[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message
oups.com
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

But still not up to modern standards. Not even up to the standards of the
day. In the day, I used a Revox A77 and compared to cassette, it was indeed
a whole different ballgame. Here's an example of what you can do with fast,
wide tracks:

http://www.bassboy.com.au/getreel/si...c/test/b77.htm

" at +8dB ref Dolby Level the response being only -1dB at 16kHz"

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

You're confusing self-erasure and saturation.

Self-erasure occurs when the shorter wavelengths actually "kill" each other,
because the tape's coercivity isn't high enough to keep them from
demagnetizing. This occurs gradually with time; I have cassettes that have
become duller and darker over the years as the high frequencies sink slowly
into the west.

If I had to "damn" cassettes for any reason, this would be the principal
one -- they don't last.

[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message
ps.com

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 ?

It's almost entirely about the tape. Not enough track width, running too
slow. All the fancy electronics in the world can't squeeze clean high
frequencies out of a too-narrow track moving way too slow.

# 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.

Sorry buddy, but you disqualified yourself as a sensitive listener in my
book when you started ranting about your SETs.

I credit that to, there is
more information within the bandwidth it is operating at.

If you can stand to listen to SETs, you're way out of my comfort area.

While a CD may be flatter from 20-20k, the analog tape
captures more at 20-15k, than the CD does

Not in this universe. Ever hear of Shannon's information theory? Resolution
within a given bandwidth is defined by dynamic range. No way does analog
tape have as much dynamic range as even 16/44 digital.

and how much is really at 15k-20k to hear ?

Note that my big hang up was the -3 dB at 10 KHz.

connecting a
signal generator to headphones and pushing it past 15k, a
human being can't hear anything

That's not true at all. Make it loud enough and many people can reliably
sense pure tones 20 KHz. OTOH, few can sense the removal of all sound
above 16 KHz, due to concurrent masking.

Note that my big hang up was the -3 dB at 10 KHz. That's a pretty huge
problem.

or, am I playing it at -20 dB ?

If you are, then you *really* have a dynamic range problem.

can anyone play it at -20 dB ? is it physically possible
?

If you record cassettes with peak levels of -20 dB, they are pretty noisy.

someone explain that- my ears are open

Not if you can stand to listen to SETs.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 27, 10:47 pm, "duty-honor-country"
wrote:

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 ?

Ah, finally something that has a real answer. It has to do with the
way that the whole tape recording process works. You can only put so
much magnetism into a given chunk of iron before it saturates and will
magnetize no further. The combination of the low speed and narrow
track width means that the tape will saturate at high frequencies
sooner than with wide tracks and a high linear speed. To compensate
for this, you can record at a lower level, which puts a lower level of
magnetization on to the tape. This raises the frequency at which
saturation occurs, allowing you to record "flat" to a higher
frequency.

So why not just do this? Because the lower the magnetization on the
tape, the lower the playback level at the head, the more gain you need
to get up to normal level at the output jack, so the poorer the signal-
to-noise ratio. The tradeoff for wide, flat frequency response (as
well as low harmonic distortion, another consequence of tape and head
saturation) is more noise. This is somewhat mitigated by the addition
of Dolby or dbx noise reduction, but that has its own set of
problems.

Doubling the speed helps, which is why the performance is better at
3-3/4 ips than at the standard speed of 1-7/8 ips, but it's even
better at 15 ips. And wider tracks (because of wider tape) as the
Elcassette uses also helps.

So, you see, designing a cassette deck means juggling the compromises
to get what the designer thinks is the best overall performance for
the intended purpose.

# 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.

People's tastes differ. People who have a certain hearing problem that
makes high frequencies sound brittle prefer the sound of something
that has a restricted high frequency response. People who can't hear
high frequencies like the sound of something with exaggerated high
frequency response. And some people just don't have any taste. When
was the last time you had your hearing checked by an audiologist?
Perhaps your "standards" are inaccurate. That doesn't preclude you
from having your personal preferences, but it does disqualify you from
insisting to the rest of the world that something that sounds better
TO YOU is better for everyone.

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

Credit it to whatever you want, but you would be technically wrong.
Again, you're entitled to your own beliefs and prejudices, but facts
are facts.

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

That's a whole other issue. There have been studies that show that
there's a lot of audio information above 20 kHz. While most agree that
generally we can't hear individual tones above 20 kHz or so (this
varies with age and other physical conditions) the people who have
theories about the value of capturing and reproducing information
above 20 kHz lean toward the explanation that what's up there affects
how we perceive what's in the range to which our eardrums actually
respond.

There have been tests demonstrating that people hear differently when
there's content above 20 kHz and others that demonstrate that they
hear no differently when everything above 20 kHz (or even 15 kHz) is
filtered out. It's inconclusive and probably will continue to be for
some time yet. But here are two things to think about:

1. It's not difficult to capture this high frequency information, so
why not, if it doesn't do any harm?

2. You keep coming back to published specifications for your
"proof" (beyond your personal opinion) that one unit is superior to
another. There is no question that a high sample rate digital recorder
or high speed analog recorder has extended frequency response, hence
"better" on paper.

or, am I playing it at -20 dB ?
can anyone play it at -20 dB ? is it physically possible ?

It doesn't matter at what level you play it back. The damage is done
during the recording process. Try making a recording with the input
level set so that the meter barely moves, and doesn't go above -20.
And do it without noise reduction. Then turn up the playback volume
when you listen to it. You'll hear more hiss and other noise, but
you'll also hear more high end than if you made the same recording
with the meter hitting 0.

Honestly, you will probably like the high level recording better
because most of us are more bothered by noise than loss of the top
octave, but that's part of the design compromises.

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 1:07 am, "Six String Stu"
wrote:
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.


were those oversized disks, simply 12" shellac 78rpm LP's ? or Edison
Diamond Disks ?

electrically recorded 78's that are clean and taken care of, sound
awesome

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 6:01 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
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.



we're discussing magnetic tape- not vinyl, not digital

let's keep it apples to apples

the longest lasting tape format, is compact Philips cassette

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 6:03 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"duty-honor-country" wrote
in ooglegroups.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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


oh really ??

then tell us, what resolution do you use, for these pristine
recordings


MP3 at what bitrate ?

or do you prefer the 44/16 CD rez ?

or 48/24 ??

or 96/24 ?

or 192/24 ?

or DVD-A ??

It would appear to me, if you're not at 192/24 with your recorder, you
are using an inferior digital resolution.

that's the problem with your approach and logic- digital audio fans,
such as yourself, are not using the highest resolution available-
because it's not cost effective, and you can't afford it

so what good is it ?

sounds like you all have Ferrari tastes, on a Chevy budget, to me...

good analog will equal/surpass the 192/24 digital resolution. And you
have left out the most important aspect- specs only tell a small part
of the story- what about stereo imaging and the phantom center
channels ?

analog projects them much more effectively. Testing audio components
with test equipment, is like getting great dyno numbers on a car
engine, but the car itself is a POS, and can't go down the road- so no
one wants it.

ps- they are selling a lot more 180 gram audiophile vinyl today, than
they are selling DVD-A or SACD. What's that say ?

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 27, 10:57 pm, "RDOGuy" wrote:
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?


I'm not saying compact cassette is the best tape format- it IS an
acceptable format to me, at 3.75 IPS with chrome or metal tape.

We can't get stuck on the "original design" parameters, because it's
not 1962 anymore. Designs are improved.

Whe Edison first invented the phonograph, he but the earpiece and
mouthpiece off an early telephone handset, and attached them to a
cylinder with needles. That is not a good representation of today's
phonographs, though- just the basic principle.

The foremost extant of the cassette cartridge, would be the Elcaset.
It performs quite well.

The compact cassettte at 3.75 IPS, with metal or chrome tape, has
acceptable hi-fi performance as well, for 95% of the people out
there. I'd definitely put it above the standard CD or MP3.

For digital to be worthwhile IMO, it has to be SACD 192/24 rez DSD.
Even that has not completely removed the digital harshness, but is
much more listenable than standard CD. MP3 is actually painful to
listen to.

But if one is not back-to-backing these digital and analog sources,
one would not know any better. Kids that grew up on MP3, don't know
what a reel to reel, or 8-track, even is.

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 6:08 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"duty-honor-country" wrote
in ooglegroups.com





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

But still not up to modern standards. Not even up to the standards of the
day. In the day, I used a Revox A77 and compared to cassette, it was indeed
a whole different ballgame. Here's an example of what you can do with fast,
wide tracks:

One has to have good hearing, not rely only on meters and gauges to
measure the difference-so isn't it a moot point ? It's like a blind
man judging an art contest, by using braille.

If one's hearing is down, they will totally miss the superior stereo
imaging and phantoms created by any analog stereo recording.

[Anahata]

duty-honor-country wrote:
[Arny:]
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.

oh really ??

[snip list of digital formats]

It would appear to me, if you're not at 192/24 with your recorder, you
are using an inferior digital resolution.

Huh?
No part of that addresses Arny's statement that CDs don't do the HF
compression that tape does.

that's the problem with your approach and logic- digital audio fans,
such as yourself, are not using the highest resolution available-
because it's not cost effective, and you can't afford it

No, because even at 16/44.1 it's way better than tape and way better
than most people's discrimination, so it's not necessary (at least as a
ditribution format) to go higher.

ps- they are selling a lot more 180 gram audiophile vinyl today, than
they are selling DVD-A or SACD. What's that say ?

Yeah. They're selling Shakti Stones and solid silver AC power cables
too. What does *that* say?

Oh, and they're not selling much music on *tape*, more to the point.

Anahata

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 6:08 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"duty-honor-country" wrote
in ooglegroups.com





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

But still not up to modern standards. Not even up to the standards of the
day. In the day, I used a Revox A77 and compared to cassette, it was indeed
a whole different ballgame. Here's an example of what you can do with fast,
wide tracks:

http://www.bassboy.com.au/getreel/si...c/test/b77.htm

" at +8dB ref Dolby Level the response being only -1dB at 16kHz"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


it's a reel to reel machine, who wants to thread tape every 20
minutes ?

try taking that in the car with you

would you buy a dozen reels, record them, and give them away for free
to friends ?

could you even FIND blank reels ?

we're right back where we started-

that's what makes compact cassette a winner- they are more popular
than you think realize. personally I always thought they were crap-
but with the 3.75 IPS speed and metal/chrome tapes, they give
acceptable performance- and their compact design speaks for itself

[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message
oups.com

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.- Hide quoted text -

oh really ??

Sure - that the meaning of your cassettes with -3 dB @ 10 KHz versus my CDs
that are +/- 0.00 dB to 20 KHz.

then tell us, what resolution do you use, for these
pristine recordings

16/44 is my distribution format of choice

MP3 at what bitrate ?

MP3 as a high resolution format? Surely you jest. I do use 192 kbps for
safety recordings on occasion.

or do you prefer the 44/16 CD rez ?

16/44 is my distribution format of choice

It would appear to me, if you're not at 192/24 with your
recorder, you are using an inferior digital resolution.

Since my msuic recordings are for listening not technical tests, 16/44 gets
the job done.

that's the problem with your approach and logic- digital
audio fans, such as yourself, are not using the highest
resolution available- because it's not cost effective,
and you can't afford it

You're talking trash. Every bit of my current recording hardware inventory,
portable and fixes, is capable of no less than 24/96.

so what good is it ?

It's what it takes to make sonically transparent recordings.

sounds like you all have Ferrari tastes, on a Chevy
budget, to me...

You're talking trash.

good analog will equal/surpass the 192/24 digital
resolution.

Not in this universe.

And you have left out the most important
aspect- specs only tell a small part of the story- what
about stereo imaging and the phantom center channels ?

You seem to be very weak about the meaning of sonic transparancy.

analog projects them much more effectively.

Not in this universe. In fact analog is rife with channel mismatch problems
that are the natural enemies of imaging, sound-straging, phantom channels,
you name it.

Testing
audio components with test equipment, is like getting
great dyno numbers on a car engine, but the car itself is
a POS, and can't go down the road- so no one wants it.

You surely don't know who you are talking to. Here, this URL will help you
figure it out: www.pcabx.com. It's all about reliable subjective testing
involving musical sounds.

ps- they are selling a lot more 180 gram audiophile vinyl
today, than they are selling DVD-A or SACD.

But, sales are down 50% for all of the above according to the RIAA, and the
CD format outsells the whole lot of them by at least 30:1. So much for
statistics.

BTW, you are making the McDonald's argument - in essence you just said that
LPs are better than DVD-A and SACD because it outsells them, just like
McDonalds sells more meat (if you call that meat) than Ruth's Chris Steak
House.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html

versus

http://www.ruthschris.com/

What's that say ?

I'd rather eat at Ruth's. ;-)

[Edi Zubovic]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:06:31 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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.

-- Yes, that's the one. It has been an excellent cassette tape deck,
but now it's quite hard to repair if something is wrong with (and it
usually is). Here, some additional info:--

http://www.schori.info/eumig/eumig.htm

Now there are some manuals in multiple TIFFs, Irfan View can be
downloaded from the page as well, for those interested. I think the
papers are in German though.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 27, 10:53 pm, "jwvm" wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


ok now we're getting somewhere...

so a recording made with a lower VU meter reading, could theoretically
have a wider freq resp result, than one where there meter is at 0 VU
or +3 VU ?

having said that, how does VU reading translate/convert to dB level ?

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 6:10 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
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.

You're confusing self-erasure and saturation.

Self-erasure occurs when the shorter wavelengths actually "kill" each other,
because the tape's coercivity isn't high enough to keep them from
demagnetizing. This occurs gradually with time; I have cassettes that have
become duller and darker over the years as the high frequencies sink slowly
into the west.

If I had to "damn" cassettes for any reason, this would be the principal
one -- they don't last.

agreed- the metal tapes seem to get all wrinkled with time, much like
a human being !

chrome seems to last a bit longer, but is still fragile

the normal bias tapes with the red/brown oxide- they seem to last
physically the longest, but lose their high end, as you said

but- we don't last forever either- it becomes a moot point

here's the kicker- those cassette tapes will still be playing, long
after we're pushing up daisies. how bad can they be ?

have to look at the big picture

[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message
oups.com

If one's hearing is down, they will totally miss the
superior stereo imaging and phantoms created by any
analog stereo recording.

If one's hearing is down, one can stand to listen to SETs. I've tried and
they send me out of the room, especially when the music gets a little
complex. Playing choir music at a goodly level on SETs is like scratching
chalk on a chalkboard, to my ears. If you're gonna fiddle with tubes,

The idea that analog has better imaging is so wrong. One of the major
problems with analog formats is channel matching. Poor channel matching is
*the* major enemy of good imaging.

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 7:18 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
MP3 at what bitrate ?

any- take your pic- the maximum bitrate- you're saying that's "good"
digital ? better than SACD ? if you're listening to MP3 home made
disks, you're not even in the ballpark for fidelity- that rez is shot
full of holes


16/44 is my distribution format of choice


why use that, when there is 48/16, 48/24, 96/24, and 192/24 ?

you are using inferior digital rez, compared to what is available.

I have about 30 CD"s and 3 players- but I have a SACD player- 44/16 is
no better than cassette at 3.75 IPS


Since my msuic recordings are for listening not technical tests, 16/44 gets
the job done.

and it's inferior

cassette can get that job done to, a lot quicker- and cheaper

hell, an 8-track cart recorder could match the fidelity of your setup


You're talking trash. Every bit of my current recording hardware inventory,
portable and fixes, is capable of no less than 24/96.

why not 192/24 ?? If you are going to look down your nose at thinner/
slower tape, you have to likewise look down at lower digital
resolutions. Works both ways.


It's what it takes to make sonically transparent recordings.

maybe a bit too transparent- i.e. there's information missing, it's an
inherent trait of digital transfers- that's why they had to up the
sampling/bit rate


You're talking trash.

not at all- you're talking high-rez digital, but you're not walking
the walk- you don't own a DSD SACD recorder at 192/24


Not in this universe.

I've compared them back to back, I own 7.5 IPS 1/4" reel machines, and
a SACD player. Have you compared them ?



You seem to be very weak about the meaning of sonic transparancy.

you mean breaking sound down into digital zero/one bits, and leaving
half of it out ?


Not in this universe. In fact analog is rife with channel mismatch problems
that are the natural enemies of imaging, sound-straging, phantom channels,
you name it.

analog is fatter- promotes a good soundstage and imaging

You surely don't know who you are talking to. Here, this URL will help you
figure it out:www.pcabx.com. It's all about reliable subjective testing
involving musical sounds.

"musical sounds" ?? what about ACTUAL SONGS being played back ?

i.e. if you put on the first Beatles stereo LP in mint condition, what
would sound better, 44/16 CD, or the vinyl ? Good luck with that
one..



But, sales are down 50% for all of the above according to the RIAA, and the
CD format outsells the whole lot of them by at least 30:1. So much for
statistics.

sales are down on CD as well- WAY down- by 60%- because people are
downloading low-rez, crappy MP3- which is about all digital is good
for, stealing music by emailing it to each other, rather than buying
it


BTW, you are making the McDonald's argument - in essence you just said that
LPs are better than DVD-A and SACD because it outsells them, just like
McDonalds sells more meat (if you call that meat) than Ruth's Chris Steak
House.

people are getting the hint- audiophiles are going back to vinyl-
where have you been hiding ? I firmly believe your hearing is going
with age, so you're relying on instruments and test tones to do your
"listening"

sure, digital is better that way

just like an engine on a dyno may pull great HP numbers, but is then
put in a Yugo

you still have to drive the car down the road, eventually

and you still have to listen to actual music, and not test tones,
eventually


http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html

versus

http://www.ruthschris.com/

What's that say ?

I'd rather eat at Ruth's. ;-)


tell that to the Japanese tycoons, who drop $500K on high end analog
systems with tubes

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

The Naks got to 15kHz or so at -20dB. The main problem with half-speed,
especially with premium iron-oxide tape (not so much with metal), was the
signal-bias self-modulation, which caused an extremely "unstable" sound.


I'd like to see a test report for one of the exotic Naks
along the line of the BIC report I just analyzed.

It would measure acceptably, but not sound that good.

I used to have a 680, but traded it to John Curl for a head amp.

[William Sommerwerck]

good analog will equal/surpass the 192/24 digital resolution.

Okay. Name the machine. Not just "analog", a specific machine.

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 28, 7:18 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Sure - that the meaning of your cassettes with -3 dB @ 10 KHz versus my CDs
that are +/- 0.00 dB to 20 KHz.

Even the old BIC cassette deck hit 15khz at 0 db, right ? Besides,
you can't hear that high up anyway, at your age. You are lusting
after Marilyn Monroe, when you can't get it up anymore.


I'd rather eat at Ruth's. ;-)


but a $150 Pioneer or Sony SACD player from Best Buy is out of your
reach ?

[William Sommerwerck]

BTW, you are making the McDonald's argument --
in essence you just said that LPs are better than
DVD-A and SACD because it outsells them, just
like McDonalds sells more meat (if you call that
meat) than Ruth's Chris Steak House.

There are people who feel RCSH is overpriced and not very good.

[William Sommerwerck]

here's the kicker- those cassette tapes will still be playing, long
after we're pushing up daisies. how bad can they be ?

CDs will likely be playable, even after the pyramids have been worn down to
sand grains.

[Arny Krueger]

"Edi Zubovic" edi.zubovic[rem wrote in
message
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:06:31 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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.

-- Yes, that's the one. It has been an excellent cassette
tape deck, but now it's quite hard to repair if something
is wrong with (and it usually is). Here, some additional
info:--

http://www.schori.info/eumig/eumig.htm

Now there are some manuals in multiple TIFFs, Irfan View
can be downloaded from the page as well, for those
interested. I think the papers are in German though.

Interesting reading. 1977-1980 must have been the high point of cassette
tape technology.

There have been rumors of modern cassette machines that make use of lots of
DSP processing to linearize the media, but AFAIK none have seen the light of
day.

One of the problems with the media that we haven't talked about relate to
stability and drop-outs. If you record a 10 KHz tone on a cassette, play it
back and look at its envelope, you'll scare yourself half to death. Of
course you'll scare yourself to death with anything but a top pro machine.
We take this all for granted with digital.

The papers are definately in German. ;-) The mirror I tried was slow.

[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message
oups.com

On Mar 28, 7:18 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

MP3 at what bitrate ?

any- take your pic- the maximum bitrate- you're saying
that's "good" digital ? better than SACD ? if you're
listening to MP3 home made disks, you're not even in the
ballpark for fidelity- that rez is shot full of holes

You're clearly not sincere about this, if you ever were.

I've got grass to fertilize, if I'm going to play with crap, at least it
will be for a good cause. :-(

[William Sommerwerck]

electrically recorded 78's that are clean and taken care of,
sound awesome

Compared to...?

I heard Diamond Disks once, and was pleasantly surprised at their
superiority to lateral-cut disks. But, of course, they can't compare to any
modern recording format.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

BTW, you are making the McDonald's argument --
in essence you just said that LPs are better than
DVD-A and SACD because it outsells them, just
like McDonalds sells more meat (if you call that
meat) than Ruth's Chris Steak House.

There are people who feel RCSH is overpriced and not very
good.

I'm sure that every resturant in the RCSH tier has its detractors. However,
let's get back to what I said about RCSH versus McDonald's, and the fact
that Mr. Analog Bigot just fell into the trap of making the McDonald's
argument.

[Scott Dorsey]

RDOGuy wrote:

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.

It's the other way around. The Lear four-track cartridge was based on
the RCA broadcast cart.

The broadcast cart was a horrible format with massive azimuth and stability
problems. Making the tracks narrower, putting the pinch roller into the
cartridge instead of the transport, and halving the speed certainly did
not do anything to improve fidelity.

But it seemed like a good idea at the time...
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

good analog will equal/surpass the 192/24 digital
resolution.

Okay. Name the machine. Not just "analog", a specific
machine.

This will be fun - such a machine doesn't and can't exist, at least in the
real world. Maybe on some spec sheet, but in the listening room and on the
test bench, it can't exist.

Fact is that the best high speed analog tape doesn't have as much resolution
of the lowly audio CD, and again that's something that can and has also been
proven in the listening room and on the test bench.

[William Sommerwerck]

people are getting the hint- audiophiles are going back to vinyl-

Not this one.

I am thinking of buying some Jonathan & Darlene Edwards LPs, but that's
because Weston fils has not released them on CD.

[Scott Dorsey]

duty-honor-country wrote:

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 ?

Because the system is massively nonlinear and is operating way too
close to saturation level.

In any case, I would say the severe flutter problems are more of an issue
than the poor frequency response or the linearity issues.
--scott



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

[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message
ups.com
On Mar 28, 6:08 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"duty-honor-country"
wrote
in
ooglegroups.com





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

But still not up to modern standards. Not even up to the
standards of the
day. In the day, I used a Revox A77 and compared to
cassette, it was indeed
a whole different ballgame. Here's an example of what
you can do with fast,
wide tracks:

http://www.bassboy.com.au/getreel/si...c/test/b77.htm

" at +8dB ref Dolby Level the response being only -1dB
at 16kHz"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


it's a reel to reel machine, who wants to thread tape
every 20 minutes ?

Never had a machine with 10 1/2 inch reels, I take it.

try taking that in the car with you

The CD player there is just fine.

would you buy a dozen reels, record them, and give them
away for free to friends ?

Not lately. CDs work out just fine. BTW, I just sold the 300th CD that I
recorded for someone, and that's on top of another 300 or more CD's I've
recorded and produced gratis for charitable organizations.

[William Sommerwerck]

The idea that analog has better imaging is so wrong. One of
the major problems with analog formats is channel matching.
Poor channel matching is *the* major enemy of good imaging.

More precisely, accurate imaging. I've long believed that it's the lack of
good matching, as well as a number of analog errors, that produce the depth
and spaciousness of phonograph recordings.

It's worth noting that thick "audiophile" LPs, or turntables with very dead
platters and arms, don't display as much depth or spaciousness.

[Scott Dorsey]

Six String Stu wrote:
I met a guy recently who still has some shellac record blanks in his
collection.

Those are acetates, not shellac. Masters for shellac pressings were either
cut on acetate or nitrate blanks (like modern LPs), or on plates of metallized
wax. The metallized wax process went out by the mid-thirties in favor of
lacquers.

Also has some very large disks (way oversized ones) That I am
sure ya couldnt find a player for nowadays.

Those are 16" transcription discs. Esoteric Sound in Chicago makes
turntables to deal with them, and SME still makes an arm for them.

There were a LOT of instantaneous disc formats out there, back in the
days before Ampex introuduced a magnetic recording system that actually
worked, in 1949.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" wrote
in message
oups.com

so a recording made with a lower VU meter reading, could
theoretically have a wider freq resp result, than one
where there meter is at 0 VU or +3 VU ?

Pretty much guaranteed. Trouble is, the noise floor comes up at you pretty
fast with analog.

You have to go down to -20 with cassette to have any kind of guarantee of
response out to say, 12 KHz. When the noise floor is only 55-65 dB down,
you are now only 35-45 dB out of the dirt, and that's too close for comfort.

having said that, how does VU reading translate/convert to dB level ?

That varies with the machine. You hope that 0 on the meters corresponds to
Dolby Level, but YMMV.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
people are getting the hint- audiophiles are going back
to vinyl-

Not this one.

I am thinking of buying some Jonathan & Darlene Edwards
LPs, but that's because Weston fils has not released them
on CD.

There's really only two justifications for buying LPs

(1) Music that is only available on LP.
(2) Music that is only available on a CD that was poorly mastered.

A lot of these hyper-compressed compendiums of classic rock sorely tempt me
to pull out the Rega.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
The idea that analog has better imaging is so wrong. One
of the major problems with analog formats is channel
matching. Poor channel matching is *the* major enemy of
good imaging.

More precisely, accurate imaging. I've long believed that
it's the lack of good matching, as well as a number of
analog errors, that produce the depth and spaciousness of
phonograph recordings.

That was driven home to me back in the early 1970s by some Shure engineer
who taught me about instability of imaging with my ADC XLM. ;-)

It's worth noting that thick "audiophile" LPs, or
turntables with very dead platters and arms, don't
display as much depth or spaciousness.

Could be.

[Scott Dorsey]

duty-honor-country wrote:

the longest lasting tape format, is compact Philips cassette

No, not at all, it's 1/4" 30 ips. In 1945, you could (if you were the
German) government, buy a Magnetophon recorder. Today you can pick up
the phone and call ATR Magnetics and buy a new machine to play back
that very same tape.

Admittedly the guide tolerances changed a little bit in 1949, but 1/4" is
still a very popular format today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote
good analog will equal/surpass the 192/24 digital
resolution.

Okay. Name the machine. Not just "analog", a specific
machine.

This will be fun - such a machine doesn't and can't exist, at least in
the real world. Maybe on some spec sheet, but in the listening room
and on the test bench, it can't exist.

Remember that whats-his-name (I've plonked him and
can't remember which alias-du-jour he is using) may
be posting from some alternate universe.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

duty-honor-country wrote:

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 ?

Because the system is massively nonlinear and is
operating way too close to saturation level.

In any case, I would say the severe flutter problems are
more of an issue than the poor frequency response or the
linearity issues. --scott

I still remember the first time I heard a PCM-F1 recording of the Detroit
Symphony. Now the PCM-F1 had its problems, but it did have a lot less
flutter and wow than we were accustomed to in the days of analog.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote
good analog will equal/surpass the 192/24 digital
resolution.

Okay. Name the machine. Not just "analog", a specific
machine.

This will be fun - such a machine doesn't and can't
exist, at least in the real world. Maybe on some spec
sheet, but in the listening room and on the test bench,
it can't exist.

Remember that whats-his-name (I've plonked him and
can't remember which alias-du-jour he is using) may
be posting from some alternate universe.

Yes, he's trying hard to drop off my long range radar.