HRx versus the Tape Project comparison

[manisandher]

Joel, I'm in TOTAL agreement about the Otari!!! You've chosen THE best machine on which to play the tapes.

 

My point was that you should do the same with the HRx files. And that would be... let me think now... an EMU 0404?

 

No! A Model Two of course, on which the HRx files were created.

 

Now, that would be a fair comparison between the tape (played on a superb machine, 'for God's sake') and the digital file (also on a superb machine).

 

FWIW, I'm in total agreement with Marcia - there is simply NO difference between the analog signal going into the Model Two and the 24/176.4 digital file created. And you can't improve on perfection...

 

Mani.

 

[manisandher]

Just to put my comments above into perspective, you've used a $7,000 tape machine to play the tape and a $100 DAC to play the HRx files!

 

Yes, a fair comparison...

 

Mani.

 

[joeljoel1947]

OK, well then your hang up is the EMU. You should have stated as such. Well After the EMU comparisons in the OP, for HRx we tried the Apogee Rosetta/Big Ben combo and a Weiss Minerva after that-- loaned by Gary Koh at Genesis (nice enough to donate). Neither came close to the TP reel to reel version. And both DAC's are considered much better then the EMU (even though when the 3 were compared together the EMU was better then the Weiss----- and the Apogee/Big Ben combo vs. the EMU was a virtual wash---this on a dealers 500k plus system.)

 

The difference here is NOT hardware-based. It's the SOFTWARE. All you are Mani is 7k away for an Otaro MX-5050 BIII plus a $500 tape project tape to learn this all for yourself as you already have the "model 2". Pick up an Otari and the tape and report to me your findings!! I already know the outcome, and it's not pretty. The analog dupe via TP tape will beat the Model 2 via HRx. Just a "wild guess". But you let me know for confimation Mani------so I can sleep better.......

 

[manisandher]

"OK, well then your hang up is the EMU. You should have stated as such."

 

In my first post I said, "Unfortunately, I think that the ONLY way to really hear 24/176.4 HRx files in all their glory is to use a Model Two to play them back on."

 

Sorry if this wasn't clear enough for you.

 

Of course, I won't be getting hold of an Otari and trying the tapes (though I'm sure they're very good). Why? Because I tried a live mic feed into the Model Two instead... and what comes out is exactly what went in! A good enough test for me.

 

Mani.

 

[joeljoel1947]

"Of course, I won't be getting hold of an Otari and trying the tapes (though I'm sure they're very good). Why? Because I tried a live mic feed into the Model Two instead... and what comes out is exactly what went in! A good enough test for me."

 

Have fun recording yourself talking BS into the mics. I'm sure that's your acid-test for your "live-feed"! I'm a recording engineer myself. I use real music to determine that reel to reel is the best possible way in the here and now to capture a live feed. Maybe someday you will understand this too.

 

"In my first post I said, "Unfortunately, I think that the ONLY way to really hear 24/176.4 HRx files in all their glory is to use a Model Two to play them back on." Sorry if this wasn't clear enough for you

 

No, sorry for you. You are "grandstanding" and stating that the ONLY PROPER WAY to hear HRx files (original master analog ones too that had to be "converted" to 24/176.4 to fit the HRx medium and out to your Model 2) is via your beloved and over-priced "model2". Funny how someone "grandstanding" about such a thing---non-oversampling and such so that their Model Two can do its stuff----can accept a complete analog WAVEFORM being digitally converted to fit into the 24/176.4 HRx domain, LOL. Trust me there was a lot of "conversion and sampling" that had to be done to get that original analog HRx version to you! How do you even sleep now knowing that????

 

I expect this type of statements/behavior on Audiogon and Audio Asylum, but not here. Complete BS, so as per the above analogy keep talking into those mics to convince yourself.......

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK Guys - Let's not forget we're in this to have fun and enjoy ourselves. There is not one right or wrong solution. When forums start giving people headaches they don't come back and new people don't post.

 

Let's all take a breather, queue up our favorite albums (analog or digital), turn up the volume and enjoy :~)

 

[DSD_mastering]

Yeah.... this thread is a joke. Talk to someone who uses Studers, Otari's, DAD's, Meitners, PB Designs and the proper facilities every day to make their living.

 

 

Regards,

 

[tmfidelis]

Dear Mani:

 

Well stated regarding individuals that may make self serving comparisons and may not necessarily be correct in most cases.

 

I too have run across individuals that post opinion as fact, (perhaps for their self serving reasons), when facts arrived, the customers found the opinion to be the opposite.

 

Best regards,

 

Tim Marutani

Emeryville, CA

 

Pacific Microsonics Model Twos

Berkeley Audio Design

Sonic Studio Model 4

Pyramix via a Zalman

Samplitude 10 via a Zalman

Mac Pro - SSD

G5 - SSD

MacBook Pro - SSD

Mac Pro - SSD

and more.......

Oh yes, strong supporter of The Tape Project, 1/2 track, 15ips tape playback.

 

 

[tmfidelis]

Dear Bruce:

 

I do, almost every day. Afterwords, I acquire the electronics and try them. For the most part, there all very excellent.

 

Oh yes, one may not need to endorse one's opinion at the expense of others.

 

Best regards,

 

Tim Marutani

Emeryville, CA

 

[DSD_mastering]

@Tim... I wasn't talking to/about you. My post was 7 minutes before yours.... enough said.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

[manisandher]

Thanks for chiming in.

 

I think we're agreed that there are many different ways to record music well.

 

If I've given the impression that I think the Model Two is the best machine on which to play back ANY PCM file, then I apologize. From the outset, I was talking specifically about playing back RR HRx files, for which the Model Two has an optimized filter.

 

If anyone thinks that tape (7.5-15ips, whatever) sounds better than a hi-rez digital file, that's fine. But make sure you've optimized both playback chains before making the comparison and claim.

 

The only thing I'll retract is that the Model Two is 'perfect'. Of course, it can't be... But at 24/176.4 or 24/196, I think it's as close as anything else out there. And it seems that others agree as well: "Colleagues of mine think the M2 sounds better than anything available today." Chris's words, not mine.

 

Mani.

 

[Purite Audio]

Mani wrote,

 

'But I'm not sure that I'm comfortable having the Model Two compared to any gear that you currently sell. It would be so easy to market stuff by saying, "I compared xxx to the Model Two and preferred xxx" (as indeed has happened elsewhere on this site). I find such statements totally vacuous if one has a vested interest in promoting xxx.

 

Mani Hi, I would love to hear the Model 2 and I am sure people would be interested to hear how it compares to a contemporary dac, but I think you are being a little precious over the Model II, if I feel it is better , if asked I will say it is better, if I feel it isn't as good I will say why I feel it isn't as good, I am not going to sign a gag order!

Keith.

 

[manisandher]

Keith,

 

As I said, I'm not comfortable with this.

 

Precious? No, not at all. Rather, simply not interested in the comparison.

 

You know, my involvement in this thread really has nothing to do with the Model Two. But I felt obliged to show support for HRx 24/176.4 files, which are the best sounding digital files commercially available, IMHO of course.

 

Mani.

 

[PeterSt]

Without Mani and me having talked to echother about this subject, I am fairly sure Mani is talking about something which can't be understood without another brainstorming symposium, and which phenomenon I indirectly started without even knowing it. I can describe it myself only for a few percent at the moment (won't take my chances in here but I tried on my own forum) and which started with the observation from others at using XXHighEnd/Arc Prediction Upsampling at using the Filter#2 from the Alpha which sounds so crazily good (while that filter still upsamples itself) that some Alpha owners did some thinkering and came back to me with similar stories Mani suggested about. Please notice that this thinkering is about "what could be going on that this sounds SO much better".

 

When Mani talks about the filtering, and as a matter of fact I now do too, he assumes that people (I_S ahead haha) can think beyond what they have learned, and that sincx is not the only way to do it. And I am not talking about a bit less, more, left, right, poles, whatever, but just completely different.

 

Of course any normal human being (say, audio listener) isn't held to put discussions like this in the context of filtering means to the technical merits, but even so people (like Mani) try to understand what is happening while their brains tell them something can't be true while their ears tell it just is. You could call it sticking out your neck at posting about it, but we better call it progress in music playback through loudspeakers.

 

Side note for those who don't understand "filtering" : Filtering is a necessity in the digital world, and it is nothing like a bad word.

 

Having said all this, this is the background of it :

 

The #2 filter in the Alpha is NOT the advised filter by Berkely for normal playback. #1 is. However, the #2 filter *IS* used by many of the large recording studios throughout the world (please note I am copying words from a user who got this from Berkely after explicit asking "what is going on here").

 

Things get a kind of complex when we see that this #2 filter is also the least filtering of them all, which thus matches closest to my Arc Upsampling (call that filtering, because that is what it is) which desires no filtering in the DAC to perform as intended). BUT, in the very end (and for me) it is all about this :

 

What I think is that at the A/D process left overs of the filtering remain in the hires audio band (which is up to 96KHz this time (half the sample rate)), a sort of assuming

 

a. we won't hear that anyway (above 20KHz) and

b. the general means of filtering just assumes allowed roll off etc. above 20KHz.

 

I don't have any proof of this because I really don't know the exact filtering used at the A/D process, but I do know that native hires material does not sound better than the upsampled 16/44.1 I create myself, as long as nothing behind it touches it anymore (NOS/Filterless). The only (to me) logical explanation to this would be the normal audio band being untouched at the A/D process (thus, the 16/44.1 decimated material) while the band above 20KHz (or 22.05KHz if you like) *is* touched at decimating to e.g. 24/176.4.

Keep in mind that in both instances (44.1 upsampled x 4 or 176.4 native) my DAC runs in the exact same mode.

 

It is this context in which Mani put his first post, and I don't say this because he is my friend. I say this because I think I understand, and he very well may be right.

 

Peter

 

[Purite Audio]

Mani of course that's fine your decision, I am not quite sure why you are so concerned, you neither make or sell the PM it is just a secondhand dac that is no longer made, I would have thought you would have been interested to see how it compares to a contemporary product.

Keith.

 

[agentsmith]

>> The EMU 0404 was better then my Benchmark DAC1 (which I recently sold),

>> and it also ran with and sounded JUST as good as my friends Apogee Rosetta/Big Ben

>> (which he liked more then the Weiss Minerva he heard in his own system).

>> So I don't lose any sleep over the SQ coming out of my PC setup through the EMU! Sounds just fantastic!!

 

With all due respect, I am glad you like your EMU and I am sure it is an excellent product especially given its price. I have heard my friend using it as a USB pass through and it performs very well indeed.

 

But your statements sound like:

 

1. My Nestle instant coffee tastes better than Taster's Choice which I gave up on

2. I went to my friend's house and I think it tastes even better than my friend's Blue Mountain coffee beans from Ethiopia

3. (Which my friend likes better than Kopi Luwak)

4. So Nestle instant coffee tastes better than Kppi Luwak (exotic coffee from Mayaysia made of Monkey pooh)

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just saw this quote today and think is appropriate here and for all forums.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

--Aristotle,

Greek philosopher

 

 

[PeterSt]

... the man would have had an Internet connection ...

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

HA!!!!!!

 

[omasciarotte]

Mani wrote:

 

…I think we're agreed that there are many different ways to record music well…

 

Agreed. A subjectively “bad” recording can be made using the “best” equipment, analog or digital. Conversely, many engaging and wonderful recordings have been made with less than ideal gear and/or in less than perfect surroundings. It’s all about the artist and engineer’s chops, and a bit of serendipity.

 

Since the Tape Project and gear have been bandied about with abandon in this thread, I thought I’d mention a conversation I had with Michael Romanowski this morning, engineer and co–conspirator on the Tape Project. He said that both analog and digital have their strengths and weakness and there’s no point in discussing absolutes. His balanced opinion is valid, given his room, gear, client roster and work ethic. As to playback, same holds true. Not only are there multiple variables but, audio is subjective so there is no black/white, better/worse…only opinion.

 

Since this forum is gear–centric, a note on Michael’s room. He has a half dozen Model Twos feeding soundBlade (Amarra’s daddy), playing out to Focal Grande Utopia EM speakers. Analog decks (God bless the ATR-100) use custom electronics, of course. You can read more on his site, www.michaelromanowski.com.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Oliver - I thought I'd share two photos I took of Michael's room since you mentioned it. I have a bunch more but can't find them at the moment :~)

 

 

 

There are more components mounted below the counsel out of sight. Yes, a couple more Model Twos :~)

 

 

 

 

Here is the Tape Machine and Cutting Lathe with electronics buit by Nelson Pass. This Lathe used to be at Mobile Fidelity.

 

 

[manisandher]

I've recently been using my Model Two to do some transfers from vinyl. But looking all this amazing kit, I'm kind of getting the impression that my trusty ol' SP-10 MkII isn't really doing it justice.

 

Thanks for sharing the photos, and making me feel totally inadequate :-(

 

Mani.

 

[hifitubes]

I have owned the 1212M, 1616M, and 0202 USB. They are excellent.

 

I don't think you can compare the incredible Bottlehead setup with premium tubes to a 0404.

 

Sorry, I don't doubt the tape sounds great either, quite the contrary.

 

[Shadorne]

The lengths people will go. Everyone knows that Analog tape machines distort. Fortunately they distort in a way that is extremely pleasant - a lot of great music has been tastefully compressed (distorted) via analog tape and many studios still swear by analog tape. It IMPROVES the sound in a way that is better than the raw live sound. You'll get no argument from me - some of the best sound is of music recorded directly to analog tape.

 

I am not sure a $200 Creative EMU 0404 qualifies as a decent source for digital music though. I happen to have one of them which I simply use occasionally for making Room EQ measurements with my microphone (to calibrate the room). I have never considered this cheap box for playing back music.

 

[PeterSt]

Over a year further now from when this thread started, I can only emphasize the value of some things which have been said, and of which I'm sure not many will get that, while it is of so much importance to music reproduction. Not now, then in the future;

 

Mani, as well as me, have been completely independently working on the merits of today's possibilities of music reproduction through digital means, which obviously is related to the "recording" (or transfer) of it.

 

Obviously ?

 

Ha ! that's the whole point;

Earlier in the thread Mani said that at comparing the HRx files one should use a DAC that was used to take the recording. Or IOW, that anticipates on the filtering means used. I_S responded to that with his rightfully remark that we'd need dozens of playback means then. But this is not necessary. It works differently. Well, according to my today's knowledge;

 

If we, with our household equipment, record digitally from vinyl -and let's for now say we do that with 24/176.4- the result is totally indistinguishable from the source.

 

If we, again with household equipment, record digitally a live performance (but I must be honest that this is about a very simple in-house drum session, and thus with drums only), the played back result is indistinguishable from the live performance; An ABX test would tell the live performance and recording apart, but only because it is too hard to get the stage picture 100% the same. Not because things sound differently. So, take away the perception of the stage (like being around a corner in an adjacent room) and I'm sure ABX will tell no difference can be heard.

 

It is a kind of important to understand that it is not difficult at all to take such a recording, and "you" could do it too. With or without 20K turntable etc. It is about the difference you could perceive at playback, and I tell you, there is none.

 

None !

 

But there must be a culprit somewhere, or otherwise we wouldn't all be hunting for the best SQ possible. And indeed there are one or two ...

 

First there is the prerequisite of not allowing *any* processing at at all. Not one single thing, probably up to no dither;

As Mani found, when using software that "intelligently" applies some sneaky thing here or there, it already doesn't work anymore. Mani, we didn't talk about it extensively, but this is about your direct monitoring not showing a difference, while playing back the recording does.

 

Secondly there is the playback itself;

Earlier in the thread there was a reference / dispute about EMU0404 vs. Apogee and Minerva. But no matter what, you can't use any of these devices to perform a "test" like this.

I have an EM0404, but can't really judge it today because it has been too long that I used it. I have a Minerva here though, and it is completely not allowed to use such a machine to even start comparising. Yes I know, it wasn't that long ago it was judged as a most good DAC on this very forum, but really, at a first note you can hear it makes something very different of the original sound.

 

We must accept that there's another leage of these devices, and Mani's PM is amongst them; Don't use a DAC from that leage, and you are in the apples and oranges basket.

 

So, no, of course a digital recording from a random source will not be better than that source itself, but I say it can be just equal, and we are allowed to try it on the most resolving system. I even go as far that 16/44.1 will do just that already, but *now* it takes special playback means beyond just a good machine (more towards what I_S was telling). So, while this is actually unrelated to what I want to say, it should emphasize how easy it is to create a digital transfer from any other source, the result being indistinguishable.

 

The end of the story is that so many things are being done wrongly. During the recording as well as during playback, and the mix of both is probably the worse of all.

 

Underlaying is an important -and maybe surprising- message :

Take your household recording equipment and "rip" your vinyl. Play that back by a device like the PM MII, and you'll just listen to your vinyl.

This makes history of "the most analogue sound I ever heard", because it will be 100% the same.

 

Believe it or not, but it's more useful to do.

Peter