Cassette's Not Dead, Apparently!

[Beechwoods]

That was a lovely sample Alex. Nice machine!

[Beechwoods]

Since Alex has been so brave as to share some of his transfers, here are a couple of mine:

1: Aiwa AD-F450, manual azimuth adjustment, playback of a band demo cassette bought on eBay (the tape was a limited run sent to gig promoters). No Dolby. Recorded to Tascam DA-20 MkII DAT, then transferred to WAV on my G5 Mac via a Sony SDT-9000 SCSI DAT drive with audio enabled firmware. WAV to FLAC with xACT. No tweakery performed.

sample1 16 bit 48khz FLAC file, 35 Mb.

I had this deck for years, from about 1998 to 2007. It wasn't particularly special but the transfers I did on it really stand up, IMO...

2. Nakamichi ZX-7, playback of a TDK D60 tape recorded in 1990 on my then 6 year old Sony deck - can't remember the model. The recording was off Radio 2's 'Folk On Two', through an early 70's Heathkit tuner my dad made, with a decent external FM aerial. No Dolby on playback. Recorded to WAV on a Tascam HD-P2 compact flash recorder, WAV to FLAC with xACT. No tweakery

sample2 24 bit 48khz FLAC file, 64 Mb.

The deck I had back in 1990 was a mid-range component piece from around 1984. I used it to death! The door fell off... what can I say! I remember recording this tape. It came out really nicely, and is one I'm really proud of, given it's humble TDK D origins. Playback on my Nak was done without any azimuth messing about. No Dolby though. Dolby alignment across decks is a complete pain in the ass

This is what the tape looks like...

[tfarney]

If I had just come across this thread, without knowing this place, I would have thought it was satire.

Cassette is superior to well-done CD?

The prevailing belief system of the most vocal participants here is based in...I'm not even sure how to put it or where to start, but it has nothing to do with reality, and disagreement only causes reality, measurement, science, engineering, and the hearing and experiences of those who disagree to be questioned, without, of course any substantive arguments, much less evidence, against them.

Dave, you're wasting your breath. It was nice to see you guys, but really, there's not much point in participating here if you don't practice the religion.

Tim

[Alex Nikitin]

Hi Tim,

Cassette is superior to well-done CD?

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

The prevailing belief system of the most vocal participants here is based in...I'm not even sure how to put it or where to start, but it has nothing to do with reality, and disagreement only causes reality, measurement, science, engineering, and the hearing and experiences of those who disagree to be questioned, without, of course any substantive arguments, much less evidence, against them.

Dave, you're wasting your breath. It was nice to see you guys, but really, there's not much point in participating here if you don't practice the religion.

Tim

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

[tfarney]

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

Do you have any data to back that up or is all of it just your subjective observations? If the latter, I have good ears, have owned some very good cassette decks, and we can agree to disagree. If you are claiming the cassette is superior by any measure other than your personal opinion, I'd love to see the numbers.

By the way, I've owned some very good reel-to-reel machines as well, and this statement:

Top quality cassette recording is at least as good as a good 7.5 ips reel-to-reel, if not better.

...lacks credibility based on the basic physics of tape recording. Turn off all processing, equalize the basic quality of the tape and the hardware, and more magnetic material on more tape passing over larger magnets = more signal, higher resolution and lower noise. Every time. If this is what your ears tell you, your faith is ill-placed.

Tim

[Beechwoods]

Did you bother listening to any of the samples Tim?

[Dave Cawley]

SACD ?

Regards



Dave

[Marco]

Hi Tim,

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

My own experience on this matter is threefold:

1) I own an extremely capable high-end CDP and DAC, a very good turntable, and also a Nakamichi CR-7 cassette deck. I also own numerous albums which are both on vinyl and CD; thus I can listen and compare a variety of formats and recordings on different equipment, should I choose to, on a daily basis.

Now if I record one of those albums on vinyl to tape (NOS TDK SA90 - yes NOS tapes are better than the new stock variety ), and spend sufficient time making all the right adjustments, paying particular attention to bias and recording levels, and leaving Dolby noise reduction off, the resultant recording in terms of sound quality is significantly better than the CD of the same album played on my Sony CDP.

Aside from tape hiss, which doesn't bother me one iota, as it's only really noticeable between tracks and on quiet passages of music, the dynamic range, clarity, and 'hear through' quality of the tape recording via the CR-7 is no question whatsoever clearly superior to the CD version - even when the recording on CD is exceptionally good, but it is definitely much closer then.

I don't expect you to believe me, but there it is. The only reason I listen to my CDP more often is because of the convenience factor, and the limited amount of music that I've recorded to tape in comparison to the 1000s of CDs I've got - and because the Sony, too, sounds fantastic! I only miss what the CR-7 does when I do those types of comparisons, and its sonic superiority is so obviously showcased.

2) This doesn't have anything to do with tape decks as such, but analogue vs. digital recordings...

I have a friend up in Scotland who can make high quality copies of vinyl onto CD via a sound card and various bits of software, all of which goes a bit over my head, one of which though removes any clicks and pops on records, so that the resultant recording is virtually silent during or between tracks.

Last time I was up visiting, I took my turntable with me and some records (about a dozen in total) and we connected it up to his system and copied the albums onto CD. At the time we didn't get a chance to listen to the results properly in his system, as to do it properly, the recording process is rather time-consuming and afterwards we were too busy chatting, drinking beer and enjoying ourselves to get bogged down with 'serious' hi-fi stuff.

However, when I was in the car listening to the CDs we'd recorded on the journey home, I was stunned at how good they sounded compared to any of the 'bought' CDs I had with me. I won't enter into any of the usual hi-fi hyperbole, because it'll be relatively meaningless to you, but yet again I was faced with evidence that a high quality analogue source used in the recording process (instead of the usual digital entity) produced clearly superior results, reinforcing my opinion that all the 'AAD' recorded CDs in my collection were the best sounding ones for the very same reason as were the vinyl to CD recordings I had just made at my friend's house.

When I got home and played the CDs we'd made from vinyl on my main system, the results were even more obvious. Without going into a long drawn-out story, those dozen or so CDs are amongst the best (if not THE best) sounding in my whole collection - they sound simply awesome.

Lastly...

3) I have two cars - one with a high quality Kenwood CD player and speakers fitted, and the other fitted with an old Blaupunkt tape deck and bog standard, what I would call 'car door' speakers.

If I take a 'bought' CD of a particular album and play it on the Kenwood CD player in one car it sounds what I would consider to be excellent for a decent car CD player.

If however I take the same album recorded from my main system on either vinyl or CD, onto high quality chrome cassette tape via the CR-7, and play it in the other car on the Blaupunkt, aside from the obvious limitations of the poor quality 'car door' speakers, the sound is clearly superior in every way, tape hiss and all. I hear, on a much smaller scale, exactly what I described earlier between identical recordings played on my Sony CDP and on the CR-7 in my main system.

Now, like I said, I don't expect you to believe me, or rather more accurately, believe that the results with tape *were* actually superior - you will simply use your usual objectivist/measurements-based stance, and your own experience, to defend your contrary opinion - and that's fine by me. You are as 'right' as I am. But that will not detract from the validity of my own experiences and what I know I've heard.

I would gladly demonstrate what I've described above to anyone, so that they could judge for themselves and discover how high quality cassette when done well is a valid high-fidelity medium for recorded music.

'Dead' it may be in a commercial sense when compared to CD and vinyl, but it will always remain a treat for discerning connoisseurs with the patience and wherewithal to maximise its sonic potential, and the ability to appreciate its quite special musical qualities.

Marco.

[Alex Nikitin]

Do you have any data to back that up or is all of it just your subjective observations? If the latter, I have good ears, have owned some very good cassette decks, and we can agree to disagree. If you are claiming the cassette is superior by any measure other than your personal opinion, I'd love to see the numbers.

For example, here is a graph, showing the measured distortion of a cassette Type 2 tape (Sony UX-Pro) at 400 Hz v level, compared with the ideal distortion of a CD digital format (without added errors of DA and AD conversion, and without taking into the account that digital distortion are wide-band and subjectively much "harder"). I've used a mid-range deck as well, best decks and best tapes would show even better results. As you may see, the digital format shows unnatural rise of the distortion for quieter sounds, and magnetic tape is completely opposite and natural. This low level behaviour is responsible for the ambience of the recording and CD just can not compete - there is not enough resolution.

...lacks credibility based on the basic physics of tape recording. Turn off all processing, equalize the basic quality of the tape and the hardware, and more magnetic material on more tape passing over larger magnets = more signal, higher resolution and lower noise. Every time. If this is what your ears tell you, your faith is ill-placed.

My ears are quite a reliable instrument . However you are oversimplifying the situation. Basic physics of tape recording is not just about more magnetic material, but its qualities as well. And in this respect the quality of best cassette tapes and heads are far better than tapes and heads available for reel to reel recorders. And there is some solid physics behind it. It is much easier to make a thin tape with a better magnetic material - a thick R2R tape of that kind would be too rigid. You need to go to higher speeds and wider tracks on R2R to beat the humble cassette format. 2 track 1/4' at 15 ips would be definitely better, but at a price.

Cheers

Alex

[Marco]

Hi Alex,

This low level behaviour is responsible for the ambience of the recording and CD just can not compete - there is not enough resolution.

I think that succinctly explains why I hear with tape what I've described in my last post

For me, recordings on cassette tape, when done well, have unquestionably higher resolution than comparable recordings on CD.

Marco.