Reel to Reel vs. Needle Drops-What's the Better Recording Option?

I have a pretty decent collection of original pressings of Blue Note, Riverside, Contemporary and Columbia jazz lp's. I am entertaining what would be the best sounding option for recording these onto another source for playback. Would it make more sense to invest money in recording these onto reel to reel tapes or would I be best served by making needle drops of these albums? I have no experience with either option. I do own a Studer A807 2 track machine that is capable of 15 ips recordings. I currently only use it for playback of Tape Project reels and 2 track options from the 50's and 60's. If I choose this route, I would need to invest in tapes and make sure the machine is properly calibrated and aligned for recording purposes. On the digital side, I have a 2010 Mac Mini in my system, but I would need to invest in an ADC unit and any additional software needed for this purpose. I would love to get any advice or experience you folks might have on this subject. FYI... the rest of my system includes a modded Lenco L-75 , a Luxman SQ-38U integrated amp, Wavelength Cosecant 24/96 DAC, a Zesto Andros phonostage and LaHave Mela Speakers. Thanks in advance for your input!

 

I like reel to reel as a romantic notion. Cost to performance, ease of use and ease of storage all say digital.

 

All great points... I must say, that the playback on my Studer can be absolutely breathtaking! That's the only reason I was even considering reel to reel for recording purposes. I wish I were more handy when it comes to tinkering with and calibrating equipment.

 

I 'm sure it does. I would even guess that your records put on tape might sound "better" than the LPs, with their bass bump and the little bit of magic tape does.

 

I would go in the digital direction. Storage being the biggest issue. Maintaining the tape deck will be work, finding tape will be difficult, 10 1/2" reels are bulky. If you want reasonable program length at the best possible sound you'll need to use big expensive reels of tape. And I would suspect that a good hi-rez a/d will produce fewer audible artifacts than your very high quality tape deck.

 

I do not have as good a reel to reel deck as you. (Mine are primarily Revox PR99's.) I had mine specifically biased for RMGI SM911 tape. Like Pinknik said, I do find tape does that thing that tape does; but, overall, I really, really love the results; my ears love it, that is, with no objections. However, whether it's RMGI or ATR tape, goodnight, the stuff is 'spensive! Worth it; but, 'spensive. I drop to RMGI SM911 and RMGI LPR35 every now and then and will someday soon try ATR. I am not impressed with DSD64 or 24/96 at all (unless we're just saying it's better than CD). 24/192, which I burn to DVD-R, is an entirely different story. YMMV. For me, 24/192 is beguiling in it's ability to make me believe I'm listening to the source, with only very subtle high frequency hints that I'm not. It errs on the side of detail/correctness that is amazing and a little less charming while still being engrossing, if that makes any sense. DVD blanks can be had for next to nothing, 20-30 cents a piece. As far as I know, there still aren't many standalone audio-only disc spinners out there that can handle playback of these discs. My high res recorder (modified Tascam DV-RA1000HD) is also currently my high res player. The discs must be "formatted" for the player which is a bit of a PITA. I can't just drop high res wav files on a disc and pop it in this machine. It won't read them. You seem to be angling toward a computer based setup for high res; so, that shouldn't be an issue for you. I couldn't encourage you enough to go 24/192 (or DSD128) if you go the digital route. I think your system (L-75/SQ-38u/Zesto Andros), your music and your ears deserve going the extra mile. And, just to confuse the issue a bit more.... If RMGI/ATR were selling tape for as cheap as DVD blanks and my reel to reel tech's bench fee was a lot cheaper, I'd be full steam ahead analog without even so much as a passing glance toward digital.

 

Get a Tascam DR-22 or a Sony PCM-M10 and record your needle drops at 2496 wav and let your computer do the rest. You can even burn them to DVD-r's using Cirlinca. Super easy and not as cumbersome as R2R. The high rez files sound great.

 

Since you already have the deck why not use it!!! The tape will sound better hands down in my opinion, of course I am bias towards the tape because of the obvious and my high investment into tape!!! Tape does have that magic to it, it even has a way of making CD's sound better!!!

 

I would skip it and just listen to the vinyl when you wish to hear the music.

Needle drops, I would think would serve you better in the future if you end up selling off the collection. The needle drops I have made, even at 44/16 sound pretty darn good and can easily show minor improvements I've made to my vinyl rig.

 

------------------------
I should also add that once they are in your computer you can play them back easily and that quality will only depend upon the DAC you use. I am a huge fan of 2496 and the higher rez formats require additional hardware and possibly some software for you to use properly. You can use an affordable program like NCH WavPad or Sony Sound Forge Audio Studio for 24192, but you will most likely have to invest in a new DAC or have those files down-sampled by your computer's sound card. I am quite happy with the noticeable improvement in smoothness of 2496. It is all I record now for my own projects. It is just obviously too much of an improvement to do less. If all I was going to do to my lps was convert them to CDs I would just play them.

 

Every logical thought says digital, to playback casually, particularly as background music. For critical listening, most of us know that the record, through the equipment you described, will be much more satisfying when you really want to sit down and listen. So, save the vinyl for those occasions.

That said, I choose the tape. I don't care about "logic" when it comes to enjoying music. I care about musical romance and involvement. If I want convenience, and choose to be lazy, I watch television. When I want beautiful music, that will hold my full attention, I don't mind the extra work to thread a tape or dust-off a record.

I have a CD-R recorder, which I have used about 5 times... and an Otari 2-track 15 ips, that I play over-and-over with stunning sonic results.

 

That's a fine Studer machine you have. I do both digital and tape. Tape is the more romantic option as suggested in this discussion, but digital a much less costly option. My current deck is a Pioneer RT-1050 (two track 15 ips) a good deck, discrete transistor in the signal path and very good sounding. I am not so inclined to run the deck too often, since head life is finite, and wear will affect tape to head contact and performance, a drawback to consider when going to tape. The Studer heads and the same on Revox machines are designed to maintain perfect tape to head contact throughout their usable life, so relap of these heads is never necessary. My Pioneer has just the typical permalloy heads, so excessive head wear can become an issue. For my ultra precious records, I will go to tape. For everything else I go with a stand alone CD recorder and back up the disc to a WAV file.

 

While WAV files don't sound as good as a recorded CD - the difference seems much less than I remember in the past...
I am out of my depth with all these methods mentioned above - I used to use Cassette tapes and spend ages fine tuning them to get a good sound
sometimes I used a reel to reel - but not an especially good one - I now use a CD recorder deck but am having trouble obtaining alternative CD RW
makes and I like to use those rather than CD-R initially as I can correct mistakes easily - then copy them to a CD-R after, also rip to MP3
If I could understand other formats and find I could still do all I now do I would go for it - but I know nothing about them whatsoever

 

I have a Nagra IV S-TC which is a cracker, but I wouldnt bother to put an LP on it
I did that back in the 70s with a Revox A77,played the disc once and transfered it to 1/4" from a Technics Direct Drive and topped and tailed the tracks I wanted
Now I would transer to computer with a good ADC (Apogee), sort out noise issues, and make a WAV file
This I might transfer to tape just to see the wheels go around and the needles flick, just like my friends vintage Bentley,poetry in motion.
However the file will sound just as good,possibly better, is your Studer a quiet runner?
Tape scrape was always irritating in a domestic setting
A WAV is a wonderous file and will survive trans coding vandalisation to MP3 192 Khz or the glory of hi res
Your Studer will only be ok at 7 1/2 ips and feeble at 3 3/4 ips if it has it

PS all tape heads wear and need constant attention,as do guides, rollers and pinch wheels just like a Bentley

 

Maybe a Tascam DA-3000 or the same as modified by Decware.
http://www.decware.com/newsite/ZDSD.html

 

For tape transfer of vinyl, 7 1/2 IPS half track is just fine. I do both digital (for travelling) and analog tape. Your Studer is a superb machine, one of the finest ever made,

 

I like reel-to-reel as the best sound quality option. I believe with that Studer, even 24/192 dubs will not even come close to producing satisfying SQ by comparison.

 

I can't imagine how the digital wouldn't "even come close". On the other hand, I've never done a side by side comparison. Tim de Paravicini said that digital would have to have a sample rate of 384kHz at 24 bits in order to be able to resolve on a par with the best analog, and he makes Ultimate analog. So what do I know?

 

About 5 or 6 years ago the CEO of an audiophile equipment company and I were discussing 'hi-rez' needledrops, me mentioning 24/96 and he told me that if you really wanted to get digital to sound as good as your records, you needed the sample rate you mentioned above. He he attended a 'shootout' blindfold test (LPs vs. needledrops) at an audio equipment show in Germany and that's the sample rate level at which listeners started to not be able to tell the difference. I was interested, but the DAC/ADCs necessary were FAR out of my price range...maybe someday. Meanwhile I cruise way down here at 24/192 and it's OK in a pinch. Very easy for me to tell the difference, by the way.

 

Yeah, there is some special "fairy dust" sprinkled onto recordings when I dub them with my modest-but-excellent Teac A2340. Too bad tape is expensive, and maintaining and using a R2R is such a PITA.

At any rate, I find listening to tape to be a lot more fun than digital... probably because you get to watch the reels spinning.

 

Cheaper for that machine than it is for us who have half track/high speed machines too.

 

Which DAC do you use?

 

Furutech ADL GT40α:

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/hi-fi/furutechadl-gt40-alpha-dacadc-400578

It's a nice unit for the price, though I don't need all its functions. I don't use the phono stage, but I've been digitizing my albums with it and it works and sounds nice. Quiet and smooth. I use the headphone amp quite a lot too.

 

I would love to hear quad DSD or 24/384! Yep, as good as 24/192 is, I can still hear the difference between it and the source. Pinknik pointed it out in a previous post, many tape machines do have a "bass bump" (and roll-off). I certainly don't eq to compensate for this with needledrops. I was just reviewing a comparison of freq resp for notable studio r2r decks. The latest iteration Studer was definitely the flatest. Most others had noticeable bass bumps and significant roll-off before they got to 20Hz (to which extent speed played a role, of course). So on one hand, there's that naturalness of tape that just puts that smile on my face... and then there's what to my ears seems to be near flat freq response from DC on up to crazy (lol) of high res digital, which easily tracks the low frequencies that my TT/arm/cart/phono stage spits out. If I had custom heads, a custom tape head amp and a Steve Hoffman in my pocket, my drops to the PR99 might get that good (in terms of flat freq resp), as is, not really. Even with that, I prefer tape. It's just too expensive for me to use all the time, or even much of the time.

 

Got it. I saw that in your profile but didn't know Furutech made DACs.