Recently bought 10 rolls of Tri-X 120 for $177.00. Seems rather expensive.
Recently bought 10 rolls of Tri-X 120 for $177.00. Seems rather expensive.
Recently bought 10 rolls of Tri-X 120 for $177.00. Seems rather expensive.
A brand new audiophile professionally recorded/duplicated quarter inch two track or four track will set you back up to £400. You can usually specify 2 or 4 tracks, and 7/5ips or 15ips. New blank tape is somewhat cheaper but you can still drop £80 on a 10.5 inch reel of RTM LPR35 which is based on a well known BASF formula. A bit less for tape coated by the folk who used to coat Zonal tape (now sold as Capture). There's also ATR in America coating new RTR tape. But a bit like film, it's now down to likely just three companies remaining. There's still a market for a few home users such as myself, and some studios offer analogue tape or use "analogue only" studios as a selling point.
FWIW the magnetic tape manufacturers have similar issues to photo film manufacturers....getting hold of the chemicals needed. Chemical supply problems even affect little old me in my school laboratories, prices have doubled or more and lead times that were once a few days can be a few months now. And that's for commonly used stuff. It's little wonder film and tape manufacturing has been hit. They're both niche areas with little leverage with the suppliers compared to their big customers....in a market where everything has increased in price and lead times are unpredictable.
someplace buried deep in my "save these things" box, I have my bands original 2 inch master multi track tapes from our studio recordings. now if I could only find machine and desk to play them back without having to pay the ridiculous hourly rate that studios charge..... We did master them down to a 2 track master, but my GTR player has those tapes. I always thought analog music had a warmth to it that digital did't/doesn't have, hence the reason for me forcing the all analog recordings. probably the same reason I shoot film, there is an intangible feeling from an analog print/image
john
I believe that is an out of date observation. 10 years ago it might well have been true, but today is sloppy "journalism".
That could describe this entire thread. A heap of cheapskate hobbyists with grossly distorted understanding of price structures & who are not the target market (and arguably never were) for premium-level creative materials & who specialised in bottom feeding off overproduction/ surplus from market changes. Somehow I don't think any of them have even the faintest inkling of how much any premium art/ creative material costs today. A lot of them have far too many cameras & are unwilling to jettison them in favour of minimalising equipment & maximising quality materials that they will use in the next 12 months...
That could describe this entire thread. A heap of cheapskate hobbyists with grossly distorted understanding of price structures & who are not the target market (and arguably never were) for premium-level creative materials & who specialised in bottom feeding off overproduction/ surplus from market changes. Somehow I don't think any of them have even the faintest inkling of how much any premium art/ creative material costs today. A lot of them have far too many cameras & are unwilling to jettison them in favour of minimalising equipment & maximising quality materials that they will use in the next 12 months...
A heap of cheapskate hobbyists with grossly distorted understanding of price structures & who are not the target market (and arguably never were) for premium-level creative materials & who specialised in bottom feeding off overproduction/ surplus from market changes. Somehow I don't think any of them have even the faintest inkling of how much any premium art/ creative material costs today.
Unfortunatey the quote paints Agulliver in a bad light. His comment was about vinyl records and people who didn't even have a turntable. Further down that post he is actually in agreement with you
I was trying to back up Agulliver's point, however imprecise my choice of quote may have been!
I believe that is an out of date observation. 10 years ago it might well have been true, but today is sloppy "journalism". There certainly was a trend for people to buy vinyl records in order to have something to handle and perhaps put on display. Now they're played. Not always on sufficiently good equipment, but they're played. The same may not be true of the smaller but extant rise in sales of cassette tapes, they are mostly not being played by the young folk buying them. A bit of a shame because the few new releases that I've bought have been well duplicated. While I cannot buy film or cassettes at my local supermarket, there is a reasonable choice of LPs there. And it's been quite some years since I needed to "worry" about weather an anticipated new release from a favourite artist would be available on vinyl or not.
as for the cost of records Vs CDs....just look at the process to manufacture each item. A CD costs a few pennies to manufacture. A vinyl record actually costs a few dollarpounds. The vinyl will also in most cases be specially mastered for the format, sometimes by an expert mastering engineer
I don't know why Kodak's B&W film is significantly more expensive than Ilford's....except that the B&W film is Ilford's main product and a bit of a minority one for Kodak. What I don't do is envisage a fat executive in a large chair stroking a long-haired, white cat and dreaming up the next Kodak price increase. It's as "cheap" as it can reasonably be. We know their profit margins ain't big on film.
Vinyls sound horrible.
Sorry for sliding out of topic.
Vinyls sound horrible. It is extremely limited technology. They use an artificial EQ curve that if a sound or mastering engineer use will be fired.
If precision of sound and acoustic quality reproduction is needed digital recording and playback is million percent better.
Analog Tape is a lot better Than Vinyl.
If people enjoy analog “which i do as well” tape is a lot better Because it does not need to have all its lows and low-mid boosted and cut down artificially while do the opposite with mid highs like on a vinyls.
Vinyls are more for a show/fashionable craze that has more to do with look and placebo feelings than anything else.
An OK example is:
Vinyls are TMAX3200 shot at 6400.
Digital is tmax100
View attachment 342681
And can not really compare visual is totally different than sonic.
You might want to be checked out by an audiologist or ENT. Vinyl records sound well to everyone else.
No. They sound good enough. Music was popularlized on the production of lps - more than by any other medium. It is the standard. Small cassette tapes are worse than lps. CDs are better. People can say that CDs are worse as much as they want but a properly mastered CD beats the very best vinyl in terms of sound quality. A lot of the "classic" albums, though, got very poor CD issues.
You might want to be checked out by an audiologist or ENT. Vinyl records sound well to everyone else.
You might want to be checked out by an audiologist or ENT. Vinyl records sound well to everyone else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?