1950/60's Format Wars! Was there vinyl / reel to reel debate?

In light of the constant CD vs. vinyl sniping that goes on here and in other places, I was thinking about when LP vinyl records became the dominant domestic force of music reproduction. At the time you could also buy prerecorded reel to reel tapes (and could up until the late 60's/early 70's I think)

Was there debate in the hi-fi community about the preferred format and the pros and cons of the two formats?

Were there reel to reel people who said that records were awful and tape was the way to go? Records obviously were more convenient to play, but never having owned a reel to reel player they do look far cooler than a record deck! What would life be like if reel to reel became the dominate format?

 

I had a reel to reel tape (TEAC) in the early 70's. To my recollection there was such a sparsity of albums on tape available that I can't see how such a debate could flourish. I primarily used it for mix tapes and don't believe I purchased more than one or two albums out of curiousity. Plus at that time cassette tape was starting to come on and its convenience visual killed reel to reel for me.

 

For a few years before stereo LPs were on the market there were stereo releases on tape - hard to not argue it's superiority in that case. But there still weren't a whole lot of titles you'd wanna listen to anyway.

 

Any meaningful hi-fi debate over reel vs disc would probably have taken place in the late 1950s. I know I've seen lots of tape hardware and software ads when I've looked at hi-fi magazines of that era. There's probably a lot scanned online. Spoiler: for commercial distribution of home entertainment, records won.

 

These were obviously available until the early 70's

 

Sorry Steve, was the reel to reel $17.50 in the 50's?

 

Records are so much easier to deal with by a long shot & much more durable. But sound wise reel to reel were quite excellent, of course records too. I had nice results from reel to reel, but mainly used that to record, records at the time. Did anyone else have issues with reel to reel where you could here the other side of the tape in quiet passages of course, going backwards and very bassy? This annoyed me no end, I usually just recorded on 1 side of the tape because of this, but I'm sure this was just my issue on 1 machine, but curious if this was an issue for others.

 

As a Starving College Student in the early '60s, my reel to reel collection consisted almost entirely of home-recorded tapes, either from the library or borrowed vinyl from friends. FF to mid-60s, I bought some reels - which by that time had come down to under $10 each - but still mostly recorded my own. I don't feel the commercial tape market ever really amounted to much, and certainly weren't a threat to records. And then there was a great shift to prerecorded 3-3/4 instead of 7-1/2, which removed the one big advantage tapes had - better SQ and no clicks or pops.

Then of course, cassettes put the nail in the coffin for reels...although still a big home-recorded market.

Cheers,
Larry B.

 

How would today's best turntable setups compare?

 

I swear I'm not making this up. A few weeks ago I had a dream - and you were in it (I don't even know what you look like) and you had this reel to reel machine - it was totally bling with volume meters and just looked awesome - we were in this studio and there was also turn tables, and MD decks that looked like nothing I've seen before (again with analog meters on them) - and you were giving me the R2R deck and it was pretty awesome. That dream felt so 'reel'.

I know a month ago or so you posted a photo of a R2R deck and I guess it just stuck...

 

Detroit Muscle:

To answer your original question, no, once Stereo LPs were available around 1958, there wasnt a format war among audiophiles, for the simple reason that there were far, far more stereo Lps available than reel to reel tapes, so audiophiles were very happy to jump on the stereo Lp bandwagon and use the Hi Fi mags of the time as a forum for their views. Reading them today (which I do a lot of) is fascinating.

Where there WAS a real difference of opinion was in the Stereo Classical LP corner. There was a group of classical music fans who did not like the way the Classical stereo LPs were mixed. The argument was that if you went to a symphony, you didnt hear the music as you did on a stereo record. The record companies answer was basically "the symphony hall cannot be recreated at home realistically, Stereo is an approximation", which is 100% true. So the upset classical fans boycotted the stereo Lps for the mono. Kinda dumb, but thats the way it was.

 

So for today a $6000 TT rig would sound better than a studio released reel to reel? If you could even find one. A clean copy of most records can be found for less than $300.

 

Reel to reel was king back in the 50's. There wasn't any debate of what format was superior. That was not to last ... heading into the 70's, commercially pre-recorded reel to reel tapes had become so cheapened, that they were far inferior to records. Convenience always wins in the mass market. Early stereo tapes were half track 7.5 ips, a valid high fidelity format, but they played in one direction (no side B) so you had several minutes of rewind time after (or before) each play. The 7.5 ips 4 tracks had side B which took care of the rewind inconvenience, but at a small penalty of half the track width, a bit higher noise floor and less total dynamic range. When they went to 3.75 ips, reel to reel became the lesser format, an attempt to make the format more convenient. (less tape for lowered manufacturing time and cost and lowered shipping cost to retail stores)

Records had been the dominant domestic force back to the 1920's. It was a familiar format. Technology was a major driving force in the 50's as it is today, but didn't seem to apply to motivating people to buy superior formats. (both cost and convenience override superior quality, just needs to be acceptable) People had record players, not reel to reel decks. Records were affordable, reel to reel tapes were not. Stereo was introduced commercially first on pre-recorded reels for "inline" heads (ie: RCA Stereo Orthophonic Tape recording, Everest, Mercury, etc) then later in 1957 on vinyl. Despite prolific advertisement, stereo was very slow to overtake conventional mono. (both on tape and on vinyl) Stereo records were not compatible for play on the vintage monaural cartridges, not without instantaneous destruction to the record. People who owned relatively new hifi sets were reluctant to dispose them and replace with a new Stereo console. The stereo catalog was thin at first. Only the more affluent, and sound conscious person explored the luxury of stereo. It actually took about 10 years for stereo records to begin out-selling monaural... about 1967. This was not because tape offered superior fidelity, even in 1967 on 4 track stereo, it was because everyone had a record player, and forever stacks of records to play on them.

 

If it is of any interest, there were lots of people who swore for reel-to-reel over vinyl down here in Argentina back in the day. I know I was one of those guys, but the unavailability of titles and the price of the machines made vinyl a hand-down winner.

 

Yes, and the LP listed for $5.95. The LP got discounted often, the tapes weren't. And remember that you were looking at a $600-$1200 tape machine to play them on and an additional amplifier and speaker to play them. Yes, tapes cost that much back then often. And many were shortened content wise compared to their LP equivalents also.

 

A contemporary artist I follow has released her last two records as a limited numbered issue of reel-to-reel tapes (along with CDs and vinyl), at if I remember right more or less $100 a pop. I just looked at her site and there's no trace so they must have sold out.

 

I enjoyed playing one of my MIX tapes on my 7" open reel deck this very afternoon, and it sounded wonderful. 7.5 IPS,
QUANTEGY Formula 457 1800'.

I have owned reel-to-reel decks almost constantly since about 1973, and always knew better than to buy albums on commercially produced tape in any format. In fact, I only purchased about 4 albums on cassette before discovering the tape used was unacceptable sonically. Plus the transport/housing marriage was less than ideal.

I would imagine economics, convenience, availability of the media and hardware (and hardware service), plus fitting those huge consoles into the average living room of the period while adding another 40 lb machine plus cords took care of the format becoming dominant.

Of course, there was (and always will be) the consumer who strives for top-quality performance, can accommodate the equipment physically, and can afford it.

GT

 

This. It's amazing that these records were always produced with such incredible sonics and yet the vast majority of gear available at the time - even the higher end stuff - simply wasn't capable of "unlocking" the full potential of the LPs. That's the great thing about technology/engineering and the march of time I suppose. State of the art analog now is so many miles ahead of what was out there in let's say, 1955. I have no doubt that back then the competition was much closer and in favor of the tape for many people, even after 4 track and high speed duplication came into play - which really only served to make things cost effective and cheaper to make, at further expense of the sound quality.



Some of the early stereo 2 tracks still sound absolutely sublime but you can't help but feel that something is missing. And the prices that some of the more desirable titles command, like some Mercury or RCA classical titles... it's probably not worth it in 2017 compared to the cost of a clean LP, which ironically will likely have greater dynamic range and a lower noise floor, at least when you're comparing 2017's vinyl playback equipment with slow speed dubs on 1950's low grade tape formulations.


Of course today's tape releases are an entirely different story...

 

Also Steve, the record isn't affected by 60 years of storage. The tape may have degenerated simply from storing it, and impossible to quantify since we do not have the ability to time travel back to 1955 to make that comparison. Suffice to say, vinyl is not subject to fidelity loss from storage, nor to corruption as digital files and formats are.

 

There was no format war, or even much debate about LP vs. r-t-r tape. There was plenty of chatter about tweaking and maintenance of tape decks, choosing the best tape for the deck and the recording purpose, just as there was about tweaking and maintenance of turntables, cartridges and stylii. From the late '60s through the late '70s when I was active in audio clubs, there was never any doubt in anyone's mind that true dubs made from first and second gen master tapes were the best thing to buy if you could afford it.

During a little over 28 years of regular r-t-r use - almost always with a Revox, occasionally with a Tascam - I never purchased so much as a single commercial release on tape. I barely bothered with cassettes either, although I wish I still had the excellent 1979 Alpine/Alpage cassette deck I had back then. Great machine.

What I and most of my friends used r-t-r for most often was to make recordings of LPs in order to preserve the very best ones. The next most frequent use was to make mix tapes of favorite tracks for repetitive use or to give as gifts to music loving friends with the machine to play and appreciate such things.

There was a thoroughly enjoyable place for both formats, just as there are plenty of enjoyable places for all the formats that exist today.