Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Michael Jackson's Thriller: reel tape versus vinyl
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 фев 2018
- On this edition of KBTime, we look back at the legendary 1982 album "Thriller" by comparing a clean, barely played original pressing (from late 1983, as evidenced by the "Grammy Nominee" sticker) with an open reel tape, which was available only through the Columbia House record club.
This video is protected by the Fair Use Act of 1976: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Tape speed is the problem the makers cut the speed to 3.75 ips to save money on tape if it had been at 7.5ips and it could have been a different story.
So true. Most 7.5 reels I've heard can rival vinyl/CD
Yeah I was going to comment the same thing. The tape speed limits the frequency response quite significantly here. Of course the vinyl version will have been cut from a much faster running 15 ips studio reel-to-reel, with much better frequency response as a result.
I'm not sure the video even does it full justice. This record is /bright/ (or at least my copy on my equipment is). Not sure how much of this is distortion products, but: imgur.com/a/sioMc60. Certainly there's a ton of energy in the part of the highs humans can actually hear.
The tape sounds like shit, but that is the cheap tape they used as well as the speed. As has already been pointed out. The tape's speed was also off which was a dead giveaway. But it is easy to tell anyway!
You could grab a 7" tape and record the record yourself and it would sound 100x better! Would be better with a mint first press of course, or the Japanese Master Sound. I have 2 mint MS copies but no US first press with "no Jackson co-producer credit". Only other copy I have my AUS record I bought in 1983 when I was 7. I barely played it as I only liked Thriller, Beat It and Billy Jean. Still not a big fan of the whole album. I bought BAD on day of release in '87 and also barely played it. Not sure why! That changed when Dirty Diana was released and also when I saw MOONWALKER and fell in love with Smooth Criminal. I love that album from start to finish apart from Just Good Friends. Recently made a "needle drop" CD from a brand new, sealed US first press record. I replaced it with Leave Me Alone from the UK 12". SUCH A BETTER SONG!
It is just a shame that the US record is horribly warped :'( My VM740ML tracked it like a champ though. Replaced Dirty Diana from my mint JP copy as the US had a jump. They sound identical, as does my AU version. I spliced the opening of Smooth Criminal from the Jp version with the US version as my stupid laptop dropped out on the US version. It is seamless and there is no changebin sound. Makes a nice change!
Harry Stevens even 15 ips
I've seen special editions at 15 ips. That should sound incredible. The tape seems to not have much presence. 3.75 ips is definitely the reason. I have a couple prerecorded tapes at 7.5 ips and they're extremely dynamic. Thank you for sharing.
Sadly, those 15 IPS reels aren't what they seem: kbtime.blogspot.com/2018/01/dont-buy-fake-reel-tapes-for-sale-online.html
It is only not prooven supposition - any gain from 15" in compare to 7,5" or 3,75" is only found in background noise level, not in sounding. Even Hi Fi cassette recorders 1,8" grant way to wide band of frequencies in compare to needs . The problems create only amplifier/speaker sets and cabling which do not handle it. With high class tape recorder home usage already 3,75"/s noise background in 99% of music should be not noticeable
Thank you so much for putting this together! Much appreciated! Thanks for A/B taste-test of these 2 formats. Yep! I belonged to the Columbia House Record & Tape Club in the early 1970's. I purchased over 200 reels from them. It was around 1973 when they started making their own "bootlegs" at 3 ¾ IPS, immediately after AMPEX gave up on that format. Funny you mentioned that the last reel made was “Born In The U.S.A.”. THAT was the very 1st CD ever released for public consumption in 1984.
I would love to have thriller on reel to reel to add to my MJ collection, I had no idea that it was on reel format, but I have some reel blank tapes and I can just record off of my thriller album onto blank reel tape and then go from there
The Tape is much more Punchy! I like the Punch! It just needs a little treble boost.
Vinyl for sure, I've never heard open reel in person, but from my research you need 15ips to have that sonic pleasure everyone claims
OG Wavy 7.5 ips sounds phenomenal, too. There are decks that will reproduce 20 Hz to 22 kHz at 7.5 ips effortlessly.
7.5 is where tape surpasses vinyl, 15 ips is studio quality and is almost indistinguishable from a well mastered CD.
7.5 is when tapes start to shine just like with 45rpm for vinyl.
I have this on reel to reel and it’s not the best quality due to the speed but I do have some amazing tapes at 7 1/2 ips it all depends on the quality of your reel to reel deck that will make a huge difference in sound also.
I have some 7" reels with Pink Floyd and Bruce Sprinsteen but I do not prefer them because they were recorded with unknown machines and thus it wasn't recorded on my recorder which is always disadvantge and I hear not superior quality. may be due to different standards. At the same time they play 2x shorter which is annoying I have some tapes recorded by unknown machines made in 3,75"/s and they sound much better. My 3,75" recordings are superior to both
You also didn't mention if the tape heads were perfectly aligned, because if they were even slightly out of alignment, then the audio would sound a bit flatter, or lower volume, or even maybe a bit of background noise (especially if the heads were dirty)......to me it sounded like the heads were out of alignment.........so apart from that, a good video, & i love the green screen background ,making you appear to be on a record or tape deck.....
The heads were aligned properly... tapes recorded at 7.5 IPS -- whether from another deck, this same deck, or pre-recorded -- sounded wonderful. Tapes I made at 3.75 IPS -- on this deck or another deck -- sounded better than Columbia House tapes, too.
TOTO..the best band in the world ever appeared on this planet!!! They are on HUNDREDS of recorda..the very best musicians of all times!!!! Thriller is a TOTO album!!!
Dafuq are you spewing about?
whats your favourite toto song man?
Totally true... Should have picked a Reel to Reel from the 60s early 70s
You have that very likable Ron Popeil or various late night infomercial salesman appeal about you. That's a genuine compliment. Something to consider.
B, B, B, B
So I am mixed? I think have to hear more than a few seconds of each song to be sure. But, from my experience B,B,B,B is probably what the artist intended the songs to feel and sound like
It should sound the same but I hear negative tone alteration from tape . - at least I align my tape recorders so that differences (if any I want) are positive for listening in compare to original which may have shortages for many reasons , Like in some cases I practiced using preamp loudness to input that correction on tape and make reel impression topping original from LP. Possible difference may occure also by using different preamps inputs or different preamps in both cases
I got A, B, A, B
You don't even need headphones. I can tell that the Reel is dull and smeared on my crappy phone speaker. I don't know why the Record companies would even bother with 3.75 ips. Anyone with a Reel-to-Reel Deck could record their own copy of the Vinyl at 7.5 ips.
No way to control for the independent variable, which if possible may favor the tape. Nevertheless, this was interesting and I enjoyed your commentary.
Running at 3 3/4 ips , frequency response on reel to reel is only around 16khz , and sounds mediocre . Running at 7 1/2 ips and faster , the frequency response is 20khz and way above . The faster it goes the better it sounds. Every reel to reel I use , I run them at 7 1/2 ips and all depending on the quality of the tape they sound amazing
16khz were hi-fi in the 1960's.
You can't notice in music difference between 16 kHz and 20 kHz - even 16 kHz is still too much for concern . The higher speds were used only to knock down noise recorded on tapes in radio and pro studios. I realy do not buy why some use it even in High End Home gear
@@LapisandHamtarolover With correction that in 60 ties according to DIN 4500 it was 10kHz and prooven that such quality was delivering listerning enough for reception of reality. Today people want to listen with quality which can present ultrasonic and permanent subbass because they like it so bad.
@Mikexception Make it 1970's with 16khz being considered hi-fi.
@@LapisandHamtarolover There was not other known norm for it because of giving favour to lower THD beyond sense by increasing max power. of amplifiers and what was worse speaker columns. . That is why Hi FI for home already in 70 ties was abandoned.
Only producers by using signs "HI FI" in marketing informed that amplifiers and preamplifiers fulfill technical requirements of DIN 4500 which was not a big deal in compare to real Hi FI. . One could see them on cheap plastic boom box too with no audible Hi FI at all..
My tube mono tape recorder dated 1963 had confrmed by me recording capability to playback radio stereo pilot 19 kHz from BASF tape with 3.75"/s
The vinyl sounds more open
CH also had this on 8-Track.
Wow I can not believe you have this!
The only thing about the Reel To Reel was that Columbia House still released Reel tapes in the 80’s (and I’ve heard that those tapes aren’t exactly the best), so that might not be the best verses ever.
Good point. This was only intended to compare "Thriller," but yes there were many tapes which sounded excellent in the 70s and 80s, mostly from Stereotape (pop), and classical labels like Barclay-Crocker and London. Even the Columbia House classical tapes sounded good, since they were at 7.5 IPS. I've rarely found a 3 3/4 speed tape which sounded good, and that's the speed Columbia House used for non-classical from 1973-84 (when they ceased issuing reels).
The standards and the corrections in pro recordings and usualy azimuth may be not fully compatible to owned machine That is why for best listening I record everything with my machine
wow i didn't no toto play on this album wow
I know they played on Aretha Franklin's first two Arista records and a ton of other artists...like Streisand, Earth Wind and Fire Faces I Am and Diana Ross Baby Its Me.
My computer is plugged into my hi-fi stack with headphones so I really can tell a difference also I'm using a SoundBlaster AE-7 As a DAC.
B
A
A
B
So you got the second pressing of the vinyl where Michael wasn’t credited producing rights on the back I got the first pressing where only Quincy Jones was credited
I really hope vinyl takes over
Tape, the speech is clearer and smooth. Vinyl isn't as clear in speech
JUMP TO 4:30m
The record should be played with a really good cartridge. The SC35 Shure (pictured), which I own, is not an audiophile cartridge by any stretch. And certainly not with the made-in-mexico conical stylus tracking at 4 grams pictured there. Again, I own the very same cartridge. With a really good cartridge it is astounding, even better than what heard here. It's sad to see the tape fare so badly.
Have you adjusted the Asimov on your real to real? Sounds a little muffled to me like the highs aren't getting there maximum output.
Do you mean the azimuth? Yes, that deck had been adjusted not too long before this video using an MRL reference tape and 10k tones. The muffled sound you hear is because Columbia House had extremely erratic quality control for their reel tapes (at least at 3.75 IPS), as evidenced here.
@@KBTime sorry, I was doing voice to text. Yes, the azimuth. 😂 Good to know. I wonder how the cassette sounded. 🤔 I have one of his singles on cassette, and it sounds pretty amazing.
1221 my choice... vinyl lover. The clarity and not muffled. Unlike the reel . Btw I owned both victor tt and akai reel tube. And do the same thing as yours.
Speed up your tape when recording.
Since the source for both formats is 1 inch tape the record is cut through a mastering desk for vinyl and then the copies are made from the original lacquer, the reel to reel is a copy of the 1 inch tape but probably not the original tape making it most likely 3rd generation tape..thus the poor quality..(as well as tape speed).but even if the tape is right off the 1 inch master its adding 2nd generation tape hiss to it as well as wow and flutter etc..i would never even consider listening to a tape of a tape..
You're missing out.
If they had gone 7.5 and maybe one generation earlier, it would have sounded amazing... witness some of the Ampex Beatles reels of 1969-71, or the Barclay Crocker classical tapes (late 70s-mid 80s), or even the Dolby-ized Stereotape releases from the mid 70s. Missed opportunity. I am trying to get my hands on some of the Columbia House classical reels from the same era as "Thriller," since they would have been at 7.5 IPS. Perhaps the sound will be a lot better?
Vinyl sounds better
the master tape is far better than the vinyl
Cool Video! 👍
I think that record needs a better sleeve. Just sayin'
vinyl sounded a lot better, more clear. the tape sounded muffled and opaque.
That said, the Reel tape did have quite a bit more bottom end (as the vinyl was a little lacking in the low end and seemed to have an over abundance of mid range).
You could hear the (very pleasing to my ears) analog tape saturation or slight dynamic compression (depending on how you want to refer to it). That said, the tape was just a little to "dark" for me and I preferred the brighter record. If they had released a 7 IPS version of the Reel tape I bet the open reel tape would have given the "black flattened PVC pipe" a run for its money :) Thanks for sharing.
Due to tape speed, i guerintee if they had doubled the speed on the tape it would have been better than the vinyl. If the tape had been doubled again after that you would be in the range of CD audio.
@@gregaluise5727 Excellent observation. I was using a bass-heavy cart (Shure SC35C) to begin with, so the vinyl is even more lacking low end on most rigs. But the tape is definitely dark-sounding. The 7.5 IPS reels I've gotten sound excellent. It's too bad "Thriller" did not get the same treatment.
The 3 3/4 reel sounded dreadful. As if the frequency cut off point was around 12khz with a poorly controlled, flabby sounding low end. I refuse to believe they could have sounded quite so bad, so i'd be taking a good look at your reel to reel machine. The vinyl was clear, dynamic but lacked a bit of punch which may have been down to the recording methods used.
I played it back later on a mint Otari (switched internally for 3.75) and had previously played it on an Akai 4000DS... same flabby sound on all of them, sadly. And I've had similar experiences with other late-period Columbia House reels. Wasted potential!
Thanks for trying it out on different equipment. It's shockingly bad, even for a 3 3/4 reel. Is it possible that it is a different master to the one on the LP? It sounds more like a mastering issue as opposed to a format issue. The album on cassette sounds better.
I would agree about mastering; some albums that sound amazing on vinyl and/or cassette sound awful on Columbia House reel... and reels from the same era on Stereotape sound very good. It's clearly whatever CH was doing. I touch on this somewhat in the larger blog post at kbtime.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-history-of-pre-recorded-reel-tapes.html.
More like 10khz lol
I'll have the vinyl please. 😊
Oh i like vinyl better.
A:records
👻☻sLeo