[Mr.T]

"philicorda" wrote in message
...
I'm restoring the same model 4-track, a Teac144, at the moment. Being the
first ever cassette 4 track, it has an unusual track width and tape
heads. Both were particular to that model and never used again. It will
be interesting to see what it can do.

Just don't compare it to a ten dollar sound card or you will be extremely
disappointed.

I'm confident it will make me sound exactly like Bruce Springsteen and
thus sell millions of records.

You forgot the smiley, here are a couple for you :-) :-)
(BTW "Born in the USA" wasn't recorded on a portastudio.)

As someone who listens to 78s, I can sympathize, even as I wish someone
had been able to record Robert Johnson in a high-quality medium. But I'm
glad to have the Johnson performances we have, and Springsteen likewise.

Of course, any recording is better than none at all, a good quality
recording *much* better still, you'll actually listen to it more often.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
that Portastudio really added something!"

Of course it does, noise, distortion, wow & flutter, cross talk, etc etc.
etc.!!!!!!!!!
I have often said that, and so have many others.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"D.M. Procida"
wrote in message
...
You're mistaken, in that case. To me it seems neither amusing nor odd
that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey, that
Portastudio really added something!"

In fact I'd find it somewhat inexplicable if they did.

Actually I'd find their technical knowledge deficient if they *didn't* say
it added noise, distortion, wow, flutter and a dozen other nasties!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Exceptions don't prove any rule. I suspect that a recording made on a
portastudio could be sucessful even today, if it had exceptional musical
values. After all, musical values are still the most important part of
any
recording.

Sure, but the stuff most people keep playing is when a good performance is
combined with good sound quality.
Of course it probably doesn't matter so much for punk and rap, but then I'm
nor sure there are any "musical values" there :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Thank you for that; at least you're not reflexively consigning the
efforts of my friends to the "crap" pile just by virtue of the equipment
they chose to use, some *two decades* ago.

The recording did have "exceptional musical values".

Nobody claimed otherwise, it still doesn't make crap sound quality a
"virtue" though! Much more likely all they could afford at the time.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
Of your small group the Nak's had the best specifications
20-20,000 kHz +/- 3 dB.

That would be at a significantly reduced reference
level, like a minimum of 10 dB below dolby reference
level.

In fact -20dB was the norm for cassette including Nakamichi.

72 dB SN w/noise reduction.

And that was also A-weighted as well.

Yep, and Dolby-C. And no NR system is completely transparent, which people
seem to forget. The problems were far worse with cassette of course, and
much less with R-R and Dolby SR for instance.

MrT.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

Yep, and Dolby-C. And no NR system is completely transparent, which people
seem to forget. The problems were far worse with cassette of course, and
much less with R-R and Dolby SR for instance.

IF you could get the cassette aligned properly, the Dolby artifacts could
be pretty far down. Problem is that usually the bias and levels on the
machines were way off, and the NR pumped like crazy.

Comparing with SR is not fair, because if anything SR and A are a lot more
touchy about tape machine problems. SR will pump like mad if you look
at it... it's great on an ATR-100 but put it on a 350 and you're in trouble.
--scott

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

[D.M. Procida]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

Photographers sometimes choose Polaroid; film-makers, Super-8;
scupltors, concrete. Cartoonists have to adapt to newsprint. In all
those cases media with far fewer limitations exist, but in most cases,
using a technically superior medium would simply make a different kind
of work - not better or worse, just different.

Now you have it, "different" does not mean "better" or "a virtue", just
*different*!

In this context, "virtue" doesn't mean "better" either. It simply means
a quality or characteristic worth having.

It's up to the artist to make a virtue of the limitations of the medium.
Sometimes it won't be possible, sometimes it won't be appropriate for
the art in question, and sometimes the artist will seek other virtues.

But sometimes, an artist will make a virtue of a medium's limitations.
It's not exactly a strange idea.

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[D.M. Procida]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

I don't think you understand what "making a virtue of limitations"
means.

OK *you* tell us then what "virtue" there is in the obvious limitations of a
portastudio.

There are none. It's up to an artist (in any medium) to *make* virtues
of its limitations.

In the case of music recorded on a Portastudio, you'd have to listen to
it to judge to what extent the artist had been successful.

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

Yep, and Dolby-C. And no NR system is completely transparent, which people
seem to forget. The problems were far worse with cassette of course, and
much less with R-R and Dolby SR for instance.

IF you could get the cassette aligned properly, the Dolby artifacts could
be pretty far down. Problem is that usually the bias and levels on the
machines were way off, and the NR pumped like crazy.

Comparing with SR is not fair, because if anything SR and A are a lot more
touchy about tape machine problems. SR will pump like mad if you look
at it... it's great on an ATR-100 but put it on a 350 and you're in
trouble.
--scott

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

I have a Nakamichi Dragon and prefer the sound of Dolby off over that of
Dolby B, and Dolby B over Dolby C, if I'm forced to use NR at all. Despite
the advantages of user adjustable bias and eq and auto Azimov, selecting
blank tapes was always an important factor in getting a good recorded sound
out of my Nak. Of course the available stock of blank tapes
nowadays......ain't like the old days !
Ray

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:40:07 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

I don't think you understand what "making a virtue of limitations"
means.

OK *you* tell us then what "virtue" there is in the obvious limitations of a
portastudio.

I suppose an artist who's run out of ideas might think "what can I do
with just toenail clippings and mud?" and might even come up with
something interesting.

I don't think the "medium is the message" quite that way in music.
Certainly not in Springsteen's sort of music.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:42:46 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

In this context, "virtue" doesn't mean "better" either. It simply means
a quality or characteristic worth having.

You're wriggling. A decision that something's worth having means
having it is better than not having it.

[Codifus]

On Mar 1, 11:59*am, Tape Guy wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my
Akai deck. *Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi
owners?

Only if the Nakamichi had had dbx, which it didn't!!
It had Dolby B and C only. I don't know of any Nakamichi
that had dbx.

Oh.

I see.

My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.

So much for Nakamichi decks, huh?

I find it rather odd that you call yourself TapeGuy and have very
limited knowledge of Nakamichis.

Here's a quick history lesson: Nakamichi was THE #1 best audio
cassette deck maker in the world. All others cassette manufacturers
were a distant 3rd with no number 2.

Naks were so good and so cool that they were even featured in movies.
Remember 9 1/2 weeks, When Mickey Rourke still looked like a player?
He had an auto-reverse Nakamichi in his apartment that flipped the
cassette over to play the B side. It looked like a gimmick, and was
amazing to watch, but it was purely functional. Nakamichi designed
that flipover transport to address azimuth issues that were compounded
with auto reverse decks. By flipping the cassettte over, the tape
aligned with heads in both directions perfectly, every time.


In this thread it was mentioned how in a studio that a Nakamichi deck
sounded lousy compared to other decks. I think I know why. During the
evolution of the cassette medium, there was a standardized playback eq
level for metal/chrome and normal tapes. Nakamichi went their own way
and standardized on a different EQ setting, while everyone else, Sony,
JVC, TEAC etc, standardzied on another. This is what I believed caused
Nakamachi recorded tapes to sound lousy on other manucfacturer's
cassette decks.

Well, it turned out that Nakamichi was right and all the manufacturers
slowly implemented the Nak's playback eq setting.


One more thing; I believe the greatest thing to happen to cassette
decks was Dolby S and Dolby HX. Unfortunatley Dolby S came out just as
digital audio started coming of age and cassette we well into their
declining years. It seemed to address all the flaws in Dolby B & C,
which I never really liked due to all the alignment/frequency response
issues that were compounded with Dolby encoded tapes.

Regarding Dolby HX, it was a great feature for lesser cassette makers,
like my beloved JVC TDV 621, 3 head, dual capstan deck, but not for
Nakamichi. I looked into why Naks never implemented Hx and the reason
became clear: they didn't need it. HX pro works by adjusting
(lowering) the bias frequency when the audio input being recorded has
a large amount of high frequency content. This temporarily improves
the cassette recording's high frequency recording capability.

I noticed that most Nakamichis at the time had bias frequencies round
about twice as high as any other manufacturer. Most tape decks had a
bias frequency of 160 Khz compared to average of 300 Khz for Nakamichi
decks.


Yeah, so much for Nakamichis.

CD

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"codifus" wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 11:59 am, Tape Guy wrote:
My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.

So much for Nakamichi decks, huh?

Here's a quick history lesson: Nakamichi was THE #1 best audio
cassette deck maker in the world. All others cassette manufacturers
were a distant 3rd with no number 2.


In this thread it was mentioned how in a studio that a Nakamichi deck
sounded lousy compared to other decks. I think I know why. During the
evolution of the cassette medium, there was a standardized playback eq
level for metal/chrome and normal tapes. Nakamichi went their own way
and standardized on a different EQ setting, while everyone else, Sony,
JVC, TEAC etc, standardzied on another. This is what I believed caused
Nakamachi recorded tapes to sound lousy on other manucfacturer's
cassette decks.

Well, it turned out that Nakamichi was right and all the manufacturers
slowly implemented the Nak's playback eq setting.

Whilst I fully agree that Nakamichi made the best cassette decks, I have to
question the above statement about tape EQ. Nakamichi, like everybody else
standardised on 70uS EQ for metal and chrome tapes and 120uS EQ for normal
ferric.As far as I know, Nakamichi never supported ferri-chrome tapes. If
you know differently, I would be genuinely interested in knowing about it as
it would add to my knowledge.



I noticed that most Nakamichis at the time had bias frequencies round
about twice as high as any other manufacturer. Most tape decks had a
bias frequency of 160 Khz compared to average of 300 Khz for Nakamichi
decks.

I also question this figure, the 482Z I owned and the BX series had bias
frequencies of around 120kHz, not 300k. Most other manufacturers didn't have
bias frequencies of 160k, decent manufacturers used 100k, cheapies may have
been around 60k, but I didn't get too involved with those at the time.


Yeah, so much for Nakamichis.

CD

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 12:27*pm, codifus wrote:
Nakamichi was THE #1 best audio
cassette deck maker in the world.

That's like trumpeting the virtues best Yugo dealer
on the planet. Nakamichi MAY well have been best
maker of cassette decks but, ultimately, they
were forever condemned to be CASSETTE decks.

Naks were so good and so cool that they were
even featured in movies.

So what?

The Transcriptors turntable was featured in
Stanley Kubrik's "Clockwork Orange," dare I
say a piece of cinema a bit above the level of
likes of "9 1/2 weeks."

And the transcriptors turntable was one of the
most unmitigated pieces of **** inflicted on the
audio world.

Nakamichi, by the way, was also responsible
for some pretty serious abortions of cassette
decks, being the designer and manufacturer of
dreaded Wollensak transport, one mechanical
nightmare if there ever was one. Their 550 also
had some SERIOUS design flaws.

It's a cassette deck, let it die the death it so
richly earned for itself.

[D.M. Procida]

Laurence Payne wrote:

In this context, "virtue" doesn't mean "better" either. It simply means
a quality or characteristic worth having.

You're wriggling. A decision that something's worth having means
having it is better than not having it.

That's just silly. By your logic, if a film-maker decides to film using
Super 8, it means that Super 8 is "better" (whatever you think that
means).

Well, obviously it doesn't. It simply means that the film-maker decided
to use Super 8 - quite possibly *because* of its limitations as a
reproductive medium, because the film-maker could see that its
limitations could be exploited to a certain aesthetic or artistic end.

That's what "making a virtue out of limitations means".

Can you not conceive how a recording artist might make a similar
decision to employ a technically inferior medium?

Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/3/2009 11:18 AM spake thus:

Nakamichi, by the way, was also responsible for some pretty serious
abortions of cassette decks, being the designer and manufacturer of
dreaded Wollensak transport, one mechanical nightmare if there ever
was one.

Are you talking about the old Wollensak tube recorders? Really?

I'm curious, because our family had one of those beasts which got a
*lot* of use in our house. a stereo recorder (with built-in speakers). I
remember it had an odd mechanical system, seemed to be driven by a some
kind of rotating mechanism with cams that pushed everything (capstan,
heads, pressure pads) into place. Was small but weighed a ton. I also
seem to remember there were times it jammed, but it was a long time ago.

*Disclaimer*: I am not claiming that Wollensak was anything even
remotely close to state-of-the-art quality. But it was a danged
interesting machine, and one which as I said made lots of recordings for
us back in the '60s.


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Codifus]

On Mar 3, 1:49*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"codifus" wrote in message

...
On Mar 1, 11:59 am, Tape Guy wrote:



My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.
So much for Nakamichi decks, huh?
Here's a quick history lesson: Nakamichi was THE #1 best audio
cassette deck maker in the world. All others cassette manufacturers
were a distant 3rd with no number 2.
In this thread it was mentioned how in a studio that a Nakamichi deck
sounded lousy compared to other decks. I think I know why. During the
evolution of the cassette medium, there was a standardized playback eq
level for metal/chrome and normal tapes. Nakamichi went their own way
and standardized on a different EQ setting, while everyone else, Sony,
JVC, TEAC etc, standardzied on another. This is what I believed caused
Nakamachi recorded tapes to sound lousy on other manucfacturer's
cassette decks.
Well, it turned out that Nakamichi was right and all the manufacturers
slowly implemented the Nak's playback eq setting.

Whilst I fully agree that Nakamichi made the best cassette decks, I have to
question the above statement about tape EQ. Nakamichi, like everybody else
standardised on 70uS EQ for metal and chrome tapes and 120uS EQ for normal
ferric.As far as I know, Nakamichi never supported ferri-chrome tapes. *If
you know differently, I would be genuinely interested in knowing about it as
it would add to my knowledge.


Look here at IEC1976 and IEC1981;

http://www.nakremotes.com/Geo/Scott_...C1%20vs%20IEC2

I noticed that most Nakamichis at the time had bias frequencies round
about twice as high as any other manufacturer. Most tape decks had a
bias frequency of 160 Khz compared to average of 300 Khz for Nakamichi
decks.

I also question this figure, the 482Z I owned and the BX series had bias
frequencies of around 120kHz, not 300k. Most other manufacturers didn't have
bias frequencies of 160k, decent manufacturers used 100k, cheapies may have
been around 60k, but I didn't get too involved with those at the time.

I may have fudged the numbers a bit....foggy memory. But generally,
Naks had higher bias frequencies and hence less of a need, actually no
need, to use HX pro.

Yeah, so much for Nakamichis.
CD

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com

CD

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 2:42*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 3/3/2009 11:18 AM spake thus:

Nakamichi, by the way, was also responsible for
some pretty serious abortions of cassette decks,
being the designer and manufacturer of dreaded
Wollensak transport, one mechanical nightmare
if there ever was one.

Are you talking about the old Wollensak tube
recorders? Really?

No, I said "Wollensak cassette deck." The same P.O S.
that was used for the Advent cassette deck.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"codifus" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 1:49 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"codifus" wrote in message

...
On Mar 1, 11:59 am, Tape Guy wrote:



My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.
So much for Nakamichi decks, huh?
Here's a quick history lesson: Nakamichi was THE #1 best audio
cassette deck maker in the world. All others cassette manufacturers
were a distant 3rd with no number 2.
In this thread it was mentioned how in a studio that a Nakamichi deck
sounded lousy compared to other decks. I think I know why. During the
evolution of the cassette medium, there was a standardized playback eq
level for metal/chrome and normal tapes. Nakamichi went their own way
and standardized on a different EQ setting, while everyone else, Sony,
JVC, TEAC etc, standardzied on another. This is what I believed caused
Nakamachi recorded tapes to sound lousy on other manucfacturer's
cassette decks.
Well, it turned out that Nakamichi was right and all the manufacturers
slowly implemented the Nak's playback eq setting.

Whilst I fully agree that Nakamichi made the best cassette decks, I have
to
question the above statement about tape EQ. Nakamichi, like everybody else
standardised on 70uS EQ for metal and chrome tapes and 120uS EQ for normal
ferric.As far as I know, Nakamichi never supported ferri-chrome tapes. If
you know differently, I would be genuinely interested in knowing about it
as
it would add to my knowledge.


Look here at IEC1976 and IEC1981;

http://www.nakremotes.com/Geo/Scott_...C1%20vs%20IEC2

I noticed that most Nakamichis at the time had bias frequencies round
about twice as high as any other manufacturer. Most tape decks had a
bias frequency of 160 Khz compared to average of 300 Khz for Nakamichi
decks.

I also question this figure, the 482Z I owned and the BX series had bias
frequencies of around 120kHz, not 300k. Most other manufacturers didn't
have
bias frequencies of 160k, decent manufacturers used 100k, cheapies may
have
been around 60k, but I didn't get too involved with those at the time.

I may have fudged the numbers a bit....foggy memory. But generally,
Naks had higher bias frequencies and hence less of a need, actually no
need, to use HX pro.

Yeah, so much for Nakamichis.
CD

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com

CD

The playback equalisation was 70&120uS as can be verified by looking at the
buttons on the front panel of each machine. The machines also accurately
reproduced test tapes made to either 120 and 70uS standards. I had a full
set of Nakamichi and BASF test tapes and the machines lined up accurately to
those. The record side was then lined up to produce a flat response once the
playback side was accurate according to the 120 or 70uS test tape. That made
the record-replay system conform to either 70 or 120uS standards, just like
everybody else.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Codifus]

On Mar 3, 2:18*pm, wrote:
On Mar 3, 12:27*pm, codifus wrote:

Nakamichi was THE #1 best audio
cassette deck maker in the world.

That's like trumpeting the virtues best Yugo dealer
on the planet. Nakamichi MAY well have been best
maker of cassette decks but, ultimately, they
were forever condemned to be CASSETTE decks.

Whatever, man. I will always remember the cassette medium fondly.
Goodbye TDK SA-X, so long BASF pure chromium dioxide. Farewell to the
"king" TDK MA-X with the clear plastic shell covering a pure metal
skeleton. Memories.

The cassette medium may have been compromised in performance, but it
was the most successfull analog audio tape medium by far.
Manufacturers like Nakamichi, Maxell, TDK etc, pushed the cassette
further than it was ever envisioned to be. And what of the other tape
formats? 8-track....bleh. Reel to reel performed way way better than
cassette but was just too bulky and inconvenient. It really ****ed me
off when I'd record tapes at 7.5 ips to really hear the audio quality
and the reel would run out of tape....REAL fast. DAT tried to be the
digital age of the cassette but never quite got hold of the market.
Too much digital evolution going on. I know Philips invented the
digital cassette using the same cassette shell, but that was even
worse off the market.

Naks were so good and so cool that they were
even featured in movies.

So what?

The Transcriptors turntable was featured in
Stanley Kubrik's "Clockwork Orange," dare I
say a piece of cinema a bit above the level of
likes of "9 1/2 weeks."

My point was that the Naks were cool as well as a technical tour de
force, like Apple computers

And the transcriptors turntable was one of the
most unmitigated pieces of **** inflicted on the
audio world.

Nakamichi, by the way, was also responsible
for some pretty serious abortions of cassette
decks, being the designer and manufacturer of
dreaded Wollensak transport, one mechanical
nightmare if there ever was one. Their 550 also
had some SERIOUS design flaws.

It's a cassette deck, let it die the death it so
richly earned for itself.

May the cassette rest in peace. I'll pass by the cemetery every so
often to lay down some fresh flowers

CD

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:42:46 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

In this context, "virtue" doesn't mean "better" either. It simply means
a quality or characteristic worth having.

You're wriggling. A decision that something's worth having means
having it is better than not having it.


Constraints are very important to the creative process. I figure
it's like the cinematography to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -
looks like it was done on 16MM, but that keeps it out
of the way of the story.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:40:07 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

I don't think you understand what "making a virtue of limitations"
means.
OK *you* tell us then what "virtue" there is in the obvious limitations of a
portastudio.

I suppose an artist who's run out of ideas might think "what can I do
with just toenail clippings and mud?" and might even come up with
something interesting.

I don't think the "medium is the message" quite that way in music.
Certainly not in Springsteen's sort of music.

Anything that is true of television is also true of radio. Indeed,
the origins of tape recording itself are kind of embarrassing -
before it was discovered by the Allies in WWII....

--
Les Cargill

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/3/2009 11:42 AM D.M. Procida spake thus:

Laurence Payne wrote:

In this context, "virtue" doesn't mean "better" either. It simply means
a quality or characteristic worth having.

You're wriggling. A decision that something's worth having means
having it is better than not having it.

That's just silly. By your logic, if a film-maker decides to film using
Super 8, it means that Super 8 is "better" (whatever you think that
means).

Well, obviously it doesn't. It simply means that the film-maker decided
to use Super 8 - quite possibly *because* of its limitations as a
reproductive medium, because the film-maker could see that its
limitations could be exploited to a certain aesthetic or artistic end.

That's what "making a virtue out of limitations means".

Can you not conceive how a recording artist might make a similar
decision to employ a technically inferior medium?

I think it's pretty futile making your argument (with which I fully
agree) to these apparent audio snobs, whose attitude seems to be "any
recording made on anything less than the sine qua non of equipment and
materials is *crap* and ought to be incinerated, stomped on or otherwise
destroyed". There's no room for "good enough" in their world, certainly
not for "less than optimum but with other interesting characteristics".


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Keith.]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 3/2/2009 5:17 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 3/1/2009 5:14 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

IME audio cassette is a horrible medium by modern standards. Anybody
who cares to dispute this need only post an Audio Rightmark test based
on a cassette record/play cycle that comes within an order of magnitude
of the 2-in, 8-out digital audio interface that comes "free" on a
modern PC system board $75 such as the Asus M3A78-CM.

Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that
was released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up
well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality.

All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.

That's all.

Exceptions don't prove any rule. I suspect that a recording made on a
portastudio could be sucessful even today, if it had exceptional musical
values. After all, musical values are still the most important part of
any recording.

Thank you for that; at least you're not reflexively consigning the efforts
of my friends to the "crap" pile just by virtue of the equipment they
chose to use, some *two decades* ago.

The recording did have "exceptional musical values"

Guess the title of the thread is "Opinions............"
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servl...%3DkLDPSOKRG_8

Keith.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
I think it's pretty futile making your argument (with which I fully
agree) to these apparent audio snobs, whose attitude seems to be "any
recording made on anything less than the sine qua non of equipment and
materials is *crap* and ought to be incinerated, stomped on or otherwise
destroyed". There's no room for "good enough" in their world, certainly
not for "less than optimum but with other interesting characteristics".

I just thank god there are not too many recording artists choosing to record
or release their material on cassette these days.
If that's the medium of *your* choice, good luck to you, and good luck with
your search for new material!

But do let the rest of us who actually appreciate sound quality have our own
opinions as well.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith." wrote in message
...
I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that
was released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up
well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality.

Guess the title of the thread is "Opinions............"

That's a given when somebody claims a portastudio recording
"measured up well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality".
But surely we do get to argue over just what such an *opinion* is worth?
That's what Usenet is all about isn't it?

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/3/2009 6:30 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

I think it's pretty futile making your argument (with which I fully
agree) to these apparent audio snobs, whose attitude seems to be "any
recording made on anything less than the sine qua non of equipment and
materials is *crap* and ought to be incinerated, stomped on or otherwise
destroyed". There's no room for "good enough" in their world, certainly
not for "less than optimum but with other interesting characteristics".

I just thank god there are not too many recording artists choosing to record
or release their material on cassette these days.
If that's the medium of *your* choice, good luck to you, and good luck with
your search for new material!

How in the *world* do you interpret any of my postings here to mean that
cassette is the "medium of my choice"? I challenge you to find any
statement of mine that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that.

I *was* defending the choice of some friends of mine, MORE THAN TWO
DECADES AGO, to make one of their recordings on a cassette recorder.

I never stated that this technology was state-of-the art, either at the
time, nor certainly now.

You have a way of misinterpreting, drawing faulty conclusions, and
putting words in other's mouths that's quite annoying.

What, are you on a mission to rid the world of inferior recording
technologies, one person at a time?


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
I just thank god there are not too many recording artists choosing to
record
or release their material on cassette these days.
If that's the medium of *your* choice, good luck to you, and good luck
with
your search for new material!

How in the *world* do you interpret any of my postings here to mean that
cassette is the "medium of my choice"? I challenge you to find any
statement of mine that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that.

I *was* defending the choice of some friends of mine, MORE THAN TWO
DECADES AGO, to make one of their recordings on a cassette recorder.

I never stated that this technology was state-of-the art, either at the
time, nor certainly now.

You did say it "measured up well to the *then-current standards* for sound
quality".
And many people rightly disagreed with that, so you then went on to claim it
had "virtue" as an artistic choice.

So are you now saying you don't really prefer such a choice now, after all?
(just like the rest of us) If so, we can at last move on.

MrT.

[Keith.]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Keith." wrote in message
...
I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio,
that
was released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up
well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality.

Guess the title of the thread is "Opinions............"

That's a given when somebody claims a portastudio recording
"measured up well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality".
But surely we do get to argue over just what such an *opinion* is worth?
That's what Usenet is all about isn't it?

MrT.

Yes that is true, and a lot of interesting information is sucked out as a
result of argument.
But I put that link in to show that people were aware of the audio
limitations of "nebraska" but either could not care less or regarded the
lack of studio quality as part of the 'art' of Springsteen at that time in
his artistic development.
And 'art' it is....it is like saying that the art produced in Picasso's blue
period is flawed because he did not use his full palate of colors.
If a Portastudio produced an audio 'art' piece that had meaning for that
artist and his audience for that period in time, then so be it.
Creativity is magic ,the technology can assist or detract from it being
understood, but is only one part of the artistic process,the final emotional
result is all that counts.

Keith.

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
I just thank god there are not too many recording artists choosing to
record
or release their material on cassette these days.
If that's the medium of *your* choice, good luck to you, and good luck
with
your search for new material!

How in the *world* do you interpret any of my postings here to mean that
cassette is the "medium of my choice"? I challenge you to find any
statement of mine that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that.

I *was* defending the choice of some friends of mine, MORE THAN TWO
DECADES AGO, to make one of their recordings on a cassette recorder.

I never stated that this technology was state-of-the art, either at the
time, nor certainly now.

You did say it "measured up well to the *then-current standards* for sound
quality".
And many people rightly disagreed with that, so you then went on to claim
it
had "virtue" as an artistic choice.

So are you now saying you don't really prefer such a choice now, after
all?
(just like the rest of us) If so, we can at last move on.

MrT.


this is one hell of a trivial ****ing contest.... know that the first one of
you two to stop posting on the topic will be declared loser

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/3/2009 7:06 PM Mr.T spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

I just thank god there are not too many recording artists
choosing to record or release their material on cassette these
days. If that's the medium of *your* choice, good luck to you,
and good luck with your search for new material!

How in the *world* do you interpret any of my postings here to mean that
cassette is the "medium of my choice"? I challenge you to find any
statement of mine that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that.

I *was* defending the choice of some friends of mine, MORE THAN TWO
DECADES AGO, to make one of their recordings on a cassette recorder.

I never stated that this technology was state-of-the art, either at the
time, nor certainly now.

You did say it "measured up well to the *then-current standards* for sound
quality".
And many people rightly disagreed with that, so you then went on to claim it
had "virtue" as an artistic choice.

That wasn't even me. That was another poster.

No use trying to have an intelligent discussion with a ****ing
audiophool who can't even keep things straight.

So are you now saying you don't really prefer such a choice now, after all?
(just like the rest of us) If so, we can at last move on.

Good bye.


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Mr.T]

"Keith." wrote in message
...
If a Portastudio produced an audio 'art' piece that had meaning for that
artist and his audience for that period in time, then so be it.

No argument there, however I'm sure even Springteen never claimed it
"measured up well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality". That's
what I and many others disagreed with.
He simply preferred the performances originally meant only to be demo's.
Nor has he tried to replicate it by releasing anything else done on a
portastudio. I think even his die-hard fans would tire of crap sound quality
eventually.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message
...
know that the first one of
you two to stop posting on the topic will be declared loser

And what exactly do we lose? I would think we actually gain more time :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
You did say it "measured up well to the *then-current standards* for
sound
quality".
And many people rightly disagreed with that, so you then went on to
claim it
had "virtue" as an artistic choice.

That wasn't even me. That was another poster.

So it wasn't you who claimed it "measured up well to the *then-current
standards* for sound
quality". And you didn't agree that it could make a "virtue of a
limitation"?

What they hell ARE you arguing about then?

No use trying to have an intelligent discussion with a ****ing
audiophool who can't even keep things straight.

Agreed, you are talking about yourself right? No wait, that would just be
fool in your case!

Good bye.

Good riddance.

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/3/2009 7:31 PM Ray Thomas spake thus:

this is one hell of a trivial ****ing contest.... know that the first
one of you two to stop posting on the topic will be declared loser

Unless you're being funny, when there's a ****ing match, the one who
quits *first* is the winner in my book.


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
g.com...

Anything that is true of television is also true of radio. Indeed,
the origins of tape recording itself are kind of embarrassing -
before it was discovered by the Allies in WWII....

What's embarrassing about Valdemar Poulsen? The Blattnerphone-- now that was
embarrassing.

Peace,
Paul

[Codifus]

On Mar 3, 4:21*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"codifus" wrote in message

...
On Mar 3, 1:49 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:



"codifus" wrote in message

....
On Mar 1, 11:59 am, Tape Guy wrote:

My Akai GX-A5X has dbx.

So much for the superiority of Nakamichi decks then.
So much for Nakamichi decks, huh?
Here's a quick history lesson: Nakamichi was THE #1 best audio
cassette deck maker in the world. All others cassette manufacturers
were a distant 3rd with no number 2.
In this thread it was mentioned how in a studio that a Nakamichi deck
sounded lousy compared to other decks. I think I know why. During the
evolution of the cassette medium, there was a standardized playback eq
level for metal/chrome and normal tapes. Nakamichi went their own way
and standardized on a different EQ setting, while everyone else, Sony,
JVC, TEAC etc, standardzied on another. This is what I believed caused
Nakamachi recorded tapes to sound lousy on other manucfacturer's
cassette decks.
Well, it turned out that Nakamichi was right and all the manufacturers
slowly implemented the Nak's playback eq setting.

Whilst I fully agree that Nakamichi made the best cassette decks, I have
to
question the above statement about tape EQ. Nakamichi, like everybody else
standardised on 70uS EQ for metal and chrome tapes and 120uS EQ for normal
ferric.As far as I know, Nakamichi never supported ferri-chrome tapes. If
you know differently, I would be genuinely interested in knowing about it
as
it would add to my knowledge.

Look here at IEC1976 and IEC1981;

http://www.nakremotes.com/Geo/Scott_...C1%20vs%20IEC2

I noticed that most Nakamichis at the time had bias frequencies round
about twice as high as any other manufacturer. Most tape decks had a
bias frequency of 160 Khz compared to average of 300 Khz for Nakamichi
decks.

I also question this figure, the 482Z I owned and the BX series had bias
frequencies of around 120kHz, not 300k. Most other manufacturers didn't
have
bias frequencies of 160k, decent manufacturers used 100k, cheapies may
have
been around 60k, but I didn't get too involved with those at the time.

I may have fudged the numbers a bit....foggy memory. But generally,
Naks had higher bias frequencies and hence less of a need, actually no
need, to use HX pro.



Yeah, so much for Nakamichis.
CD

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com

CD

The playback equalisation was 70&120uS as can be verified by looking at the
buttons on the front panel of each machine. The machines also accurately
reproduced test tapes made to either 120 and 70uS standards. I had a full
set of Nakamichi and BASF test tapes and the machines lined up accurately to
those. The record side was then lined up to produce a flat response once the
playback side was accurate according to the 120 or 70uS test tape. That made
the record-replay system conform to either 70 or 120uS standards, just like
everybody else.

S.
--http://audiopages.googlepages.com

If I'm not mistaken, the 482 cassette model was sold during the early
80s, no? That's around the time when Nakamichi diverged from the
"standard" eq for playback and went their own route. I think other
models like the dragon etc built after 1982 "diverged" from the
standard eq setting. Nakamichi was right all along, though.

CD

[Les Cargill]

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
g.com...
Anything that is true of television is also true of radio. Indeed,
the origins of tape recording itself are kind of embarrassing -
before it was discovered by the Allies in WWII....

What's embarrassing about Valdemar Poulsen? The Blattnerphone-- now that was
embarrassing.

Peace,
Paul



The uses of the Magnetophon were... interesting. Ole Adolph kept it
secret as a security measure - he did not want people to know he hadn't
given a speech live....

--
Les Cargill

[david correia]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

btw I booted that 680zx recently and it no longer plays back. The
transport seems fine and the heads are clean and demag-ed. The deck
doesn't have too many miles on it either. Any recommendations on where
to send it that doesn't charge 2 arms and a leg?

Steve Sank is still doing Nakamichi repair, and he used to be a warranty
repair center for those machines. My bet is that you have some relay and
switch contacts that need cleaning.
--scott



Sad to say I'd be afraid to send it. Seems others have had problems with
him over the past few years ...





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com