Analog-Tape-Can-Never-Be-HD

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Interesting read:

iTrax - HD Music Downloads - Analog Tape Can Never Be HD: Here's Why

james

[jdandy]

James.......Very interesting article that I agree with whole heartedly. Thanks for posting.

[Still-One]

James

Thanks,

Jim

[Myles B. Astor]

Originally Posted by James Tanner - Bryston

Interesting read:

iTrax - HD Music Downloads - Analog Tape Can Never Be HD: Here's Why

james

Well he's welcome to his opinion even if it's wrong. It's the same thing rehashed over and over again; tape can't sound as good because the measurements tell us so. It's the old bumble bees can't fly story. Curiously he never ever talks about actually listening and comparing (how about RR's high rez dig transfer of Arnold's Dances vs The Tape Project 15 ips release? Nor does he ever talk about what he listens on; for all we know it could be desktop speakers.

Truth be told, both formats err or otherwise it would sound like live music-and they don't. There are just some of us out there whose ears are very sensitive to those dig distortions.

Didn't we hear the same thing when transistors were introduced as well as digital. Well, digital is far from perfect too. Well it was until they discovered jitter. Then it was something else. Always something it seems Point is that I've done and been privy to comparison of second gen tapes vs a super hi Rez dig file copy (2x DSD) and the file is far from a mirror image of the tape. (and this was done by a leading mastering engineer using SOTA gear.) Where the digital deviated the most from the tape was in the upper octaves, loss of info and the body of instruments. It just wasn't close. And I've done similar comparisons with my tricked our R2R.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

There are just some of us out there whose ears are very sensitive to those dig distortions.

.

And there are many more people who are sensitive to tape hiss, tube distortion and analog tics and pops.

Jim

[Myles B. Astor]

Originally Posted by Still-One

And there are many more people who are sensitive to tape hiss, tube distortion and analog tics and pops.

Jim

First, I don't understand where tubes and pops and ticks (certainly not on a tape) are relevant to the discussion at hand. You want to make that a separate thread, fine. As far as tape hiss goes, have you heard current tapes (like the RR Arnold Dances from The Tape Project) played back on a studio or tricked out prosumer machine (for the record, my machine with the Nortronics heads goes out to 22 K +/- 1.5 dB)? There's no annoying hiss there. You have to put your ear up to the speaker to really hear any hiss whatsoever. The hiss you're referring to is on those tapes that came early on that used large magnetic particles (see Mercury for instance).

[BearCubinNY]

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Well he's welcome to his opinion even if it's wrong. It's the same thing rehashed over and over again; tape can't sound as good because the measurements tell us so. It's the old bumble bees can't fly story. Curiously he never ever talks about actually listening and comparing (how about RR's high rez dig transfer of Arnold's Dances vs The Tape Project 15 ips release? Nor does he ever talk about what he listens on; for all we know it could be desktop speakers.

Truth be told, both formats err or otherwise it would sound like live music-and they don't. There are just some of us out there whose ears are very sensitive to those dig distortions.

Didn't we hear the same thing when transistors were introduced as well as digital. Well, digital is far from perfect too. Well it was until they discovered jitter. Then it was something else. Always something it seems Point is that I've done and been privy to comparison of second gen tapes vs a super hi Rez dig file copy (2x DSD) and the file is far from a mirror image of the tape. (and this was done by a leading mastering engineer using SOTA gear.) Where the digital deviated the most from the tape was in the upper octaves, loss of info and the body of instruments. It just wasn't close. And I've done similar comparisons with my tricked our R2R.

+1

Charts and graphs are one thing, listening is where 'the rubber meets the road'!

Reg

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

First, I don't understand where tubes and pops and ticks (certainly not on a tape) are relevant to the discussion at hand. You want to make that a separate thread, fine. As far as tape hiss goes, have you heard current tapes (like the RR Arnold Dances from The Tape Project) played back on a studio or tricked out prosumer machine (for the record, my machine with the Nortronics heads goes out to 22 K +/- 1.5 dB)? There's no annoying hiss there. You have to put your ear up to the speaker to really hear any hiss whatsoever. The hiss you're referring to is on those tapes that came early on that used large magnetic particles (see Mercury for instance).

I was responding to your comment regarding sensitivity to digital distortion which I read as being inherently worse than those issues I mentioned. Whether my response is of less relevance to the discussion than yours relating to jitter, you are correct it is not worth the debate.

The answer to your question is I have only had limited exposure to some of the newer "tricked out" decks that are available. I have heard Nick's machine and tapes on a few occasions. At times there was significant tape hiss, and with others very little.

Jim

[AudioNut]

I certainly don't have the golden, well trained ears of say, a, Miles B. Astor, but even my old, battered, superannuated auditory devices can hear the difference between analogue and digital - and I prefer analogue.

Digital, I'm sure, does provide "perfect sound forever", or, at least it gets the notes right, but analogue captures more of the "soul" of the music, more of the atmosphere of the recording venue, more of the emotion of the performers.

I play a lot of very good digital recordings, primarily because I'm a little disabled, have to walk with a cane and have a hard time getting up and down - and, the darn little silver things are certainly more convenient. Plus, you don't have to get up and turn them over in the middle. But, I do prefer those old, wonderful, black discs made from those wonderful analogue tapes.

They just sound better and they are as High Definition as anything I've ever experienced.

And, I truly wish I could have the opportunity to hear the analogue master tapes on good equipment like Mr. Astor has done. Talk about perfect, high definition sound!

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by jprice

I certainly don't have the golden, well trained ears of say, a, Miles B. Astor, but even my old, battered, superannuated auditory devices can hear the difference between analogue and digital - and I prefer analogue.

Digital, I'm sure, does provide "perfect sound forever", or, at least it gets the notes right, but analogue captures more of the "soul" of the music, more of the atmosphere of the recording venue, more of the emotion of the performers.

I play a lot of very good digital recordings, primarily because I'm a little disabled, have to walk with a cane and have a hard time getting up and down - and, the darn little silver things are certainly more convenient. Plus, you don't have to get up and turn them over in the middle. But, I do prefer those old, wonderful, black discs made from those wonderful analogue tapes.

They just sound better and they are as High Definition as anything I've ever experienced.

And, I truly wish I could have the opportunity to hear the analogue master tapes on good equipment like Mr. Astor has done. Talk about perfect, high definition sound!

Very well stated.

Sent from my iPad using A.Aficionado