[William Noble]

others have remarked on various techniques and the advantages of going to
CD - Personally, I had the best results going to a reel to reel deck at 7.5
IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were inferior to that.

but with that said, I think the suggestion of CDs is good - I haven't looked
at equipment recently, but I did go through quite an exercise with fancy
sound cards and whatnot before deciding that the only way that made sense
was to buy a commercial grade recorder (TASCAM) and put it into my main
stereo. I found inferior sound and ground loop/noise problems when I used a
computer directly, and all these problems went away when I went to a
commercial machine. I looked at the "home" machines too - they had lots of
ease of use features, but they required special media that had a "music" tax
on it and I found that offensive. Not that I object to paying for music,
but if I am recording a Dorthy Shay 78 or an LP of Elizabeth Swartzkof, or
Ultimate Spinach (or you name it), I don't want to be paying the latest pop
stars for the privelege. When I record my own records, I've already paid
the royalty anyway.

[Mike Gilmour[_2_]]

"William Noble" wrote in message
...
others have remarked on various techniques and the advantages of going to
CD - Personally, I had the best results going to a reel to reel deck at
7.5
IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were inferior to that.

I beg to differ, comparing my Studer Revox B77 MkII to my Nakamichi CR-7E,
not only has the Nak better specifications, to my ears it sounds better.
It's really incredible what Nakamichi could wring out of a tape speed of
1-7/8 ips compared to the Revox at 7.5 ips.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:01:37 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote
(in article ):

"William Noble" wrote in message
...
others have remarked on various techniques and the advantages of going to
CD - Personally, I had the best results going to a reel to reel deck at
7.5
IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were inferior to that.

I beg to differ, comparing my Studer Revox B77 MkII to my Nakamichi CR-7E,
not only has the Nak better specifications, to my ears it sounds better.
It's really incredible what Nakamichi could wring out of a tape speed of
1-7/8 ips compared to the Revox at 7.5 ips.



Well, I can't comment directly, not ever having owned a Nakamichi CR-7E. I
can say this, though; Revox A77s didn't sound very good. They were very early
transistor designs and as such were extremely colored. They supposedly fixed
the problem with the B77 which came out, IIRC, in the early 1980's. A buddy
of mine had one and we recorded live with it (using a pair of Sony C-37P
mics) many times. I still have those masters and they sound fine. In fact ,I
can't tell without looking whether a particular recording was made with the
B77 or with my own Sony 880-2 (unless the Sony was using a 10.5 " reel of
Sony FeCr tape at 15 ips, then I can tell the difference as I only ever had
five reels of that stuff).

But I cannot see how a cassette deck, even the best Nakamichi, can compare to
a R-R deck, even when the latter is only running at 7.5 ips. The cassette
tape tracks are so narrow, and the tape is moving so slowly, that even with
Dolby B, the s/n of a cassette is barely acceptable. Also cassettes self
-erase high frequencies (7KHz +) very severely at recording levels above -20
dBM. Dolby invented a dynamic biasing circuit called HX-Pro to mitigate this
problem, and while HX-pro does increase the high-frequency headroom of
cassette, it's still no match for R-R at 7.5 ips, even if the latter is
quarter track.

[Mike Gilmour[_2_]]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:01:37 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote
(in article ):



Well, I can't comment directly, not ever having owned a Nakamichi CR-7E. I
can say this, though; Revox A77s didn't sound very good. They were very
early
transistor designs and as such were extremely colored. They supposedly
fixed
the problem with the B77 which came out, IIRC, in the early 1980's. A
buddy
of mine had one and we recorded live with it (using a pair of Sony C-37P
mics) many times. I still have those masters and they sound fine. In fact
,I
can't tell without looking whether a particular recording was made with
the
B77 or with my own Sony 880-2 (unless the Sony was using a 10.5 " reel of
Sony FeCr tape at 15 ips, then I can tell the difference as I only ever
had
five reels of that stuff).

But I cannot see how a cassette deck, even the best Nakamichi, can compare
to
a R-R deck, even when the latter is only running at 7.5 ips. The cassette
tape tracks are so narrow, and the tape is moving so slowly, that even
with
Dolby B, the s/n of a cassette is barely acceptable. Also cassettes self
-erase high frequencies (7KHz +) very severely at recording levels
above -20
dBM. Dolby invented a dynamic biasing circuit called HX-Pro to mitigate
this
problem, and while HX-pro does increase the high-frequency headroom of
cassette, it's still no match for R-R at 7.5 ips, even if the latter is
quarter track.

I agree that the A77's were poor. I've many times used my B77 MkII at 7.5ips
for live recording along with the Nakamichi CR-7E as safety for broadcasting
using Neumann Mics & Millennia Media HV-3B mic pre. Listening back I
consistently preferred the CR-7E overall and I'm not the only one who thinks
this:
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...michicr7e.html
Nowadays I record digitally but looking back there was something really
special about that deck. Just imagine what Nakamichi could have achieved if
they designed a RTR to compete with the rather bulky & heavy Revox.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message


"William Noble" wrote in message
...
others have remarked on various techniques and the
advantages of going to CD - Personally, I had the best
results going to a reel to reel deck at 7.5
IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were
inferior to that.

I beg to differ, comparing my Studer Revox B77 MkII to my
Nakamichi CR-7E, not only has the Nak better
specifications, to my ears it sounds better. It's really
incredible what Nakamichi could wring out of a tape speed
of 1-7/8 ips compared to the Revox at 7.5 ips.

I compared a number of Nakamichi cassette machines to my hand-tweaked A77
with high performance tape back in the days when this was about as good as
it was. IME there is no way to overcome the basic limitations of the
cassette medium as compared to 2-4 times the track width and 4 times the
speed. The Naks may have been euphonic, but the basic problems of not enough
track width and too slow of a speed can't be overcome.

Today this is all moot, because the better on-board audio interfaces in
modern PCs blow all forms of analog tape away, even 15 ips half-track.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 07:25:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message


"William Noble" wrote in message
...
others have remarked on various techniques and the
advantages of going to CD - Personally, I had the best
results going to a reel to reel deck at 7.5
IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were
inferior to that.

I beg to differ, comparing my Studer Revox B77 MkII to my
Nakamichi CR-7E, not only has the Nak better
specifications, to my ears it sounds better. It's really
incredible what Nakamichi could wring out of a tape speed
of 1-7/8 ips compared to the Revox at 7.5 ips.

I compared a number of Nakamichi cassette machines to my hand-tweaked A77
with high performance tape back in the days when this was about as good as
it was. IME there is no way to overcome the basic limitations of the
cassette medium as compared to 2-4 times the track width and 4 times the
speed. The Naks may have been euphonic, but the basic problems of not enough
track width and too slow of a speed can't be overcome.

I agree. There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.

Today this is all moot, because the better on-board audio interfaces in
modern PCs blow all forms of analog tape away, even 15 ips half-track.

[C. Leeds]

Sonnova wrote:

There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.

That depends. There were many mediocre reel-to-reel machines made during
the analogue era. The best cassette decks - such as the best Nakamichis
and Tandbergs - will trounce those.

Certainly, reel-to-reel offers better potential performance, no doubt.

[Angus Stewart Pinkerton]

Originally Posted by C. Leeds

Sonnova wrote:

There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.

That depends. There were many mediocre reel-to-reel machines made during
the analogue era. The best cassette decks - such as the best Nakamichis
and Tandbergs - will trounce those.

Certainly, reel-to-reel offers better potential performance, no doubt.

However, now that we're firmly in the 21st century, all these points are moot. Even the humble CD is capable of recording *at full level* from less than 20Hz to more than 20kHz with less than 0.01% distortion and with a noise floor more than 90dB below peak level. This 'base level' digital audio is massively beyond what vinyl ever offered, and is decidedly competitive with even the very best 15ips 1/2 track studio masters.

Move to DVD recording at 24/96 or 24/192 and you can extend the upper limit to greater than 40kHz, the distortion to less than 0.001%, and the dynamic range to greater than 110dB (limited by the electronics, not by the medium). Now you're pushing beyond what *microphones* can do, so you have a functionally perfect recording and storage medium.

If you happen to like the *fundamental* colorations of vinyl, that's fine, but there's really no sensible option for archiving that sound other than via a digital recording which will provide a functionally perfect reproduction of that sound. That way, you have all the surface noise, inner-groove distortion, weak mono bass, treble splash and ticks 'n pops preserved for posterity! Luckily, you can with a modicum of skill remove the ticks and pops which would otherwise make you cringe every time you played the recording, since they'd now be in the same place every time, just like those recordings which 'feature' a music stand falling over, or a cough from a musician.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:39:11 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.

That depends. There were many mediocre reel-to-reel machines made during
the analogue era. The best cassette decks - such as the best Nakamichis
and Tandbergs - will trounce those.

Certainly, reel-to-reel offers better potential performance, no doubt.


Well, obviously that is what we're talking about, best vs best.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:39:11 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.

They are both analog tape and so their performance can reasonably expected
to overlap, at least a bit.

That depends. There were many mediocre reel-to-reel
machines made during the analogue era. The best cassette
decks - such as the best Nakamichis and Tandbergs - will
trounce those.

Best the mediocre ones, perhaps, I don't know about the trouncing part.

Besides, while top-of-the-line Tandberg or Nak is at least vaguely defined,
what is mediocre?

Are you comparing a Sony 355 with a Nak 700 series? Or are you comparing a
$99 Lafayette open-reel recoder/player to a Nak Dragon?

Certainly, reel-to-reel offers better potential
performance, no doubt.

Well, obviously that is what we're talking about, best vs
best.

The best in analog tape is more like half-track 15 ips on an Ampex ATR 10x.
I don't think that there was a Nak that even came close.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:15:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:39:11 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.

They are both analog tape and so their performance can reasonably expected
to overlap, at least a bit.

That depends. There were many mediocre reel-to-reel
machines made during the analogue era. The best cassette
decks - such as the best Nakamichis and Tandbergs - will
trounce those.

Best the mediocre ones, perhaps, I don't know about the trouncing part.

Besides, while top-of-the-line Tandberg or Nak is at least vaguely defined,
what is mediocre?

Are you comparing a Sony 355 with a Nak 700 series? Or are you comparing a
$99 Lafayette open-reel recoder/player to a Nak Dragon?

Certainly, reel-to-reel offers better potential
performance, no doubt.

Well, obviously that is what we're talking about, best vs
best.

The best in analog tape is more like half-track 15 ips on an Ampex ATR 10x.
I don't think that there was a Nak that even came close.


That's what I mean.