Article: Does Vinyl Really Sound Better?

[Pluto]

Cassette tape, done right, can be better than LP

Perhaps, perhaps not. But, possibly, the weakest point (amongst a whole collection of weak points) is based on something over which there is little control – the actual width of the tape. Any linear tape system is reliant upon the tape fitting precisely within the guides which, in the best transports, will have been machined to meet the specification as accurately as modern mechanical engineering can achieve – and this is pretty good. But the moment that the tape itself is wider or narrower than the specification states, even by sub-micron amounts, at a linear speed of 1⅞ inches/second, things go awry. In the former case the tape will tend to lift away from the guides and heads causing all the expected issues – e.g. loss of output (more pronounced at higher frequencies) and in the latter, the tape wanders around, compromising the precise alignment between the head and tape which causes deteriorations of, more or less, every major parameter.

But the real area that gets hit when the tape and guides do not mate to perfection is that of azimuth – that is, the pole-pieces within the head attacking the tape path at exactly 90°. The classic argument for correct azimuth tells you that, if incorrect, HF response is compromised but there is far more to it than that. Tape that is less than perfect (for any reason whatsoever) wanders around within the guides and the azimuth wobbles accordingly. This causes the timing relationship between the channels to drift around, possibly over several cycles at 5kHz, the problem increasing with frequency. If, for any reason, you are listening to this in mono the distinctive “phasing” effect causing moving comb filtering that changes as the tape drifts, will be easily audible. And the sad thing is that there is little that Nakamichi's brilliant mechanical engineering can do about it. The problem is all the worse at such low tape speeds and with narrow tracks.

For this dictating machine format to have ever approached something claiming to be high fidelity, is more of a marvel than the vinyl process but why, on earth, there is a revival of interest in this abysmal format is nothing more than proof of the stupidity to which homo sapiens can descend.

 

[Pluto]

View attachment 46143

Hmmm – the record head appears to have been removed and replaced by a guide of some sort – hopefully rotating. A rather odd-looking shield has appeared on the replay head.

All these unapproved modifications won't do the value any good at all

 

[Unclevanya]

"Subjective measurements in a double blind study"? "emotional responses...[were] inferred based on body language and movements"?

What the heck does that mean? And is it as terrifying as I suspect?

Maybe but maybe not. What I recall was they had trained observers watched a crowd of people who came into an audio demo tent at a festival. The observers watched for signs of involvement in the music, foot tapping, swaying, smiling, etc. They recorded the incidents that matched the criteria. The equipment wasn't visible to observers or subjects. I think the participants were also asked to fill out a questionnaire before and after that asked about their mood etc. The analog system (turntable and tubes) won.

Here's my own concern: observers, as I recall, were able to hear the music and may have been unintentionally aware of which trial was underway despite not being explicitly aware.
They could have heard cues like groove noise which would clue then into which trial was ongoing. This may have influenced their ratings.

Researchers may also have given unconscious cures to the participants (think of the case of clever Hans the counting horse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans) since the observers were part of the crowd and could be seen by the participants.

 

[Robin L]

For this dictating machine format to have ever approached something claiming to be high fidelity, is more of a marvel than the vinyl process but why, on earth, there is a revival of interest in this abysmal format is nothing more than proof of the stupidity to which homo sapiens can descend.

Agree on all counts. In essence, the best cassette, recorded and played back on the same machine can get good results. But play back that cassette on any other machine and sound quality will deteriorate. Pre-recorded cassettes [terrible for the most part] were selling in meaningful quantities up until the time the CD appeared, threatening sales of the LP format. At the time that cassettes were selling in meaningful quantities, LPs were having major issues with defects—I was working at a record retailer [Tower] at the time, was one of those assigned the duty of re-sealing defective records, we got more than enough to make re-sealing and re-selling those defective LPs a daily assignment. So, as bad as cassettes are/were, at one time cassettes were competitive with LPs for sales and mix-tapes were king.

 

[mhardy6647]

Hmmm – the record head appears to have been removed and replaced by a guide of some sort – hopefully rotating. A rather odd-looking shield has appeared on the replay head.

All these unapproved modifications won't do the value any good at all

I'd sell EDIT: I'd consider selling a kidney to get one.

That one has had its electronics lovingly (and somewhat painfully, IIRC) restored by its owner -- these are great decks, but they're a commitment.

 

[xr100]

I was working at a record retailer [Tower] at the time

Happy memories of visiting one of Tower's flagship locations "back in the day" at London's Piccadilly Circus...

The magazine section was in the basement, and stocked various imported publications, as well as obscure fanzines and the like; the audio-related publications included Stereo Review, Mix, and Widescreen Review. I used to read them all and sometimes buy copies.

The basement was equipped with B&W Nautilius speakers, which looked cool, but for some reason never sounded very good. Maybe they were on line transformers?

The ground floor level (main pop/rock/etc. CD department) had one of the best in-store "background music" systems I ever heard. There were rows of small ceiling mounted B&W speakers in a paired back-to-back V shaped configuration, at least one pair for each aisle I think, augmented by B&W subwoofers. (Albeit they were more "woof" than "sub" but, they worked OK for music.) The speakers and subs were "low-end" models but the coverage was excellent.

There were plenty of listening posts, too, to check out the latest releases; alas, Tower's pricing was nothing short of insane. As a teenager that made it the last place you'd want to actually buy records, though it didn't stop better-heeled customers from marching in with their credit card and marching out with a pile of CDs!

Hmm... what's the connection with this thread? Oh, well... they had a small selection of audio equipment for sale housed in a glass cabinet in the basement, one of which was the famous Sony "Pro" Walkman tape recorder.

 

[mhardy6647]

If one thinks about (stereo) cassettes -- they are a worst case scenario as a medium for high fidelity.

casettebirthday_v2-lrg by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Between the low tape speed and the extremely narrow track width, it is amazing indeed the level of performance that was ultimately clawed out of the format. Still, saturation at higher recording levels, especially at higher frequencies (and even - arguably - with "Dolby HX Pro") demonstrates the fundamental limitations of the format -- which was, as mentioned above by someone, designed for voice, not music.

Dolby C and HX pro frequency response by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

pencil stat by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[xr100]

Speaking of old things...
On the off chance that anyone here isn't aware of this -- there is a tremendous resource of scanned documentation (most of it OCR'd and searchable) related to the commercial broadcast/radio/television/audio (and entertainment) industries (and hobbies) all under one roof at https://www.americanradiohistory.com/
For example, there are nearly complete collections of Audio, Stereo Review and High Fidelity magazine scans./

Thanks--I was aware of the site (e.g. Wireless/Electronics World archive) but I had never visited the homepage, and so didn't realise just how many different publications were available! A gift--or maybe the most terrible "rabbit hole" imaginable...

From the archives on that site, an advert for Dolby SR from 1991--reel-to-reel with Dolby SR exceeds the "resolution" of CD, and noise reduction obviates the problem of print-through (?!)

 

[Loonabae]

Hot take, on average:
High-resolution lossless digital (I consider it to be 2mbps+ whether it's DSD or PCM) >>Normal-resolution lossless digital>>>>>Well encoded lossy digital>>>>>>>>>>Vinyl>>>>Poorly encoded lossy audio>>>>>>>Cassette tape

Spoiler

Obviously, I left some analog formats out like reel-to-reel. It's just for brevity; you get the idea

Move poorly encoded lossy audio last, i rather listen to a crappy LP/Tape over a bad encode or it stuggling on a sample on any bitrate.

 

[xr100]

Dolby C and HX pro frequency response by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Somewhere, I have a copy of an old supplement that came with What Hi-Fi? magazine which contained reviews and measurements of a number of different tapes. (Very "out of character" since What Hi-Fi? is/was the magazine that refused to perform/publish their own measurements, ever.) Would be interesting to pull that out...

Tape frequency response is level-dependent. Crudely, the behaviour is like a weird multi-band dynamics processor.

 

[mhardy6647]

Somewhere, I have a copy of an old supplement that came with What Hi-Fi? magazine which contained reviews and measurements of a number of different tapes. (Very "out of character" since What Hi-Fi? is/was the magazine that refused to perform/publish their own measurements, ever.) Would be interesting to pull that out...

Tape frequency response is level-dependent. Crudely, the behaviour is like a weird multi-band dynamics processor.

Indeed it is. This graph is a tad misleading, in that it shows the performance of deck plus tape -- but it is illustrative.
These data stem, of course, from a cassette deck (albeit a pretty good one). Published frequency response specs for cassette decks were typically at -20 dB.

source: http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=52980

 

[scott wurcer]

Thanks--I was aware of the site (e.g. Wireless/Electronics World archive) but I had never visited the homepage, and so didn't realise just how many different publications were available! A gift--or maybe the most terrible "rabbit hole" imaginable...

From the archives on that site, an advert for Dolby SR from 1991--reel-to-reel with Dolby SR exceeds the "resolution" of CD, and noise reduction obviates the problem of print-through (?!)

View attachment 46238

That's not exactly what he said, in any case you can have print through from the cutting process also. Wouldn't the tape have to be at a specific radius on the reel to match groove print through. I have several of Bob's Nonesuch LP's a couple with audible print through, never timed one of them.

 

[Robin L]

That's not exactly what he said, in any case you can have print through from the cutting process also. Wouldn't the tape have to be at a specific radius on the reel to match groove print through. I have several of Bob's Nonesuch LP's a couple with audible print through, never timed one of them.

I remember the pre-post echo on "Down to Zero", from Joan Armatrading's eponymous LP. Have the CD files, no pre-post echo. It's another one of those "euphonic" distortions of the medium.

I always had the best results with cassettes using metal tape on the best deck with levels set high and no noise reduction. Musicians I worked for, given the option, would ask for those sorts of tapes in preference to one derived from post production digital copies. Of course, part of that was getting the tape on the spot, though I knew a few who wanted DATs. I also was listening via Stax earspeakers at the time, very revealing of surface noise, tape hiss and various flavors of distortion.

 

[xr100]

That's not exactly what he said

At that time--1991--Dolby weren't in yet the digital space yet, although they were working on lossy compression systems, commercialised as SR-D/AC-3 format film prints (Batman Returns in 1992) and (can't remember the year) Dolby Fax (ISDN) would follow.

In recording/production, there was a decision to be made whether to use analogue tape or digital tape; the main option for digital was Sony's DASH format, and the cost of acquiring such a machine was at the Ferrari level. Alternatives were emerging, such as the AKAI ADAM system; but ADAT hadn't quite yet arrived to conquer the lower-cost multitrack market. Also, a 24 track analogue recorder could be slaved to a 24 (or 48) track digital, should more tracks be needed or to avoid bouncing etc.

IOW, at that time there were reasons to use tape other than adding colouration, and, Dolby were heavily promoting SR as a means of achieving "CD quality." It was absolutely in Dolby's interest to keep their analogue noise reduction systems in use as long as possible, and in 1991 the end of their run was on the horizon. The impending launch of Dolby S for compact cassette use coincided with DCC and MiniDisc, although all three technologies (outside of, say, MD's success in Japan) only achieved niche status, with DCC becoming an "epic fail." IIRC, Dolby S had been touted as "backward compatible" with Type B decoders, but few pre-recorded cassettes ever made use of it.

I'm not sure why the ostensible quote from Bob Ludwig references AAD recordings, though, since there was no reason not to mixdown to DAT.

in any case you can have print through from the cutting process also.

?

 

[levimax]

The thing about tape, even "master tapes", is that they deteriorate over time (varies by formulation, storage conditions, etc.) I think the biggest surprise about LP's is that when stored in a reasonable environment they hold up amazingly well. I have LP's that are over 60 years old that play very similar if not identical to when they were brand new. That is why for some older and historically and artistically significant music the "best" remaining copies are on vinyl when the master tapes were lost or damaged before they could be transferred to digital.

 

[Robin L]

At that time--1991--Dolby weren't in yet the digital space yet, although they were working on lossy compression systems, commercialised as SR-D/AC-3 format film prints (Batman Returns in 1992) and (can't remember the year) Dolby Fax (ISDN) would follow.

There was therefore a decision to be made whether to use analogue tape or digital tape, and the main option for digital was Sony's DASH format. Alternatives were emerging, such as the AKAI ADAM system; but ADAT hadn't quite yet arrived to conquer the lower-cost multitrack market. Also, a 24 track analogue recorder could be slaved to a 24 (or 48) track digital, should more tracks be needed or to avoid bouncing etc.

IOW, at that time there were reasons to use tape other than adding colouration, and, Dolby were heavily promoting SR as a means of achieving "CD quality." It was absolutely in Dolby's interest to keep their analogue noise reduction systems in use as long as possible, and in 1991 the end was if not nigh then on the horizon.

I'm not sure why the ostensible quote from Bob Ludwig references AAD recordings, though, since there was no reason not to mixdown to DAT.



?

I remember that the Grateful Dead's "In the Dark" was recorded to Dolby SR, back in 1987:

https://www.mixonline.com/recording/classic-tracks-grateful-dead-touch-grey-367547

Like r100 sez, Dolby was doing it's best to keep a hand in the game, upgrading their analog noise reduction systems being one of their ongoing projects.

 

[Pluto]

Tape frequency response is level-dependent. Crudely, the behaviour is like a weird multi-band dynamics processor.

Which is why it sounds so good on drum kits.... amongst other things!

 

[xr100]

Which is why it sounds so good on drum kits.... amongst other things!

Er, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... ;-) (and I can't believe there isn't a better way? Such as creating your own settings for a "multi-band dynamics" (e.g. dynamic parametric EQ) processor, transient processing, etc.) At least percussive sounds tend to be "inharmonic" in nature so they can "survive" a lot of mangling...

In the late 1970's, Roger Nichols' Wendell units were first used (e.g. Steely Dan)--they allowed sampled drums to be "triggered" (and so could replace acoustic drums or used with the output of a drum machine to replace its own sounds.)

 

[Pluto]

...reel-to-reel with Dolby SR exceeds the "resolution" of CD, and noise reduction obviates the problem of print-through

It's close... remember that Dolby has the potential to reduce anything added within the Dolby loop, which includes print through.

I still have a few channels of Dolby SR, just in case. I do think that had they got SR to market two or three years sooner, along with the corresponding availability of Dolby S (+HX) on cassettes, the whole drive towards CD (and, possibly, digital audio in general) might not have been as pronounced as it proved to be. If, if, if, if.....

 

[xr100]

It's close... remember that Dolby has the potential to reduce anything added within the Dolby loop, which includes print through.

Good point.

I still have a few channels of Dolby SR, just in case. I do think that had they got SR to market two or three years sooner, along with the corresponding availability of Dolby S (+HX) on cassettes, the whole drive towards CD (and, possibly, digital audio in general) might not have been as pronounced as it proved to be. If, if, if, if.....

As I'm absolutely certain you know, outside of the "recording medium" and some "outboard" gear (reverb, delays, synths, samplers, etc.) it was long after the introduction of Dolby SR that the real digital "switchover" happened; SSL/Neve still ruled the roost for the centrepiece of signal processing and control, i.e., the mixing desk.

By the time a viable replacement was available, e.g. the Sony OXF-R3, the world was about to move onto Pro-Tools and subsequently full-blown DAW's that ran entirely on general purpose PC's, leading to the free-for-all that was the so-called "plug-in revolution."

Unfortunately, this led to a highly uncontrolled environment and zero quality control. There are absolutely outstanding plug-ins out there, among a sea of poor to mediocre options. The terrible performance of some is just astonishing, sometimes showing up even in basic measurements. Implementing DSP right is often non-trivial!

Excessive onus therefore is placed on the operator to be system integrator and have enough of a technical background, and time, to wade through everything. Alas, the situation is hardly better than consumer audio with an abundance of mystical beliefs, and the recording studio environment has substantially changed.

I even hear releases on major labels which don't even sound as though they have been professionally recorded and mixed, the poor quality of which cannot be blamed on the "loudness war." The best quality recordings that were tracked to multitrack analogue tape, even though there tend to be (relatively subtle) audible cues that they were, eat such material for dinner.