Cassette's Not Dead, Apparently!

Quote:

---

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...

---

Absolutely - you *need* to measure and conduct objective testing as an equipment designer, but I don't need to as a buyer of the finished product, or indeed even require to be concerned with such things. I simply have to listen and judge the results with my ears :)

This is my point, and why measurements or 'scientific data' of any kind influences me not one jot with hi-fi. I form opinions only from my listening experiences.

Quote:

---

...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.

---

I like that - how profound and how true. No wonder I buy your gear and enjoy it so much, eh? :eyebrows:

Marco.

Meanwhile, let's all remind ourselves of what a proper music machine looks like:

http://www.hifiworks.co.uk/images_fullsize/nak4.jpg

Feck yer modern tat! ;)

Marco.

Reel-to-reel rocks, but I personally prefer the humble wee cassette :)

One thing I've always loved though was VU metres - they look cool and, done well, they're accurate.

I hated it when cassette decks moved to those bloody neon light indicator things!

Marco.

Or one of these magical units.

"dolph"

Tandberg - sheer class! :smoking:

Aside from anything else, you have to marvel at the stunning engineering of these things, which makes plastic digital crap look like the substandard toys they are.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Tandberg - sheer class! :smoking:

Aside from anything else, you have to marvel at the stunning engineering of these things, which makes plastic digital crap look like the substandard toys they are.

Marco.

---

Indeed.

I take from your lack of comments on the R2R that you did not recognize it.

This brand - this machine and another line up from same manufacturer - took over in recording and radio studios from Nagra, Studer, Stellavox, Ampex, Telefunken and other TOTL Professional machines.

"dolph"

Quote:

---

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.

---

You missed my point entirely, Marco. It's not that I think that data is more important than listening or that I expect you to think that data is important, it's that language such as:

Quote:

---

the CR-7 is no question whatsoever clearly superior to the CD version

---

Quote:

---

unquestionably higher resolution than comparable recordings on CD

---

Quote:

---

reproduces music more accurately

---

...has no place in a purely subjective discussion. "Accuracy," "resolution," and "superiority" are not subjective terms, they are terms with specific meanings that sound very much like they come from empirical evidence, not from someone's preferences or tastes. They imply data in support of your opinions, which is never forthcoming. If your intent, as you say, is to merely express your opinion, not to declare it to be fact, they are mis-used in this context.

You also have completely mis-read my relationship with data. I don't use it to form my point of view, that was done by decades of listening to, playing and recording music. I do, however, enjoy the fact that what I hear is supported by the evidence. :cool:

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niklasthedolphin

Or one of these magical units.

"dolph"

---

I've come across the Lyrec Frida before, but not heard one in person as it were. I would love to! They are incredibly well spec'd machines, but well out of my price range sadly.

Likewise the Tandberg - I would love to hear a very high-res sample of something off that deck. I know digitisation defeats the object but it's the only realistic way of getting a feel for the capabilities of a machine via the internet... if you were in the UK it'd be great to have a tape Bake-Off - all our machines in one room playing our best tapes through some decent front-end gear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Nikitin

Hi Tim,



Well-done cassette is certainly superior to a well-done CD. Obviously, there are plenty of crappy recordings in both formats.



There is nothing religious about it. Top quality cassette recording is at least as good as a good 7.5 ips reel-to-reel, if not better. CD is only good on paper, in reality the distortion of a good cassette tape is better than the distortion of CD-format (16 bit 44.1 kHz) for levels below -30 dB (from maximum) in midrange. The only real disadvantage of the tape is noise and I can live with it. On a good cassette a dynamic range over 65 dB is possible without noise reduction and it is not much worse than DR of a good vinyl recording. I can easily tell from a pre-recorded cassette if it was digitally processed or recorded from a CD, compared with a fully analogue recording. CD is just not good enough for a quality sound. To better a good quality cassette you need to go hi-res, 24 bit 96 kHz.

Alex

---

I'm not sure that's correct, but I haven't taken measurements to confirm either way.

Vinyl, in the midrange, has a THIRTY DB dynamic range at best. It's MUCH worse in the bass, but above 1KHz it increases dramatically to give the 60 - 70db you quote. Vinyl distortion is audible on a good system [often in double figures] and not just measurable, especially at end-of-side.

Cassette can sound very good indeed (but almost always slightly different to the source [I owned several big Naks, including a CR7]). It's unstable and not to be relied on, but as a once convenient domestic source, it had its place.

Now this hairy old thing about CD distortion! Apparently, CD distortion isn't too good at minus 70db according to Noel Keyward, but 20 or 24 bit encoding at the recording/mastering stage, together with modern editors has improved the studio end well. [Digital] noise shaping (bit-mapping) has improved quiet midrange signals to the point where they excellent and if 16 bit CD has a problem, it may be in accurately reproducing bass distortion on over-modulated analogue masters, caused by stoned out engineers using the tape as a limiter. Bearing in mind that the dynamic range of most recordings isn't much more than 40db and the fact that VERY few pickup cartridges have stereo separation greater than 30db in the midband, together with the fact that many analogue masters have little musical info above 16KHz or so (distortion and noise yes, but no music) and roll off above 19KHz most often....

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. The few I have are on metal type tapes and were still playable a few years ago...

The joys of rose tinting old memories.......:lol:

Tim,

Quote:

---

You missed my point entirely, Marco. It's not that I think that data is more important than listening or that I expect you to think that data is important, it's that language such as:

Quote:

---

the CR-7 is no question whatsoever clearly superior to the CD version

---

Quote:

---

unquestionably higher resolution than comparable recordings on CD

---

Quote:

---

reproduces music more accurately

---

---

LOL. I think we're missing each other's point, Tim! Perhaps I should have added 'to my ears' after each of those statements, because that's exactly what I HEAR when making such comparisons in my system.

Unless specifically stated, everything I write is only my opinion, based on what my ears tell me. Did I say, for example: "IT IS A FACT that analogue equipment reproduces music more accurately" - no. Therefore, it is simply my opinion based on my listening experiences :)

Quote:

---

...has no place in a purely subjective discussion. "Accuracy," "resolution," and "superiority" are not subjective terms, they are terms with specific meanings that sound very much like they come from empirical evidence, not from someone's preferences or tastes.

---

I understand your point, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

If I think something sounds subjectively more 'accurate' than something else, then I will say so, and use that terminology when describing why I consider it to be more 'accurate'. I don't need empirical evidence in order to judge "accuracy", "resolution" or "superiority" in that context, even though you may think I do. I simply use my knowledge and experience of listening to both live and recorded music over many years as the benchmark.

Whatever gets nearest to that benchmark is thus deemed by me as being more 'accurate', but of course this is not in any way factual, merely my opinion: it is more 'accurate' to me - and that's all that matters. Others reading who share my subjective opinions will hopefully be able to relate to my version of 'accuracy', which is why I use that particular terminology.

So if you see me use those terms again in posts, just mentally fill in the blanks with the words 'to my ears' ;)

Also - and this is the nub of the matter - as I consider measurement apparatus to be completely useless, outside of its most basic function of measuring certain known electrical parameters, simply because human beings do not hear music in the way that test equipment measures sound (again only my opinion, btw!), the only true form of 'accuracy' is that which is deemed as 'accurate' by an individual listener in the context of his or her system, based on his or her benchmark.

If we agree that not everything in audio which needs to be measured *can* currently be measured (and there's plenty of evidence to suggest this is true - I can supply examples if you wish), then how can we use current measurements as a true benchmark for accuracy?

And by "accuracy" in that context I mean that which makes music sound most like real music, not what most closely resembles certain determined electrical parameters, as indicated by devices such as oscilloscopes or spectrum analysers. Measuring music signals accurately is a very different and much more complex entity which requires an alternative testing methodology.

That's why I use my ears as the arbiter for anything in hi-fi, not test apparatus, and why empirical 'evidence' gleaned from such, influences me not one jot!

Quote:

---

You also have completely mis-read my relationship with data. I don't use it to form my point of view, that was done by decades of listening to, playing and recording music.

---

Ditto with me; apart from the playing bit. You have just described the benchmark from which *you* form your opinion, as I also did earlier. The fact is that neither of our benchmarks is indisputably more 'accurate' or worthy than the other.

Quote:

---

I do, however, enjoy the fact that what I hear is supported by the evidence.

---

I would contend that your 'evidence' is no more 'accurate' than my 'evidence'. You hear what you hear, and I hear what I hear; measurement apparatus also measures what it measures. Nothing or no-one is irrefutably 'proving' what equipment (or process) is most 'accurate' at reproducing recorded music - and that’s a fact! :cool:

Marco.