Dgarretson - same with me, my Revox A77 remains on my loft. To get better recordings than 2xDSD on the Tascam, the Revox would at least need a service and probably some considerable upgrade too. I recorded to open reel tape on the Revox for many years but I don’t bother anymore.
"You don’t want to do this twice" - very true. I recorded ca 150 albums on my Korg MR-1, but although I enjoyed the recordings for some years, in a sense it was a waste of time, since the Tascam recordings of the same vinyl are clearly better. I agree, a better power cord is nice, and perhaps footers too, although I have not found a large difference there. Probably better regulators - and other things.
The trouble is, in principle, for every upgrade you do in the analog chain, you want to record your full collection once more, at least, with big upgrades, like a better recorder, or a new cartridge. So this can become a rather crazy hobby.
On the other hand, there is a smile on my face, whenever I hear the recordings, especially from a device weighing 136 grams (the Fiio X3ii) as compared to the 16 kg of my Revox A77.
I can have maybe 60-70 percent of the sound of my main rig wherever I go. That’s great. We live in interesting times.
And it is nice to see, finally, that digital is moving forwards also, listening to what audiophiles have been saying for years. After the big "perfect sound forever" disgrace. Although there is still a number of commentators, usually outside of the audio world, arguing that you don’t really need high resolution (or, disgracefully marketing 44/16 as high res), saying most people dont hear the difference anyway, and similar b-s. Talking down to people. Making people distrust their ears.
It is really strange, how long this has been going on. I don’t think this kind of thing would have a chance in visual media. There, people want the best. As regards sound, however, people (except a "strange" niche of audiophiles) are supposed to be happy with poor sound and compressed music. Its a shame. Ears unite! All power to the ear-proletariat! :-)
There is no doubt whatsoever, in my experience, recording vinyl (and live music) with a lot of different recorders: the better format is the way to go.
True, mastering makes a lot of difference, not to speak of recording, mixing and so on. You can have very good CD format recordings, and very bad. Same with vinyl (but usually not THAT bad). Yet all this is really off topic. The vinyl record (especially, at 45 RPM) remains the "gold standard".
Was DAT recording a step up from CD sound? No. But DAT with "super bit mapping", like the Sony DAT DTC-ZE700? Yes, extending the recording to (something like) 24 bit, it did sound better. I bought one in 1996 and used it to record until I bought the Korg MR-1 in 2009. Does each step up of PCM resolution 92/24 to 192/24 etc sound better? Yes. Does DSD sound even better than PCM? Yes. Double DSD? Yes, best so far. - These judgements are based on long term experiences, not just quick A/B testing.There can be no going back, for me.
"You don’t want to do this twice" - very true. I recorded ca 150 albums on my Korg MR-1, but although I enjoyed the recordings for some years, in a sense it was a waste of time, since the Tascam recordings of the same vinyl are clearly better. I agree, a better power cord is nice, and perhaps footers too, although I have not found a large difference there. Probably better regulators - and other things.
The trouble is, in principle, for every upgrade you do in the analog chain, you want to record your full collection once more, at least, with big upgrades, like a better recorder, or a new cartridge. So this can become a rather crazy hobby.
On the other hand, there is a smile on my face, whenever I hear the recordings, especially from a device weighing 136 grams (the Fiio X3ii) as compared to the 16 kg of my Revox A77.
I can have maybe 60-70 percent of the sound of my main rig wherever I go. That’s great. We live in interesting times.
And it is nice to see, finally, that digital is moving forwards also, listening to what audiophiles have been saying for years. After the big "perfect sound forever" disgrace. Although there is still a number of commentators, usually outside of the audio world, arguing that you don’t really need high resolution (or, disgracefully marketing 44/16 as high res), saying most people dont hear the difference anyway, and similar b-s. Talking down to people. Making people distrust their ears.
It is really strange, how long this has been going on. I don’t think this kind of thing would have a chance in visual media. There, people want the best. As regards sound, however, people (except a "strange" niche of audiophiles) are supposed to be happy with poor sound and compressed music. Its a shame. Ears unite! All power to the ear-proletariat! :-)
There is no doubt whatsoever, in my experience, recording vinyl (and live music) with a lot of different recorders: the better format is the way to go.
True, mastering makes a lot of difference, not to speak of recording, mixing and so on. You can have very good CD format recordings, and very bad. Same with vinyl (but usually not THAT bad). Yet all this is really off topic. The vinyl record (especially, at 45 RPM) remains the "gold standard".
Was DAT recording a step up from CD sound? No. But DAT with "super bit mapping", like the Sony DAT DTC-ZE700? Yes, extending the recording to (something like) 24 bit, it did sound better. I bought one in 1996 and used it to record until I bought the Korg MR-1 in 2009. Does each step up of PCM resolution 92/24 to 192/24 etc sound better? Yes. Does DSD sound even better than PCM? Yes. Double DSD? Yes, best so far. - These judgements are based on long term experiences, not just quick A/B testing.There can be no going back, for me.