Printable View
Hmm properly implemented 16bit 44.1KHz is better than 24/96. 24bit resolution with upsampling is not only impossible in the first place but with more artificial etched highs. Cassette can also be awesome though. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Nikitin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Nikitin
Indeed.
Btw. I've finally managed to find the Frequency Response Chart from the factory that measured this particular deck of the model.
..and the result was pretty much what I suspected through my ears. I'd say overall the flatness of frequency response from 25 to 20k of this model is about the same as your modified 122, even at slower typical casette deck speed, but with this important difference.
The 'bump' you see usually at the bottom end is indeed quite smaller than even your modified 122 at higher speed. How small? About 33% smaller than your modded 122. The 'high's' are about the same, but 'Mid's' are flatter on your modded 122, how flatter? About 50% flatter, but with the benefit of higher speed than typical cassette speed on mine.
The higest W&F DIN is indeed better on your modded 122. Mine lists 0.7% DIN at 1.875 ips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Nikitin
You know what I agree with you on that one. I think this fellow explains why so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yomanze
http://www.mother-of-tone.com/cd.htm
Yes, personally I feel that even when cassette may not sound as great as properly implemented cd, at least on paper, it is definitely less tiring to ears than digital. After all, by definition, analog is softer than digital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yomanze
Are you trying to say that less information about the original signal is better? Sorry, that is silly. Obviously, a poorly implemented digital equipment, whatever the format, could sound very bad indeed, but a "properly implemented" 24bit 96kHz format recording would always be miles better than a "properly implemented" 16bit 44.1kHz recording. I am not talking about "upsampling" etc. but about the original recording format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yomanze
I'll agree on that ;) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Yomanze
Cheers
Alex
Not directly related to cassette but my ears tell me that music that I have recorded from vinyl to CD and then transferred to the Mac to play in iTunes sounds better than a commercial CD of the same music.
I do find my wife's top of the range pioneer cassette player very musical although we have very few tapes now.
I suspect there is still some part of the human ear/brain interface that the engineers / specification brigade haven't quite decoded as yet.
One can argue over how many bits are really necessary; but, that statement makes absolutely no sense if one truly understands the difference. Taken as what it is, it is not possible for a higher sampling frequency to be less accurate than a lower one, unless the designer of the ADC was drinking heavily at the time, as well as smoking a bong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yomanze
Analog tape (especially over 16/44.1) is truer to the orignal analog wave form. When talking about CD one always gets the numbers and there is some truth in the numbers. SNR is great. Dynamic range is great. The number one doesn't get is the percentage of the original analog wave form that was actually recorded (retained) in comparison to an all analog format. This isn't insignificant. This is what makes analog recording sound more believable, convincing and accurate... because, it is. Not even mentioning open reel, cassette tape has largely reduced tape hiss to a moot point with 3-head decks, Dolby S, dbx Type II, high bias tape and even double speed. (Sadly, many consumers never got to hear cassette done right; but, instead, remember the sound of cheap and poorly aligned decks.) CD's SNR and dynamic range just makes it easier to hear that only a percentage of the original signal ever made it to storage. It takes some pretty dang clever digital filters and algorithms to make 16/44.1 sound "good/right". Newer DAC designs jump thru hoops and have come a long way. Still, it doesn't beat having more samples from the get go. The article at the other end of the link you provided has some very good illustrations that seem easy to understand. Thanks for adding that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVillageIdiot
Glad you spoke up, Alex. I was biting my tongue, trying not to be the first to say something. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Nikitin
I think most are agreed that the loudness war thing has really bastardized the CD format (yea, most modern digital formats). Vinyl, the lion's share of what's out there, certainly from the beginning 'til up to the '80's, is largely devoid of the compress the "hell out of it and make it LOUD" mentality so pervasive today. When digitizing LP's, few of us do that. Therefore, the dynamic range (naturalness) of the LP is preserved. This is where the dynamic range of a CD actually has a chance to shine. It still chops up and discards info in the recording process; but, at least it's not squashed like a gnat with a whole bunch of clipped peaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Steadman
Precisely, they are working hard on it and I actually hope they succeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Steadman
Nice post Biff :thumbsup:
Having read this thread with interest,I gave it a quick test today using her indoors as the guinea pig.
Recorded the original vinyl lp to cassette...
recorded the cd to cassette making sure the gain was equal....
so now I have 4 things for my other half to listen to:
cd
cd copy to tape
vinyl copy to tape
wav thru sbt
Blind test......she chose the vinyl to cassette copy every time...
I was actually surprised myself
Hi
im just re-visting tapes dug out my old tape deck and was quite suprised on the quality a tape can have. i was playing my old rock tapes from led zeppelin to guns n roses. the sound was impressive.
And still Tony(thevillageidiot) wont tell us what his favourite cassette deck is,even though he is in the USA and we here in the UK are unlikely to be snapping them up from over there...Im still racking my brains:scratch: