[David King]

Can someone provide a brief overview of the frequency response
characteristics of a good quality audio cassette tape compared with a
recordable CD?

I am interested in recording ambient nature sounds and would like to
capture as much realism as possible.

Thank you,

David King

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article ,
David King wrote:

Can someone provide a brief overview of the frequency response
characteristics of a good quality audio cassette tape compared with a
recordable CD?

I am interested in recording ambient nature sounds and would like to
capture as much realism as possible.

Thank you,

David King

Use a good portable digital recorder. They provide enough headroom in
frequency response and dynamic range to still sound good after
enhancement and editing.

--
Block Google's spam and enjoy Usenet again.
Reply with Google and I won't hear from you.

[Richard Crowley]

"David King" wrote ...
Can someone provide a brief overview of the frequency response
characteristics of a good quality audio cassette tape compared with a
recordable CD?

It seems likely that the very best possible audio cassette
was a poor performer against the most average CD.

I am interested in recording ambient nature sounds and would
like to capture as much realism as possible.

Recording ambient and/or nature sounds makes more demands
on using quiet microphones and mic preamps because of the low
levels of the desired sounds.

There aren't many (any?) portable (battery operated, over the
shoulder, etc.) CD recordable devices out there. The method
of choice these days is a digital flash and/or hard-drive recorder
of some kind. There are several to choose from these days.
Recommend researching the Google Usenet archives for previous
discussions on portable recorders and ambient/nature recording
in both rec.audio.tech and rec.audio.pro

I recently bought a portable recorder from the Oade Brothers
who sell specially modified equipment to people who use them
for wider dynamic range recording like nature/ambient and for
classical music, etc. www.oade.com

[jamesgangnc]

"David King" wrote in message
...
Can someone provide a brief overview of the frequency response
characteristics of a good quality audio cassette tape compared with a
recordable CD?

I am interested in recording ambient nature sounds and would like to
capture as much realism as possible.

Thank you,

David King

They are not really in the same category. CDs are recorded digitally. Tape
is analog. Digital is definately the way to go because there is no signal
loss at all on replay. But the standard size recordable CD is not the most
portable media so some other form of initial digital sound capture onto
flash memory or small hard drive that can later be transferred to CD would
be the answer. Keep in mind that the other big value of digital is that
each transfer to another media is 100% identical in every way to the
previous copy. Something analog could never do.

[Arny Krueger]

"David King" wrote in message


Can someone provide a brief overview of the frequency
response characteristics of a good quality audio cassette
tape compared with a recordable CD?

No comparison at all. Digital is orders of magnitude better than cassette
tape.

You may see spec sheets that say a cassette recorder has 50-15,000 Hz
response +/- 3 dB. However that is only true when recording at relatively
low levels, such as 20 dB below Dolby level. At Dolby level the response
might be 3 dB down at 8-10 KHz.

Again, you might see a spec sheet that says a cassette recorder has 80 dB
signal to noise (SNR), but that presumes that you are recording at such a
high level that there is audible distortion. Also, that sort of SNR
requires Dolby processing that exagerrates frequency response variations.
The given frequency response specs are typically for Dolby off.

Then there is the matter of the limited uninterupted recording time of
cassette - usually no more than about 45 minutes.

In contrast, a modern portable digital recorder such as a M-Audio Microtrack
has response within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to as high as 40 KHz at all
levels up within a fraction of a dB of full scale. Even at the highest
levels you are likely to use, and all levels below that, there is zero
audible distortion. Finally, there is no complicated processing like Dolby
to goof up the basic response of the machine.

Finally, with inexpensive 4 GB memory chips, uninterupted high quality
recording for 6 to 20 hours at a time are possible. The limit to recording
time is no longer the media but how many relatively small, light batteries
you want to carry!


I am interested in recording ambient nature sounds and
would like to capture as much realism as possible.

Good digital recorders are sonically transparent. That means that from the
input jack to the output jack, there can be no reliably detectable audible
change in the sound whatsoever.

[Eeyore]

David King wrote:

Can someone provide a brief overview of the frequency response
characteristics of a good quality audio cassette tape compared with a
recordable CD?

Complete rubbish would be an adequate answer.

You could do a little better with reel-to-reel tape but I wish you luck
even finding the media for that these days !

Graham

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David King wrote:

Can someone provide a brief overview of the frequency response
characteristics of a good quality audio cassette tape compared with a
recordable CD?

Any image of a mountain range will do just fine.

I am interested in recording ambient nature sounds and would like to
capture as much realism as possible.

Zoom H2, based on the recordings I just edited from one its mics has a
frequency response linearity that goes well with the rrp, but it had been
deployed placed on a table, and such a placement will cause frequency
response aberrations for any mic because of the surface reflections.

Note: your initial question about cassette tape implicitly suggested the
Zoom h2 because it is the current equivalent of a high quality portable
casette recorder with the MAJOR difference that you just amplify it if it is
underrecorded by 30 dB.

David King


Kind regards

Peter Larsen