Jump to content
IGNORED

Forgive me Computeraudiophiles, for I have sinned


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Glad to hear that you're enjoying your music. At the end of the day, this is what it's all about.

 

Have you listened to any of the tape transfers done by High Definition Tape Transfers? Be interesting to know if they retain the characteristics that you're enjoying.

You know, you remind me that I've been wanting to do that.

 

When I get to that, I'll try to remember to report back.

 

Thanks for the reminder.

 

Joel

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hi Joel, OK, good.

So how much noise do you perceive - volume wide open again - from a blank part of tape ?

For the following, I assume you will hear something.

 

If you set the tape deck to record mode + pause and monitor the output (to the speakers), is the noise there too (its character can be different now) ?

 

How do you like the sound when you play digital in this mode ? Thus, record-pause and monitor the output hence play through the tape deck's electronics.

 

Kind regards,

Peter

What an interesting question, Peter.

 

It will take me a bit of time to get to that test. But you've made me curious.

 

Thanks a lot for the suggestion.

 

Joel

Link to comment

That's why I posted, Firedog. 

 

If people have found ways to emulate or duplicate the sound I'm hearing, digitally, I'm all for learning about it. 

 

As for the Lampizator, I don't know but would be happy to learn from others. 

 

Thanks. 

 

Joel

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I’ve heard reel-to-reel at shows, and they never fail to impress. I liken the sound to high end vinyl except better — quieter, smoother, even more totally correct, etc. Music that would have a certain stridency or edge in even the best digital setups are delivered with total elegance from tape.

 

 

You've said it better than I did, GUTB.

 

Joel

Link to comment

OK, fas42, I'll bite. 

 

Please describe the exact components of a digital playback chain that will perform as you've described. 

 

Not a challenge. A sincere question. 

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, core of the matter, right here. Digital should never deliver stridency or edge - if the rig does, then you're hearing distortion contributed by the playback chain ...

 

The R2R experience rounds the sharp edges - it's a type of distortion which is pleasant to listen to, meaning that it can be enjoyed at higher volumes. With digital, the sharp edges are normally there but they need to be reproduced with extreme accuracy - if they  are not, then all the usual complaints about "digital sound" will be expressed. Unfortunately, everything in conventional audio setups conspires against getting those sharp edges 100% true - only those with the money or who are fully devoted to to the exercise tend to get this right, and then a "miracle" happens, :D. Amazingly rich, full SQ emerges - and one loses all interest in the analogue thing ... ^_^.

OK, fas42, I'll bite. 

 

Please describe the exact components of a digital playback chain that will perform as you've described. 

 

Not a challenge. A sincere question. 

 

Joel

Link to comment
1 hour ago, esldude said:

I don't have any problem with what you are doing except that in bold above. 

 

You are seeing that tape has a sound, a coloration as you so rightly said.  And that you like it as well which is just fine. 

 

But digital doesn't have anywhere to go.  It is the higher fidelity medium.  We just need some DSP to replicate what tape is doing. It is certainly doable.  There are some tape emulation plug ins.  I've not spent any time with them to see if they work well.  

 

Or before reading Peter's crazy suggestion I had thought of the same thing.  If you have a 3 head deck you could just run CD into it and listen to the playback head real time.  You'll get all the same effects without having to record every digital file onto a reel of tape.  A DSP plug in would be much more convenient of course. 

esldude,

 

First, thanks for understanding my first post the way I intended it to be understood.

 

If digital didn't have anywhere else to go, then there would be no new dacs, no questions about upsampling, NOS dacs, ethernet vs. usb. There were would be no new technologies. No one would hear digital sounding any better today than they did when the Sony CDP-101 first came out in 1982.

 

As for a DSP plugin, I've searched. The reviews from the folks who use them describe them as very incomplete solutions to tape. If someone knows of a killer plugin, why wouldn't I want it? It would beat the heck out of what I have to do now to listen to music sounding the way I like it.

 

Joel

Link to comment
1 hour ago, esldude said:

https://sonicscoop.com/2018/03/14/best-tape-saturation-plugins-market/

 

Here is a recent article about tape emulations.  End of the article you can download samples and hear it for yourself. 

 

I also would add I prefer sound of tape to LP. 

 

In the 1990s some friends and I got together with LPs, CD, and pre-recorded reel tape to compare the same albums on all three formats.  While none sounded identical we were surprised to find the basic balance of reel tape and CD were usually close.  LP was always the obviously odd man out sounding very different in balance and other attributes. 

 

Hey esldude,

 

Thanks very much for the article. I'm going to read through it and see if something wonderful exists for me . . . and maybe others as well.

 

Joel

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, TubeLover said:

Joel, what reel to reel deck are you using, by the way, just out of curiosity?

 

JC

Hey JC,

 

I've got a Technics RS-1500 reconditioned by J-Corder including upgraded internal electronics. 

 

Joel

Link to comment
9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I don't think this is correct. Digital playback - especially the "computer type -  is so much more difficult than analogue that analogue will sound "infinitely" longer term for the better.

Btw, you know it.

 

So sadly it is merely about the implementation.

I kind of guarantee that anyone starting with computer playback has it worse than with his CDP (for a long time). But the potential is there because computer/digital *is*  the better one.

 

Frank, we don't disagree. And to others : it is Frank's story (on a record always jumping back to the same groove, but alas, truth anyway IMHO).

 

@joelha, maybe it isn't all that bad. You just heard "an" aspect in tape that overrules something in digital which disallows you to go back. This is fully understandable. But what aspect is that in its element ?

Try another Operating System. You will be so, so surprised how that does wonders that suddenly you're sure that digital isn't the way to go (because not comprehending the (OS) situation). But that is the beauty too, because it gives you infinite options (some go crazy of that - but it is part of the hobby just the same). Try Windows 10 Build 10074 (I have it for you if needed). It could be the analogue you are seeking.

 

But

 

It wouldn't be the correct approach (because it needs too much luck). I would hunt down that element doing it to you. And for that the monitor and noise and 3 head etc. proposition is the better one. So not to forget, depending on the outcome there should be (intermittent) conclusions. Btw, the listening to the 3-head monitor and 100x the same reel is only a solution. It is not part of finding the "cause". Just saying ...

 

Thanks, as always, for your comments and suggestions, Peter.

 

I've tried multiple operating systems including tweaking and removing components.

 

I'm very early into my tape journey and so need to understand it better.

 

And I still need to try your suggestion of playing digital through the tape machine in monitor-mode.

 

All the best.

 

Joel

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Daverz said:

It should be possible to capture the impulse response of the tape system with, for example, REW.  The impulse response can be used as a filter with a convolution engine.

 

I don't begin to know how to do that.

 

If anyone else can do it and has a good result, I'm interested.

 

Thanks.

 

Joel

Link to comment
9 hours ago, TubeLover said:

Great deck, Joel, one of my all time favorites. Congratulations! I'm sure it cost a pretty penny, but you can't put a price on the enjoyment it is bringing you.

 

JC

 

Thanks a lot, TubeLover.

 

You're right on both counts.

 

It's even fun just to look at.

 

Joel

Link to comment
8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

OK, just overcoming the shock ...

And what I had in mind with that is that I myself would be able to see through what such a chain does (technically) to the sound. I mean, I think I can do that.

 

My promise sort of is that it will be disastrous, unlistenable, killing and what not, but what it is about is the why.

But let me tell you that the initial idea of it came from being intrigued : would it work out for the better for me too ? If so, I'd just leave it in the chain. To be honest though, I can't imagine it to be better. But if it is, I am going to find out why and tweak something in the OS or XXHighEnd or maybe the DAC.

 

PS: I forgot that the thing is heavy:o

 

 

Looking forward to what you determine, Peter.

 

And yes, the unit is heavy. Please be careful.

 

Joel

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

So what features are a must-have in a tape deck? I understand that 15 IPS and auto-reverse are needed, but what else?

 

Auto-reverse is not required. I'm sure there are people on this forum far more knowledgeable than me who can explain the reason why better than I can.

 

15ips is a feature I would highly recommend.

 

Joel

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jud said:

Joel, have you tried any tape transfers that you know were made with the Plangent Process(es)?  https://www.plangentprocesses.com/

 

Interested in whether these still retain the "magic" for you.

 

Hey Jud,

 

Nice to hear from you. I haven't tried the product(s) you mention although it seems that it's a tape recording correction process, is that right?

 

My holy grail is a plugin which would duplicate the sound of tape.

 

I know there are products out there which claim to do this, but I've read that they tend to not quite reach the mark.

 

Joel

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

My thinking is running along these lines:

 

- Plangent is a process to correct tape wow and flutter.

 

- Let's say the "magic" for you is contained in a small enough amount of flutter that you consciously notice it not as flutter, but at a subconscious level as something like very subtle vibrato, making the music feel richer and warmer.

 

- Would a transfer from master to other tape generations using Plangent (this is done as I understand it by mastering studios - I don't know about its availability to the public) have less flutter and therefore less of this "magic" than other tape transfers?

 

It's essentially just a thought about one possibility of many that could be contained in @PeterSt's suggestion to listen for what it is with tape that works for you.  Maybe another way to get at it, if it is flutter-as-vibrato, is to monitor a digital file from a tape recording you are making of it, and then just run the same thing through the tape machine electronics without the tape.  The first one would give you flutter-as-vibrato, the second wouldn't.

 

If this is the "magic," all you need is a reverb filter.  ? 

 

 

Thanks Jud.

 

I do have more research to do.

 

I'd love to isolate what it is about reel to reel playback that I (and others) love so much.

 

If I can, there'll be one very enthusiastic post everyone will be reading from me.

 

Joel

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

 

Joel, I'll join the chorus of folks who have zero problem with what you've done and said, and like others I'm very glad you've found a sound that you love so much!

 

Like esldude, though, I have to take issue with the bolded portion of your statement. This is the #1 confusion that sustains a huge proportion of all audiophile arguments: The notion that digital is deficient (has a long way to go) because it is not colored, is a deeply contradictory idea that obscures far more than it reveals in our understanding and pursuit of musical enjoyment.


If we acknowledge that the sound we like has less fidelity - and while 15ips tapes can be scary good, they do indeed have less fidelity to the source than a digital copy does - then the problem by definition cannot be a problem with digital.

 

Rather, the problem is that there's something about the recording, production, and/or mastering of the original source of most music that is not ideally to our liking - and the reduced fidelity (aka the coloration) imparted by tape (or vinyl for some) reduces or compensates for that negative "something" we don't like.

 

The only way to make digital "come a long way" in your words, to the tape experience you like so much, would be to do what Peter and esldude say - run your digital music through the tape recorder's electronics, or use a DSP plugin that would simulate that.

 

The core issue, which GUTB does not appear to grasp and as usual displays an arrogant refusal to acknowledge, is that we cannot equate high fidelity with high enjoyment/musicality.

 

Now, many audiophiles will read that statement and say, "This is what's wrong with objectivists - you guys are heartless anti-humanists who would rather listen to measurements than music." But no, the problem is that not everyone likes coloration, and the type and degree of coloration that people like is incredibly variable. 

 

So there has to be an objective standard, and that is fidelity - trying to make the disc, tape, or file we play as close as possible to the original master source. With that faithful, hopefully identical copy in-hand, then of course, go nuts - use tone controls or EQ; buy speakers voiced the way you like; go for tube amplification; do tube-rolling; try different digital filters on your DAC; compare PCM to DSD; dub everything onto 15ips tape; buy vinyl - whatever. That is where the enjoyment comes in.

 

But it's just silly in my view to take one's own coloration preferences and use that as an objective standard by which digital is judged wanting.


Digital is far from perfect and is bedeviled (though not as much as people claim) by certain variables and tradeoffs, to be sure. But it's the highest-fidelity medium we have, and so in my view there's nothing to be gained by trying to alter digital recording/encoding itself in pursuit of lower fidelity.

 

Thanks for your message, tmtomh, and the reasonable way you've phrased it.

 

First, just for the record, I did condition my statement with the phrase "For this audiophile . . ." So it can't be an objective statement. I'm stating this as my opinion. I also didn't say "this proves how far digital has to go."

 

But let's say I didn't offer those conditions. Back in 1982, when the Sony CDP-101 (the first CD player) came out, would you have held the same position? Granted, you can't listen to it so easily now. But word was that it's sound is nowhere near as good as today's CD players. Yet, it was still digital.

 

The issue to me is not so much a matter of technology as of implementation. Given then that all digital is not the same (Compare a $49 Chinese CD player to a DCS Vivaldi stack for example), I don't think one can talk in terms of "digital" as if all products meet that standard.

 

And you've injected your own objective standard by saying "fidelity" should be the standard. I'm not even 100% what that term means. But if it means accuracy, I'll say that I'm not sure we know everything to measure when it comes to musical enjoyment. And maybe digital doesn't record everything that entails musical enjoyment. I'm theorizing here. Nothing more. I've spent a lot of money and time trying to assemble the most accurate system I could. And yet here comes tape to up-end my expectations.


That's why I said, "For this audiophile, it’s smoother richer and highlights how far digital still has to go."

 

When I've tried my best to get the best digital sound I can (and I've listened a lot of equipment) and tape blows me away, what else could I say?

 

Joel

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, esimms86 said:

Back in the seventies I had a lower end Ampex R2R deck which I later replaced with a Revox. I primarily used it for needle drops(and, very occasionally, for live music recordings including bouncing tracks). It was great fun but I no longer own those machines (or the tapes).

 

My understanding is that the owner of J-Corder recommends that his machines be used specifically for the purpose of making and playing back copies of CDs. But then you already know that. You can, of course, spend even more on the pricey R2R hobby by purchasing more expensive decks(e.g., United Home Audio's refurbished Tascams, Sonorus, Metaxas, etc.) and Doshi tube preamps, not to mention "lesser" expenditures such as finely crafted 10 inch reels and also reel locks.

 

Someday some commercial entity will perfect the euphonic tape plug in and make it available to listeners of music in digital formats. That, at least, is my hope and expectation.

 

In the meantime, enjoy your new audiophile niche. I'm truly happy for you.

 

That's really nice of you, esimms86.

 

I appreciate it. And I'm holding out hope for that magical plugin myself.

 

Joel

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Joel, thanks for your thoughtful reply.


First off, I want to clearly acknowledge your "For this audiophile" qualifier - you did indeed write that, and it can indeed change the meaning of what you wrote afterwards. So I should have been clearer that for me your comment raised a larger problem/issue, and it was not my intention to criticize you specifically.

 

I also agree with what I take to be an important implication of your point about fidelity: Accuracy has many components, and different people might weight those components differently, and tolerate/accept different levels of deviation from total accuracy from different aspects. (For example, some people aren't bothered by the pitch variations of slightly off-center LP pressings, and others find audible tape hiss to be not only tolerable but also comforting.)

 

At the same time, I don't think there's much mystery about the meaning of fidelity - faithful to the original, which is to say accurate.

 

And while there is a danger to asserting that we know everything - we don't of course - I think too many folks in the audiophile world aren't sensitive enough to the converse danger: The claim that "there might be some other not-yet-measured factor out there" can become a way to claim that one's personal coloration preferences are in actuality a higher level of accuracy that we just haven't yet figured out yet how to measure. This is the root fallacy from which people argue that identical data on different hard drives can still sound different, not because of playback conditions, but rather that that data itself, sitting on the drive, is just somehow different. When it's pointed out to them that this cannot be true, their inevitable response is some version of "I hear it, so it must be true and we just don't have a way to measure it yet."

 

Again, I'm not saying you specifically are going down that dark and stony path. I'm just saying that while we don't know everything, we actually do know a lot more than we think we do - it's just that most of us (and I'll include myself there) are not expert enough to be aware of or fully grasp the full state of science's current knowledge about this stuff.

 

At any rate, at the end of the day I would only reiterate my prior argument that it's not that digital has lost something that analogue tape preserves or adds back, but rather than analogue tape adds in something new that makes music more enjoyable to you. And that's just fine. 

 

tmtomh,

 

Thanks again for another well-worded message.

 

I agree that the tape is adding some sort of coloration. How many people have to love that coloration before we say "Maybe we're missing something in the way we reproduce music?"

 

That's all I'm saying. I'm far from alone in my perception and the folks who agree with me are far more experienced and knowledgeable than I am.

 

Maybe many of us are wired to like a certain kind of distortion which takes us further away from accuracy. I suppose that's possible too. But just as you don't want to write off this discussion to disparaging digital, likewise, I don't want to assume that digital (as we currently know it) is as far as we can go with music reproduction.

 

Joel

 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

As I’ve mentioned, the HDTT DXD/DSD256 transfers are sourced from 15 ips tape — surely if the tape is able to impart a coloration to a digital system, you’d find it in these recordings.

 

Just bought one an hour ago, jabbr.

 

Thanks.


Joel

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...