Tape Trail

Reel to reel, cassette and other analogue tape formats.

Return to Tape Trail

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Tape project vs. HRx Comparison

76.226.85.251
Posted on May 25, 2009 at 18:24:32
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004



FWIW, tonight I finally compared the Tape Project open reel tape "Arnold's Overtures" TP-003 (all analog 15 ips dupe of the original master tape) to the HRx version (24 bit/176.4kHz digital copy of the original master tape) of the same release.....

This was a fun experiment. I thought the Tape project version would be superior going in (my bias of keeping things all analog vs. having a digital copy of the analog release notwithstanding), but my thought process was clouded by the fact that Marcia from RR told me that the HRx version would be superior to any "2nd generation analog dub" (read: the TP version I have) available.

So, I cued them up to each other---real time, levels matched. On the analog side for the tape I had an Otari console open reel deck feeding a highly modded Bottlehead Seduction tape head amp. On the digital side, I had a Dell laptop feeding a EMU 0404 24/196 USB D/A converter. Obviously, I had this set at the native 24/176.4 that HRx calls for.

OK, so what did I hear?

On the Tape Project tape:
My notes state, "silkier, smoother, more refined, more extended on top, more relaxing, slightly more hiss, more open, greater transparency"

On the HRx version:
"Flatter soundstage, courser, harder sounding, digital glare as compared to tape, more robust bass, very direct and full sound---but lacks openness and soundstage the tape offers"

Both sounded great, despite how the above reads. It’s only in comparison to one another I make those comments. I wish that the HRx version had been an actual 24/176.4 master digital recording as that would have been a better assessment. Sadly it is not nor is the other HRx releases in which there is a Tape Project counterpart to compare to. So, nothing definitive can be said here in an analog vs. digital debate. All that can be said is that if you want the best version of "Arnolds Overtures" then seek out the tape project release (said with a grain of salt because you'll need a 6 month plus wait time and possibly unanswered emails for it to finally arrive!).


Regards,
Joel

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Thanks Joel, sounds like a fantastic tape!, posted on May 26, 2009 at 17:36:00
Teresa
 If I had the money to get a 2 Track 15 IPS deck and could afford The Tape project tapes that would be the first one I would get.

I never could win the original 2 LPs set as the eBay auctions always went over my max bid of $40, sometimes over $100, that is when it even shows up on eBay. So I settled for the 24/88.2kHz download from HD Tracks. I am sure both the HRx and the RTR are vastly superior sonically. Great music and great sound, one of my favorite Reference Recordings.

I had no doubt the 15 IPS Reel to Reel would sound superior to any digital no matter how hi-rez. Tony Falkner a famous engineer who is an advocate of high resolution digital has said that 2 Track 15 IPS is superior to both DSD and 192kHz PCM.

Happy Listening,
Teresa

 

RE: Thanks Joel, sounds like a fantastic tape!, posted on May 26, 2009 at 18:16:03
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 Yes Teresa, thanks for being the only brave one to reply so far! I think that there are not many "on this level" yet! ;)

The Arnold is not only a fantastic sounding tape but perhaps the best thing I own sonically of EVERYTHING---that includes other TP tapes, HRx, 45 LP's, SACD, DVD-A, Blu-Ray audio, hi-rez downloads, HDCD, FM, blah blah blah---anything!! A true sonic spectacular if there ever was one!

Things aren't really that expensive as it may seem though Teresa. At least in "audiophile terms" where they spend 3k for a pair of speaker cables heh-he. Especially considering you have tape experience and most likely most of the supplies. Maybe $400 for an nice Otari MX-5050 B2(keeping in mind they were 6k plus new!!!!), another $400 for a DIY bottlehead tape head amp (you assemble), then some soldering, and then oh yes, the kicker of the $300 TP tape. Sounds wose then it is.

For just one release thats an extreme expense but you will have one heck of a open reel setup to last and it will play all your 4 tracks equally as well. Or, better yet, make your OWN original open reel master recordings (my next phase)!

Food for thought anyhow....



Regards,
Joel

 

I do have a soldering iron and some silver solder somewhere., posted on May 26, 2009 at 21:59:06
Teresa
 Something to think about.
Happy Listening,
Teresa

 

Another brave soul, posted on May 27, 2009 at 08:09:53
Botanico92007
Audiophile

Posts: 729
Location: San Diego
Joined: March 15, 2006
 Well, I will take the plunge and post. By coincidence I was listening to this tape a few nights ago. I had not played it since receiving it last year. In the meantime I had retubed my monoblocks and had a failing capacitor in one of them replaced. So my system is sounding very good (Quad 63s with subwoofers, tube preamp and OTL amps, and Ampex 440C tape deck.

I agree with your description of the sound of the tape. I can't compare it to the HRx version. as I don't have it. Paul Stubblebine was at Larry's house for the local meeting and lamented the fact that Reference Recordings is no longer making analog backup copies of their recordings. I do have the double LP album, which is very good, but the 15 ips tape simply has more of everything, especially dynamic range. I'm afraid to play the tape at the volume it needs because I don't want to damage my speakers. All and all I don't think I have a better example of the recording art (available to the public in any format) in my collection either.

I have compared many 2-track 7½ ips tapes to hi-rez digital reissues, whether SACD or 24/192kHz DVD-Audio discs. They are excellent, but don't seem to be transparent to the master tape. Unless the tape transfer is botched, I still hear a more natural and 3-dimensional sound. And if the recording is all digital, the difference is only greater.

Yes, the tapes are expensive, but I was already set up to play them. Plus I am sharing a subscription. Most audiophiles will never own tapes from The Tape Project, but I think all should make an attempt to hear them. They are ear openers.

 

Great post, posted on May 27, 2009 at 13:35:32
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 Thanks. And I got a real chuckle out of the,"I'm afraid to play the tape at the volume it needs because I don't want to damage my speakers"

I imagine with Quads it may be even more true but even I have one hand on the remote with the Arnolds Overtures release. The dynamic swings are like nothing I've heard before!!!

I also agree about the 7.5 ips commercial tapes. When you get the right ones, they not only make hi rez digital sound bad but also their original LP counterparts (Miles Davis "KOB" and Dave Brubecks "Time Out" come to mind right off----also many of the Beatles releases and MLP releases).
Regards,
Joel

 

RE: Tape project Arnold Overtures, posted on May 27, 2009 at 15:21:35
u47
Industry Professional

Posts: 183
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: October 24, 2000
 It is indeed one amazing recording and transfer. All serious audiophiles and music lovers really should hear this tape. I've been making orchestral recordings on and off for 25 years and the tape project release beats anything I've heard or made in ANY format. Kudos to Doc, Paul and especially Keith Johnson.
I would love to hear it against the high rez digital source. The LP and CD were 'lame' in comparison to the tape when I heard them.

Rich in Portland

 

RE: Tape project vs. HRx Comparison, posted on May 27, 2009 at 15:38:07
Ki Choi
Audiophile

Posts: 302
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: December 18, 2001
 Hi Joel:

Happy for you that you hear the benefits of TP tapes over the best digital source IMO.

However, not to sound negative or being - here we go again with this dead horse...

The ideal situation would have been to equalize the playback electronics to remove tubes and/or DAC's outputs to have same electrical properties that will truly reveal the qualities of the source material. We all know tube output would sound different than the SS kinds.

In addition, most of the sonic comparison tests are conducted in rooms that lack acoustic neutrality. My room has peaks and valleys. So if the particular range of frequencies from one source happens to be in the suck out region or right in one of the modal frequencies, I would not hear a fair representation of either sources...

No two tape machines have same repro response charateristics and the DAC's outputs have different circuit designs and performances.

It would be nice if Mike Lavigne can do the comparison again in his room with as evenly matched setup as possible.

At the end, I think I can guess that analog tape will sound more pleasing for certain than the best digital - but not necessarily more accurate though...

Ki

 

RE: Thanks Joel, sounds like a fantastic tape!, posted on May 27, 2009 at 15:44:19
Myles B. Astor
Reviewer

Posts: 326
Location: New York City, NY
Joined: April 12, 2000
 To quote Harry Weisfeld who has a huge master tape collection, partly courtesy of Bert Whyte, "It's the way it should have been done from day one."

The experience of playing 15 ips, 2 track tapes through the Bottlehead Repro tape preamp (with stock tubes), J-Corder modded Technics 1500US, hooked together with Cardas Golden Reference interconnects, can be revelatory. Just the other night, played the Decca recording of Britten's VC. Every bit as good, if not even better, than the amazing Hindemith VC from the Tape Project.

The most impressive quality about the best of the 15 ips tapes (and I haven't had the same feeling from 7 1/2 ips, 2-track tapes) are their low end solidity, midrange timbre, upper octave information and sense of space. By comparison, the best analog discs played back on a fairly good table lack the dynamic ease of the 15 ips tape, be it of the dynamic transitions or dynamic accent variety. On something like Bill Evans Waltz For Debbie (original or 45 rpm AP reissue), the LPs also sound slightly mechanical and lacking the density of information compared to the 15 tape project copy. (Now we know there also pitfalls of comparing LPs with the corresponding 15 ips tapes, one of them knowing whether or not the two sources were created from the same master--or the issue of tape aging.)

Playing a 15 ips, 2 track copy of the Weavers Reunion at Carnegie Hall (Vanguard) shows just how much was lost in the record transfer, particularly how Vanguard limited the bottom end extension to protect the cartridge and auido system from the group stomping around on stage :)

Now if only there were more 15 ips tapes available so that audiophiles could with the newest gen or SOTA, just how much musical information is on those tapes. That would spell the end of digital.


Myles B. Astor

 

The dead horse......, posted on May 27, 2009 at 16:15:54
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 Hi Ki,
You are spot on with the "dead horse" analogy and I want to expand upon that if I may......

Unfortunately with such a comparison as this there is NO "ideal solution". And that would be at my house, MikeL's house, a recording studio, ANYWHERE.

For instance, you want me to "remove tubes" from the equation and the folks on the PC audio room want me to "upgrade my PC DAC" to get it to the level of my open reel deck, another guy on computeraudiophile.com wants me to "buy a Weiss, Berkeley or Amarra to play the HRx file and do this same comparison!". I suggested to him I could and would only if I could also bring a "modded Studer, Ampex or Scully to the race" instead of my Otari----- I mean, where does it end??? No setup between the two would ever satisfy EVERYONE.

When you are comparing 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT formats, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make it totally fair. All we can do is pick out some decent equipment, and have a go at it. My room HAD peaks and valleys too, especially in the bass, which was when I introduced "room correction". And my levels were matched to within 1/4 of 1 decibel. Does this make my test any more valid then the guy with a 14dB hump at 50Hz at his house who’s off by 3dB between the two sources? Probably not. Too many other variables!!

I should have told my analog versus digital recording story from a few months ago as a backdrop to my OP. One of my good friends here in Michigan is an audiophile; audio dealer and recording engineer (talk about a deadly combo!). Anyhow, he has been recording purely digital for a long time in high resolution (obviously much easier to edit and work with then analog). It was only with some prodding from me and other hardcore analog folks (some from this very forum!) that for his last recording venture (which will be commercially released soon) he do it BOTH all analog AND all digital at once.

So he did. The only thing he did different than "normal" was that he did 2 live complete takes----once all digital and then right after all analog. Same room, same mics, basic electronics, etc.

Although I wasn't there for the actual recording, I WAS there for the initial playback of the recording, which he had not even heard yet until I arrived. The recording on the digital side was captured at 24/192 on his Apogee workstation. On the analog side it was a direct to open reel 15 ips 2-track recording recorded direct to an Otari MX5050 B3.

Well, as we sat down to listen to what he captured I was feeling like a giddy schoolgirl. In front of me was going to be (perhaps) "the answer" of what was better----hi-rez digital or pure analog!! To save the gory details, BOTH OF US heard right off the superiority of the analog version---smoother, less glare, warmer, better resolution, openness, etc. The differences were FAR FROM night and day. Both versions sounded wonderful, but the analog edition was slightly better and the one we both preferred. Sadly, the version he will sell the most of will be the downrezzed 16/44.1 cd version, but the other options should be available as well for the "hardcore folks". BTW, in closing, he has since switched over to doing DSD recordings for the digital side. I got a chance to hear what he captured from a local orchestra here in Michigan a few months back, the Warren Symphony Orchestra, and the results were just amazing!! Here is a look at his site for those who are interested:
http://www.awardaudio.com/

Well, that got a little deeper then I intended. The initial post was just to point out that for this specific recording AT MY HOME WITH MY EQUIPMENT the better sound came from a dupe of the original analog tape then it did from a 24/176.4 copy of that same tape (HRx). I don't want to seem cocky but based on what I heard I would challenge ANYONE to dispute my findings!! Marcia from RR are you listening??? ;)


Regards,
Joel

 

Yes, yes, yes, posted on May 27, 2009 at 17:16:02
Botanico92007
Audiophile

Posts: 729
Location: San Diego
Joined: March 15, 2006
 Many of the commercially issued 2-track 7½ ips tapes from the late 1950s seem to have the bottom end limited. This is especially true of the Mercuries, which always sound to me like the bottom end is rolled off. In other recordings I think the deep bass wasn't captured on the mastertape. For example the English Columbia and HMV 2-tracks.

The exceptions to this generalization are some of the Cook and Everest 2-track tapes. The bass can be quite potent. Cook claimed to have personally supervised all his transfers, and the Everests are Bert Whyte recordings. Still they are not 15 ips tapes. I have the opening few minutes of Reiner's Also Sprach Zarathustra on a 15 ips demo tape. It easily beats the RCA 7½ ips 2-track, which wasn't an especially good transfer.

The Tape Project folks have done a superb job in their transfers. Lots of TLC, the main reason why they are so slow. But they do it right, so the wait is worth it.

 

Let the horse die..., posted on May 27, 2009 at 21:18:19
Ki Choi
Audiophile

Posts: 302
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: December 18, 2001
 I wouldn't doubt a bit that the tapes sounded better even if the test was conducted in an ideal room - and BTW, Mikel's room is the closest to becoming ideal to my ears - revealing all aspects of sonic characteristics of whatever was played.
My point was that the difference would have been greater in acoustically neutral environment.

If I didn't believe it, I would not have invested so much time and energy pursuing the tape medium.

On the other hand, we live in the best audio time ever for having such choices. We are lucky and fortunate to have both means to produce music we like.

Just to give equal time to the digital lovers, here's some interesting reading from Sony APR group:


Ki

 

Oh no, I see another Larry Bright run, posted on May 28, 2009 at 09:10:48
Jwm
Audiophile

Posts: 1322
Joined: April 16, 2002
 np

 

oh yes!!!, posted on May 28, 2009 at 09:18:41
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 Hi Jeff,
We should go back soon....
See you Sat.!
Regards,
Joel

 

RE: Tape project vs. HRx Comparison, posted on May 29, 2009 at 03:42:04
rayr0683@comcast.net
Audiophile

Posts: 63
Location: South Jersey
Joined: January 19, 2008
 Im wondering if Otari decks, even Bottlehead ehanced, might be Bass Light. i ask this because of all of my own tests, and from all I have read, Reel to Reel Tapes, Originals, bought pre-recorded, always sounded superior to vinyl in the Bass department. Reason as it was explained was, that the stylus of a turntable, no matter how well damped, at lower frequencies loses control within the grooves, and just cant go as low as the range of Open Reel decks. Im not even considering digital here at all.

Im using a Giant VPI Table, with a big ZETA Tonearm, this combo is noted for its Bass Power, and control, plus most stylii made today, have such advanced profiles that they pick up so much info from the grooves, especially high end detail...that I could have almost expected you to state your findings the opposite way, even in your other reply/post about comparing your Doors material....Vinyl, R2R, CD, Jap Pressing..etc..BTW jap Pressings are usually lighter on Bass response, just the way it is over there...different ways of listening preferences than America. But on Tandbergs, Tascams, TEACs, AKAI's, REVOX....etc....Ive noticed the Bass to be stronger. Than Vinyl, or even Digital sources I have tried. Ray

 

RE: Tape project vs. HRx Comparison, posted on May 29, 2009 at 05:20:37
Myles B. Astor
Reviewer

Posts: 326
Location: New York City, NY
Joined: April 12, 2000
 I think LP mastering has an awful lot to do with perceived bass extension than anything else (The Weavers on 15 ips/2track vs LP is one example). Many times, companies attenuated or mono'd the bass frequencies on the LP (Columbia is one notorious example.)


OTOH listen to a well mastered D2D recording like the Cardas Kip Dobler LP. The drums on this recording are as tight and deep as anything one can hear on tape or CD. Or take Emerald Forrest. When I brought that LP over to HPs (played back on the Goldmund Reference table through the IRSV's), the low end drum extension made you pants flap. So LPs can certainly possess considerable low end extension and impact if properly recorded and mastered.

Then again, Britten's VC on 15 ips/2-track (Decca) has as low bass extension as I've ever heard thru my system. It would be interesting however, and there's not more than a handful of recordings possessing this type of super low frequency info, to compare the EMI LP vs tape of something like Saint Saens Organ Symphony.

Bass on the R2R is also very cable/impedance dependent, esp if running directly off the heads to the tape preamp. And I'm told that the extended response Flux Magnetic heads work better with tube tape preamps because of better impedance matching.

Vis a vis Japanese LP repressings: I find them to be a crapshoot because the Japanese re-equalized many of the original recordings. In many cases, they boosted and thickened the lows and messed up the upper octaves.

Myles
Myles B. Astor

 

RE: Tape project vs. HRx Comparison, posted on May 29, 2009 at 09:48:11
Doc B.
Manufacturer

Posts: 5916
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: October 6, 1999



The two track heads on the Otari and Technics machines (which we have found to produce slightly different output levels, so they don't seem to be identical though they look it) are designed to strike a happy medium for 7.5 ips and 15 ips playback. If you look at the Flux head on the left in the photo it has longer bands. It has been optimized for 15 ips. Greg Orton has recently sent us some slightly improved heads with a touch more output level, that gets them closer to the stock head output level. On this public forum I can't rave about just how great they are on the bottom and top end, so I won't.

Also I want to refresh everyone's memory that the Seduction tape head preamp has a slight deep bass rolloff on the IEC playback eq setting, that is necessary due to the gain structure of the preamp and the lack of constraint of the bass curve in the IEC standard. The "0 Hz" playback level of an IEC tape should be at infinity - obviously an impossible condition and thus the recording engineer and then the preamp designer have to make a call about where to make the bass cut. It's only down a little bit from the standard IEC "curve" below 50Hz, so it won't be noticeable most of the time. There is no deviation from the standard on the NAB setting - which does have a rolloff below 50Hz designed into the curve similar to the RIAA curve, so typical prerecorded tapes with NAB eq will be played back with full accuracy on the bottom end. On our higher gain preamps (Tube Repro, Eros Tape Head) the rolloff point PJ has chosen for IEC playback is around 17 Hz, IIRC.

 

Not bass light on Otari, posted on May 29, 2009 at 15:47:26
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 I have a Technics 1506 and Teac X-1000r too besides having several Otari's. When compared side by side the consumer machines had no more or less bass then my stock Otari did. When I added the Seduction, I had even MORE bass. Here was my review of the Seduction below (linked way down). I am able to compare on the fly the differences between the internal Otari electronics and the external Seduction. As you will note in the review, I mention the Otari:

"has about 25% "less bass" then the Bottlehead, which was perhaps the largest difference between the 2."

That said, it means I now have 25% MORE BASS then what my stock Otari, stock Technics or Teac decks have, for whatever reason when using the Seduction.

So, I would hardly call that bass light.
Regards,
Joel

 

RE: Not bass light on Otari, posted on May 29, 2009 at 18:24:39
rayr0683@comcast.net
Audiophile

Posts: 63
Location: South Jersey
Joined: January 19, 2008
 Take it easy joel, not insulting your big purchase there. Im not one that buys into reviews, so Ill pass on that. I use my own ears to judge sound, and if reviews agree, so be it. Something just doesn't sound right with your conclusion to me, thats all. Peace, Ray

 

is anyone renting these out, posted on May 29, 2009 at 19:35:39
michael22
Audiophile

Posts: 917
Joined: October 1, 2001
 for those of us on limited budgets? as i recall, there were several companies in the 1950s that made available 2-track tapes at modest rental fees ...

"but I think all should make an attempt to hear them"

 

RE: is anyone renting these out, posted on May 29, 2009 at 20:11:40
Botanico92007
Audiophile

Posts: 729
Location: San Diego
Joined: March 15, 2006
 There were some companies in the 1950s that rented 2-track tapes. I recently picked up a lot of 2-tracks where the leader and boxes were stamped with a rental company's name and address in Los Angeles.

Nobody, as far as I know, is renting these tapes. They have been demonstrated at CES and other shows. If you live in the L.A. area, see the post by Ironbut a little ways below this thread

 

Some clarification for you, posted on May 30, 2009 at 05:28:54
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 First off, I am taking it easy. ;) But---I want to clarify a few things for you.

#1 that was MY review, not some "reviewers" on the Bottlehead site. I posted my findings on tape trail long ago and I guess they liked it enough to put it on their web site.

#2 was not a "big purchase". Think the deck ended up costing me $200 and the Seduction was like $500 because I had them assemble it. I know people that spend more on speaker wire. People need to realize that this open reel thing CAN BE incredibly cheap compared to WHAT THEY THINK.

#3 I don't think you are grasping what I said in the OP about the bass. I would never expect ANY commercially or prosumer available 1/4" track open reel machine to have the bass depth or impact that a modern day digital 24/176.4 release (or a cd for that matter). Have you ever looked at the frequency response specs on all those decks you mention including the Otari? I'm looking at the manual for my Teac X-1000r right now and the specs are:
30Hz-34kHz +/- 3dB at 7.5 ips

The Otari is:
30Hz-20kHz +/- 2dB at 7.5 ips

And obviously at 15 ips that I'm listening at its going to get a little WORSE in the bass response. And obviously manufacturers like to be creative with specs (ie the bass probably doesn't go as low as they claim above!!). How is the above gonna compete with modern day digital bass in general terms? I have yet to hear one of my open reel machines---Technics, Teac, Otari, whatever "do deep bass" like digital. So "Something just doesn't sound right with your conclusion to me".......

I have a full range speaker system that extends well below 20Hz, so maybe I can hear this "bass issue" better then your average Joe with a pair of pip-squeak 2-way monitors or whatever.

Who knows why on this particular release the digital copy of the tape has better and deeper bass then the Tape Project version. Could be so many variables, but my guess is that Reference recordings may have slightly boosted it for their HRx release to make up for the possible limitations of the original analog tape. Or, could just be that RR has a better setup from which to extract off the original analog tape then the TP does. We are just talking about ONE example here, so to generalize from it that "Otari's are bass light" as you have just seems hilarious to me. Especially considering that I'm not even using the Otari electronics!

OK, no offense or anything, but I just wanted to say my peace. ;)


Regards,
Joel

 

RE: Some clarification for you, posted on May 30, 2009 at 06:17:21
rayr0683@comcast.net
Audiophile

Posts: 63
Location: South Jersey
Joined: January 19, 2008
 I was referring mainly to the analog areas of the post. Im not into digital at all. I have had R2R decks by just about every Manufacturer over the years, and not one of them was not completely restored, and brought to better than factory specs. Including all new heads, etc...electronics, rollers, and so on...and tweaked and biased to squeeze the best possible performance from each. I have an excellent tech from NYC. I find the Tandbergs to be excellent, and the frequency response from the TD20A-SE to be incredible. But at any rate, I refuse to spend more than $1000.00 per phono cartridge, unless a deal on Audiogon, or elsewhere. My findings have always been, at least with quality recordings, and pressings of lp's, that the Bass response is better from R2R than from LP. In my opinion the low frequencies, and from what I have read about it, is more accurate from tape due to stylus behavior at extreme low frequwncies, no matter how well damped the arm/table. And I am also not using cheap 2 way monitors, I using NOlA speakers, with an active sub, so capable of the lowest and cleanest bass that is possible. Ray

 

RE: Some clarification for you, posted on May 30, 2009 at 08:54:34
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 Oh. Well the original post was a digital thing versus an analog thing.

As for lp vs. open reel bass its a crapshoot. Most of the time I would still tell you lp bass is more authoritative for 2 of the same releases. For instance I have about 30 two track 7.5ips Mercury Living Presence tapes that a poster in this thread talked about too with having limited bass. In most of the sonic areas I feel the Mercury tapes beat the lp---except in the DEEP bass. I attribute that to the specs I've already mentioned in addition to the way that the tape and lp were mastered (obviously differently).

My overall feeling is that since the tape machines roll off the deep bass (again, see specs on your machines) and a good modern day cartridge and table, like my Ortofon 2M black or my Zu-103r have a better bass frequency response that it helps to give the LP bass a slight advantage. For instance, the Zu 103r is stated to have a response of:
Frequency response 15 Hz — 45 kHz. A tape machine doesn't come close to those numbers, especially at 15 ips.

Anyhow, thats just my opinion on it, but it is all dependant on the specific tape and lp in question. Some tapes have better bass then the lp and vice-versa.

Regards,
Joel

 

RE: Some clarification for you, posted on May 30, 2009 at 16:58:10
rayr0683@comcast.net
Audiophile

Posts: 63
Location: South Jersey
Joined: January 19, 2008
 I agree with you regarding the specs. Its just that I think, again, maybe dependent on the recordings/lps. that the bass is cleaner on the open reel machine. Some cartridges however, do sound better than others in the low deep bass area. I have always felt that Grados sound good with bass, as far as getting there, but on the muddy side, meaning not so clean and detailed down there...whereas, a Denon, and even my Shure v15VMR-LE sound more detailed, but not as deep. Same with many of the better AT cartridges I have listened to..very detailed and tight bass, but dont seem to go as low,or deep. my Open reel tapes sound more consistantly detailed and deep in these areas, a good listen to Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon is an example that comes to mind. Ray

 

Thanks Joel, I had no idea..., posted on May 30, 2009 at 20:48:07
vinyl survivor
Audiophile

Posts: 1471
Location: Southeastern US
Joined: November 28, 2007
 the Otari MX-5050 B2 and DIY bottlehead tape head amp were relatively inexpensive. I can't afford one anytime soon, but have something to look forward to down the road!
Scott

 

RE: Thanks Joel, I had no idea..., posted on May 31, 2009 at 03:42:20
joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004
 Your welcome. Just be patient and careful hunting down the deck. There are so many of them always on Ebay (Otaris) but the majority are all beat up.

Back before I found a local friend to work on my decks I once paid $300 for an Otari but then had to have $400 of work done on it at a service center!!!!!!!!!!!

I also once paid $875 for a different Otari, the newest B3 in very very nice condition but 6 months later found one locally in even BETTER shape and bought it for $200!!!!

So, pricing is all over the map. Take your time if you can.
Regards,
Joel

 

Page processed in 0.031 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]