My favorite part of this video i that you happened to choose an album that was recorded COMPLETELY DIGITALLY. I know for a fact that it was cut on a Sony 3323 24 track digital DASH system reel to reel machine. People love to drool over this album and how great it sounds on vinyl when it was never analog until it was TRANSFERRED to disc bu using a cutting lathe. But hey have fun.
Yeah, it’s not like this was an unknown thing by people most likely to click on this video. What the real question is: why choose the miles showell half speed over the mofi cut, which is light years better than the abbey road?
That was actually smart to go with a digital track, for to the fact it would have less artifacts of recording medium degradation or playback flaws wow flutter drift blah blah. You can get an idea of the difference between RPM and IPS as well as pitch consistency; starting with the same digital content assuming they both had the same input from the DASH masters... you can also hear what mediums capture the spectrum more accurately or pleasantly. You can hear the fidelity and timbre and tone changes by starting with a digital source... for these reasons, it's better to start with a digital source audio recorded digitally to a timecode with solid timing clk source to quartz or cesium or whatever they might have used rather than doing this comparison using an original tape or original vinyl. It would be interesting to test the DASH PCM to a forensic analysis of that compared to an original tape to original press vinyl. Just to really see time's effects on the things I mentioned and not only to test the medium itself but the accuracy of present day playback machines compared to old technologies used in playback machines. For instance, tape speeds, needle cartridges, reel clamps, degaussing, brushes, tubes, opamps, transistors, ICs, processors, etc. This is the stuff I wish would be in science museums, but youtube and rumble are all we got for the tech nerds.
You've never had a tape that just got more of a subtly marinated sound that changes over time? Doesn't matter if it was recorded from digital, it's clocking/cadence is always a bit different because it's atomic rather than integer maths. Rotaries vs traffic lights. Lol.
to me the first time i put it to play being used to high quality sound in any prior album this sounded strange, as some sound dull and other sound very good but diferent from eachother
IMHO, "Best" of anything is in the ear of the beholder. I have a pretty good vinyl playback setup (MC cart), as well as a TEAC X1000R R2R deck (w/ onboard dbx NR), and even a Pioneer CT-F1250 cassette (restored). With good source material, all 3 formats sound amazingly good.
I didn't realise at the time that home open reels were eventually ditched in favour of cassette tapes not in favour of quality but convenience ,I remember when I was a kid I was given a reel to reel tape recorder and the sound quality blew me away, really full warm sound . I think a lot of people are missing out on their vinyl because it has to be played on good quality equipment to achieve the proper result . A vinyl can only be as good as the tape it was cut or pressed from I would have thought ? Listening to this through a phone the vinyl is definetly clearer .
If you look at audio's history, it's rife with "convenience " killing good sound reproduction practices. In your cassette example, there were machines that rivaled good prosumer RTR. But when you jumped into studio quality RTR machines, they left ALL the prosumer cassettes decks in the dirt.....even Nak. RTR, cassette and vinyl are a lot of work to make great sound playback.....versus streaming and the like. But the tactile benefits for some of us are worth the effort. Like you're really doing something other than pressing remote buttons. It's a niche hobby.......not very convenient...lol.
Don't go upsetting the vinyl crowd with things like 'facts', they just get upset! Yep, decent tape does indeed sound wonderful! By the mid 90s though, cassette technology reached its peak with some REALLY good technical specs... What killed that? MP3 files... MOST people have never heard high quality sound and don't care anyway, hence the amount of people around with REALLY BAD kit like 'Bush' 'record players', sound bars etc... One question that generally stumps so called 'hi-fi buffs' is 'most music these days is recorded in digital recording studios, so HOW can putting the end result sound more accurate on a piece of vinyl that has limited frequency and dynamic response'? Tape DOES sound great, BUT it's a 'volatile' storage medium and it wears out unfortunately., tape degrades over time which requires it to be 'baked' or else the emulsion carrying the magnetic particles rubs off on the tape heads. BY FAR the most accurate way to listen to music now is via high bit-rate and high sample rate digital files. Just ask anyone who actually MAKES the music, never mind the idiot in the hi-fi shop that's just trying to make a commission out of people's ignorance. A 48KHz/24 or 32 bit file is MUCH more accurate than ANY analogue format now, the technology has finally arrived. Speak to ANY recording/mixing or mastering engineer and, the vast majority of the time, this is the answer you will get.
@@groovedealerfeaturing-ashl6476 That's not really accurate about tape. SSS is a tape formulation problem within specific brands like Ampex. Those of us into tapes know what brands produce SSS and avoid it like the plague. I have tape now over 50yrs old that sounds marvelous like the day it was recorded. Yes, it degrades slightly with playback frequency, but if I have the vinyl, I just re-record it(rarely had to do this, BTW. Mostly just to make a better copy from the purchase of a new cart/preamp, etc). One solution is to have a lot of music recorded so you're not playing the same few albums all the time...lol. A lot of digital engineers these days record for LOUD. It's not about the music dynamics throughout the hearing range. It's LOUD for the earbud crowd....that's what they want. The rest of us(niche community), just want more....simple as that. I have no argument against digital other than the engineers just selling out for LOUD....the medium is perfect for capturing all the lush dynamics in music.
@@TheReal1953 yes, some tape formulae are better than others, but it's still a volatile medium. As for loudness, that has nothing particularly to do with digital... It's something SOME artists, record companies etc have been chasing for years, right from the Inception of recording. it's to do with wanting to have the 'loudest' track on the radio, jukebox, TV, UA-cam etc. It's just that with digital recording it can be pushed much further, that's all.
@@groovedealerfeaturing-ashl6476 I wasn't saying that digital had anything to do with LOUD recordings. It's what the earbud crowd wants instead of fidelity. But there's a nuance to transferring old tape masters to digital. It's not done correctly a lot of the time as evidenced by the original recordings against the remastered version. Most times you can't take a decent original master and make it 'better' by the digital process. That's changing the music itself most often. I've had thousands of tapes and never seen any real degradation. But I learned early on which formulations to stay with and did so. The only thing volatile about the quality tape of today is the negative arguments swarming around the medium.
That must be a $10,000+ turntable. For a fair comparison, the open reel deck should be a half-track professional or semi-professional machine running at 15 ips. The Pioneer RT-909 is a beautiful machine, and reasonably capable, but for the same price as that turntable, you can get an even more impressive open reel deck. But I don't chase the dragon. I have a sizable collection of different open reel machines from low-end to semi-professional. I collect them just because I love all the different ways that manufacturers designed them. And I have five different turntables, but none of them are anywhere near the level of yours. Anyway, lovely system! Enjoy! That's the most important thing. That's what we should all do. We only need to impress and satisfy ourselves! 😎👍
@@gustercc Thanks! It's grown WAY beyond my wildest dreams... 😳😎👍 Many of them are still patiently waiting for me to service/restore them. One of these days!
Excellent answer! Been a long time since I heard "chasing the dragon" in audio circles, bravo! It's always been about the music and having it playing all the time, "chasing the dragon'" was optional.
i also colect hi-fi components and a open reel deck doesn´t need much to be above all other formats even today, a 10.000€ turntable of today doesn´t have the sound of 70´s equipment or cartridges so any 70´s reel deck sounds above if you record from the turntable directelly for the open reel deck you´ll notice a great improvement in sound, the pioneer you refer if working good is still very ahead in sound ,i have a studer 4 track recording stereo from 71 that is better than most of the home recording systems or playing, this using a ferric tape, i also have 28 turntables and none is bad since late 60´s but the last i bought was expensive and the only problem is the new cartridges ,even very expensive and with a perfect sound have a very low ouput sound level, many of my older friends today they could buy anything they wanted but several only kept a amplifier a set of speakers and a reel deck all that they had they ofered it to me as i colect them ,this to say that still today the best sound one can get is from a open reel deck, the DAT is digital but being very close is always needing repairs and a reel deck will last the rest of their lifes and having hundreds of reels they conect a iphone with spotify and record to a reel and sounds very good and we are talking about very expensive equipment , the amplifers they have are from the 70´s and can produce a very loud and perfect sound, very rae to happen but sometimes we go to the countryside to drink ,in resume have a party one night in the summer it was 34 degrees celsius at 4 in the morning and when getting more ice from inside the house i looked to a amplifier and was working but on fire the owner of the amp. and the house pass by me and i pointed to the amp. he replyed it´s on fire and went with me to get ice and we let it burn it was a macintosh mono block from the 70´s and the most expensive at the time when he bought it ,we are in our 70´s and in a party we have all drugs available and a bit of food as it is very hot and we drink at night after smoking coocked cocaine and heroin then all go to the pool and talk while drinking or smoking
At this cost, I'd rather have a Blu-Ray Audio disc (HFPA - High Fidelity Pure Audio), that plays on a regular blu-ray player, or a XRCD24 disc, that plays on a regular compact disc player. In both cases, the hardware will make the difference... 🤔
Brothers in arms was my first cd purchase, back when it came out. After purchasing my first CD player. I already had the LP. I never owned reel to reel, but used vhs hi fi to record cds borrowed from friends. Before recordable cd/dvds came out.
At the tender age of about 5 my Dad showed me how to use a Pentron 9T3 tape recorder (1951 vintage) and it was love at first sight. I used that tape recorder up to about 7th grade and learned so much about electronics from that tape recorder. To this day I still love to watch the spinning reels while listening to the sound. Not to forget the tuning eye, electron-ray visual sound level indication tube to set recording level. That tube was invented by Allen B. Dumont whose firm pioneered cathode ray picture and oscilloscope indicating tubes in Passaic, NJ.I have had a lifelong career at the TV station he founded in the late 1940's.
It's a bit hard to tell which is better when YT compresses the audio down. That, and Brothers In Arms is one of those albums that was made for CD, which is why the original 1985 CD release is the best sounding version.
im surprised this isnt mentioned alot. youtube does not keep videos at the same quality that they were submitted. and different resolutions have different quality levels.
The tape sounded better - probably because the level was higher. That old trick of turning up the volume in hifi demonstrations would certainly work on me if I had the cash to splash. Nice looking toys to play with!
An old trick which we used to make sure our customers were aware of! Before making comparisons between amplifiers we would make sure the volume was the same for both by playing a one kHz tone and equalizing both amps first. This made the difference between amps clear and obvious.
@@silviosarunic6709 Generally speaking, tape MAY sound better than vinyl, but it depends on what generation tape the recording was made from, the quality of the tape player it's being played back on, how well it was copied, and so on. Certainly a master tape played back on the original recording machine (everything else being equal) will sound better than vinyl no matter how good the transfer is because it's a generation better, but making a blanket statement that tape "always" sounds better than vinyl is a bit simplistic. And don't forget there are some "direct to disc" vinyl records out there too...
@@silviosarunic6709 this aren´t master tapes but copy´s as the vinyl matrix is done to be reproduced in several factory´s, and studio reels have a bigger tape section, but still the perfect copy
Tape adds distortion and saturation that can be pleasing to the ear.The effect is very dramatic and many digital masters are run through tape and back to digital to obtain that effect. The effect became so popular that companies have built digital equipment designed to mimc the effect without the bother and expense of keeping tape and machines continuously aligned. The Crane Song HEDD is such a device. Recording to tape also tends to boost lower frequencies and that also is generally pleasing.
Jacob, nice walk down memory lane! I’ve run the gamut from vinyl, cassettes, 8 Tracks, reel, CD’s, etc. I’m a little long in the tooth now…now using my A&K SP3000 with my Sennheiser HD800’s and Audio 64 U12T’s. Sound and high res is amazing.
I think a better test for this would be to have a prerecorded reel tape recorded at 7.5 ips and have the same vinyl recording of the same thing and test it that way. I have some old rerecorded reel tapes that I think are superior to vinyl recordings of the same thing. Don't get me wrong, they're both really good formats, but I think that the reel to reel tape has a little more detail in the recording. The microphone picking up both recordings vs. going direct line out is also an uneven match. Sound quality is subjective to the listener. We all have varying opinions and like I said at the beginning, I had the album and tape of the same thing and the tape won for me.
Tape has no crackle & pop and for the most-part, never wears. Tape does have a slight-to-moderate hiss. IMO, any 7.5ips pre-recorded tape will blow-away the sound of an LP... especially if they are both 50 years old!
@gdavisloop As a guy who grew up in audio and has owned R2R tape, miles of prerecorded reels and small studio recordings. I can say with certainty. Magnetic tape devopes ghosting after 3 or 4 decades. Between songs and in very quiet passages, you will hear music from the next loop in the reel. Tape will magneticly pick up from the loops above and below it over time. It's not super loud, but it's there. Believe me, I have rolled miles of old tape. Mylar is the best stuff , celluloid is the worst for it. As far as records, if handled carefully, cleaned and zapped with a zero Stat gun. And you have a good nude elliptical styles set up right. Records can sound very good. Being I am crowding 60 . I have gone to high rez streaming. With a good player and the right DAC , my 2A3 mono blocks are more resolving than my near 60 year old ears. Every medium has its advantages and disadvantages. Even 16 track mastertapes deteriorate over time. Enjoy what ever format you choose . If you are happy and your toe is tapping along , it's working for you. Try new things ,but don't overthink it. If it sounds good and you're enjoying your listening sessions, it's a win.
both are the best formats still available ,i used to record records into reels this when buying an Lp was a really hard thing to do ,if it weren´t records from françoise Ardi or Umberto tozzi , but having the record i do prefer to hear records ,the reels are perfect way to record music ,entire Lp´s or compilations ,being the last the one i do most and sometimes i do record cassettes . I´ve tried CD-R´s and minidiscs but st5ill enjoy more the reel deck wich i have 3 and the oldest one in this moment is a AKAI X-165D bought in 1970 ,and only records ferric tapes, having better sound than most of the cassette decks, this album is a bit strange some songs seemed recorded in diferent studios with diferent producers but is only one of the first records recorded digitally, one can hear the first two albums and notuice a much higher quality in sound ,after all they do sound the same here, only a diference in volume which is normal in vinyl records
The Tape gave birth to the vinyl Lp, so if you ask me , I truly believe that there's not much difference in the aural response with the exception of hiss from tape and pops and clicks from vinyl
In the late 1970's prior to the advent of digital home formats including the Technics VHS based digital home recorder; a good many classical albums had DIGITAL RECORDING emblazoned across the dust jacket indicating that the music contained on the LP was in fact digitally recorded. It was a bit of a deal then much like half speed masters of the time.
Reel-to-reel is what ALL records started as before 1974 when "digital" recording began on videotape. I have 30-45 15 IPS reel-to-reel tapes made from the mixing masters I paid up to $600 1970's and 80's dollars for. Most are FOUR CHANNEL, not two-channel "stereo". They blow CD's away, with wider dynamic range, better frequency response, and NOT being digitized. My BEST one is "Days of Future Passed" by the Moody Blues. Decca created their Deram division JUST for "QUAD". I own over 700 "QUAD" LP's too. The recording engineer on DoFP had some real fun bouncing the sound around the channels. My Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" 4 channel R-T-R sounds VASTLY different than the two-channel mix. The most expensive tape I have? Janis Joplin live at the Cotton Bowl during the Texas State Fair. I was there when she was in concert with Big Brother and the Holding Company and sang the duet with Kris Kristofferson on "Bobby McGee".
This is really cool! I've been studying recording processes and have been interested in getting a 70's silver cassette deck. Any chance you have video upload of one of these reel-to-reels?
There was no quad when Deram began, nor when that album was first made and released. Deram was a place for Decca to release their recordings done with a set of recording techniques which their engineers developed for a natural, lifelike stereo image and final sound, beginning in 1966. DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED was an outlet for these techniques to be used in that genre of music, which to a degree was pioneered by that album. It was mixed into quad for release in 1972. It's very nicely done, no question. As far as the stereo versions go, while the remix done by the original engineer in 1978 - when they already heard degradation in the original mix and ordered a new replacement mix - is clean and fine and whatever, it can't touch how great the original 1967 stereo mix is. I have a flat digital copy of what is claimed to be either from the original stereo master with the dropouts fixed digitally but otherwise straight off the master or from an analog copy made flat off the master when it was in good condition and transferred to digital straight. Whichever is true, it sounds truly beautiful and magical. Even with the tape bounces done in the non-orchestral recordings, it's still a great achievement in how good a recording can sound. The mono was a fold down of the original stereo mix.
@@krwdMy belt driven turntable has big time rumble issue so I have to set it on the floor and use rumble reduction on my phono preamp which works well. Sorry to hear tape has rumble as well. Heard about wow and flutter before. I wanted to use open reel as a turntable alternative in my vintage system and was hoping the rumble issue would be resolved. Oh well, I guess only digital resolves rumble completely but hopefully r2r has less than my turntable
The tape are punchier. Vinyls has added compression to avoid the needle jumping all over the place. In addition you have the RIIA correction degrading the sound.
Wouldn't that compression be transferred to tape when recording an album with r2r? Or are you referring to strictly the old pre-recorded tapes? Curious if the playback is different in the r2r electronics it can capture better dynamics off the vinyl or if the vinyl would not have greater dynamics intrinsically due to being compressed when cut from the lathe.
@@davidwald2938 What I'm refering to is the extra compression that's added in the engraving process of the vinyl master. The master tape has it's natural comression, but the cutting process adds even more which makes the vinyl less dynamic than the tape. They used to sell expanders for the purpose of bringing back some of the dynamic range on vinyls in the 70's.
I have not used a r2r in years but i can still remember how quiet and accurate they are. Vinyl has its good points and love the sound from a good turntable. I bought some classical music cassette tapes off of Ebay And I was surprised at the quality of the sound on a JVC cassette deck. Not so many problems as with a turntable and cassettes are portable. you can bounce down a rocky road and never miss a beat on a in dash cassette tape deck. I dare you to try that with a turntable. R2R and cassette give superior sound quality. And lastly you can jerk the cassette out of your car and play it in the house or stick it in your cd/cassette boom box and get great sound. with tape cassettes. the latest tape decks which are miniature R2R decks are so sophisticated that you can get. Forget lugging around a R2R and go cassette tape deck and you get the best of both worlds.
Although both recording media (LPs and open-reel magnetic tapes) are analogue means of recording music, they cannot be directly compared. This is because in the production of the matrix that will be used in pressing the LPs, in addition to the RIAA equalization, which eliminates the sub-bass contained in the master tape, removing their weight, the "punch", several steps follow the cutting of the acetate, each one of them causing small changes, which will be noticed when playing a copy of the disc. Direct comparison would only be possible if the same content of the master tape could be recorded directly onto the vinyl record (LP) that will be reproduced. Professional recordings made on the best equipment, using open-reel magnetic tapes, are the definitive reference in terms of analogue music recording. LPs are the appropriate means for recording music to remain permanent; We can safely say that an LP produced with the best technique and the best materials lasts more than 100 years. Tapes, even if very well stored, rarely reach half this age without significant loss of recording quality, especially of high-pitched sounds.
The reel to reel is definitely a better, more realistic sound, no pun intended. The vinyl has noticeable distortion in the upper frequencies and in the vocals. That distortion makes many singers sound better to most people's ears. Including mine. That's why records bring back a feeling of nostalgia. Because that's probably what we heard on the radio, records being played. Take away that distortion and many hit singers from early 60s sounded boring and unprofessional. Like the big hit Tracy by the Cufflinks. The digital remaster direct from tape sounds very amateurish. Not the way I remember it at all. But put some distorted spin on it from a record and WoW, sounds great. But with really great singers and great performances, you don't need the distortion. Harmonic distortion from a tube preamp provides plenty coloration for me. My ears just get tired of that strange distorted sound from vinyl. I always admired the sound of reel to reel, and now digital. Good comparison. Thanks for the video.
Back in the 1980s, you were able to buy some very high quality sounding, although, used music centres, and stereo radio grams for very little money , and the sound quality was concert quality, or very near, and would be greatly detailed , very unique, compared to now.
I was around in 1985. I remember reading in a hifi magazine about the upcoming Dire Straits album, Brothers In Arms. It was being recorded completely digitally and created a buzz of anticipation regarding what it would sound like. You might want to do another demo on Love Over Gold from 1982, which was recorded on lossless analogue tape. Good video all the same. My young daughter wanted to know about “those black discs with music on them.”!
I had two of the best RTR recorders at the time. Technics RS 1500 US. They had the best high end response, well over 25K Hz! As of today, these machines can be found for well over what I paid for my machines, $ 1000.00 each then, over $3000.00 today when you can find them
Odd that you should choose a digitally recorded album for this test. Surely a lossless digital transfer from the master would offer the best sound quality (at least for this digital recording)
I have a 40yr old Linn Sondeck, a home made amp(with an on/off button, a pair of 60yr old B&A 120w p/c speakers and a pair of 50yr old Wharfdale 100w p/c studio monitors, in my "den", which produce the crispest, clearest sound you'll ever hear! I've had numerous sound engineers from several different record companies/recording studios who've heard offered to buy my "setup" for tens of thousands of £'s! but money cannot buy these separates, so they'll remain in my home til I die! .......
Thanks this was fun! This is what getting out the toys and playing with them is all about. I have an Otari 5050 tape deck that needs servicing. In the 90's they were all over the place in radio stations as a "professional studio deck". I spent a lot of time recording and editing tape on them and am now wondering if it's worth the trouble to get mine back in operation. I'm assuming the tape was recorded from your vinyl copy to tape on that machine. If so I'd consider that the comparison is not only about the formats but the sound of the playback section of this tape deck. It's seems fuller but also darker. Could be by design, but also could be aging electronics (capacitors?). Just some appreciative notes from someone who spent years doing broadcast studio work on various gear in the age of analog. Good stuff. Thanks again!
That looks like 7.5 IPS speed on the tape (I own an R2R that does 15 IPS so I spotted it right away). But even at 7.5 IPS it sounds better than the vinyl record! It has been said by other commenters that 15 IPS would have been a nicer comparison and I agree - still I find it funny that even the 7.5 IPS still sounded better (more fuller if that makes sense) than the vinyl.
i have a colection of hi-fi components this because in my family all liked music and because they had money , the systems bought since late 60´s show a higher quality in sound ,normally only change the speakers to newer and with good speacifications to substitute old models that are in need of new drivers or the old ones restored, but i always found at top quality the compilations i´ve m,ade into reels the best as they improve any record sound , doesn´t need to be a high end one ,just a simple model if it as their standart quality like the X-165D , crossfield from 1970 akai´s catalogue , it´s a example of a still very good open reel stereo recorder, i have more recent ones but in general records when well played in good turntables that i have them will sound even better , the only thing that is dificult today is finding good reels but i´ve found them in the least expected places and still new and in perfect condition also old recordings that i have a lot when recording them again not a single flaw is noticeable, but my favorite souces are the turntable and open reel decks, as the better amplification systems i use and speakers the better the turntable sounds and the cassettes also the reels and the less good a cd sounds even with very good high-end cd players that i was infected with the desease in early 80´s but with time ,not much i notice the wrong sound on old recordings released in new compact discs, not saying they sound bad but if you heard a title for years one notices wrong levels in the mixing , wrong sound of instruments played ,allthough several of this problems were improved still far from 100% quality and i´m a digital user not a fundamentalist of analogue but without a doubt analogue sounds better if the equipment is right for it, i have more than 5.000cds but also have more than 15.000 records sounding perfect as recentelly my father passed away and i kept all his equipment and music he had., as my sister and brother wanted no old things, even my car colection increased by the triple of the cars i had, me and my father were ok in his last years but i for more than 30 years didn´t talk to him, had my reasons
Technically, that's impossible unless the tape was not recorded properly. Vinyl cut has geometrical and frequency response issues that tape recording does not suffer from.
@@alfonsoeduardo159Your statement is nonsensical. The "sound" is a psychoacoustic phenomenon dependent on a variety of factors including taste, playback from youtube, etc, etc. Humans are not a measuring machines and what we think sounds better is not reflective of whatever measurements or effects you think makes one medium better.
Only in the way that a movie on film is basically Blu-Ray, and a 70mm movie is basically 4K at least. They are comparable, but different. Digital is wonderful when done well, but people will continue to make movies on film and audio recordings on tape now and then. I love the sound of the tube amplifiers and old microphones on big band recordings. Not high fidelity, but still interesting. I remember listening to a CD player through headphones in a Radio Shack when they first became available. I had never heard such a clean recording in my life, but if I focused my attention I could actually hear the slightest distortion even on a digitally mastered recording. That didn't stop me from buying one. It's also great to hear music that was never digitized at all, it actually has more noise and distortion but still pleasant to hear. The rarest treat is to hear acoustic instruments and human voices in a small room without any electronics whatsoever.
To my ears, you lose a bit off the top end when transferred to the reels. This coukd be the tape formulation. But mids and low end still sound really good, as does the stereo image. I have used HIFI VCR's in the past, and got amazing results from recordings.
Man that LP sound is top class!! But that is a $50K set up?? Can someone confirm for me?? The sheer site of them reel to reels is just majestic!! It will impress the pants out of any guess coming along. That's why it's hard for me to let go of my Revox B77 mk2.....
Still use ReVox B77mkII and A77mkIV and when taped from vinyl , the tape sounds better how not logic that sounds. People have to realise that those old 50-60-70 and even 80's cd's or sacd come from a tape source , and vinyl from the 50's sounds a lot better than todays outputs.
Both sounds good.... BTW, "Brothers in Arms" was one of the first albums recorded with a 24 track DIGITAL tape recorder.... So, you have analog copies from an original digital record.....
Years ago a hear a compareson between Belafontes Carnegie Hall Concert old Living Stereo on VPI-Turntable and Mastertapes on ASC-Open Reel: The Tape has won. But the Tapes are super-rare…
Holly shit, A mega buck turntable vs a humble reel to reel?? The reel-to-reel seems to win it with its warmer sound. LP sounded a little cold and analytical.... Shocking! From my quick first impressions/listening. Near to clean out my wax in my ears to get a fuller accurate assessment. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Comes down to where and how they sourced the vinyl vs the tape and how many generations removed from the master not to mention whatever tinkering and EQing was done in each case. Very often records were made from safety copies several generations removed from the master while reel tapes were either made direct from the master or second generation copies. There are simply too many unknowns and other variables to judge one medium over another.
Source material was digital, so should be bit perfect when cut to vinyl, the big issue is the quality of the d/a converter used for vinyl and the tape, where they same ?
tape will always sound fuller and a more comfortable listening experience than vinyl, the warmer bass and mid range fill out the sound and the treble is slightly rolled off making the sound even warmer, if i could afford it i would buy a reel to reel !
Thanks for the video. Was the microphone in the same position on both recordings? That Tascam recorder his line in inputs that would help this. If you did use the inputs, are the microphones automatically turned off. I've never used one. Looks like a pretty handy device. I could hear the sound reflections in the room more on the vinyl capture then the tape capture. Despite all that, the vinyl sounded more open in the high end. The tape had more presence.
The digital that the video and audio is recorded on here and transported to us via UA-cam sounds the best, but if we are listening to these lower fidelity and impractical formats and deciding, I would say, from this video anyway, that the reel to reel sound is more to my preference. The tape doesn’t have the sibilant edge which is often associated with vinyl and is generally a lot more organic sounding. I’m hearing a lot of the room sound here as well, it would have been better if it was played into the sound card / recording device directly and level balanced also. Apart from that you can keep those old contraptions, thankfully things have moved on :)
I never liked the tinny sound of vinyl, my dad had a vinyl set up..1984 when i was 18 i built my own set up and always used tape.....now i use a music streamer, i regret the day i gave all my equipment away in the early 2000s...looking online it will cost me a small fortune to get it back.
Me no understand? Where was the reel to reel recording from? Didn't sound level matched? But that could be just me. I will stick to digital versions thanks though 😉
All vinyl records have been "processed" using compression and RIAA curves to help the sound seem more open. Tape does not have the processing. Some records were recorded directly from mixers. They really expensive, maybe $10.00 haha. Not even a good down payment today.
Tape has either NAB or CCIR equalization, which is basically just another equalization, just like RIAA correction. In both cases it is to compensate for the physical properties of their respective medias. So not much difference there...
bybthe way ,nice turntable, i thought of buying to myself a transrotor but other priorities appear and have already very good turntables so i might buy one in a year at the most
The tape adds too much inaccurate sloppy bottom end , but that could be the biasing and tape type .. The Vinyl is pretty well spot on and very accurate regardless of the big exaggerated bottom end … Personally I like HD 20 bit Digital ,, the dynamics are absolutely incredible and frequencies are beautifully separated ..
A general comparison is not feasible. The turntable plays depending on the phono card you use while the tape is read and played without any modification. The best mathematical quality absolutely belongs to the tape
Tape here sounds better. But reality is that these modern high-end belt-drive turntables doesn`t really sound so good. They are just expensive to buy. Most vintage direct-drive turntables would blew them away in terms of sound and speed stability.
How long will an expensive tape last before it starts to lose its quality through numerous plays and age. I would have thought that even though the tape sounds much warmer a vinyl would outlive a tape as long as the grooves are not damaged through worn styli etc!!!!!!……beautiful setup by the way.
The tape sound better, but I wonder where the recording from. Is it from the vinyl or from studio master tapes, I used to have such equipment. Most audio enthusiast use to make recording from vinyl
This proves why I don’t go over 128kbps MP3 files - the only way I could tell a difference is that pop switching between the formats. Otherwise, I hear no difference.
I think that the vinyl experience is enhanced by the electroacoustic effect of the turntable vs. amplification & room ambience. Yet, despite that, I prefer reel-to-reel over the two. (But I prefer live music, when possible.)
i do prefer having the band playing in my living room but having not the possibility of having all artists coming to my house, i do like both formats. I have a DAT deck which is digital but a high quality source only expensive to mantain and expensive to buy new DAT cassettes, after all i would prefer vinyl as it´s fashion to say now against reords or discs ,in the past vinyl was the cover of car dashes or women especial dresses
Reel to reel......the most expensive expensive way to record music! I use to have a Teac 3340S deck and the less expensive 10" reels were sky high, especially with metal reels. Digital Mp3's and flac put them out of business.....but the high end reel decks are certainty are eye candy.....
Reel-to-reel offers better frequency responses. Sure, it sounds better. If it didn't, large-format tape wouldn't have been used to record laquer masters for vinyl. Unfortunately, and especially today, it is also the most expensive fomat. Finding a machine that works, whose recording/playback heads aren't ruined, not to mention tuning the motor back to factory specs is one expensive aspect. Finding tape manufactured by the big labels that isn't degraded magnetically is another aspect but I'm certain it can be had - for a price. Tape recorded at home on small-format media has something like the issue you have with CDs we used to burn. Commerical CDs and their digital info are pressed, not burned. There's a reason why CDs have never been a viable storage solution. Audio tape that's properly recorded and stored on large-format media can be used for new "digitally mastered" vinyl. Small-format media? The difference in audio quality isn't that far removed from vinyl. Vinyl, if properly stored and handled, can give years of listening pleasure. I have Shellac that still sounds awesome. I have Shellac that was recorded acoustically over 100 years ago that sounds, well, like it was recorded acoustically through a big recording horn but the point is, I can still listen to it and on period gramophones/phonographs. I'll stick with vinyl, knowing I wouldn't turn-down a restored Pioneer 707 or 909 but also knowing I'd never likely have the music collection on tape that I have on vinyl and shellac and *never knowing* fully whether the tapes I might collect are in good shape or not when I'm buying them - with a few exceptions, you can usually tell if the record is in good shape althought I have a Miles Davis from the early 70s that I bought in Germany and good heavens - it looks "good," sounds absolutely awful. That's the exception, not the rule.
Fun.... but this is absolutely NOT a RTR vs. Vinyl comparison. Not when the tape is a recording of the very same vinyl. The only fair comparison would be if the tape was made from the same master file (not tape) that the vinyl was cut from, and that would be VERY expensive. Don't forget, this album was a full digital recording! It was highly touted when it came out, and yes it's a great sounding reference piece. But the source will always be a D/A converter.
This is so funny, trying to compare two analog devices when both have been digitised by something unknown and then re-compressed by the UA-cam audio and video mangling machine.
Did anyone notice the record pressing was not perfect? The tonearm is moving left to right slightly. I thought the sound was excellent on both sources.😊
Dumb question. Are you recording from vinyl or cd? Or something all together different. How can recording from a source improve things. Keep it simple please
The set up and equipment you use has everything to do with the end results, like the universe, I am constantly trying to tweak it again and again. It’s not about listening to the equipment but extracting the maximum from your music
In fact I have this record in several formats: vinyl, CD, SACD and cassette. I like them all. But I’d I have to chose the best sound, or the more complete, it would be the Reel Tape. I can assure that in my room the difference is evident.
Thats nonsence. The conversion from analog tape to vinyl is much more distructive. Tape will allmost always sound better. Besides turntable has somany factors of added coloration, it will probably be sounding completely different.
@@brugj03 Wrong. Listen to what he says carefully. With a direct cut or ‘master cut’ vinyl you are getting the copy right off the master tape. They only have to play the tape ONCE to get a mold. To get tapes made, they have to make copies of copies of copies. Why do you think the companies DO NOT tell you how many copies are made between your tape and the Master? 😂 A well setup high-end TT will blow away the sound of most R2R tapes. If you have a true master tape, sure, that should sound better. But almost no one does.
@@krwd I have and ask them how many copies between the master and what you can buy. They won’t tell you. Guess why?? Because they make copies of copies of copies. Think about it: a record Master can be made by playing the Master tape once. If you buy an album on tape, they cannot run hundreds of tape machines at once. That’s why they make copies of copies of copies.
Reel to reel ,s were so cool to look at.
My favorite part of this video i that you happened to choose an album that was recorded COMPLETELY DIGITALLY. I know for a fact that it was cut on a Sony 3323 24 track digital DASH system reel to reel machine. People love to drool over this album and how great it sounds on vinyl when it was never analog until it was TRANSFERRED to disc bu using a cutting lathe. But hey have fun.
everyone knows this
Yeah, it’s not like this was an unknown thing by people most likely to click on this video. What the real question is: why choose the miles showell half speed over the mofi cut, which is light years better than the abbey road?
That was actually smart to go with a digital track, for to the fact it would have less artifacts of recording medium degradation or playback flaws wow flutter drift blah blah. You can get an idea of the difference between RPM and IPS as well as pitch consistency; starting with the same digital content assuming they both had the same input from the DASH masters... you can also hear what mediums capture the spectrum more accurately or pleasantly. You can hear the fidelity and timbre and tone changes by starting with a digital source... for these reasons, it's better to start with a digital source audio recorded digitally to a timecode with solid timing clk source to quartz or cesium or whatever they might have used rather than doing this comparison using an original tape or original vinyl. It would be interesting to test the DASH PCM to a forensic analysis of that compared to an original tape to original press vinyl. Just to really see time's effects on the things I mentioned and not only to test the medium itself but the accuracy of present day playback machines compared to old technologies used in playback machines. For instance, tape speeds, needle cartridges, reel clamps, degaussing, brushes, tubes, opamps, transistors, ICs, processors, etc. This is the stuff I wish would be in science museums, but youtube and rumble are all we got for the tech nerds.
You've never had a tape that just got more of a subtly marinated sound that changes over time? Doesn't matter if it was recorded from digital, it's clocking/cadence is always a bit different because it's atomic rather than integer maths. Rotaries vs traffic lights. Lol.
to me the first time i put it to play being used to high quality sound in any prior album this sounded strange, as some sound dull and other sound very good but diferent from eachother
Both are cool in different way . Love your comparison and thank you for that.
IMHO, "Best" of anything is in the ear of the beholder. I have a pretty good vinyl playback setup (MC cart), as well as a TEAC X1000R R2R deck (w/ onboard dbx NR), and even a Pioneer CT-F1250 cassette (restored). With good source material, all 3 formats sound amazingly good.
I didn't realise at the time that home open reels were eventually ditched in favour of cassette tapes not in favour of quality but convenience ,I remember when I was a kid I was given a reel to reel tape recorder and the sound quality blew me away, really full warm sound . I think a lot of people are missing out on their vinyl because it has to be played on good quality equipment to achieve the proper result . A vinyl can only be as good as the tape it was cut or pressed from I would have thought ? Listening to this through a phone the vinyl is definetly clearer .
If you look at audio's history, it's rife with "convenience " killing good sound reproduction practices. In your cassette example, there were machines that rivaled good prosumer RTR. But when you jumped into studio quality RTR machines, they left ALL the prosumer cassettes decks in the dirt.....even Nak. RTR, cassette and vinyl are a lot of work to make great sound playback.....versus streaming and the like. But the tactile benefits for some of us are worth the effort. Like you're really doing something other than pressing remote buttons. It's a niche hobby.......not very convenient...lol.
Don't go upsetting the vinyl crowd with things like 'facts', they just get upset!
Yep, decent tape does indeed sound wonderful! By the mid 90s though, cassette technology reached its peak with some REALLY good technical specs... What killed that? MP3 files... MOST people have never heard high quality sound and don't care anyway, hence the amount of people around with REALLY BAD kit like 'Bush' 'record players', sound bars etc...
One question that generally stumps so called 'hi-fi buffs' is 'most music these days is recorded in digital recording studios, so HOW can putting the end result sound more accurate on a piece of vinyl that has limited frequency and dynamic response'?
Tape DOES sound great, BUT it's a 'volatile' storage medium and it wears out unfortunately., tape degrades over time which requires it to be 'baked' or else the emulsion carrying the magnetic particles rubs off on the tape heads.
BY FAR the most accurate way to listen to music now is via high bit-rate and high sample rate digital files. Just ask anyone who actually MAKES the music, never mind the idiot in the hi-fi shop that's just trying to make a commission out of people's ignorance.
A 48KHz/24 or 32 bit file is MUCH more accurate than ANY analogue format now, the technology has finally arrived.
Speak to ANY recording/mixing or mastering engineer and, the vast majority of the time, this is the answer you will get.
@@groovedealerfeaturing-ashl6476 That's not really accurate about tape. SSS is a tape formulation problem within specific brands like Ampex. Those of us into tapes know what brands produce SSS and avoid it like the plague. I have tape now over 50yrs old that sounds marvelous like the day it was recorded. Yes, it degrades slightly with playback frequency, but if I have the vinyl, I just re-record it(rarely had to do this, BTW. Mostly just to make a better copy from the purchase of a new cart/preamp, etc). One solution is to have a lot of music recorded so you're not playing the same few albums all the time...lol. A lot of digital engineers these days record for LOUD. It's not about the music dynamics throughout the hearing range. It's LOUD for the earbud crowd....that's what they want. The rest of us(niche community), just want more....simple as that. I have no argument against digital other than the engineers just selling out for LOUD....the medium is perfect for capturing all the lush dynamics in music.
@@TheReal1953 yes, some tape formulae are better than others, but it's still a volatile medium.
As for loudness, that has nothing particularly to do with digital... It's something SOME artists, record companies etc have been chasing for years, right from the Inception of recording. it's to do with wanting to have the 'loudest' track on the radio, jukebox, TV, UA-cam etc. It's just that with digital recording it can be pushed much further, that's all.
@@groovedealerfeaturing-ashl6476 I wasn't saying that digital had anything to do with LOUD recordings. It's what the earbud crowd wants instead of fidelity. But there's a nuance to transferring old tape masters to digital. It's not done correctly a lot of the time as evidenced by the original recordings against the remastered version. Most times you can't take a decent original master and make it 'better' by the digital process. That's changing the music itself most often. I've had thousands of tapes and never seen any real degradation. But I learned early on which formulations to stay with and did so. The only thing volatile about the quality tape of today is the negative arguments swarming around the medium.
That must be a $10,000+ turntable. For a fair comparison, the open reel deck should be a half-track professional or semi-professional machine running at 15 ips. The Pioneer RT-909 is a beautiful machine, and reasonably capable, but for the same price as that turntable, you can get an even more impressive open reel deck.
But I don't chase the dragon. I have a sizable collection of different open reel machines from low-end to semi-professional. I collect them just because I love all the different ways that manufacturers designed them. And I have five different turntables, but none of them are anywhere near the level of yours.
Anyway, lovely system! Enjoy! That's the most important thing. That's what we should all do. We only need to impress and satisfy ourselves!
😎👍
That’s sounds like a great collection.
@@gustercc
Thanks! It's grown WAY beyond my wildest dreams... 😳😎👍 Many of them are still patiently waiting for me to service/restore them. One of these days!
Excellent answer! Been a long time since I heard "chasing the dragon" in audio circles, bravo! It's always been about the music and having it playing all the time, "chasing the dragon'" was optional.
i also colect hi-fi components and a open reel deck doesn´t need much to be above all other formats even today, a 10.000€ turntable of today doesn´t have the sound of 70´s equipment or cartridges so any 70´s reel deck sounds above if you record from the turntable directelly for the open reel deck you´ll notice a great improvement in sound, the pioneer you refer if working good is still very ahead in sound ,i have a studer 4 track recording stereo from 71 that is better than most of the home recording systems or playing, this using a ferric tape, i also have 28 turntables and none is bad since late 60´s but the last i bought was expensive and the only problem is the new cartridges ,even very expensive and with a perfect sound have a very low ouput sound level, many of my older friends today they could buy anything they wanted but several only kept a amplifier a set of speakers and a reel deck all that they had they ofered it to me as i colect them ,this to say that still today the best sound one can get is from a open reel deck, the DAT is digital but being very close is always needing repairs and a reel deck will last the rest of their lifes and having hundreds of reels they conect a iphone with spotify and record to a reel and sounds very good and we are talking about very expensive equipment , the amplifers they have are from the 70´s and can produce a very loud and perfect sound, very rae to happen but sometimes we go to the countryside to drink ,in resume have a party one night in the summer it was 34 degrees celsius at 4 in the morning and when getting more ice from inside the house i looked to a amplifier and was working but on fire the owner of the amp. and the house pass by me and i pointed to the amp. he replyed it´s on fire and went with me to get ice and we let it burn it was a macintosh mono block from the 70´s and the most expensive at the time when he bought it ,we are in our 70´s and in a party we have all drugs available and a bit of food as it is very hot and we drink at night after smoking coocked cocaine and heroin then all go to the pool and talk while drinking or smoking
At this cost, I'd rather have a Blu-Ray Audio disc (HFPA - High Fidelity Pure Audio), that plays on a regular blu-ray player, or a XRCD24 disc, that plays on a regular compact disc player. In both cases, the hardware will make the difference... 🤔
Brothers in arms was my first cd purchase, back when it came out. After purchasing my first CD player. I already had the LP. I never owned reel to reel, but used vhs hi fi to record cds borrowed from friends. Before recordable cd/dvds came out.
At the tender age of about 5 my Dad showed me how to use a Pentron 9T3 tape recorder (1951 vintage) and it was love at first sight. I used that tape recorder up to about 7th grade and learned so much about electronics from that tape recorder. To this day I still love to watch the spinning reels while listening to the sound. Not to forget the tuning eye, electron-ray visual sound level indication tube to set recording level. That tube was invented by Allen B. Dumont whose firm pioneered cathode ray picture and oscilloscope indicating tubes in Passaic, NJ.I have had a lifelong career at the TV station he founded in the late 1940's.
It's a bit hard to tell which is better when YT compresses the audio down. That, and Brothers In Arms is one of those albums that was made for CD, which is why the original 1985 CD release is the best sounding version.
agreed 100%, youtube comparisons are made but doesn´t sound as the real equipment as some were done with components i use for decades
im surprised this isnt mentioned alot. youtube does not keep videos at the same quality that they were submitted. and different resolutions have different quality levels.
The tape sounded better - probably because the level was higher. That old trick of turning up the volume in hifi demonstrations would certainly work on me if I had the cash to splash. Nice looking toys to play with!
An old trick which we used to make sure our customers were aware of! Before making comparisons between amplifiers we would make sure the volume was the same for both by playing a one kHz tone and equalizing both amps first. This made the difference between amps clear and obvious.
Tape sounds ALWAYS better because vinyl is CREATED from master tapes….
@@silviosarunic6709 Generally speaking, tape MAY sound better than vinyl, but it depends on what generation tape the recording was made from, the quality of the tape player it's being played back on, how well it was copied, and so on. Certainly a master tape played back on the original recording machine (everything else being equal) will sound better than vinyl no matter how good the transfer is because it's a generation better, but making a blanket statement that tape "always" sounds better than vinyl is a bit simplistic. And don't forget there are some "direct to disc" vinyl records out there too...
the sound being higher in volume isn´t related with quality but only a lower volume
@@silviosarunic6709 this aren´t master tapes but copy´s as the vinyl matrix is done to be reproduced in several factory´s, and studio reels have a bigger tape section, but still the perfect copy
Tapes sounding smooth and friendly 👌🏻
Tape has so much more body. Definitely like it better in these examples:)
I totally agree!
Tape adds distortion and saturation that can be pleasing to the ear.The effect is very dramatic and many digital masters are run through tape and back to digital to obtain that effect. The effect became so popular that companies have built digital equipment designed to mimc the effect without the bother and expense of keeping tape and machines continuously aligned. The Crane Song HEDD is such a device.
Recording to tape also tends to boost lower frequencies and that also is generally pleasing.
Archaic nonsense!! Needs to be in a museum for obselete hifi.
Yes and the lossy digital audio codec which is you tube is transparent enough that you can hear the differences.
Jacob, nice walk down memory lane! I’ve run the gamut from vinyl, cassettes, 8 Tracks, reel, CD’s, etc. I’m a little long in the tooth now…now using my A&K SP3000 with my Sennheiser HD800’s and Audio 64 U12T’s. Sound and high res is amazing.
I think a better test for this would be to have a prerecorded reel tape recorded at 7.5 ips and have the same vinyl recording of the same thing and test it that way. I have some old rerecorded reel tapes that I think are superior to vinyl recordings of the same thing. Don't get me wrong, they're both really good formats, but I think that the reel to reel tape has a little more detail in the recording. The microphone picking up both recordings vs. going direct line out is also an uneven match. Sound quality is subjective to the listener. We all have varying opinions and like I said at the beginning, I had the album and tape of the same thing and the tape won for me.
Yep, I agree . 7.5 ips Recorded lable on a Studer R2R is unbeatable.
Tape has no crackle & pop and for the most-part, never wears. Tape does have a slight-to-moderate hiss. IMO, any 7.5ips pre-recorded tape will blow-away the sound of an LP... especially if they are both 50 years old!
@gdavisloop
As a guy who grew up in audio and has owned R2R tape, miles of prerecorded reels and small studio recordings.
I can say with certainty.
Magnetic tape devopes ghosting after 3 or 4 decades.
Between songs and in very quiet passages, you will hear music from the next loop in the reel.
Tape will magneticly pick up from the loops above and below it over time. It's not super loud, but it's there. Believe me, I have rolled miles of old tape. Mylar is the best stuff , celluloid is the worst for it. As far as records, if handled carefully, cleaned and zapped with a zero Stat gun.
And you have a good nude elliptical styles set up right.
Records can sound very good.
Being I am crowding 60 .
I have gone to high rez streaming. With a good player and the right DAC , my 2A3 mono blocks are more resolving than my near 60 year old ears.
Every medium has its advantages and disadvantages.
Even 16 track mastertapes deteriorate over time.
Enjoy what ever format you choose . If you are happy and your toe is tapping along , it's working for you. Try new things ,but don't overthink it.
If it sounds good and you're enjoying your listening sessions, it's a win.
Anyone that can tell the difference, well done.....Neither can I. Not through the audio of UA-cam which is limited at best !
The tape has better lows, bass is better witout losing the treble detail. I like most the tape.
both are the best formats still available ,i used to record records into reels this when buying an Lp was a really hard thing to do ,if it weren´t records from françoise Ardi or Umberto tozzi , but having the record i do prefer to hear records ,the reels are perfect way to record music ,entire Lp´s or compilations ,being the last the one i do most and sometimes i do record cassettes . I´ve tried CD-R´s and minidiscs but st5ill enjoy more the reel deck wich i have 3 and the oldest one in this moment is a AKAI X-165D bought in 1970 ,and only records ferric tapes, having better sound than most of the cassette decks, this album is a bit strange some songs seemed recorded in diferent studios with diferent producers but is only one of the first records recorded digitally, one can hear the first two albums and notuice a much higher quality in sound ,after all they do sound the same here, only a diference in volume which is normal in vinyl records
The Tape gave birth to the vinyl Lp, so if you ask me , I truly believe that there's not much difference in the aural response with the exception of hiss from tape and pops and clicks from vinyl
In the late 1970's prior to the advent of digital home formats including the Technics VHS based digital home recorder; a good many classical albums had DIGITAL RECORDING emblazoned across the dust jacket indicating that the music contained on the LP was in fact digitally recorded. It was a bit of a deal then much like half speed masters of the time.
Reel-to-reel is what ALL records started as before 1974 when "digital" recording began on videotape. I have 30-45 15 IPS reel-to-reel tapes made from the mixing masters I paid up to $600 1970's and 80's dollars for. Most are FOUR CHANNEL, not two-channel "stereo". They blow CD's away, with wider dynamic range, better frequency response, and NOT being digitized. My BEST one is "Days of Future Passed" by the Moody Blues. Decca created their Deram division JUST for "QUAD". I own over 700 "QUAD" LP's too. The recording engineer on DoFP had some real fun bouncing the sound around the channels. My Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" 4 channel R-T-R sounds VASTLY different than the two-channel mix. The most expensive tape I have? Janis Joplin live at the Cotton Bowl during the Texas State Fair. I was there when she was in concert with Big Brother and the Holding Company and sang the duet with Kris Kristofferson on "Bobby McGee".
This is really cool! I've been studying recording processes and have been interested in getting a 70's silver cassette deck. Any chance you have video upload of one of these reel-to-reels?
There was no quad when Deram began, nor when that album was first made and released. Deram was a place for Decca to release their recordings done with a set of recording techniques which their engineers developed for a natural, lifelike stereo image and final sound, beginning in 1966. DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED was an outlet for these techniques to be used in that genre of music, which to a degree was pioneered by that album. It was mixed into quad for release in 1972. It's very nicely done, no question. As far as the stereo versions go, while the remix done by the original engineer in 1978 - when they already heard degradation in the original mix and ordered a new replacement mix - is clean and fine and whatever, it can't touch how great the original 1967 stereo mix is. I have a flat digital copy of what is claimed to be either from the original stereo master with the dropouts fixed digitally but otherwise straight off the master or from an analog copy made flat off the master when it was in good condition and transferred to digital straight. Whichever is true, it sounds truly beautiful and magical. Even with the tape bounces done in the non-orchestral recordings, it's still a great achievement in how good a recording can sound. The mono was a fold down of the original stereo mix.
Both sounds amazing, but tape it has it's extra quality.
Agreed!
yes, no wow and flutter and rumble inherent problems on belt driven turntables
@@krwdMy belt driven turntable has big time rumble issue so I have to set it on the floor and use rumble reduction on my phono preamp which works well. Sorry to hear tape has rumble as well. Heard about wow and flutter before. I wanted to use open reel as a turntable alternative in my vintage system and was hoping the rumble issue would be resolved. Oh well, I guess only digital resolves rumble completely but hopefully r2r has less than my turntable
More dynamic range and better punch
We are comparing audio that was recorded through a camera microphone? Really?
It might be edited in
I miss my old Teac reel to reel. They were always so crisp😊
I just bought a Teac A3340S. I owned one back in the day 50 years ago. I am in love again. I realize now how much I missed it.
Love your system. I also noticed that you were using RTM 911. Best out there. Thanks for sharing.😊
The tape are punchier. Vinyls has added compression to avoid the needle jumping all over the place. In addition you have the RIIA correction degrading the sound.
Wouldn't that compression be transferred to tape when recording an album with r2r? Or are you referring to strictly the old pre-recorded tapes? Curious if the playback is different in the r2r electronics it can capture better dynamics off the vinyl or if the vinyl would not have greater dynamics intrinsically due to being compressed when cut from the lathe.
@@davidwald2938 What I'm refering to is the extra compression that's added in the engraving process of the vinyl master. The master tape has it's natural comression, but the cutting process adds even more which makes the vinyl less dynamic than the tape. They used to sell expanders for the purpose of bringing back some of the dynamic range on vinyls in the 70's.
I see now. Thanks so much for explaining. That's interesting about the expander. I had never heard of that device.
@@BigTrouble324 Yeah, talk about "chasing the dragon" with expanders etc.......
@@TheReal1953 They actually made some DBX encoded records, which was practically noiseless, but then came the CD.
I have not used a r2r in years but i can still remember how quiet and accurate they are. Vinyl has its good points and love the sound from a good turntable. I bought some classical music cassette tapes off of Ebay And I was surprised at the quality of the sound on a JVC cassette deck. Not so many problems as with a turntable and cassettes are portable. you can bounce down a rocky road and never miss a beat on a in dash cassette tape deck. I dare you to try that with a turntable. R2R and cassette give superior sound quality. And lastly you can jerk the cassette out of your car and play it in the house or stick it in your cd/cassette boom box and get great sound. with tape cassettes. the latest tape decks which are miniature R2R decks are so sophisticated that you can get. Forget lugging around a R2R and go cassette tape deck and you get the best of both worlds.
Although both recording media (LPs and open-reel magnetic tapes) are analogue means of recording music, they cannot be directly compared. This is because in the production of the matrix that will be used in pressing the LPs, in addition to the RIAA equalization, which eliminates the sub-bass contained in the master tape, removing their weight, the "punch", several steps follow the cutting of the acetate, each one of them causing small changes, which will be noticed when playing a copy of the disc.
Direct comparison would only be possible if the same content of the master tape could be recorded directly onto the vinyl record (LP) that will be reproduced. Professional recordings made on the best equipment, using open-reel magnetic tapes, are the definitive reference in terms of analogue music recording. LPs are the appropriate means for recording music to remain permanent; We can safely say that an LP produced with the best technique and the best materials lasts more than 100 years. Tapes, even if very well stored, rarely reach half this age without significant loss of recording quality, especially of high-pitched sounds.
The reel to reel is definitely a better, more realistic sound, no pun intended. The vinyl has noticeable distortion in the upper frequencies and in the vocals. That distortion makes many singers sound better to most people's ears. Including mine. That's why records bring back a feeling of nostalgia. Because that's probably what we heard on the radio, records being played. Take away that distortion and many hit singers from early 60s sounded boring and unprofessional. Like the big hit Tracy by the Cufflinks. The digital remaster direct from tape sounds very amateurish. Not the way I remember it at all. But put some distorted spin on it from a record and WoW, sounds great. But with really great singers and great performances, you don't need the distortion. Harmonic distortion from a tube preamp provides plenty coloration for me. My ears just get tired of that strange distorted sound from vinyl. I always admired the sound of reel to reel, and now digital. Good comparison. Thanks for the video.
Back in the 1980s, you were able to buy some very high quality sounding, although, used music centres, and stereo radio grams for very little money , and the sound quality was concert quality, or very near, and would be greatly detailed , very unique, compared to now.
I was around in 1985. I remember reading in a hifi magazine about the upcoming Dire Straits album, Brothers In Arms. It was being recorded completely digitally and created a buzz of anticipation regarding what it would sound like.
You might want to do another demo on Love Over Gold from 1982, which was recorded on lossless analogue tape.
Good video all the same.
My young daughter wanted to know about “those black discs with music on them.”!
Once I got my Akai GX4000D in top shape sold my Yamaha TT. Its sounds so good and just let it play.
Reel to reel just looks better all around
I had two of the best RTR recorders at the time. Technics RS 1500 US. They had the best high end response, well over 25K Hz! As of today, these machines can be found for well over what I paid for my machines, $ 1000.00 each then, over $3000.00 today when you can find them
Odd that you should choose a digitally recorded album for this test. Surely a lossless digital transfer from the master would offer the best sound quality (at least for this digital recording)
Where you gonna get one of those?
I have a 40yr old Linn Sondeck, a home made amp(with an on/off button, a pair of 60yr old B&A 120w p/c speakers and a pair of 50yr old Wharfdale 100w p/c studio monitors, in my "den", which produce the crispest, clearest sound you'll ever hear!
I've had numerous sound engineers from several different record companies/recording studios who've heard offered to buy my "setup" for tens of thousands of £'s! but money cannot buy these separates, so they'll remain in my home til I die! .......
Thanks this was fun! This is what getting out the toys and playing with them is all about. I have an Otari 5050 tape deck that needs servicing. In the 90's they were all over the place in radio stations as a "professional studio deck". I spent a lot of time recording and editing tape on them and am now wondering if it's worth the trouble to get mine back in operation. I'm assuming the tape was recorded from your vinyl copy to tape on that machine. If so I'd consider that the comparison is not only about the formats but the sound of the playback section of this tape deck. It's seems fuller but also darker. Could be by design, but also could be aging electronics (capacitors?). Just some appreciative notes from someone who spent years doing broadcast studio work on various gear in the age of analog. Good stuff. Thanks again!
The Pioneer recording gives it more body and bass!! At least that's what you hear on UA-cam!!👍👍👍👍👍👍
That looks like 7.5 IPS speed on the tape (I own an R2R that does 15 IPS so I spotted it right away). But even at 7.5 IPS it sounds better than the vinyl record! It has been said by other commenters that 15 IPS would have been a nicer comparison and I agree - still I find it funny that even the 7.5 IPS still sounded better (more fuller if that makes sense) than the vinyl.
Is this a direct feed or the sounds picked up by the mobile phone?
i have a colection of hi-fi components this because in my family all liked music and because they had money , the systems bought since late 60´s show a higher quality in sound ,normally only change the speakers to newer and with good speacifications to substitute old models that are in need of new drivers or the old ones restored, but i always found at top quality the compilations i´ve m,ade into reels the best as they improve any record sound , doesn´t need to be a high end one ,just a simple model if it as their standart quality like the X-165D , crossfield from 1970 akai´s catalogue , it´s a example of a still very good open reel stereo recorder, i have more recent ones but in general records when well played in good turntables that i have them will sound even better , the only thing that is dificult today is finding good reels but i´ve found them in the least expected places and still new and in perfect condition also old recordings that i have a lot when recording them again not a single flaw is noticeable, but my favorite souces are the turntable and open reel decks, as the better amplification systems i use and speakers the better the turntable sounds and the cassettes also the reels and the less good a cd sounds even with very good high-end cd players that i was infected with the desease in early 80´s but with time ,not much i notice the wrong sound on old recordings released in new compact discs, not saying they sound bad but if you heard a title for years one notices wrong levels in the mixing , wrong sound of instruments played ,allthough several of this problems were improved still far from 100% quality and i´m a digital user not a fundamentalist of analogue but without a doubt analogue sounds better if the equipment is right for it, i have more than 5.000cds but also have more than 15.000 records sounding perfect as recentelly my father passed away and i kept all his equipment and music he had., as my sister and brother wanted no old things, even my car colection increased by the triple of the cars i had, me and my father were ok in his last years but i for more than 30 years didn´t talk to him, had my reasons
Sound of vinyl much better!!!
Technically, that's impossible unless the tape was not recorded properly. Vinyl cut has geometrical and frequency response issues that tape recording does not suffer from.
@@alfonsoeduardo159Your statement is nonsensical. The "sound" is a psychoacoustic phenomenon dependent on a variety of factors including taste, playback from youtube, etc, etc. Humans are not a measuring machines and what we think sounds better is not reflective of whatever measurements or effects you think makes one medium better.
Reel to Reel for me for sound quality 👌
Reed to Reel is basically high end digital.
Only in the way that a movie on film is basically Blu-Ray, and a 70mm movie is basically 4K at least. They are comparable, but different. Digital is wonderful when done well, but people will continue to make movies on film and audio recordings on tape now and then. I love the sound of the tube amplifiers and old microphones on big band recordings. Not high fidelity, but still interesting. I remember listening to a CD player through headphones in a Radio Shack when they first became available. I had never heard such a clean recording in my life, but if I focused my attention I could actually hear the slightest distortion even on a digitally mastered recording. That didn't stop me from buying one. It's also great to hear music that was never digitized at all, it actually has more noise and distortion but still pleasant to hear. The rarest treat is to hear acoustic instruments and human voices in a small room without any electronics whatsoever.
Yes, the volume on the reel to reel was higher, making it difficult to tell which sounded better. If you played the Carpenters I may be able to tell.
To my ears, you lose a bit off the top end when transferred to the reels. This coukd be the tape formulation. But mids and low end still sound really good, as does the stereo image.
I have used HIFI VCR's in the past, and got amazing results from recordings.
Man that LP sound is top class!! But that is a $50K set up?? Can someone confirm for me?? The sheer site of them reel to reels is just majestic!! It will impress the pants out of any guess coming along. That's why it's hard for me to let go of my Revox B77 mk2.....
Dire Straits Brother in Arms was recorded Digitally, Funny they use it on an analog comparison
Putting it on reel to reel tape made it sound much better! No I'm kidding. Digital and tape both sound good.
Still use ReVox B77mkII and A77mkIV and when taped from vinyl , the tape sounds better how not logic that sounds. People have to realise that those old 50-60-70 and even 80's cd's or sacd come from a tape source , and vinyl from the 50's sounds a lot better than todays outputs.
Both sounds good.... BTW, "Brothers in Arms" was one of the first albums recorded with a 24 track DIGITAL tape recorder.... So, you have analog copies from an original digital record.....
Years ago a hear a compareson between Belafontes Carnegie Hall Concert old Living Stereo on VPI-Turntable and Mastertapes on ASC-Open Reel: The Tape has won. But the Tapes are super-rare…
Holly shit, A mega buck turntable vs a humble reel to reel?? The reel-to-reel seems to win it with its warmer sound. LP sounded a little cold and analytical.... Shocking! From my quick first impressions/listening. Near to clean out my wax in my ears to get a fuller accurate assessment. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Comes down to where and how they sourced the vinyl vs the tape and how many generations removed from the master not to mention whatever tinkering and EQing was done in each case. Very often records were made from safety copies several generations removed from the master while reel tapes were either made direct from the master or second generation copies. There are simply too many unknowns and other variables to judge one medium over another.
Source material was digital, so should be bit perfect when cut to vinyl, the big issue is the quality of the d/a converter used for vinyl and the tape, where they same ?
You are not going to hear the difference it the tape source was from the record. The tape can only sound as good as the record!!
I love the vinyl sounds, more flat and real...
Tape can sound very good, Vinyl Records were mastered from tape.
Half track with speed 15 will sound even better.
Something is not right with the R2R. The VUs are in sync with the video ?????
The sound of a pioneer reel to reel is so so, I would use a Revox B77
tape will always sound fuller and a more comfortable listening experience than vinyl, the warmer bass and mid range fill out the sound and the treble is slightly rolled off making the sound even warmer, if i could afford it i would buy a reel to reel !
Thanks for the video. Was the microphone in the same position on both recordings? That Tascam recorder his line in inputs that would help this. If you did use the inputs, are the microphones automatically turned off. I've never used one. Looks like a pretty handy device. I could hear the sound reflections in the room more on the vinyl capture then the tape capture. Despite all that, the vinyl sounded more open in the high end. The tape had more presence.
The digital that the video and audio is recorded on here and transported to us via UA-cam sounds the best, but if we are listening to these lower fidelity and impractical formats and deciding, I would say, from this video anyway, that the reel to reel sound is more to my preference. The tape doesn’t have the sibilant edge which is often associated with vinyl and is generally a lot more organic sounding. I’m hearing a lot of the room sound here as well, it would have been better if it was played into the sound card / recording device directly and level balanced also. Apart from that you can keep those old contraptions, thankfully things have moved on :)
I never liked the tinny sound of vinyl, my dad had a vinyl set up..1984 when i was 18 i built my own set up and always used tape.....now i use a music streamer, i regret the day i gave all my equipment away in the early 2000s...looking online it will cost me a small fortune to get it back.
I had the 909 and it’s next to impossible to tell the source vs tape, if using high quality tape of course.
Me no understand? Where was the reel to reel recording from? Didn't sound level matched? But that could be just me. I will stick to digital versions thanks though 😉
All vinyl records have been "processed" using compression and RIAA curves to help the sound seem more open. Tape does not have the processing. Some records were recorded directly from mixers. They really expensive, maybe $10.00 haha. Not even a good down payment today.
Tape has either NAB or CCIR equalization, which is basically just another equalization, just like RIAA correction. In both cases it is to compensate for the physical properties of their respective medias. So not much difference there...
bybthe way ,nice turntable, i thought of buying to myself a transrotor but other priorities appear and have already very good turntables so i might buy one in a year at the most
The tape adds too much inaccurate sloppy bottom end , but that could be the biasing and tape type .. The Vinyl is pretty well spot on and very accurate regardless of the big exaggerated bottom end … Personally I like HD 20 bit Digital ,, the dynamics are absolutely incredible and frequencies are beautifully separated ..
A general comparison is not feasible. The turntable plays depending on the phono card you use while the tape is read and played without any modification. The best mathematical quality absolutely belongs to the tape
Tape here sounds better. But reality is that these modern high-end belt-drive turntables doesn`t really sound so good. They are just expensive to buy. Most vintage direct-drive turntables would blew them away in terms of sound and speed stability.
I had to add dolby noise reduction to my r2r back in the 70s to get rid of the inherent tape hiss. Was that done here?
Vinyl is the King.
nope
Reel to reel clear winner
Brothers in Arms was recorded digitally (at least the multis) then mixed down to tape. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_in_Arms_(album)?wprov=sfti1
I love my 909.
OMG what for an UNBELIEVABLE sound from both. But i think the Tape is better.
How long will an expensive tape last before it starts to lose its quality through numerous plays and age.
I would have thought that even though the tape sounds much warmer a vinyl would outlive a tape as long as the grooves are not damaged through worn styli etc!!!!!!……beautiful setup by the way.
The tape is obviously warmer. Was the taped sourced from the vinyl?
THE REEL TO REEL SOUNDS ALITTLE CLEARER. CLEANER?
The reel to reel sounds a lot cleaner and a lot more realistic. Correct.
Why would you choose a digital recording (Brothers in Arms) to compare two analogue media ?
The tape sound better, but I wonder where the recording from. Is it from the vinyl or from studio master tapes, I used to have such equipment. Most audio enthusiast use to make recording from vinyl
The vinyl sound tends to be brighter, was the tape a studio made tape copy or was the tape recordong taken off from a vinyl?
I have CD version from 85 and it sounds even better than both of this :-D
This proves why I don’t go over 128kbps MP3 files - the only way I could tell a difference is that pop switching between the formats. Otherwise, I hear no difference.
On yt be shure of that😂
I think that the vinyl experience is enhanced by the electroacoustic effect of the turntable vs. amplification & room ambience. Yet, despite that, I prefer reel-to-reel over the two. (But I prefer live music, when possible.)
i do prefer having the band playing in my living room but having not the possibility of having all artists coming to my house, i do like both formats. I have a DAT deck which is digital but a high quality source only expensive to mantain and expensive to buy new DAT cassettes, after all i would prefer vinyl as it´s fashion to say now against reords or discs ,in the past vinyl was the cover of car dashes or women especial dresses
Good point!
Reel to reel......the most expensive expensive way to record music! I use to have a Teac 3340S deck and the less expensive 10" reels were sky high, especially with metal reels.
Digital Mp3's and flac put them out of business.....but the high end reel decks are certainty are eye candy.....
Somehow the turn table gives feeling of being there, whereas reel give feeling of sound in a sound room. Both are badAss
Would have been a scosche better if you were running a 1/2 track 15IPS deck too. ;-) Beautiful signal path BTW.
How was the tape mastered and recorded? No clue given. Not a valid comparison without knowing
Reel to Reel for me on a pair of B&W's.
Reel-to-reel offers better frequency responses. Sure, it sounds better. If it didn't, large-format tape wouldn't have been used to record laquer masters for vinyl. Unfortunately, and especially today, it is also the most expensive fomat. Finding a machine that works, whose recording/playback heads aren't ruined, not to mention tuning the motor back to factory specs is one expensive aspect. Finding tape manufactured by the big labels that isn't degraded magnetically is another aspect but I'm certain it can be had - for a price. Tape recorded at home on small-format media has something like the issue you have with CDs we used to burn. Commerical CDs and their digital info are pressed, not burned. There's a reason why CDs have never been a viable storage solution. Audio tape that's properly recorded and stored on large-format media can be used for new "digitally mastered" vinyl. Small-format media?
The difference in audio quality isn't that far removed from vinyl. Vinyl, if properly stored and handled, can give years of listening pleasure. I have Shellac that still sounds awesome. I have Shellac that was recorded acoustically over 100 years ago that sounds, well, like it was recorded acoustically through a big recording horn but the point is, I can still listen to it and on period gramophones/phonographs. I'll stick with vinyl, knowing I wouldn't turn-down a restored Pioneer 707 or 909 but also knowing I'd never likely have the music collection on tape that I have on vinyl and shellac and *never knowing* fully whether the tapes I might collect are in good shape or not when I'm buying them - with a few exceptions, you can usually tell if the record is in good shape althought I have a Miles Davis from the early 70s that I bought in Germany and good heavens - it looks "good," sounds absolutely awful. That's the exception, not the rule.
Fun.... but this is absolutely NOT a RTR vs. Vinyl comparison. Not when the tape is a recording of the very same vinyl. The only fair comparison would be if the tape was made from the same master file (not tape) that the vinyl was cut from, and that would be VERY expensive. Don't forget, this album was a full digital recording! It was highly touted when it came out, and yes it's a great sounding reference piece. But the source will always be a D/A converter.
This is so funny, trying to compare two analog devices when both have been digitised by something unknown and then re-compressed by the UA-cam audio and video mangling machine.
Where is the reel to reel tape recording sourced from? Also is it smart to have subwoofer so close to the turntable ?
It would have been nice if that information was provided.
I can't tell the difference on my laptop speakers. Both sound great. However, it looks cooler on the reel to reel.
You used the wrong reel to reel because this is a 4 track, for a good comparison you need a 2 track high speed.
Not sure what you have going on but my original print album sounds like your reel to reel but my r2r sounds great to
Did anyone notice the record pressing was not perfect? The tonearm is moving left to right slightly. I thought the sound was excellent on both sources.😊
Dumb question. Are you recording from vinyl or cd? Or something all together different. How can recording from a source improve things. Keep it simple please
The set up and equipment you use has everything to do with the end results, like the universe, I am constantly trying to tweak it again and again. It’s not about listening to the equipment but extracting the maximum from your music
The truth is that unless you have a 2nd copy from the original Master, a high end Turntable with any good album will sound better than a tape.
In fact I have this record in several formats: vinyl, CD, SACD and cassette. I like them all. But I’d I have to chose the best sound, or the more complete, it would be the Reel Tape. I can assure that in my room the difference is evident.
nope take a look at the 15 ips releases from Analogue sounds and tell me that
Thats nonsence.
The conversion from analog tape to vinyl is much more distructive.
Tape will allmost always sound better. Besides turntable has somany factors of added coloration, it will probably be sounding completely different.
@@brugj03 Wrong. Listen to what he says carefully. With a direct cut or ‘master cut’ vinyl you are getting the copy right off the master tape. They only have to play the tape ONCE to get a mold. To get tapes made, they have to make copies of copies of copies. Why do you think the companies DO NOT tell you how many copies are made between your tape and the Master? 😂 A well setup high-end TT will blow away the sound of most R2R tapes. If you have a true master tape, sure, that should sound better. But almost no one does.
@@krwd I have and ask them how many copies between the master and what you can buy. They won’t tell you. Guess why?? Because they make copies of copies of copies. Think about it: a record Master can be made by playing the Master tape once. If you buy an album on tape, they cannot run hundreds of tape machines at once. That’s why they make copies of copies of copies.