Masters/tapes and SACD

treitz3

Ok, I had an interesting question come my way the other day that I could not answer. It's actually got my curiosity going. Here goes.

Many of us on this forum have had the tape decks and the RTR's and if your experience was like mine I would suspect that most of us don't have any more cassettes or RTR's anymore. I would suspect that those who have tried this method of playback have used the metal tapes, dabbled with Dolby noise reduction(s) and set the volume of the recordings to maximize the dynamics. We all have had a certain amount of degradation of the dynamics and tape hiss, right?

This leads me to the question. If most of the music [even movie soundtracks] has been on master tapes, why aren't we all listening to tapes -vs- Redbook, HDCD, XRCD, SACD and the like? How do they get the dynamics and no tape hiss before transferring to a digital domain? Obviously this question does not apply to DDD discs......

shack

The master tapes that were used in the past were recorded on low-noise, high output tape running at 30 in. per second and up to 2" wide. They are probably VERY expensive...much more than we would be willing to pay for a single track...much less the equipment to play it.

reeltrouble1

and the reeeeely good ones were tubed.........

Ken Swuager is the guru for Reel to Reel, had his at Doro's Polkfest, its tweaked but no doubt the sound was hi-fi and worth the effort, never heard WardsWeb, he does not post much anymore, he is into audio, not the toilet paper dribble of current events at CP, but he is a definete resource if someone is thinking about tape.

RT1

vc69

shack wrote: »

The master tapes that were used in the past were recorded on low-noise, high output tape running at 30 in. per second and up to 2" wide. They are probably VERY expensive...much more than we would be willing to pay for a single track...much less the equipment to play it.

Correct. The 2" machines were 16 or 24 track resulting in a 1/8" wide track (or 1/12" for the 24 track). I always thought the 2" 16's were the best sounding. Noise was never really a problem until mixdown when you had many (up to 48 and more) tracks in the mix, then tape hiss would come up a bit. We used no NR on multi-track or 2 track mixdown (I had a 1/4 Scully) and dolby was applied in mastering.

Not only that, tape degrades as it is dragged over the r/p heads and the oxide scrapes off. HF degrades, dynamics are lost, etc.
Plenty of folks still use those 2" multi-tracks with excellent results. Most are mixing to digital 2-track though. I went to DAT as soon as it became available and never looked back.

My old Nakamichi cassette decks were about as good as it got for that format and they were still a bit noisy.

mhardy6647

http://www.tapeproject.com/

vc69

Crazy cool.

Not for me, but really cool that folks are into it.:D

treitz3

I listened to a fairly well regarded, among those that are in the know, RTR setup in MD this year on a 100K+- system. The tape hiss about drove me out of the room alone. This was in the best room with the cream of the crop. Not my idea of a good time.

mhardy6647

For the record (no pun intended), 15 ips is probably the "optimal" speed for overall frequency response... HF response is a little truncated relative to faster speeds, but LF is flatter and deeper. 7-1/2 ips is still probably a more rational speed for home use (an 1800 foot half-track tape will only play 22-1/2 minutes at 15 ips).

Half-track stereo at 15 ips with a first or second generation tape will get you pretty fine sound. I have a Frankenstein ReVox A77 which I had configured this way for those occations when it counts :-)

shack

15-30 ips is the pro standard.

mhardy6647

True enough. 30 ips really starts to get into low frequency "head bump" problems; thus did I opine that 15 ips is probably the "practical" optimum for broad flat frequency response in the context of a forum like this (wherein most of us aren't pros). :-)

http://www.endino.com/graphs/

shack

mhardy6647 wrote:

thus did I opine that 15 ips is probably the "practical" optimum for broad flat frequency response in the context of a forum like this (wherein most of us aren't pros).

This of course goes back to the OP's question as to why aren't tapes the medium of choice since many of the masters that are used to produce SACDs, LPs, re-mastered CDs, ect are tapes. If it is the "master source" why can't the audiophile use it? Cost for one...actually cost period. Even if one could afford the equipment to replay a master...the cost of producing a single tape would be quite prohibitive.

Danny Tse

shack wrote: »

This of course goes back to the OP's question as to why aren't tapes the medium of choice since many of the masters that are used to produce SACDs, LPs, re-mastered CDs, ect are tapes. If it is the "master source" why can't the audiophile use it? Cost for one...actually cost period. Even if one could afford the equipment to replay a master...the cost of producing a single tape would be quite prohibitive.

Not to mention the convenience of direct access and the lack of wear on a optical disc.

mhardy6647

Yeah, but analog tape is still cool!

shack

mhardy6647 wrote:

Yeah, but analog tape is still cool!

8 track cartridges are analog tape...and they are maybe nostalgia cool...but definitely not audio cool!

treitz3

shack wrote: »

Even if one could afford the equipment to replay a master...the cost of producing a single tape would be quite prohibitive.

Damn. Damn, damn, damn. How much are we talking?

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

Damn. Damn, damn, damn. How much are we talking?

On a quick search, and from 2005:
Only(?) 4300 hours, for $7500
:eek:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/44448-6-studer-a827-locater-4903

treitz3

Well, I don't know much about professional gear but that seems pretty cheap [relatively speaking from what some of us have invested in our rigs] but if that's the case, how often do master tapes get played? Every remaster, once and that's it, 3 times max before degradation hits hardcore?

To make a tape with "the best" or the best used equipment of.......let's say DSOTM. How much would the dedicated audiophile have to spend in order to acquire such a treasure for his/her audio pleasure?

[Deleted User]

Hello Treitz3,
I'll try and offer some useful information about collecting re-recorded open reel tapes. It can be a really interesting and rewarding part of the hobby. There are two approaches, one is to find original pre-recorded tapes made during the era of them being made. In the early days of audio many record labels produced versions of new releases in pre-recorded tape format. In fact two channel tapes were second only to FM radio broadcasts in providing two channel program material to enthusiasts. The stereo record followed tapes in two-channel sound availability. So, one approach would be to try and find good sounding two channel tapes recorded from this era. These will be recorded in half track, or "stacked heads" format and usually at a tape speed of 7.5" per second. The half track (sometimes referred to as 2 track, on eBay) means that the left and right audio channel share the width of the tape (.25" across) kind of like a two-lane highway. Right down the middle. The kinds of music you will find from this era will be "easy listening", classical (RCA, Mercury and Everest, for example) and jazz. These will be expensive, especially for the really well known classical and jazz, probably beginning at $50.00 per tape and extending to several hundred. You would need a tape deck that plays at 3.75" and 7.5" inches per second and is configured for half track playback.
You could expect the results to be very similar to what a very high quality turntable playing either original "Shaded Dog" RCA or Mercury Living Presence vinyl records would provide. The early pre-recorded tapes were produced and copied very carefully, these were being sold to the audio enthusiasts of their day. Quite literally they were the SACD of their time, people who read about the advantages of two channels sound and spent a sizeable percentage of their income invested in open reel machines and wanted great results.
The second era will seem familiar to us, recording companies wanted to find ways of reducing the time and effort it took to make these tapes and increase the profits. They did this in a few ways. One was a format change, instead of only having one side of tape to record on, the tape companies went from half track to quarter track (also called 4 track). Think of a four lane highway with alternating lanes, east bound cars on lanes one and three and west bound cars on lanes two and four. Also recording speeds became both 7.5IPS and 3.75IPS, with popular music mostly the slower speed. This allowed the companies to use one half the amount of tape and have a side A and a side B. The good thing for this era, for collectors, is that you can find some really good sounding rock recordings, such as The Beatles, Doors, Crosby Stills and Nash, Neil Young, Beach Boys and Janis Joplin for example. As well as some fine sounding classical recordings on London, RCA, Phillips and DG with excellent musicians. While these are not quite as spectacular as the half track tapes, they can sound excellent. To play these you would need a machine that can play quarter track and the two speeds. There are machines that have the ability to play both half track and quarter track with two different playback heads and a selector. Companies such as Teac and Sony come to mind, but there are quite a few others. You could expect to hear sound quality quite close to a really good sounding, upper level turntable playing clean original vinyl recordings. I believe a top flight turntable playing 180gm or 200gm modern re-releases will sound better. Just my opinion.
Now we come to what's happening in the modern era; the second approach. Because of a loyal following of audiophiles who have kept the enthusiasm alive for open reel machines there are some extremely well made pre-recorded tapes now available. There have always been a group of enthusiasts who have collected and traded what are commonly called "master tapes". Think of this term as you would "sports car", it can mean lots of things. It could mean a "working master" tape, one that was sent to a tape copy company as a safety copy used as a backup for the duplication process. Or, it could have been an original stereo tape done at a smaller recording studio that someone has rescued their studio tapes. But, the chances of hearing a master tape from the vaults of a major recording artist are very rare, probably zero.
But, there is the next best thing, which is the Tape Project company started by the Bottlehead company. This company has purchased the rights to make highest quality copies of classical, jazz, blues and rock recordings tapes that give fantastic results. They have announced the second series with Linda Ronstadt's Heart Like a Wheel, The Band's Stage Fright, Thenonius Monk, John Coltrane and Kenny Burrell together, Clifford Brown, The Staples Singers, the Liszt piano recording of Nojima Minoru on Reference Recordings and others. All things that music lovers and audiophiles have loved for years. To play these you would need a machine that plays at 15" per second, is half track and has a European playback equalization, called IEC. Think of this as getting some of the 45rpm four sided, ultra quiet vinyl re-mastered recordings. A higher tape speed, half track better sounding playback EQ for the maximum in information leaving the deck and getting to your audio gear.
Like many other areas of audio, once someone begins making better sounding program material people begin working to improve the machines that play the material. Here comes the self-serving advertisement. I've been collecting, repairing and modifying open reel tape recorders for several years and have had a modicum of success. One approach, to a machine, comes from the Revox PR99 early version. Especially the model that was just for tape playback, not record and playback. I believe I can take this deck and allow it to play half track, 7.5" per second, NAB EQ for collectors of early generation pre-recorded half track tapes and, when the speed is changed, play the Tape Project tapes at 15" per second IEC EQ. The goal is to come up with a machine that would sound as good as I could make it, new resistors, capacitors a separate audio only power supply and eliminate some of the unnecessary switching to improve the sound as well as not use the balanced outputs.
If anybody would like to talk about this very rewarding branch of our hobby I'd be happy to provide whatever help I could.
Ken

mhardy6647

shack wrote: »

8 track cartridges are analog tape...and they are maybe nostalgia cool...but definitely not audio cool!

You are correct, sir.

Cassette too (Nomex personal protective equipment donned)

;-)

shack

mhardy6647 wrote:

Cassette too (Nomex personal protective equipment donned)

You are right...pre-recorded cassettes sucked big time. I did have a moderate amount of success by using high quality cassette tape and recording from vinyl and CDs (in the early days) to produce some decent sounding cassettes. My cassette recorders/players were not the top of the line but were pretty good machines. I still have the cassettes and still play them from time to time on my vintage gear. Not audiophile quality...but not too bad either. Definitely listenable.

Kenneth Swauger wrote:

I'll try and offer some useful information about collecting re-recorded open reel tapes.

Ken - As always...great info. Years ago (early 70s) I heard some great music played on a Teac RtR. I never got into those machines because as a poor college student it was all I could afford to buy the LPs. A couple of my audio friends were into RtR though and I was able to listen to their stuff. I purchased a used Akai RtR but found the tapes too expensive and sold it. It was a cool medium. By the time I was able to afford better gear, cassettes were the way I went because of price and portability.

treitz3

Hello Ken. Thanks for taking the time to write that up. Have you had the chance to ever compare the sound quality from a half track and compare it to an SACD? If so, what would your thoughts be as to what hits your ears?

[Deleted User]

Hello Shack,
I'm glad the information was helpful, I like to spread as much information, as possible, about all aspects of good audio reproduction. You're right about the pre-recorded cassette, because of the very narrow track width and very slow tape speed and ultra-fast duplicating process they didn't sound as good as owners were able to make themselves. Although I remember hearing some pre-recorded tapes made by Advent, I think, that sounded quite good. Also, the DG pre-recorded tapes were not bad. A friend of mine had a killer car system, using a Nakamichi portable deck, an ADS 12 Volt power amp and ADS mini-speakers and he played some pre-recorded Advent tapes and it was great. It still is my mental reference for car stereo.
There are people, on the Tape Project forum, who are talking about .5" tape and three-channel sound. They are thinking of having tapes that would duplicate the left-center-right channel sound of the Decca and RCA recordings. Both Saul Marantz and Paul Klipsch felt that two-channel stereo was a significant compromise and felt disappointed, the early Marantz and Fisher receivers had summed center channel outputs. Stay around long enough and everything old becomes new again. Now, reviewers are talking about the mono versus stereo Beatles recordings.
It takes me back to when I was a newly minted HiFi stereo salesman in 1971 and having a discussion, with a older gentleman, who argued that stereo wasn't as good as well recorded mono. Of course, I knew better, two has got to be better than one, right? I hope he's somewhere listening to his new mono Beatles CD and smiling.
Have fun, Ken

[Deleted User]

Hello Treitz3,
I'm glad the information was helpful. My experience is a little on the slim side with respect to SACDs. I bought a second hand Sony SACD player and did some modifications to the analogue section. Replaced the output IC, biased it for class A operation, replaced resistors, new coupling caps, etc and it sounded much better than it first did. This was my first experience with surface mounted circuitry, definitely needed the magnifying visor and tweezers. I really liked the results, I was able to do a comparison with a friend's Marantz player at it compared very well. Of course, everybody thinks their modified anything sounds good. But, I do try and remain objective. I've not heard the best in SACD players and can only assume they are excellent.
In terms of convenience, ease of operation, the SACD is hands down on top. It is much easier to use and store and trade with friends than any other medium. If I lost all of my vinyl records, tapes, turntable and tape decks I wouldn't have a problem just using CDs and SACDs. I wish there was a wider selection of artists on SACD and am glad the interest, by recording companies, seems to be fairly steady.
Let's say there's a guy who gets a great deal of fun from going very fast. He works hard, saves his money and buys a really high performance motorcycle. He loves it, freedom of the road and goes nice and fast. He saves some more and buys a really good quality, high performance, fast car. Now he can enjoy high speed and it's quieter and he can stay dry when it's raining. He still likes the motorcycle, but he can appreciate the differences with the car. Then he wins the lottery and can now have his life's dream. He takes flying lessons, buys a surplus Russian jet trainer and can go real fast and doesn't have to stay on a highway and he's nice and dry, but it's noisy again. It gobbles jet fuel and he has to hire a Russian mechanic to keep it working and store it in a hanger he leases. On a good day he takes the motorcycle to the hanger and flys, near the speed of sound, watches the clouds go past, lands in a different city and drives his fast car back home.
Maybe you see my point? Each branch of performance audio involves a separate balance of cost, ease of operation, long-term storage capability and a different angle of satisfaction. All of the ways of going fast can be satisfying, but flying your own jet has got to be the biggest thrill. The same thing happens when you open that beautifully covered box with the two 10.5"
reels with your serial number laser etched on the reel. Put it on your Revox/Studer/Nagra/Stellavox/Technics deck and push the play button. And Sonny Rollins begins to play like you've never heard before that makes everything worthwhile.
Ken

DarqueKnight

Thanks for the info Ken.

I dabbled in R2R for a while. I had a nice Akai R2R deck that I sold as I was going headlong into CD's. I worked for a radio station during the early 1980's and record companies would occasionally send promo music in both tape (mostly 7.5IPS) and vinyl format. I still have some of those tapes.

[Deleted User]

Hey DK,
I've always wanted to work in a radio station. Sometimes I think about what records I'd play if I was the late night jock on a small station. I pick out records that would all have a similar theme, different moods. A good friend of mine was a DJ at the old WHFS, named Bob Young. He's responsible for me being interested in jazz, he played some music for me and I was hooked.
I believe Stu Lumsden worked at a college station and used a Revox A77.
Regards, Ken

mhardy6647

Kenneth Swauger wrote: »

Hello Shack,
I'm glad the information was helpful, I like to spread as much information, as possible, about all aspects of good audio reproduction. You're right about the pre-recorded cassette, because of the very narrow track width and very slow tape speed and ultra-fast duplicating process they didn't sound as good as owners were able to make themselves. Although I remember hearing some pre-recorded tapes made by Advent, I think, that sounded quite good. Also, the DG pre-recorded tapes were not bad. A friend of mine had a killer car system, using a Nakamichi portable deck, an ADS 12 Volt power amp and ADS mini-speakers and he played some pre-recorded Advent tapes and it was great. It still is my mental reference for car stereo.
There are people, on the Tape Project forum, who are talking about .5" tape and three-channel sound. They are thinking of having tapes that would duplicate the left-center-right channel sound of the Decca and RCA recordings. Both Saul Marantz and Paul Klipsch felt that two-channel stereo was a significant compromise and felt disappointed, the early Marantz and Fisher receivers had summed center channel outputs. Stay around long enough and everything old becomes new again. Now, reviewers are talking about the mono versus stereo Beatles recordings.
It takes me back to when I was a newly minted HiFi stereo salesman in 1971 and having a discussion, with a older gentleman, who argued that stereo wasn't as good as well recorded mono. Of course, I knew better, two has got to be better than one, right? I hope he's somewhere listening to his new mono Beatles CD and smiling.
Have fun, Ken

Many if not most of the fine HH Scott vacuum tube integrated amps have a summed center channel (line level) output, too.

There's still a lot to be said for mono... especially if one has a single example of a very fine loudspeaker.




EDIT: I'll thank you, too, Ken, for your considered responses... but I haven't had the time to read 'em through yet!

[Deleted User]

Hey,
Thanks for including the Scott name, another venerable company. I believe the Mapleshade guys are modding lots of them. That's quite a speaker you've got there. Are the reddish pieces the permanent magnets? I like the support rod system, looks very sturdy.
Paul Klipsch made the Belle Klipsch (named after his wife) to be the center speaker for the corner horns.
Ken

mhardy6647

You're welcome and thanks, respectively!

That's a 16-ohm Stevens Trusonic coax; currently mounted in a Karlson K-15 (and taking up space in the basement).