S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 1:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 15:16:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
The original claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre that
being re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not further
audibly degrade them.
You mean re-recorded on a poorly recorded cassette.
No, I mean recorded on a well-known poor medium. It has been always
well-known that the cassette medium was a technical compromise,
cubed. Or, do I have to remind you that anybody who serious about
sound quality on analog tape uses wider, faster tracks?
You are not putting the *medium* to the test if you are deliberately
not testing it at it's best.
Of course!
If I was going do a test that exploits the cassette medium, I would have
done *everything* differently. Different machine, different tape, different
procedures. I've got all the tools that have been mentioned in this thread
and then some, at my disposal.
For example, it would be interesting to put Morein's slanders of metal tape
to the (blind) test. Sounds like a test made for ABC/hr testing. Morien
would probably rather have his eyes poked out with hot needles than do
something that scientific.
For example, if I want to make a really good cassette tape, one of the
things I do is make and transcribe a test tape and come up with equalization
that optimizes final performance on the target machine and batch of tape.
Thing is, nobody who is interested the best sound possible quality, even in
size-constrained environments, soils their hands with cassettes any more.
There's only one reason why I make cassettes - for other people who are so
constrained that all they have is a cassette player. Cassette is still OK
for voice and people who don't care much about fidelity.
Even if you want to tune the playback quality of LP transcriptions played in
the car, there are more effective ways...