One of the main concerns of any audio engineer is to adopt the better circuit typology to use the better and the less electronic devices that must be crossed by the audio input signal to achieve his intents. Sound "doesn't like electronics".
The same way, any studio technician should only use the necessary electronic equipment so the sound do not get unnecessary distortion.
As any CD, DVD has a typical dynamic range of 100dB, I don't see the need to use sound compression devices as R2R.
Oh... how could I forgot: the R2R warms up the sound, so it gets nicer to be heard!
This takes me to the original title of this forum: "Any reel to reel lovers out there". I believe there are more R2R lovers out there even don't knowing they are, because they enjoy listening "warm sound" CDs mastered on R2R devices.
Daniel.
I have been doing quite a few master recordings since the 70's.
CD is based on the Redbook format with only 16 bit 44,1 kHz sampling frequency.
I have been using 24 bit 96 kHz sampling freq. and 32/192 pro HD sudio recorders as back up to my analog R2R tape recorder when doing master tapes as a tape operator/sound engineer.
CD is by far inferior to 24/96 digital encoding, not to say 32/192.
The reason I don't switch so that the R2R is back up and the Pro HD studio Recorder is the primary unit is because the R2R do a better job.
You might need to be able to compare to the analog reference comming out over the edge of the stage or comming out from the boxes in the studio to understand this.
Furthermore people need to understand that they can't compare a worn down consumers low-speed quarter track Philips R2R from the early 70's with baked tapes to anything and then decide that analog R2R is not competitive.
To audition differences in sound quality, a well matched chain of source, amps, speakers and listening-room are needed.
You might find that your judgement was based on far from optimal terms.
"dolph"
