R2R Tape vs Vinyl - which is closer to the Master

Mike

Mike

Audioshark
Staff member
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
30,488
Location
Sarasota, FL
When Bob Katz visited me, we got to talking about R2R vs vinyl. Sonics aside, Bob said the LP is "closer" to the actual master than the tapes in my collection and said he was never a fan of a "copy of a copy". Scratching my head, I asked him to explain.

He said the $450 R2R tapes were likely a copy of a copy whereas the LP was most likely a lacquer to stamper which are cut from the Master.

This left me a little perplexed, so I emailed Chad at Acoustic Sounds. Chad explained that they make a copy of the Master and then use that copy to make the copies which they sell. So at best, it's a copy of a copy.

We can debate for a long time whether the R2R sounds better than the vinyl. Both are great, but there is little doubt to the sonic prowess of R2R (as one would hope for the cost involved) and there is little doubt the lengths Chad & Co. go to to make the absolute best tapes they can.

Here are a couple of videos on the process involved with the R2R tape production at Acoustic Sounds:

https://youtu.be/6Ur8ivMD8vQ

https://youtu.be/bkWel_Y0O-w



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike,

I don't know Bob, and would not presume to know exactly what he is meaning......regarding the vinyl being closer to the master than your tape dubs. I would need to dig deeper to understand. but Bob is not here to ask those questions......so we are left to guess his meanings.

first off; mostly vinyl is made from safeties too, not the original master, but there are specific exceptions, but they are exceptions. so that one is not too legit.

maybe he is judging the likelihood of the dubbing process or playback gear as not up to snuff.

and being cynical; maybe his comment has to do with how and where is bread is buttered. he has no revenue streams from the sale of tapes, OTOH he does make his income from CD's and vinyl.....and his comments protect his customers. which he is ultimately accountable to for his comments. not us audiophiles.

it would be interesting to hear him discuss that with Paul Stubblebine of the Tape Project......a recording and mastering engineer (does all the Reference Recordings mastering) who certainly views low gen master dubs as a superior medium to vinyl.

anyway, for what it's worth my 2 cents is he is wrong. I have invested in top level RTR decks and have lots of master dubs from various sources, and when the tapes are right, they smoke the very best vinyl......as much as I love my vinyl. and I know what vinyl can do.
 
Mike - he felt once you go copy to copy you lose a lot in terms of sound related to the master and the vinyl is one step closer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
Mike - he felt once you go copy to copy you lose a lot in terms of sound related to the master and the vinyl is one step closer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I call 'smoke screen' to that. generation differences are pretty subtle verses the vinyl mastering process.

in my room, I've done dubs off my 2 Studers that were almost impossible to hear any difference with, and I would guess my system tells me more than his tells him. and that dub bested my vinyl equal to my earlier copy. so it just does not wash.

now if he were to claim that DTD (direct to disc) vinyl had some advantage over a safety dub that would make more sense, but still not quite wash in my experience.

anyway, I'm just an amateur tape enthusiast with an opinion, and he his Bob friggen Katz. there is that.:rolleyes:
 
Well, I always felt my Studer/Doshi beat the vinyl version too, so who knows?

Tape has that magic sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you copy a tape, the level of hiss for sure increases with every copy. That is easily measurable.

If you make copies of the master for a lacquer stamper, you might lose some groove definition (the question is how much), but do not add background noise similar to tape copying.

Regarding what sounds best, I think the truth is in the eye of the beholder. If I would buy tapes for $450 a pop, I would probably insist they sound the best.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
But isn't a record a copy (pressing) of the lacquer record that was made from a copy (safety) of the master tape. So most records are a copy of a copy of a copy.

Mike said:
Mike - he felt once you go copy to copy you lose a lot in terms of sound related to the master and the vinyl is one step closer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
the professor said:
But isn't a record a copy (pressing) of the lacquer record that was made from a copy (safety) of the master tape. So most records are a copy of a copy of a copy.
Click to expand...

it's fair to say early/first pressings of vinyl are extremely fine copies and that process does minimize generational losses. and I've done a ton of tape <-> vinyl comparisons. hundreds of them.

and when a tape dub is good, it surpasses even first pressings easily. which is my point, that staying with the tape medium has huge advantages in even finer minimization of generational losses.

I wonder how many low gen vinyl <-> master dub comparisons Mr. Katz has done?
 
AFAIK, a vinyl record is normally a 7th generation copy (master tape to running master to lacquer to father to mother to stamper to record). Tapes like Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds are 3rd generation copies (Master tape to running master to tape copy). Occasionally there are direct to disk records and one step process records which are closer to the master tape or the recording. But those are quite rare. There are also 2nd generation tapes made directly from the master tape. BTW, I have about 15,000 records and about 1000 reels of tapes (about half are 15ips 2 track either 2nd or 3rd generation.) My record collection cost more than my tape collection, but not a whole lot more!

Larry
 
astrotoy said:
AFAIK, a vinyl record is normally a 7th generation copy (master tape to running master to lacquer to father to mother to stamper to record). Tapes like Tape Project and Acoustic Sounds are 3rd generation copies (Master tape to running master to tape copy). Occasionally there are direct to disk records and one step process records which are closer to the master tape or the recording. But those are quite rare. There are also 2nd generation tapes made directly from the master tape. BTW, I have about 15,000 records and about 1000 reels of tapes (about half are 15ips 2 track either 2nd or 3rd generation.) My record collection cost more than my tape collection, but not a whole lot more!

Larry
Click to expand...

+1.

amen, Larry.
 
Mike Lavigne said:
Mike,

I don't know Bob, and would not presume to know exactly what he is meaning......regarding the vinyl being closer to the master than your tape dubs. I would need to dig deeper to understand. but Bob is not here to ask those questions......so we are left to guess his meanings.

first off; mostly vinyl is made from safeties too, not the original master, but there are specific exceptions, but they are exceptions. so that one is not too legit.

maybe he is judging the likelihood of the dubbing process or playback gear as not up to snuff.

and being cynical; maybe his comment has to do with how and where is bread is buttered. he has no revenue streams from the sale of tapes, OTOH he does make his income from CD's and vinyl.....and his comments protect his customers. which he is ultimately accountable to for his comments. not us audiophiles.

it would be interesting to hear him discuss that with Paul Stubblebine of the Tape Project......a recording and mastering engineer (does all the Reference Recordings mastering) who certainly views low gen master dubs as a superior medium to vinyl.

anyway, for what it's worth my 2 cents is he is wrong. I have invested in top level RTR decks and have lots of master dubs from various sources, and when the tapes are right, they smoke the very best vinyl......as much as I love my vinyl. and I know what vinyl can do.
Click to expand...


Mike , err , Both ..:)

If i read into what MikeS has posted it appears Katz is not talking about which is better sounding , but which is closer to the master and a copy of a copy is less so than a direct cut to LP ( DD for eg) from the masters. This is not to say the R2R sound less , it really means it's different....

Years ago when we were involved In studio mastering work i have done direct cuts to acetate from tape and they were fantastic and comparable to the tape masters .. Maybe Katz feels the current copy to copy process is being manipulated to jazz the sound up and in this case from a purist( mastering) point of view they are different from the original masters ..

There are many reasons why SOTA level tapes playback subjectively trumps LP playback , its academic really ...


BTW MikeL ,

Which side the bread is being buttered from was an unfortunate stab , im sure R2R sales is not keeping BK up at nights and in the music world , across the board respect for all work is universal, I'm sure you meant nothing malicious , just an unfortunate interjection..



Regards
 
Mike Lavigne said:
I call 'smoke screen' to that. generation differences are pretty subtle verses the vinyl mastering process.

in my room, I've done dubs off my 2 Studers that were almost impossible to hear any difference with, and I would guess my system tells me more than his tells him. and that dub bested my vinyl equal to my earlier copy. so it just does not wash.

now if he were to claim that DTD (direct to disc) vinyl had some advantage over a safety dub that would make more sense, but still not quite wash in my experience.

anyway, I'm just an amateur tape enthusiast with an opinion, and he his Bob friggen Katz. there is that.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I would bet your system tells you differently not more from his .. :)



Better is subjective and Mastering requires a work horse known to the person mastering and that whole mastering speakers vs hi-fi speakers are two planets lightyears apart. If you have done that comparison you will realize very quickly that most if not all hi-fi systems would fail as a mastering setup and most top notch mastering loudspeakers would fail in a hi-fi setting

Two totally different tools for different environments and desired results ...

Your system may subjectively be the pinnacle of hi-fi reproduction , but has nothing in common with mastering tools , Katz's job is to give the sonic illusion and production desired by the producer ..


Regards
 
a.wayne said:
I wanna believe he meant DD, LP's ....
Click to expand...

No, he was talking about LP's. His opinion was Tape to tape to tape loses so much.

I also don't feel LP's are 7 "copies" removed from the Master. 7 steps isn't 7 copies that degrade the sound each step of the way like copies of copies of copies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Best way for a self experiment , is get a first gen copy and purchase another months later from another run and compare ..

Then theres tape degradation which is significant vs LP wear ..
 
a.wayne said:
Best way for a self experiment , is get a first gen copy and purchase another months later from another run and compare ..

Then theres tape degradation which is significant vs LP wear ..
Click to expand...

Good point. I will tell you what does sound amazing is copying a CD to tape. I'm also wanting to try MQA from the Berk REF2 to my Studer. That should be damn good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If your tape allows you to recieve and send and your pre has a tape monitor input , loop your CD's or LP playback through the loop adjust and play with VU level and dont be surprised if on some recordings you prefer the tape loop playback ..


The added Harmonics was prolly MQA 60's style .. :)
 
a.wayne said:
I would bet your system tells you differently not more from his .. :)



Better is subjective and Mastering requires a work horse known to the person mastering and that whole mastering speakers vs hi-fi speakers are two planets lightyears apart. If you have done that comparison you will realize very quickly that most if not all hi-fi systems would fail as a mastering setup and most top notch mastering loudspeakers would fail in a hi-fi setting

Two totally different tools for different environments and desired results ...

Your system may subjectively be the pinnacle of hi-fi reproduction , but has nothing in common with mastering tools , Katz's job is to give the sonic illusion and production desired by the producer ..


Regards
Click to expand...

probably better that I don't go down this particular road. I will simply leave my comments as I wrote them and move on.

it's a no win situation.
 
I'm a vinyl lover, but there must be a reason why studios work(ed) with tape. I guess vinyl is the consumer medium and R2R the professional one.

This is however the level where my audiophilia ends, so I am not chasing after the ultimate copy. That does however not mean I would not be very intrigued for some audiophile friend to demo his or her tape collection to me one fine day. That would be special.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
Good point. I will tell you what does sound amazing is copying a CD to tape. I'm also wanting to try MQA from the Berk REF2 to my Studer. That should be damn good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Interesting Mike, to what end would you transfer the digital formats to tape? To get rid of the glare?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top