Printable View
The samples are irrelevant to the discussion. The samples could only give witness to the fact that good recordings can be made on cassette. I know that; I've done it. They would not exemplify that such recordings are superior to digital or equal to open reel recordings at 7.5 ips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechwoods
Tim
From a purely technical point of view a good cassette metal tape is equal or better than a good R2R tape at 7.5 ips - from the frequency response (especially at low end, as R2R has some serious problems there) to the dynamic range. Even a good Type 2 cassette is at least as good, with a possible exception of HF headroom. Another matter is that majority of cassette tape decks are nor reaching the limits of the actual tapes by far - usually at least 6 to 10 dB of the DR. However there are some decks which can push the format to the limit and now these are more affordable than ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
Alex
As someone who made the (now regretted) decision to 'go digital' several years back, and who's now returned to the world of analogue, the situation seems quite clear to me.
While analogue sources may have fallen out of favour for technical reasons, practical limitations and because they are out of place in a digital world, I have no doubt that when done properly, an analogue source, be it vinyl or tape, will sound better than a digital one, at least one which isn't truely high resolution (whatever that means).
Ultimately, voices and instruments generate sound as an analogue waveform, and we listen with analogue ears and what ever way you look at it, anything digital, be it editing, recording or reproduction, involves chopping that wave up and then gluing it back together.
Having also owned several heavyweight (both physically and financially) digital players and recording devices over the years, I have to conceed that regardless of some of their limitations (clicks, pops and hiss) there is a 'life' to analogue sources that I just haven't managed to replicate.
Even though I have hundreds of CDs and only a fraction of the number of records, if you handed my a wodge of cash right now to spend on source equipment, I know which direction I'd head in.
No problem, Marco. You prefer the sound of analog, that is established, and your preferences are not something subject to debate. I struggle with the way you always describe your preferences in such absolute terms, as if they are not your opinions, but an indisputable fact supported by a mountain of data, even though the opposite is often true (in which case you summarily reject data), but I understand that is the game and once learned to let it pass once. I will re-learn.Quote:
Unfortunately it looks like we're going to disagree again, but please don't let it bother you. All we can do as human beings is form an opinion on a subject from our respective subjective experiences, and also what we think we *know* by absorbing information from objective research. Your opinion in that respect is as valid as anyone else's
Tim
So very few have ever had the chance to listen to well done Cassette tape recordings.
Only very few cassette decks in great recording and playback quality were made.
Of those, very few were in the ownership of people with great gear to connect it to.
Of those very few instances where there is a great quality Cassette Tape Deck connected to other great quality gear, very few owners had the skills to make great sounding recordings.
Of those very few with the machine the gear and the skills, very few had any quality source to record.
I'm not surprised that very few people believe it when I report that even the best CD's played on the best CD players have a hard time compared to some of my cassette tape recordings.
But then when people listen they, for sure, get convinsed.
This is not a debate to win or loose.
This is not a debate that can be argumented for or against with data sheets or dynamic analyzes.
This is about acknowledgement of the fact that there are so many more parameters creating the wholeness of the great soundstage, than what's already defined and connected to know units to measure with.
This is about the acknowledgement of the fact that dynamic is not only the difference between the highest peaking non distorted sound and the lowest peaking audible sound to be heard at the same volume level.
Dynamic is also the understanding of the natural invironmental surrounding noise incooperated in the skills to balance the saturation of a recording to include the finest microdynamics instead of approaching the rutine of digital "black background unnatural noisefree invironment without microdynamics".
This debate is also about acknowledgement of the fact that tape formulations for cassette decks were so way ahead of tape formulations for open reel decks and that maybe 10% of tapes aimed at the high quality recording market were lacking from insufficient quality control and belonged in the bin instead of in the machines.
This debate is in it's substance partly about the well known and beated up dispute of analog versus digital sound quality.
To understand how insane hard it is to to get experience from the best sounding option within Cassette tape decks, only around 40 decks were made of what's consindered the best playback machine and only around 400 were made of what's considered the best recording machine.
To understand how hard it is to get experience with the best sounding CD gear, some tests have been comparing what in certain points of view is considered ultimate with a cheap VHS/DVD combo machine from a local supermarket and verdict was that the cheap won.
Some say it's due to upsampling and some say it's the DAC doing it all. Some say it's the running gear and some say it's all about tubes.
no matter what, the difference in prices on CD gear is unfair considered the little variation in sound quality it gives compared to transducers in a set up.
The variation is exactly limited by the Redbook standard to some mediocre level.
More interesting would be to compare the best cassette with the best24/96, 24/192 or 32/192 hard disc based digital recording units.
I already did the 24/96 and 24/192 comparison to my best cassette solution.
And I also compared it up against Open Reel 15ips, ½-track of the TOTL professional machine.
"dolph"
Exactly. Even my crude comparison graph shows that the CD format has got a serious problem at low levels compared even to a medium quality cassette.Quote:
Originally Posted by niklasthedolphin
Another interesting side of analogue recordings is their long life. Vinyl records are not ageing and I have 45 years old R2R tape recordings in my collection that still sound great - same for some 20-25 year old cassettes. Modern digital recordings on CD-R may not be as reliable as a plain old tape stored properly.
Alex
Hi Tim,
Yep, I prefer analogue because to my ears it reproduces music more accurately and believably than anything so far that I've heard from digital.Quote:
No problem, Marco. You prefer the sound of analog, that is established, and your preferences are not something subject to debate.
First of all, there is no "game". All I do is relate my genuine experiences and opinions based on what my ears tell me. If my opinions come across as "indisputable fact", then I apologise, as this is not my intention. I am passionate about what I believe in and put my points across confidently and robustly - that is just my style :)Quote:
I struggle with the way you always describe your preferences in such absolute terms, as if they are not your opinions, but an indisputable fact supported by a mountain of data, even though the opposite is often true (in which case you summarily reject data), but I understand that is the game and once learned to let it pass once. I will re-learn.
Most importantly, though, if you don't know by now Tim, there is little in life which disinterests or bores me more than "a mountain of data", or any kind of measurements in relation to hi-fi, simply because I consider the vast majority of it irrelevant for my needs as an end product user and music lover.
I know that such things are of great influence when forming your opinions on hi-fi, but it's the complete opposite for me, and I think that's a fact we both have to learn to live with here when interacting with each other. There is simply no point in bringing the matter up, as we sing from completely different song sheets.
I trust my discerning ears implicitly, no matter how much of "a mountain of data" exists to 'prove' the contrary of what I hear. Audio is not a perfect science - there are too many things we can genuinely hear, yet not measure, and so for me it's a fallacy to judge audio solely or largely on scientific terms.
I read this today from someone elsewhere which for me neatly sums things up:
:exactly:Quote:
There is no correlation between measurement and the musical ability of a product. Measurements are for the designer / the maker and tester / the repairer. For everyone else they are a waste of time, in fact more than that they are potentially a deflection from reality and good choice.
I couldn't agree more!!!! In fact, I almost feel like adding it to our ethos.
I also completely agree with Steve, who for me hits the nail firmly on the head:
Hear hear! :clap:Quote:
Ultimately, voices and instruments generate sound as an analogue waveform, and we listen with analogue ears and what ever way you look at it, anything digital, be it editing, recording or reproduction, involves chopping that wave up and then gluing it back together.
... And thus in the process lose a lot of important information responsible for making music sound real, as opposed to a processed sounding poor relation of such, exhibited by its digital counterpart.
Marco.
I've been following this thread since the start. Much of what I think has already been said. But I feel I have to add to what Steve has said (and quoted by Marco above):
It goes waaaay further than that, though doesn't it? Not only is the wave being chopped up, but most of it is being consigned to virtual landfill.Quote:
Ultimately, voices and instruments generate sound as an analogue waveform, and we listen with analogue ears and what ever way you look at it, anything digital, be it editing, recording or reproduction, involves chopping that wave up and then gluing it back together.
No matter how much or little you chuck away, what remains can only ever approximate fidelity.
There is so much to music that we don't know how to quantify - show me the oscilloscope that measures musical emotion. You can't quantify it but I know when it's missing.
Tim
Nice to see you back posting again...I missed you.
Can I suggest you find an owner of an Otari MX5050 mk3 or mk2 and listen to a recording on that or better still a recording from the Tape Project played back via such a machine modded by the Tape Project( this has been demoed at a number of audio shows in the US recently). At a pinch a good well cared for Revox B77 mk2 or perhaps a Technics RS1500. If these are in full fettle then I think you will be impressed by what is possible. Also try and see if you can hear a Nakamichi CR7 or CR5 (I have one of these) with a properly done recording on NOS Metal tape TDK MAX or the like. There might be a member of Tapeheads.net near where you live ...very friendly guys; the forum is very similar in spirit to AOS. I am sure if you asked someone would help out.
I have yet to hear a Reel to Reel (something I hope to remedy very, very soon;)) but I am very familiar with what my Nakamichi CR5 can do (a wee bit behind Marco's CR7) but I can assure you it is stunningly good.
Can I say this is an excellent thread with some super contributions all of which I have found interesting and (no surprise) I agree with most of them...those that are pro tape.
Regards D S D L
hi all,
well i have to agree with most of what you guys have said, with the exception where i find in favour of measurements to a degree, test measurements do indeed give an indication to a degree as to what a piece of equipment might perform like, but its what it dosent tell us thats the key to what we hear and feel that provides us with the emotional factor in music.
A...