Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

That's a mistake. Dolby C is much better.

**Only on a decent cassette deck. Arny's POS, auto reverse Sony
doesn't count. In fact, I know of only one, auto reverese deck
worth bothering with. The Naka Dragon. For Dolby C to be really
useful, a proper, three head deck, with some kind of 'tape tuning'
system is absolutely mandatory. After Arny
does a test on a decent cassette deck, I'll be interested in the
results. An old Naka CR7 would be adequate.

You've both totally missed the point of the mission which was clearly stated
in the OP. Thanks for being so abusive, thus making your lack of any kind of
a clue about the goal of the test quite clear. To summarize, the goal was
mediocrity.

You're kidding!
Arny used an autoreverse deck for the tests???

Why that lying sonofabitch.

Thanks for showing that you can't read. I said quite clearly in the OP that
the deck was auto-reverse. I used the direction that worked best.

I'm beginning to suspect he is a *****BAD SCIENTIST*****

I know I'm back on RAO.

**Incredible, but true. His words:

---
"Since the deck is
auto-reverse, I ran some tests with the tape running in both
directions. Of course it measured a bit different in either
direction, but on balance neither was too bad. The channels were
well-balanced, within a dB or better."
---

Yup, absolute proof that I didn't lie about the deck being an auto-reverse
deck. So who is going to apologize for calling me a liar?

As soon as I noted that he was not:

Using a single direction deck.

However, the two directions vary from each other no more than normal
variations along the length of a tape. And, I used the direction that seemed
to have a slight performance edge.

Using a deck without 'tape tuning' capability.

If I wanted an exceptionally good recording I would tuen the deck for the
specific cassette I used and post-process it in the digital domain.

Using Dolby C.

It was available. I intentionally didn't use it. As I said I didn't use it
because of the stated purpose of the test was mediocrity. Maybe you ought to
check out the OP a little more carefully. The stated goal was to make an
*average* cassette recording, not an exceptional one.

The worse the recording, the better I would support the point that I was
critical of.

That the test was a joke.

You've totally missed the point, Trevor.

Like I said: If he lays his hands on an old Naka CD7, ZX7, Dragon, or
even a properly calibrated 1000ZXL, then the test would be meaningful.

If I was trying for exceptional quality, I would have used one of the Tascam
pro decks or one of the HX decks at my disposal. I'd tune bias and playback
azimuth for the specific cassette which would be recorded and played on the
same deck as quickly as I could rewind the tape.. I'd also post-process the
recording in the digital domain in ways that would bring perceived sound
quality pretty close to that of a DAT recorder. But I didn't do that because
the claim that I was addressing hinged on the fact that cassette has poor
performance.