[elkhound]

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

any opinions welcome, thanks

[Laurence Payne]

On 19 Mar 2007 08:30:22 -0700, "elkhound"
wrote:

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

What for?

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 10:37 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 08:30:22 -0700, "elkhound"
wrote:

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

What for?

had to change my account over, last one reached limit...

anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use, and test the
fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS

[Laurence Payne]

On 19 Mar 2007 09:16:39 -0700, "jailhouserock"
wrote:


How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

What for?

had to change my account over, last one reached limit...

anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use, and test the
fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS


Yeah, but what for? Any "magic" these vintage formats possessed won't
be enhanced by transfer to cassette - in fact, quite the opposite.

We know a good cassette machine, well set up, could sound better than
such a limited format had any right to. But it still wasn't very
good, by today's standards.

If you insist, I guess it depends a lot on how well the individual
machine has been maintained and aligned. But you'll retain a lot more
of what's on that vinyl or shellac with a digital recording. Or if
you MUST be retro for religious reasons, why not use a higher-quality
tape format?

[Richard Crowley]

"jailhouserock" wrote ...
Laurence Payne wrote:
"elkhound" wrote:

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

What for?

anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use,

Huh? That's like finding an old 1947 International Harvester
tow truck to haul your rusted hulk of a Henry J back to your
garage. If you want that stuff as museum pieces to look at,
fine.

But a modern MP3 is at least as good as the audio cassettes
most of us used. (Except maybe the tweako Nakamichi crowd.)
And a 16x44K CD-quality capture will far exceed the quality of
any of those sources and is almost trivial with any computer.

and test the fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS

Why?

[Scott Dorsey]

elkhound wrote:
How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

any opinions welcome, thanks

For what?

The high speed cassette formats are not interchangeable... if you record
to a 122B at 3 3/4, you cannot interchange tapes with a Fostex at 3 3/4
because they don't have the same equalization. This basically makes
them pretty much useless since the one thing you want physical tape media
for today is interchange.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 19, 12:16 pm, "jailhouserock"
wrote:

anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use, and test the
fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS

If you really want cassettes for the convenience of storing the
recordings on the shelf, then I sure wouldn't use 3-3/4 IPS. There are
very few decks that will play that speed and yours won't last forever.
Feel free to experiment, but for making your "archive" copies, use a
format that's more likely to be playable.

Actually, if you're lucky, you can probably pick up an Ampex AG-440
for about the price of a fancy cassette deck and make some REAL tape
copies.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:40:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

But a modern MP3 is at least as good as the audio cassettes
most of us used. (Except maybe the tweako Nakamichi crowd.)
And a 16x44K CD-quality capture will far exceed the quality of
any of those sources and is almost trivial with any computer.

I never understood the Nakamich thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:40:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

But a modern MP3 is at least as good as the audio cassettes
most of us used. (Except maybe the tweako Nakamichi crowd.)
And a 16x44K CD-quality capture will far exceed the quality of
any of those sources and is almost trivial with any computer.

I never understood the Nakamich thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

Because everyone else did, and you needed interchangability.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

Laurence Payne wrote:
I never understood the Nakamich thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

Just because you can...
http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpres...6/09/cmper.jpg

[William Sommerwerck]

I never understood the Nakamichi thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

Because Nakamichis made better recordings than many open-reel decks -- that
is, the playback sounded more like the input.

I bought a 700 or 700 II (I forget which) circa 1978, and it was the first
tape I'd owned -- of any format -- that didn't _sound_ like a tape recorder.
What came out was essentially indistinguishable from what went in.

True, I probably should have bought a ReVox. But I already had a Pioneer
RT-2000 system.

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 11:29 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 09:16:39 -0700, "jailhouserock"

wrote:

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

What for?

had to change my account over, last one reached limit...

anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use, and test the
fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS

Yeah, but what for? Any "magic" these vintage formats possessed won't
be enhanced by transfer to cassette - in fact, quite the opposite.

We know a good cassette machine, well set up, could sound better than
such a limited format had any right to. But it still wasn't very
good, by today's standards.

If you insist, I guess it depends a lot on how well the individual
machine has been maintained and aligned. But you'll retain a lot more
of what's on that vinyl or shellac with a digital recording. Or if
you MUST be retro for religious reasons, why not use a higher-quality
tape format?



digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

cassette has small size, and "should" sound Ok, if the speed can just
be upped a bit, to 3.75 IPS

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 1:40 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"jailhouserock" wrote ...

Laurence Payne wrote:
"elkhound" wrote:

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

What for?

anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use,

Huh? That's like finding an old 1947 International Harvester
tow truck to haul your rusted hulk of a Henry J back to your
garage. If you want that stuff as museum pieces to look at,
fine.

But a modern MP3 is at least as good as the audio cassettes
most of us used. (Except maybe the tweako Nakamichi crowd.)
And a 16x44K CD-quality capture will far exceed the quality of
any of those sources and is almost trivial with any computer.

and test the fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS

Why?

are you kidding ? MP3 can't compare to analog tape at 3.75 IPS- the
only reason MP3 made it, was download-ability, i.e. it was free for a
while at least.

MP3 is WAY too lossy

the 238 machine is 4-track studio unit- how bad can it be ?

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 2:12 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
elkhound wrote:
How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?

any opinions welcome, thanks

For what?

The high speed cassette formats are not interchangeable... if you record
to a 122B at 3 3/4, you cannot interchange tapes with a Fostex at 3 3/4
because they don't have the same equalization. This basically makes
them pretty much useless since the one thing you want physical tape media
for today is interchange.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


no, I don't want it to interchange, just to play the tapes at home,
instead of cueing up records, 78's, etc.

in other words, I'd get one machine that sounded the best, record with
it, then use that one to play back the tapes, to listen to

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 2:19 pm, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:40:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"

wrote:
But a modern MP3 is at least as good as the audio cassettes
most of us used. (Except maybe the tweako Nakamichi crowd.)
And a 16x44K CD-quality capture will far exceed the quality of
any of those sources and is almost trivial with any computer.

I never understood the Nakamich thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

good point- and this is another thing about 1-7/8 IPS cassettes- no
matter what the advertised freq range on the deck, it never sounded as
good as a reel with LESS high end advertised.

they did some BS-ing with cassette deck specs...

[Scott Dorsey]

jailhouserock wrote:
digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

I suggest you listen to the newer digital gear.

cassette has small size, and "should" sound Ok, if the speed can just
be upped a bit, to 3.75 IPS

Cassette is a cheesy dictation format that was hardly good enough for
voice applications until they added Dolby B to it. This allowed you to
trade noise floor for pumping artifacts because it was nearly impossible
to keep the alignment correct.

Running double-speed STILL is running at a quarter the speed of a normal
15 ips tape recorder, and the track width is a tiny fraction of that of
standard 1/4" 2-track tape.

The Philips Compact Cassette is an unbelieveably putrid format that has
given a bad name to analogue recording. It is not acceptable for anything
even remotely approaching critical listening applications. The folks at
Advent who decided it was possible to use for home recording work should
be ashamed of themselves.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 3:07 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:40:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

But a modern MP3 is at least as good as the audio cassettes
most of us used. (Except maybe the tweako Nakamichi crowd.)
And a 16x44K CD-quality capture will far exceed the quality of
any of those sources and is almost trivial with any computer.

I never understood the Nakamich thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

Because everyone else did, and you needed interchangability.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

and because the tapes were small- the "quality" other than cassette,
comes with a larger package

[Scott Dorsey]

jailhouserock wrote:

good point- and this is another thing about 1-7/8 IPS cassettes- no
matter what the advertised freq range on the deck, it never sounded as
good as a reel with LESS high end advertised.

In part that is because of the narrow track width, in part it is because
the azimuth is always wrong. If it was right at the beginning of the
tape it will be wrong by the end.

they did some BS-ing with cassette deck specs...

What do you expect from the consumer electronics industry?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 3:20 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
I never understood the Nakamichi thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

Because Nakamichis made better recordings than many open-reel decks -- that
is, the playback sounded more like the input.

I bought a 700 or 700 II (I forget which) circa 1978, and it was the first
tape I'd owned -- of any format -- that didn't _sound_ like a tape recorder.
What came out was essentially indistinguishable from what went in.


that's how my Sony EL-7 Elcaset sounds. It may even sound better
coming out.

[Paul Stamler]

"jailhouserock" wrote in message
oups.com...

digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

Korg does. See Craig Anderton's review in last month's "EQ".

cassette has small size, and "should" sound Ok, if the speed can just
be upped a bit, to 3.75 IPS

Look, 3.75 ips sounds crappy even on a 1/4" 2-track Studer, carefully
aligned.

Cassettes, by and large, sound crappy for a variety of reasons, including
narrow track width and the resulting need for noise reduction, which screwed
up the sound royally if the tape machine wasn't aligned *just* right. Not to
mention azimuth misalignment and the big 'un, wow, flutter and scrape
flutter (modulation noise). Even if everything else works, the scrape
flutter, which comes from the pressure pad built into the cassette, is the
deal-breaker; it sounds simultaneously harsh and wooly, which would be a
neat trick if it didn't screw up your recordings. The only exceptions are
Nakamichi 3-head dual capstan machines, which push the pressure pad out of
the way and maintain tape tension solely by the dual-capstan mechanism. The
difference between real Naks and everything else is like night and day --
provided, of course, that everything else is right, like the bias and EQ
being trimmed carefully for the particular type of cassette, and the azimuth
being spot-on to an alignment tape.

In short...cassettes almost work, in a Nakamichi, and basically don't
otherwise. If you want real analog, and want it portable, and want it to
sound good, buy a used Nagra reel-ro-reel and learn to tweak it properly.
They're pretty cheap these days.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"jailhouserock" wrote in message
oups.com...

the 238 machine is 4-track studio unit- how bad can it be ?

Very. It's not a studio machine by any sensible use of the term; it's a
home-recording consumer machine.

Peace,
Paul

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:40:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:


But a modern MP3 is at least as good as the audio cassettes
most of us used. (Except maybe the tweako Nakamichi crowd.)
And a 16x44K CD-quality capture will far exceed the quality of
any of those sources and is almost trivial with any computer.


I never understood the Nakamich thing. Cassette was portable and
convenient. But if you could spend money and wanted quality, why
choose cassette at all?

Because a Revox was heavy and expensive. Any other
analog reel deck was probably a crapshoot, or
just crap. Ampexes were furniture - forget moving
them at all. You went to them.

The cheapo box store Tascam I bought in... 1982
outperformed and outlasted ( it's still in service )
a half dozen consumer reel to reel machines. I'd still
use it today, with good tape. I'd use the cassette
3-3/4" *multitrack* box if I needed it - sometimes,
that's the right vibe.

Cassette was just the dominant technology, because of
convenience. From say, 1975 to 1985 it dramatically
improved.

--
Les Cargill

[Laurence Payne]

On 19 Mar 2007 19:36:18 -0700, "jailhouserock"
wrote:

and test the fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS

Why?

are you kidding ? MP3 can't compare to analog tape at 3.75 IPS- the
only reason MP3 made it, was download-ability, i.e. it was free for a
while at least.

MP3 is WAY too lossy

So record a WAV. Though, actually, ears that can't hear how bad
small-format tape sounds will probably be very happy with MP3 :-)


the 238 machine is 4-track studio unit- how bad can it be ?

These machines brought multi-track recording down to a new low
price-point. They relied on heavy noise-reduction to give acceptable
quality. But they were horribly lossy. To prove the point just
bounce a track for a few generations and hear the music sink into a
sea of mush.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 19, 10:34 pm, "jailhouserock"
wrote:

digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

What have you been listening to for the past ten years? There's plenty
of good sounding digital gear, and you don't have to spend a fortune
to get it (though you CAN spend a fortune and get better).

If you really want a DSD recorder, Korg has recently introduced one,
actually two in a series. I believe the smaller one is available now.
In a review of the Korg MR-1 in the February issue of EQ Magazine,
Craig Anderton said that he finally found a digital recorder that
sounds the way he always wished digital would sound. That sounds a
little bloated to me, but at least this recording technology for under
$1,000 (I think the MR-1 is $700 or so) is a reality.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 20, 3:02 am, Les Cargill wrote:

Because a Revox was heavy and expensive. Any other
analog reel deck was probably a crapshoot, or
just crap. Ampexes were furniture - forget moving
them at all. You went to them.

BAH! Kids these days! I have a friend around here who, when he was a
teenager carried an Ampex 350 around Los Angeles by bus to record
orchestras that would let him in. Those recordings still sound great
even after more than 50 years.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On Mar 20, 3:02 am, Les Cargill wrote:

Because a Revox was heavy and expensive. Any other
analog reel deck was probably a crapshoot, or
just crap. Ampexes were furniture - forget moving
them at all. You went to them.

BAH! Kids these days! I have a friend around here who, when he was a
teenager carried an Ampex 350 around Los Angeles by bus to record
orchestras that would let him in. Those recordings still sound great
even after more than 50 years.

I did this too, but unfortunately the transport was stolen while I
left the thing backstage at Symphony Hall in Atlanta. I don't know
who stole it. I hope they had a pallet jack at least.

That's when I received the Nagra revelation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[BEN]

tascam used to have a 1/2 track audio visual machine taht did have 3.75.
we had it.

sounded good. can't think ofthe model number. was that the 234?

best

jailhouserock wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:29 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 09:16:39 -0700, "jailhouserock"

wrote:

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?
What for?
had to change my account over, last one reached limit...
anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use, and test the
fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS
Yeah, but what for? Any "magic" these vintage formats possessed won't
be enhanced by transfer to cassette - in fact, quite the opposite.

We know a good cassette machine, well set up, could sound better than
such a limited format had any right to. But it still wasn't very
good, by today's standards.

If you insist, I guess it depends a lot on how well the individual
machine has been maintained and aligned. But you'll retain a lot more
of what's on that vinyl or shellac with a digital recording. Or if
you MUST be retro for religious reasons, why not use a higher-quality
tape format?



digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

cassette has small size, and "should" sound Ok, if the speed can just
be upped a bit, to 3.75 IPS

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 19, 9:42 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
jailhouserock wrote:
digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

I suggest you listen to the newer digital gear.


I already have a CD changer, single CD player, SACD/DVD-A player, and
DVD-R with HDD that can record AC-3 Dolby Digital 2.0 stereo- digital
is no big deal- analog has superior resolution

I'm talking from experience, I also have 4 reel to reel machines- but
who wants to thread tape every 20 minutes- the cartridge formats are
way more convenient

Cassette is a cheesy dictation format that was hardly good enough for
voice applications until they added Dolby B to it. This allowed you to
trade noise floor for pumping artifacts because it was nearly impossible
to keep the alignment correct.

at 1-7/8", yes it was. At 3.75 IPS, no, it's actually pretty damn
good.
take a listen for yourself- I just got a BIC T-3 today, it sounds
awesome at 3.75 IPS


Running double-speed STILL is running at a quarter the speed of a normal
15 ips tape recorder, and the track width is a tiny fraction of that of
standard 1/4" 2-track tape.

studio 2" 32 track, or 24 track, was pretty skinny too, at 30 IPS-
running 15 IPS is out of the question, you'd have to own a private
tape mfg. company, just to get all the stock you'd need, and also a
warehouse to store it in


The Philips Compact Cassette is an unbelieveably putrid format that has
given a bad name to analogue recording. It is not acceptable for anything
even remotely approaching critical listening applications. The folks at
Advent who decided it was possible to use for home recording work should
be ashamed of themselves.

you need to listen to a 3.75 IPS machine first, otherwise, you're
talking the talk and you didn't walk the walk

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 20, 1:28 am, "Paul Stamler" wrote:
"jailhouserock" wrote in message

oups.com...



digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

Korg does. See Craig Anderton's review in last month's "EQ".

THANKS- now we're cookin' with gas...



Look, 3.75 ips sounds crappy even on a 1/4" 2-track Studer, carefully
aligned.

tell that to the Beatles and Stones, who became rock legends and
millionaires, selling millions of copies of what ? cassette, 8-track,
reel to reel- at 1-7/8 and 3.75 IPS- the whole world doesn't have to
go to digital, to be "ok" - most musicians prefer analog actually-
what's that say ?

Cassettes, by and large, sound crappy for a variety of reasons, including
narrow track width and the resulting need for noise reduction, which screwed
up the sound royally if the tape machine wasn't aligned *just* right.

try a 3.75 IPS deck, your mind will change


Not to
mention azimuth misalignment and the big 'un, wow, flutter and scrape
flutter (modulation noise). Even if everything else works, the scrape
flutter, which comes from the pressure pad built into the cassette, is the
deal-breaker; it sounds simultaneously harsh and wooly, which would be a
neat trick if it didn't screw up your recordings. The only exceptions are
Nakamichi 3-head dual capstan machines, which push the pressure pad out of
the way and maintain tape tension solely by the dual-capstan mechanism. The
difference between real Naks and everything else is like night and day --
provided, of course, that everything else is right, like the bias and EQ
being trimmed carefully for the particular type of cassette, and the azimuth
being spot-on to an alignment tape.

NAKS are an over-rated POS, ask any tech who fixes them- they motors
fry in them, and NAKS are only 1-7/8 IPS- how good can they be ?
You're dissing 3.75 IPS, but promoting a 1-7/8 IPS machine ? Now which
is it ?


In short...cassettes almost work, in a Nakamichi, and basically don't
otherwise. If you want real analog, and want it portable, and want it to
sound good, buy a used Nagra reel-ro-reel and learn to tweak it properly.
They're pretty cheap these days.

I have an Elcaset that makes a 7.5 IPS 1/4" reel sound sick. I'm just
toying with another format, that's all. I'd rather be recording, than
typing on the net, arguing. Stop trying to make analog people, go to
digital. Digital sucks !

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 20, 6:16 am, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:34 pm, "jailhouserock"
wrote:

digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

What have you been listening to for the past ten years?

reel to reel, 8-track carts, vinyl mostly, then some SACD, CD, DVD-A,
very few cassettes. I prefer 1/4" analog tape, and vinyl 2nd. I also
got a DVD-R that records in AC-3 stereo, and have burned WAV CD-R's on
my computer. Dude, I've been there, I can drop $5000 on a digital rig
tomorrow, why bother ? In 5 years, it will be worth about $200.

There's plenty
of good sounding digital gear, and you don't have to spend a fortune
to get it (though you CAN spend a fortune and get better).

there's no such thing as good digital- even a SACD player, the highest
resolution, can't compare to a clean vinyl record or even a 7.5 IPS
1/4" tape. Digital is only "good" to someone, who didnt' grow up on
half-decent analog. Even DeserTBob runs reels, cassette, and vinyl.


If you really want a DSD recorder, Korg has recently introduced one,
actually two in a series. I believe the smaller one is available now.
In a review of the Korg MR-1 in the February issue of EQ Magazine,
Craig Anderton said that he finally found a digital recorder that
sounds the way he always wished digital would sound. That sounds a
little bloated to me, but at least this recording technology for under
$1,000 (I think the MR-1 is $700 or so) is a reality.

Perhaps I'll look into that- but here's the thing- you can take an old
1/4" reel machine, or an Elcaset, and get better sound. Sampled
digital sound is never going to be as good as analog tape or vinyl,
because the resolution "bits" on analog, are the actual molecules of
iron oxide on the tape, and the molecules of vinyl on the record.
Analog has vastly more information packed into it.

Wait a few years, that DSD recorder will be on Ebay for $200.

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 20, 8:56 pm, BEN wrote:
tascam used to have a 1/2 track audio visual machine taht did have 3.75.
we had it.

sounded good. can't think ofthe model number. was that the 234?

best



jailhouserock wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:29 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 09:16:39 -0700, "jailhouserock"

wrote:

How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ?
What for?
had to change my account over, last one reached limit...
anyway- to transfer vintage vinyl, reel, 8-track carts, 78rpm
shellac- to compact cassette format for home use, and test the
fidelity limits of the compact cassette at 3.75 IPS
Yeah, but what for? Any "magic" these vintage formats possessed won't
be enhanced by transfer to cassette - in fact, quite the opposite.

We know a good cassette machine, well set up, could sound better than
such a limited format had any right to. But it still wasn't very
good, by today's standards.

If you insist, I guess it depends a lot on how well the individual
machine has been maintained and aligned. But you'll retain a lot more
of what's on that vinyl or shellac with a digital recording. Or if
you MUST be retro for religious reasons, why not use a higher-quality
tape format?

digital is too lossy and harsh IMO- but if they made a SACD recorder,
I'd use it.

cassette has small size, and "should" sound Ok, if the speed can just
be upped a bit, to 3.75 IPS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

my thoughts exactly...

the 234 is a 4-track studio/commercial machine, basically a
transport. You can make stereo carts on it, by punching out channels
3 and 4, and using it like a standard cassette, but at 3.75 IPS. I
have spoken to guys that bought them new, many still love the machines
and won't sell them- they have 25 hz-20khz bandwidth (according to
what is in this guy's owner manual) - basically CD quality but analog
cassette 3.75 IPS on a metal tape- how bad can they be ?

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 20 Mar 2007 21:28:17 -0700, "jailhouserock"
wrote:

Perhaps I'll look into that- but here's the thing- you can take an old
1/4" reel machine, or an Elcaset, and get better sound. Sampled
digital sound is never going to be as good as analog tape or vinyl,
because the resolution "bits" on analog, are the actual molecules of
iron oxide on the tape, and the molecules of vinyl on the record.

Perhaps surprisingly, resolution of analog tape is more limited
(by many orders of magnitude) by head-and-tape geometry than by
molecular size. Real-world performance is often limited even
more by the difficulties of moving the tape past the heads
reliably and repeatably.

Vinyl can resolve a (very noisy) signal down near the wavelength
of a hydrogen atom, but does so by averaging a geometric
position arrived at with considerable vinyl deformation. And
signal is averaged over a (comparatively) large area.

Analog has vastly more information packed into it.

This is an easy idea to believe, but a hard one to defend. As a
former defender, you'll perhaps allow me to poke an occasional
hole in the occasional balloon. There are great
virtures to the analog world; misrepresentations before a
professional and (professionally) properly sceptical
audience are no virtue.

(Idealized) digital is no vice. But that's a discussion that
begs a search of the archives. (This discussion happens here
every eight months; sometimes better, sometimes not; hope this
one ends up being better).

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

[Paul Stamler]

"jailhouserock" wrote in message
ups.com...

Look, 3.75 ips sounds crappy even on a 1/4" 2-track Studer, carefully
aligned.

tell that to the Beatles and Stones, who became rock legends and
millionaires, selling millions of copies of what ? cassette, 8-track,
reel to reel- at 1-7/8 and 3.75 IPS- the whole world doesn't have to
go to digital, to be "ok" - most musicians prefer analog actually-
what's that say ?

It says that PROFESSIONAL analog equipment can sound very good. That has
nothing to do with cassettes, which for the most part sound crappy as hell.
And, by the way, the Beatles and Stones became rock legends and millionaires
selling -- primarily -- LPs. Which suck in their own way, but when new,
played on a decent machine, can sound okay.

Cassettes, by and large, sound crappy for a variety of reasons,
including
narrow track width and the resulting need for noise reduction, which
screwed
up the sound royally if the tape machine wasn't aligned *just* right.

try a 3.75 IPS deck, your mind will change

I did, and my mind didn't change. Narrow-track is still narrow-track. Scrape
flutter is still scrape flutter. (See below.)


Not to
mention azimuth misalignment and the big 'un, wow, flutter and scrape
flutter (modulation noise). Even if everything else works, the scrape
flutter, which comes from the pressure pad built into the cassette, is
the
deal-breaker; it sounds simultaneously harsh and wooly, which would be a
neat trick if it didn't screw up your recordings. The only exceptions
are
Nakamichi 3-head dual capstan machines, which push the pressure pad out
of
the way and maintain tape tension solely by the dual-capstan mechanism.
The
difference between real Naks and everything else is like night and
day --
provided, of course, that everything else is right, like the bias and EQ
being trimmed carefully for the particular type of cassette, and the
azimuth
being spot-on to an alignment tape.

NAKS are an over-rated POS, ask any tech who fixes them- they motors
fry in them, and NAKS are only 1-7/8 IPS- how good can they be ?
You're dissing 3.75 IPS, but promoting a 1-7/8 IPS machine ? Now which
is it ?

Very simple: The Nak solves the single biggest problem of the cassette
format, the atrocious scrape flutter, and gets it to sound barely
acceptable. None of the 3.75 ips machines did that (unless Nak made a 3.75
ips machine I didn't hear about, which of course is possible), and so they
continued to suck.

You're right, though, about the mechanical integrity of Naks; they were
nightmares, at least most of the ones I worked on.

In short...cassettes almost work, in a Nakamichi, and basically don't
otherwise. If you want real analog, and want it portable, and want it to
sound good, buy a used Nagra reel-ro-reel and learn to tweak it
properly.
They're pretty cheap these days.

I have an Elcaset that makes a 7.5 IPS 1/4" reel sound sick. I'm just
toying with another format, that's all. I'd rather be recording, than
typing on the net, arguing. Stop trying to make analog people, go to
digital. Digital sucks !

I'm not sure you're making sense here, but never mind. Analog -- even good
analog -- sucks in some ways. Digital -- even good digital -- sucks in some
ways. But they suck in different ways.

And, just maybe, DSD might not suck.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message


I'm not sure you're making sense here, but never mind.
Analog -- even good analog -- sucks in some ways.

No matter how they tried to overcome its inherent limitations, analog tape
never got to be sonically transparent.

Digital even good digital -- sucks in some ways.

That may be, but digital can be sonically transparent, and for what are now
reasonable amounts of trouble and expense.

And, just maybe, DSD might not suck.

Not a chance. DSD is just the usual elements of a modern digital audio
record/reproduce chain with some different parameter choices (like the far
more agressive noise shaping) , and some now-innocous steps sorta bypassed.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 21, 12:15 am, "jailhouserock"
wrote:

I already have a CD changer, single CD player, SACD/DVD-A player, and
DVD-R with HDD that can record AC-3 Dolby Digital 2.0 stereo- digital
is no big deal- analog has superior resolution

I'm talking from experience, I also have 4 reel to reel machines- but
who wants to thread tape every 20 minutes- the cartridge formats are
way more convenient

At 3.75 IPS, no, it's actually pretty damn good.
take a listen for yourself- I just got a BIC T-3 today, it sounds
awesome at 3.75 IPS

With very little due respect, and I don't say this to many people
here, your ears are absolutely full of **** that's coming out of your
brain.

Get outa here! BIC cassette decks are only awesome for their value as
a curiosity. Enjoy your flutter.

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 21, 7:10 am, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 21, 12:15 am, "jailhouserock"
wrote:

I already have a CD changer, single CD player, SACD/DVD-A player, and
DVD-R with HDD that can record AC-3 Dolby Digital 2.0 stereo- digital
is no big deal- analog has superior resolution

I'm talking from experience, I also have 4 reel to reel machines- but
who wants to thread tape every 20 minutes- the cartridge formats are
way more convenient
At 3.75 IPS, no, it's actually pretty damn good.
take a listen for yourself- I just got a BIC T-3 today, it sounds
awesome at 3.75 IPS

With very little due respect, and I don't say this to many people
here, your ears are absolutely full of **** that's coming out of your
brain.

conclusion- you don't own and have no experience with a TASCAM or TEAC
deck at 3.75 IPS cassette- now who's full of what ? You avoided the
question.


Get outa here! BIC cassette decks are only awesome for their value as
a curiosity.

ditto for you on the BIC decks

Enjoy your flutter.

what flutter ? My Elcaset deck would leave you speechless.

Enjoy your lossy digital resolution.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message


I'm not sure you're making sense here, but never mind.
Analog -- even good analog -- sucks in some ways.

No matter how they tried to overcome its inherent limitations, analog tape
never got to be sonically transparent.

Depends on what you mean by that. I bet I can do a double-blind test
where you can't tell the input of the ATR-100 from the output. I bet
I could EVEN do it with cassette if I selected the sample material right.
--scott

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

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 21, 2:06 am, "Paul Stamler" wrote:

It says that PROFESSIONAL analog equipment can sound very good.

well that's exactly WTF the OP is about, the TASCAM equipment listed
was made during the 1980's, it has 25hz- 20 khz rez. And that's what
I'm looking into getting, running at 3.75 IPS. This is studio quality
gear- you obviously don't know WTF you're talking about here.

these decks are built like tanks and run like a train

see them he

http://cgi.ebay.com/TASCAM-234-SYNCA...QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/TASCAM-122-MK2-C...QQcmdZViewItem

and you're telling me to listen to lossy MP3 and CD, that it may sound
better ? yeh, right. These decks accept metal tapes and run at 3.75
IPS- perhaps you should TRY ONE first, before you go off defending
your digital investment. How can you beat a 4-track machine that goes
for less than $200 ? Try to record 4 tracks of digital that easy.

nothing to do with cassettes, which for the most part sound crappy as hell.

yes, at 1-7/8 IPS they do- not at the Pro speed of 3.75 IPS on metal
cassettes they don't- in that case, they have a 20khz+ top end- a pro
deck with metal tape at 3.75 IPS easily equals standard CD 44/16 rez,
and BLOWS AWAY MP3 and home made CD-R WAV

And, by the way, the Beatles and Stones became rock legends and millionaires
selling -- primarily -- LPs. Which suck in their own way, but when new,
played on a decent machine, can sound okay.

tell that to the thousands of people buying audiophile grade LP's
again, 180 gram- they ALSO would make your digital system sound like
****

http://www.vinyl.com/

http://store.acousticsounds.com/category.cfm?id=17

http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID50998...-gram-lps.aspx

where the hell have you been, hiding in a digital cave somewhere ? If
you roll away that "new must be better" rock in front of the cave
entrance, you'll find there's a great world of analog music out there
waiting for you to hear




I did, and my mind didn't change. Narrow-track is still narrow-track. Scrape
flutter is still scrape flutter. (See below.)

and what deck was that on ? you obviously didn't own a good PRO deck
like you're chattering about, like a TASCAM 122 or 234- talk to
someone who did, they still have them, and rave about them- and won't
sell them- what's that say ?

Very simple: The Nak solves the single biggest problem of the cassette
format, the atrocious scrape flutter, and gets it to sound barely
acceptable. None of the 3.75 ips machines did that (unless Nak made a 3.75
ips machine I didn't hear about, which of course is possible), and so they
continued to suck.


so now you're arguing to increase fidelity on tape, lower the speed to
1-7/8 IPS, perhaps you should open up your mind a bit- Edison invented
the phonograph, by cutting the earphone and mouthpiece off a
telephone, and putting it on a cylinder. If he thought like you,
there would be no phonograph at all. No offense intended.

You're right, though, about the mechanical integrity of Naks; they were
nightmares, at least most of the ones I worked on.

see ?

I'm not sure you're making sense here, but never mind. Analog -- even good
analog -- sucks in some ways. Digital -- even good digital -- sucks in some
ways. But they suck in different ways.

Analog is better. I'm far better off investigating pro 3.75 IPS
cassette format, than MP3 or WAV home transfers. They sound
horrendous.

DSD is a step in the right direction. But you're forgetting
something- no matter how good they make digital, it's still just a
computer program trying to reproduce music to it's best ability.
When you put a CD in a deck, you're basically playing a compute
program.

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 21, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message



I'm not sure you're making sense here, but never mind.
Analog -- even good analog -- sucks in some ways.

No matter how they tried to overcome its inherent limitations, analog tape
never got to be sonically transparent.

yet the best CD's and SACD''s and DVD-A's, are taken from tape
masters. I'd wager your favorite digital music, most of it has tape
masters. And recordings from digital masters, sound terrible and
harsh.

That may be, but digital can be sonically transparent, and for what are now
reasonable amounts of trouble and expense.

transparent, and also missing some of the music, and what's there is
sonically changed due to the sampling methods- i.e. I can take a
picture of you, blow it up to 10 feet square size, and poke it full of
full of 100 holes with a pencil- at the distance of 100 feet away, you
can still tell what the picture is though- that's digital. don't
confuse lack of background noise with quality. If Marilyn Monroe wore
dirty jeans with holes in the knees, and a ripped t-shirt, she's still
Marilyn Monroe- that's analog and background noise.

And, just maybe, DSD might not suck.

Not a chance. DSD is just the usual elements of a modern digital audio
record/reproduce chain with some different parameter choices (like the far
more agressive noise shaping) , and some now-innocous steps sorta bypassed.

you won't see me buying any digital equipment new- you can pay $5000
for a system, and in 2 years it's worth about $200 or less. The
thrift stores are becoming full of CD players now. My neighbor put
out a Technics 5-CD changer on trash day- there was nothing wrong
about it. And CD was this "great format" and so much better than
analog- than why are people throwing away the players now ?

I have a friend who's a technician and owns his own shop- lately, the
place is getting LOTS of vintage work- while the digital machines are
not worth fixing, and are being thrown away. Just look inside one new
digital machine, they are all cheaply made P'sOS.

Are you recommending someone invest in this digital crap ? I'd rather
invest in those TASCAM decks anyday.

[jailhouserock]

On Mar 21, 12:23 am, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Perhaps surprisingly, resolution of analog tape is more limited
(by many orders of magnitude) by head-and-tape geometry than by
molecular size. Real-world performance is often limited even
more by the difficulties of moving the tape past the heads
reliably and repeatably.

the end result still sounds better to my ears, even a SACD player
can't match 7.5 IPS tape


Vinyl can resolve a (very noisy) signal down near the wavelength
of a hydrogen atom, but does so by averaging a geometric
position arrived at with considerable vinyl deformation. And
signal is averaged over a (comparatively) large area.

still, the end result sounds more pleasing than digital


This is an easy idea to believe, but a hard one to defend. As a
former defender, you'll perhaps allow me to poke an occasional
hole in the occasional balloon. There are great
virtures to the analog world; misrepresentations before a
professional and (professionally) properly sceptical
audience are no virtue.

it's really obvious in any back to back test, the analog has
coloration that adds more pleasing effects, than the digital can add
with no surface noise.

analogy- digital is the perfect blow up doll that never talks back or
says now- while analog is a real woman, complete with PMS and mood
swings and maintenance, but with all the warm, real-world qualities
the blow up doll will never have... (grin)


(Idealized) digital is no vice. But that's a discussion that
begs a search of the archives. (This discussion happens here
every eight months; sometimes better, sometimes not; hope this
one ends up being better).

digital is really just a computer program that makes music


All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck


thanks for the kind replies