|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
64.12.116.16
In Reply to: RE: Tape Project review PF posted by joeljoel1947 on November 02, 2009 at 17:38:00
Hi Joel,
Knew some of you would disagree 'bout the commercial r2r releases -- but I tried not to be sweeping :)
As far as the Arnold recording goes. First, of course the TP tape is better than the LPs (though don't know what pressing and table/arm/cartridge you used for comparison. The Decca was a WB/ED2 or 3 if I remember correctly.)
Next, what I meant is that the tape to disc transfer for the 45 rpm Evans and original Decca WB (ED3) Suite Espanola LPs are reasonable efforts and are similar to the tape in regards to tonality, imaging, frequency response, etc. For instance, I have a 15 ips copy of the Weavers at Carnegie Hall that also makes mincemeat of the LP. Vanguard totally emasculated the low end on the LP. Don't think the cutters could have hacked it. In fact, the more I listen to the tapes, the more I feel in many cases that the engineers (or lathes) rolled off the lower octaves. In other words, a reasonable transfer effort. I also think I made some of the differences clear between the tape and LPs though. Not so for the Arnold. I don't feel the tape to disc transfer did justice to the Arnold.
The same goes for dynamics. You can hear on the Bruch LP (as do many of the Deccas)the heavy handed compression and gain riding. Not so with the tape!
Myles B. Astor
I enjoyed your Taper Project write up. Thank you.
I roll with a Revox A77.
Spen Har
Thanks! Glad to hear you enjoyed it (and your Revox A77!)
TPP is a venture well worth supporting. It's surprising how few folks have heard R2R decks -- and just how good a master tape -- or something like the 15 ips 1 1/2 gen TP tapes, really are.
Myles B. Astor
I agree. It's just there is quite a bit of expense involved.
I heard a demo by Dave Wilson, he brought CDR dubs of first gen EMI studio master tapes and it was just incredible.
Contrary to what some may believe on this forum, I love analog, just not vinyl, which I think is an inferior delivery method for the end result.
My A77 is will be here long after I'm gone!
Hi Myles:
An excellent article. I am sharing a subscription, so I only received the Arnold and the Suite Espaņola in the first series. I am in agreement on the quality of these two tapes and your ranking. I too was never as enthralled about the quality of Suite Espaņola as other audiophiles. Nevertheless I love the music and performance.
I am not completely sure, but I believe the Suite was recorded after Decca switched to solid state equipment, while the Hindemith was recorded with tube equipment at the end of Decca's "golden age" period. This may account for the some of the differences. I haven't heard the Hindemith tape, so I can't compare the tapes, but I do have the LPs, including a Spanish Discos Columbia pressing of the Suite. Frühbeck de Burgos made a lot of excellent recordings for the Spanish company that Decca never released. On LP I always thought the Hindemith a better recording than the Suite.
No doubt that the tapes are superior to the LPs. There is more of everything. I am getting the Respighi and the Nojima in Series Two. I hope I don't have to wait too long.
Jerry S.
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the feedback!
As far as the Deccas go, there was obviously a switch to solid-state, changes in the mastering from if I remember correctly, 1/2 speed, and also changes in the mikes from directional mikes originally used with the operas and early Ansermet. The change in mikes was supposedly due to Decca wanting to capture more hall sound.
I'm looking forward to Series two too-and future series!!!
Myles B. Astor
Myles, I was a little surprised that you chose the Bruch/Hindemith recording as one of your top recordings (in fact, the top, correct?) to the exclusion of a few others. The transfer is an excellent rendering of the master tape, I believe (this was played at Paul and Michael's studio a couple of weekends back on the 1 inch deck through their highly tuned system) but the heavy spotlighting in the master of Oistrakh's violin made for some odd perspectives. The orchesral was very well recorded, although from a balcony standpoint, but Oistrakh's violin had a mike right on it, so it felt like Oistrakh was right in front of us, but the orchestra was well back, not a natural perspective at at all. In contrast, the Arnold overtures sounded as though the orchestra was perfectly placed, from a seat about 10-12 rows back. The Arnold has the best sound, I think, of the classical releases, so I eagerly anticipate the "Church Windows" to be release in series 2.
My informal poll shows that the Dave Alvin tape "Blackjack David" is the single most popular release, for what it's worth. "Waltz for Debby" might be number two.
Anyway, a very fine article. My biggest problem when starting out was figuring out what gear to buy. Right now I am using an unmodded Technics RS1520, which supports the IEC curve natively, but am planning an upgrade to it, which will include Bottlehead's new Eros unit, which is priced between the Seduction and the Repro.
Thanks for your comments! Don't think that two audiophiles can ever agree on anything :)
Here goes. The reason for my picking the Bruch may rest in what faults we're able to forgive or listen through. When push comes to shove, there's not a classical recording with solo artist that I listen to that isn't spotlit. Heifitz. Starker. Oistrakh. Rubinstein (the worst offender). You name it. So I really can listen through that quality while you can't. Pick your poison :)
Why I really liked the Bruch. Stupendous dynamic range. Superlative tonality esp. strings from high to low. A sense of hall second to none. So in the end, to me when you added up the plusses and minuses, I really thought the Wilkinson captured almost all of the essential ingredients that make up a classical concert.
On the other hand, the Arnold to me still sounds too lean and slightly to the cool side (some my say like Spectral gear) of neutral.
Myles B. Astor
Thanks for the follow-up Myles. I'm still lost however. When someone states in a review, "Evans or Suite Espanola releases where sound of the LP compares favorably to the sound of The Tape Project release" I take that to literally mean the LP was better then the tape version in both cases!
Somehow though, that is not what you meant? I just find it a very confusing statement myself because when I read the Evans and Suite sections in your article, it reads to me like you preferred the tape version both times to the LP! So the quote above then throws me for a "loop". ;)
As for the 7.5 ips 2/4 track releases of commercial tapes, I agree comparisons can be difficult. But when the tape is several magnitudes above the LP version, there is no doubt that it is indeed "better", and at that point has little to do with the hardware involved (as long as we are talking "decent" equipment for both platforms---tape and LP). 3 right off the top of my head are from Miles Davis: KOB, Sketches of Spain, and Miles Smiles. I would say the commercial 2 and 4 track tapes are far better then the original LP's, perhaps even TWICE as good! So, to me, who cares what (if any) original source differences were to make those tapes sound better then the LP versions---if its better then its better! Buy the tape version!! ;)
Overall, great article though! Nice job there!!
Regards,
Joel
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]