Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 21, 8:19 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
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." exactly- you're one of the sharper guys here. what I think happens is this- new digital gear comes out, people go out and buy it- and then feel the need to defend it- because otherwise, they'd have to admit that 20-30 year old analog gear is just as good and even better, and costs far less kind of like buying a new 2007 Vette, and getting your doors blown off by an old 1970 Chevelle with a 454 at the track...the Vette owner isn't going to like making that month's payment on his car... |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 21, 8:26 am, "jailhouserock"
wrote: conclusion- you don't own and have no experience with a TASCAM or TEAC deck at 3.75 IPS cassette This is true. I have no need for those types of machines. You avoided the question. What was the question? Does anyone own a 3.75 ips cassette deck? ditto for you on the BIC decks I actually did own one of the BIC high speed dual transport decks back when they were new. That was before I even dreamed of owning any digital recording equipment, or even a professional grade analog recorder. I believe my best recorder at the time was a Sony TC-650, which sounded much better than the BIC. I thought the BIC would be a good way to copy cassettes. Copies at normal speed always sounded better. I never used it to make an original recording because I couldn't share it with anyone. That was useless to me. what flutter ? My Elcaset deck would leave you speechless. Oh, now we're talking about an Elcassette. Well, that was a dead-on- arrival product, but I do recall hearing one at an AES show back when they were still at the Walforf. There was a Stevie Wonder song that year that everyone was playing in their demo rooms that year and I reaall that it sounded quite good on the Elcassette. But that was the first and last time I ever saw one. You may have one of the few in captivity. However, if you'd like to know how much flutter you actually have, I invite you to send me a CD or digital file of a recording of a steady tone made on your 3-3/4 ips recorders and I'll measure it for you. Enjoy your lossy digital resolution. Your arguments against digital indicate that you clearly don't believe that it will work, so there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. We'll just have to humor you. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
If you find that you want to buy one of the 3.75 IPS machines, please
let me know. I have a Tascam 122 that is in good condition that I will sell at a reasonable price. I'd have to check and see what they go for these days, but if you're interested we can probably come to an agreement on it. My Email is dean -at- REMOVE THIS deanrichard -dot- com (Encoded to avoid spambots.) Dean On Mar 19, 10:30 am, "elkhound" wrote: How are these machines for dubbing stereo recordings to ? any opinions welcome, thanks |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
jailhouserock wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:19 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: 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." exactly- you're one of the sharper guys here. what I think happens is this- new digital gear comes out, people go out and buy it- and then feel the need to defend it- because otherwise, they'd have to admit that 20-30 year old analog gear is just as good and even better, and costs far less It's not better and it doesn't cost less. Where the hell have you been? Don't get me wrong, I miss analog... until it's time to get some work done :-) kind of like buying a new 2007 Vette, and getting your doors blown off by an old 1970 Chevelle with a 454 at the track...the Vette owner isn't going to like making that month's payment on his car... The guy that buys the Vette isn't buying it because it's fast, he buys it because it costs a lot of money and it impresses people. Most people buy digital because it gets the job done in a satisfactory way. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
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. ....as a general rule. 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. Not if I pick the musical program material. ;-) I bet I could EVEN do it with cassette if I selected the sample material right. --scott There you go. ;-) |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
"jailhouserock" wrote in
message oups.com On Mar 21, 8:19 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: 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." exactly- you're one of the sharper guys here. Well yes, but what he's really doing is making a joke with me. what I think happens is this- new digital gear comes out, people go out and buy it- and then feel the need to defend it- because otherwise, they'd have to admit that 20-30 year old analog gear is just as good and even better, and costs far less No way Jose' kind of like buying a new 2007 Vette, and getting your doors blown off by an old 1970 Chevelle with a 454 at the track...the Vette owner isn't going to like making that month's payment on his car... More like buying a Ford Fusion V6 with a paltry 183 cubic inch engine, and finding that it will pretty well keep up or beat any circa-70s sedan with a stock engine displacing up to twice as much, with far better gas economy, far lower pollution, far quieter, far smoother, far less maintenance, better tolerance for low octane fuels, and far better drivability. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
"jailhouserock" wrote in
message oups.com 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. Nonsense. I'd wager your favorite digital music, most of it has tape masters. Can't be, because I record my favorate music myself - digitally. And recordings from digital masters, sound terrible and harsh. Simply not true. 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, That's self-contradictory. and what's there is sonically changed due to the sampling methods- Simply not true. Time for you to do some proper listening tests. 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. Only in your mind. 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. Nonsense, and does not include all the other failings of cassette tape including: Wow Flutter Modulation noise Major shifts in frequency response with recorded level Absence of dynamic range at high frequencies and high levels 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- Fine with me - you can suffer as you wish. 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. Nahh, people are just playing them until they drop. My neighbor put out a Technics 5-CD changer on trash day- there was nothing wrong about it. Maybe your neighbor caught what's ailing you? ;-) And CD was this "great format" and so much better than analog- than why are people throwing away the players now ? Are they? If they are, it would be because they have a DVD player that plays both formats, and takes up less space in their AC cabinet than two separate players. 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. You just contradicted yourself again. If the vintage digital stuff is being thrown away, why does he have so much work fixing it? Are you recommending someone invest in this digital crap Not digital crap, highly effective digitally-based tools. ? I'd rather invest in those TASCAM decks anyday Be my guest. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
"jailhouserock" wrote in message
ups.com... 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. On the contrary. 25Hz-20kHz -- at what level? 0VU? In a pig's eye, unless you're taking +/- 10dB as your standard. Whereas professional equipment, like a properly-adjusted reel-to-reel 1/4" half-track machine running at 15ips, will be flat +/-3dB out to at least 25kHz at 0VU. The thing is, you're comparing digital to consumer crap analog, and still come up preferring the analog. Okay, no accounting for tastes. But sometime, if you want to hear what analog can be like, get together with somebody who has an ATR100, or an AG-440, and listen hard. Peace, Paul |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
...the TASCAM equipment listed was made during the 1980's,
it has 25 - 20khz 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. I remember seeing the specs for TASCAM's 3.75ips cassette machines -- and it was inferior to all but the cheapest Nakamichi decks running at half that speed. (The spec'd frequency response was 16kHz, which is poor performance for a machine using premium tape and running at 3.75ips.) The only likely advantage of these TASCAM decks is better headroom. You can get response to 20kHz at 3.75ips -- but the machine has to be well-engineered. TASCAM decks have no reputation for superior engineering. I have been told that, if an internal low-pass filter is defeated, the Nakamichi Dragon will get out to 30kHz -- with metal tape, of course. Of course, the bottom line is that good specs don't automatically guarantee good sound. Except for headroom, I'd put a Nakamichi up against _any_ TEAC or TASCAM running at _any_ speed. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
"jailhouserock" wrote in
message ps.com 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) - You really believe that crap? 25-20 KHz at what level and with how many dBs tolerance? If you can't provide those two key addiational parameters, you're talking marketing crap, not technology. basically CD quality Can't happen. It takes more then 15 ips half track to get true CD quality. but analog cassette 3.75 IPS on a metal tape- how bad can they be ? By modern standards? Absolute drek. :-( |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
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 That is a stupid generalization. To say "analogue has superior resolution" or "digital has superior resolution" without specifying anything else is like saying "red cars are faster." It is a non sequitur. 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. I'm sorry, but I had to actually WORK with that crap twenty years ago when people were submitting tapes in those rotten formats. I know what it sounds like and "damn good" is not in the ballpark. take a listen for yourself- I just got a BIC T-3 today, it sounds awesome at 3.75 IPS I am terribly, terribly sorry. Look, you post to an audio production group about some vomitous crap equipment and people tell you it's vomitous crap. Then you get all defensive and start talking about how great it is. If you thought it was great, why did you even bother asking? If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you even bother asking? Why are you even bothering to reply? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
jailhouserock wrote:
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. I have two of them racked up here, and I used to work for a place that had thirty of the damn things (not ONE of which had the original eject button). He knows what he is talking about. these decks are built like tanks and run like a train Yes, this is true. The only problem with them is that they don't sound good. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
what I think happens is this- new digital gear comes out,
people go out and buy it- and then feel the need to defend it- because otherwise, they'd have to admit that 20-30 year old analog gear is just as good and even better, and costs far less As the owner of lots of 20-30 year old analogue gear, I have to say that the routine maintenance cost on the ATR-100 is enough to buy a cheap DAW every year or so. Just the cost to replace the guide bearings alone is more than typical USB interfaces cost. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
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. Holy cow, that is a seriously determined human being. "Recordist needed. Must be able to lift 100 pounds." Guess you could do that when you walked uphill in the snow 40 miles to school every day. Those recordings still sound great even after more than 50 years. I am sure they do. The first studio recording I ever performed on was on one. -- Les Cargill |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
DeserTBoB wrote:
On 20 Mar 2007 04:23:28 -0700, "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. snip Agreed. There was LOTS of "suitcased" 350s, 351s and 354s (ugh) I'll be. The only ones I ever saw were in the rollaround - I just assumed they stayed that way. running around back then, just as there still are alot of similarly portablized AG440s. My 440 can be taken out of the rollaround and installed in Anvils in about an hour, complete with a TRS jackfield for external interconnects. Only problem there is, "Where the hell did I put those power cords???" Of course, there's precious little call for remote 4 track recording on analog these days, so they stay put. I schlepped a 351-2 around recording organs all over the West back in the '70s. So, yes...they aren't necessarily "furniture"...although being a furniture mover with big biceps sure helps in moving them around! Next! The evils of the Hammond B3 ( sleeps two )... -- Les Cargill |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
Les Cargill wrote:
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. Holy cow, that is a seriously determined human being. "Recordist needed. Must be able to lift 100 pounds." Nahh, it's in two cases, one with the transport and one with the electronics. Each one of them is around sixty pounds or so. Much more convenient than the rollaround cabinet for field use. Half the time you aren't even ALLOWED to carry them yourself, and you have to let the Teamsters do it anyway. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 21, 8:48 am, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:26 am, "jailhouserock" wrote: conclusion- you don't own and have no experience with aTASCAMor TEAC deck at 3.75 IPS cassette This is true. I have no need for those types of machines. You avoided the question. What was the question? Does anyone own a 3.75 ips cassette deck? ditto for you on the BIC decks I actually did own one of the BIC high speed dual transport decks back when they were new. That was before I even dreamed of owning any digital recording equipment, or even a professional grade analog recorder. I believe my best recorder at the time was a Sony TC-650, which sounded much better than the BIC. I thought the BIC would be a good way to copy cassettes. Copies at normal speed always sounded better. I never used it to make an original recording because I couldn't share it with anyone. That was useless to me. what flutter ? My Elcaset deck would leave you speechless. Oh, now we're talking about an Elcassette. Well, that was a dead-on- arrival product, but I do recall hearing one at an AES show back when they were still at the Walforf. There was a Stevie Wonder song that year that everyone was playing in their demo rooms that year and I reaall that it sounded quite good on the Elcassette. But that was the first and last time I ever saw one. You may have one of the few in captivity. However, if you'd like to know how much flutter you actually have, I invite you to send me a CD or digital file of a recording of a steady tone made on your 3-3/4 ips recorders and I'll measure it for you. Enjoy your lossy digital resolution. Your arguments against digital indicate that you clearly don't believe that it will work, so there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. We'll just have to humor you. The vintage cartridge formats give a lot more performance per dollar, than the new digital formats. Yes, you can get a reel to reel and get more fidelity- but who wants to thread tape every 20 minutes. Digital simply does not have the resolution of analog- and it never will. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 21, 8:52 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
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 That is a stupid generalization. To say "analogue has superior resolution" or "digital has superior resolution" without specifying anything else is like saying "red cars are faster." It is a non sequitur. 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. I'm sorry, but I had to actually WORK with that crap twenty years ago when people were submitting tapes in those rotten formats. I know what it sounds like and "damn good" is not in the ballpark. take a listen for yourself- I just got a BIC T-3 today, it sounds awesome at 3.75 IPS I am terribly, terribly sorry. Look, you post to an audio production group about some vomitous crap equipment and people tell you it's vomitous crap. Then you get all defensive and start talking about how great it is. If you thought it was great, why did you even bother asking? If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you even bother asking? Why are you even bothering to reply? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." any studio sound technician or recording engineer will tell you, analog is better, that's why they use analog consoles even today, then they transfer it to the digital medium- ask around an analog console has more dynamic range in the studio, hands down- where have you been ? |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 21, 8:52 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
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 That is a stupid generalization. To say "analogue has superior resolution" or "digital has superior resolution" without specifying anything else is like saying "red cars are faster." It is a non sequitur. 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. I'm sorry, but I had to actually WORK with that crap twenty years ago when people were submitting tapes in those rotten formats. I know what it sounds like and "damn good" is not in the ballpark. take a listen for yourself- I just got a BIC T-3 today, it sounds awesome at 3.75 IPS I am terribly, terribly sorry. Look, you post to an audio production group about some vomitous crap equipment and people tell you it's vomitous crap. Then you get all defensive and start talking about how great it is. If you thought it was great, why did you even bother asking? If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you even bother asking? Why are you even bothering to reply? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I'm not saying cassette is the best- I'm saying it's a good compromise for ease of use and fidelity for home archival use, at 3.75 IP with metal tape, on a good pro machine like a Tascam or Teac. The BIC machine is not a Tascam, admitted. with 25hz-20khz bandwidth, how bad can the Tascams be ? |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 21, 10:58 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"jailhouserock" wrote in ooglegroups.com On Mar 21, 8:19 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: 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." exactly- you're one of the sharper guys here. Well yes, but what he's really doing is making a joke with me. what I think happens is this- new digital gear comes out, people go out and buy it- and then feel the need to defend it- because otherwise, they'd have to admit that 20-30 year old analog gear is just as good and even better, and costs far less No way Jose' kind of like buying a new 2007 Vette, and getting your doors blown off by an old 1970 Chevelle with a 454 at the track...the Vette owner isn't going to like making that month's payment on his car... More like buying a Ford Fusion V6 with a paltry 183 cubic inch engine, and finding that it will pretty well keep up or beat any circa-70s sedan with a stock engine displacing up to twice as much, with far better gas economy, far lower pollution, far quieter, far smoother, far less maintenance, better tolerance for low octane fuels, and far better drivability.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - yes way, Jose- you were testing cassette decks at 1-7/8 IPS that had a 13 KHZ top end. Then trying to make analogies about how good the formats were. test a cassette deck with metal tape that goes to 22 khz like a NAK, then make your comparison or test a 3.75 IPS deck you'll be surprised |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 20, 2:02 am, Les Cargill wrote:
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 storeTascamI 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 finally, some good, solid information from someone experienced in this format- thanks |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 21, 12:30 pm, "Paul Stamler" wrote:
"jailhouserock" wrote in message ups.com... 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, theTASCAMequipment 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. On the contrary. 25Hz-20kHz -- at what level? 0VU? In a pig's eye, unless you're taking +/- 10dB as your standard. easily attainable with 3.75 IPS metal tape, where have you been ? why the heck do you think ABC, CBS, NBC bought thousands of those TASCAM decks throughout the 1980's ? The BIC 3.75 IPS machine I bought, is rated close to that. You are severely under-rating the capability of metal tape at 3.75 IPS the old Akai 8-track cartridge decks run at 3.75, and used standard tape, and would test out to 18-19khz top end, and were rated at 16-17khz top end in the specs metal tape is easily worth 20 khz at 3.75 IPS, in a cassette deck the tiny little TASCAM 424 portastudio is rated even higher than that, +/- 3 DB Whereas professional equipment, like a properly-adjusted reel-to-reel 1/4" half-track machine running at 15ips, will be flat +/-3dB out to at least 25kHz at 0VU. try stocking all those tape reels in your home, amongst your family belongings, and see how much tape you need to record a 45 minute LP at 15 ips. You'd need a warehouse just to store it all. The thing is, you're comparing digital to consumer crap analog, and still come up preferring the analog. Okay, no accounting for tastes. But sometime, if you want to hear what analog can be like, get together with somebody who has an ATR100, or an AG-440, and listen hard. no, I'm asking for someone with TASCAM 122 and 234 machine time experience, who actually owned them and used them- not someone trying to justify the money they dropped on lossy digital like you did Peace, Paul you verbally attack people, than sign off with "peace" ? why not just sign off with "war" ?? |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
jailhouserock wrote:
with 25hz-20khz bandwidth, how bad can the Tascams be ? Pretty bad, if that's +/- 20 dB or so. I recall the last time I did a sweep on the 122B, using BASF chrome tape I had a -3 dB point around 12 KHz, -6dB around 16 KHz, and it fell like a rock after that. Admittedly this was around 15 years ago when I had to last prep cassettes for mix auditioning. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
jailhouserock wrote:
why the heck do you think ABC, CBS, NBC bought thousands of those TASCAM decks throughout the 1980's ? To dub news from reporters using Marantz cassette decks in the field. Also to dub actualities over telephone lines. no, I'm asking for someone with TASCAM 122 and 234 machine time experience, who actually owned them and used them- not someone trying to justify the money they dropped on lossy digital like you did I used 122Bs for realtime duplication for years, for audition tapes, and I continue to have one in the rack. It ain't hi-fi by any stretch of the imagination. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 8:38 am, "jailhouserock"
wrote: The vintage cartridge formats give a lot more performance per dollar, than the new digital formats. I think you need to send your time machine in for repair. At the time of the "vintage" cartridge formats, there were no new digital formats, so there was nothing to compare them to. And when the "new" digital formats came out, they were so much more expensive than the "vintage" cartridge formats that there could be no comparison. Remember $1,000 CD players? Not too long after $1,000 Elcassettes actually, and I believe that the listeners of the time much preferred the sound of that newfangled digital CD player to the sound of cassettes which were the current home format at the time. Yes, you can get a reel to reel and get more fidelity- but who wants to thread tape every 20 minutes. Are you suggesting that your 3-3/4 ips cartridge has higher fidelity than a reel-to-reel tape deck running at the same speed? It might equal it on a good day, but it's unlikely to exceed it. And a 10-1/2" reel of 1 mil tape at 3-3/4 ips will run for a bit over three hours. Who wants to change cartridges every 30-40 minutes? Remember, in the days when they made those Elcassettes, a standard LP, which is what you'd get if you bought a prerecorded cartridge, was less than 40 minutes. The big advantage, if there was one, was that you didn't have to turn over the record after 20 minutes. But then how else do you get a beer without missing some of the music? Digital simply does not have the resolution of analog- and it never will. Yes, that's the simpleminded, wrong concept. But suit yourself. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 8:54 am, "jailhouserock"
wrote: easily attainable with 3.75 IPS metal tape, where have you been ? Where do you buy that stuff nowadays? |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
"jailhouserock" wrote in message
oups.com... easily attainable with 3.75 IPS metal tape, where have you been ? Working in studios and broadcast stations. Where have you been? why the heck do you think ABC, CBS, NBC bought thousands of those TASCAM decks throughout the 1980's ? Convenience. Audio standards in television were pretty low back then. the old Akai 8-track cartridge decks run at 3.75, and used standard tape, and would test out to 18-19khz top end, and were rated at 16-17khz top end in the specs Most of the spects were lies then and now. the tiny little TASCAM 424 portastudio is rated even higher than that, +/- 3 DB See above. try stocking all those tape reels in your home, amongst your family belongings, and see how much tape you need to record a 45 minute LP at 15 ips. You'd need a warehouse just to store it all. Yep. Which is why my basement is filled with boxes of tapes. Most of which weren't used to tape LPs, but live performances and studio recordings. no, I'm asking for someone with TASCAM 122 and 234 machine time experience, who actually owned them and used them- not someone trying to justify the money they dropped on lossy digital like you did Your definition of "lossy digital"? In most of the world, that means MP3s and other bit-reduced formats, which sound awful. By the way, I suspect I've spent a *lot* more money on analog than I have on digital equipment, if you count the various Revoxes and Naks sitting around the house. I don't need to justify any of it to anyone except, of course, the IRS. The digital stuff is necessary if you want to get paid to do stuff in audio because that's what clients want. If you're strictly a hobbyist, you can stay 100% analog and no one will be the wiser, but if you're getting paid for recording you'd better be ready to produce whatever format they want. Peace, Paul you verbally attack people, than sign off with "peace" ? why not just sign off with "war" ?? Because, if you read what I've posted, I'm not attacking you, not insulting you, not calling you an asshole or any other name. I'm simply disagreeing with you. If you consider that an attack, rethink. Genug, Paul |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 10:45 am, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:38 am, "jailhouserock" wrote: The vintage cartridge formats give a lot more performance per dollar, than the new digital formats. I think you need to send your time machine in for repair. My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb. You are starting to remind me of those kids with MP3 players jammed in their ears. At the time of the "vintage" cartridge formats, there were no new digital formats, so there was nothing to compare them to. I've been comparing them for the last 6 years now- heavily. Digital is more convenient with no background noise- analog is more enjoyable to listen to. End of story. And when the "new" digital formats came out, they were so much more expensive than the "vintage" cartridge formats that there could be no comparison. Remember $1,000 CD players? Not too long after $1,000 Elcassettes actually, and I believe that the listeners of the time much preferred the sound of that newfangled digital CD player to the sound of cassettes which were the current home format at the time. I just picked up my second EL-7 ELcaset for only $240, with tapes, delivered to my door. Mint condition, original owner, manual- that's the beauty of analog ! Are you suggesting that your 3-3/4 ips cartridge has higher fidelity than a reel-to-reel tape deck running at the same speed? I'm not only suggesting it, I heard it first hand- you obviously never heard a Sony Elcaset deck- check the specs for yourself- it has 7.5 IPS specs, from 3.75 IPS tape. Here's a scan of the owner's manual specs on the EL-7, click on the link below, then put your cursor on the spec sheet, a box will appear at lower right, click on that to maximize and read it: http://i17.tinypic.com/2hsb0ao.jpg HOW DOES THIS GRAB YOU ?? 15 HZ TO 27,000 HZ with Type II tapes (FeCr) (NAB) 15 HZ TO 25,000 HZ with Type I tapes (standard FeO2) (NAB) I don't know how they did it, but they DID it- this deck sounds as good as/better than a reel to reel at 7.5 IPS- and the Elcaset does it with 3.75 IPS. It MUST be the FeCr tapes- and some really high-end circuits inside the unit. Specs at +/- 3 dB rating are somewhat less, but still quite impressive for 1/4" 4-track analog tape at 3.75 IPS, again NAB: 25 HZ TO 22,000 HZ TYPE II (FeCr) 25 HZ TO 20,000 HZ TYPE I (standard FeO2) Basically CD quality or better, from 1/4" tape in a cartridge, at only 3.75 IPS. With the FeCr tapes, a better top end than a CD- from a home-made cartridge tape format. I have been dubbing to the FeCr carts, and let me tell you, I've NEVER heard a 1/4" open reel that sounded this good. It might equal it on a good day, but it's unlikely to exceed it. And a 10-1/2" reel of 1 mil tape at 3-3/4 ips will run for a bit over three hours. Who wants to thread that tape, and store all those huge 10.5" reels ? May as well listen to 180 gram vinyl then. Remember, in the days when they made those Elcassettes, a standard LP, which is what you'd get if you bought a prerecorded cartridge, was less than 40 minutes. Yes but you didn't have to thread a reel to reel each time, just flip the cart, or the record. BIG difference there. But then how else do you get a beer without missing some of the music? I've got an 8-track cart changer made by Telex, it will hold (12) 90- minute carts, do the math on that one. You can drink a whole case of beer, and be a serious drinker then, and never have to change the music- concentrate on the beer (chuckle...). And that also sounds very, very good These cart formats got a bad name, due to the crappy solid state amps people play them through, which creates a lot of tpae hiss. The key is, use a single ended tube amp with low power, high eff. speakers, and there is no tape hiss. Yes, that's the simpleminded, wrong concept. But suit yourself. You need to read up on some reference material, written by studio techs and sound engineers, their recording consoles are ANALOG. More dynamic range. They convert it to digital. It's put into the digital realm of formats, to sell to the public, and cut production costs. Then same engineers go home, and play vinyl records and reel to reels. and Elcasets. and cassettes in Tascam machines, at 3.75 IPS, with metal tape. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
"jailhouserock" wrote in message
ups.com... Specs at +/- 3 dB rating are somewhat less, but still quite impressive for 1/4" 4-track analog tape at 3.75 IPS, again NAB: 25 HZ TO 22,000 HZ TYPE II (FeCr) 25 HZ TO 20,000 HZ TYPE I (standard FeO2) Basically CD quality or better, from 1/4" tape in a cartridge, at only You must be joking. A CD is flat to 22kHz instead of falling off to -3dB. A CD has no wow and flutter specs of 0.12%. A CD has a distortion figure a 100 times less than 0.8%. A CD has a dynamic range of at least 90dB instead of a miserable 62dB. Meindert |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
15 HZ TO 27,000 HZ with Type II tapes (FeCr) (NAB)
15 HZ TO 25,000 HZ with Type I tapes (standard FeO2) (NAB) FeCr is Type III, not Type II. I don't think there were ever any FeCr tapes for Elcassette [sic]. Type II is "chrome equivalent", which is not the same thing. You feel that analog sounds better than digital (or more accurately, the analog machines you've heard sound better than the digital machines you've heard). Have you ever stood in front of an orchestra, and compared what came out of the recorders with what you heard at the microphones? You shouldn't express value opinions until you've done so. Both analog and digital have problems. One of the major problems with analog -- especially at lower speeds -- is time smearing of the signal. This is audible (or seems to be audible) as a loss of clarity, definition, and detail. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 6:12 pm, "jailhouserock"
wrote: My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb. OK, show me where I stick in a disk and we'll have a shootout. I've been comparing them for the last 6 years now- heavily. Digital is more convenient with no background noise- analog is more enjoyable to listen to. End of story. Enjoy. I think you're witnessing a psychoacoustic effect here. Nothing wrong with doing what makes you happy as long as it's legal. However this is the first thing you've said here that makes sense - it is MORE ENJOYABLE (for you) TO LISTEN TO. We all have our likes and dislikes. I'm not only suggesting it, I heard it first hand- you obviously never heard a Sony Elcaset deck I told you that I did, and that I thought it sounded pretty good, much better than a Compact Cassette. But that was a long time ago. When did Stevie Wonder's "Secret Life of Plants" come out? That was what was playing. - check the specs for yourself- it has 7.5 IPS specs, from 3.75 IPS tape. Whose specs? As we've said to you before, specs are what the manufacturer wants to advertise. HOW DOES THIS GRAB YOU ?? 15 HZ TO 27,000 HZ with Type II tapes (FeCr) (NAB) 15 HZ TO 25,000 HZ with Type I tapes (standard FeO2) (NAB) Specs at +/- 3 dB rating are somewhat less, HA! Now the truth starts to come out. But the +/- 3 dB limits are just the tip of the iceberg. Without mentioning the operating level at which this (and the other specifications) were measured, it's meaningless. It's like saying the score of the Hawks-Celtics game was 83. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb.
I have Len Feldman's original review of this thing, and it was pretty good for a 1970s consumer format, but I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. You might want to go look it up in Popular Electronics. As always, the numbers on the datasheet may not match actual measurements. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 7:06 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb. I have Len Feldman's original review of this thing, and it was pretty good for a 1970s consumer format, but I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. Why are we even bothering to talk to this guy? There's no hope. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:06 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb. I have Len Feldman's original review of this thing, and it was pretty good for a 1970s consumer format, but I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. Why are we even bothering to talk to this guy? There's no hope. Sounds like a troll to me :-) |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
BIC T-4M cassette deck beats standard CD specs easily- was Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 5:17 pm, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote: "jailhouserock" wrote in message ups.com... Specs at +/- 3 dB rating are somewhat less, but still quite impressive for 1/4" 4-track analog tape at 3.75 IPS, again NAB: 25 HZ TO 22,000 HZ TYPE II (FeCr) 25 HZ TO 20,000 HZ TYPE I (standard FeO2) Basically CD quality or better, from 1/4" tape in a cartridge, at only You must be joking. A CD is flat to 22kHz instead of falling off to -3dB. A CD has no wow and flutter specs of 0.12%. A CD has a distortion figure a 100 times less than 0.8%. A CD has a dynamic range of at least 90dB instead of a miserable 62dB. Meindert But a CD also has crapped 44/16 sampling rate/resolution- you call that hi-fi ? I can hear the voices quivering on fade-outs at the ends of songs from that low rez digital, and cymbals on those standard CD's sound like TV static or dishes smashing on concrete. Here's another high-end 3.75 IPS cassette deck, read these reviews. It is very detailed, with graphs for testing different tapes, for the BIC T-4M. the BIC has a 24khz top end, +/- 3dB, with metal tape explain that one, Mr. Wizard. That BLOWS AWAY a 44/16 or 48/24 CD. You'd need that new TASCAM DSD recorder, to compete with a 27 year old analog cassette tape machine. Let alone a reel to reel or Elcaset...which is even better yet. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
jailhouserock wrote:
Yes, you can get a reel to reel and get more fidelity- but who wants to thread tape every 20 minutes. And your 3-3/4 ips cassette (w/ a thin C-90 tape) will get you 22 1/2 minutes per side. No auto-reverse on your Tascam. JChestek |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Elcaset FeCr Type II tapes-pictures- was Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 5:43 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: 15 HZ TO 27,000 HZ with Type II tapes (FeCr) (NAB) 15 HZ TO 25,000 HZ with Type I tapes (standard FeO2) (NAB) FeCr is Type III, It was type II at the time Sony released it for their machine, the specs on metal/chrome tapes changed shortly thereafter. not Type II. I don't think there were ever any FeCr tapes for Elcassette [sic]. I have a stack of FeCr Elcaset tapes sitting right here. Here's a pic of some of them- you need to get your facts straight- you obviously have no clue about this format. Type II is "chrome equivalent", which is not the same thing. that was after they changed the spec, in the late 1970's/early 1980's- FWIW, the FeCr tapes are SUPERIOR You feel that analog sounds better than digital (or more accurately, the analog machines you've heard sound better than the digital machines you've heard). Have you ever stood in front of an orchestra, and compared what came out of the recorders with what you heard at the microphones? Yes. Analog tape with a single ended tube amp, reproduces an orchestra most accurately. Not digital. You have a chance with SACD, but DVD-A is doing a lot of BS-ing. The problem is this- DSD recorders from TASCAM cost $10,000. So for home archiving, one can't beat reel, cassette, or Elcaset tape. Even the arcane 8-track cartridge sounds better to me, than a standard CD. You shouldn't express value opinions until you've done so. I think you're the one jumping to conclusions here- you don't even have the Elcaset tape types right. Both analog and digital have problems. One of the major problems with analog -- especially at lower speeds -- is time smearing of the signal. This is audible (or seems to be audible) as a loss of clarity, definition, and detail. I agree- good point- which is why I would not even bother with cassette, unless it's 3.75 IPS, with chrome tape at least. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 5:46 pm, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 22, 6:12 pm, "jailhouserock" wrote: My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb. OK, show me where I stick in a disk and we'll have a shootout. you saw the specs. the Elky is a bruiser. Enjoy. I think you're witnessing a psychoacoustic effect here. Nothing wrong with doing what makes you happy as long as it's legal. However this is the first thing you've said here that makes sense - it is MORE ENJOYABLE (for you) TO LISTEN TO. We all have our likes and dislikes. true- but don't defend digital from the fidelity aspect- analog has more resolution- it's just more maintenance and less convenient. And maybe less durable. I told you that I did, and that I thought it sounded pretty good, much better than a Compact Cassette. But that was a long time ago. When did Stevie Wonder's "Secret Life of Plants" come out? That was what was playing. well there you go ! So should I get a DSD recorder for $10 grand, or an Elcaset for $240 ?? I think the Elky is a better investment, for home use, don't you ? Whose specs? As we've said to you before, specs are what the manufacturer wants to advertise. you're in denial- even a BIC T-4M cassette has better specs than standard CD, see it he HA! Now the truth starts to come out. But the +/- 3 dB limits are just the tip of the iceberg. Without mentioning the operating level at which this (and the other specifications) were measured, it's meaningless. It's like saying the score of the Hawks-Celtics game was 83. like your CD player has those specs you speak of ? I've noticed none of you posted any CD specs. now, if you are so DIEHARD into digital, how come you don't have a DSD recorder ? put your money where your mouth is- you're dissing analog for digital, but you haven't invested in cutting-edge digital yourself things that make me go hmmm.... perhaps your format is UNAFFORDABLE ? |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 6:06 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb. I have Len Feldman's original review of this thing, and it was pretty good for a 1970s consumer format, but I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. You might want to go look it up in Popular Electronics. As always, the numbers on the datasheet may not match actual measurements. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." thanks for the kind reply. I have the machine right here and play it- it's the best piece of audio equipment I've ever heard, in my life. I've been into hi-fi for 30 years now. The Elcaset at 3.75 IPS, sounds better than my 4 other reel decks at 7.5 IPS, it's because the Elk deck pulls the tape out and handles it away from the cart, with no backing pad- azimuth and tracking are dead- nuts. It's simply amazing with the FeCr tapes. If I had to record something with the best possible fidelity, I'd use the Elk deck with FeCr- not the reels ! |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ?
On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:06 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: My Elcaset EL-7 would kick your digital disk player to the curb. I have Len Feldman's original review of this thing, and it was pretty good for a 1970s consumer format, but I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. Why are we even bothering to talk to this guy? There's no hope. that's a laugh- either I agree the digital audio you bought is better, or you don't reply. I'd say that's sticking your head in the sand, or taking your ball and going home. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tascam 122B and 234 tape machines at 3.75 IPS- any good ? | Audio Opinions | |||
Old style recording - British tape machines. | Pro Audio | |||
Otari Tape Machines | Pro Audio | |||
TASCAM 34, 34B tape question | Pro Audio | |||
analog Tape Machines | Pro Audio |