[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

Important Point... Running listening tests on tape decks has a problem
you
can't get around -- you always know which signal is the source, and which
the playback.

If your source is digital, you simply play the digital source and the
output
of the tape machine level matched, time synched, and double blind.

It is true that one can reliably tell the difference, but just by means of
listening.

AFAIK, that was what was done he
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

These tests were done by my friend (for decades) David Carlstrom, who was
in
the day arguably the best or among the very best analog tape technicians
in
Michigan. He clearly knows how to set this kind of test up, and he owns an
ABX Comparator. The analog tape machine he used was one of the best Otaris
of the day.

gritting his teeth and grunting

I was talking about analog decks. Even if the deck were sonically perfect,
you would still know which signal was the input and which the output. There
is no way around this that I know of.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

On one hand we have fideilty and on the other, content. The fidelity of
most of field recordings I have is horrible, while the content has been
captivating and deeply informative.

Some people are into audio for the music and some are into audio for the
sound, and some are into audio for both. Some of that old music is wretched,
technically but it is still great music!

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

Important Point... Running listening tests on tape decks has a problem
you
can't get around -- you always know which signal is the source, and
which
the playback.

If your source is digital, you simply play the digital source and the
output
of the tape machine level matched, time synched, and double blind.

It is true that one can reliably tell the difference, but just by means
of
listening.

AFAIK, that was what was done he
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

These tests were done by my friend (for decades) David Carlstrom, who was
in
the day arguably the best or among the very best analog tape technicians
in
Michigan. He clearly knows how to set this kind of test up, and he owns
an
ABX Comparator. The analog tape machine he used was one of the best
Otaris
of the day.

gritting his teeth and grunting

...and apparently not getting the point...

I was talking about analog decks.

I was talking about the performance of analog decks.

Even if the deck were sonically perfect,
you would still know which signal was the input and which the output.

OK, there was a delay. It could be managed.

Back in the day we tested decks using a second analog machine as the source.
We dubbed the origional tape to a second tape on the UUT, and then we played
the two machines back, still level matched and time synched.

There is no way around this that I know of.

We did it 100% analog about 20 years before the tests I previously cited. We
used the origional ABX box. Location was Bob Dennis' studio on 9 mile in
Warren, Mi. I think he's still in business, but the name may have changed. I
was last there a couple of years back and didn't notice the name by the
door. In the day Bob was using modded MCI machines. I think Carlstrom had
his fingers in that pie, even way back then.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

Only morons ever considered it "HiFi".

A good cassette deck could copy fairly demanding material with little or no
audible change. Isn't that a good definition of "high fidelity"?

Depends on the material. The flutter always drove me up the wall.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

hank alrich wrote:
: On one hand we have fideilty and on the other, content.

I've never understood the "sounds bad, dump'em!" attitude.
Imagine if people had thought that way about the King Oliver
Creole Band recordings. Or the Robert Johnson delta blues sides.
Those sound way worse than most cassette recordings. If the content
matters, naturally you want to get the most out of it that you can.

[William Sommerwerck]

Even if the deck were sonically perfect,
you would still know which signal was the input and which the output.

OK, there was a delay. It could be managed.

Back in the day we tested decks using a second analog machine as the
source.
We dubbed the origional tape to a second tape on the UUT, and then we
played
the two machines back, still level matched and time synched.

Okay. Makes sense.

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:21:10 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ) :

Some people are into audio for the music and some are into audio for the
sound, and some are into audio for both. Some of that old music is wretched,
technically but it is still great music!

Very well put! And some of the performances are lacking, but the emotional
connection is still there.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Edi Zubovic]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:24:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

------------8-----------------------

Depends what one calls "little or no audible change". Running ABX tests on
cassette machines is cruel and unusual punishment for the machine and the
media, and an easy walk in the garden for the listener. Been there, done
that many times. Even the best studio machines can't pass this test:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

IME there was never a analog tape machine that could record and playback LPs
without some clearly audible change, and that includes high end studio
machines in an excellent state of adjustment.

A cassette machine whose sound was in the same league? Mission impossible!


--Interesting comparison but the results were predictable. After all,
a master tape is in most cases 1st generation dub already.
Interestingly, you can -- ehem -- find on the Internet leaked studio
material, digital transfers of many a well known hit (Queen's
"Bohemian Rhapsody", for instance). Track by track as many as it has
been, as *.wav files. They call it "stems" albeit they were not
neccessarily made by stem ie. subgroup technique.
After inserting each track in a multitrack wave editor, set levels,
panning etc. according to the known original (heh, not just that easy
sometimes, especially with said "Bohemian Rhapsody") -- you get
something "better than master", soundwise. It turns there that the
late Fredddie Mercury sung all if the vocal parts by himself, track
after track (then they were submixed into a single subtrack and panned
ie. changed in level accordingly). An achievement indeed.

I remember that I was often not quite satisfied by sonic quality of
locally pressed records. The cutting and pressing facilities were
first class, though and the staff has been knowledgeable enough.
Then a friend of mine, long years active in record cutting there as a
cutting engineer, told be that the masters from eg. EMI or similar
often were in fact nth copies -- the lower dub number, the costlier
the tape for purchase...

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
A good cassette deck could copy fairly demanding material with little or
no
audible change. Isn't that a good definition of "high fidelity"?

If it were actualy true perhaps.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Important Point... Running listening tests on tape decks has a problem you
can't get around -- you always know which signal is the source, and which
the playback.

Double blind tests proved exactly the same thing, cassette source was easily
picked.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

wrote in message
...
I disagree. It depends on how valuable the material on the cassette is.
If I had a cassette tape that contained the only known recording of
Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong performing together, recorded by some
guy who snuck a cassette recorder into the hall, it would be well-worth
extracting the very best transfer of it possible. $1K would be peanuts
in such a case, compared to the value of the recording.

Considering the quality of any portable cassette deck "snuck into the hall"
not to mention the quality of all such audience recordings with large
reverb, audience noise etc. I probably wouldn't even bother copying the tape
myself. But you are welcome to spend $1k plus on it of course.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
On one hand we have fideilty and on the other, content. The fidelity of
most of field recordings I have is horrible, while the content has been
captivating and deeply informative.

Right, in which case simply copying is all that's required, NOT a Dragon to
guild the dead lily.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET...
Some people are into audio for the music and some are into audio for the
sound, and some are into audio for both. Some of that old music is
wretched,
technically but it is still great music!

Very well put! And some of the performances are lacking, but the emotional
connection is still there.

Dragon or not! :-)

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

wrote in message
...
I disagree. It depends on how valuable the material on the cassette is.
If I had a cassette tape that contained the only known recording of
Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong performing together, recorded by some
guy who snuck a cassette recorder into the hall, it would be well-worth
extracting the very best transfer of it possible. $1K would be peanuts
in such a case, compared to the value of the recording.

Considering the quality of any portable cassette deck "snuck into the hall"
not to mention the quality of all such audience recordings with large
reverb, audience noise etc. I probably wouldn't even bother copying the tape
myself. But you are welcome to spend $1k plus on it of course.

Trevor.

It's none of your business, literally


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
On one hand we have fideilty and on the other, content. The fidelity of
most of field recordings I have is horrible, while the content has been
captivating and deeply informative.

Right, in which case simply copying is all that's required, NOT a Dragon to
guild the dead lily.

Trevor.

Beat the dead horse...

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

It's none of your business, literally

Typical, people aren't allowed to comment on an open forum like usenet now?
Why do YOU post here then?
Email is for private conversations if you don't want any unsolicited
opinions. Or you just STFU if you don't want any opinions other than your
own!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Beat the dead horse...

Or try to clone it with a Dragon! :-)

Trevor.

[Steve King]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

It's none of your business, literally

Typical, people aren't allowed to comment on an open forum like usenet
now? Why do YOU post here then?
Email is for private conversations if you don't want any unsolicited
opinions. Or you just STFU if you don't want any opinions other than your
own!

Trevor.

This discussion has gone beyond technical issues. What you think should be
done with a particular cassette is immaterial unless it is your cassette.
If the cassette belongs to my client it is the client's choice to guild the
lilly to the maximum, then that's what I'm going to do. If it is my
cassette and I want the best possible copy of it for whatever reason and I
have the time and resources to try to achieve that goal I'm going to do
that. I understand your technical arguments. They are valid. And, we get
that you would do something different given similar circumstances. And, I
get that you think we're all idiots if we make choices other than the
choices you would make. I just hope you will refrain from trying to say
that again in yet another way.

Steve King

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/29/2011 9:15 AM, Steve King wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

It's none of your business, literally

Typical, people aren't allowed to comment on an open forum like usenet
now? Why do YOU post here then?
Email is for private conversations if you don't want any unsolicited
opinions. Or you just STFU if you don't want any opinions other than your
own!

Trevor.

This discussion has gone beyond technical issues. What you think should be
done with a particular cassette is immaterial unless it is your cassette.
If the cassette belongs to my client it is the client's choice to guild the
lilly to the maximum, then that's what I'm going to do. If it is my
cassette and I want the best possible copy of it for whatever reason and I
have the time and resources to try to achieve that goal I'm going to do
that. I understand your technical arguments. They are valid. And, we get
that you would do something different given similar circumstances. And, I
get that you think we're all idiots if we make choices other than the
choices you would make. I just hope you will refrain from trying to say
that again in yet another way.

Bingo, Steve and Hank. And for the record, the fully reconditioned Dragon is
$1500, not $1000.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote

It's none of your business, literally

Typical, people aren't allowed to comment on an open forum like usenet now?
Why do YOU post here then?
Email is for private conversations if you don't want any unsolicited
opinions. Or you just STFU if you don't want any opinions other than your
own!

See, Trevor, we get paid to make stuff sound good. Sometimes that means
taking recordings that sound bad, recordings even made on cassette, and
trying to make them sound as good as they possibly can under the poor
circumstances in which they were made.

And, Trevor, I like getting paid. I have a mortgage and I like to eat.
Consequently, I am very much in favor of making the best possible transcription
of such recordings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote:
: "hank alrich" wrote in message
: ...
: Beat the dead horse...
: Or try to clone it with a Dragon! :-)

Geez, why this crusade? Did you trip over a Dragon and break
your arm when you were a kid, or something?

[pvb]

On Dec 28, 7:40*am, Marc Wielage wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:33:48 -0800, Ty Ford wrote
(in article ET):

Here ya go!

http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan&L=0

------------------------------snip------------------------------

Oh, that's a standalone program. *I was asking about an actual Pro Tools
plug-in, which sounded too good to be true!

--MFW

Hello Marc

Maybe this might work...price is right.

http://jens.org/stuff/aflut/

Phil

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:15:19 -0500, Steve King wrote
(in article ):

This discussion has gone beyond technical issues. What you think should be
done with a particular cassette is immaterial unless it is your cassette.
If the cassette belongs to my client it is the client's choice to guild the
lilly to the maximum, then that's what I'm going to do. If it is my
cassette and I want the best possible copy of it for whatever reason and I
have the time and resources to try to achieve that goal I'm going to do
that. I understand your technical arguments. They are valid. And, we get
that you would do something different given similar circumstances. And, I
get that you think we're all idiots if we make choices other than the
choices you would make. I just hope you will refrain from trying to say
that again in yet another way.

Steve King


I'm tempted to agree, here. It seems it's become a pedantic "this old
technology is/was great. Salud!"

Well, fine, McFly, there's your time machine. Don't let the door hit you on
the way out.

Regards and all good wishes,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
See, Trevor, we get paid to make stuff sound good.

Me too, that's why I *never* recorded to cassette, except for tapes to play
in my car once upon a time.
Saying you get paid to make cassettes sound good is an oxymoron IMO, but hey
if you have enough morons willing to pay, GO FOR IT!

Trevor.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/30/2011 9:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
See, Trevor, we get paid to make stuff sound good.

Me too, that's why I *never* recorded to cassette, except for tapes to play
in my car once upon a time.
Saying you get paid to make cassettes sound good is an oxymoron IMO, but hey
if you have enough morons willing to pay, GO FOR IT!

A good friend did some recording sessions in Nashville in the seventies. As was
standard operating procedure in those days, we made up a bunch of cassettes so
that he could send the sessions to his friends and family.

Unfortunately, he passed away in 2001. The master tapes from which the cassettes
were made is nowhere to be found. Monument Records is no more. The studio owner
says he has no idea where the masters are.

Since the cassettes are not as good quality as the master tapes, I guess I'll
just throw them in the trash. If I can't have reel quality, I'll do without.

Not.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/30/2011 9:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
See, Trevor, we get paid to make stuff sound good.

Me too, that's why I *never* recorded to cassette, except for tapes
to play in my car once upon a time.
Saying you get paid to make cassettes sound good is an oxymoron IMO,
but hey if you have enough morons willing to pay, GO FOR IT!

A good friend did some recording sessions in Nashville in the
seventies. As was standard operating procedure in those days, we made
up a bunch of cassettes so that he could send the sessions to his
friends and family.

Unfortunately, he passed away in 2001. The master tapes from which
the cassettes were made is nowhere to be found. Monument Records is
no more. The studio owner says he has no idea where the masters are.

Since the cassettes are not as good quality as the master tapes, I
guess I'll just throw them in the trash. If I can't have reel
quality, I'll do without.

That would be silly.

Not.

You're into irony or you aren't, I don't care. The existing recording is the
best recording there is and it is about the music. Get, beg or borrow a good
casette deck and transfer them and listen to the music, enjoy.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

A good friend did some recording sessions in Nashville in the seventies.
As was standard operating procedure in those days, we made up
a bunch of cassettes so that he could send the sessions to his friends
and family.

Unfortunately, he passed away in 2001. The master tapes from which
the cassettes were made is nowhere to be found. Monument Records
is no more. The studio owner says he has no idea where the masters are.

Since the cassettes are not as good quality as the master tapes, I guess
I'll just throw them in the trash. If I can't have reel quality, I'll do
without.

Wasn't a lot of "Hotel California" recorded on a budget Nakamichi?

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/31/2011 1:47 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/30/2011 9:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
See, Trevor, we get paid to make stuff sound good.

Me too, that's why I *never* recorded to cassette, except for tapes
to play in my car once upon a time.
Saying you get paid to make cassettes sound good is an oxymoron IMO,
but hey if you have enough morons willing to pay, GO FOR IT!

A good friend did some recording sessions in Nashville in the
seventies. As was standard operating procedure in those days, we made
up a bunch of cassettes so that he could send the sessions to his
friends and family.

Unfortunately, he passed away in 2001. The master tapes from which
the cassettes were made is nowhere to be found. Monument Records is
no more. The studio owner says he has no idea where the masters are.

Since the cassettes are not as good quality as the master tapes, I
guess I'll just throw them in the trash. If I can't have reel
quality, I'll do without.

That would be silly.

Not.

You're into irony or you aren't, I don't care. The existing recording is the
best recording there is and it is about the music. Get, beg or borrow a good
casette deck and transfer them and listen to the music, enjoy.

Wow, Peter, I need to be a little less subtle with the irony, I guess. As I
posted earlier, I'm spending the bucks to get a totally rebuilt Dragon, which
will enable me to get every available nuance off of the inferior recording
medium. It makes no difference at all to me how Trevor feels about it.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/30/2011 11:34 PM, mcp6453 wrote:

Since the cassettes are not as good quality as the master tapes, I guess I'll
just throw them in the trash. If I can't have reel quality, I'll do without.

Hope the music wasn't very good or memorable either. This is
a terrible attitude, IMHO. How can you reject something that
you think is important because of its sound quality? I made
a lot of field recordings on cassette in the 1970s and 1980s
that are all there is of certain musicians, some of whom are
considered fairly important in their genres. Some of those
recordings have been issued on CD (which doesn't make them
any better, just longer-lasting). I go to the cassette shelf
several times a year to relive some of those field trips and
festivals, and it doesn't bother me a bit that they're not
pristine quality.

I feel sorry for your loss, man.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 12/30/2011 11:34 PM, mcp6453 wrote:

.....I go to the cassette shelf
several times a year to relive some of those field trips and
festivals, and it doesn't bother me a bit that they're not
pristine quality.

Never listen to any tape or record of any kind without simultanously
digitizing it.

kind regards

Peter Larsen

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/31/2011 8:40 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/30/2011 11:34 PM, mcp6453 wrote:

Since the cassettes are not as good quality as the master tapes, I guess I'll
just throw them in the trash. If I can't have reel quality, I'll do without.

Hope the music wasn't very good or memorable either. This is a terrible
attitude, IMHO. How can you reject something that you think is important because
of its sound quality? I made a lot of field recordings on cassette in the 1970s
and 1980s that are all there is of certain musicians, some of whom are
considered fairly important in their genres. Some of those recordings have been
issued on CD (which doesn't make them any better, just longer-lasting). I go to
the cassette shelf several times a year to relive some of those field trips and
festivals, and it doesn't bother me a bit that they're not pristine quality.

I feel sorry for your loss, man.

Thanks, Mike. I'm sorry my cynicism was not more obvious. I'm sure most of us
agree that our objective is to obtain the best possible source for treasured
audio. Sometimes that audio is on cassette. It was very easy to make a cassette
of an unknown artist or performer in the seventies only to have that person rise
to fame. My son's birth was recorded on cassette because that was the only
recording medium that the hospital would allow me to take into the operating
room in 1986.

To suggest that we're stupid for going to extremes to get the best possible
transfer from a cassette when it is the best available source is, well, stupid.
My cynicism is aimed at the stupidity. It's often hard to discern cynicism in
print, so I'll try to be more clear. (The "Not" at the end was intended to be
the indication.)

I'm probably as close to being OCD as you can get about getting the best
possible archiving quality from a tape medium. You should have heard the
discussion I had with Steve Puntolillo at http://sonicraft.com. He has the same
passion with the technical skills to back it up. That phone line was smoking.

Hopefully the master tapes of my friend or at least a reference copy will turn
up one day. I don't think I've ever thrown away a reel-to-reel tape in my life.
The Christmas break was supposed to be my opportunity to archive many of my reel
tapes, but life got in the way.

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
: Wasn't a lot of "Hotel California" recorded on a budget Nakamichi?

Those morons, they should have tossed it.

[[email protected]]

mcp6453 wrote:
: Thanks, Mike. I'm sorry my cynicism was not more obvious.

Your sarcasm was obvious to me, and very funny too! I'm surprised it
flew over the heads of some readers.

[blacksuede58]

On Dec 23, 1:49*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

...

You can't do anything about the flutter ... of the original *recorder..

http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan

"With Capstan there is now for the first time a program capable of removing
wow and flutter from musical recordings - whether on tape, compact cassette,
wax, shellac or vinyl. Capstan detects wow and flutter by analyzing the
musical material itself, so the medium is of no relevance. In this, Capstan
is clearly superior to solutions such as bias tracking, because Capstan
still works even if the tape has already been copied several times or
digitized only in low resolution. "

Demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqpMmDkLzWw

Hmmm... I wonder how effective this would be on a spoken-word
recording. I've got an old interview cassette recorded on a machine
with a dying drive-belt; the dialogue is intelligible, but listening
to it is a fairly trying experience. Maybe I'll grab the trial version
just to see what it can do.

Mark

[Arkansan Raider]

mcp6453 wrote:
On 12/30/2011 9:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
See, Trevor, we get paid to make stuff sound good.
Me too, that's why I *never* recorded to cassette, except for tapes to play
in my car once upon a time.
Saying you get paid to make cassettes sound good is an oxymoron IMO, but hey
if you have enough morons willing to pay, GO FOR IT!

A good friend did some recording sessions in Nashville in the seventies. As was
standard operating procedure in those days, we made up a bunch of cassettes so
that he could send the sessions to his friends and family.

Unfortunately, he passed away in 2001. The master tapes from which the cassettes
were made is nowhere to be found. Monument Records is no more. The studio owner
says he has no idea where the masters are.

Since the cassettes are not as good quality as the master tapes, I guess I'll
just throw them in the trash. If I can't have reel quality, I'll do without.

Not.


Some of my favorite music was recorded to much lesser-quality mediums
than cassette tape. Hank Williams Jr., Robert Johnson, some good a
cappella choruses from my alma mater among others.

One of the best vocal takes I've ever heard was by Aretha Franklin in
which she overdrove the fool out of her mic--but you don't scrap an
inspired take like hers was--you don't know if you're getting *that*
take again. I think it was on "The Weight."

I say all of that to reiterate some of what's been said already:
technical quality is not the be-all or end-all of musical enjoyment.
Some folks need to loosen up and realize the FUN and INSPIRATION in
music rather than looking down their noses at what they believe to be
inferior quality without understanding what's important in music.

I've some friends who think Mahalia Jackson is laughable because she
didn't have proper grammar or diction. I think THEY'RE laughable because
she had more emotive expression in her pinky than they'll ever have in
their entire lives.

Of course, I say all of that and recognize that I've some blind spots
myself. Musical training makes it harder to just enjoy music--I almost
always end up picking it apart and analyzing it. But then again, it
helps me to really enjoy a good performance that much better.

I think some of that probably holds true when we talk about recording
quality--when you spend your life trying to get high quality sound,
you're probably gonna' have less tolerance for low quality. It's
certainly had that effect on me. I know I do all I can afford to do in
order to get higher quality sound to my ears.

Heck, as a U.S. Marine no longer in uniform, it's hard for me to watch a
combat flick (or any kind of shoot-em-up, really) without picking apart
the technical issues. But I still try to enjoy the movie.

Now that I've rambled, it's time for me to shut up.

Good post, mcp6453. I completely concur.

---Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
: Wasn't a lot of "Hotel California" recorded on a budget Nakamichi?

Those morons, they should have tossed it.

That's one of the first things I can agree about in this whole thread.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

blacksuede58 wrote:

Hmmm... I wonder how effective this would be on a spoken-word
recording. I've got an old interview cassette recorded on a machine
with a dying drive-belt; the dialogue is intelligible, but listening
to it is a fairly trying experience. Maybe I'll grab the trial version
just to see what it can do.

That is, in fact, the absolute best application for the thing. It works
surprisingly well for it; it doesn't make a silk purse but for slow
repetitive warble problems they can be cleaned up pretty well.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
: Wasn't a lot of "Hotel California" recorded on a budget Nakamichi?

Those morons, they should have tossed it.

That's one of the first things I can agree about in this whole thread.
--scott


Scott, I didn't figure you for an Eagles hater. You don't like Hotel
California?


---Jeff

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
: wrote:
: William Sommerwerck wrote:
: : Wasn't a lot of "Hotel California" recorded on a budget Nakamichi?
: Those morons, they should have tossed it.
: That's one of the first things I can agree about in this whole thread.

Haha! Well, whether or not you like the Eagles (or HC in particular),
you have to admit it was a pretty good investment.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/31/2011 9:34 AM, mcp6453 wrote:

Hopefully the master tapes of my friend or at least a reference copy will turn
up one day. I don't think I've ever thrown away a reel-to-reel tape in my life.

That's something to hope for, but in the mean time, while
you're thinking of it, why not archive the cassette that you
have, doing the best job you can with it. If the master tape
shows up some day, then you can archive that, too.

Cynical or not, I was just a bit put off by the fact that
you "might as well" throw away the cassette and not keep the
memory of the music because it isn't up to your standard of
quality. That's all.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff