[DJ[_3_]]

Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Best regards,

-DJ

[Harry Lavo]

"DJ" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes,
high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Best regards,


The one definitive comparison I've had is the Verdi Requiem played by The
Philadelphia Orchestra under the direction of Eugene Ormandy, and featuring
Maureen Forrester, Richard Tucker, and George London along with the
Westminster Choir. I own both the double length 7-1/2 ips Columbia Stereo
Tape, and the Stereo SACD, which was among the early Columbia releases of
this technology.

I did a careful comparison of the two in the early days of SACD (2002),
along with reviews of LP vs SACD and CD vs SACD, as well as a review of the
Sony XA222ES SACD player itself. Here is the excerpt from the tape
comparison:

"The Verdi Requiem with Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra is one of the
most beautiful of pieces of music ever written, IMO. The performance is
ravishing. I have long owned the 7 1/2 ips prerecorded tape....the SACD is
more transparent (I calculate the tape is probably a fourth or fifth
generation) and somewhat flatter and more "neutral" in tonality. The tape
has a nice fat midrange that is probably an artifact of the several
generations of copying..but is ravishing nonetheless. On balance I prefer
the tape by a smidge, but consider the SACD as probably more accurate and
certainly superb and musical in its own right."

Hope this helps.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:25 -0700, DJ wrote
(in article ):

Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Best regards,

-DJ

Good master R-R tapes recorded half-track at 15"/sec from good microphones
are very good indeed. Quarter-track commercially available R-R tapes, on the
other hand, are generally recorded at 7.5"/sec and since they are copies of
copies usually are very noisy compared to CD (unless they are encoded with
Dolby "B" or DBX noise reduction, but those systems are not without their
problems either), Commercial R-R tapes generally lack good high-frequency
extension, were usually duplicated on cheaper tape formulations that tended
to shed oxide after a while, and broke easily.

I don't know if any new or recently mastered R-R tapes are available today
or not, but if so, I suspect that they are much better than the stuff
produced during R-R's heyday. But I would also expect them to be expensive,
and for what it's worth, you'd be better off sticking to CD.

[jwvm]

On Sep 30, 6:48*pm, "DJ" wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? *If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? *Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Best regards,

-DJ

Assuming that you are referring to consumer 4-track 1/4" reel-to-reel
machines,they have reasonable quality, at least in a historical
context. Compared to modern digital recordings, they have a
significantly higher noise level, considerably more distortion with
high signal levels and a much more uneven frequency response,
especially at the low end. Playback through speakers is reasonably
good but noise can be problematic with headphones, especially for
classical recordings. Overall quality is noticeably better than most
cassette decks.

Note that professional tape recorders provide significantly improved
results, especially when running at 15 or 30 ips compared to the 3.75
or 7.5 ips speeds of consumer units.

[[email protected]]

DJ wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Best regards,


I own about 30 reel-to-reel tapes, some dating to the early 60s, some
to the Dolby B days of Barclay-Crocker.

They all sound just fine, except the early acetate tape ones that have frilled.

I've never heard a master tape.

The tapes, even the B-C ones, hiss. But other than that, they lack
the crap that the LP provides ... no clicks, pops, and scratch.
I like the tapes better than the typical commercial LP. I have
a good enough ... not super expensive, but a good Thorens and
an old Shure V-15 ... LP setup that the very best audiophile LPs
played only a few times ... sound as good. There are
many, many cases on major labels where the tapes have music that
is mostly missing from the LPs: that is, the bass.B-C remastered
and did it right.

The tapes in general are inferior to CD reissues of the same material,
except where some bozo used the LP master tape to make the
released CD, and it has no bass.

The bottom line is that I am have felt no need to buy CDs or
MP3s of performances I have on tape that is not acetate. I just
rip the tapes to my computer.

Doug McDonald

[[email protected]]

jwvm wrote:

Assuming that you are referring to consumer 4-track 1/4" reel-to-reel
machines,they have reasonable quality, at least in a historical
context. Compared to modern digital recordings, they have a
significantly higher noise level, considerably more distortion with
high signal levels and a much more uneven frequency response,
especially at the low end. Playback through speakers is reasonably
good but noise can be problematic with headphones, especially for
classical recordings. Overall quality is noticeably better than most
cassette decks.

Yep. For a decent quarter track consumer deck in top operating condition
(not likely) and running at 7.5 ips, expect a FR of about 40 to 18 Khz
within a 3 dB range with less than 3% THD and 0.03 % wow and flutter at a
level of about -10 VU. These were once respectable figures, and if you
listen casually, it's acceptable.

At 3 3/4 speed you are better off with a "high end" cassette deck, and that
is not saying much.

For maximum enjoyment, a half track running at 15 ips is very good, but very
expensive to use in that your tape time is significantly reduced.

Beware of any "old" tape: even the good formulations are hit and miss. A
new 10" reel will set you back about $50 USD, maybe more, but maybe less if
you buy them by the dozen.

Never try and get an old consumer deck repaired (and they all need repair)
unless you are serious about finding someone who can do the work. You get
what you pay for, and you will pay a lot. That being said, you can usually
get a Teac, Pioneer, or Technics serviced properly, somewhere. I'm not
sure about ReVox. Last time I looked, a B-77 overhaul from Studer cost as
much as the machine, new. And Studer is probably not interested in working
on them, anymore. They used to have a service center in Nashville; I've no
idea what they are up to, now.

On the upside, they look pretty cool in a system, and are a reminder of an
era when hi-fi was actually something most people were interested in.

Michael

[Eeyore]

Sonnova wrote:

DJ wrote

Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Good master R-R tapes recorded half-track at 15"/sec from good microphones
are very good indeed. Quarter-track commercially available R-R tapes, on the
other hand, are generally recorded at 7.5"/sec and since they are copies of
copies usually are very noisy compared to CD (unless they are encoded with
Dolby "B" or DBX noise reduction, but those systems are not without their
problems either), Commercial R-R tapes generally lack good high-frequency
extension, were usually duplicated on cheaper tape formulations that tended
to shed oxide after a while, and broke easily.

I.e. it was basically crap.


I don't know if any new or recently mastered R-R tapes are available today
or not, but if so, I suspect that they are much better than the stuff
produced during R-R's heyday. But I would also expect them to be expensive,
and for what it's worth, you'd be better off sticking to CD.

You can barely buy tape anymore ! Even the pros are having trouble getting
anything of decent quality since Ampex/Quantegy went down.

Graham

[Eeyore]

DJ wrote:

Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound?

You mean home 1/4" ( 2 track or 1/4 track) ?

If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.?

Very inferior (except maybe for the vinyl).

Graham

[Eeyore]

jwvm wrote:

"DJ" wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Assuming that you are referring to consumer 4-track 1/4" reel-to-reel
machines,they have reasonable quality, at least in a historical
context. Compared to modern digital recordings, they have a
significantly higher noise level, considerably more distortion with
high signal levels and a much more uneven frequency response,
especially at the low end. Playback through speakers is reasonably
good but noise can be problematic with headphones, especially for
classical recordings. Overall quality is noticeably better than most
cassette decks.

Note that professional tape recorders provide significantly improved
results, especially when running at 15 or 30 ips compared to the 3.75
or 7.5 ips speeds of consumer units.

I know a London studio with an Ampex ATR100 (probably the pinnacle of pro
mastering machines) that has a ONE INCH stereo headblock. That's 1/2" of tape
for each track and it does 30 ips. Even that barely gets used now.

Graham

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 30, 6:48*pm, "DJ" wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? *If so, how would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes, high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? *Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Best regards,

-DJ

I keep a Revox A77 - as it happens, the "road-deck" version with the
built-in speakers and amps - not a bad machine at 7.5ips and capable
of some very good recordings using only the on-board mike & line
inputs.

Pre-recorded commercial consumer-level tapes are markedly inferior to
contemporary vinyl - even some high-end cassette offerings as very few
of them incorporated any sort of noise reduction systems. Accordingly,
I would not invest in such a machine to play commercially recorded
tapes *UNLESS* you have a trove of them and need that capacity.

I barely use the Revox (and, yes, it is in very good shape, capped,
calibrated, biased and aligned) - maybe once or twice *per year* and
then only because I can. I also have a Revox cassette deck which gets
about the same amount of use for about the same purposes - other than
I can rip a cassette for my wife's car if she wants one. My car has a
CD player, only, as does the camper.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Ed Presson[_2_]]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:48:25 -0700, DJ wrote
(in article ):

Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound? If so, how
would
you compare it to other formats such as the original master tapes,
high-end
vinyl recordings, SACD, etc.? Thanks in advance for sharing your
experience.

Best regards,

-DJ

Good master R-R tapes recorded half-track at 15"/sec from good microphones
are very good indeed. Quarter-track commercially available R-R tapes, on
the
other hand, are generally recorded at 7.5"/sec and since they are copies
of
copies usually are very noisy compared to CD (unless they are encoded with
Dolby "B" or DBX noise reduction, but those systems are not without their
problems either), Commercial R-R tapes generally lack good high-frequency
extension, were usually duplicated on cheaper tape formulations that
tended
to shed oxide after a while, and broke easily.

I don't know if any new or recently mastered R-R tapes are available
today
or not, but if so, I suspect that they are much better than the stuff
produced during R-R's heyday. But I would also expect them to be
expensive,
and for what it's worth, you'd be better off sticking to CD.

For a the better part of a decade (the 1960's), I bought commercial R-R
tapes (1/4", four-track) in preference to LPs, mostly caught up by R. D.
Darrell's reviews in High Fidelity magazine. At first I had a nice Ampex
deck, and later replaced it with a Revox. As that medium disappeared, I went
back to LPs. I kept that tape collection until a few years ago.

My experience, in general, was that the LPs had better high frequency
extension and sometimes better bass. The tapes had a more stable stereo
image and a full, solid mid range that was quite attractive. The background
hiss on the tapes didn't bother me as much as the cracks and pops on my LPs,
despite a meticulous effort at LP cleaning with a Nitty Gritty machine.
Some of the Barclay-Crocker tapes were quite good, but the majority of the
R-R commercial tapes were made by Ampex, and their average was lower, I
thought.

After CDs came out, I had a chance to compare recordings in all three
formats. Some of the first CDs were not re-mastered very well, I thought;
but as CDs improved, I preferred the new format to both of the older ones.

I would not advise buying R-R tape equipment and old R-R tapes in hopes of
catching some of the old magic. It has been surpassed, I think.

Best wishes,

Ed Presson

[Arny Krueger]

"DJ" wrote in message


Does anyone have any experience with reel-to-reel sound?

Decades of it, mostly with semi-pro reel-to-reel, but some with pro gear as
well.

If so, how would you compare it to other formats such as
the original master tapes, high-end vinyl recordings,
SACD, etc.?

Cassette is the worst. If nothing else gets you, then the modulation noise
will.
Vinyl is only a little better, all things considered. If wear wasn't a
problem, then it would be much better than cassette.

7.5 ips quarter track is better than vinyl but not all that transparent.
15 ips half-track (pro RTR tape) is almost sonically transparent if
carefully used.
If carelessly used within bounds, or used for effect, 15 ips half-track can
be euphonic.

16/44 digital done right is completely sonically transparent and even a
little ways into overkill.

All *higher resolution* forms of digital are just more overkill, or provide
more latitude for screw-ups.