[Tape Guy]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my Akai
deck. Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi owners?

Is your Akai deck aligned for the tape you're using?

I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.

[Tape Guy]

Serge Auckland wrote:

I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my Akai
deck. Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi owners?

Dolby C worked extremely well on my Nak, (never tried DBX)

Never tried dbx?

It would have been as easy as pushing a different button - no?

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.

I am a huge fan of dbx, but it is not generally suitable for cassette decks.

I once made a live recording of "Alborada del Gracioso" on a 700 II, with
metal tape and dbx II. * "Alborada" has a tremendous dynamic range, and the
recording successfully captured it -- but you could hear the noise
"breathing" ** in quieter passages. The effect is even more pronounced with
solo instruments having a high crest factor, such as piano.

Oddly, dbx II permits significantly higher recording levels -- without
distortion or dulling -- than Dolby does, but I've never been able to figure
out why.

Regardless, dbx and cassette recording are not really meant for each other.
Mix with caution.

* I was obliged to. My reel-to-reel machine was not working that week.

** I acknowledge that there is a difference between "breathing" and
"pumping", but I've never been able to keep them straight.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Tape Guy" wrote in message ...
Serge Auckland wrote:

I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my Akai
deck. Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi owners?

Dolby C worked extremely well on my Nak, (never tried DBX)

Never tried dbx?

It would have been as easy as pushing a different button - no?

Only if the Nakamichi had had dbx, which it didn't!! It had Dolby B and C
only. I don't know of any Nakamichi that had dbx.

S.



--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Tape Guy wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my Akai
deck. Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi owners?

Is your Akai deck aligned for the tape you're using?

I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.

Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,
if they are both aligned right. In general, I think dbx Type II
gives higher effective S/N but has poorer handling of transients
than Dolby Type C.

But in the real world, the reason you pick a noise reduction system is
for compatibility with everybody else. And for cassettes, that pretty
much always means Dolby B... if you give anything else to a customer,
odds are they won't be able to play it right.

Another interesting configuration that I kind of like is using Dolby
HX-Pro without noise reduction. The HX-Pro gives you a little bit more
headroom so you can bring your levels up. The end result is a tape that
is still noisier than one made with NR, but without the interchangability
issues that you get with NR. Hell, half the time you make a tape with
NR, the customer will play it back with the NR disabled because it sounds
brighter that way...
--scott

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

[Tape Guy]

Serge Auckland wrote:

I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my
Akai deck. Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi
owners?

Only if the Nakamichi had had dbx, which it didn't!!
It had Dolby B and C only. I don't know of any Nakamichi
that had dbx.

Oh.

I see.

My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.

[Tape Guy]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.

Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,

It shouldn't.

Any recording mechanism or process that favors one type of spectral or
signal content over another is not worth a pinch of salt.

Seems to me that dbx was technically superior to Dolby B and C, and any
deck that had dbx built-in was at least giving the owner the ability to
try the format and use it more faithfully recorded and played back
material compared to dolby.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Tape Guy" wrote in message ...
Serge Auckland wrote:

I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my
Akai deck. Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi
owners?

Only if the Nakamichi had had dbx, which it didn't!!
It had Dolby B and C only. I don't know of any Nakamichi
that had dbx.

Oh.

I see.

My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.

dbx and Dolby are different processes. dbx applies linear compression, and
consequently can be "decoded" without need for a reference level. Dolby
(whether A,B or C) relies on the decoding being done at the same level as
the encoding. dbx can achieve 10dB greater noise reduction than Dolby B at
the expense of "breathing" noises (noise modulation) as dbx works right
across the frequency band whereas Dolby breaks the audio band into segments,
and acts on the segments independently. Dolby A used four bands, Dolby B
just one above 2kHz, and Dolby C used two. Dolby C could achieve 20dB noise
reduction in the mid and high frequencies.

Nakamichi decks were superior to most if not all others not just for the
noise reduction, but for their superior mechanisms that achieved very low
W&F figures and a 30-20k +-2dB response together with a 60dB S/N ratio at
less than 3% distortion . Their twin-capstan three-head transports allowed
individual adjustment of record and replay azimuth and head height, and
pushed the cassette's pressure pads out of the way, using the twin capstans
to set tape tension. In effects, they were miniature professional reel-reel
decks, just using narrow tape.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Tape Guy" wrote ...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.

Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,

It shouldn't.

With heavy emphasis on the theoretical.

Any recording mechanism or process that favors one type of spectral or
signal content over another is not worth a pinch of salt.

That pretty much characterizes all the consumer NR schemes.
(And many of the "pro" schemes, as well, IME)

I preferred the hiss to the unrecoverable signal destruction.
If the hiss was gone, it was assumed that that part of the signal
was AWOL as well.
At least I don't have to make that tradeoff anymore.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Tape Guy wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.

Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,

It shouldn't.

Any recording mechanism or process that favors one type of spectral or
signal content over another is not worth a pinch of salt.

Sorry about that, you've just described every recording method known
to mankind. Life is just like that.

Cassettes all have flutter. This is annoying as hell on solo piano,
but you can't tell a bit of difference on a harpsichord.

Noise reduction systems all have linearity issues of one sort of
another... you don't get that extra S/N for nothing.

Seems to me that dbx was technically superior to Dolby B and C, and any
deck that had dbx built-in was at least giving the owner the ability to
try the format and use it more faithfully recorded and played back
material compared to dolby.

If all you care about is the S/N number on the data sheet, dbx Type II
is hard to beat. If you want something that doesn't pump annoyingly
on transients, dbx Type II can be a real problem. Both dbx and Dolby
systems also of course exaggerate frequency response problems in the
signal path, which can be a problem in the real world.

You do not get something for nothing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/1/2009 5:14 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
more than a couple decades ago.

It's been over 25 years since the audio CD became the standard for sound
quality in a distribution format. Even 2 decades ago, the only justification
for the Portastudio was that it was the best we had at the time, not that it
was really adequate.

IME audio cassette is a horrible medium by modern standards. Anybody who
cares to dispute this need only post an Audio Rightmark test based on a
cassette record/play cycle that comes within an order of magnitude of the
2-in, 8-out digital audio interface that comes "free" on a modern PC system
board $75 such as the Asus M3A78-CM.

Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that
was released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up
well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality.

All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.

That's all.


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
more than a couple decades ago.

ONLY in your opinion. I had *far* superior R-R equipment, and it was VERY
happy to go digital.
But as long as *you* were happy :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that
was released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up
well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality.

It did NO such thing, you just *think* it did. Recordings made in the
fifties on studio R-R decks were better than anything a portastudio could
ever produce.

All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.

It totally deserves the contempt most people gave it at the time, let alone
compared to today's equipment!

So tell us David what is the complete opposite of "an audio snob"? Are you
*totally* deaf perhaps?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately there's a lot of stuff recorded on cassette out there, and
folks need to transcribe it. That's why the high end cassette decks are
still fetching good money. And let me reiterate that if you are doing
transcription of old tapes, you absolutely need to be able to change the
head alignment and the reference levels.

Sure, and I have the necessary capabilities, but find the demand is not
really there. Most cassette music recordings were simply convenience dubs of
records, or even worse, commercial copies of records. The personal
recordings people often want transcribed are usually voice or low quality
demo's anyway, and low cost of transfer is more important to those people
than trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear!!!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Tape Guy" wrote in message ...
My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.

DBX was nothing special, and Nakamichi knew it. Dolby made his fortune
trying to overcome the limitations of such wide band noise reduction
systems.
Dolby SR being very good indeed when used with proper tape recorders (but
that obviously excludes cassette crap)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
news
Nakamichi cassette recorders, especially with Dolby C produced results at
least as good as my Revox A77 provided recording levels were kept
sensible,
which was possible with Dolby C.

You obviously never tried a Dolby C processor on your Revox then!

Tape costs and convenience was much better

Yep, that was the only thing cassette had going for it, cheap, nasty and
convenient where quality was unimportant.
Nakamichi simply made it Expensive, less nasty and convenient. Not a
combination I ever cared for personally.

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/1/2009 5:14 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
more than a couple decades ago.

ONLY in your opinion. I had *far* superior R-R equipment, and it was VERY
happy to go digital.
But as long as *you* were happy :-)

Wasn't just me, but a group of musicians, their engineer, and their
audience (many of who were also musicians), who happily bought their
records and played them.

But if you say it couldn't be done, then I guess it never happened. I
must have dreamt the whole thing up. After all, you seem to know better.


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Wasn't just me, but a group of musicians, their engineer, and their
audience (many of who were also musicians), who happily bought their
records and played them.

Some people are easily pleased, but most just don't know how crappy the
quality is until after they have bought it and played it.
And then there are a few magical performances that people will put up with
crappy quality simply because that's all that is available. Doesn't mean
most wouldn't prefer something far better though!

But if you say it couldn't be done, then I guess it never happened. I
must have dreamt the whole thing up. After all, you seem to know better.

I never said crap *couldn't* be produced on a portastudio, many people did
it.
Fortunately most were demo's rather than material released to unsuspecting
paying customers.
Any artist who charged for such crap would not get my money a second time.

Of course people these days listen to crappy quality as much as they ever
did, low bit rate compressed streaming media for example. They don't usually
expect to pay for it though. Try releasing that portastudio recording on CD
and see how many you sell, and how many complaints you get.

MrT.

[nebulax]

On Mar 2, 1:18*am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message

.com...

Wasn't just me, but a group of musicians, their engineer, and their
audience (many of who were also musicians), who happily bought their
records and played them.

Some people are easily pleased, but most just don't know how crappy the
quality is until after they have bought it and played it.
And then there are a few magical performances that people will put up with
crappy quality simply because that's all that is available. Doesn't mean
most wouldn't prefer something far better though!

But if you say it couldn't be done, then I guess it never happened. I
must have dreamt the whole thing up. After all, you seem to know better..

I never said crap *couldn't* be produced on a portastudio, many people did
it.
Fortunately most were demo's rather than material released to unsuspecting
paying customers.
Any artist who charged for such crap would not get my money a second time..

Of course people these days listen to crappy quality as much as they ever
did, low bit rate compressed streaming media for example. They don't usually
expect to pay for it though. Try releasing that portastudio recording on CD
and see how many you sell, and how many complaints you get.

MrT.


Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio. It
didn't sound great, but he was up front about how the recording was
made, so I don't recall anyone complaining about it. I'm not sure how
many copies it sold, but it reach #3 on the Billboard pop album chart
in 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_(album)

-Neb

[D.M. Procida]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

I never said crap *couldn't* be produced on a portastudio, many people did
it.
Fortunately most were demo's rather than material released to unsuspecting
paying customers.
Any artist who charged for such crap would not get my money a second time.

Poor old Bruce Springsteen, nobody warned him. Or Bill Callahan. Or
Ween.

Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
a notion.

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:44:12 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
a notion.


Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 9:36 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 3/1/2009 5:14 PM Mr.T spake thus:



"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
more than a couple decades ago.

ONLY in your opinion. I had *far* superior R-R equipment, and it was VERY
happy to go digital.
But as long as *you* were happy :-)

Wasn't just me, but a group of musicians, their engineer, and their
audience (many of who were also musicians), who happily bought their
records and played them.

But if you say it couldn't be done, then I guess it never happened. I
must have dreamt the whole thing up. After all, you seem to know better.

--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

these same people now use low bit rate mp3's as their method of
distribution.
just check out myspace. lemmings are what you want to follow.

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 3/1/2009 5:14 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
more than a couple decades ago.

It's been over 25 years since the audio CD became the standard for sound
quality in a distribution format. Even 2 decades ago, the only
justification for the Portastudio was that it was the best we had at the
time, not that it was really adequate.

IME audio cassette is a horrible medium by modern standards. Anybody who
cares to dispute this need only post an Audio Rightmark test based on a
cassette record/play cycle that comes within an order of magnitude of the
2-in, 8-out digital audio interface that comes "free" on a modern PC
system board $75 such as the Asus M3A78-CM.

Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that was
released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up well to
the *then-current standards* for sound quality.

All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.

That's all.

Exceptions don't prove any rule. I suspect that a recording made on a
portastudio could be sucessful even today, if it had exceptional musical
values. After all, musical values are still the most important part of any
recording.

[D.M. Procida]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
a notion.

Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.

Why ever not?

Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[Scott Dorsey]

nebulax wrote:

Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio. It
didn't sound great, but he was up front about how the recording was
made, so I don't recall anyone complaining about it. I'm not sure how
many copies it sold, but it reach #3 on the Billboard pop album chart
in 1982.

It sounded pretty awful, really. But it sounded like Bruce Springsteen,
and people buy records because of who is playing on them and not because
of how they sound.

Still, people pay me to make good-sounding recordings, so I tend to be
biased in favor of such.
--scott

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:41:37 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.

Why ever not?

Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.

Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
that Portastudio really added something!"

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 8:41*am, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
a notion.

Good music survives imperfect media. *But let's not romanticize it.

Why ever not?

Exactly! Why put any effort in to trying to do better?
That's what made America what it is today! :-)

Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts.

It's as often begrudingly tolerated.

Both artists and audiences value imperfect
media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in
this respect.

This is beyond calling a bug a featu this is
valuing the mediocre as high art.

It's an excuse for being merely good enough.

Fortunately, there are those that reject the notion
of crap as art and really do strive to reach a
perfection, even if it is unobtainable.

One thing that technology has done for the world:
it has enable millions to be within reach of stardom,
fame or glory. But it hasn't made a single one of them
any better.

[D.M. Procida]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.

Why ever not?

Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.

Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
that Portastudio really added something!"

Is that funny?

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:37:39 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.

Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
that Portastudio really added something!"

Is that funny?

Only to someone who might say "Both artists and audiences value
imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing reasons."

[D.M. Procida]

wrote:

Both artists and audiences value imperfect
media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in
this respect.

This is beyond calling a bug a featu this is
valuing the mediocre as high art.

It's an excuse for being merely good enough.

I don't think so. Some years ago I curated an exhibition of digital art,
actually called "Limited", in which various limits (formal, thematic,
material, techological) were foregrounded.

The limits imposed by the comission limits, as well as the artists'
self-imposed limits, were not only part of the work, but made it
possible too. Simply speaking technically, the work could not have been
executed, could not have existed, in a superior medium.

Thinking that limits mean that something must be inferior is like
thinking that the short story is an inferior form to the novel, because
it has to have fewer words in it. And that's just silly.

The 12 pieces (and the essays that accompanied the exhibition) are at:

http://www.apple-juice.co.uk/pages/limited.php

Fortunately, there are those that reject the notion
of crap as art and really do strive to reach a
perfection, even if it is unobtainable.

Many of them also understand the difference between the poverty of media
and the poverty of artistic imagination, which is something that:

One thing that technology has done for the world:
it has enable millions to be within reach of stardom,
fame or glory. But it hasn't made a single one of them
any better.

seems to acknowledge. The quality of art is not tied to the technical
advantages or deficiencies of its media.

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[D.M. Procida]

wrote:

I don't think you understand what "making a virtue
of limitations" means.

I most assuredly do, thank you for your concern,
but a limitation is a limitation. The fact that the
artistry SURVIVED the limitation does not make
that limitation virtuous as you would seem to
suggest.

Limitations aren't virtuous, but a virtue can be made out of them.
Artists can adapt to and exploit the limitations of a medium.

How would this particular recording be
BETTER than if done on technically superior
equipment? THAT would be making a virtue out
of a limitation.

I don't know which particular recording you're speaking of, but I can
think of plenty of examples (from music and elsewhere) where the
limitations of the medium are important to the work.

In some, the limitations of the medium are appropriate and adopted on
aesthetic grounds (sometimes, a technically superior medium would be all
wrong and would fail to work). In others, the limitations of the medium
impose themselves and oblige the artist to adapt to them.

In either case the resulting work is different from what would be
obtained by working in a technically superior medium. Maybe you think
that - other things being equal - a superior medium will make a better
work, but I don't.

Photographers sometimes choose Polaroid; film-makers, Super-8;
scupltors, concrete. Cartoonists have to adapt to newsprint. In all
those cases media with far fewer limitations exist, but in most cases,
using a technically superior medium would simply make a different kind
of work - not better or worse, just different.

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[D.M. Procida]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:37:39 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.

Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
that Portastudio really added something!"

Is that funny?

Only to someone who might say "Both artists and audiences value
imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing reasons."

You're mistaken, in that case. To me it seems neither amusing nor odd
that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey, that
Portastudio really added something!"

In fact I'd find it somewhat inexplicable if they did.

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:56:45 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

In some, the limitations of the medium are appropriate and adopted on
aesthetic grounds (sometimes, a technically superior medium would be all
wrong and would fail to work).

We're getting into quirky definitions of "technically better" here :-)

[Powell]

"Tape Guy" wrote

Seems that Tandberg or Nakamichi or Revox tape decks
get all the press when it comes to high end machines.

I don't think that's true, not by the mid 80's (your Akai
GX-A5X), both the Tandberg and Revox were
one-trick-ponies (only one model). Nakamichi was the
only real mover in your group having 8 models in their
lineup ranging from $300 to $1,850 MSRP.
By my count there were 22 manufactures selling
cassette players at or above $500... 8 manufactures
selling desks over $1,000.


Are there any tech specs for them? Frequency and
phase response, S/N ratio?

I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX
noise reduction, and was wondering how such a deck
compares to these so-called high-end machines?

Of your small group the Nak's had the best specifications
20-20,000 kHz +/- 3 dB. 0.04 W&F 72 dB SN w/noise
reduction. There were a lot of manufactures doing as
well, by the mid 80's


There seem to be quite a lot of Akai decks with model
numbers starting with GX. Why so many different
models? Which Akai deck was the best?

At the time Akai had 10 models in their lineup. Five
had the GX while the balance had the HX designation.
The top model was the GXR99 MSRP $800 your
GX-A5X ($229) is 5th model down from the top.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 12:35*pm, "Powell" wrote:
I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX
noise reduction, and was wondering how such a deck
compares to these so-called high-end machines?

Of your small group the Nak's had the best specifications
20-20,000 kHz +/- 3 dB.

That would be at a significantly reduced reference
level, like a minimum of 10 dB below dolby reference
level.

0.04 W&F

And that was a weighted figure

72 dB SN w/noise reduction.

And that was also A-weighted as well.

And all these specifications were under the
assumption that the machines had been
specificallly biased for the the tape being
specified. NAK was no better in this sense
than anyone else: out of the box, they'd often
not meet spec until tweaked.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 12:35 pm, "Powell" wrote:
I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX
noise reduction, and was wondering how such a deck
compares to these so-called high-end machines?

Of your small group the Nak's had the best specifications
20-20,000 kHz +/- 3 dB.

That would be at a significantly reduced reference
level, like a minimum of 10 dB below dolby reference
level.

0.04 W&F

And that was a weighted figure

72 dB SN w/noise reduction.

And that was also A-weighted as well.

And all these specifications were under the
assumption that the machines had been
specificallly biased for the the tape being
specified. NAK was no better in this sense
than anyone else: out of the box, they'd often
not meet spec until tweaked.



That's correct. When I was a Nakamichi dealer in the mid '80s, I would align
every machine sold for the user's choice of tape, and tell them that's what
they should stick to. Nakamichis were lined up for their own brand of tape,
which, from memory was Maxell, but as it was different to the Maxell
commonly available in the UK at the time, they still needed realigning at
time of sale.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/2/2009 5:17 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 3/1/2009 5:14 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

IME audio cassette is a horrible medium by modern standards. Anybody who
cares to dispute this need only post an Audio Rightmark test based on a
cassette record/play cycle that comes within an order of magnitude of the
2-in, 8-out digital audio interface that comes "free" on a modern PC
system board $75 such as the Asus M3A78-CM.

Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that was
released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up well to
the *then-current standards* for sound quality.

All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.

That's all.

Exceptions don't prove any rule. I suspect that a recording made on a
portastudio could be sucessful even today, if it had exceptional musical
values. After all, musical values are still the most important part of any
recording.

Thank you for that; at least you're not reflexively consigning the
efforts of my friends to the "crap" pile just by virtue of the equipment
they chose to use, some *two decades* ago.

The recording did have "exceptional musical values".


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Mr.T]

"nebulax" wrote in message
...
Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio. It
didn't sound great,

Exactly.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"D.M. Procida"
wrote in message
...
I don't think you understand what "making a virtue of limitations"
means.

OK *you* tell us then what "virtue" there is in the obvious limitations of a
portastudio.
Do you really claim Bruce would have sold *less* records if he used a proper
recorder?
If you do then I think you are a complete moron!
But can I prove he would have sold more, of course not.

What is indisputable is that his most loved, biggest selling, and most often
played recordings were NOT made on a portastudio. Maybe that should tell you
something, or he would have used one for all his recordings wouldn't he?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"D.M. Procida"
wrote in message
...
Limitations aren't virtuous, but a virtue can be made out of them.

No you still fail to mention a single "virtue". That some records can be
sold *despite* their sound quality is not in dispute.

Artists can adapt to and exploit the limitations of a medium.

Substitute *despite* the limitations.....

I don't know which particular recording you're speaking of, but I can
think of plenty of examples (from music and elsewhere) where the
limitations of the medium are important to the work.

Many people claim this of course, they don't want to admit they might have
done better with the proper tools.

In some, the limitations of the medium are appropriate and adopted on
aesthetic grounds (sometimes, a technically superior medium would be all
wrong and would fail to work). In others, the limitations of the medium
impose themselves and oblige the artist to adapt to them.

You keep confusing "adapt" and "despite" for "virtue".

Photographers sometimes choose Polaroid; film-makers, Super-8;
scupltors, concrete. Cartoonists have to adapt to newsprint. In all
those cases media with far fewer limitations exist, but in most cases,
using a technically superior medium would simply make a different kind
of work - not better or worse, just different.

Now you have it, "different" does not mean "better" or "a virtue", just
*different*!

MrT.