On Mar 22, 5:43 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
15 HZ TO 27,000 HZ with Type II tapes (FeCr) (NAB)
15 HZ TO 25,000 HZ with Type I tapes (standard FeO2) (NAB)
FeCr is Type III,
It was type II at the time Sony released it for their machine, the
specs on metal/chrome tapes changed shortly thereafter.
not Type II. I don't think there were ever any FeCr tapes
for Elcassette [sic].
I have a stack of FeCr Elcaset tapes sitting right here. Here's a pic
of some of them- you need to get your facts straight- you obviously
have no clue about this format.
Type II is "chrome equivalent", which is not the same
thing.
that was after they changed the spec, in the late 1970's/early 1980's-
FWIW, the FeCr tapes are SUPERIOR
You feel that analog sounds better than digital (or more accurately, the
analog machines you've heard sound better than the digital machines you've
heard). Have you ever stood in front of an orchestra, and compared what came
out of the recorders with what you heard at the microphones?
Yes. Analog tape with a single ended tube amp, reproduces an
orchestra most accurately. Not digital. You have a chance with SACD,
but DVD-A is doing a lot of BS-ing. The problem is this- DSD
recorders from TASCAM cost $10,000. So for home archiving, one can't
beat reel, cassette, or Elcaset tape. Even the arcane 8-track
cartridge sounds better to me, than a standard CD.
You shouldn't
express value opinions until you've done so.
I think you're the one jumping to conclusions here- you don't even
have the Elcaset tape types right.
Both analog and digital have problems. One of the major problems with
analog -- especially at lower speeds -- is time smearing of the signal. This
is audible (or seems to be audible) as a loss of clarity, definition, and
detail.
I agree- good point- which is why I would not even bother with
cassette, unless it's 3.75 IPS, with chrome tape at least.