dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:12:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2004 06:03:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One has to question the ears of someone who would keep it in use.

When dealing with inherently flawed media such as cassette, first
install the figurative nose clips. This deck is primarily used to
transcribe pre-recorded cassettes.

Why would you use this instead of decks that could optimize the
sound of such deficient cassettes?

Because I have other, far more flexible and powerful tools for
optimizing sound quality of prerecorded tapes during the
transcription process.

But why use something that doesn't measure as good as other decks that
you use?

Because I've compared results.

Why not at least start with the best source?

"practically as good as" suffices.

One of the advantages of your Tascam 122 is HX. HX does nothing for
pre-recorded tapes and tapes from your archives.

And your point is? That's only one "advantage".

Agreed, but...

The main advantage to me was getting a very good rack-mountable and
highly adjustable deck for less than $150. Plus, it's easy to get
worked on and adjusted here in Nashville, since they are almost the
standard for record companies (probably one of the two or three most
popular transcription decks). I've also heard that it's far easier to
work on than the newer models.

I look at the total system.

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2004 09:50:18 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

The main advantage to me was getting a very good rack-mountable and
highly adjustable deck for less than $150. Plus, it's easy to get
worked on and adjusted here in Nashville, since they are almost the
standard for record companies (probably one of the two or three most
popular transcription decks). I've also heard that it's far easier to
work on than the newer models.

What I meant by this is that this particular deck *was* virtually the
standard for many years (probably not so much now as if cassettes are
needed, they likely have the Mk3 or one of the nice Naks) and is
extremely well-known by every tech in town. They can work on this
thing in their sleep and will continue to be able to do so for years
to come.

I have no problems with the Tascam 122. At one point I seriously considered
getting one of my own, same source. Then I looked at the practical
perforamnce of the Tascam at hand.

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:23:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

if you want to see specs on a nice machine, check out the pp 17-18 of
http://www.tascam.com/products/122mk...III_manual.pdf .

This looks nice on paper but the devil is in the details and the
larger context. For example the flutter and wow numbers
systematically ignore many kinds of FM & AM distortion that are
there. The FR numbers are taken at an unrealistic -20 dB level. the
SNR numbers include some pretty agressive filtering. Not to detract
from the fact that it is a fine cassette deck. But its still just a
cassette deck.

I just quoted those specs myself in a previous post. I'm guessing that
they're very close to the original 122.

Not a lot has changed in cassette technology over many years but the digital
enhancements I covered in another post. This Tascam seems to ignore them.

How are the wow and flutter specs *any* different that the specs
quoted for the Sony?

We don't know for sure since the test conditions are not fully stated.

How do the SNR measurements differ than the Sony
in terms of how you can verify the filter impact?

We don't know for sure since the test conditions are not fully stated.

Yes, it's still just a cassette deck. But it's clearly better than the
Sony.

No argument if you're talking about my Sony. Sony does have some new
machines that look interesting, if one can muster serious interest in
cassette as a recording medium. I can't.

For someone interested in making the best cassettes that they
can, this deck is a good choice.

The relevant word is: "making". At the moment, my interest in making the
best cassettes possible is zero.

Making the best cassettes possible is like making the best candles possible.
Interesting in the artistic sense, but no practical day-to-day use for just
about everybody.

No, it's not a Dragon, but it doesn't cost nearly as much either.

It's not clear that the Dragon was THAT much better. No HX AFAIK. BTW, the
Dragon seems to have that despised auto-reverse feature...

And if you're willing to "settle" for an original 122, they are plentiful
and dirt cheap for what you get.

....if you want to make your own cassettes for some serious use.

Arny Krueger" wrote:



UnionPac2001 wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip



To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and
lightly-used higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use
quite a bit for cassette transcription work. It generally sounds
good to me. I use it at least weekly, but this is light use
compared to how a cassette machine would be used by a consumer who
primarily listened to cassettes. Its a multi-function box, but the
cassette part was rarely used.

Call me nosy, and this may have been answered somewhere in the other
71 posts in this thread (I only made it to post 15).

What exactly is a "multi-function box, but the cassette part was
rarely used"?

It's an odd Sony piece that had AM-FM, cassette, and CD changer in one box,
but no power amps. Over the years it has turned out that all of the
individual components were really pretty fair performers all by themselves
(the CD player being the most mediocre). The whole enchilada has been
reliable and long-lasting.

The CD changer was the only part of the combo that has received heavy use
and it still works pretty well, mechanically. However, it is a circa-1994
single-bit converter design. So, while the mechanics and tracking are still
pretty good, the technical quality of the converters is not the best, to say
the least. They are outperformed by the converters in a 2004 $39 Apex DVD
player. It's good enough to use to figure out that a freshly-burned CD plays
properly, has the tracks in the right place, etc.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HCD-VA550.

And to re-iterate for the umpteenth time in just this thread, this
particular cassette machine was chosen as an average-performing cassette
deck, not as a demonstration of the SOTA in cassette decks. The goal was to
have somewhat degraded performance as compared to the best that is
available. Teac pro machines and a HX-based machine on hand were
intentionally not used, because it was feared that they would be too much
above average for cassette machines.

The HCD-VA550 sounds like a very versatile, space-saving piece of equipment.
But I find it hard to believe that the cassette portion (auto reverse, no
less[eeew]) would be considered "higher end" Sony, as first claimed. It MAY be
considered "average-performing", depending on your definition of average. MY
definition of "average" in a cassette deck would probably cost in the range of
$200+ (with reasonably decent specs) for a single-well unit. YOUR definition
of "average" is obviously lower than mine, not that it matters either way.



Sorry I missed the point that:


this
particular cassette machine was chosen as an average-performing cassette
deck

Forcing you:


to re-iterate for the umpteenth time in just this thread

I was quite sleepy at the time. Sorry for the oversight.

Teac pro machines and a HX-based machine on hand were
intentionally not used, because it was feared that they would be too much
above average for cassette machines.

Understood. Thanks for the reply. : )

Jeff

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

Prejudice rules your pathetic life. The justice of life is that you are one
who has to suffer the most with your prejudice-ruled life, on a day-by-day
basis.

Apparently you are the expert on "pathetic". What makes you so sure that MY
life is pathetic? Just because I may be misinformed on this topic is no cause
to call my life pathetic. I'm reasonably sure there are some topics that I may
be more knowledgeable about than you are, but that doesn't make YOUR life
pathetic, does it?

Jeff

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


UnionPac2001 said to The Big ****:

Apparently you are the expert on "pathetic". What makes you so sure
that MY
life is pathetic? Just because I may be misinformed on this topic is no
cause
to call my life pathetic. I'm reasonably sure there are some topics
that I may
be more knowledgeable about than you are, but that doesn't make YOUR
life
pathetic, does it?

Heck no. Krooger's life is pitiable, mostly because of his mental
incapacity, but for several other weighty factors as well.

UnionPac2001,
Join Trevor Wilson and Robert Morein in the elite group of Kreuger [sic]
labeled mental defectives. ANYONE who disagrees with him immediately
acquires the label.

As George Middius points out, I was very late to pick up the fact that
Kreuger is insane. He talks a slick pater until the insanity pops out like a
"big log".

Krueger's personality is dysfunctional and his science laughable.

*****BAD SCIENTIST ALERT*****