Reel to Reel Tape

Dear @johnss : No, frequency response is not the only answer but part of a whole answer as could be: noise levels, any kind ditortion levels, etc, etc.
The main subject is what is truer to the recording/what microphones pick-up: analog or digital? The overall and very wide explanation for some other time.


""" for another easy test, go to any audiophile meeting where they are playing hi rez digital files. people will be chatting away.

step in with a high speed analog machine and play a tape. All side conversation stops instantly. """

I know you are a wise/intelligent gentleman and then you will understand my opinion about:

that’s or could be true for a very " easy " reason: if for 40+ years your ears/brain/body is accustommed to listen only analog in home system is obvious that listen it to a wide radical different MUSIC presentation as digital the brain does not tooks very seriously as is something " new " and something that must be assimilated/understan to its advantages can have a meaning for the brain a true superiority meaning.

The subject is: how many time takes the brain to assimilates the top today digital MUSIC home system presentation in favor of it in favor to analog?

As we are more and more exposed to that today digital MUSIC preesentation as more we like it. Yes, is different to analog presentation because is a way different technology that between other things has a clear advantage: almost each day is improving it as technology when analog has several years that just stoppedto achieve true improvements and that’s why so many audiophiles are buying vintage analog audio items.

The overall digital/analog subject is not very complex to speak about but that we analog lovers likes to make it " controversial ". Is human been nature.

In the other side and returning to R2R issue: did you test a Sheffield D2D recording against the same Sheffield recording that was made it through a first first rate tape machine?. 

That's a true easy way to any one can detect the damage made it by that top R2R machine. Btw, digital is superior medium, yes different.



Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

After all is said and done, the "quality" of the sound of an LP that has been recorded on my 2 track reel, when played back, is better, and this even goes for CD's.

This "high end" thing is not about frequency extremes that are inaudible; it's about music that is audible, and that's where the reel is still "el numeral uno".

Dear @orpheus10 : As johnss and other gentlemans you insist in something with out facts real facts: not the common " I like it ".

Here I posted ( twice ) if both of you or any other of the gentlemans that supports R2R as number one that certainly it’s not this:

Did you already listen the Sheffield Lab D2D Dave Grusin recording against the same session recording of that Sheffield but where the signal passed trough a top top R2R machine?

If not, then all the ones that think the R2R is the " holly grail " just have no idea of what all are talking about. Facts are the prove not that " I like it ".

Do it a favor try to make that tests evaluation and the come back here ( any one of you ) and share the facts. You will see that the damage made it by the R2R machine is way audible even for a " deaf " person.

With out that experience your opinion about is really useless as the opinion of any one else with out that first hand experiences.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Hello rauliruegas,

No problem on the fdbk and thanks for the input.
I am out 2-3x per month to attend or record live acoustical concerts, so while I may have become accustomed to analog sounds, I also have listened to countless hours of live music, so have a pretty good perception of what real music sounds like.

The other piece of the recording pie that has not been mentioned is what happens after music has been captured (either in the analog domain or digital domain). It always gets edited, and processed.

On digital recordings its dumped into a work station. here the data bits are transformed, compressed, and smoothed.

On analog recordings it gets processed with added effects, compression, a bit of reverb, etc.

I have spent a lot of hours in studios listening to session masters and then listening to edited masters (both analog and digital). sometimes the final product (post editing) is nothing like the original. all depends on how much additional processing was done to it.

What comes out the other end is usually a distant relative of what went in.

Depending what type of music you listen to, some is highly compressed, and other types are not as much compressed.

for those interested in digital playback, if you can find would suggest you pick up a copy of the resolution project. Its a DVD- Audio disc created for the pro audio industry a few years ago.  the disc contains live mic tracks recorded at different bit depth and sampling frequencies. Will also allow you test how good your DAC is and see if you can tell 24/96 apart from 24/192.
 
best to all.
 
J

Raul, I don't have the resources to make the comparisons you suggest; consequently, I have to be satisfied with the results in my own little laboratory.

I began my "high end" journey in 1990 when there were two excellent high end salons that I spent an excessive amount of time in; that's where I learned most of what I know.

My search has ended, and now I'm quite content with my present rig; the bottom line is what combination of components reproduce the music you like best.