The VU meters and the big reels spinning smoothly and quietly at different speeds make for a great visual!
The article states that Tape is higher quality than CD. I'm not sure I'm convinced.
The problems with tape is the magnetic charges will diminish over time, static charges are an issue, oxidation of the ferrous particles. However, I don't know how quickly these are a problem. I do know that official archives (such as libraries/gov't would have) went optical because they saw it as a more durable medium!
I wonder how TLSGuy's old tapes are holding up after 30-40 years?
They also had the following statement:
Somehow, I thought we were talking analog recordings.
I wish they would take the old R2R master tapes and copy them directly to CD without compression. Sure they would incur DAC processing, but I think that is better than the decay of tape.
These people are nuts.
Reel to reel machines need constant mechanical adjustments and electrical calibrations. To maintain the machines, requires expensive calibration tapes, VET VOM, phase and distortion meters. A frequency counter and a wow and flutter meter. A dual channel O-scope is also required.
To equal CD performance, you need a 1/2 track machine running at 15 ips. That means you will get through and an expensive 10 1/2 reel of master tape every 30 minutes. So that means you need at least two reel to reel machines in good working order. Also you will need an outboard pro noise reduction unit. This also requires careful calibration to avoid pumping.
If everything is all pulling in the right direction you will just about get flat to 20 KHz at full modulation. In my experience only Studer heads will get down to 20 Hz. I have never found a Japanese machine flat below 30 Hz.
To best CD would require a tape speed of 30 ips. The you will get through a reel every 15 minutes.
Doing pro bono work for the public radio station for outside broadcast cost me a fortune in master tapes. Even in the pre digital era running cost were over $40 per hour running time and that did not include the tape for the dubs for editing. Unlike digital there is loss with a dub. editing was by block and razor blade, rocking the tapes with headphones on. It is a highly skilled and arduous process.
That is why I was an early digital adopter.
As far as how the tapes hold up. There is a difference between brands. Unfortunately Ampex master tape from the 70s proved to have a binder that became unstable with time. I have had to bake quite a few tapes to digitally archive them.
Tape is actually not a good high fidelity medium. It fails on both ends of the spectrum. It requires increasing HF boost as tape speed is lowered, which results in tape saturation and progressive HF loss in the loud dynamics. Signal to noise degrades markedly as tape speed is reduced. For mastering a tape speed of at least 15ips is mandatory.
Lastly to play all the formats requires multiple machines with different head formats and a bevy of noise reduction units.
In my view the most durable storage medium is the good old LP!
