Reel to Reel Tape

Frequency response: 30Hz to 30kHz (15 ips); That's 10K above audibility.

FWIW, LPs can do 15Hz to 45KHz; the lower limit described by tone arm mechanical resonance and the upper end by the intentional frequency limitation found in the circuitry of the cutter amplifiers.

Both LP and R2R have more high frequency response than digital at least so far...

Dont forget freq response is not the only answer. Need to ask how much data is coming through at a given frequency? sure hi rez digital has an upper freq of 40k or more, but how many samples are used to make that curve? 4 samples?

Also forgot to mention, for tape sources there is also a seller on ebay that sells NOS (new old stock) Ampex 632 in pancakes. If a person is trying to buy new tape and save a few bucks its an option. its a bit cheaper than 911, 900 or one pass 996. i tried a few of them and they were true NOS tape and were fresh. 

Not sure what his inventory is now, but the seller used to have cases of it. 632 is pretty trouble free, no sticky shed issues. Not quite as quiet or as much headroom space as some of the higher bias backcoated tapes, but sounds quite good if you are spinning at 15 or 30. If you do a search on ampex 632 you should be able to find him. 

Right before Quantegy ended tape production, they claimed they had fixed the binder issue, so I bought 4 cases of the brand new 456 with the binder fix in place. Was good for about a year, then the same old problems started to re-appear. At that point I had used 1 case out of the 4. Threw out the remaining 3 cases of tape. By that time, Quantegy had exited the tape biz completely, so really had no recourse. I still have 6 masters on that "fixed" 456 tape that I have not transferred over yet. so have to bake them just like the 1970s ampex tapes in order to play them.

and if you are doing any tape baking, forget the oven. one of the larger food dehydrators works very well, and has good temp control.


 

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.