Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". fire away ! Here are the other additional parameters you asked for. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 11:18 am, "duty-honor-country"
wrote: On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". fire away ! Here are the other additional parameters you asked for. to maximize and read prior links, click on link, hold cursor on page, when box appears at lower right, click on box, it will expand page and make it readable |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 12:18 pm, "duty-honor-country"
OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup If you want someone here to evaluate a recorder, don't bother with the spec and review crap, send him the recorder. Arny's an honest guy. He'll send it back to you if you pay for the shipping. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On 27 Mar 2007 09:18:43 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
wrote: On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". fire away ! Here are the other additional parameters you asked for. Lookie! -- and I thought, Eumig FL-1000uP was rare enough... Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 11:20 am, "duty-honor-country"
wrote: On Mar 27, 11:18 am, "duty-honor-country" wrote: On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". fire away ! Here are the other additional parameters you asked for. to maximize and read prior links, click on link, hold cursor on page, when box appears at lower right, click on box, it will expand page and make it readable - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - not worth the cost of shipping both ways, and risk of damaging the unit-BIC 2-speeds are very rare- try to find one on Ebay, you'll be waiting a while. yes, Arnie does appear to be knowledgeable- he asked for more info, so I am supplying what I have included is FR curve graph at 0 and -20 db, for both speeds, and different types of tape I'm sure he can draw a few conclusions from that, to support his previous assumptions in the other thread- and more importantly "why" |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message oups.com On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". While I'd prefer to actually test the machine up front and personal, the supplied test report is damning enough. Please focus your attention on figure 3, the lower two plots, taken at your preferred operational speed of 3.75 ips. The upper of the two lower plots is taken at 3.75 ips and 0 dB. It does not shed any light on response at 20 KHz becasue data stops at 15 KHz, where response is already a whopping 7 dB down. Response is reasonably flat from 400 Hz to 5 KHz. There is an approximate 1 octave rise that averages about 1 dB, centered at about 100 Hz. This might cause a slight thickening of the sound of a variety of instruments with strong response in the 100 Hz range, such as pipe organs, bass guitars, etc. Treble response is about 3 dB down at 10 KHz, and rolling off at 12 dB or more per octave. This should be clearly audible as a noticable dulling of the upper treble range. This will take the live edge off of brushed cymbals, etc. The same data taken from a CD burned on a PC and played on a $39 DVD player is flat within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to 16 KHz, which along with normal extensions of response outside this range, is sufficient to eliminate any perceptible change in the sound quality of musical recordings. The same is true of iPods and portable digital recorders such as the Microtrack operating on 16/44 .wav files. A modern digital recorder that was 3 dB down at 10 KHz would be called "junk" by just about any knowlegeable person. One of the lowest quality kinds of digital players around is the analog audio section of a computer's optical (CD or DVD) drive. For years they have all been within 1 dB or better of flat at 10 KHz. Of course, in digital mode, these same players are perfectly flat and add no distortion. I believe this test you asked me to review was published in Audio Magazine, February 1980. This was prior to the introduction of the CD player by about 3 years. IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Of course, the same was true of open reel tape up to at least half track and 15 ips. Based on my own personal measurements of cassette recorders, this BIC deck must have been a high point of the development of the cassette recorder and George W. Tillet (GWT) was a wizard on the test bench. For example, most cassette tapes shift their characteristics enough from end to end that GWT had to be very careful how he made his measurements. The machine was probably carefully adjusted for this exact sample of cassette tape. Using a different cassette from the same batch, or even removing and replacing the cassette in the well, might lead to far less impressive measurements. Compare this with digital recorders that produce the identically same response with any of very many different pieces of media from various batches and sources. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette deck? |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
"Doc" wrote in message
ups.com On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette deck? Certainly none that are sonically transparent. But check this: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm 2 track 15 ips on a near-SOTA analog pro machine doesn't quite make the grade, either. BTW, this test was performed by one of the leading analog tape technicans in the midwest. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 27, 12:18 pm, "duty-honor-country" OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup If you want someone here to evaluate a recorder, don't bother with the spec and review crap, send him the recorder. Arny's an honest guy. actually arnii is not a honest person he is a huge ego wrapped up in a gas bag he promised to sue me years ago just reacently he claimed to have my hearing tests and announced I was nearly deaf someone who continualy and habitually lies is not a honest man george |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
Doc wrote:
On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette deck? Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 1:46 pm, "Doc" wrote:
Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette deck? Relatively speaking, there is - relative to a worse cassette deck. But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse cassette deck.
But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no. This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs, likely) sound better than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding electronics. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse cassette deck. But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no. This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs, likely) sound better than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding electronics. He said GOOD reel-to-reel recorder. It's true that there were a lot of absolutely miserable quarter-track consumer open-reel machines made. And a Nak will beat them, true. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse cassette deck. But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no. This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs, likely) sound better than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding electronics. The idea that some cassette machines sounded better than open-reels often traced back to the fact that they had more of that *wonderful* mag tape, level-dependent, HF rolloff; and started saturating at lower levels. It can take the harsh edge off of a recording that has one. But, its not accurate. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
lol, well he did ask for it.
Very good response btw, full of good insight! -- http://www.myspace.com/hawkinnc45 remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys. http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm 20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry. Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment. Thanks so much to those who have responded. "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "duty-honor-country" wrote in message oups.com On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". While I'd prefer to actually test the machine up front and personal, the supplied test report is damning enough. Please focus your attention on figure 3, the lower two plots, taken at your preferred operational speed of 3.75 ips. The upper of the two lower plots is taken at 3.75 ips and 0 dB. It does not shed any light on response at 20 KHz becasue data stops at 15 KHz, where response is already a whopping 7 dB down. Response is reasonably flat from 400 Hz to 5 KHz. There is an approximate 1 octave rise that averages about 1 dB, centered at about 100 Hz. This might cause a slight thickening of the sound of a variety of instruments with strong response in the 100 Hz range, such as pipe organs, bass guitars, etc. Treble response is about 3 dB down at 10 KHz, and rolling off at 12 dB or more per octave. This should be clearly audible as a noticable dulling of the upper treble range. This will take the live edge off of brushed cymbals, etc. The same data taken from a CD burned on a PC and played on a $39 DVD player is flat within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to 16 KHz, which along with normal extensions of response outside this range, is sufficient to eliminate any perceptible change in the sound quality of musical recordings. The same is true of iPods and portable digital recorders such as the Microtrack operating on 16/44 .wav files. A modern digital recorder that was 3 dB down at 10 KHz would be called "junk" by just about any knowlegeable person. One of the lowest quality kinds of digital players around is the analog audio section of a computer's optical (CD or DVD) drive. For years they have all been within 1 dB or better of flat at 10 KHz. Of course, in digital mode, these same players are perfectly flat and add no distortion. I believe this test you asked me to review was published in Audio Magazine, February 1980. This was prior to the introduction of the CD player by about 3 years. IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Of course, the same was true of open reel tape up to at least half track and 15 ips. Based on my own personal measurements of cassette recorders, this BIC deck must have been a high point of the development of the cassette recorder and George W. Tillet (GWT) was a wizard on the test bench. For example, most cassette tapes shift their characteristics enough from end to end that GWT had to be very careful how he made his measurements. The machine was probably carefully adjusted for this exact sample of cassette tape. Using a different cassette from the same batch, or even removing and replacing the cassette in the well, might lead to far less impressive measurements. Compare this with digital recorders that produce the identically same response with any of very many different pieces of media from various batches and sources. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 2594 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle. Absolutely right. Norelco designed the format for dictation machines, not realizing that people would latch on to it as convenient format for music storage. As it was, what manfactuers like Nakamichi were able to achieve with the format was truly a miracle. I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
"RDOGuy" wrote in message
oups.com On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle. Absolutely right. Norelco designed the format for dictation machines, not realizing that people would latch on to it as convenient format for music storage. As it was, what manfactuers like Nakamichi were able to achieve with the format was truly a miracle. I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. One weakness was simply the width and length of the tape - not enough. Another, was the format's heavy reliance on tolerances set by the cassette shell. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
RDOGuy wrote:
I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years, for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better engineered it was. In spite of being arguably the worst release format ever (slightly edging out the styrene injection-molded 45 for that spot in history), it just kept going on, and on, and on. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 4:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
One weakness was simply the width and length of the tape - not enough. Yes. But I suppose the design engineers felt they had to stick with mulitples of previously existing tape stock. I've always assumed it was no accident they settled on 1/8" tape - half the width of 1/4" tape already being manufactured. Can anyone shed any light on this issue? Another, was the format's heavy reliance on tolerances set by the cassette shell. One of the same problems that eight-tracks had. The competing four- track format was much better in that regard, but failed in the consumer marketplace. But that format lasted a long time anyway. Until the advent of digital systems, the ubiquitous broadcast "cart" was in every radio station - and it was based on (if not identical to) the four track design. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years, for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better engineered it was. Granted. Now that I think of it, I can't think of very many formats that have lasted longer. John Dixon Phonogenic Productions Kansas City |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Doc wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote: IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette deck? Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle. And Nakamichi cassette equipment is as close as I can recall in the marketplace of actually making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs,
likely) sound better than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding electronics. The idea that some cassette machines sounded better than open-reels often traced back to the fact that they had more of that *wonderful* mag tape, level-dependent, HF rolloff; and started saturating at lower levels. It can take the harsh edge off of a recording that has one. But, its not accurate. In this case, that isn't what I or others are talking about. Open-reel machines almost always have better specs, but they don't always "sound better" than cassette decks. I owned open-reel machines -- including a not-cheap Pioneer RT-2000 system -- that audibly degraded the input more than a Nakamichi. Specifically, there was an increase in grain and grundge, and a loss of transparency, regardless of recording level. This was true when dubbing commercial recordings. When recording live, the apparent quality was reversed, with the limitations of slow-speed recording become apparent, and overriding the failings of the open-reel machines. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's
engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. That's not likely. The limitations of cassette are those created by short wavelengths and thin coatings. Nakamichi, et al, pushed the format to its practical limit. If you want a better understanding of just what was achieved, you should a Nakamichi two-speed deck and make half-speed recordings on metal and premium-iron-oxide tape. This throws into relief everything that's wrong with slow-speed recording, but isn't readily audible at "full" speed with most program material. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"duty-honor-country" wrote in ooglegroups.com On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". While I'd prefer to actually test the machine up front and personal, the supplied test report is damning enough. Please focus your attention on figure 3, the lower two plots, taken at your preferred operational speed of 3.75 ips. The upper of the two lower plots is taken at 3.75 ips and 0 dB. It does not shed any light on response at 20 KHz becasue data stops at 15 KHz, where response is already a whopping 7 dB down. Response is reasonably flat from 400 Hz to 5 KHz. There is an approximate 1 octave rise that averages about 1 dB, centered at about 100 Hz. This might cause a slight thickening of the sound of a variety of instruments with strong response in the 100 Hz range, such as pipe organs, bass guitars, etc. Treble response is about 3 dB down at 10 KHz, and rolling off at 12 dB or more per octave. This should be clearly audible as a noticable dulling of the upper treble range. This will take the live edge off of brushed cymbals, etc. The same data taken from a CD burned on a PC and played on a $39 DVD player is flat within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to 16 KHz, which along with normal extensions of response outside this range, is sufficient to eliminate any perceptible change in the sound quality of musical recordings. The same is true of iPods and portable digital recorders such as the Microtrack operating on 16/44 .wav files. A modern digital recorder that was 3 dB down at 10 KHz would be called "junk" by just about any knowlegeable person. One of the lowest quality kinds of digital players around is the analog audio section of a computer's optical (CD or DVD) drive. For years they have all been within 1 dB or better of flat at 10 KHz. Of course, in digital mode, these same players are perfectly flat and add no distortion. I believe this test you asked me to review was published in Audio Magazine, February 1980. This was prior to the introduction of the CD player by about 3 years. IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Of course, the same was true of open reel tape up to at least half track and 15 ips. Based on my own personal measurements of cassette recorders, this BIC deck must have been a high point of the development of the cassette recorder and George W. Tillet (GWT) was a wizard on the test bench. For example, most cassette tapes shift their characteristics enough from end to end that GWT had to be very careful how he made his measurements. The machine was probably carefully adjusted for this exact sample of cassette tape. Using a different cassette from the same batch, or even removing and replacing the cassette in the well, might lead to far less impressive measurements. Compare this with digital recorders that produce the identically same response with any of very many different pieces of media from various batches and sources.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - yes, I can see the response rolled off at the "0 dB" level and it looks pretty darn good at the "- 20" level now, explain why ? why is it better at -20 dB ? # 2- believe it or not, in actual listening tests, the cassette deck is much better sounding than a CD player- I think it has a better sound. I credit that to, there is more information within the bandwidth it is operating at. While a CD may be flatter from 20-20k, the analog tape captures more at 20-15k, than the CD does and how much is really at 15k-20k to hear ? connecting a signal generator to headphones and pushing it past 15k, a human being can't hear anything or, am I playing it at -20 dB ? can anyone play it at -20 dB ? is it physically possible ? someone explain that- my ears are open |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Doc wrote: On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette deck? Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." If you heard it through my single ended tube amps, you'd be amazed. It's not my best source, I always thought cassette was ****, too. Until I tried the arcane 3.75 IPS format of cassette. the damn thing sounds good- I taped a double LP Elvis on metal tape, and jacked up the input signal with a small solid state preamp- bulk erased the tape first- it still sounded good. REALLY good. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 4:42 pm, "RDOGuy" wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle. Absolutely right. Norelco designed the format for dictation machines, not realizing that people would latch on to it as convenient format for music storage. As it was, what manfactuers like Nakamichi were able to achieve with the format was truly a miracle. I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. they didn't have 3.75 IPS compact cassettes, and metal/chrome tape back then though whole different ballgame- |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 4:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"RDOGuy" wrote in message oups.com On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle. Absolutely right. Norelco designed the format for dictation machines, not realizing that people would latch on to it as convenient format for music storage. As it was, what manfactuers like Nakamichi were able to achieve with the format was truly a miracle. I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. One weakness was simply the width and length of the tape - not enough. Another, was the format's heavy reliance on tolerances set by the cassette shell.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - true- it shared all the foibles of the 8-track cartridge format well, almost all but the 8 cart, being wider tape, actually didn't move around on the head as much |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
RDOGuy wrote: I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years, for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better engineered it was. In spite of being arguably the worst release format ever (slightly edging out the styrene injection-molded 45 for that spot in history), it just kept going on, and on, and on. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." it should have been 3.75 IPS from day one |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, "RDOGuy" wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years, for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better engineered it was. Granted. Now that I think of it, I can't think of very many formats that have lasted longer. John Dixon Phonogenic Productions Kansas City the compact cassette is the longest lasting tape format, bar none shellac records lasted longer- from 1900-1960, but they are records |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. That's not likely. The limitations of cassette are those created by short wavelengths and thin coatings. Nakamichi, et al, pushed the format to its practical limit. If you want a better understanding of just what was achieved, you should a Nakamichi two-speed deck and make half-speed recordings on metal and premium-iron-oxide tape. This throws into relief everything that's wrong with slow-speed recording, but isn't readily audible at "full" speed with most program material. yet even at 1/2 speed, the NAKS hit 17 khz I'd like to give hearing tests to everyone on this thread, and see just how many of you can hear anything above 15 khz a lot of this is a moot point- it's actually how much resolution is captured in the 50-15k range, that means the most- extending to 20k while shooting the 50-15k region full of digital rez "holes", is why CD sounds so sterile and harsh |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 3:16 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article , William Sommerwerck wrote: Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse cassette deck. But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no. This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs, likely) sound better than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding electronics. He said GOOD reel-to-reel recorder. It's true that there were a lot of absolutely miserable quarter-track consumer open-reel machines made. And a Nak will beat them, true. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." do some back to back testing there, and you'll find that not to be true |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck3.75 IPS
Edi Zubovic wrote:
Lookie! -- and I thought, Eumig FL-1000uP was rare enough... I have one of those. I loved that thing back in the '80's. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 10:47 pm, "duty-honor-country"
wrote: On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "duty-honor-country" wrote in ooglegroups.com On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "DeserTBoB" wrote in message 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. OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me. http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk". While I'd prefer to actually test the machine up front and personal, the supplied test report is damning enough. Please focus your attention on figure 3, the lower two plots, taken at your preferred operational speed of 3.75 ips. The upper of the two lower plots is taken at 3.75 ips and 0 dB. It does not shed any light on response at 20 KHz becasue data stops at 15 KHz, where response is already a whopping 7 dB down. Response is reasonably flat from 400 Hz to 5 KHz. There is an approximate 1 octave rise that averages about 1 dB, centered at about 100 Hz. This might cause a slight thickening of the sound of a variety of instruments with strong response in the 100 Hz range, such as pipe organs, bass guitars, etc. Treble response is about 3 dB down at 10 KHz, and rolling off at 12 dB or more per octave. This should be clearly audible as a noticable dulling of the upper treble range. This will take the live edge off of brushed cymbals, etc. The same data taken from a CD burned on a PC and played on a $39 DVD player is flat within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to 16 KHz, which along with normal extensions of response outside this range, is sufficient to eliminate any perceptible change in the sound quality of musical recordings. The same is true of iPods and portable digital recorders such as the Microtrack operating on 16/44 .wav files. A modern digital recorder that was 3 dB down at 10 KHz would be called "junk" by just about any knowlegeable person. One of the lowest quality kinds of digital players around is the analog audio section of a computer's optical (CD or DVD) drive. For years they have all been within 1 dB or better of flat at 10 KHz. Of course, in digital mode, these same players are perfectly flat and add no distortion. I believe this test you asked me to review was published in Audio Magazine, February 1980. This was prior to the introduction of the CD player by about 3 years. IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Of course, the same was true of open reel tape up to at least half track and 15 ips. Based on my own personal measurements of cassette recorders, this BIC deck must have been a high point of the development of the cassette recorder and George W. Tillet (GWT) was a wizard on the test bench. For example, most cassette tapes shift their characteristics enough from end to end that GWT had to be very careful how he made his measurements. The machine was probably carefully adjusted for this exact sample of cassette tape. Using a different cassette from the same batch, or even removing and replacing the cassette in the well, might lead to far less impressive measurements. Compare this with digital recorders that produce the identically same response with any of very many different pieces of media from various batches and sources.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - yes, I can see the response rolled off at the "0 dB" level and it looks pretty darn good at the "- 20" level now, explain why ? why is it better at -20 dB ? # 2- believe it or not, in actual listening tests, the cassette deck is much better sounding than a CD player- I think it has a better sound. I credit that to, there is more information within the bandwidth it is operating at. While a CD may be flatter from 20-20k, the analog tape captures more at 20-15k, than the CD does That perception is related to tape recording issues like saturation and head bump. In terms of accuracy, the CD is much better. and how much is really at 15k-20k to hear ? connecting a signal generator to headphones and pushing it past 15k, a human being can't hear anything Many people can here well past 15 kHz. Just ask a group of people how many of them can hear a high-pitched signal when a standard television is on and at least some of the younger people will respond positively. The real question here, however, concerns whether or not the highest frequencies can be perceived when playing music. Psychoacoustic research suggests that these frequencies are masked by lower frequencies when playing back a musical recording.so it is possible to get away poorer high-frequency response, at least for the majority of listeners. or, am I playing it at -20 dB ? can anyone play it at -20 dB ? is it physically possible ? someone explain that- my ears are open Self-erasure occurs if you try to record a louder signal at high frequencies resulting in a sharply reduced playback signal. This is not fatal for recording music since there is very little energy at the higher frequencies. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
On Mar 27, 9:51 pm, "duty-honor-country"
wrote: they didn't have 3.75 IPS compact cassettes, and metal/chrome tape back then though whole different ballgame- Yes... the improved tape fomulations that were developed later did improve the quality of the cassette recordings. Yes... higher speeds helped, too. I think the point Scott was making was that the original designers never meant for the format to be used for anything except voice dictation. They chose the slower speed so that the cassettes would run longer - which, of course, would have been a big selling point for a dictation system. My point was that IF it had occurred to them that the format would have been used for music, they very well might have opted for a higher speed, or made other engineering choices that would have improved the audio performance. It was hardly a secret that slower tape speed and narrower track width (just to name a couple) would degrade the audio performance, so the choices they made were deliberate, and based on the market they were trying to serve. Here's another thought: the very reason metal/chrome tapes were developed in the first place was to improve the performance of cassette systems. I wasn't in the professional marketplace when those tape formulations were introduced. But I'm sure not aware of any professional machines that were set up to use them - perhaps someone else knows of some. If there had fewer limitations in the basic design, would there have been enough pressure in the marketplace for those tape formulations to be developed? |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
I met a guy recently who still has some shellac record blanks in his
collection. Also has some very large disks (way oversized ones) That I am sure ya couldnt find a player for nowadays. -- http://www.myspace.com/hawkinnc45 remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys. http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm 20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry. Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment. Thanks so much to those who have responded. "duty-honor-country" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, "RDOGuy" wrote: On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years, for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better engineered it was. Granted. Now that I think of it, I can't think of very many formats that have lasted longer. John Dixon Phonogenic Productions Kansas City the compact cassette is the longest lasting tape format, bar none shellac records lasted longer- from 1900-1960, but they are records -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 2594 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
I think the point Scott was making was that the designers
never meant for the format to be used for anything except voice dictation. This is not _quite_ true. Philips had an earlier machine using 3.25" reels sitting on top of a wide, narrow box. It ran at 1.875" and, if I recall correctly, got to 7kHz or 8kHz at that speed -- which is much better than what's needed for dictation, and perfectly satisfactory for non-critical music reproduction. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
the compact cassette is the longest lasting tape format, bar none
shellac records lasted longer- from 1900-1960, but they are records Uh... Compact Cassettes, CDs, open-reel tapes, and DVDs are also records. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message oups.com On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the format during the design stage. They might have made different design decisions that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace. That's not likely. The limitations of cassette are those created by short wavelengths and thin coatings. Nakamichi, et al, pushed the format to its practical limit. If you want a better understanding of just what was achieved, you should a Nakamichi two-speed deck and make half-speed recordings on metal and premium-iron-oxide tape. This throws into relief everything that's wrong with slow-speed recording, but isn't readily audible at "full" speed with most program material. yet even at 1/2 speed, the NAKS hit 17 khz In what sense? In some sense the BIC hit 17 KHz. They just didn't do it when the chips were down, and some other less-demanding times as well. I'd like to give hearing tests to everyone on this thread, and see just how many of you can hear anything above 15 khz I'd like to see a test report for one of the exotic Naks along the line of the BIC report I just analyzed. a lot of this is a moot point- it's actually how much resolution is captured in the 50-15k range, that means the most- extending to 20k while shooting the 50-15k region full of digital rez "holes", is why CD sounds so sterile and harsh CDs don't necessarily sound sterile and harsh. They simply sound like whatever was recorded on them. If they are recorded with stuff that is sterile and harsh, then there you go. What CDs don't do is round off the rough edges that may have been recorded on them, which is what the cassette format clearly does. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
do some back to back testing there, and you'll find
that not to be true Sorry, but I've done it. You can easily find open-reel decks, that even when correctly set up, simply don't "sound right" -- the output is plainly distinguishable from the input. The only "bad-sounding" Nakamichi I've heard is the 600. The others make dubs that are virtually indistinguishable from the input. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS
Lookie! -- and I thought, Eumig FL-1000uP was rare enough...
That's the one with the asymmetrical transport, right? They beat Nakamichi to market with that one. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pro Cassette Deck - What is this anyway? | Pro Audio | |||
FA:ADS c2 cassette deck | Marketplace | |||
Recommend upper middle level Studio Monitors to evaluate | Pro Audio | |||
Looking to evaluate a mic... | Pro Audio | |||
FS: NAD 602 Cassette Deck ($60.) | Marketplace |