ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-evaluate this BIC T-4M cassette deck 3.75 IPS [Archive]

duty-honor-country

March 27th 07, 06:15 PM

On Mar 27, 11:20 am, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:18 am, "duty-honor-country"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "DeserTBoB" > wrote in message
>
> > > >> 25-20 KHz at what level and with how many dBs tolerance?
> > > >> If you can't provide those two key addiational
> > > >> parameters, you're talking marketing crap, not
> > > >> technology.
>
> > OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete
> > spec and review writeup- please tell me how the dB's tolerance and
> > levels shown in these tests, affect this unit. It seems to have
> > quite wide FR to me.
>
> >http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg
>
> >http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg
>
> >http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg
>
> > I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by fact. There are
> > graphs for various levels and FR. Have at it. Tell me how this
> > vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette deck, is "junk".
>
> > fire away ! Here are the other additional parameters you asked for.
>
> to maximize and read prior links, click on link, hold cursor on page,
> when box appears at lower right, click on box, it will expand page and
> make it readable
>
> http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg
>
> http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg
>
> http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

not worth the cost of shipping both ways, and risk of damaging the
unit-BIC 2-speeds are very rare- try to find one on Ebay, you'll be
waiting a while.

yes, Arnie does appear to be knowledgeable- he asked for more info, so
I am supplying what I have

included is FR curve graph at 0 and -20 db, for both speeds, and
different types of tape

I'm sure he can draw a few conclusions from that, to support his
previous assumptions in the other thread-

and more importantly "why"

Arny Krueger

March 27th 07, 06:26 PM

"duty-honor-country" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "DeserTBoB" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> 25-20 KHz at what level and with how many dBs
>>>> tolerance? If you can't provide those two key
>>>> addiational parameters, you're talking marketing crap,
>>>> not technology.
>
> OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a
> complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the
> dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect
> this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me.
>
> http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg
>
> http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg
>
> http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg
>
> I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by
> fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have
> at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette
> deck, is "junk".

While I'd prefer to actually test the machine up front and personal, the
supplied test report is damning enough.

Please focus your attention on figure 3, the lower two plots, taken at your
preferred operational speed of 3.75 ips.

The upper of the two lower plots is taken at 3.75 ips and 0 dB. It does not
shed any light on response at 20 KHz becasue data stops at 15 KHz, where
response is already a whopping 7 dB down. Response is reasonably flat from
400 Hz to 5 KHz. There is an approximate 1 octave rise that averages about 1
dB, centered at about 100 Hz. This might cause a slight thickening of the
sound of a variety of instruments with strong response in the 100 Hz range,
such as pipe organs, bass guitars, etc.

Treble response is about 3 dB down at 10 KHz, and rolling off at 12 dB or
more per octave. This should be clearly audible as a noticable dulling of
the upper treble range. This will take the live edge off of brushed cymbals,
etc.

The same data taken from a CD burned on a PC and played on a $39 DVD player
is flat within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to 16 KHz, which along with
normal extensions of response outside this range, is sufficient to eliminate
any perceptible change in the sound quality of musical recordings. The same
is true of iPods and portable digital recorders such as the Microtrack
operating on 16/44 .wav files.

A modern digital recorder that was 3 dB down at 10 KHz would be called
"junk" by just about any knowlegeable person. One of the lowest quality
kinds of digital players around is the analog audio section of a computer's
optical (CD or DVD) drive. For years they have all been within 1 dB or
better of flat at 10 KHz. Of course, in digital mode, these same players
are perfectly flat and add no distortion.

I believe this test you asked me to review was published in Audio Magazine,
February 1980. This was prior to the introduction of the CD player by about
3 years.

IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning
audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a
cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically
identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Of course, the same was
true of open reel tape up to at least half track and 15 ips.

Based on my own personal measurements of cassette recorders, this BIC deck
must have been a high point of the development of the cassette recorder and
George W. Tillet (GWT) was a wizard on the test bench.

For example, most cassette tapes shift their characteristics enough from end
to end that GWT had to be very careful how he made his measurements. The
machine was probably carefully adjusted for this exact sample of cassette
tape. Using a different cassette from the same batch, or even removing and
replacing the cassette in the well, might lead to far less impressive
measurements. Compare this with digital recorders that produce the
identically same response with any of very many different pieces of media
from various batches and sources.

Doc

March 27th 07, 06:46 PM

On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning
> audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a
> cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically
> identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs.

Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette
deck?

Arny Krueger

March 27th 07, 06:51 PM

"Doc" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the
>> ears of discerning audiophiles such as myself was the
>> fact that it was impossible to use a cassette machine
>> operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically
>> identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs.
>
>
> Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good"
> cassette deck?

Certainly none that are sonically transparent. But check this:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

2 track 15 ips on a near-SOTA analog pro machine doesn't quite make the
grade, either.

BTW, this test was performed by one of the leading analog tape technicans in
the midwest.

No Name

March 27th 07, 07:17 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 27, 12:18 pm, "duty-honor-country"
>
>> OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a complete
>> spec and review writeup
>
> If you want someone here to evaluate a recorder, don't bother with the
> spec and review crap, send him the recorder. Arny's an honest guy.

actually arnii is not a honest person
he is a huge ego wrapped up in a gas bag
he promised to sue me years ago
just reacently he claimed to have my hearing tests and announced I was
nearly deaf
someone who continualy and habitually lies is not a honest man
george

Scott Dorsey

March 27th 07, 07:28 PM

Doc > wrote:
>On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning
>> audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a
>> cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically
>> identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs.
>
>Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette
>deck?

Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely
usable for music is a miracle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers

March 27th 07, 08:34 PM

On Mar 27, 1:46 pm, "Doc" > wrote:

> Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette
> deck?

Relatively speaking, there is - relative to a worse cassette deck. But
relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no.

William Sommerwerck

March 27th 07, 09:03 PM

> Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse cassette deck.
> But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no.

This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs, likely) sound better
than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding
electronics.

Scott Dorsey

March 27th 07, 09:16 PM

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse cassette deck.
>> But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no.
>
>This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs, likely) sound better
>than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding
>electronics.

He said GOOD reel-to-reel recorder.

It's true that there were a lot of absolutely miserable quarter-track
consumer open-reel machines made. And a Nak will beat them, true.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger

March 27th 07, 09:22 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse
>> cassette deck. But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel
>> recorder, no.
>
> This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs,
> likely) sound better than many open-reel decks, simply
> because they seem to have better-sounding electronics.

The idea that some cassette machines sounded better than open-reels often
traced back to the fact that they had more of that *wonderful* mag tape,
level-dependent, HF rolloff; and started saturating at lower levels. It can
take the harsh edge off of a recording that has one. But, its not accurate.

Six String Stu

March 27th 07, 09:45 PM

lol, well he did ask for it.
Very good response btw, full of good insight!

--
http://www.myspace.com/hawkinnc45
remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys.
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry.
Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment.
Thanks so much to those who have responded.
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "duty-honor-country" > wrote
> in message
> oups.com
>> On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "DeserTBoB" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> 25-20 KHz at what level and with how many dBs
>>>>> tolerance? If you can't provide those two key
>>>>> addiational parameters, you're talking marketing crap,
>>>>> not technology.
>>
>> OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a
>> complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the
>> dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect
>> this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me.
>>
>> http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg
>>
>> http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg
>>
>> http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg
>>
>> I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by
>> fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have
>> at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette
>> deck, is "junk".
>
> While I'd prefer to actually test the machine up front and personal, the
> supplied test report is damning enough.
>
> Please focus your attention on figure 3, the lower two plots, taken at
> your preferred operational speed of 3.75 ips.
>
> The upper of the two lower plots is taken at 3.75 ips and 0 dB. It does
> not shed any light on response at 20 KHz becasue data stops at 15 KHz,
> where response is already a whopping 7 dB down. Response is reasonably
> flat from 400 Hz to 5 KHz. There is an approximate 1 octave rise that
> averages about 1 dB, centered at about 100 Hz. This might cause a slight
> thickening of the sound of a variety of instruments with strong response
> in the 100 Hz range, such as pipe organs, bass guitars, etc.
>
> Treble response is about 3 dB down at 10 KHz, and rolling off at 12 dB or
> more per octave. This should be clearly audible as a noticable dulling of
> the upper treble range. This will take the live edge off of brushed
> cymbals, etc.
>
> The same data taken from a CD burned on a PC and played on a $39 DVD
> player is flat within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to 16 KHz, which along
> with normal extensions of response outside this range, is sufficient to
> eliminate any perceptible change in the sound quality of musical
> recordings. The same is true of iPods and portable digital recorders such
> as the Microtrack operating on 16/44 .wav files.
>
> A modern digital recorder that was 3 dB down at 10 KHz would be called
> "junk" by just about any knowlegeable person. One of the lowest quality
> kinds of digital players around is the analog audio section of a
> computer's optical (CD or DVD) drive. For years they have all been within
> 1 dB or better of flat at 10 KHz. Of course, in digital mode, these same
> players are perfectly flat and add no distortion.
>
> I believe this test you asked me to review was published in Audio
> Magazine, February 1980. This was prior to the introduction of the CD
> player by about 3 years.
>
> IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning
> audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a
> cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically
> identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Of course, the same
> was true of open reel tape up to at least half track and 15 ips.
>
> Based on my own personal measurements of cassette recorders, this BIC deck
> must have been a high point of the development of the cassette recorder
> and George W. Tillet (GWT) was a wizard on the test bench.
>
> For example, most cassette tapes shift their characteristics enough from
> end to end that GWT had to be very careful how he made his measurements.
> The machine was probably carefully adjusted for this exact sample of
> cassette tape. Using a different cassette from the same batch, or even
> removing and replacing the cassette in the well, might lead to far less
> impressive measurements. Compare this with digital recorders that produce
> the identically same response with any of very many different pieces of
> media from various batches and sources.
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2594 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

RDOGuy

March 27th 07, 10:42 PM

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.

Arny Krueger

March 27th 07, 10:49 PM

"RDOGuy" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that
>> it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle.
>
> Absolutely right. Norelco designed the format for
> dictation machines, not realizing that people would latch
> on to it as convenient format for music storage. As it
> was, what manfactuers like Nakamichi were able to achieve
> with the format was truly a miracle.
>
> I've always wondered what might have happened if
> Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the
> format during the design stage. They might have made
> different design decisions that could have extended the
> life of the format in the marketplace.

One weakness was simply the width and length of the tape - not enough.

Another, was the format's heavy reliance on tolerances set by the cassette
shell.

Scott Dorsey

March 27th 07, 10:57 PM

RDOGuy > wrote:
>I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers
>had realized the potential of the format during the design stage.
>They might have made different design decisions that could have
>extended the life of the format in the marketplace.

I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had
an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years,
for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to
the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better
engineered it was.

In spite of being arguably the worst release format ever (slightly edging
out the styrene injection-molded 45 for that spot in history), it just
kept going on, and on, and on.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

RDOGuy

March 27th 07, 11:08 PM

On Mar 27, 4:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> One weakness was simply the width and length of the tape - not enough.

Yes. But I suppose the design engineers felt they had to stick with
mulitples of previously existing tape stock. I've always assumed it
was no accident they settled on 1/8" tape - half the width of 1/4"
tape already being manufactured. Can anyone shed any light on this
issue?

> Another, was the format's heavy reliance on tolerances set by the cassette
> shell.

One of the same problems that eight-tracks had. The competing four-
track format was much better in that regard, but failed in the
consumer marketplace. But that format lasted a long time anyway.
Until the advent of digital systems, the ubiquitous broadcast "cart"
was in every radio station - and it was based on (if not identical to)
the four track design.

RDOGuy

March 27th 07, 11:11 PM

On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had
> an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years,
> for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to
> the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better
> engineered it was.

Granted. Now that I think of it, I can't think of very many formats
that have lasted longer.

John Dixon
Phonogenic Productions
Kansas City

Richard Crowley

March 27th 07, 11:13 PM

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
> Doc wrote:
>>"Arny Krueger" wrote:
>>> IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of
>>> discerning
>>> audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a
>>> cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make
>>> sonically
>>> identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs.
>>
>>Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette
>>deck?
>
> Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely
> usable for music is a miracle.

And Nakamichi cassette equipment is as close as I can recall in
the marketplace of actually making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

William Sommerwerck

March 27th 07, 11:27 PM

>> This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs,
>> likely) sound better than many open-reel decks, simply
>> because they seem to have better-sounding electronics.

> The idea that some cassette machines sounded better than
> open-reels often traced back to the fact that they had more
> of that *wonderful* mag tape, level-dependent, HF rolloff; and
> started saturating at lower levels. It can take the harsh edge
> off of a recording that has one. But, its not accurate.

In this case, that isn't what I or others are talking about.

Open-reel machines almost always have better specs, but they don't always
"sound better" than cassette decks. I owned open-reel machines -- including
a not-cheap Pioneer RT-2000 system -- that audibly degraded the input more
than a Nakamichi. Specifically, there was an increase in grain and grundge,
and a loss of transparency, regardless of recording level.

This was true when dubbing commercial recordings. When recording live, the
apparent quality was reversed, with the limitations of slow-speed recording
become apparent, and overriding the failings of the open-reel machines.

William Sommerwerck

March 27th 07, 11:31 PM

> 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.

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:47 AM

On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "duty-honor-country" > wrote
> in ooglegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 9:30 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "DeserTBoB" > wrote in message
>
> >>>> 25-20 KHz at what level and with how many dBs
> >>>> tolerance? If you can't provide those two key
> >>>> addiational parameters, you're talking marketing crap,
> >>>> not technology.
>
> > OK Arnie K- please evaluate this BIC T-4M deck- here is a
> > complete spec and review writeup- please tell me how the
> > dB's tolerance and levels shown in these tests, affect
> > this unit. It seems to have quite wide FR to me.
>
> >http://i9.tinypic.com/352re5f.jpg
>
> >http://i11.tinypic.com/4dgxj7p.jpg
>
> >http://i9.tinypic.com/2qcngyd.jpg
>
> > I do value educated, experienced opinions, backed by
> > fact. There are graphs for various levels and FR. Have
> > at it. Tell me how this vintage BIC 3.75 IPS cassette
> > deck, is "junk".
>
> While I'd prefer to actually test the machine up front and personal, the
> supplied test report is damning enough.
>
> Please focus your attention on figure 3, the lower two plots, taken at your
> preferred operational speed of 3.75 ips.
>
> The upper of the two lower plots is taken at 3.75 ips and 0 dB. It does not
> shed any light on response at 20 KHz becasue data stops at 15 KHz, where
> response is already a whopping 7 dB down. Response is reasonably flat from
> 400 Hz to 5 KHz. There is an approximate 1 octave rise that averages about 1
> dB, centered at about 100 Hz. This might cause a slight thickening of the
> sound of a variety of instruments with strong response in the 100 Hz range,
> such as pipe organs, bass guitars, etc.
>
> Treble response is about 3 dB down at 10 KHz, and rolling off at 12 dB or
> more per octave. This should be clearly audible as a noticable dulling of
> the upper treble range. This will take the live edge off of brushed cymbals,
> etc.
>
> The same data taken from a CD burned on a PC and played on a $39 DVD player
> is flat within a few tenths of a dB from 20 to 16 KHz, which along with
> normal extensions of response outside this range, is sufficient to eliminate
> any perceptible change in the sound quality of musical recordings. The same
> is true of iPods and portable digital recorders such as the Microtrack
> operating on 16/44 .wav files.
>
> A modern digital recorder that was 3 dB down at 10 KHz would be called
> "junk" by just about any knowlegeable person. One of the lowest quality
> kinds of digital players around is the analog audio section of a computer's
> optical (CD or DVD) drive. For years they have all been within 1 dB or
> better of flat at 10 KHz. Of course, in digital mode, these same players
> are perfectly flat and add no distortion.
>
> I believe this test you asked me to review was published in Audio Magazine,
> February 1980. This was prior to the introduction of the CD player by about
> 3 years.
>
> IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning
> audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a
> cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically
> identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs. Of course, the same was
> true of open reel tape up to at least half track and 15 ips.
>
> Based on my own personal measurements of cassette recorders, this BIC deck
> must have been a high point of the development of the cassette recorder and
> George W. Tillet (GWT) was a wizard on the test bench.
>
> For example, most cassette tapes shift their characteristics enough from end
> to end that GWT had to be very careful how he made his measurements. The
> machine was probably carefully adjusted for this exact sample of cassette
> tape. Using a different cassette from the same batch, or even removing and
> replacing the cassette in the well, might lead to far less impressive
> measurements. Compare this with digital recorders that produce the
> identically same response with any of very many different pieces of media
> from various batches and sources.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

yes, I can see the response rolled off at the "0 dB" level

and it looks pretty darn good at the "- 20" level

now, explain why ?

why is it better at -20 dB ?

# 2- believe it or not, in actual listening tests, the cassette deck
is much better sounding than a CD player- I think it has a better
sound. I credit that to, there is more information within the
bandwidth it is operating at. While a CD may be flatter from 20-20k,
the analog tape captures more at 20-15k, than the CD does

and how much is really at 15k-20k to hear ? connecting a signal
generator to headphones and pushing it past 15k, a human being can't
hear anything

or, am I playing it at -20 dB ?

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

someone explain that- my ears are open

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:50 AM

On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Doc > wrote:
> >On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> IME, what really deep-sixed the cassette format in the ears of discerning
> >> audiophiles such as myself was the fact that it was impossible to use a
> >> cassette machine operating at either 1 7/8 or 3 3/4 ips to make sonically
> >> identical transcriptions of a wide variety of CDs.
>
> >Does this mean you feel there's no such thing as a "good" cassette
> >deck?
>
> Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that it's even remotely
> usable for music is a miracle.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

If you heard it through my single ended tube amps, you'd be amazed.
It's not my best source, I always thought cassette was ****, too.
Until I tried the arcane 3.75 IPS format of cassette.

the damn thing sounds good- I taped a double LP Elvis on metal tape,
and jacked up the input signal with a small solid state preamp- bulk
erased the tape first- it still sounded good. REALLY good.

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:51 AM

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-

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:52 AM

On Mar 27, 4:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "RDOGuy" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 1:28 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >> Look, it's a freaking dictation format. The fact that
> >> it's even remotely usable for music is a miracle.
>
> > Absolutely right. Norelco designed the format for
> > dictation machines, not realizing that people would latch
> > on to it as convenient format for music storage. As it
> > was, what manfactuers like Nakamichi were able to achieve
> > with the format was truly a miracle.
>
> > I've always wondered what might have happened if
> > Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the
> > format during the design stage. They might have made
> > different design decisions that could have extended the
> > life of the format in the marketplace.
>
> One weakness was simply the width and length of the tape - not enough.
>
> Another, was the format's heavy reliance on tolerances set by the cassette
> shell.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

true- it shared all the foibles of the 8-track cartridge format

well, almost all

but the 8 cart, being wider tape, actually didn't move around on the
head as much

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:53 AM

On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> RDOGuy > wrote:
> >I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's engineers
> >had realized the potential of the format during the design stage.
> >They might have made different design decisions that could have
> >extended the life of the format in the marketplace.
>
> I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had
> an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years,
> for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to
> the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better
> engineered it was.
>
> In spite of being arguably the worst release format ever (slightly edging
> out the styrene injection-molded 45 for that spot in history), it just
> kept going on, and on, and on.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

it should have been 3.75 IPS from day one

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:54 AM

On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, "RDOGuy" > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had
> > an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years,
> > for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to
> > the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better
> > engineered it was.
>
> Granted. Now that I think of it, I can't think of very many formats
> that have lasted longer.
>
> John Dixon
> Phonogenic Productions
> Kansas City

the compact cassette is the longest lasting tape format, bar none

shellac records lasted longer- from 1900-1960, but they are records

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:57 AM

On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > I've always wondered what might have happened if Norelco's
> > engineers had realized the potential of the format during the
> > design stage. They might have made different design decisions
> > that could have extended the life of the format in the marketplace.
>
> That's not likely. The limitations of cassette are those created by short
> wavelengths and thin coatings. Nakamichi, et al, pushed the format to its
> practical limit.
>
> If you want a better understanding of just what was achieved, you should a
> Nakamichi two-speed deck and make half-speed recordings on metal and
> premium-iron-oxide tape. This throws into relief everything that's wrong
> with slow-speed recording, but isn't readily audible at "full" speed with
> most program material.

yet even at 1/2 speed, the NAKS hit 17 khz

I'd like to give hearing tests to everyone on this thread, and see
just how many of you can hear anything above 15 khz

a lot of this is a moot point- it's actually how much resolution is
captured in the 50-15k range, that means the most- extending to 20k
while shooting the 50-15k region full of digital rez "holes", is why
CD sounds so sterile and harsh

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 03:58 AM

On Mar 27, 3:16 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> In article >,
>
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >> Relatively speaking, there is -- relative to a worse cassette deck.
> >> But relative to a CD or good reel-to-reel recorder, no.
>
> >This is not altogether true. Nakamichis (and Tandbergs, likely) sound better
> >than many open-reel decks, simply because they seem to have better-sounding
> >electronics.
>
> He said GOOD reel-to-reel recorder.
>
> It's true that there were a lot of absolutely miserable quarter-track
> consumer open-reel machines made. And a Nak will beat them, true.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

do some back to back testing there, and you'll find that not to be
true

March 28th 07, 04:19 AM

Edi Zubovic wrote:

> Lookie! -- and I thought, Eumig FL-1000uP was rare enough...

I have one of those. I loved that thing back in the '80's.

jwvm

March 28th 07, 04:53 AM

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.

RDOGuy

March 28th 07, 04:57 AM

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?

Six String Stu

March 28th 07, 07:07 AM

I met a guy recently who still has some shellac record blanks in his
collection. Also has some very large disks (way oversized ones) That I am
sure ya couldnt find a player for nowadays.

--
http://www.myspace.com/hawkinnc45
remove "spamtrap" in return address for replys.
http://web.nccray.net/jshodges/mommasaid/sss.htm
20% of all sales goes to the local food pantry.
Accepting any and all donations of pro audio equipment.
Thanks so much to those who have responded.
"duty-honor-country" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, "RDOGuy" > wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 4:57 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> > I doubt it. In spite of being a low grade dictation format, it had
>> > an enormously long run in the marketplace. Nearly forty years,
>> > for a short while even being the dominant release format thanks to
>> > the Walkman. I can't imagine beating that, no matter how much better
>> > engineered it was.
>>
>> Granted. Now that I think of it, I can't think of very many formats
>> that have lasted longer.
>>
>> John Dixon
>> Phonogenic Productions
>> Kansas City
>
>
> the compact cassette is the longest lasting tape format, bar none
>
> shellac records lasted longer- from 1900-1960, but they are records
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2594 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 11:59 AM

> I think the point Scott was making was that the designers
> never meant for the format to be used for anything except
> voice dictation.

This is not _quite_ true.

Philips had an earlier machine using 3.25" reels sitting on top of a wide,
narrow box. It ran at 1.875" and, if I recall correctly, got to 7kHz or 8kHz
at that speed -- which is much better than what's needed for dictation, and
perfectly satisfactory for non-critical music reproduction.

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 12:01 PM

> 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.

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 12:03 PM

"duty-honor-country" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> On Mar 27, 5:31 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>>> I've always wondered what might have happened if
>>> Norelco's engineers had realized the potential of the
>>> format during the design stage. They might have made
>>> different design decisions
>>> that could have extended the life of the format in the
>>> marketplace.
>>
>> That's not likely. The limitations of cassette are those
>> created by short wavelengths and thin coatings.
>> Nakamichi, et al, pushed the format to its practical
>> limit.
>>
>> If you want a better understanding of just what was
>> achieved, you should a Nakamichi two-speed deck and make
>> half-speed recordings on metal and premium-iron-oxide
>> tape. This throws into relief everything that's wrong
>> with slow-speed recording, but isn't readily audible at
>> "full" speed with most program material.

> yet even at 1/2 speed, the NAKS hit 17 khz

In what sense? In some sense the BIC hit 17 KHz. They just didn't do it when
the chips were down, and some other less-demanding times as well.

> I'd like to give hearing tests to everyone on this
> thread, and see just how many of you can hear anything
> above 15 khz

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

> a lot of this is a moot point- it's actually how much
> resolution is captured in the 50-15k range, that means
> the most- extending to 20k while shooting the 50-15k
> region full of digital rez "holes", is why CD sounds so
> sterile and harsh

CDs don't necessarily sound sterile and harsh. They simply sound like
whatever was recorded on them. If they are recorded with stuff that is
sterile and harsh, then there you go.

What CDs don't do is round off the rough edges that may have been recorded
on them, which is what the cassette format clearly does.

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 12:05 PM

> do some back to back testing there, and you'll find
> that not to be true

Sorry, but I've done it. You can easily find open-reel decks, that even when
correctly set up, simply don't "sound right" -- the output is plainly
distinguishable from the input. The only "bad-sounding" Nakamichi I've heard
is the 600. The others make dubs that are virtually indistinguishable from
the input.

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 12:06 PM

> 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.

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 12:08 PM

"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/site/samples/cc/test/b77.htm

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

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 12:10 PM

> 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

March 28th 07, 12:18 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 12:26 PM

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

March 28th 07, 12:29 PM

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

March 28th 07, 12:30 PM

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

March 28th 07, 12:39 PM

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

March 28th 07, 12:45 PM

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

March 28th 07, 12:49 PM

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

March 28th 07, 12:58 PM

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

March 28th 07, 01:16 PM

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/site/samples/cc/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

March 28th 07, 01:18 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 01:19 PM

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

March 28th 07, 01:19 PM

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

March 28th 07, 01:22 PM

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

March 28th 07, 01:37 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 01:41 PM

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

March 28th 07, 01:48 PM

>> 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

March 28th 07, 01:49 PM

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

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

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 01:50 PM

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

March 28th 07, 01:50 PM

> 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

March 28th 07, 01:52 PM

> 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

March 28th 07, 01:53 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 01:55 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 01:55 PM

> 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

March 28th 07, 01:57 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 02:00 PM

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

March 28th 07, 02:00 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 02:01 PM

> 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

March 28th 07, 02:03 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 ?
>
>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

March 28th 07, 02:04 PM

"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/site/samples/cc/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

March 28th 07, 02:05 PM

> 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

March 28th 07, 02:07 PM

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

March 28th 07, 02:07 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 02:11 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 02:13 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 02:14 PM

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

March 28th 07, 02:14 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 02:15 PM

"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

March 28th 07, 02:19 PM

"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.

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 02:21 PM

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.

Hi!

Not to forget the five-motor Revox B-215 CCR. Better in some
instances.... (I would say mechanic. Sound differenices could be a
matter of choice. Many single capstan machines sound good as well.)

My actual CCR is a AKAI GX-75 II, my former was a Pioneer CT-757
(single capstan). Old Dolby C recordings sound on the AKAI as recorded
yesterday, indeed (crisp clear and dynamic, bassy). Even no
incompatibilities (audible), due to the tricky Dolby C....

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Richard Crowley

March 28th 07, 02:21 PM

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
> 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.

I remember seeing what appeared to be a cardboard-base 7-inch
white disk that seemed to have a thick plastic coating that was
cut on a standalone coin-operated(?) machine. There were three
additional holes (slots?) around the outer diameter of the label
area, presumably for the cutting machine to hold the flimsy disc
while recording.

My mom had (has?) a disc of me singing as a toddler back in
the early 1950s.

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 02:25 PM

duty-honor-country > wrote:
>
>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 ?

Of course, because the tape MOL is different at different frequencies.
Look at the damn tape data sheet. If you operate the tape at insanely
high levels (which you have to do with teeny tracks at slow speeds), you
will be hitting up against the wall.

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

I'm not sure what you're asking here because this isn't really a question.
The VU meter reads in decibels with respect to some arbitrary standard.

Now, when we calibrate the tape machine (which in a regular studio you
will see the interns doing every morning), we use an alignment tape that
has a particular flux level on it. For a normal 1/4" recorder, most folks
set the calibration so the VU meters read zero with 250 nW/m flux level
at the head. So the meters are directly corresponding to the flux at
the head gap.

With a cassette deck you get no freedom at all, you HAVE to use the
standard flux reference level in order to ensure Dolby level compatibility,
and it's different for Types I, II, III, and IV tapes. The alignment
cassette therefore comes with a variety of test tones to set reference
levels on all four.

Really, this is extremely elementary stuff, the kind of thing interns get
in their first week after learning to operate the coffee machine. You
may want to look into a good introduction to magnetic recording technology.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 02:31 PM

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>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.

These are pretty damn good justifications, and they are enough to keep
me buying LPs on a regular basis.

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

I recommend it. If the LP sounds better than the CD, play it. If the CD
sounds better than the LP, play that instead.
--scott

Actually there is ONE other justification: hip-hop scratching. Not my
thing, but there are folks who like it, and they keep the pressing plants
active which is okay by me.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 02:32 PM

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>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.

What blew me away about the PCM F-1 was that it was the first time I had
actually heard an orchestral recording with solid and clean bass, and
real low end accuracy. It took a while for me to realize that the top
end was awful enough to cause hair loss.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 02:36 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Actually there is ONE other justification: hip-hop
> scratching. Not my thing, but there are folks who like
> it, and they keep the pressing plants active which is
> okay by me.

It looks like that function has been implemented digitally.

The RIAA sez that LP sales dropped by about half in the second half of 2006,
so something is going on.

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 02:38 PM

Richard Crowley > wrote:
>I remember seeing what appeared to be a cardboard-base 7-inch
>white disk that seemed to have a thick plastic coating that was
>cut on a standalone coin-operated(?) machine. There were three
>additional holes (slots?) around the outer diameter of the label
>area, presumably for the cutting machine to hold the flimsy disc
>while recording.

Yes, there are a couple variants of those. Some of them actually cut
a laterally-modulated groove down the record. Most of them have a
ball-shaped stylus that follows an existing groove in the blank, and
crimps the edges of it down with modulation.

>My mom had (has?) a disc of me singing as a toddler back in
>the early 1950s.

If it's the crimp-type one (and you can tell with a magnifier, because
the grooves look like nothing you've ever seen before), it plays better
with a huge oversized stylus than with a normal 78 stylus. Precision
Stylus makes a thing with a blunt end that must be 10 mil around, which
follows them pretty well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 02:40 PM

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>The RIAA sez that LP sales dropped by about half in the second half of 2006,
>so something is going on.

That's less than CD sales dropped, though, isn't it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 02:41 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> What blew me away about the PCM F-1 was that it was the
> first time I had actually heard an orchestral recording
> with solid and clean bass, and real low end accuracy.

Yes, between the head bumps, the tone arm resonances and the
lowest-common-denominator mastering, we were used to a lot of wierdness
below 100 Hz.

> It took a while for me to realize that the top end was awful
> enough to cause hair loss.

I actually only heard that F-1 on large maggies, and they were smooth enough
on the top end to sorta compensate. Also, the recordings were minimal-miced
(i.e., relatively distant) in that acoustic abortion called Detroit's Ford
Auditorium, so the high end could never be expected to sparkle without
biting.

RDOGuy

March 28th 07, 02:46 PM

On Mar 28, 8:00 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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

Learn something new every day! I stand corrected.

John Dixon
Phonogenic Productions
Kansas City

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 02:50 PM

On Mar 28, 7:48 am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> >> 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.

everyone that has a NAK, dumps it- my repair tech friend, in business
30 years, says they are over-rated

I would not part with this BIC, that's how good it sounds

and I have SACD, Elcaset, 7.5 IPS R2R, vinyl, CD to compare it to

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 02:51 PM

On Mar 28, 7:49 am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > good analog will equal/surpass the 192/24 digital resolution.
>
> Okay. Name the machine. Not just "analog", a specific machine.

Sony EL-7 Elcaset

ANY reel to reel at 7.5 IPS

ANY decent mid-fi turntable like Pioneer, Sony, Technics

duty-honor-country

March 28th 07, 02:52 PM

On Mar 28, 7:50 am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > 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.

It's pretty obvious, you can't afford SACD DSD recorder, or RCSH

Mike Rivers

March 28th 07, 02:59 PM

On Mar 28, 8:41 am, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:

> > > MP3 at what bitrate ?
> any- take your pic- the maximum bitrate- you're saying that's "good"
> digital ?

I'd say it's about equivalent of a "normal" cassette in good repair,
but without the flutter and variation in end-to-end performance. I use
192 kHz MP3 in the player that I listen to in the car on trips or on
airplanes. Those are places where cassettes used to be my preferred
format, and then I switched to CDs. The quality isn't important as
long as it isn't objectionable, and now I don't have to carry a packet
of disks or tapes as well as the player. But I wouldn't deliver a CD
master to the replicator even if it will end up being transferred to
that format (or worse) by the end listener.

> 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

But suppose I don't care? When I get my hands on one of those <$1K DSD
recorders, I intend to experiment with that format for live
recordings, but I suspect that I'll conclude that for most
applications, there's no practical need to expend that much disk
space.

> > 16/44 is my distribution format of choice
> why use that, when there is 48/16, 48/24, 96/24, and 192/24 ?

Compatibility with the rest of the world. I don't live on a desert
island all by myself. And I don't want to have to listen to music in
only one place where the player for a special format resides.

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

So what? What kind of car do you drive? What kind of wine do you
drink? I'm sure there are many aspects of life where you use something
less than the best that's available.

I'm a practical person. I can be happy listening to AM radio fidelity
if the music is good. There are certain kinds of distortion that make
me want to turn off the music. Multipath distortion in radio broadcast
is one. Large amounts of harmonic distortion or clipping is another.
Excessive flutter is another. But restricted frequency response? No
problem for me. Hiss? Not a big deal. Hum? Sometimes a big deal, but
that can be dealt with.

> 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

So that's the extent of your listening experience? 30 CDs?
PFFFFFFFTTTT!!!!

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

That's arguable. A CD blank costs about a dime. A cassette blank costs
as little as a dollar, perhaps as much as $5. While I appreciate the
ability to record directly to a standard, removable format (like a
cassette) so I don't need to make an intermediate copy, I can do that
with my stand-alone CD recorder, and do it with less distortion, less
flutter, greater dynamic range, and flatter frequency response. The
only possible compromise is in the range of 20 kHz to 25 kHz. I can
tolerate that.

> 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.

No, that's not a reasonable comparison. There is little practical use
for 192 kHz sample rate today. Certainly not for a casual recording.
And once you're using 24 bits, that's all the resolution and dynamic
range that you can possibly use. If you were comparing 22 kHz 8-bit
recording with cassette, I'd say it would be a good idea to move up in
digital sample rate and resolution. But 192/24 is overkill. And in
fact there are good technical reasons why, with today's components,
sampling at 192 kHz doesn't sound as good as 96 kHz.

> maybe a bit too transparent- i.e. there's information missing,

Uh?????

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

I really think that before you say another word about this and further
support your ignorance, that you read a good book about sampling
theory and how those "holes" get filled in with complete accuracy. You
may not believe that it works, but it does.

> analog is fatter- promotes a good soundstage and imaging

Fat, yes. That's why people still like to use tape for certain kinds
of recording. However "soundstage and imaging" is largely a function
of dynamic range and mechanical stability, and those things are
clearly superior in the digital realm.

> 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..

First off, where would you find the first Beatles stereo LP in mint
condition? And what would you play it on? Second, what CD would you
compare it to? There are some very poorly made CDs of old recordings,
but that's a matter of sloppy handling, not a problem with the medium.
There are some very good "remastering" jobs which remove problems
without changing the music.

> 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

Actually, they're claiming about 20% reduction in CD sales this year
over last. If people are happy listening to MP3s, that's not my
problem, nor yours.

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

They're getting better players for their vinyl that they enjoy for its
content. They like the look and feel. And they don't want to make it
worse by transferring it to cassettes. Some use the best playback they
can afford and transfer their records to a digital format for day-to-
enjoyment and preservation. Clearly it will never be better than the
original disk, but it won't degrade with repeated playings either.

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

True, so why worry about non-musical things like an extra couple of
kHz at the top end on the spec sheet, with the compromise of reduced
dynamic range (a musical characteristic) in order to achieve that
specification? Or add flutter (which detracts from pitch resolution)?

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:00 PM

On Mar 28, 8:11 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>
>
> >> 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.

you conveniently left one "reason" out:

3. the 10-35k bandwidth FR

I'm starting to understand why they were calling you a "bad
scientist"- you're getting that "tone" again..

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:01 PM

On Mar 28, 8:11 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>
>
> >> 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.

http://i9.tinypic.com/454be9u.jpg

10-35k bandwidth, from a 20 year old Technics linear tracking
turntable

Arnie, you better up-gun to SACD DSD 192/24, or you're toast...

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:03 PM

On Mar 28, 8:13 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>
>
> >> 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.

the music still has to be enjoyable to listen to, not just tickle the
specs

i.e. what good is a knockout looking wife, if you never could nail
her ?

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:04 PM

On Mar 28, 8:14 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> duty-honor-country > wrote:
>
> >the longest lasting tape format, is compact Philips cassette
>
> No, not at all, it's 1/4" 30 ips

no, it isn't- 1/4-30 is not a consumer format, you could buy at
Walmart

you can get blank cassette there today, and that's been true for 45
years now

I rest my case

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:05 PM

On Mar 28, 8:14 am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "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.

yet you're the same guys, that quote spec sheets to defend inferior
digital resolution

so which is it now ?

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:07 PM

On Mar 28, 8:19 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

now, now, Arnie...taking your ball and going home, goes along with the
"bad scientist" label...

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 03:14 PM

jailhouserock > wrote:
>
>3. the 10-35k bandwidth FR

I cut LPs every day, and if you see anything with usable information at
35 KC, I will eat my hat.

Yes, it is possible with very careful high-speed mastering to get ultrasonic
info on an LP. Folks did it back for CD4. Funny thing... the CD4 carrier
gets wiped out after about ten plays of the LP, even on a good turntable.

I can, if I keep the levels very low, get a -3dB point at 18KC on a
lacquer. Someone with a modern Neuman cutting head and DMM can get it
out above 20KC. But wherever you got that 35 KC number from is not
accurate.
--scott

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

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:17 PM

On Mar 28, 8:25 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> Of course, because the tape MOL is different at different frequencies.
> Look at the damn tape data sheet. If you operate the tape at insanely
> high levels (which you have to do with teeny tracks at slow speeds), you
> will be hitting up against the wall.

define MOL and hitting the wall ?

>
> I'm not sure what you're asking here because this isn't really a question.
> The VU meter reads in decibels with respect to some arbitrary standard.

sometimes they refer to it in dB, but other times they simply call it
"VU"- thanks for clearing that up- here's the problem- if the VU meter
doesn't go to -20, so why rate it down there ? Can one even hear
anything at -20 dB ?

now, regardless of specs and test tones- I can hear more detail in a
normal bias, 8-track cart at 3.75 IPS, than I can hear on a normal
bias cassette at 1-7/8 IPS

8-track cart machines, the better ones like Akai, will test out to
18-19khz top end, that comes from a very reliable tech who did the
tests, and posted the info

logic dictates, that a cassette machine at 3.75 IPS, having the same
size track width as an 8-track cart, will be able to dupe that
performance, and best it- esp. with metal or chrome tape

so there's a fundamental point to be made- a cassette machine at 3.75
IPS with metal/chrome tape, can hit 20khz easily. It has to be able
to, by design

>
> Really, this is extremely elementary stuff, the kind of thing interns get
> in their first week after learning to operate the coffee machine. You
> may want to look into a good introduction to magnetic recording technology.
> --scott

hey, did I claim to be a degreed electro-engineer ? we all know more
about some things than others- in that case, tell me how much cfm
airflow per CID displacement a V-8 engine needs, per intake and
exhaust port, per rpm level ?- gee, that's pretty elementary stuff, to
me- do you know it ?

I do

elementary only to those in that field- not to the general public-
you're starting to sound a bit stuck up- don't get blinders on,
towards your one particular field- diversity is key

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:18 PM

>
> I recommend it. If the LP sounds better than the CD, play it. If the CD
> sounds better than the LP, play that instead.
> --scott

now you're cookin' with gas- I've yet to hear an LP that doesn't sound
better, unless it's skipping or badly scratched LP

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:20 PM

On Mar 28, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
> >The RIAA sez that LP sales dropped by about half in the second half of 2006,
> >so something is going on.
>
> That's less than CD sales dropped, though, isn't it?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

CD sales dropped by 60 % in recent years.

wake up guys, digital is in its infancy, it's where analog was, when
we had 78rpm records in the stores- what you have now in digital
format, will be laughable in a few years- so why do you keep investing
in it ?

CD is an IQ test-

if you're buying $20 CD's now, you flunked

let them perfect it further- he who buys last, buys best

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 03:24 PM

jailhouserock > wrote:
>
>http://i9.tinypic.com/454be9u.jpg
>
>10-35k bandwidth, from a 20 year old Technics linear tracking
>turntable

That number came from someone's ass. Frequency ranges without tolerances
are _meaningless_. The only thing they tell you is that the authors of the
data sheet are not taking you seriously.
--scott

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

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 03:30 PM

duty-honor-country wrote:

> sure, digital is better that way

;-). Not wrong, but an "absolute" perfect analog device would be more
Right. Way??? Only Analaog is a way. Digital is zick-zack!

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

I have the N2 version. Made in France.

What do you have against Yugo Car? You think it can be compared to
digital stuff?

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 03:30 PM

duty-honor-country wrote:

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

sigh...

I remember the cheaper SACD-Player in the Times they started through.
It was about 700bucks. We had a 2000bucks too, and some other greater
were also available. <3000bucks.

A customer came with his ol' Technics Cd-Player (~30 punds weight) and
cross-checked it with the cheapo SACD.

Well, I just left myself out of the Studio, standing at our
selling-bench. In a distance of some yards I could listen the
difference...
The switch to the Technics has sounded, like the customer had changed
the Amplifier. The output-stages of the Technics exeeded the SACD
Player by far, and that with an stoneold D/A Chip.

NAIM for example, is still using the ol' 1541 and nails the best
CD-Players on the wall. (the Technics has held pretty the same. I don't
know the exact type of the Technics anymore, if I have ever done so...
;-))

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 03:30 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> 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.

High speed tape sound through my Radio better than a CD.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 03:30 PM

duty-honor-country wrote:

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

Chrome is reliable.

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

They rust...

> 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

My oldest recordings are cassettes. Some of my oldest CD's are
beginning to click.

Beside that. The old CD's are crap-quality, let's say for my favourite
Artist, I bought one and the same Album again and again. Sony, then
MFSL etc.

If I would have had the LP in the first, I could have avoid all that
digital updates.

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

Scott Dorsey

March 28th 07, 03:34 PM

jailhouserock > wrote:
>On Mar 28, 8:25 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> Of course, because the tape MOL is different at different frequencies.
>> Look at the damn tape data sheet. If you operate the tape at insanely
>> high levels (which you have to do with teeny tracks at slow speeds), you
>> will be hitting up against the wall.
>
>define MOL and hitting the wall ?

MOL is maximum output level. When you look at the data sheet for the tape,
it will list the maximum output level at several different frequencies.

"Hitting the wall" is when you are operating at levels where the system
begins to become extremely nonlinear. Remember, because the MOL varies
with frequency, the tape system does not clip unformly.

>sometimes they refer to it in dB, but other times they simply call it
>"VU"- thanks for clearing that up- here's the problem- if the VU meter
>doesn't go to -20, so why rate it down there ? Can one even hear
>anything at -20 dB ?

A typical orchestra has a dynamic range of more then 60 dB from the
loud part to the soft part.

In general, most of the consumer recorders do not have real VU meters,
because meters that meet the actual VU spec are epxensive.

>now, regardless of specs and test tones- I can hear more detail in a
>normal bias, 8-track cart at 3.75 IPS, than I can hear on a normal
>bias cassette at 1-7/8 IPS

What is "detail?" I can make anything sound more detailed by cranking
the top end up. That doesn't make it more accurate.

>8-track cart machines, the better ones like Akai, will test out to
>18-19khz top end, that comes from a very reliable tech who did the
>tests, and posted the info

Maybe for a couple seconds, until the azimuth shifts again. Not to mention
that the flutter on those goddamn things is even worse than cassettes,
if that can be imagined. I'd like to know who this "reliable tech" is.

>logic dictates, that a cassette machine at 3.75 IPS, having the same
>size track width as an 8-track cart, will be able to dupe that
>performance, and best it- esp. with metal or chrome tape

Oh, you can certainly do better. But that's mostly because the performance
of the 8-track Lear cartridge is just horrible.

>so there's a fundamental point to be made- a cassette machine at 3.75
>IPS with metal/chrome tape, can hit 20khz easily. It has to be able
>to, by design

No, because you are making a connection with very flawed information.

>elementary only to those in that field- not to the general public-
>you're starting to sound a bit stuck up- don't get blinders on,
>towards your one particular field- diversity is key

But that field is what this newsgroup is FOR. It's not for people yammering
on about ****ty consumer trashboxes. This is a group for discussion of
audio production and unless you're going to spend some time and get up to
speed on basic audio production technology, people are not going to take
you very seriously.
--scott

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

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 03:43 PM

>>> 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.

But Arny, you're the one who's always throwing specs in people's faces. No
matter how good the specs are, one eventually has to listen and judge.

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "resolution", or even if the term has any
meaning with respect to subjective quality.

If I recall correctly, John Curl designed the electronics for a 30ips analog
machine for Wilson Audio. I've never heard recordings from this machine,
though I'd like to. If it turns out that it's sonically superior (that is,
more accurate) than RBCD, or even SACD, I wouldn't be surprised. Nor would I
be surprised if it were the other way around.

As I've said many times, I prefer digital to analog. But that isn't because
it has better paper specs (though it does) -- or that because analog tape
has some pretty obvious flaws (though it does) -- it's because I've made
recordings, and judge digital to be generally superior to (more accurate
than) analog.

I hope I live long enough to hear Arny state "Specs aren't everything" --
and mean it.

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 03:45 PM

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

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

> Sony EL-7 Elcaset
> ANY reel to reel at 7.5 IPS
> ANY decent mid-fi turntable like Pioneer, Sony, Technics

You can't be serious.

_Any_ reel-to-reel at 7.5ips? Okay. A Sony TC-350. Which I owned 40 years
ago.

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 03:52 PM

> A typical orchestra has a dynamic range of more then 60 dB
> from the loud part to the soft part.

This 60dB actually includes crest factor.

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 03:53 PM

On Mar 28, 8:59 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
>
> I'd say it's about equivalent of a "normal" cassette in good repair,
> but without the flutter and variation in end-to-end performance.

In bandwidth it is, but not in content- when you take an analog music
signal, break it into 1/0's, then make a computer program out of it,
then reassemble it with a D/A converter, you are not getting the same
thing back again.

Think of it as a gun with less powder in the cartridge- same bullet,
same brass cartridge, same gun, but less powder grains- the bullet
won't go as far.

That's digital- the package appears the same on paper with specs, but
in listening, you can hear where info was lost- the depth vanishes,
and a flatness in the soundstage occurs. The end result is, digital
is not as enjoyable to listen to.

The main problem is this- to hear it, you need a vinyl record or tape
of a recording, an original- and the CD version. And you need good
ears. Most people praising digital, are praising it based on
recordings that were never released in analog- they have no comparison
to back-back.

I use
> 192 kHz MP3 in the player that I listen to in the car on trips or on
> airplanes. Those are places where cassettes used to be my preferred
> format, and then I switched to CDs.

cassette at standard speed is junk, agreed. different story at 3.75
IPS

The quality isn't important as
> long as it isn't objectionable, and now I don't have to carry a packet
> of disks or tapes as well as the player. But I wouldn't deliver a CD
> master to the replicator even if it will end up being transferred to
> that format (or worse) by the end listener.

I was talking about 3.75 IPS cassette for home archiving

>
> > 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

I'd take a 3.75 IPS cassette over SACD- the high speed cassette images
better- but you need a good SE tube amp to get the full effect

>
> But suppose I don't care? When I get my hands on one of those <$1K DSD
> recorders, I intend to experiment with that format for live
> recordings, but I suspect that I'll conclude that for most
> applications, there's no practical need to expend that much disk
> space.

you'll find that a good format, and that's my point- anything less is
scrap- Arnie is pushing inferior 96/24. hells bells, if you're going
digital, go max rez already

>
> Compatibility with the rest of the world.

the rest of the high-end audiophile digital world, is at 192/24 and
looking for more- where you been ?

I don't live on a desert
> island all by myself. And I don't want to have to listen to music in
> only one place where the player for a special format resides.

any decent player handles 192/24 now, if it doesn't, it's scrap- the
players cost all of $150 or so

>
> So what? What kind of car do you drive?

are you audio pro, or audio no ?

What kind of wine do you
> drink? I'm sure there are many aspects of life where you use something
> less than the best that's available.

for comparison's sake, we look at formats in their highest rez, not
their lowest- that's why I would not use a cassette under 3.75 IPS

or digital under 192/24

>
> I'm a practical person. I can be happy listening to AM radio fidelity
> if the music is good. There are certain kinds of distortion that make
> me want to turn off the music. Multipath distortion in radio broadcast
> is one. Large amounts of harmonic distortion or clipping is another.
> Excessive flutter is another. But restricted frequency response? No
> problem for me. Hiss? Not a big deal. Hum? Sometimes a big deal, but
> that can be dealt with.

again, we're comparing formats here
>
> So that's the extent of your listening experience? 30 CDs?
> PFFFFFFFTTTT!!!!

now you're judging people by how many CD's they own ? you crack me
up !

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!

why buy more ? 44/16 CD sales are down big time- that format is worth
zilch now ! are you investing more money in it ? you're gonna feel
like a dope with last year's model, when DSD consumer recorders are
$150 with 192/24 rez- I'll see your gear in the thrift too, for $15

>
> That's arguable. A CD blank costs about a dime.

and takes hours to make a recording correctly, sitting at a geeky damn
computer

A cassette blank costs
> as little as a dollar, perhaps as much as $5.

and it sounds better at 3.75 IPS, you get what you pay for, RCSH,
remember ?

While I appreciate the
> ability to record directly to a standard, removable format (like a
> cassette) so I don't need to make an intermediate copy, I can do that
> with my stand-alone CD recorder

and what's the rez/bitrate/sampling on that ?

if it's not 192/24, it's inferior digital- that's last year's model
now- low buck
>
> No, that's not a reasonable comparison. There is little practical use
> for 192 kHz sample rate today.

the use being, higher resolution and fidelity- so you're peaking the
"best" sign at your affordability limit

now you sound like Aesop's Fable, the Fox and the Grapes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

> Certainly not for a casual recording.

sure, who would want the highest rez for recording- take the lower
rez...(sic)

again..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

> And once you're using 24 bits, that's all the resolution and dynamic
> range that you can possibly use. If you were comparing 22 kHz 8-bit
> recording with cassette, I'd say it would be a good idea to move up in
> digital sample rate and resolution. But 192/24 is overkill.

then why did the digital gurus, with engineering degrees, make it ?

answer- more fidelity, cuz the 44/16 and 96/24 was not enough

again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

And in
> fact there are good technical reasons why, with today's components,
> sampling at 192 kHz doesn't sound as good as 96 kHz.

you crack me up- talk about a "bad scientist" !! (laughter...)

>
> I really think that before you say another word about this and further
> support your ignorance, that you read a good book about sampling
> theory and how those "holes" get filled in with complete accuracy. You
> may not believe that it works, but it does.

you can't wave a magic wand and make digital losses and holes go away-
the whole reason they keep increasing from 44/16 to 48/16 to 48/24 to
96/24 to 192/24, is each time they do, the sound gets better.
compared a SACD to a CD sometime

again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

> Fat, yes. That's why people still like to use tape for certain kinds
> of recording. However "soundstage and imaging" is largely a function
> of dynamic range and mechanical stability, and those things are
> clearly superior in the digital realm.

no, it's a result of mic placement, and mixing, and is becoming a lost
art- you're oblivious to this, it's apparent

see this writeup

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/principles_of_multitrack_mixing_the_phantom_image/

>
> First off, where would you find the first Beatles stereo LP in mint
> condition?

buy it new 180 gram vinyl

>And what would you play it on?

Japanese tycoons play those on something called a "turntable", but
their's cost about $60K- you want in ?

Second, what CD would you
> compare it to?

no matter, the CD is inferior

> Actually, they're claiming about 20% reduction in CD sales this year
> over last. If people are happy listening to MP3s, that's not my
> problem, nor yours.

you're the one pushing MP3 and CD, remember ? I have the higher-rez
analog formats.
>
> They're getting better players for their vinyl that they enjoy for its
> content. They like the look and feel. And they don't want to make it
> worse by transferring it to cassettes.

it's a lot easier to play cassettes at 3.75 IPS, experiment, and have
a hobby, than get stuck on digital and be bored stiff, like you're
getting

Some use the best playback they
> can afford and transfer their records to a digital format for day-to-
> enjoyment and preservation. Clearly it will never be better than the
> original disk, but it won't degrade with repeated playings either.

the fun is in the recording

>
> True, so why worry about non-musical things like an extra couple of
> kHz at the top end on the spec sheet, with the compromise of reduced
> dynamic range (a musical characteristic) in order to achieve that
> specification? Or add flutter (which detracts from pitch resolution)?

just proving a point and spreading the word- 3.75 IPS cassettes-
ROCK !

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 03:57 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>> The RIAA sez that LP sales dropped by about half in the
>> second half of 2006, so something is going on.
>
> That's less than CD sales dropped, though, isn't it?

Yup.

Here's the latest stats from the horse's mouth:

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2006midYrStats.pdf

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 04:01 PM

"jailhouserock" > wrote in
message
ups.com
> On Mar 28, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>> The RIAA sez that LP sales dropped by about half in the
>>> second half of 2006, so something is going on.
>>
>> That's less than CD sales dropped, though, isn't it?
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

> CD sales dropped by 60 % in recent years.

LP sales dropped by about 99% in recent years.

Cassette sales dropped by about 99% in recent years.

So what?

BTW, do you only eat fast food because it has the highest sales?

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 04:04 PM

"jailhouserock" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> On Mar 28, 8:11 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> http://i9.tinypic.com/454be9u.jpg
>
> 10-35k bandwidth, from a 20 year old Technics linear
> tracking turntable

One true sign of an audio know-nothing:

The audio know-nothnig makes sweeping judgements based on frequency response
numbers that are presented with:

(1) No dB tolerance.

(2) No peak level.

(3) No stated distortion limits.

We're talking meaningless cubed.

"This speaker has response from DC to light because it has DC resistance and
it looks great!" ;-)

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 04:15 PM

"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.

> But Arny, you're the one who's always throwing specs in
> people's faces.

Do try to be fair:

I throw lots of things out. Here's my last post re: performance of equipment
that I use and recommend:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/b10bb105fc441406

"I just spent about a week
of working days over a period of two weeks, sitting in the middle of row 1,
recording choirs and bands in a number of different venues."

"My recording chain was composed of a Rode NT-4 microphone, a Symmetrix
SX202
mic preamp, and a Tascam CD-RW4U CD recorder. My mic placement technique was
to move the mic around, perched on the top of a tall stand (max 12 feet),
until what I heard in my Audio Technica ATH A700 headphones, sounded
substantially like the live sound, both in terms of imaging and tonal
balance."

> No matter how good the specs are, one
> eventually has to listen and judge.

You're preaching to the choir. BTW what's www.pcabx.com about if not
listening and judging?

>> 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.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "resolution",

I mentioned both measurements and listening.

For measurements, per Shannon, resolution means dynamic range.

For listening, I think the meaning of resolution is err, subjective. But it
seems to generally have something to do with the ability to perceive both
the overall gestalt of the sound, and individual voices, as you wish.

> or even if the term has any meaning with respect to subjective
> quality.

Sue all the guys who use the term with respect to subjective quality. Their
name is legion. ;-)

> If I recall correctly, John Curl designed the electronics
> for a 30ips analog machine for Wilson Audio. I've never
> heard recordings from this machine, though I'd like to.
> If it turns out that it's sonically superior (that is,
> more accurate) than RBCD, or even SACD, I wouldn't be
> surprised. Nor would I be surprised if it were the other
> way around.

You can do all you want with analog tape electronics, and it will still be
limited by the media.

> As I've said many times, I prefer digital to analog. But
> that isn't because it has better paper specs (though it
> does) -- or that because analog tape has some pretty
> obvious flaws (though it does) -- it's because I've made
> recordings, and judge digital to be generally superior to
> (more accurate than) analog.

I listen to everything in analog. The USB 2.0 port for my head isn't done
yet. Maybe I should hold out for Firewire? ;-)

> I hope I live long enough to hear Arny state "Specs aren't everything" --
> and mean it.

Whether I mean it, you will never be able to reliably and convincingly
enough determine it on Usenet. ;-)

That I've said essentially that, is a matter of record. I said it arguably
most effectively when I built the first ABX comparator and did the first ABX
test back in the 70s.

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 04:16 PM

"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.
>
>> Sony EL-7 Elcaset
>> ANY reel to reel at 7.5 IPS
>> ANY decent mid-fi turntable like Pioneer, Sony, Technics
>
>
> You can't be serious.

He obviously never owned a serious reel-to-reel machine like a Revox A-77.
He's already tacitly admitted that 10 inch reels are not part of his life
experience.

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 04:19 PM

"duty-honor-country" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> On Mar 28, 7:48 am, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
>
> everyone that has a NAK, dumps it- my repair tech friend,
> in business 30 years, says they are over-rated
>
> I would not part with this BIC, that's how good it sounds

Tell you what - I'll send you a CD. You transcribe it to a cassette, and
then use your CD recorder to record the output of your cassette deck while
playing the cassette transcription.

Then simply play the CD on one of your best CD players, and record its
output on the same CD recorder.

Send both discs back to me for double blind subjective evaluation and
technical analysis. I'll post the results.

jwvm

March 28th 07, 04:25 PM

On Mar 28, 7:10 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.

Oops, sorry.... Too much time in the digital world! :-(

>
> 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

March 28th 07, 04:26 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

>> A typical orchestra has a dynamic range of more then 60
>> dB from the loud part to the soft part.

> This 60dB actually includes crest factor.

Yup.

I can get 65 dB dynamic range fairly often with live recordings of acoustic
music, but not over 70. One time I checked out a RAP CD set and found a few
tracks that also did 65 dB or so. Commerical classical recordings seem to
also run into the wall around 65 dB, while some are down in the 50s.

One of the demo tracks at www.pcabx.com has over 85 dB dynamic range, but
was not really a real world recording even though it was completely
acoustic.

The highest dynamic range I've ever found on a commercial recording is on
Rickie Lee Jones first album (studio), and that was about 73 dB.
Interestingly enough there was also about 3 dB of headroom on most tracks.

Mike Rivers

March 28th 07, 04:45 PM

On Mar 28, 10:04 am, "jailhouserock" >
wrote:

> I rest my case

Is that a promise? Or can we ask you politely to take your case over
to rec.audio.opinion and rest it there for a while?

Mike Rivers

March 28th 07, 05:08 PM

On Mar 28, 10:53 am, "jailhouserock" >
wrote:

> In bandwidth it is, but not in content- when you take an analog music
> signal, break it into 1/0's, then make a computer program out of it,
> then reassemble it with a D/A converter, you are not getting the same
> thing back again.

Darn! You know, you're right. I recorded the Arlington Philharmonic on
Sunday using 44.1 kHz, 16-bits. I listened to the CD in my car on the
way home, and it sounded just like Blood, Sweat and Tears. Then I
realized that I had selected the wrong CD in the changer.

> The main problem is this- to hear it, you need a vinyl record or tape
> of a recording, an original- and the CD version.

Would you settle for being at a live concert?

> now you're judging people by how many CD's they own ? you crack me
> up !
> why buy more ?

Agreed. Just listen to live music and keep the memories in your head.
It's the best way to hear music.

> > That's arguable. A CD blank costs about a dime.
> and takes hours to make a recording correctly, sitting at a geeky damn
> computer

Didn't I say that I occasionally used a stand-alone CD recorder. That
works in real time, just like your cassette recorder. It does take
some time to "finalize" the CD so that it can be read by a normal
player, but that's about the same amount of time it takes to rewind
your cassette.

> > I can do that
> > with my stand-alone CD recorder

See, I DID say it.

> and what's the rez/bitrate/sampling on that ?
> if it's not 192/24, it's inferior digital- that's last year's model
> now- low buck

If it's not 44.1 kHz 16-bit, it's not a CD.

Wiki, wiki, bye bye.

Edi Zubovic

March 28th 07, 05:10 PM

On 28 Mar 2007 09:14:32 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>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.

--Ah, the AEG "Tonschreiber" ie. "Sound Engraver". In fact it used a
pancake Agfa paper based tape; modern 1/4" broadcast pancakes produced
today have the same metal core :)) -- Allright maybe plastic, some. It
had a DC erasing and I know for some anectdots using them when the
Americans came in Germany and found those. Allegadly, Gen. Eisenhower
recorded a spech to Germans onto one of tapes, but it has been
previously recorded with some Hitler's yelling, so... it didn't erase
completely and went on air. Now this might be an anecdote like I said,
but these things might well hapen in these days given the technology.

------------8<-------------

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

Edi Zubovic

March 28th 07, 05:20 PM

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:53:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

--------------------8<---------------------
>
>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.

Oh, I know. A tiny funny looking lanyard instead of a good stable
envelope. Sounds weird, too.
As to dropouts, there were quite some, given the low tape speed. It
depended on tape, I remember I liked the Ampex Grand Master I
cassettes back then. I still have a few of them.
> 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.

Edi Zubovic, Crikveniva, Croatia

Edi Zubovic

March 28th 07, 05:23 PM

On 28 Mar 2007 13:21:36 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" >
wrote:

--------8<-------------
>
>My actual CCR is a AKAI GX-75 II, my former was a Pioneer CT-757
>(single capstan). Old Dolby C recordings sound on the AKAI as recorded
>yesterday, indeed (crisp clear and dynamic, bassy). Even no
>incompatibilities (audible), due to the tricky Dolby C....
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Daniel Mandic

-- Akai had best heads (GX) as I see them; Pyrex glass and some say,
that "Xtal" was diamond. Very durable.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 05:30 PM

"jailhouserock" > wrote in
message

> In bandwidth it is, but not in content- when you take an
> analog music signal, break it into 1/0's, then make a
> computer program out of it, then reassemble it with a D/A
> converter, you are not getting the same thing back again.

Well, that's MP3, but its not .wav.

> That's digital- the package appears the same on paper
> with specs, but in listening, you can hear where info was
> lost- the depth vanishes, and a flatness in the
> soundstage occurs. The end result is, digital is not as
> enjoyable to listen to.

Nonsense. The worst thing about good digital is that it is a very good
replica of the electrical signal used to record it.

> The main problem is this- to hear it, you need a vinyl
> record or tape of a recording, an original- and the CD
> version.

Would you settle for a live performance?

> And you need good ears. Most people praising
> digital, are praising it based on recordings that were
> never released in analog- they have no comparison to
> back-back.

My reference is the live performance, and an amplified direct feed from the
microphones used to pick it up.

William Sommerwerck

March 28th 07, 05:42 PM

>> No matter how good the specs are, one
>> eventually has to listen and judge.

> You're preaching to the choir. BTW what's www.pcabx.com
> about if not listening and judging?

Because it's not the way one normally listens. abx is _a_ way of judging,
not _the only_.

> For listening, I think the meaning of resolution is err, subjective.
> But it seems to generally have something to do with the ability
> to perceive both the overall gestalt of the sound, and individual
> voices, as you wish.

I'll buy that.

> Sue all the guys who use the term with respect to subjective quality.
> Their name is legion. ;-)

Like the New Testament devils?

> > If I recall correctly, John Curl designed the electronics
> > for a 30ips analog machine for Wilson Audio. I've never
> > heard recordings from this machine, though I'd like to.
> > If it turns out that it's sonically superior (that is,
> > more accurate) than RBCD, or even SACD, I wouldn't be
> > surprised. Nor would I be surprised if it were the other
> > way around.

> You can do all you want with analog tape electronics,
> and it will still be limited by the media.

At higher speeds, the medium becomes less of a problem. The unanswered
question is, at such, what are the relative contributions of electronics and
medium to subjective errors? I don't know.

No Name

March 28th 07, 05:50 PM

duty-honor-country > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:18 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> 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

I love people who have absolutely no understanding of Nyquist and
Shannon commenting about the "holes" in digital - it's like listening
to "flat-earthers" or those people who think the moon landing was
faked.

--
Aaron

No Name

March 28th 07, 05:59 PM

jailhouserock > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:59 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
>
>> And once you're using 24 bits, that's all the resolution and dynamic
>> range that you can possibly use. If you were comparing 22 kHz 8-bit
>> recording with cassette, I'd say it would be a good idea to move up in
>> digital sample rate and resolution. But 192/24 is overkill.
>
> then why did the digital gurus, with engineering degrees, make it ?

Because the marketing gurus with MBAs told them it would sell.

--
Aaron

John Smith[_2_]

March 28th 07, 06:03 PM

duty-honor-country wrote:

>
> the longest lasting tape format, is compact Philips cassette
>

How do you conclude that? AFAIK Tascam still sells R2R recorders. I
think there still are a couple of other companies that do also. At least
one company is still making the tape. However, if you mean that you can
still buy tape at Wal-Mart for, then I guess you are correct.

However, I will say that a CD transcribed to cassette sounds better to
me on all three of my decks than the CD played on the Pioneer CD player
or the Toshiba DVD player does (However a 24/192 audio DVD I have is
better). I figure that that is mostly because really flat response,
while very good for laboratory tests, just sounds weird in the real
world. And BTW, a 16/44.1 stereo CD is pretty much the same as cassette,
because it is the minimum that will do the job, not the best. Just as in
digital photography the layperson thinks the lack of noise in digital is
the same as high resolution, it is not.

And interesting aside on hearing high frequencies, I noticed that while
I could not hear the 15k or 18k tones from the test tape at all, I could
hear subharmonics from the 20k tone. Kind of strange, but that was
probably an amplifier distortion problem but the Spectrum Analyzer was
showing it too and that was connected to the line out (the deck being
tested was only spec'd to 18k).

As for testing hearing I can still hear from 27hz to 14000hz, but at
normal listening levels I am pretty limited to 30-13000. My hearing
threshold is pretty low, and not just for someone my age. However I have
a hard time with determining direction, and do have tinnituses in my
right ear.

While I prefer analog for the original recording and the final media, I
personally would use digital (24/96 minimum) for all intermediate
stages, as the one thing analog is absolutely not good at is
multi-generation copying.

And, another thing I have noticed is that "ego", is the noise floor on
usenet, once you subtract it you can actually get some useful
information here. However. I do admit the noise floor seems pretty high
in this particular forum.

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 06:10 PM

> wrote in message

> jailhouserock > wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 8:59 am, "Mike Rivers" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And once you're using 24 bits, that's all the
>>> resolution and dynamic range that you can possibly use.
>>> If you were comparing 22 kHz 8-bit recording with
>>> cassette, I'd say it would be a good idea to move up in
>>> digital sample rate and resolution. But 192/24 is
>>> overkill.

>> then why did the digital gurus, with engineering
>> degrees, make it ?

> Because the marketing gurus with MBAs told them it would
> sell.

Agreed.

However there has to be some element of "Since we can do it, why not?" in
the picture.

Also, when the 24/96 chip designs were being contemplated, probably in the
mid-1990s, digital was not as well-understood as it is now.

For example, the wide availability of good 24/96 chips at reasonable prices
greatly facilitated production people finding out for themselves whether
higher sample rates were practically advantageous or not.

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 06:14 PM

> wrote in message

> duty-honor-country > wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 7:18 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>
> I love people who have absolutely no understanding of
> Nyquist and Shannon commenting about the "holes" in
> digital - it's like listening to "flat-earthers" or those
> people who think the moon landing was faked.

Agreed. However there are many things about digital that may seem
counter-intuitive or at least more abstract.

For example there's the idea that more accurate data is practically the same
as data with less noise. Or the idea that a certain number of samples per
second is practically the same as an analog signal with a certain bandwidth.

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 06:31 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>> No matter how good the specs are, one
>>> eventually has to listen and judge.
>
>> You're preaching to the choir. BTW what's www.pcabx.com
>> about if not listening and judging?

> Because it's not the way one normally listens.

That's a worn-out canard if there ever was one. True, ABX listening is not
how one normally listens, but neither is any kind of comparative or critical
listening.

> abx is _a_ way of judging, not _the only_.

That's a truism given all the other valid strategies for comparitive
listening.

>> For listening, I think the meaning of resolution is err,
>> subjective. But it seems to generally have something to
>> do with the ability
>> to perceive both the overall gestalt of the sound, and
>> individual voices, as you wish.

> I'll buy that.

>> Sue all the guys who use the term with respect to
>> subjective quality. Their name is legion. ;-)

> Like the New Testament devils?

That's the allusion. ;-)

>>> If I recall correctly, John Curl designed the
>>> electronics for a 30ips analog machine for Wilson
>>> Audio. I've never heard recordings from this machine,
>>> though I'd like to. If it turns out that it's sonically
>>> superior (that is, more accurate) than RBCD, or even
>>> SACD, I wouldn't be surprised. Nor would I be surprised
>>> if it were the other way around.

>> You can do all you want with analog tape electronics,
>> and it will still be limited by the media.

> At higher speeds, the medium becomes less of a problem.

Ah, another case of less is more.

Compared to even 44/16, analog tape medium's "less of a problem" is still
more unsolved problems.

> The unanswered question is, at such, what are the
> relative contributions of electronics and medium to
> subjective errors? I don't know.

Electronics can readily if not easily be built that have no subjective
errors at all.

The problems with the media are relatively gross.

It would be kinda fun to hypothesize a project to use digital processing to
overcome as many of the tough problems of digital tape as possible. Of
course this would miss the point of analog tape as most use it today, which
is first and foremost to keep digital processing out of the signal path.

Nevertheless, consider consider varying recording parameters to optimize
performance with schemes like these:

(1) Control recording parameters based on a look-up table based on signal
level and tape type

(2) A sensor ahead of the record head that would analyze the tape's actual
instanteous performance just before it is recorded, and then use that to
control the recording parameters.

(3) Measure the current fluttering motion of the tape and use that to
time-shift the recorded signal to compensate.

(4) Automated tape guides that keep the tape flat and centered, even as it
skews and changes width.

???????? others?????????

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 06:48 PM

Edi Zubovic wrote:

> -- Akai had best heads (GX) as I see them; Pyrex glass and some say,
> that "Xtal" was diamond. Very durable.
>
> Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

Hi Edi!

And a good sound, compared to my 40 pund Cd-Player. The best AKAI
device I have met. The GX-95 II is almost the same, just with honeycomb
floor and more expensive.

Allthough, I would like to listen a Dragon Nakamichi one time.

Is the Pioneer CT-95 not the best consumer-CCR ever available, or is it
the CT-6 (still available, afaik) from SONY? Dolby S machines...

Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 06:48 PM

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> As I've said many times, I prefer digital to analog. But that isn't
> because it has better paper specs (though it does) -- or that because
> analog tape has some pretty obvious flaws (though it does) -- it's
> because I've made recordings, and judge digital to be generally
> superior to (more accurate than) analog.

crutch?

> I hope I live long enough to hear Arny state "Specs aren't
> everything" -- and mean it.

If one says that sounds better for him/her, than it is so.

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 06:48 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> MOL is maximum output level. When you look at the data sheet for the
> tape, it will list the maximum output level at several different
> frequencies.

:) my favourite faults (seemingly blatant, but one of the most
important step), back in the days of my first HiFi Recorder.

Today I smile accepting, when I listen to formerly recorded (copied)
tapes. I calibrate them by Ears today, with a little help (first move)
by the measure-in (calibrate tones, LED showing level etc.) unit.

Metal CCR-Tapes? Do you have them to buy in UK?

> In general, most of the consumer recorders do not have real VU meters,
> because meters that meet the actual VU spec are epxensive.

;) (well, then back to ears as I do on my HiFi. Of course, a high-end
VU can help to middle-out.)

> > so there's a fundamental point to be made- a cassette machine at
> > 3.75 IPS with metal/chrome tape, can hit 20khz easily. It has to
> > be able to, by design
>
> No, because you are making a connection with very flawed information.

I think he cannot understand you. Maybe he should watch some 'Snooker',
to understand the relativities, in which you are very strong. (~20KHz
with HighEnd records, even with DMM. All relative... the Harmonics of
the upper 50KHz, up to the 70KHz needle-limit, is also somehow in the
first 20KHz. Analog - Interplay)

> But that field is what this newsgroup is FOR. It's not for people
> yammering on about ****ty consumer trashboxes. This is a group for
> discussion of audio production and unless you're going to spend some
> time and get up to speed on basic audio production technology, people
> are not going to take you very seriously.
> --scott

I LIKE your infos and comments about good sounding consumer stuff.
Nobody negates your deep insights into sound electronic. Me not...

Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 06:48 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I listen to everything in analog. The USB 2.0 port for my head isn't
> done yet. Maybe I should hold out for Firewire? ;-)

Hi Arny!

How have you changed so hard from Digital to Analog, in your latest
posts.

I am confused.

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:11 PM

On Mar 28, 10:45 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
>
> Is that a promise? Or can we ask you politely to take your case over
> to rec.audio.opinion and rest it there for a while?

you'd need a moderated group, to do that- perhaps you should start
one ?

then you can be self-proclaimed dictator, and demand CD only members

Edi Zubovic

March 28th 07, 07:13 PM

On 28 Mar 2007 17:48:15 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" >
wrote:

------------8<---------------
>
>Hi Edi!
>
>
>And a good sound, compared to my 40 pund Cd-Player. The best AKAI
>device I have met. The GX-95 II is almost the same, just with honeycomb
>floor and more expensive.
>
>Allthough, I would like to listen a Dragon Nakamichi one time.
>
>Is the Pioneer CT-95 not the best consumer-CCR ever available, or is it
>the CT-6 (still available, afaik) from SONY? Dolby S machines...
>
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Daniel Mandic
>
>
Hi Daniel,

As to Pioneer,I dont know; I remember I've been fond of CTX-1000. Nak
1000, I could only watch it on papers... Sansui had also decent
models. 5 years ago I repaired my friend's Akai -- don't know the
model but it's a three-head dual-capstan with logic controls from
end-70s -- the logics has been all discrete, an ants nest of BC
transistors... even pushbutton illumination lamps of a correct value
were crucial for functioning. Thanks God I had an oscilloscope to find
the failed transistor there. I think the tape deck is functioning
still today and it has a pleasant sound.

All the best,

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:17 PM

On Mar 28, 11:08 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 10:53 am, "jailhouserock" >
> wrote:
>
> Darn! You know, you're right. I recorded the Arlington Philharmonic on
> Sunday using 44.1 kHz, 16-bits. I listened to the CD in my car on the
> way home, and it sounded just like Blood, Sweat and Tears. Then I
> realized that I had selected the wrong CD in the changer.

agreed- CD is a great car format

you could use higher rez for home hi-fi though, dontcha think ?

>
> Would you settle for being at a live concert?

sure- been to about 60 shows already- not aging rockers either-
1970-80's shows

>
> Agreed. Just listen to live music and keep the memories in your head.
> It's the best way to hear music.

or record it in the highest rez you have- in your case, 44/16 (gulp)

I'd opt for Elcaset at 3.75 IPS myself, more convenient

>
> Didn't I say that I occasionally used a stand-alone CD recorder. That
> works in real time, just like your cassette recorder. It does take
> some time to "finalize" the CD so that it can be read by a normal
> player, but that's about the same amount of time it takes to rewind
> your cassette.

yet the sound is inferior or equal at best, to a cassette on chrome
tape at 3.75 IPS- where's the gain ?

get a SACD- they go to 192/24

>
> > > I can do that
> > > with my stand-alone CD recorder
>
> See, I DID say it.

SACD would sound better- unless now, rez doesn't mean much to you ?

>
> If it's not 44.1 kHz 16-bit, it's not a CD.

well hells bells, digital has progressed a bit beyond that now, hasn't
it

and you're putting down cassette ?

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:18 PM

>
> -- Akai had best heads (GX) as I see them; Pyrex glass and some say,
> that "Xtal" was diamond. Very durable.
>
> Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

those GX heads sound sweet

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:22 PM

On Mar 28, 11:30 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> Well, that's MP3, but its not .wav.

yes, I know that- I've transferred in both on MusicMatch Jukebox

>
> Nonsense. The worst thing about good digital is that it is a very good
> replica of the electrical signal used to record it.

albeit flat-sounding, and not very pleasing in a 28' x 14' room

a good car format though

>
> Would you settle for a live performance?

if you can't compare your CD's to vinyl or tape, you can't make valid
choices as to which is better

analogy:

Arnie: "My Sherman tank is the best in the world"

me: "But did you actually fight against German Tiger tank yet ?"

Arnie: "Don't have to- our proving ground tests show, our Shermans
are the best- you should see what our 75 mm gun does to plate steel,
set up at 500 yards- goes right through it"

you know what really happened then..

>
> My reference is the live performance, and an amplified direct feed from the
> microphones used to pick it up.

record it at 30 IPS like the old studios did, cut that to high quality
33 rpm vinyl LP, THEN compare your digital dub to the vinyl

that would be a valid comparison

digital would lose

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:24 PM

On Mar 28, 11:50 am, > wrote:
> duty-honor-country > wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 7:18 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> 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
>
> I love people who have absolutely no understanding of Nyquist and
> Shannon commenting about the "holes" in digital - it's like listening
> to "flat-earthers" or those people who think the moon landing was
> faked.
>
> --
> Aaron

if there were no holes, we'd still have 44/16 like back in 1983

why did they make 96/24 and 192/24 ?

to fill in holes

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:25 PM

On Mar 28, 11:59 am, > wrote:
>
>
> Because the marketing gurus with MBAs told them it would sell.

same reason they made the 44/16, and nixed vinyl, 8-track, and 3.75
cassette

perhaps we were better off before ?

ps- the higher digital rez, does sound better- get yourself a SACD
player

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:26 PM

On Mar 28, 12:10 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > jailhouserock > wrote:
> >> On Mar 28, 8:59 am, "Mike Rivers" >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> And once you're using 24 bits, that's all the
> >>> resolution and dynamic range that you can possibly use.
> >>> If you were comparing 22 kHz 8-bit recording with
> >>> cassette, I'd say it would be a good idea to move up in
> >>> digital sample rate and resolution. But 192/24 is
> >>> overkill.
> >> then why did the digital gurus, with engineering
> >> degrees, make it ?
> > Because the marketing gurus with MBAs told them it would
> > sell.
>
> Agreed.
>
> However there has to be some element of "Since we can do it, why not?" in
> the picture.
>
> Also, when the 24/96 chip designs were being contemplated, probably in the
> mid-1990s, digital was not as well-understood as it is now.
>
> For example, the wide availability of good 24/96 chips at reasonable prices
> greatly facilitated production people finding out for themselves whether
> higher sample rates were practically advantageous or not.

you can never have too much resolution in a recording

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:28 PM

On Mar 28, 12:03 pm, John Smith > wrote:
> duty-honor-country wrote:
>
> > the longest lasting tape format, is compact Philips cassette
>
> How do you conclude that? AFAIK Tascam still sells R2R recorders. I
> think there still are a couple of other companies that do also. At least
> one company is still making the tape. However, if you mean that you can
> still buy tape at Wal-Mart for, then I guess you are correct.
>
> However, I will say that a CD transcribed to cassette sounds better to
> me on all three of my decks than the CD played on the Pioneer CD player
> or the Toshiba DVD player does (However a 24/192 audio DVD I have is
> better). I figure that that is mostly because really flat response,
> while very good for laboratory tests, just sounds weird in the real
> world. And BTW, a 16/44.1 stereo CD is pretty much the same as cassette,
> because it is the minimum that will do the job, not the best. Just as in
> digital photography the layperson thinks the lack of noise in digital is
> the same as high resolution, it is not.
>
> And interesting aside on hearing high frequencies, I noticed that while
> I could not hear the 15k or 18k tones from the test tape at all, I could
> hear subharmonics from the 20k tone. Kind of strange, but that was
> probably an amplifier distortion problem but the Spectrum Analyzer was
> showing it too and that was connected to the line out (the deck being
> tested was only spec'd to 18k).
>
> As for testing hearing I can still hear from 27hz to 14000hz, but at
> normal listening levels I am pretty limited to 30-13000. My hearing
> threshold is pretty low, and not just for someone my age. However I have
> a hard time with determining direction, and do have tinnituses in my
> right ear.
>
> While I prefer analog for the original recording and the final media, I
> personally would use digital (24/96 minimum) for all intermediate
> stages, as the one thing analog is absolutely not good at is
> multi-generation copying.
>
> And, another thing I have noticed is that "ego", is the noise floor on
> usenet, once you subtract it you can actually get some useful
> information here. However. I do admit the noise floor seems pretty high
> in this particular forum.

no consumer tape format ran longer than cassette- they are still being
made to some extent- from 1962 until now

that's how I conclude that- you can go to Walmart and gas stations,
and find factory recordings on cassette today, for $5

try that with reel, vinyl, 8-track

soon, your beloved 44/16 CD will be kaput- mark my words

then the crying will begin, and your "high end" digital sources will
be in the SA and Goodwill stores- they already are

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:29 PM

On Mar 28, 12:31 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> messagenews:f7KdnQCUpdx_B5fbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comca st.com
>
> >>> No matter how good the specs are, one
> >>> eventually has to listen and judge.
>
> >> You're preaching to the choir. BTW what'swww.pcabx.com
> >> about if not listening and judging?
> > Because it's not the way one normally listens.
>
> That's a worn-out canard if there ever was one. True, ABX listening is not
> how one normally listens, but neither is any kind of comparative or critical
> listening.
>
> > abx is _a_ way of judging, not _the only_.
>
> That's a truism given all the other valid strategies for comparitive
> listening.
>
> >> For listening, I think the meaning of resolution is err,
> >> subjective. But it seems to generally have something to
> >> do with the ability
> >> to perceive both the overall gestalt of the sound, and
> >> individual voices, as you wish.
> > I'll buy that.
> >> Sue all the guys who use the term with respect to
> >> subjective quality. Their name is legion. ;-)
> > Like the New Testament devils?
>
> That's the allusion. ;-)
>
> >>> If I recall correctly, John Curl designed the
> >>> electronics for a 30ips analog machine for Wilson
> >>> Audio. I've never heard recordings from this machine,
> >>> though I'd like to. If it turns out that it's sonically
> >>> superior (that is, more accurate) than RBCD, or even
> >>> SACD, I wouldn't be surprised. Nor would I be surprised
> >>> if it were the other way around.
> >> You can do all you want with analog tape electronics,
> >> and it will still be limited by the media.
> > At higher speeds, the medium becomes less of a problem.
>
> Ah, another case of less is more.
>
> Compared to even 44/16, analog tape medium's "less of a problem" is still
> more unsolved problems.
>
> > The unanswered question is, at such, what are the
> > relative contributions of electronics and medium to
> > subjective errors? I don't know.
>
> Electronics can readily if not easily be built that have no subjective
> errors at all.
>
> The problems with the media are relatively gross.
>
> It would be kinda fun to hypothesize a project to use digital processing to
> overcome as many of the tough problems of digital tape as possible. Of
> course this would miss the point of analog tape as most use it today, which
> is first and foremost to keep digital processing out of the signal path.
>
> Nevertheless, consider consider varying recording parameters to optimize
> performance with schemes like these:
>
> (1) Control recording parameters based on a look-up table based on signal
> level and tape type
>
> (2) A sensor ahead of the record head that would analyze the tape's actual
> instanteous performance just before it is recorded, and then use that to
> control the recording parameters.
>
> (3) Measure the current fluttering motion of the tape and use that to
> time-shift the recorded signal to compensate.
>
> (4) Automated tape guides that keep the tape flat and centered, even as it
> skews and changes width.
>
> ???????? others?????????

you want a quick "good-no good" answer ?

ask your wife to listen

their ears don't lie, and are quick

jailhouserock

March 28th 07, 07:31 PM

>
> > I hope I live long enough to hear Arny state "Specs aren't
> > everything" -- and mean it.

yes, he says that, then digs out a rusty Sony cassette deck at peaks
at 13khz, and tests it, to prove the point

you won't see him test a NAK, or 3.75 IPS BIC

for obvious reasons- he's low-buck digital

No Name

March 28th 07, 07:34 PM

"Daniel Mandic" > wrote in message
y.telekom.at...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I listen to everything in analog. The USB 2.0 port for my head isn't
>> done yet. Maybe I should hold out for Firewire? ;-)
>
>
> Hi Arny!
>
>
> How have you changed so hard from Digital to Analog, in your latest
> posts.
>
> I am confused.
>
don't let arnii confuse you
he has no idea what he is saying
he will lie, twist the truth, do anything to try to appear like he has some
sort of understanding
in the end all his circular spew ends up showing him quite the twit
george

No Name

March 28th 07, 07:50 PM

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>> jailhouserock > wrote:
>>> On Mar 28, 8:59 am, "Mike Rivers" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And once you're using 24 bits, that's all the
>>>> resolution and dynamic range that you can possibly use.
>>>> If you were comparing 22 kHz 8-bit recording with
>>>> cassette, I'd say it would be a good idea to move up in
>>>> digital sample rate and resolution. But 192/24 is
>>>> overkill.
>
>>> then why did the digital gurus, with engineering
>>> degrees, make it ?
>
>> Because the marketing gurus with MBAs told them it would
>> sell.
>
> Agreed.
>
> However there has to be some element of "Since we can do it, why not?" in
> the picture.

Sure - once 24/96 chips were available and cheap it was often a case of
"why not do it" - and there is certainly a benefit to higher bit depth
when we're talking about post processing.

> Also, when the 24/96 chip designs were being contemplated, probably in the
> mid-1990s, digital was not as well-understood as it is now.
>
> For example, the wide availability of good 24/96 chips at reasonable prices
> greatly facilitated production people finding out for themselves whether
> higher sample rates were practically advantageous or not.

Yep... it also let them market those wonderful specs :)

--
Aaron

No Name

March 28th 07, 07:53 PM

"jailhouserock" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Mar 28, 11:30 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> Well, that's MP3, but its not .wav.
>
> yes, I know that- I've transferred in both on MusicMatch Jukebox
>
>>
>> Nonsense. The worst thing about good digital is that it is a very good
>> replica of the electrical signal used to record it.
>
> albeit flat-sounding, and not very pleasing in a 28' x 14' room
>
> a good car format though
>
>>
>> Would you settle for a live performance?
>
> if you can't compare your CD's to vinyl or tape, you can't make valid
> choices as to which is better
>
I can't compare my tapes or cd's to wax cylinders or wire recordings
so I can't make a valid choice as to which one is better?

to me its not the formats but rather the performance
I can allow for a awful lots of "not great" in the format, when the
performance is spell binding
bad music is simply bad no matter what the format
and pristene quality will not add really anything to my listening
experiance
and anyone here who says they can resolve if hf extention stops at 16.5K or
goes to 18K I will call them on that bull****, they can meet me at AES NY
and we will get our hearing checked together

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 08:11 PM

John Smith wrote:

> And interesting aside on hearing high frequencies, I noticed that
> while I could not hear the 15k or 18k tones from the test tape at
> all, I could hear subharmonics from the 20k tone. Kind of strange,
> but that was probably an amplifier distortion problem but the
> Spectrum Analyzer was showing it too and that was connected to the
> line out (the deck being tested was only spec'd to 18k).

Yes, so I have met. It distorts strange with 20KHz, allthough I can
even listen a 19KHz sinus, new born can listen over 22KHz and a known
japanese CD-Player developer can also do so, he trims the 20KHz filter
by ears.)

Allthough, the Tape gets strong with more diversities. A sinus does not
pass the harmonic limit of a slow-speed tape, not at that limit-freq.
They (Brands) mark the CCR's with ~18KHz -open end. Where's the prob
when 20KHz is not working?

> As for testing hearing I can still hear from 27hz to 14000hz, but at
> normal listening levels I am pretty limited to 30-13000. My hearing
> threshold is pretty low, and not just for someone my age. However I
> have a hard time with determining direction, and do have tinnituses
> in my right ear.

14-19000. Sinus!

Otherwise (signal), I would say 8-30,000.

> And, another thing I have noticed is that "ego", is the noise floor
> on usenet, once you subtract it you can actually get some useful
> information here. However. I do admit the noise floor seems pretty
> high in this particular forum.

It's not really OT, IMO.

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic

March 28th 07, 08:11 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> For example there's the idea that more accurate data is practically
> the same as data with less noise. Or the idea that a certain number
> of samples per second is practically the same as an analog signal
> with a certain bandwidth.

;) nice try. Analog is 2, digital is 4. Less is more. (Relative)

The best Digital CD's I heard, are always somehow from decent analog
recorder machines mastered. Regarding to my choice and my Ears.

MFSL made decent CD's from old high-speed tapes. 44/16 is quite WELL...
Where's the prob?

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

John Smith[_2_]

March 28th 07, 08:38 PM

jailhouserock wrote:

> sometimes they refer to it in dB, but other times they simply call it
> "VU"- thanks for clearing that up- here's the problem- if the VU meter
> doesn't go to -20, so why rate it down there ? Can one even hear
> anything at -20 dB ?

VU = Volume Units, measured in dB's. Most tape recorders show something
like -20 to +6 which is the usable recording range. Below -20 you are
too close to the noise floor, above +6 you are clipping. The theory is
to keep your recording level as near to 0 as possible. However, if what
you are recording has any dynamic range at all you probably want to keep
the average at about -10. You do not want the meter to peg on the top,
and would rather it didn't on the bottom.

The level for setting Dolby is usually something like +2 or +3dB, most
decks have Dolby calibration marks on the meters at that point.

BTW, with digital you usually want to keep that below 0 rather than +6,
or at least that is what the books say. I do not have a lot of
experience recording direct to digital and the meters may be calibrated
differently.

[email protected]

March 28th 07, 09:30 PM

On Mar 28, 2:22 pm, "jailhouserock" >
wrote:

>
> record it at 30 IPS like the old studios did, cut that to high quality
> 33 rpm vinyl LP, THEN compare your digital dub to the vinyl
>
> that would be a valid comparison
>
> digital would lose

ha, why did sheffield labs record direct to disc???

to overcome the slurring of analogue tape!!!

then you have the great separation available from the TT cartridge
when properly setup, your lucky to get 40 db separation.

and do get the cheap sacd player, a yugo please.
but keep in mind that sony has a lock on it, money please, upfront for
the production tools.

look for dan lavery's view on the higher sampling rates...
he produces the high end digital convertors that everyone covets...

just because the record companies are not doing digital right,
does not mean that the problem is with digital.
it is the engineers who use analogue work habits
and multi tracking incompetent musicians who can not tune their
instruments.

and the cheap digital players that have bad analogue curcuits
designed for profit margins and selling price points.

what is the best mic I can get for under $50....
what is the best $45 cd player...

walmart mentality rules,
and George Bush is president, a C average student. dah...

Arny Krueger

March 28th 07, 10:24 PM

"jailhouserock" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> On Mar 28, 10:45 am, "Mike Rivers" >
> wrote:
>>
>> Is that a promise? Or can we ask you politely to take
>> your case over to rec.audio.opinion and rest it there
>> for a while?

That's cold.

> you'd need a moderated group, to do that- perhaps you
> should start one ?

There already is one - rec.audio.high-end .

Why not give it a spin?

Frank Stearns

March 29th 07, 02:16 AM

"Arny Krueger" > writes:

>"jailhouserock" > wrote in
>message
oups.com
>> On Mar 28, 10:45 am, "Mike Rivers" >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is that a promise? Or can we ask you politely to take
>>> your case over to rec.audio.opinion and rest it there
>>> for a while?

Problem with this cassette nonsense is that the original poster hasn't
realized that his bandwidth/slew limited, hissy, distorted mess from his
cassette is a kind of multi-pronged room "EQ" on his monitor chain/room.
No doubt there's something wrong somewhere such that a clean source
doesn't sound right, but this skewed one does.

The inherent cassette problems (addressed by others in this thread) have
masked the underlying system/room problem(s).

From the olden days I've got some 50,000 studio hours/100 albums
engineered on 16 track analog 2" 15 & 30 ips tape, but just yesterday I
finished mastering a live digital recording I did of a string quartet a
few weeks ago (recorded at 88.2K/24 for editing & processing, but rendered
redbook at 44.1K/16).

The production CDrs are stunning, even on a player that doesn't really
like CDrs: A sound stage you can walk right into; instruments you can
touch; a sheen and warmth you can feel... No hiss. No head bump.

The best thanks was when the cello player sat in on the mix: "...my God,
that's what it sounds like when we play..."

Sorry, but all other things being equal (good room, good mics properly
placed and time-aligned, good post) you simply *can't* get this with
analog tape. You can get okay-close, but that last little bit is
problematic, due to the electro-mechanical limitations of the tape medium.

For the record I do mix in the analog domain on modified analog gear, but
someday I hope that the level of progess made with digital recording over
the past many years reaches down into affordable digital mix systems.
Euphonics and Pyramix (among others) are probably 99% there, but they're a
little pricy.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

chestek

March 29th 07, 02:20 PM

jailhouserock wrote:

>
> if you can't compare your CD's to vinyl or tape, you can't make valid
> choices as to which is better

You do know that virtually ALL CDs, vinyl records, and factory-made
cassettes are mastered at different times by different people,
guaranteeing that they'll sound different, even if the distortions of
the release media are ignored?

>
> record it at 30 IPS like the old studios did, cut that to high quality
> 33 rpm vinyl LP, THEN compare your digital dub to the vinyl
>
> that would be a valid comparison
>
> digital would lose
>

The analog media (tape, small format or large, and vinyl) alter the
signal from what came out of the recording console in the first place.
You prefer that altered signal. Digital alters the signal as well, but
arguably less than your beloved 3.75 ips cassette. Many people prefer
the digital artifacts to the analog artifacts. That's called "having
opinions". Take them over to r.a.opinions.

chestek

March 29th 07, 02:25 PM

jailhouserock wrote:

>
> if there were no holes, we'd still have 44/16 like back in 1983
>
> why did they make 96/24 and 192/24 ?
>

Same reason they made 3.75 ips cassettes. To extend the frequency
response and reduce the noise floor.

Then the marketing people grabbed onto it to try and make everyone feel
that their stuff was obsolete and inferior, and by spending some more
money, they could once again be state-of-the-art. That's what marketing
people do.

Steven Sullivan

March 29th 07, 09:29 PM

jailhouserock > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > Arny Krueger > wrote:
> >
> > >The RIAA sez that LP sales dropped by about half in the second half of 2006,
> > >so something is going on.
> >
> > That's less than CD sales dropped, though, isn't it?
> > --scott
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

> CD sales dropped by 60 % in recent years.

Because it's being replaced in the marketplace by anotehr DIGITAL format -- downloadable
files.

Not because people are going back to analog, and CERTANLY not because they're
buying more LPs.
..

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan

March 29th 07, 09:33 PM

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.

> But Arny, you're the one who's always throwing specs in people's faces. No
> matter how good the specs are, one eventually has to listen and judge.

I seem to recall Arny at least once or twice advocating ABX comparisons, which
certainly involve listening and judging. Or am I misremembering?

> > 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.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "resolution", or even if the term has any
> meaning with respect to subjective quality.

It has a defined meaning re: digital audio.

> As I've said many times, I prefer digital to analog. But that isn't because
> it has better paper specs (though it does) -- or that because analog tape
> has some pretty obvious flaws (though it does) -- it's because I've made
> recordings, and judge digital to be generally superior to (more accurate
> than) analog.

And that *is* borne out by the specs.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan

March 29th 07, 09:38 PM

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "jailhouserock" > wrote in
> message

> > In bandwidth it is, but not in content- when you take an
> > analog music signal, break it into 1/0's, then make a
> > computer program out of it, then reassemble it with a D/A
> > converter, you are not getting the same thing back again.

> Well, that's MP3, but its not .wav.

and even then, a high-bitrate MP3 made with a decently perfected encoder
(e.g. LAME) is going to be tough for the vast majority of people, including
'audiophiles', to differentiate from .wav in a blind test.
All this digital stuff, it's pretty robust by now....

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan

March 29th 07, 09:43 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >> No matter how good the specs are, one
> >> eventually has to listen and judge.

> > You're preaching to the choir. BTW what's www.pcabx.com
> > about if not listening and judging?

> Because it's not the way one normally listens. abx is _a_ way of judging,
> not _the only_.

But importantly, it's a way that's free of the biases that inhere to the way 'one normally
listens'. Now, before you retort with a list of biases it supposedly *introduces*, please
confine the list to those that are *inherent* in ABX. This excludes 'the samples are too
brief', 'the gear/music is unfamiliar', 'it's fatiguing' and, I suspect, the rest of
the list.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan

March 29th 07, 09:46 PM

jailhouserock > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 10:45 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
> >
> > Is that a promise? Or can we ask you politely to take your case over
> > to rec.audio.opinion and rest it there for a while?

> you'd need a moderated group, to do that- perhaps you should start
> one ?

> then you can be self-proclaimed dictator, and demand CD only members

The one moderated NG I know of -- rec.audio.high-end -- regularly includes
contributions from 'LP lovers' as well as 'CD only' members. Usually
they're arguing with each other, within the rules of the newsgroup.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Steven Sullivan

March 29th 07, 09:56 PM

jailhouserock > wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:08 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 10:53 am, "jailhouserock" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Darn! You know, you're right. I recorded the Arlington Philharmonic on
> > Sunday using 44.1 kHz, 16-bits. I listened to the CD in my car on the
> > way home, and it sounded just like Blood, Sweat and Tears. Then I
> > realized that I had selected the wrong CD in the changer.

> agreed- CD is a great car format

Actually, CD's terrible in the sense that if exploited to full,
music with quiet sections will sound worse in a car than almost any other
medium.

However, the geniuses behind the sliders have found ways to 'fix' that,
by digitally compressing the dynamic range to a fare-thee-well. So
now those CDs sound great in a car! But not so great at home.
Unless you're having a party.

> >
> > See, I DID say it.

> SACD would sound better- unless now, rez doesn't mean much to you ?

Only if I can hear it. I doubt my hearing and listening environments were ever good enough
to need 'resolution' beyond the ~94ish dB available to dithered Redbook. I doubt yours ever
were either. I'm happy that bitdepths >16 are being used in production though, to prevent
nasty rounding artifacts from becoming audible.

Ditto frequency response above 20 kHz.

> > If it's not 44.1 kHz 16-bit, it's not a CD.

> well hells bells, digital has progressed a bit beyond that now, hasn't
> it

In some senses, in others, it's just the marketing that has progressed.

16/44.1 is just beyond the the margin of acceptable, where getting something 'wrong' could
produce an audible hit; thus to exploit it flawlessly required excellent engineering (in both
the hardware and software realms). "Higher rez" formats leave a bigger margin for error,
making it in some ways *easier* to achieve the excellent sound CD can offer.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason