realized how it worked (roughly) as a kid, except I didn't think about the fact that it was in stereo. Then I re-blew my mind more recently when I started thinking about how the needle manages to capture stereo. It's awesome!
Thanks for putting this together! Much appreciated! This video is right up my alley! Loved every second of it! Being a man of a certain age [63], I delved into every recorded format that the 20th century had to offer. I am a self-proclaimed audiophile and a vinyl & reel-to-reel aficionado, all piped thru vintage Dynaco vacuum-tube equipment from the early 60's. Now that I'm totally digital, I haven't played my analog media for almost 2 decades. This video definitely got me thinking! I have my favorite MFSL LPs and reels @ 7 1/2 IPS. Their CD brethren never quite matches the sweetness of their analog counterparts. But once I up-sample selected CD tracks to 48K / 32-Bit, I'm happy once again! Thanks again for your train-of-thought on my favorite subject!
The best audio medium for me is vinyl. I have a lot of CDs as well, but the whole listening experience of vinyl records is amazing. Taking the record out of the sleeve, cleaning the record, putting it on the turntable, dropping the needle, and hearing the crackle sound. It doesn't get any better than that.- James in Wisconsin.
I forgot to add looking at the front cover of the vinyl, most of the time admiring the artwork, although some front covers can have boring artwork, reading the back cover and reading the lyrics.
I feel the same - it's probably my age showing thru because I had my first TT and stereo long before cassette, 8-track and other tape formats were invented. CD's never seemed to me to be quite the same either. And now digital...the best thing to be said about digital is the enormous amount of songs one can cram onto a single thumb drive. That said, I still spin vinyl and hope I always will
Sure I love those parts of it too especially album art and liner notes/lyrics, and this is getting into semantics, but nothing you said there has anything to do with vinyl as an audio medium itself. In terms of performance quality and so on. All the stuff you mentioned is peripheral. Except the crackling which romanticises bad sonic quality. So a sort of tail waggin the dog comment really - sure the experience, but when it's not about the intrinsic nature of what you're listening to surely you're missing the point and romanticising/fetishising tangential details? Did you mean your favourite?
Cassettes sound really god when you have a good deck, and you EQ your recordings. I've recorded cassettes that fooled people into thinking that they were listening to thinking they were listening to CD's. Reel to Reel is only slightly behind cassettes. Cassettes were best used when you recorded your own albums and mixed them down onto cassette. Pre recorded cassettes sucked, big time. But that was because they used the cheapest tapes you could find. They didn't last long when you played them a lot. So I bought CD's or Vinyl and mixed them down onto cassettes, eq'ing them in the process so that their was very little loss when they were played back. If I could record a song or collection of on cassette and gave it to someone who loved the bad I recorded for them.., and they likes the tape I gave them I know I did my job well. Throughout the 80's I recorded mix tapes for all my friends and gave them away for the holidays. Everybody loved them. Nobody complained. Vinyl records compared to CD's? Night and day! Always use CD's if you can. If you. Can't use vinyl and use Audacity to clean things up as much as you can!
how can you say that reel to reel are slightly behind cassettes, realy go back to school and learn engineering. cassettes are running at 3.5 fps. reel to reel at 15 fps or better.
We're the same age. I remember when I had a reel to reel in the late 70's, we'd load them up with about 5 albums and never have to get up to change them for a long time. Throw on a reel and you're good!
I still do and yea that is great 4 to hours on great music. (but to be honest it takes a lot of work to set up and record, but it is worth it) I wish reel to reels would come back at say 1200 to 1500 dollars. I cannot see paying 20 to 30k for one today from the very few that make them.
Hi Fi vhs is recorded with the video head as oppossed to two audio tracks on the sides of the vhs tape. It's similar to the way sound is broadcast with video. I've used Hi Fi vhs for audio recording many times in the past. It will actually sound better than reel to reel due to lack of tape hiss.
Whoever said cassettes sound terrible have obviously not heard of chrome and metal tapes. I go back as far as tapes and I used to be very picky about what tapes I used. I mainly used the TDK SA90 or the Sony UX90 tapes. Sometimes I’d splurge and get TDK MA90 tapes but were very expensive back in the 90’s. These tapes when recorded properly sounded almost dead on CD quality.
With a decent recorder, tapes can sound great, as long as you play them back on the same recorder. But if you play them on another deck, the mess starts. Often you can only turn off the Dolby circuit, to avoid pumping and missing highs. And then we have back our old friend: Tape noise. And there is some signal loss in long term archival storage.
oschiri66 it also depends on how good and how clean the heads are on the tape deck that cassette was recorded from too. I had a Technics tape deck made in the early 80’s which I got from my dad back when I was in high school and it sounded terrible playing back tapes recorded from any other deck. I also the matching receiver, EQ and speakers to go with it. This particular HiFi system was Technics base line model back then. My dad also had a JVC tape deck from the same era lying around and I convinced him to let me have that one instead. The JVC deck sounded so much better with tapes recorded from other decks. Only problem with the JVC deck is the rubber band kept coming of the motor, and I didn’t know at the time where to get a replacement one. Later on when I started working I upgraded to another, newer mid 90’s Technics deck that was very primitive to features. It was a double tape deck with only one set of play, pause, rewind, fast forward and stop buttons for both decks. It sounded pretty good, but it didn’t even have a record level knob on it which I hated and recordings on that deck were usually pretty quiet. After that I upgraded to an early 2000’s Yamaha tape deck that was fantastic, had all the bells and whistles and I absolutely loved it. Still have both those tape decks sitting out in my shed!
With cassette decks it's like with record players: Everything must be correctly calibrated. On tape decks that is: Azimuth, Bias*, Equalization, tape speed and the Dolby level*. (*=Must be calibrated for EVERY different tape!) I have a Revox B215. If there was ever a "professional" cassette deck, that's it. It even has a computer for calibrating tapes. But if I record with "Dolby C" the reproduction on other decks sounds terrible. Calibration issue. So I only use "Dolby B" and when the playback machine sounds "muffled", I even switch Dolby off. Tapes can sound great, if everything matches. If not, it's a pain in the a... nalog.
oschiri66 If I had the money I’d buy a Nakamichi Dragon deck. As far as I know they are one of the best tape decks ever made. I have only seen one of them up close and it was in a record store on the other side of town who also sell vintage audio equipment, they were asking $1750.00 for it. I have watch a lot of reviews on RUclips on these decks and they sound absolutely amazing. Apparently these decks can get basically any type cassette to sound superb so long as you set the bias and Azimuth adjustments correctly.
Be careful with Nakamichis. They cost a fortune to maintain. I bought my Revox B215 new back in 1986 and it hasn't seen a service since. The Nakamichi has some nice ideas with auto-azimuth and flip-over autoreverse. But in the long run everything is quite fragile. Look at the Revox mechanism. That's not consumer class, that's pro-equipment. On the other hand, there are some combinations of cheap decks and tapes that can sound astonishing for little money. But if you have found the right tape, stick with it. I remember (1978) a cheap japanese top-loader tape deck called "Fair Mate" that loved TDK AD ferro tapes. That primitive combination sounded great and rivaled my reel to reel at 3 3/4 ips. But when I took a german BASF or a Maxell, the good sound was gone. It had nothing to do with the quality of the tape, but that "Fair Mate" was most likely factory calibrated for ADs.
Thanks so much, that was the most informative, cut-through-the nonsense analysis of the various formats I've heard. It's great to have someone confirm that vinyl is fine but not without its drawbacks and that it's ok to still love CDs! Great talk - thanks again.
The very pops and clicks that people hate is what I love so much about vinyl. You drop the needle on the record and you hear them, takes me way back to when I first heard some of the albums with my Dad.
Hi Craig , just join your chanel and thx a lot for so much info and great stories, I love listening to all your stories about music and equipment. I even joined CraigTube despite the fact that we are from a different time zone and I have to wait until 4 am of my time, it's worth it because you are doing a great job !! Don't stop and take care buddy .
It's the crackles and pops that I enjoy about my vinyl collection . It feels and sounds real to me . Yeah of course digital is cleaner and has a low noise floor but there's just something about dropping that needle and listening to every song on each side that's magical to me .
Yes. Reel-to-reel tape format can sound really great and I love it. The main problem, I think, is how to produce "albums" in enough large amounts (say, 1 million copies) without degradation of the master material and avoiding the well known generation's issue, not to mention the high selling prices per unit. All that said, I admit vynil is, for me, the less worthy format available today. "Rituals" don't make me feel hot or cold. Truly interesting and calmly thought video. Thank you very much for it.
i love your take on reel to reel,my uncle recorded so much in the 50's and 60's,i never questioned how he did it,i was a teen then,but it was amazing,he did music,tv,radio,family gatherings...interesting video,takes me way back
I have found that when you clean the record, leave it damp and play it "wet." You will lose a lot of the extra noise, pops, and clicks. It sounds better to my ear this way.
Great video, enjoy listening to all your videos. For me the most important thing to consider is playback. This is where you get the emotions and the accuracies of the original recording. That being said, I won’t get into the classic video versus C D discussion.
I use to have a reel to reel with a dbx rack mounted unit! 85 db s/n ratio! The bass and drums were so kick ass sounding! The wall of sound would vibrate the furniture! Analog at it's finest! Miss those days! Thanks for your thoughts and got to visit some fond memories!
My experience with cassettes was the same as yours. I had a cassette deck that used DBX noise reduction and metal tape, made recordings of CD's that sounded amazingly close to the original CD'S.
Nice discussion. You are breaking my heart. Back in 1972 - 1976 I had a few R2R tape decks. My Revox was the best one I had. I would tape my LP collection onto tape. Life got in the way and I had a family to raise so I ended up selling my tape deck and over 50 reels of music. I did however save my LP collection. I still have my records and just ordered a new Fluance RT-85 turn table. Time will tell but I did enjoy my tape collection back in the day.
Record companies did produce pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, but many of them ran at 3¾ IPS so the quality was not as good as the format was capable of. And DSD (Direct Stream Digital), as used by the Super Audio CD (SACD) format, is almost the idea you're thinking of -- it samples audio at 2.82 MHz, but only at 1-bit depth, so the end result is about the same quality as 24-bit 192 kHz PCM.
But it's not. Because often in many cases, the SACDs are created from the standard 16bit redbook masters used for the standard CD releases. It's only "the same quality" as 24bit 192khz PCM if the masters used for creating the DSD tracks where in that quality or better to begin with, which they very rarely are.
You're right. Audiophile are too hung up on numbers than what it actually sounds like. In actual listening tests, most people have only a 50/50 chance of being able to hear the difference between a CD and a SACD.
Indeed. Much of it is marketing voodoo, just like the glass CD's which supposedly sound better than the same master burned to a standard CD. Obviously the 1's and 0's have an extra sparkle in them due to the glass.....
@@SSJfraz GLASS CDs??? 😩 What on Earth can do GLASS to improve the conversion to analog, wich is all that matters? Someone is needing urgent psychiatric help, I'm afraid.
Thanks for keeping it reel. I remember a time when reel-to-reel was venerated among myself and my audiophile friends as a potential step-up that none of us could afford. It promised a dream of multiple records playing back in series without flipping or changing. Perhaps we were naive.
i love the cd brightness but the vinyl warmth as well..all good ...cassettes are warm as well..all good happy man here,, i stay away from technical math frequency details which is so boring to me...enjoying my cd and vinyl and cassette collection...love it..cheers..
I have always thought that one HUGE problem with a lot of music lies not so much with the playback format as it does with the way that sound engineers manipulate the sound according to what they think is what it should sound like. Boosting the bass or treble, or both, adding excessive loudness, compressing the sound, and so forth. When you start with sound that has been manipulated like that, it shows up on any playback medium. Think of all the great sought after recordings: they are not just known for the artists, but usually also the sound engineer and the original techniques used to record the session.
I am not opposed to digital VS analog, and I enjoy both for what they offer. I’m currently obsessed with the sound of what I record on my cassette deck: It adds depth and richness to the sound that I am finding intoxicating. The first time I recorded on to a cassette in decades and played it back, I basically cried. I hadn’t realized just how pivotal that “sound” could be to me. It may not be true to what was originally recorded, but it feels more real. I like to think of it as putting back something that was removed which you might hear if you had been there live. I have a high-end vinyl rig, lossless digital files as well as streaming, and CDs, and yet the little cassette tape has come back and stolen my heart and moved me emotionally and engaged me like I had never expected. It’s a fun hobby… listen to what you enjoy, and listen using the format of your choice! But most of all, make sure the music moves your soul.
Oh the frustration of 8 tracks from tape jam and being eaten, which were often tossed out the car left to die on the side of the road, to changing tracks or fading in/out in the middle of a song, to not sitting in the unit at the correct angle on the tape head, to the peeling off of the metal strip that caused the tape head to switch to the next level! But what made it so worthwhile was the ability to take your music with you in the car or play on a portable until cassettes eventually took over the market. I had a Teac 3300 reel2reel back in the mid 80’s and I always enjoyed the full very low noise sound it produced. And like others have commented, I also had a few prerecorded label released reel2reels. I love vinyl for its analog sound and tangibles, and digital for its clean, though not perfect, sound and convenience. Is there a best format? They all have their pros and cons, but they’ve each allowed us to enjoy music, and that’s the goal.
Great video Craig. Vinyl is all about the experience. The new TT (Sony PS-HX500 & Pro-Ject Debut Carbon RecordMaster HiRes) can record in HiRes DSD 128/256. I just ordered a Pro-Ject Debut Carbon RecordMaster HiRes. Can't wait to set this up & start listening to & recording my LP's again. Will be interesting to compare the recordings of PCM 24/192 to the DSD ones.
I agree with what is said here. Open reel (reel to reel) is the best analog format. They are making some truly fantastic (although fantastically expensive) open reel machines today. Most of the recording studios through the years used this and considered it the best format. I'll never look down on digital, especially these days. Now we have ~32-bit at ~200k Hz. You don't miss anything with this. CDs don't qualify in my opinion, but were convenient. I mainly listen to music through a PC with a good DAC now.
I have a GE RD Electronics Engineer as an acquaintance. Eight years he took me on an audio tour from half speed masters on a professional reel to reel all the way through various qualities of vinyl up to newest digital formats. I was blown away by the sound that a half speed master put out. Never heard better although quality vinyl came in as a close second. Of course none of this matters if the sound engineering was not done artfully. I also asked him what he thought could be better than reel to reel. You ready for this? He said if 35 mm movie film had its entire width used for recording that such a method of recording and playback would be beyond outstanding.
Open reel and cassette tapes can sound very good. Also, finding interesting cassettes, records, etc at the thrift stores and in yard sales is the best. Refurbishing old tape transports is also alot of fun. I say if it makes you happy do it (within reason).
Believe it or not, around 1970, I had a nice reel-to-reel machine and the record companies were releasing albums on that format. I had a Sgt. Pepper album that played at 7 1/5 ips and sounded great. At some point, I sold off a bunch of stuff, including my tape player and tapes. Sure wish I had kept the tapes as they would be very valuable collector's items today. I had an 8-track player in my car, but that was a different tape format, which I didn't like as much, but it was the best thing for a car back then.
Great discussion! I just love watching the record or reel to reel go round. Ear ringing gives me all the extra noise I need. I record my favorite record's and CDs, and yes mp3 to reel to reel which sounds wonderful to me! Then I get to watch the tape turn and listen to the music. Still, the child's record player which used a turntable a needle and a diaphragm was so cool!
A nice trick is to record your cd's on a quality r2r at 7 1/2 ips then listen to the tape it gets rid of the digital harmonic distortion and or smooths it out so that the high fq is softened and not scratchy sounding and monotoned as much.
Absolute spot on this video. I remember when some radio switched over from AM to FM. Most people din't like sound off FM. It was to sharp same as we have had now in the 80's with CD. But Craig there was a time a time companie's did release their albums on tape. The reason they stoped this is because if you've had a copy it would last for a long time. While as you said a record can be damaged and they bought a new one.
Very well done--My father had a R2R and he recorded records onto reels at 7 1/2 IPS and it sounded wonderful. The records were only played to make recordings because every time you play a record, you degrade the sound. The "perfect" format, well... once you hit 24 bit (or is it 32 bit) you are at 144dB of noise floor. You can do tricks to the original 16 bit (96dB) and make it 115dB. Let's assume you live in an underground bunker with no HVAC to make sound and measure 0dB in the room. Go to the max level of the 24 bit format and hit your ears at 144dB. Once your ears get hit with around 105dB, the middle ear muscles clamp down to protect your hearing which destroys any frequency response or hearing acuity. 115dB you will start getting a pain response and 144dB you will destroy your hearing (talking mids/highs, not 20Hz bass) Also at 144dB, that would demand electronics/amplifiers to have at least 144dB S/N ratio which costs stacks of cash to get there. Basically, your EARS are the natural limit and in the future if 24bit takes off just because--it will wildly exceed your ears ability to hear it and most electonics to be able to play at that level of accuracy. As far as vinyl and tape go, in reality when you listen to a record that was made in the last 30 years--it comes off a digital master. The best recording you can hear is straight off the digital master! Vinyl and tape add background noise so is called "a sound effect"--that is not accuracy! It is really amazing that vinyl records actually can put out decent sound--it is 19th Century technlogy--but it does work. He forgot one format--it was HiFi VHS with chrome tape on video tape. I had a pro S-VHS 7 head hi-fi VCR and made a few recordings on tape with noise reduction encode and noise reduction decode and it had incredible sound. I would make 2 hour "mix tapes" with S-VHS tapes--because I could! The problem with tape is it degrades over time, the magnetic nature of it will "bleed" through and "ghost" the sound on the layers above/below it and the materials break down over time. Back in the day, I would use CD's, record them onto chrome tape with a 3 head deck, dual capstans and noise reduction and it sounded great--CD master mix tapes were far better than the pre-recorded garbage at the store. Realistically though, a non-compressed download smokes R2R, cassettes, records and all analog formats. A perfect copy of the master is ideal and you can get that. If you like screwing around with analog formats because that is the experience or you like tinkering around with trying to get the best sound of the things--go for it. I call records like I do starting an old school motorcycle with carbs, chokes and kick starters. On a cold morning, you had to get the choke perfect, ease the cylinder just past top dead center, get the throttle position right then get a forceful kick to get the thing to even start--you feel connected to what you are doing. Fuel injection and electric start is like CD...press the button, the electronics take over and the motor starts--simple! You just don't get the fun, the hope it will start and the feeling of really getting it down with fuel injection/electric start--but it is almost magic if you get the choke/throttle position and the perfect kick on the lever and the thing starts up;! It is a fun hobby to try to get the best sound out of records and tapes also...but at the end of the day we realize that digital recordings, exact copies of the digital master is better than analog recordings of the same digital master. Same is true with electric start/fuel injection VS kick start/carbs--but kick start and carbs are just more fun and more interactive than pressing a button. If I had to start a motorcycle 5 times a day in all weather--I'd go with electric start/fuel injection! But, if it is just a hobby, something to screw around with kicks and carbs are just more fun. The same is true with records and tapes, just don't think they are "better"...don't fool yourself. There are plenty of simple things that can be better but just less fun--records are an experience, a hobby and is entertaining--but it is not "better". R2R, a great format for recording but as far as buying pre-recorded tapes? That would of been rough to load in your car--imagine how big a "reel-to-reel man" would of been! Great video--have a great week.
Don't forget the Quadraphonic format. I had an Akai Reel-to-reel back in the early '70s that was a Quad unit and the demo tape they sent along with it blew me away! The trouble was it never took off and tapes were hard to come by. Even with that, albums on reel-to-reel were also hard to come by. I used my machine to record my vinyl on and to make mixed tapes on my cassette recorder. Too bad that while I was deployed that I got ripped off and they got away with everything I owned. Every album, tape and all my electronics, speakers & all. I still miss that gear!
Some open decks did use what was called "EE" for extra effeciency. I think it was basically the formulation as Maxell or TDK high bias cassettes. BASF had an EE tape also but I think it was supposed actually chromium dioxide like many of their cassettes. I was a jock at a 100kw CHR FM station and we used NAB carts for everything. We used ITC 99Bs (eight in control room) for spots, jingles and music. The heads (if I recall) called MaxTrax which was created by PR&E for their Tomcat line of NAB cart machines. These carts were so quiet that we didn't need dbx or Dolby SR and many of the CD's from which we dubbed our library had more noise (noticeable) than the carts. We used AudioPak SGS4 carts at 7.5 ips. Sound quality was excellent as long as the jocks cleaned the heads and didn't abuse the carts. Love your channel.
4:00 - The big goof with 8-tracks was the elimination of the flip-up pinch roller used in the earlier Lear design, the type that radio stations used into the 1990s. One had to jiggle the 8-track cartridge to get the (built-in) pinch roller to engage, hopefully.
Those pops and crackles that you are talking about remind me of an open fire 🔥 this is why I like listening to vinyl if I wanted perfect sound I would listen to CDs but CDs remind me of watching a radiator
Thanks for posting your thoughts. No hyperbole here. I grew up listening to vinyl. I remember when the party started to really rock, the album would eventually start to skip. Like most average folks, we lived in a house made of wood frame construction and didn't have a dedicated audio room with a cement wall tied into the foundation to mount our turntable to so the records would inevitably skip. ( record crime : dimes taped to the cartridge shell to reduce skipping and keep the party rocking! ) When cassettes came out I loved them because you could record on them, and there was no chance of skipping. 45 minutes per side was glorious. That was like a whole album on one side of a cassette and the longer the music played without interruption the better. There was a reel to reel in my life at one time, but I have no idea what it was, maybe a Phillips? Many of my cassettes stretched out after a while though, and that never happened to any album I owned. Also lived in northern canada where lower end audio equipment everywhere else was high end where I was living. We never even had access to the kind of equipment you mention. Never heard of Marantz until it became legend. Pioneer, Technics, Sanyo, Sony, Fisher, Kenwood etc...were the fare of the day. Then cds came around. At first they sounded great. What I loved the most was the lack of static, crackle and pop. But I also remember getting some cds and wondering why they sounded so bad. One that jumps to mind is the Breeders, Last Splash. Even though I liked a couple of tunes a lot, ( cannonball ) the sound or mastering if you will just sounded like crap. ( maybe it was a columbia record house issue, a whole other discussion! ) Fast forward 20 or 30 years and we're into the loudness wars. Much sounds bad to these old ears. As for mp3s, I always get 320 if I can, I could always hear the difference in the lower bit rates. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. As I've mentioned in another post, I have reconnected with my vinyl collection and am having a lot of fun, but it takes a lot more effort to listen to music on a turntable. Gotta get it level, adjust the stylus/cartridge etc... very finicky, and then you gotta do it all again when your stylus wears out in a year or so. For the ultimate in sound I think it all boils down to the mastering on whatever particular medium you're listening to, but for me, as much as I love vinyl, digital still has it's place. Whatever the format, music sounds best to me when it's shared with other people in a social setting. One final note, I have a very modest set up with an old yamaha class a amp with a dedicated phono channel, 4 Klipsch r 15ms, 2 energy pro series 6" bookcase speaker, and old sound dynamics 10 in powered sub with frequency control, a very inexpensive Nikko direct drive turntable. I've learned how to set up a listening station from YT ( toe in the speakers, tweeters at ear level ) and I gotta say, lps have never sounded better. The band has moved out of the basement and is now in my living room!
Touche, very entertaining thanks Craig. I got myself a toploader sliver disc spinner, all manual load and removal. The lid even does slow counterweight close akin to a turntable arm. It does give a tactile buzz reminicent of vinyl days. I recommend this loading system for anyone who does not like the un flattering noise mechanics of a disc tray, which is a significant failure to the ritual of preparing oneself for a listening experience.
Never had great tape decks or turntables till could buy my own but always found the limits of what I had to put LPs on to cassette to keep records in good shape for when had better. Great video1
I am about the same age as you (I think) I have been buying records since I was 12/13 I still remember buying a Elvis EP of "Loving You" . Like you I was awe struck by CD's none of the Vinyl crackle but I had these records that had fond memories, so I could not just throw them in the bin. So now I have my CG collection and my Record collection. I still buy records that I could not afford when I was young. I am surprised that young people are collecting Records, but good on them. I also think they can never have the attachment we have because as I said the memories that are attached. I was waiting for you to mention Mini Disc's. Funny how you mentioned that you just think it is great how records play, I said the same thing to my wife.
Tämä on loistava luonnehdinta digitaalisen ja analogisen äänilähteen eroista. (This in Finnish). Thanks. This IS so brilliant.I've been made a pristine examples of really good cassette recordings. IT depends so much what recording deck you use. There are examples of cassettes that are premium , Even If they are Type I (for example TDK AR-X or Sony HF-ES. But you have to have a premium machine, to cope these. Thanks again for a interesting and a very good RUclips-channel.
I love vinyl we all do that's why we are here but I'm also from back in the day. I also think we all wear rose tinted glasses when it comes to vinyl too. How many of you remember having to take records back to the shop because they were damaged in some way. I remember taking back Iron Maidens Number of the Beast back 3 times due a scratch through the b side. That wasn't the only one either. Anyone remember the crappy off shoot label for EMI FAME. The vinyl was so thin it was almost like a flexi-disc real bargain basement crap. They also released cassette tapes that would stretch after a couple of plays. The other end of the spectrum and staying with EMI you had Harvest. Now anything on that label was always really good even reissues. So it wasn't always as great has we all seem to remember but would I part with any of it. ......no way.
I bought a used EMI Fame album, thin and constant surface noise, despite being visually flawless. If I had known EMI Fame vinyl was poor, I would have not purchased. You live and learn.
I can remember buying a cassette tape back in the 80's on EMI's Fame label, it was a reissue of A Collection Of Beatles Oldies. I bought it brand new but after a lot of plays it didn't play very well. I think because it was so cheap it obviously wasn't the best quality. The Fame label was just a budget label for EMI purely for reissues of albums from their back catalogue, in particular The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney etc.
I worked in recording studio, the master recording machine was the Studor A80 16 track......you could hear if you listened carefully, wow and flutter on constant notes like the piano.......secondly you have modulation noise, this is an increase in background noise with an increasing saturation of signal. I have a sensitive ear to speed consistency, nothing can get over this. CD has a clocked and almost totally constant speed that doesn't suffer from off center records or the speed variation of tape or turntables.......and there is almost no modulation noise. For all the faults of CDs they have no inherent problems with the above!
Yes sir! CD‘s are vastly underrated. If you have a real good CD player and stereo system plus a very well recorded cd ...you think the artist stands right in front of you in your listening room. GREAT. It‘s a big mistake to think in terms of digital, analog that on Sounds „colder“ and one sounds „warmer“...that’s just BS. Just as white vinyl doesn’t sound brighter than black vinyl. Some people conclude from the looks to the sound... bad idea! Plus: cd‘s doesn’t wear out, are easy to storage and the whole thing is MUCH easier to handle altogether....people call that PROGRESS.
Piano usually sounds better on CD, I'll agree to that too, probably due to wow & flutter ; the pitch of notes warbles on Vinyl.....( though I still prefer the 60 and 70s on vinyl rather than CD ) but a solo Violin or Cello is perhaps the most convincing advocate for vinyl... which has a warmth and live presence which cannot be recreated from 1010110 digital in red book format.... 24-bit is better. Anyway I'm just telling you what I like... if I said the best colour was Blue, you hardly need to argue that, in your opinion, it is Red... I have some recordings which are better on CD than Vinyl... plenty of them, in fact
@ReaktorLeak I did tests with professional musician friends, and we all went for vinyl when playing Milstein and Rostropovich's solo Bach. I do also find that some recordings do sound exactly the same. Others sound better on CD. It really depends on the mastering / recording.... in general if it's pre-80s I opt for vinyl, unless I have a super-hires. option
@@pandoraefretum Even a modest CD player can sound amazing with a good DAC. The low quality DAC is usually the issue with lower end CD machines, and if it has an optical or coax digital output, you can bypass the weak link and get some great sound from them.
What I think is interesting is that modern digital studios these days often try to replicate the ambiance of tape noise in their recordings, to bring back some of the warmth that medium gave recordings. Also as a drummer I've noticed that you often track drums on tape still, because of the dynamic response that is better captured on tape.
Love hear ppl that make sense when talking these days, so hard to find. Thank you, very accurate. Backed up by science and not by histeria and stubbornness.
19:58 Is this what you're talking about: 16 bit/44.1 kHz 32 bit/88.2 kHz 64 bit/176.4 kHz 128 bit/352.8 kHz ... I really think the sweet spot is probably 24 bit/96 kHz, but that's only under the most ideal of ideal circumstances. It would still have to be EQ'd/mixed right (personally, I want to hear a perfect balance of all the elements.) It's like you said (re: reel-to-reel) the people involved have to take the time to get it right, and that's not the profit motive for the music industry...
I love reel to reel tape. I have a Pioneer RT-1020L machine. I would love to see reel to reel tape make a big come back. My reel to reel tape collection is very small, about 25 tapes. Some of the tapes in my collection include "Woodstock" , "The Plastic Ono Band LIve in Toronto 1969" , and "Easy Rider". I also have a Music Hall turntable with a Shure M97xE cartridge. My vinyl collection is about 700 records. My CD collection is around 1200 CDs. I play my CDs on a Samsung Blu-ray player and a Tascam CD-RW700 CD recorder. All units are connected to a Yamaha 7.2 A/V receiver with a Klipsch 7.1 speaker system. My 55 inch TV and my computer is also connected to my Yamaha receiver. I hope in the future to buy a nice cassette deck. I had a nice Pioneer cassette deck back in the 70s. In the 70s I also had a Pioneer RT-1050 two track reel to reel tape machine.
I love your channel! There is no doubt that the few releases on Reel to Reel (such as Dark Side of the Moon) sounded amazing and didn't have the drawbacks of vinyl records. But as you touched upon, there would be storage disadvantages to reels as opposed to flat discs. I would add that perhaps we would not have gotten such a wonderful canvass for artwork which the large, thin record covers offered. And I bet you would agree that the compromises in sound quality are minor with good attention to the acquisition of decent equipment and good pressings! A decent preamp, a quiet steady turntable and a decent phono cartridge produces sonic nirvana! You are absolutely right that you don't have to break the bank to get good sound from records! I'm inspired from RUclipsrs such as yourself! I've ordered an Ortofon 2m Blue, premounted and hopefully aligned (Turntable Lab/Amazon), upgrading from a Shure m97xe (a decent cart but notoriously difficult to align). I'm also an AVID Rush fan! Now I want those Rush DMM reissues so badly I can taste it! Just got the "Steven Wilson Remixes: Yes" box set! Great sound and new Roger Dean artwork! What's not to like?!
Hello, I have recently been a fan of your channel and thank you for many interesting tips and observations, is there any chance that you could share your observations about the headphones if you use one. Thx again buddy. -AG-
time isn't necessarily quantized, it's a theory because it can't really be proved, but it also can't really be disproved. It's still a really useful theory that makes a lot of scientific mathematics work, and it's based on what are theoretically the smallest possible observable measurements that could be made.
I also have two R2R tape decks, a Akai 1730 DSS and a Sony TC 558..I used to have a Sony TC 530 back in the day. Love them for the clear sound they prouduce at 7.5 ips
Like others here, I remember going into a guys house one Saturday night, I went with a buddy who knew him to see if he would buy beer for us. This guy had an audio system that sounded SO astounding, it kind of set the baseline for what I wanted from that day forward. I won't pretend to know what brands or anything that ANY of it was, but he was playing it off of a Nakamichi DAT deck... and ever since then, that's what I've wanted... for nostalgic purposes more than anything I suppose. I just have that vision and feeling still in memory from all those years ago, the glowing lights in the dark, the analog VU meters bouncing around, playing The Ocean. I remember it like it happened 5 minutes ago. And SOME day when I get the money, I WILL get that Nakamichi deck
I loved the idea of ridiculously oversampled and overquantized sound :) And that the analog is digital in the end :D I think a following good quesion will be "At what level of reduction from plank scale we will be able to hear the difference ?". ps - mp3 is good enough for me, i watch the "best audio war" for fun
16/44.1 is just fine for listening to music. Really I could not tell the difference between that and 24/48 which I preferred to record in. But people record generally in 24/48 because they are going to squeeze a hell of a lot out of a single track. You might just be focusing in on certain parts of (say) a guitar recording with aggressive filters, equalizers and compressors. Things like noise floor (or other audio artefacts) can become pretty apparent even without golden ears.
IFIRC Reel to Reel was a commercial format in the 60s, I think. I don't think it was for pop rock, however. Though I think the ips was 3 something and not 7. I figure it went away due to that, probably, and vinyl sounded okay and the tape market never took to the mainstream. But this is a fuzzy memory, so take that for the 2 cents it's worth. Great video! Good to see you back!
You're the Carl Sagan of audio. I was a am show dj in the 80s and 90s and I don't think I've seen carts since then. They sounded pretty good. But I don't miss any medium as much as a 15ips reel to reel. I even miss physically cutting and taping to edit on that thing. I want to say it was a tascam but I could be mistaken. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
One big disadvantaged analog has it is that it is a physical medium. That degradation of the tape or LP when played, even when a tape is not used it also degrees! The CD has got the same bad reputation as the casete because people used them on por playback systems like walkmans and recorded bad LP and radio broadcast with the casete. But if you take a CD that is +30 year old it has never sounded better than today. Because it will not develop pops during time go by and the players is way better than in the 80-ties. If you hear a CD on a high end player in a good system then you will be surprised how great it is.
Ever hear of disc rot? When Cds fail you will never feel so helpless. Tapes can be spliced and a record may jump a groove... but when a Cd messes up you might as well throw it in the bin.
@@sundemon1156 Yes I have. It is one of the few ways that I CD can get destroyed. I have never encountered it but I live in a cold country with low humidity. The issue is in high humidity areas. On the other hand the CD can be easily be one to one bit perfect copied without any SQ degregation that is not possible with a analog format.
I have a 10 year old ORIGINAL CD album. It will not play anymore in any CDROM or CDPLAYER anymore. So much about CDs durability. Not to mention the stupud loudness wars that destroyed music altogether!
Yes any media can of course get destroyed. My point is that CD is a media that do not use any physical contact and do not wear out due to that you have put the CD-player on repeat. It is more likely that your CD-player will break after 5-10 years of continuous playback. And then you can still move the CD to next player and continue. This has not many practical applications but just show us the benefits of contact less reading of the information. (Yes there are examples on back in the day at Swedish television had a CD-player that played same CD 24/7 that they used when there was no broadcast together with a test image..) And I cant even imagine what would happen with a record or tape if you played that medium continuously for 10 years ;) Yes loudness war has destroyed music altogether but that is not the fault of the medium you could record that crap on the great sounding R2R tape also! That mistake is what people always do, like in this video there is speculation of ridiculous high digital resolution. That will not help if you still put loudness treated music on that imaginary format. Crap in will always be crap out regardless of format.. :)
Technical oriented historians believe we will become a lost era, because digital medias doesn't last. We have records, movie rolls, wax rolls, photo's etc. over a hundred years old still going strong, and papyrus and parchment rolls way over a thousand, while cd's, hard drives, SD-cards etc die off pretty quick, due to rot, or just stops working for other or no apparent reason. Besides that analog medias are simple, and it's therefore apparent how they work, while the constant change in digital formats, their variety, and complexity can become a problem over time - Even if the medias survive. Notice that you can play a record with a piece of paper rolled to a funnel, just as one example. I know what you mean, and theoretically you are on to something, but analog physical medias using physical contact have passed the test of time, while it so far doesn't look all that good when it comes to digital storage. See how much data already lost for good, due to erroneous trust in digital medias - Even when stored under perfect conditions.
Probably one of the best thinking out a loud discussions with oneself about music formats that I have listened to.
Absolutely agree!
I totally agree...those of us who have Reel to Reel players (I inherited my Akai and Blue Note OP's from my Grand Father) it is a phonemal format. It is not for the lazy because it does take a little more work to enjoy but the sound is frankly unrivaled especially listening to my Gran Dad's recording of Trane, Getz,Miles, Ella and others it is phonominal. LUV your channel and objective view points....keep being U!🙏🏼
@@timothymayo7522 Yes! Agree. I bought a used TEAC 'open reel' deck as a fun toy which was fun to watch the machine running without actually listening to the audio. Back in the day (early '70s), these ELEGANT machines added class to your component system! I did play some commercially available tapes once in a while. One in particular had AMAZING FIDELITY, "Cabaret" running at 15ips would give a CD a run for its money, albeit running time was quite short even with auto-reverse on the 7" reels. But, the thing was a MONSTER, weighing in at about 50lbs. Everything built in "golden age of audio" was HEAVY, NO PLASTICS for me, thank you!
He did a great job in explaining things for sure. If indeed you had top quality tape, the reel to reel format would sound the best.
Hello Graig,
I worked at a radiostation in Belgium (between 1985-1994). Most of the shows were live on the air. But we used VCR tape for our "in case of emergency".
Everybody who had a show had to make sure that he had 2 "emergency tapes" as backup
The main reason that we used VCR tape : It was wider than the normal reel to reel.
And also that sometimes we could record 8 hours of music on that tape. (on slow speed)
Reel to reel had one disadvantage... the tape could fail or break.
That was very useful for our night programs. All we had to do was start the VCR player and we had non-stop music till the first man arrived in the studio.
The quality was very good and had almost or no noise.
Later we used DAT tape but that was not really a succes. And I remember those card system. We used it indeed for commercial and jingles.
Wish those times could be back.
Respect for your youtube channel and best regards from Belgium.
Doc from back to the future.
My first experience was at 7 years old, my grandmother had a small cabinet with an automatic stackable 45, RPM console. I was hooked the first time I discovered it. She had about 20 or 30 Scandinavian, folk dance and square dance records. I'm glad you rediscovered music again.
First time I heard Dark side of the moon was on reel to reel way back in 73. It never sounded better no matter what other format I heard on but then again my ears were 45 years younger!
Yeah, I agree! There are so many factors: quality of speakers, amp/receiver, even speaker wires and cables, not to mention human ear sensitivity/youth. But back in the day, when I had reel-to-reel, a tube amp/receiver and nice, warm speakers, that was the best! I also had some good headphones, but headphone technology has come a long way since 1970.
@@continentalgin I still have my Celestion Ditton speakers from 1970. Richest warmest sounding speaker I have ever owned and I've owed a few over the years but I always go back to those bad boys.
I had a chance to listen to a 15ips half track master of Dark Side of the Moon just a few years ago on an extreme high end system. I was completely unprepared for the fidelity that I heard and I've heard many fantastic systems. It utterly blew away ALL other mediums by a gigantic margin! I have never heard anything sound as good since.
It has nothing to do with your ears. A digital recording is dead it has no soul. It can't be felt in your heart. Now you know why analog feels better. It's not that it sounds better. It is not dead and that bit of soul from the performer can touch your soul especially when you close your eyes and listen with your heart .
Plus you popped a virgin cherry. 1st time is best in most things.
love you Vinyl TV channa. I am 82 and have got back into vintage stereo equipment from 1967..I have just bought a Fluance RT85 TT and I am blown away with the sound my old records produce...well done Craig...
I'm with you on the idea that it's almost miraculous that vinyl works at all. It's magic that these songs can somehow be contained on this disc.
Craig Warner Yes indeed. You can explain to someone HOW it works (the stylus converts the grooves into an electrical signal etc), but no one can explain WHY it works
@@Valveus WHY it works?
The answer is simple: Because of music! ;-)
Reel to reel will always be nearest to my heart.
the cost of tapes is mind-boggling
Interesting thoughts Craig! I appreciate your pondering on Planck time! Cheers!
"This should not work but it does" :) I have been thinking similar things. I remember first blowing my mind when I realized how it worked (roughly) as a kid, except I didn't think about the fact that it was in stereo. Then I re-blew my mind more recently when I started thinking about how the needle manages to capture stereo. It's awesome!
Thanks for putting this together! Much appreciated! This video is right up my alley! Loved every second of it! Being a man of a certain age [63], I delved into every recorded format that the 20th century had to offer. I am a self-proclaimed audiophile and a vinyl & reel-to-reel aficionado, all piped thru vintage Dynaco vacuum-tube equipment from the early 60's. Now that I'm totally digital, I haven't played my analog media for almost 2 decades. This video definitely got me thinking! I have my favorite MFSL LPs and reels @ 7 1/2 IPS. Their CD brethren never quite matches the sweetness of their analog counterparts. But once I up-sample selected CD tracks to 48K / 32-Bit, I'm happy once again! Thanks again for your train-of-thought on my favorite subject!
The best audio medium for me is vinyl. I have a lot of CDs as well, but the whole listening experience of vinyl records is amazing. Taking the record out of the sleeve, cleaning the record, putting it on the turntable, dropping the needle, and hearing the crackle sound. It doesn't get any better than that.- James in Wisconsin.
I forgot to add looking at the front cover of the vinyl, most of the time admiring the artwork, although some front covers can have boring artwork, reading the back cover and reading the lyrics.
I feel the same - it's probably my age showing thru because I had my first TT and stereo long before cassette, 8-track and other tape formats were invented. CD's never seemed to me to be quite the same either. And now digital...the best thing to be said about digital is the enormous amount of songs one can cram onto a single thumb drive. That said, I still spin vinyl and hope I always will
Sure I love those parts of it too especially album art and liner notes/lyrics, and this is getting into semantics, but nothing you said there has anything to do with vinyl as an audio medium itself. In terms of performance quality and so on. All the stuff you mentioned is peripheral. Except the crackling which romanticises bad sonic quality. So a sort of tail waggin the dog comment really - sure the experience, but when it's not about the intrinsic nature of what you're listening to surely you're missing the point and romanticising/fetishising tangential details? Did you mean your favourite?
Reel to reel gives you the same experience, bUT better soud.
True
Cassettes sound really god when you have a good deck, and you EQ your recordings. I've recorded cassettes that fooled people into thinking that they were listening to thinking they were listening to CD's. Reel to Reel is only slightly behind cassettes. Cassettes were best used when you recorded your own albums and mixed them down onto cassette. Pre recorded cassettes sucked, big time. But that was because they used the cheapest tapes you could find. They didn't last long when you played them a lot. So I bought CD's or Vinyl and mixed them down onto cassettes, eq'ing them in the process so that their was very little loss when they were played back. If I could record a song or collection of on cassette and gave it to someone who loved the bad I recorded for them.., and they likes the tape I gave them I know I did my job well. Throughout the 80's I recorded mix tapes for all my friends and gave them away for the holidays. Everybody loved them. Nobody complained. Vinyl records compared to CD's? Night and day! Always use CD's if you can. If you. Can't use vinyl and use Audacity to clean things up as much as you can!
how can you say that reel to reel are slightly behind cassettes, realy go back to school and learn engineering. cassettes are running at 3.5 fps. reel to reel at 15 fps or better.
We're the same age. I remember when I had a reel to reel in the late 70's, we'd load them up with about 5 albums and never have to get up to change them for a long time. Throw on a reel and you're good!
I still do and yea that is great 4 to hours on great music. (but to be honest it takes a lot of work to set up and record, but it is worth it) I wish reel to reels would come back at say 1200 to 1500 dollars. I cannot see paying 20 to 30k for one today from the very few that make them.
I Like your honesty Craig, cheers from Chile
Hola compatriota, soy otro fan de Vinyl TV y de la música y diferentes formatos. Saludos.
@@raultech1975 Saludos compatriota 👍
I love all formats, each one has pros and conts and uses, for me doesnt matter as well sound is near as possible to the master.
We used to make mix tapes on high quality VHS when I was in Germany. Sounded great.
Hi Fi vhs is recorded with the video head as oppossed to two audio tracks on the sides of the vhs tape. It's similar to the way sound is broadcast with video. I've used Hi Fi vhs for audio recording many times in the past. It will actually sound better than reel to reel due to lack of tape hiss.
Whoever said cassettes sound terrible have obviously not heard of chrome and metal tapes. I go back as far as tapes and I used to be very picky about what tapes I used. I mainly used the TDK SA90 or the Sony UX90 tapes. Sometimes I’d splurge and get TDK MA90 tapes but were very expensive back in the 90’s. These tapes when recorded properly sounded almost dead on CD quality.
With a decent recorder, tapes can sound great, as long as you play them back on the same recorder. But if you play them on another deck, the mess starts. Often you can only turn off the Dolby circuit, to avoid pumping and missing highs. And then we have back our old friend: Tape noise. And there is some signal loss in long term archival storage.
oschiri66 it also depends on how good and how clean the heads are on the tape deck that cassette was recorded from too. I had a Technics tape deck made in the early 80’s which I got from my dad back when I was in high school and it sounded terrible playing back tapes recorded from any other deck. I also the matching receiver, EQ and speakers to go with it. This particular HiFi system was Technics base line model back then. My dad also had a JVC tape deck from the same era lying around and I convinced him to let me have that one instead. The JVC deck sounded so much better with tapes recorded from other decks. Only problem with the JVC deck is the rubber band kept coming of the motor, and I didn’t know at the time where to get a replacement one. Later on when I started working I upgraded to another, newer mid 90’s Technics deck that was very primitive to features. It was a double tape deck with only one set of play, pause, rewind, fast forward and stop buttons for both decks. It sounded pretty good, but it didn’t even have a record level knob on it which I hated and recordings on that deck were usually pretty quiet. After that I upgraded to an early 2000’s Yamaha tape deck that was fantastic, had all the bells and whistles and I absolutely loved it. Still have both those tape decks sitting out in my shed!
With cassette decks it's like with record players: Everything must be correctly calibrated. On tape decks that is: Azimuth, Bias*, Equalization, tape speed and the Dolby level*. (*=Must be calibrated for EVERY different tape!) I have a Revox B215. If there was ever a "professional" cassette deck, that's it. It even has a computer for calibrating tapes. But if I record with "Dolby C" the reproduction on other decks sounds terrible. Calibration issue. So I only use "Dolby B" and when the playback machine sounds "muffled", I even switch Dolby off. Tapes can sound great, if everything matches. If not, it's a pain in the a... nalog.
oschiri66 If I had the money I’d buy a Nakamichi Dragon deck. As far as I know they are one of the best tape decks ever made. I have only seen one of them up close and it was in a record store on the other side of town who also sell vintage audio equipment, they were asking $1750.00 for it. I have watch a lot of reviews on RUclips on these decks and they sound absolutely amazing. Apparently these decks can get basically any type cassette to sound superb so long as you set the bias and Azimuth adjustments correctly.
Be careful with Nakamichis. They cost a fortune to maintain. I bought my Revox B215 new back in 1986 and it hasn't seen a service since. The Nakamichi has some nice ideas with auto-azimuth and flip-over autoreverse. But in the long run everything is quite fragile. Look at the Revox mechanism. That's not consumer class, that's pro-equipment. On the other hand, there are some combinations of cheap decks and tapes that can sound astonishing for little money. But if you have found the right tape, stick with it. I remember (1978) a cheap japanese top-loader tape deck called "Fair Mate" that loved TDK AD ferro tapes. That primitive combination sounded great and rivaled my reel to reel at 3 3/4 ips. But when I took a german BASF or a Maxell, the good sound was gone. It had nothing to do with the quality of the tape, but that "Fair Mate" was most likely factory calibrated for ADs.
Thanks so much, that was the most informative, cut-through-the nonsense analysis of the various formats I've heard. It's great to have someone confirm that vinyl is fine but not without its drawbacks and that it's ok to still love CDs! Great talk - thanks again.
The very pops and clicks that people hate is what I love so much about vinyl. You drop the needle on the record and you hear them, takes me way back to when I first heard some of the albums with my Dad.
Hi Craig , just join your chanel and thx a lot for so much info and great stories, I love listening to all your stories about music and equipment. I even joined CraigTube despite the fact that we are from a different time zone and I have to wait until 4 am of my time, it's worth it because you are doing a great job !! Don't stop and take care buddy .
It's the crackles and pops that I enjoy about my vinyl collection . It feels and sounds real to me . Yeah of course digital is cleaner and has a low noise floor but there's just something about dropping that needle and listening to every song on each side that's magical to me .
Yes. Reel-to-reel tape format can sound really great and I love it.
The main problem, I think, is how to produce "albums" in enough large amounts (say, 1 million copies) without degradation of the master material and avoiding the well known generation's issue, not to mention the high selling prices per unit.
All that said, I admit vynil is, for me, the less worthy format available today. "Rituals" don't make me feel hot or cold.
Truly interesting and calmly thought video.
Thank you very much for it.
You said everything correctly, Craig... You did not disrespect or offend... You spoke facts and truth.
i love your take on reel to reel,my uncle recorded so much in the 50's and 60's,i never questioned how he did it,i was a teen then,but it was amazing,he did music,tv,radio,family gatherings...interesting video,takes me way back
I have found that when you clean the record, leave it damp and play it "wet." You will lose a lot of the extra noise, pops, and clicks. It sounds better to my ear this way.
Great video, enjoy listening to all your videos. For me the most important thing to consider is playback. This is where you get the emotions and the accuracies of the original recording. That being said, I won’t get into the classic video versus C D discussion.
Very good presentation. You really know your stuff. Hoping for reel-to-reel to re-arrive. Reeley!
I use to have a reel to reel with a dbx rack mounted unit! 85 db s/n ratio! The bass and drums were so kick ass sounding! The wall of sound would vibrate the furniture! Analog at it's finest! Miss those days! Thanks for your thoughts and got to visit some fond memories!
I was a radio DJ, on and off, for 17 years beginning in 1966. I still love playing vinyl recordings at home.
My experience with cassettes was the same as yours. I had a cassette deck that used DBX noise reduction and metal tape, made recordings of CD's that sounded amazingly close to the original CD'S.
I'm binge watching your videos. Keep up the good work! Thank you!
my uncle recorded everything on reel to reel in the 1950's and 60's it was awesome
Nice discussion. You are breaking my heart. Back in 1972 - 1976 I had a few R2R tape decks. My Revox was the best one I had. I would tape my LP collection onto tape. Life got in the way and I had a family to raise so I ended up selling my tape deck and over 50 reels of music. I did however save my LP collection. I still have my records and just ordered a new Fluance RT-85 turn table. Time will tell but I did enjoy my tape collection back in the day.
Back in the early 60s, commercial reel-to-reel albums were available.
Record companies did produce pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, but many of them ran at 3¾ IPS so the quality was not as good as the format was capable of. And DSD (Direct Stream Digital), as used by the Super Audio CD (SACD) format, is almost the idea you're thinking of -- it samples audio at 2.82 MHz, but only at 1-bit depth, so the end result is about the same quality as 24-bit 192 kHz PCM.
But it's not. Because often in many cases, the SACDs are created from the standard 16bit redbook masters used for the standard CD releases. It's only "the same quality" as 24bit 192khz PCM if the masters used for creating the DSD tracks where in that quality or better to begin with, which they very rarely are.
You're right. Audiophile are too hung up on numbers than what it actually sounds like. In actual listening tests, most people have only a 50/50 chance of being able to hear the difference between a CD and a SACD.
Indeed. Much of it is marketing voodoo, just like the glass CD's which supposedly sound better than the same master burned to a standard CD. Obviously the 1's and 0's have an extra sparkle in them due to the glass.....
@@SSJfraz GLASS CDs??? 😩
What on Earth can do GLASS to improve the conversion to analog, wich is all that matters?
Someone is needing urgent psychiatric help, I'm afraid.
VWestlife I Can Hear the Difference I work Doing Mixing for a Singer
Great dissertation. Thank you.
Thanks for keeping it reel.
I remember a time when reel-to-reel was venerated among myself and my audiophile friends as a potential step-up that none of us could afford. It promised a dream of multiple records playing back in series without flipping or changing. Perhaps we were naive.
i love the cd brightness but the vinyl warmth as well..all good ...cassettes are warm as well..all good happy man here,, i stay away from technical math frequency details which is so boring to me...enjoying my cd and vinyl and cassette collection...love it..cheers..
I have always thought that one HUGE problem with a lot of music lies not so much with the playback format as it does with the way that sound engineers manipulate the sound according to what they think is what it should sound like. Boosting the bass or treble, or both, adding excessive loudness, compressing the sound, and so forth.
When you start with sound that has been manipulated like that, it shows up on any playback medium.
Think of all the great sought after recordings: they are not just known for the artists, but usually also the sound engineer and the original techniques used to record the session.
Thanks Craig, nice video, i still play and record my music on my ReVox A77 MKIV Reel to Reel from 1974... :)
I am not opposed to digital VS analog, and I enjoy both for what they offer. I’m currently obsessed with the sound of what I record on my cassette deck: It adds depth and richness to the sound that I am finding intoxicating. The first time I recorded on to a cassette in decades and played it back, I basically cried. I hadn’t realized just how pivotal that “sound” could be to me. It may not be true to what was originally recorded, but it feels more real. I like to think of it as putting back something that was removed which you might hear if you had been there live. I have a high-end vinyl rig, lossless digital files as well as streaming, and CDs, and yet the little cassette tape has come back and stolen my heart and moved me emotionally and engaged me like I had never expected. It’s a fun hobby… listen to what you enjoy, and listen using the format of your choice! But most of all, make sure the music moves your soul.
Oh the frustration of 8 tracks from tape jam and being eaten, which were often tossed out the car left to die on the side of the road, to changing tracks or fading in/out in the middle of a song, to not sitting in the unit at the correct angle on the tape head, to the peeling off of the metal strip that caused the tape head to switch to the next level! But what made it so worthwhile was the ability to take your music with you in the car or play on a portable until cassettes eventually took over the market.
I had a Teac 3300 reel2reel back in the mid 80’s and I always enjoyed the full very low noise sound it produced. And like others have commented, I also had a few prerecorded label released reel2reels. I love vinyl for its analog sound and tangibles, and digital for its clean, though not perfect, sound and convenience.
Is there a best format? They all have their pros and cons, but they’ve each allowed us to enjoy music, and that’s the goal.
SACD, DVD-A, or Blu-Ray Audio are the best. Vinyl is my personal favorite.
Didn't expect this video to end up at Planck scale, but it did! Amazing! :D
Great video Craig. Vinyl is all about the experience. The new TT (Sony PS-HX500 & Pro-Ject Debut Carbon RecordMaster HiRes) can record in HiRes DSD 128/256.
I just ordered a Pro-Ject Debut Carbon RecordMaster HiRes. Can't wait to set this up & start listening to & recording my LP's again. Will be interesting to compare the recordings of PCM 24/192 to the DSD ones.
I agree with what is said here. Open reel (reel to reel) is the best analog format. They are making some truly fantastic (although fantastically expensive) open reel machines today. Most of the recording studios through the years used this and considered it the best format. I'll never look down on digital, especially these days. Now we have ~32-bit at ~200k Hz. You don't miss anything with this. CDs don't qualify in my opinion, but were convenient. I mainly listen to music through a PC with a good DAC now.
Great comparison of all the recording formats. Still using several of those formats and enjoying every moment.
I have a GE RD Electronics Engineer as an acquaintance. Eight years he took me on an audio tour from half speed masters on a professional reel to reel all the way through various qualities of vinyl up to newest digital formats. I was blown away by the sound that a half speed master put out. Never heard better although quality vinyl came in as a close second. Of course none of this matters if the sound engineering was not done artfully. I also asked him what he thought could be better than reel to reel. You ready for this? He said if 35 mm movie film had its entire width used for recording that such a method of recording and playback would be beyond outstanding.
A great set of thoughts & every body will have there own but it is so good to here what various people think.
Open reel and cassette tapes can sound very good. Also, finding interesting cassettes, records, etc at the thrift stores and in yard sales is the best. Refurbishing old tape transports is also alot of fun. I say if it makes you happy do it (within reason).
Believe it or not, around 1970, I had a nice reel-to-reel machine and the record companies were releasing albums on that format. I had a Sgt. Pepper album that played at 7 1/5 ips and sounded great. At some point, I sold off a bunch of stuff, including my tape player and tapes. Sure wish I had kept the tapes as they would be very valuable collector's items today. I had an 8-track player in my car, but that was a different tape format, which I didn't like as much, but it was the best thing for a car back then.
Great discussion! I just love watching the record or reel to reel go round. Ear ringing gives me all the extra noise I need. I record my favorite record's and CDs, and yes mp3 to reel to reel which sounds wonderful to me! Then I get to watch the tape turn and listen to the music. Still, the child's record player which used a turntable a needle and a diaphragm was so cool!
A nice trick is to record your cd's on a quality r2r at 7 1/2 ips then listen to the tape it gets rid of the digital harmonic distortion and or smooths it out so that the high fq is softened and not scratchy sounding and monotoned as much.
Absolute spot on this video. I remember when some radio switched over from AM to FM. Most people din't like sound off FM. It was to sharp same as we have had now in the 80's with CD.
But Craig there was a time a time companie's did release their albums on tape. The reason they stoped this is because if you've had a copy it would last for a long time. While as you said a record can be damaged and they bought a new one.
Very well done--My father had a R2R and he recorded records onto reels at 7 1/2 IPS and it sounded wonderful. The records were only played to make recordings because every time you play a record, you degrade the sound. The "perfect" format, well... once you hit 24 bit (or is it 32 bit) you are at 144dB of noise floor. You can do tricks to the original 16 bit (96dB) and make it 115dB. Let's assume you live in an underground bunker with no HVAC to make sound and measure 0dB in the room. Go to the max level of the 24 bit format and hit your ears at 144dB. Once your ears get hit with around 105dB, the middle ear muscles clamp down to protect your hearing which destroys any frequency response or hearing acuity. 115dB you will start getting a pain response and 144dB you will destroy your hearing (talking mids/highs, not 20Hz bass) Also at 144dB, that would demand electronics/amplifiers to have at least 144dB S/N ratio which costs stacks of cash to get there. Basically, your EARS are the natural limit and in the future if 24bit takes off just because--it will wildly exceed your ears ability to hear it and most electonics to be able to play at that level of accuracy. As far as vinyl and tape go, in reality when you listen to a record that was made in the last 30 years--it comes off a digital master. The best recording you can hear is straight off the digital master! Vinyl and tape add background noise so is called "a sound effect"--that is not accuracy! It is really amazing that vinyl records actually can put out decent sound--it is 19th Century technlogy--but it does work. He forgot one format--it was HiFi VHS with chrome tape on video tape. I had a pro S-VHS 7 head hi-fi VCR and made a few recordings on tape with noise reduction encode and noise reduction decode and it had incredible sound. I would make 2 hour "mix tapes" with S-VHS tapes--because I could! The problem with tape is it degrades over time, the magnetic nature of it will "bleed" through and "ghost" the sound on the layers above/below it and the materials break down over time. Back in the day, I would use CD's, record them onto chrome tape with a 3 head deck, dual capstans and noise reduction and it sounded great--CD master mix tapes were far better than the pre-recorded garbage at the store. Realistically though, a non-compressed download smokes R2R, cassettes, records and all analog formats. A perfect copy of the master is ideal and you can get that. If you like screwing around with analog formats because that is the experience or you like tinkering around with trying to get the best sound of the things--go for it. I call records like I do starting an old school motorcycle with carbs, chokes and kick starters. On a cold morning, you had to get the choke perfect, ease the cylinder just past top dead center, get the throttle position right then get a forceful kick to get the thing to even start--you feel connected to what you are doing. Fuel injection and electric start is like CD...press the button, the electronics take over and the motor starts--simple! You just don't get the fun, the hope it will start and the feeling of really getting it down with fuel injection/electric start--but it is almost magic if you get the choke/throttle position and the perfect kick on the lever and the thing starts up;! It is a fun hobby to try to get the best sound out of records and tapes also...but at the end of the day we realize that digital recordings, exact copies of the digital master is better than analog recordings of the same digital master. Same is true with electric start/fuel injection VS kick start/carbs--but kick start and carbs are just more fun and more interactive than pressing a button. If I had to start a motorcycle 5 times a day in all weather--I'd go with electric start/fuel injection! But, if it is just a hobby, something to screw around with kicks and carbs are just more fun. The same is true with records and tapes, just don't think they are "better"...don't fool yourself. There are plenty of simple things that can be better but just less fun--records are an experience, a hobby and is entertaining--but it is not "better". R2R, a great format for recording but as far as buying pre-recorded tapes? That would of been rough to load in your car--imagine how big a "reel-to-reel man" would of been! Great video--have a great week.
Don't forget the Quadraphonic format. I had an Akai Reel-to-reel back in the early '70s that was a Quad unit and the demo tape they sent along with it blew me away! The trouble was it never took off and tapes were hard to come by. Even with that, albums on reel-to-reel were also hard to come by. I used my machine to record my vinyl on and to make mixed tapes on my cassette recorder. Too bad that while I was deployed that I got ripped off and they got away with everything I owned. Every album, tape and all my electronics, speakers & all. I still miss that gear!
Thanks good story you have a pleasant voice to listen to. I agree with everything you said. Thanks for this.
Some open decks did use what was called "EE" for extra effeciency. I think it was basically the formulation as Maxell or TDK high bias cassettes. BASF had an EE tape also but I think it was supposed actually chromium dioxide like many of their cassettes.
I was a jock at a 100kw CHR FM station and we used NAB carts for everything. We used ITC 99Bs (eight in control room) for spots, jingles and music. The heads (if I recall) called MaxTrax which was created by PR&E for their Tomcat line of NAB cart machines. These carts were so quiet that we didn't need dbx or Dolby SR and many of the CD's from which we dubbed our library had more noise (noticeable) than the carts. We used AudioPak SGS4 carts at 7.5 ips. Sound quality was excellent as long as the jocks cleaned the heads and didn't abuse the carts. Love your channel.
Thank you! Love your info. Very interesting!
4:00 - The big goof with 8-tracks was the elimination of the flip-up pinch roller used in the earlier Lear design, the type that radio stations used into the 1990s. One had to jiggle the 8-track cartridge to get the (built-in) pinch roller to engage, hopefully.
I remember the 4 track still have one with 10 cartridges. I just replace the belt and it is fantastic.
Those pops and crackles that you are talking about remind me of an open fire 🔥 this is why I like listening to vinyl if I wanted perfect sound I would listen to CDs but CDs remind me of watching a radiator
Really enjoy your videos, would love to see one on cleaning and you're maintenance practices.
Thanks for posting your thoughts. No hyperbole here.
I grew up listening to vinyl. I remember when the party started to really rock, the album would eventually start to skip. Like most average folks, we lived in a house made of wood frame construction and didn't have a dedicated audio room with a cement wall tied into the foundation to mount our turntable to so the records would inevitably skip. ( record crime : dimes taped to the cartridge shell to reduce skipping and keep the party rocking! ) When cassettes came out I loved them because you could record on them, and there was no chance of skipping. 45 minutes per side was glorious. That was like a whole album on one side of a cassette and the longer the music played without interruption the better. There was a reel to reel in my life at one time, but I have no idea what it was, maybe a Phillips? Many of my cassettes stretched out after a while though, and that never happened to any album I owned. Also lived in northern canada where lower end audio equipment everywhere else was high end where I was living. We never even had access to the kind of equipment you mention. Never heard of Marantz until it became legend. Pioneer, Technics, Sanyo, Sony, Fisher, Kenwood etc...were the fare of the day. Then cds came around. At first they sounded great. What I loved the most was the lack of static, crackle and pop. But I also remember getting some cds and wondering why they sounded so bad. One that jumps to mind is the Breeders, Last Splash. Even though I liked a couple of tunes a lot, ( cannonball ) the sound or mastering if you will just sounded like crap. ( maybe it was a columbia record house issue, a whole other discussion! ) Fast forward 20 or 30 years and we're into the loudness wars. Much sounds bad to these old ears. As for mp3s, I always get 320 if I can, I could always hear the difference in the lower bit rates. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. As I've mentioned in another post, I have reconnected with my vinyl collection and am having a lot of fun, but it takes a lot more effort to listen to music on a turntable. Gotta get it level, adjust the stylus/cartridge etc... very finicky, and then you gotta do it all again when your stylus wears out in a year or so.
For the ultimate in sound I think it all boils down to the mastering on whatever particular medium you're listening to, but for me, as much as I love vinyl, digital still has it's place. Whatever the format, music sounds best to me when it's shared with other people in a social setting.
One final note, I have a very modest set up with an old yamaha class a amp with a dedicated phono channel, 4 Klipsch r 15ms, 2 energy pro series 6" bookcase speaker, and old sound dynamics 10 in powered sub with frequency control, a very inexpensive Nikko direct drive turntable. I've learned how to set up a listening station from YT ( toe in the speakers, tweeters at ear level ) and I gotta say, lps have never sounded better. The band has moved out of the basement and is now in my living room!
I can hear it now - New "Planck" digital format is coming - Damn, now I have to buy 'The White Album' again. (Men In Black reference). :)
Touche, very entertaining thanks Craig. I got myself a toploader sliver disc spinner, all manual load and removal. The lid even does slow counterweight close akin to a turntable arm. It does give a tactile buzz reminicent of vinyl days.
I recommend this loading system for anyone who does not like the un flattering noise mechanics of a disc tray, which is a significant failure to the ritual of preparing oneself for a listening experience.
Never had great tape decks or turntables till could buy my own but always found the limits of what I had to put LPs on to cassette to keep records in good shape for when had better. Great video1
I am about the same age as you (I think) I have been buying records since I was 12/13 I still remember buying a Elvis EP of "Loving You" . Like you I was awe struck by CD's none of the Vinyl crackle but I had these records that had fond memories, so I could not just throw them in the bin. So now I have my CG collection and my Record collection. I still buy records that I could not afford when I was young. I am surprised that young people are collecting Records, but good on them. I also think they can never have the attachment we have because as I said the memories that are attached. I was waiting for you to mention Mini Disc's. Funny how you mentioned that you just think it is great how records play, I said the same thing to my wife.
Tämä on loistava luonnehdinta digitaalisen ja analogisen äänilähteen eroista. (This in Finnish).
Thanks. This IS so brilliant.I've been made a pristine examples of really good cassette recordings. IT depends so much what recording deck you use. There are examples of cassettes that are premium , Even If they are Type I (for example TDK AR-X or Sony HF-ES. But you have to have a premium machine, to cope these. Thanks again for a interesting and a very good RUclips-channel.
i love these videos and wish they came out quicker.....always great info from a smart dude
Hi Craig. I just subscribed. I found this video so interesting with you talking about the formats. I prefer vinyl but I like CDs as well. Peter.
I love vinyl we all do that's why we are here but I'm also from back in the day. I also think we all wear rose tinted glasses when it comes to vinyl too. How many of you remember having to take records back to the shop because they were damaged in some way. I remember taking back Iron Maidens Number of the Beast back 3 times due a scratch through the b side. That wasn't the only one either. Anyone remember the crappy off shoot label for EMI FAME. The vinyl was so thin it was almost like a flexi-disc real bargain basement crap. They also released cassette tapes that would stretch after a couple of plays. The other end of the spectrum and staying with EMI you had Harvest. Now anything on that label was always really good even reissues. So it wasn't always as great has we all seem to remember but would I part with any of it. ......no way.
I bought a used EMI Fame album, thin and constant surface noise, despite being visually flawless. If I had known EMI Fame vinyl was poor, I would have not purchased. You live and learn.
Never happened to me..
I can remember buying a cassette tape back in the 80's on EMI's Fame label, it was a reissue of A Collection Of Beatles Oldies. I bought it brand new but after a lot of plays it didn't play very well. I think because it was so cheap it obviously wasn't the best quality. The Fame label was just a budget label for EMI purely for reissues of albums from their back catalogue, in particular The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney etc.
You've piqued my interest in learning more about cassettes, 8 tracks, and more vinyl-related stuff! :D. Interesting video.
What an informative and inspiring video on the best audio medium!
I worked in recording studio, the master recording machine was the Studor A80 16 track......you could hear if you listened carefully, wow and flutter on constant notes like the piano.......secondly you have modulation noise, this is an increase in background noise with an increasing saturation of signal.
I have a sensitive ear to speed consistency, nothing can get over this. CD has a clocked and almost totally constant speed that doesn't suffer from off center records or the speed variation of tape or turntables.......and there is almost no modulation noise.
For all the faults of CDs they have no inherent problems with the above!
Yes sir! CD‘s are vastly underrated. If you have a real good CD player and stereo system plus a very well recorded cd ...you think the artist stands right in front of you in your listening room. GREAT. It‘s a big mistake to think in terms of digital, analog that on Sounds „colder“ and one sounds „warmer“...that’s just BS. Just as white vinyl doesn’t sound brighter than black vinyl. Some people conclude from the looks to the sound... bad idea! Plus: cd‘s doesn’t wear out, are easy to storage and the whole thing is MUCH easier to handle altogether....people call that PROGRESS.
Piano usually sounds better on CD, I'll agree to that too, probably due to wow & flutter ; the pitch of notes warbles on Vinyl.....( though I still prefer the 60 and 70s on vinyl rather than CD ) but a solo Violin or Cello is perhaps the most convincing advocate for vinyl... which has a warmth and live presence which cannot be recreated from 1010110 digital in red book format.... 24-bit is better. Anyway I'm just telling you what I like... if I said the best colour was Blue, you hardly need to argue that, in your opinion, it is Red... I have some recordings which are better on CD than Vinyl... plenty of them, in fact
@ReaktorLeak I did tests with professional musician friends, and we all went for vinyl when playing Milstein and Rostropovich's solo Bach. I do also find that some recordings do sound exactly the same. Others sound better on CD. It really depends on the mastering / recording.... in general if it's pre-80s I opt for vinyl, unless I have a super-hires. option
@@pandoraefretum Even a modest CD player can sound amazing with a good DAC. The low quality DAC is usually the issue with lower end CD machines, and if it has an optical or coax digital output, you can bypass the weak link and get some great sound from them.
I watched you show and you mirrored my thoughts .
What I think is interesting is that modern digital studios these days often try to replicate the ambiance of tape noise in their recordings, to bring back some of the warmth that medium gave recordings. Also as a drummer I've noticed that you often track drums on tape still, because of the dynamic response that is better captured on tape.
Love hear ppl that make sense when talking these days, so hard to find. Thank you, very accurate. Backed up by science and not by histeria and stubbornness.
Thanks for a very informative lecture
19:58 Is this what you're talking about:
16 bit/44.1 kHz
32 bit/88.2 kHz
64 bit/176.4 kHz
128 bit/352.8 kHz
...
I really think the sweet spot is probably 24 bit/96 kHz, but that's only under the most ideal of ideal circumstances. It would still have to be EQ'd/mixed right (personally, I want to hear a perfect balance of all the elements.) It's like you said (re: reel-to-reel) the people involved have to take the time to get it right, and that's not the profit motive for the music industry...
I watching your vids on my lunch break and I just got home, you made a new one
I love reel to reel tape. I have a Pioneer RT-1020L machine. I would love to see reel to reel tape make a big come back. My reel to reel tape collection is very small, about 25 tapes. Some of the tapes in my collection include "Woodstock" , "The Plastic Ono Band LIve in Toronto 1969" , and "Easy Rider". I also have a Music Hall turntable with a Shure M97xE cartridge. My vinyl collection is about 700 records. My CD collection is around 1200 CDs. I play my CDs on a Samsung Blu-ray player and a Tascam CD-RW700 CD recorder. All units are connected to a Yamaha 7.2 A/V receiver with a Klipsch 7.1 speaker system. My 55 inch TV and my computer is also connected to my Yamaha receiver. I hope in the future to buy a nice cassette deck. I had a nice Pioneer cassette deck back in the 70s. In the 70s I also had a Pioneer RT-1050 two track reel to reel tape machine.
I love your channel! There is no doubt that the few releases on Reel to Reel (such as Dark Side of the Moon) sounded amazing and didn't have the drawbacks of vinyl records. But as you touched upon, there would be storage disadvantages to reels as opposed to flat discs. I would add that perhaps we would not have gotten such a wonderful canvass for artwork which the large, thin record covers offered. And I bet you would agree that the compromises in sound quality are minor with good attention to the acquisition of decent equipment and good pressings! A decent preamp, a quiet steady turntable and a decent phono cartridge produces sonic nirvana! You are absolutely right that you don't have to break the bank to get good sound from records! I'm inspired from RUclipsrs such as yourself! I've ordered an Ortofon 2m Blue, premounted and hopefully aligned (Turntable Lab/Amazon), upgrading from a Shure m97xe (a decent cart but notoriously difficult to align). I'm also an AVID Rush fan! Now I want those Rush DMM reissues so badly I can taste it! Just got the "Steven Wilson Remixes: Yes" box set! Great sound and new Roger Dean artwork! What's not to like?!
Hello, I have recently been a fan of your channel and thank you for many interesting tips and observations, is there any chance that you could share your observations about the headphones if you use one. Thx again buddy. -AG-
A fellow Rush fan!!! That makes my heart happy :)
Very intelligent content !! Thank you sir 👍🏼
I have to agree with what you have said about all the formats . I have felt the same ways over the years .
Love this channel
time isn't necessarily quantized, it's a theory because it can't really be proved, but it also can't really be disproved.
It's still a really useful theory that makes a lot of scientific mathematics work, and it's based on what are theoretically the smallest possible observable measurements that could be made.
wow, dude i had to smoke a large duby after reading you quote... mindblowing. I think we are soulmates bro.
Excellent food for thought!
I also have two R2R tape decks, a Akai 1730 DSS and a Sony TC 558..I used to have a Sony TC 530 back in the day. Love them for the clear sound they prouduce at 7.5 ips
Hi, Great video. What do you think about DAT ? Cheers from Poland.
Hi, I still use “Minidisc’s” I always use a cassette deck for my vlogs (background audio).
Great videos keep up the good work.
I had a double speed bic deck. When it was running to spec, it sounded great, even listening on a friends hi end system.
Hats off to you my friend.
Like others here, I remember going into a guys house one Saturday night, I went with a buddy who knew him to see if he would buy beer for us. This guy had an audio system that sounded SO astounding, it kind of set the baseline for what I wanted from that day forward. I won't pretend to know what brands or anything that ANY of it was, but he was playing it off of a Nakamichi DAT deck... and ever since then, that's what I've wanted... for nostalgic purposes more than anything I suppose.
I just have that vision and feeling still in memory from all those years ago, the glowing lights in the dark, the analog VU meters bouncing around, playing The Ocean. I remember it like it happened 5 minutes ago.
And SOME day when I get the money, I WILL get that Nakamichi deck
I loved the idea of ridiculously oversampled and overquantized sound :) And that the analog is digital in the end :D
I think a following good quesion will be "At what level of reduction from plank scale we will be able to hear the difference ?".
ps - mp3 is good enough for me, i watch the "best audio war" for fun
16/44.1 is just fine for listening to music. Really I could not tell the difference between that and 24/48 which I preferred to record in.
But people record generally in 24/48 because they are going to squeeze a hell of a lot out of a single track. You might just be focusing in on certain parts of (say) a guitar recording with aggressive filters, equalizers and compressors. Things like noise floor (or other audio artefacts) can become pretty apparent even without golden ears.
You're really limiting yourself
IFIRC Reel to Reel was a commercial format in the 60s, I think. I don't think it was for pop rock, however. Though I think the ips was 3 something and not 7. I figure it went away due to that, probably, and vinyl sounded okay and the tape market never took to the mainstream. But this is a fuzzy memory, so take that for the 2 cents it's worth. Great video! Good to see you back!
You're the Carl Sagan of audio. I was a am show dj in the 80s and 90s and I don't think I've seen carts since then. They sounded pretty good. But I don't miss any medium as much as a 15ips reel to reel. I even miss physically cutting and taping to edit on that thing. I want to say it was a tascam but I could be mistaken. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
One big disadvantaged analog has it is that it is a physical medium. That degradation of the tape or LP when played, even when a tape is not used it also degrees!
The CD has got the same bad reputation as the casete because people used them on por playback systems like walkmans and recorded bad LP and radio broadcast with the casete. But if you take a CD that is +30 year old it has never sounded better than today. Because it will not develop pops during time go by and the players is way better than in the 80-ties. If you hear a CD on a high end player in a good system then you will be surprised how great it is.
Ever hear of disc rot? When Cds fail you will never feel so helpless. Tapes can be spliced and a record may jump a groove... but when a Cd messes up you might as well throw it in the bin.
@@sundemon1156 Yes I have. It is one of the few ways that I CD can get destroyed. I have never encountered it but I live in a cold country with low humidity. The issue is in high humidity areas. On the other hand the CD can be easily be one to one bit perfect copied without any SQ degregation that is not possible with a analog format.
I have a 10 year old ORIGINAL CD album. It will not play anymore in any CDROM or CDPLAYER anymore. So much about CDs durability. Not to mention the stupud loudness wars that destroyed music altogether!
Yes any media can of course get destroyed. My point is that CD is a media that do not use any physical contact and do not wear out due to that you have put the CD-player on repeat. It is more likely that your CD-player will break after 5-10 years of continuous playback. And then you can still move the CD to next player and continue. This has not many practical applications but just show us the benefits of contact less reading of the information. (Yes there are examples on back in the day at Swedish television had a CD-player that played same CD 24/7 that they used when there was no broadcast together with a test image..)
And I cant even imagine what would happen with a record or tape if you played that medium continuously for 10 years ;)
Yes loudness war has destroyed music altogether but that is not the fault of the medium you could record that crap on the great sounding R2R tape also!
That mistake is what people always do, like in this video there is speculation of ridiculous high digital resolution. That will not help if you still put loudness treated music on that imaginary format. Crap in will always be crap out regardless of format.. :)
Technical oriented historians believe we will become a lost era, because digital medias doesn't last. We have records, movie rolls, wax rolls, photo's etc. over a hundred years old still going strong, and papyrus and parchment rolls way over a thousand, while cd's, hard drives, SD-cards etc die off pretty quick, due to rot, or just stops working for other or no apparent reason. Besides that analog medias are simple, and it's therefore apparent how they work, while the constant change in digital formats, their variety, and complexity can become a problem over time - Even if the medias survive. Notice that you can play a record with a piece of paper rolled to a funnel, just as one example. I know what you mean, and theoretically you are on to something, but analog physical medias using physical contact have passed the test of time, while it so far doesn't look all that good when it comes to digital storage. See how much data already lost for good, due to erroneous trust in digital medias - Even when stored under perfect conditions.