Cassette's Not Dead, Apparently!

I can't afford wine or beer. The way I feel at present I'd get drunk every day!!!!!!:(

I never ownee an M3D before although a few floated around the shops, but as you found, the N3D stylus isn't quite the same as the N21D we both use and enjoy.

Of course you have a great system to fully exploit what the CR7 can do, but my system with active pro monitors was well able to reproduce the slight losses of the analogue recording medium - one of the "absolutes" I was referring to :)

The absolutes I tried to work towards was what was in the original recording and to get as close to this as the mastering engineer would allow me. In recent times I've relaxed a bit and don't want the "clear, unvarnished, under-a-microscope" vibe of the small active ATC's I still have, much preferring the more relaxed but so lovely (on acoustic music) Spendors. When able, I listen to the BC2's for hours and hours without finding the music pulled apart or "analysed." This suits me fine, but I am aware of their weaknesses by comparison with modern speakers of quality. This "vintage car" vs modern hot-hatch analogy again.

Shopping calls. TTFN :)

Same here - I have to do some work now (for a change :eyebrows:) so we'll continue this later :smoking:

Marco.

With all this talk about the use of the word 'accurate', I've got to ask the question: Accurate to what?

Assuming we're talking about recorded music, which comes about as a result of a chain of digital or analogue (take your pick) electronics, when you mention accuracy, do you mean an accurate reproduction of:

a) what came out of the speakers in the control room?
b) what's captured on the recording medium?
c) the 'naked' instruments before their output goes down the long disruptive/corruptive path of hardware?
d) live music where the only thing between your ears & the instruments/speakers is fresh air?

I've never heard a hi-fi system yet that I felt accurately reproduced the last one & I don't suppose anyone else has either (though there are plenty of folks who'll swear their gear does exactly that).

Given all of this, surely the use of the word in our context can only ever be taken to have a subjective meaning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Grand Wazoo

With all this talk about the use of the word 'accurate', I've got to ask the question: Accurate to what?

Assuming we're talking about recorded music, which comes about as a result of a chain of digital or analogue (take your pick) electronics, when you mention accuracy, do you mean an accurate reproduction of:

a) what came out of the speakers in the control room?
b) what's captured on the recording medium?
c) the 'naked' instruments before their output goes down the long disruptive/corruptive path of hardware?
d) live music where the only thing between your ears & the instruments/speakers is fresh air?

I've never heard a hi-fi system yet that I felt accurately reproduced the last one & I don't suppose anyone else has either (though there are plenty of folks who'll swear their gear does exactly that).

Given all of this, surely the use of the word in our context can only ever be taken to have a subjective meaning?

---

This is close to my reference.

The Analog Reference: The music comming over the rim of the stage at a live event and - not the sound from the monitors - but the sound in the studio as it would be in the "boxes" with acoustic instruments.

This my reference with which I compare when I make master recordings on R2R, Digital Studio HD or DAW.

Result is the choise of R2R with digital HD studio in highest possible resolution as back up.

And from this; as close to "My Reference" Mastertape; I judge the quality of a stereo set-up.

No recording is better than the Original.

The Original being the source even though it might be the concert, the Studio gig, an LP or any other media.

But it is from how close the recording get's to the sound of the original that we can tell if the gear is good and if the Tape Operator is skilled enough.

"dolph"

Quote:

---

Given all of this, surely the use of the word in our context can only ever be taken to have a subjective meaning?

---

Exactly my view, Chris, but for some reason Tim appears to struggle with this concept... :confused:

In reference to "accurate" - I judge on the basis of my available benchmark (extensive experience of listening to live unamplified music over many years) as to how close any piece of equipment I listen to gets to that level of 'accuracy'.

I'm now waiting for Tim to list the vinyl and valve systems he's heard so that I can attempt to ascertain why they might have lacked clarity and punch.

When you listen to vinyl in your system, does it lack these attributes when your valve amp in is use? I would also ask the same question to anyone else who uses valves and vinyl...

My set-up certainly doesn't suffer from these issues on vinyl or CD, and I've heard plenty of active systems (large and small) over the years with which to make a valid comparison.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Cheers, but it's really unnecessary old chap :cool:



LOL. Now I *know* you've never heard a decent vinyl and valves system! :)

What you've described above is exactly how vinyl and valves sound in my system! There is no lack of clarity and punch whatsoever, and there are a whole lot of other things too going on which are just as important, or more important, than that.

Perhaps the vinyl and valves systems you've heard in the past were lacking in those areas, I don't know, but that's far from the norm when vinyl and valves are done right.

Also, there's a lot more to reproducing music accurately than "clarity and punch"!! If you want clarity and punch though, come and listen to my modified SL-1210 playing 12" dance singles through 30W of pure Class A valve amplification into 95db 15" driver Tannoys in huge cabinets - I'll give you "clarity and punch" you'll never forget, boy! :lol:

Out of interest, Tim, please name the vinyl and valves systems you've heard. I'd like to know what your benchmark is in that area.

Cheers.

Marco.

---

I go here reluctantly, suspecting that even as you insist on a subjectivist conversation rooted in the rarely stated MHO, the odds are very good that whatever answer I give you will just fuel your dismissal of my listening experience. Or at least that has been my experience here so far.

Quote:

---

LOL. Now I *know* you've never heard a decent vinyl and valves system! :)

---

Thanks for the obligatory smiley. What you don't know about my listening experience would take up far too much bandwidth on this small forum, and if you're at all serious about the above statement, I can only conclude that our definitions of clarity are as different as our definitions of accurate.

I believe the last "vinyl and valve" system I heard was vintage Thorens, McIntosh and Altec Lansing, but I could hardly recall for you all the vinyl and valve gear I've heard, and in what combinations. Marco, I'm pushing 60 so hard it's rolling away from me, and behind that stone is a lifetime of experience with audio -- midfi, hifi, digital, analog, tape, hard drive -- audiophile, sound reinforcement and recording. There is little I haven't heard, including a pretty broad variety of vinyl and valves, cassette decks and even your latest retro flame, the big vintage horn. I've even heard a few big Tannoys, though it has been a few years. They're a bit rare on this side of the pond.

I know exactly what big, efficient loudspeakers are and are not capable of; I've owned them. I understand them and even understand why the big Tannoys would hold such appeal for you and would work well in your system. Our disagreement is not based in my lack of listening experience, or lack of exposure to equipment. We simply disagree.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

Cassettes are a quaint, thankfully long dead domestic format that was a PITA at the time. I'm glad it's gone and that I have few precious recordings on it.

---

:lol: garage sale round my place this weekend chaps. All those CDRs with disc rot were a dream! Digital is definitely the way to preserve those memories ;)

There's no point in trying to compare the average home or studio sound setup with the live event, as most just don't and can't compare - Tannoys were ditched decades ago in classical recording because they were just too coloured and even the B&W 801's given to Polygram and EMI by the manufacturers (yes, given!!!) aren't that well thought of - last I heard, Abbey Road used one of theirs as a door-stop...... My beloved ATC 100A's didn't have anything like the dynamic range of the 200A's I was lucky to hear once in a domestic situation (god, they were awsome!!!) and the 100A's have more dynamic shading than 99% of domestic setups (even better in their SL form). My BC2's are fine on timbre yet I know Marco would fined them hugely lacking. That's ok, I can live with that for now (I have to...).

The nearest any of us can get to is what the mastering engineer allows us to hear on the original recording. In the early days of CD, these people would be given eny old taps of whatever generation (even cassettes :D) and asked to do a digital transfer for CD release. Thankfully these days, the best (re)mastering engineers insist on the earliest generation analogue masters and sometimes they strike lucky and get the 2nd generation mixdown masters for each track and digitally re-compile from there, rather than "adjust" the analogue third or fourth generation LP "cutting" master, with its mid boos, mono'd bass and RIAA pre-eq (my early CD of Tago-Mago by Can is so bright due to this eq being uncorrected it hurts - the LP has BASS and so does the remastered CD apparently!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beechwoods

:lol: garage sale round my place this weekend chaps. All those CDRs with disc rot were a dream! Digital is definitely the way to preserve those memories ;)

---

Over a twenty six year period of collecting CD's, I have a couple of discs (out of around 1500) that have rotted badly (Dove records Ozric Tentacles) which I've replaced with other samples of this mastering which are fine. I have a load of CDR's and a small number have discoloured slightly but shown no further degradation. many of the downloads I've done in the last 10 years are saved on DVD-R and they're fine too right now.

My mastering engineer friend worked at Decca from the mid eighties until the late nineties, when they closed down their own facility and sub-contracted everything. Many of Decca's tapes from the early sixties on were starting to break down and the Tom Jones recordings from the sixties were shedding badly after thirty years in storage. Seventies and early eighties Ampex tapes have to be baked, after which they can be played ONCE only to get a digital copy, although many fifties tapes are fine still. It was a race against time to transfer everything before it fell apart.

Don't you guys tell me that analogue tape is more stable, 'cos it certainly aint!!!!!!!!!!!


There is a tale that when Gus Dugeon was re-mastering the Elton John back-catalogue that a tape shredded before his eyes as it was being wound back to the start, apparently due to a combination of iffy tape and non-rotating guides on the playback machine. Thankfully, there was a digital copy done some years before and they could use that instead..

Tim,

Quote:

---

I go here reluctantly, suspecting that even as you insist on a subjectivist conversation rooted in the rarely stated MHO, the odds are very good that whatever answer I give you will just fuel your dismissal of my listening experience. Or at least that has been my experience here so far.

---

Whether you come here "reluctantly" or not is up to you. You're very welcome to post here anytime you wish, and do I enjoy our exchanges. However, a subjectivist conversation is all you're likely to get, as I'm a subjectivist and this is a subjectivist-based forum. As such, our conversations will always come back to these issues because our viewpoints are so diametrically opposed.

I'm not dismissing your listening experience - I am merely challenging it. What else do you expect me to do when you make statements which are completely contrary to my own (equally valid) experience? Just shut up and agree with you? :confused:

Forums are for discussing things!

You made a statement of vinyl and valves lacking "clarity and punch", so I merely asked what examples of vinyl and valves you'd heard to come to that conclusion, as it's completely the opposite of what I experience myself in my own set-up. That is hardly dismissing your listening experience; merely seeking some rationale.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the obligatory smiley.

---

I use smileys to indicate the mood I'm in when making a particular remark, not to be in any way flippant or disingenuous as you appear to be implying.

Quote:

---

What you don't know about my listening experience would take up far too much bandwidth on this small forum, and if you're at all serious about the above statement, I can only conclude that our definitions of clarity are as different as our definitions of accurate.

---

All I asked was for some examples of what vinyl and valves systems you'd heard. I didn't ask for an epistle on your sum total of listening experience to date ;)

And yes, I suspect that our respective definitions of "clarity" are different, and that yours is as 'correct' as mine. However, I also have to be honest and say I feel that you have a rather jaundiced view of vinyl and valves which is completely unrepresentative of what I enjoy from them on a daily basis, and probably also what others here do too from theirs.

Quote:

---

I believe the last "vinyl and valve" system I heard was vintage Thorens, McIntosh and Altec Lansing...

---

McIntosh I like very much, Altec I haven't heard, so can't comment, but it's certainly respected and deemed as a 'classic' loudspeaker by aficionados, and it depends what you mean by "vintage Thorens". The only Thorens T/T I rate is the TD-124 (an idler) - if it was some old belt-drive at the helm then these tend to sound rather soft and cuddly, so that could explain the lack of clarity and punch you're referring to.

Quote:

---

...but I could hardly recall for you all the vinyl and valve gear I've heard, and in what combinations. Marco, I'm pushing 60 so hard it's rolling away from me, and behind that stone is a lifetime of experience with audio -- midfi, hifi, digital, analog, tape, hard drive -- audiophile, sound reinforcement and recording. There is little I haven't heard, including a pretty broad variety of vinyl and valves, cassette decks and even your latest retro flame, the big vintage horn. I've even heard a few big Tannoys, though it has been a few years. They're a bit rare on this side of the pond.

---

Like I said, you don't have to write an exhaustive list - just a few examples would have done. It helps me understand better where you're coming from, that's all.

Quote:

---

I know exactly what big, efficient loudspeakers are and are not capable of; I've owned them. I understand them and even understand why the big Tannoys would hold such appeal for you and would work well in your system. Our disagreement is not based in my lack of listening experience, or lack of exposure to equipment. We simply disagree.

---

I have no problem with that whatsoever. Thanks for providing me with a small insight into the level of your experience in that area.

That we always so vehemently disagree on hi-fi is inevitable, and simply testament to our diametrically opposed mindsets. You believe what you believe, and I'll do the same. There is no reason to fall out about it :)

Marco.