Are modern recordings so bad that they would sound the same if recorded on a
cassette?

I've heard this said a number of times, and with my critical thinker running
in overdrive as it usually is, I just don't want to believe it.

I've seen this stated a number of ways, sometimes even suggesting that an
experienced audio professional wouldn't be able to hear the difference in a
close blind test.

I suspect that that reasonably good digital now is so pervasive, people have
forgotten how bad, even really pretty good cassette recordings are by modern
standards.

To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and lightly-used
higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use quite a bit for
cassette transcription work. It generally sounds good to me. I use it at
least weekly, but this is light use compared to how a cassette machine would
be used by a consumer who primarily listened to cassettes. Its a
multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely used.

I used a fresh Maxell XL-II tape. I recorded with Dolby B NR, as this was
more-or-less the defacto standard for cassette recordings. 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.

I set recording levels by recording 300 Hz tones at various levels in 3 dB
increments and then playing them back. The analysis was done in the digital
domain. With the tape stopped all electronic noise in the cassette machine
and test equipment was at least 10 dB below the noise level from a blank
fresh tape or an erased blank tape. So, the electronics weren't that bad.

To test the cassette's cleanliness at various levels, I filtered the tape
with a brick wall filter at 200 Hz to get rid of most hum and noise and
infrasonic junk. I first-order low-passed the at 20 KHz to set a noise
bandwidth. I notched the 300 Hz signal out in one channel, and bandpassed
the 300 Hz signal in the other channel The filter ran from 270 to 33 Hz
with -100 dB brick walls. I then examined the 300 Hz test tones and picked
out the two levels where the signal was 30 and 40 dB above the noise. IOW
about 3% THD+N and 1% THD+N. These levels were about 13 dB apart. I then did
the remaining tests with test signals (tones and music) recorded both of
these two levels.

I then recorded and played-back the PCABX test suite which is on the
current RAP CD set. It is composed of test tones and musical sounds. Once
back in the digital domain I level-matched the 1 KHz tones back to their
original levels along with the other signals in each test suite. The tones
were stable enough so that by averaging over about 5 seconds, I could match
levels within about 0.01 dB.

I listened to some preliminary results and immediately discarded all of the
tests done with peak levels set at the 1% THD+N point because the background
nose was so high that reliable detection took a less than trivial effort.
It was too easy. The SNR was about 40 dB.

The tests recorded at a level that corresponded to about 3% THD+N were not
so obviously detectable. They had a SNR that was in the 55 dB range which
seems to be about right if my recollections of how a good cassette machine
worked in the day of, are correct.

I then picked out the first PCABX musical sample called "castanets", edited
it for millisecond-level timing accuracy, and did a PCABX test. I obtained
16/16 reliable detection without any trouble at all. Remember, I'm 58 so the
high end response of my ears is not exactly pristine. This was a slam dunk.
Cassette record/playback is really quite clearly audible.

At any rate the PCABX samples you can download from www.pcabx.com are
themselves pretty pristine. So these tests don't really relate to the
original claim.

Can anybody name a modern CD that is so trashed that I would find hard to
detect if I bounced it through this typical reasonably high quality cassette
machine in reasonably good shape? How about Californification or some
Smashmouth? Madonna?

BTW, if there's any question in anybody's mind about how much cassette
record/playback trashes music compared to good MP3 processing at 128 kb or
above, there's no comparison. I actually have to sometimes actually work at
it to hear MP3 processing, while this cassette-based listening test was no
work at all. But, its a different kind of trashing.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/3/2004 4:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Are modern recordings so bad that they would sound the same if recorded on a
cassette?

I've heard this said a number of times, and with my critical thinker running
in overdrive as it usually is, I just don't want to believe it.

I wouldn't believe it off hand either. "Modern recordings" is a rather broad
catagory.


I've seen this stated a number of ways, sometimes even suggesting that an
experienced audio professional wouldn't be able to hear the difference in a
close blind test.

I have heard a lot of complaints about the state of recording these days but I
have never read or heard this one.


I suspect that that reasonably good digital now is so pervasive, people have
forgotten how bad, even really pretty good cassette recordings are by modern
standards.

I suspect most people have dropped the format and have to some degree forgoten
much about it's sound. I also suspect that only a few ever really used
cassettes for critical listening. Most people I know were not terribly
concerned about sound quality and had them because they were portable.



To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and lightly-used
higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use quite a bit for
cassette transcription work. It generally sounds good to me. I use it at
least weekly, but this is light use compared to how a cassette machine would
be used by a consumer who primarily listened to cassettes. Its a
multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely used.

I used a fresh Maxell XL-II tape. I recorded with Dolby B NR, as this was
more-or-less the defacto standard for cassette recordings. 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.

I set recording levels by recording 300 Hz tones at various levels in 3 dB
increments and then playing them back. The analysis was done in the digital
domain. With the tape stopped all electronic noise in the cassette machine
and test equipment was at least 10 dB below the noise level from a blank
fresh tape or an erased blank tape. So, the electronics weren't that bad.

To test the cassette's cleanliness at various levels, I filtered the tape
with a brick wall filter at 200 Hz to get rid of most hum and noise and
infrasonic junk. I first-order low-passed the at 20 KHz to set a noise
bandwidth. I notched the 300 Hz signal out in one channel, and bandpassed
the 300 Hz signal in the other channel The filter ran from 270 to 33 Hz
with -100 dB brick walls. I then examined the 300 Hz test tones and picked
out the two levels where the signal was 30 and 40 dB above the noise. IOW
about 3% THD+N and 1% THD+N. These levels were about 13 dB apart. I then did
the remaining tests with test signals (tones and music) recorded both of
these two levels.

I then recorded and played-back the PCABX test suite which is on the
current RAP CD set. It is composed of test tones and musical sounds. Once
back in the digital domain I level-matched the 1 KHz tones back to their
original levels along with the other signals in each test suite. The tones
were stable enough so that by averaging over about 5 seconds, I could match
levels within about 0.01 dB.

I listened to some preliminary results and immediately discarded all of the
tests done with peak levels set at the 1% THD+N point because the background
nose was so high that reliable detection took a less than trivial effort.
It was too easy. The SNR was about 40 dB.

The tests recorded at a level that corresponded to about 3% THD+N were not
so obviously detectable. They had a SNR that was in the 55 dB range which
seems to be about right if my recollections of how a good cassette machine
worked in the day of, are correct.

I then picked out the first PCABX musical sample called "castanets", edited
it for millisecond-level timing accuracy, and did a PCABX test. I obtained
16/16 reliable detection without any trouble at all. Remember, I'm 58 so the
high end response of my ears is not exactly pristine. This was a slam dunk.
Cassette record/playback is really quite clearly audible.

At any rate the PCABX samples you can download from www.pcabx.com are
themselves pretty pristine. So these tests don't really relate to the
original claim.

Can anybody name a modern CD that is so trashed that I would find hard to
detect if I bounced it through this typical reasonably high quality cassette
machine in reasonably good shape? How about Californification or some
Smashmouth? Madonna?

I don't know. I bet there are some that are so compressed and "trashed" that it
would be difficult to tell the difference.



BTW, if there's any question in anybody's mind about how much cassette
record/playback trashes music compared to good MP3 processing at 128 kb or
above, there's no comparison. I actually have to sometimes actually work at
it to hear MP3 processing, while this cassette-based listening test was no
work at all. But, its a different kind of trashing.












I suspect when all is said an done that the jist of the complaints are that the
vast majority of "modern" recordings are pretty awful. I think I would probably
agree depending on what is meant by "modern."

On 03 May 2004 15:12:03 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

I suspect that that reasonably good digital now is so pervasive, people have
forgotten how bad, even really pretty good cassette recordings are by modern
standards.

I suspect most people have dropped the format and have to some degree forgoten
much about it's sound. I also suspect that only a few ever really used
cassettes for critical listening. Most people I know were not terribly
concerned about sound quality and had them because they were portable.

I *just* picked up a used Tascam 122 and I still like to make
cassettes (I find it more fun than sitting in front of my computer
making CDs) and I *still* like to listen to cassettes on occasion. I
find that for a lot of "rock and roll", the euphony is more consonant
than CD. es[ecially in the car (see below).

Portability is still an issue for me because I still only have
cassette in the car. I've found that when I listen to other peoples'
CDs in the car, they don't *quite* sound as good to me, although the
track selection is preferable. I think it's an issue of them sounding
too "brittle" in that environment. But this is just my taste.
Eventually, I'll probably get around to sticking a CD changer in the
car...it's just that I'm not driven (pardon the pun) to do so right
now...

From: dave weil
Date: 5/3/2004 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 03 May 2004 15:12:03 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

I suspect that that reasonably good digital now is so pervasive, people
have
forgotten how bad, even really pretty good cassette recordings are by
modern
standards.

I suspect most people have dropped the format and have to some degree
forgoten
much about it's sound. I also suspect that only a few ever really used
cassettes for critical listening. Most people I know were not terribly
concerned about sound quality and had them because they were portable.

I *just* picked up a used Tascam 122 and I still like to make
cassettes (I find it more fun than sitting in front of my computer
making CDs) and I *still* like to listen to cassettes on occasion. I
find that for a lot of "rock and roll", the euphony is more consonant
than CD. es[ecially in the car (see below).

Portability is still an issue for me because I still only have
cassette in the car. I've found that when I listen to other peoples'
CDs in the car, they don't *quite* sound as good to me, although the
track selection is preferable. I think it's an issue of them sounding
too "brittle" in that environment. But this is just my taste.
Eventually, I'll probably get around to sticking a CD changer in the
car...it's just that I'm not driven (pardon the pun) to do so right
now...







Well, I could be wrong but I suspect this is a case of you not being like most
people. Maybe more people are still using cassettes than I suspect.

On 03 May 2004 16:07:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Well, I could be wrong but I suspect this is a case of you not being like most
people. Maybe more people are still using cassettes than I suspect.

I think that there are certainly more than you suspect. I'm not saying
that they are still being used by everyone that used to use them
though.

Dave Weil wrote:


On 03 May 2004 16:07:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Well, I could be wrong but I suspect this is a case of you not being like
most
people. Maybe more people are still using cassettes than I suspect.

I think that there are certainly more than you suspect. I'm not saying
that they are still being used by everyone that used to use them
though.








While not as many as in "the old days", a lot of automobiles still come with
cassette players installed (or combination CD/cassette players). Also,
automibile cassette players are still generally available from many
manufacturers.



Bruce J. Richman

S888Wheel said:

From: dave weil
Date: 5/3/2004 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 03 May 2004 15:12:03 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

I suspect that that reasonably good digital now is so pervasive, people
have
forgotten how bad, even really pretty good cassette recordings are by
modern
standards.

I suspect most people have dropped the format and have to some degree
forgoten
much about it's sound. I also suspect that only a few ever really used
cassettes for critical listening. Most people I know were not terribly
concerned about sound quality and had them because they were portable.

I *just* picked up a used Tascam 122 and I still like to make
cassettes (I find it more fun than sitting in front of my computer
making CDs) and I *still* like to listen to cassettes on occasion. I
find that for a lot of "rock and roll", the euphony is more consonant
than CD. es[ecially in the car (see below).

Portability is still an issue for me because I still only have
cassette in the car. I've found that when I listen to other peoples'
CDs in the car, they don't *quite* sound as good to me, although the
track selection is preferable. I think it's an issue of them sounding
too "brittle" in that environment. But this is just my taste.
Eventually, I'll probably get around to sticking a CD changer in the
car...it's just that I'm not driven (pardon the pun) to do so right
now...







Well, I could be wrong but I suspect this is a case of you not being like
most
people. Maybe more people are still using cassettes than I suspect.

After buying a new car a couple of years ago, I no longer had a reason for
continuing to use the cassette format. I sold my cassette deck, a decent one
from Rotel, for less than $50 and declared the format completely obsolete. Now
I kinda miss it.

Boon

Dave Weil wrote:


On 03 May 2004 15:12:03 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

I suspect that that reasonably good digital now is so pervasive, people
have
forgotten how bad, even really pretty good cassette recordings are by
modern
standards.

I suspect most people have dropped the format and have to some degree
forgoten
much about it's sound. I also suspect that only a few ever really used
cassettes for critical listening. Most people I know were not terribly
concerned about sound quality and had them because they were portable.

I *just* picked up a used Tascam 122 and I still like to make
cassettes (I find it more fun than sitting in front of my computer
making CDs) and I *still* like to listen to cassettes on occasion. I
find that for a lot of "rock and roll", the euphony is more consonant
than CD. es[ecially in the car (see below).

Portability is still an issue for me because I still only have
cassette in the car. I've found that when I listen to other peoples'
CDs in the car, they don't *quite* sound as good to me, although the
track selection is preferable. I think it's an issue of them sounding
too "brittle" in that environment. But this is just my taste.
Eventually, I'll probably get around to sticking a CD changer in the
car...it's just that I'm not driven (pardon the pun) to do so right
now...








As I mentioned previously, all of my automobile listening is to metal, Dolby-C
encoded cassettes that I've made myself from my LP/CD collection. I generally
carry around about 45 90-minute cassettes in my car, so I've got plenty of
choices.

If I were to switch over to CD recording and playback in the car, I would, as I
understand it, have to worry quite a bit about compatibility problems between
the home recorder and the car CD player, especially using CD-RW's, which would
be the closest equivelent of how I currently record and rerecord cassettes.

As you've mentioned, ambient noise levels in cars are always going to be a
factor to some extent, and therefore S/N ratios are less of a consideration.
At any rate, given my record/playback chain, which I've described earlier in
this thread, the sound of cassette playback is certainly enjoyable to me in an
automobile environment. (And I do a lot of driving).



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

If I were to switch over to CD recording and playback in the car, I would,
as I
understand it, have to worry quite a bit about compatibility problems
between
the home recorder and the car CD player, especially using CD-RW's, which
would
be the closest equivelent of how I currently record and rerecord
cassettes.

**My El CheapoT JVC CD/MP3 player deals with every CD-R/RW I can throw at
it. I have three (different) burners. One is a DVD burner and I use a
variety of different (usually the cheapest, bulk pack) disks I can find. And
I guarantee you this: One CD-R ripped at 320k/s will easily outperform a
metal bias tape in a car.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**My El CheapoT JVC CD/MP3 player deals with every CD-R/RW I can
throw at it. I have three (different) burners. One is a DVD burner
and I use a variety of different (usually the cheapest, bulk pack)
disks I can find. And I guarantee you this: One CD-R ripped at 320k/s
will easily outperform a metal bias tape in a car.

Agreed.

Trevor Wilson wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

If I were to switch over to CD recording and playback in the car, I would,
as I
understand it, have to worry quite a bit about compatibility problems
between
the home recorder and the car CD player, especially using CD-RW's, which
would
be the closest equivelent of how I currently record and rerecord
cassettes.

**My El CheapoT JVC CD/MP3 player deals with every CD-R/RW I can throw at
it. I have three (different) burners. One is a DVD burner and I use a
variety of different (usually the cheapest, bulk pack) disks I can find. And
I guarantee you this: One CD-R ripped at 320k/s will easily outperform a
metal bias tape in a car.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au










Well, it sounds like you got lucky. Are you suggesting that, in general,
automobile CD players don't frequently have compatibility problems with CD-RW's
made with various CD recorders? I've heard quite a few horror stories,
admittedly anecdotal, about CD-RWs made with CD recorders that simply won't
play in a variety of CD car players.

At any rate, if I were to entertain the notion of making CD-RW's for a car
player, I would, because of location requirements, need to use a stand-alone CD
recorder hooked into my component system rather than make recordings from my
computer.

As regards the metal tape playback in my automobile, I have no way to compare
how a CD-R or CD-RW would sound compared to the metal tape recordings that I
make. But I can tell you this. I have a rather sophisticated and unusual
sound system in my car. (Actually, I like it so much, I've had most of it in
two different cars over a period of time).

To begin with, as I mentioned in my previous post, all the recordings I make
are made on bulk-erased Maxell MX-S C-90 cassettes. I use a discrete Nakamichi
3-head cassette deck optimized for the Maxell tape and for each LP or CD
recorded (I generally can get 2 albums on a tape), very careful attention is
made to level controls (which, of course, vary for each album). My automobile
cassette deck is the mobile version of the Nakamichi Dragon. It is called the
Nakamichi TD-1200 Type II Dragon, has dual capstan drive, and most importantly,
like the home version of the Dragon, has the same automatic azimuth adjustment
circuit as the home Dragon, so that when tape direction is reversed there is no
audible change in timbre. It also, unlike most automobile decks, also has
Dolby C and metal bias.
It's one of the few automobile decks I've ever seen that is so complex that it
comes in two pieces - one for the transport mechanism and another substantial
box just for the electronics.
The rest of the auto system consists of an Audio Arts 4-channel, 35
watts/channel amplifier, and 4 sets of MB Quart component speaker sets with
separate crossovers. The front speakers consist of 6.5" midrange/woofers and
1.25" titanium tweeters, while the back speakers, mounted in the rear deck of
my car are coaxials with the same speakers and crossovers involved. All I can
say is that, thanks to the use of Dolby C and careful level controls during the
recordings, there is NO audible tape hiss whatsoever on any of the tapes played
back in the car. (In past times, when I had cassette players using only Dolby
B, I had could not avoid tape hiss being heard, especially on pianissimo
passages of classical music, for example). Whether I would appreciate the
sound of a CD recorder/car CD playback system more is an open question. But I
find my current automobile playback system very satisfying and it's a
relatively easy way to enjoy an 1800 item LP/CD collection while driving
around.



Bruce J. Richman

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 03 May 2004 15:12:03 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

I suspect that that reasonably good digital now is so pervasive, people
have
forgotten how bad, even really pretty good cassette recordings are by
modern
standards.

I suspect most people have dropped the format and have to some degree
forgoten
much about it's sound. I also suspect that only a few ever really used
cassettes for critical listening. Most people I know were not terribly
concerned about sound quality and had them because they were portable.

I *just* picked up a used Tascam 122 and I still like to make
cassettes (I find it more fun than sitting in front of my computer
making CDs) and I *still* like to listen to cassettes on occasion. I
find that for a lot of "rock and roll", the euphony is more consonant
than CD. es[ecially in the car (see below).

Portability is still an issue for me because I still only have
cassette in the car. I've found that when I listen to other peoples'
CDs in the car, they don't *quite* sound as good to me, although the
track selection is preferable. I think it's an issue of them sounding
too "brittle" in that environment. But this is just my taste.
Eventually, I'll probably get around to sticking a CD changer in the
car...it's just that I'm not driven (pardon the pun) to do so right
now...

**Don't bother with a changer. I pulled my high end (AUS$900.00
cassette/radio) out of my auto and replaced it with a JVC CD/MP3 player
(AUS$299.00). When I rip tracks at 320k/s, I can't hear the difference
between the original CD and the ripped tracks. When I get time, I'll be
installing some higher quality speakers and amplification, but I doubt I'll
hear the difference even then. I've been told that there is not much
difference, until around 180k/s ripping rates. At 320k/s I can typically fit
5-6 CDs on one CD-R. I only need to carry half a dozen CD-Rs and I have
music to take me almost anywhere in the country. And, of course, if some
******* pinches them, I've only lost a couple of Bucks worth of CD-Rs. Most
surprisingly, for me, was the FM performance of my little Malaysian made
JVC. It blows away my old Clarion. I could even listen to 'Old Fart FM'
(they play disco every Friday night, praise the Lord) down in Canberra
(about 250 clicks, as the crow flies). My old radio struggled at around 100
clicks.

But wait! There's more. It can deal with a pretty large directory hierarchy
and is easy to use (except when changes to daylight savings comes around).
Even on the worst country roads, this puppy never loses its composure. It
has never skipped, nor had a problem playing a ripped CD. All mighty
impressive, for such a budget device. I still haven't figured how to set up
my memory presets yet. One day, I'll unpack the instruction book.....

You could, of course, wait for auto DVD players to fall in price and burn
50 - 60 CDs per disk. That'd be cool. Cassettes are dead. Long live MP3.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip



To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and lightly-used
higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use quite a bit for
cassette transcription work. It generally sounds good to me. I use it at
least weekly, but this is light use compared to how a cassette machine would
be used by a consumer who primarily listened to cassettes. Its a
multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely used.

Call me nosy, and this may have been answered somewhere in the other 71 posts
in this thread (I only made it to post 15).

What exactly is a "multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely
used"?

How's about the make and model #?

Thanks,
Jeff

George M. Middius wrote:

UnionPac2001 said to ****-for-Brains:

Its[sic] a multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely used.

What exactly is a "multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely
used"?

It's a cheap-ass POS combo with a tuner, CD player, and cassette. No
sound quality you'd remember.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HDVA-550. Krooger freely admits he only uses it when he wants to
prove he can find something that sounds horrible.

If you want to see a comprehensive list of Krooger's various piles of
junk, here you go:

http://tinyurl.com/2zwr6

Wow, thanks for the info. Here's a quote from his original post:

"To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and lightly-used
higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use quite a bit for
cassette transcription work"

So how does he figure that this all-in-one piece of crap translates into a
"higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder"???

Does he spin vinyl on a higher-end Kenner Close-N-Play too???

I'm no audiophile, and I have always reserved judgement on Arny's posted
statements. But even I can figure out that recordings made on such a unit are
going to sound like **** through a tin horn. The conclusions he comes to about
the compact cassette format would at least have SOME validity if he HAD used a
quality deck, perhaps. But using the recorder he did renders his opinions
laughable, IMO. Sorry Arny, I hate to take sides. But...

Jeff

"UnionPac2001" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius wrote:

UnionPac2001 said to ****-for-Brains:

Its[sic] a multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely used.

What exactly is a "multi-function box, but the cassette part was
rarely
used"?

It's a cheap-ass POS combo with a tuner, CD player, and cassette. No
sound quality you'd remember.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HDVA-550. Krooger freely admits he only uses it when he wants to
prove he can find something that sounds horrible.

If you want to see a comprehensive list of Krooger's various piles of
junk, here you go:

http://tinyurl.com/2zwr6

Wow, thanks for the info. Here's a quote from his original post:

"To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and lightly-used
higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use quite a bit for
cassette transcription work"

So how does he figure that this all-in-one piece of crap translates into a
"higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder"???

Does he spin vinyl on a higher-end Kenner Close-N-Play too???

I'm no audiophile, and I have always reserved judgement on Arny's posted
statements. But even I can figure out that recordings made on such a unit
are
going to sound like **** through a tin horn. The conclusions he comes to
about
the compact cassette format would at least have SOME validity if he HAD
used a
quality deck, perhaps. But using the recorder he did renders his opinions
laughable, IMO. Sorry Arny, I hate to take sides. But...

Jeff

Listed in that post is a significant representation of truely mediocre
equipment.
One has to question the ears of someone who would keep it in use.
Perhaps Kreeger's [sic] attitude toward better equipment is economically
motivated.

Robert Morein wrote:

Listed in that post is a significant representation of truely mediocre
equipment.

Which was one of the points of the test.

One has to question the ears of someone who would keep it in use.

When dealing with inherently flawed media such as cassette, first install
the figurative nose clips. This deck is primarily used to transcribe
pre-recorded cassettes.

Perhaps Kreeger's [sic] attitude toward better equipment is economically
motivated.

The prerequisite class warfare.

On Thu, 6 May 2004 06:03:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One has to question the ears of someone who would keep it in use.

When dealing with inherently flawed media such as cassette, first install
the figurative nose clips. This deck is primarily used to transcribe
pre-recorded cassettes.

Why would you use this instead of decks that could optimize the sound
of such deficient cassettes?

Why do you have it in the first place?

UnionPac2001 wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

UnionPac2001 said to ****-for-Brains:

Its[sic] a multi-function box, but the cassette part was rarely
used.

What exactly is a "multi-function box, but the cassette part was
rarely used"?

It's a cheap-ass POS combo with a tuner, CD player, and cassette. No
sound quality you'd remember.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HDVA-550. Krooger freely admits he only uses it when he wants to
prove he can find something that sounds horrible.

If you want to see a comprehensive list of Krooger's various piles of
junk, here you go:

http://tinyurl.com/2zwr6

Wow, thanks for the info. Here's a quote from his original post:

"To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and
lightly-used higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use
quite a bit for cassette transcription work"

So how does he figure that this all-in-one piece of crap translates
into a "higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder"???

It's higher-end than the majority of the casette recorders than Sony sold,
numerically-speaking.

Does he spin vinyl on a higher-end Kenner Close-N-Play too???

No, a Rega with a Shure and a Grado cartridge.

I'm no audiophile, and I have always reserved judgement on Arny's
posted statements. But even I can figure out that recordings made on
such a unit are going to sound like **** through a tin horn.

Thanks for showing that you make your judgements based on prejudice, not
actual facts.

The conclusions he comes to about the compact cassette format would at
least have SOME validity if he HAD used a quality deck, perhaps. But
using the recorder he did renders his opinions laughable, IMO. Sorry
Arny, I hate to take sides. But...

Thanks for showing that you are highly prejudiced and missed the point of
the cassette deck choice, which was to find a good, mediocre slightly better
than average cassette deck.

Obviously, I could produce a detailed technical report for the deck showing
that it performed very well, as well as listening test results showing that
it was reasonably free of audible flaws, and it would mean nothing to you.
Prejudice rules your pathetic life. The justice of life is that you are one
who has to suffer the most with your prejudice-ruled life, on a day-by-day
basis.

The final kicker for all of the cassette bigots among us that the weakest
link in any of the better cassette decks was always the tape itself. While
you may like to masturbate with your big Naks, not even the best Naks could
overcome the issue of pathetic cassette tape sound quality.

If Trevor were sufficiently well-equipped and curious enough to measure the
FR of his favorite big Nak at Dolby level, he would sing a different tune.
The accepted industry policy of measuring FR at -20 dB conceded the fact
that the louder passages were horribly crunched at high frequencies. You had
to be deaf not to hear it. But as the vinyl bigots show, there are still
some really pretty deaf audiophiles. The deafness is often due to prejudice.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

Prejudice rules your pathetic life. The justice of life is that you are one
who has to suffer the most with your prejudice-ruled life, on a day-by-day
basis.

Apparently you are the expert on "pathetic". What makes you so sure that MY
life is pathetic? Just because I may be misinformed on this topic is no cause
to call my life pathetic. I'm reasonably sure there are some topics that I may
be more knowledgeable about than you are, but that doesn't make YOUR life
pathetic, does it?

Jeff

UnionPac2001 wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip



To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and
lightly-used higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use
quite a bit for cassette transcription work. It generally sounds
good to me. I use it at least weekly, but this is light use
compared to how a cassette machine would be used by a consumer who
primarily listened to cassettes. Its a multi-function box, but the
cassette part was rarely used.

Call me nosy, and this may have been answered somewhere in the other
71 posts in this thread (I only made it to post 15).

What exactly is a "multi-function box, but the cassette part was
rarely used"?

It's an odd Sony piece that had AM-FM, cassette, and CD changer in one box,
but no power amps. Over the years it has turned out that all of the
individual components were really pretty fair performers all by themselves
(the CD player being the most mediocre). The whole enchilada has been
reliable and long-lasting.

The CD changer was the only part of the combo that has received heavy use
and it still works pretty well, mechanically. However, it is a circa-1994
single-bit converter design. So, while the mechanics and tracking are still
pretty good, the technical quality of the converters is not the best, to say
the least. They are outperformed by the converters in a 2004 $39 Apex DVD
player. It's good enough to use to figure out that a freshly-burned CD plays
properly, has the tracks in the right place, etc.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HCD-VA550.

And to re-iterate for the umpteenth time in just this thread, this
particular cassette machine was chosen as an average-performing cassette
deck, not as a demonstration of the SOTA in cassette decks. The goal was to
have somewhat degraded performance as compared to the best that is
available. Teac pro machines and a HX-based machine on hand were
intentionally not used, because it was feared that they would be too much
above average for cassette machines.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern
and lightly-used higher-end Sony consumer cassette
recorder that I use quite a bit for cassette
transcription work.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HCD-VA550.

And to re-iterate for the umpteenth time in just this
thread, this particular cassette machine was chosen
as an average-performing cassette deck, not as a
demonstration of the SOTA in cassette decks.

First it was "higher-end Sony."

Now "average-performing cassette"

The Sony HCD-VA550 is neither. More *intellectual
dishonestly*, Arny.

Powell wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern
and lightly-used higher-end Sony consumer cassette
recorder that I use quite a bit for cassette
transcription work.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HCD-VA550.

And to re-iterate for the umpteenth time in just this
thread, this particular cassette machine was chosen
as an average-performing cassette deck, not as a
demonstration of the SOTA in cassette decks.

First it was "higher-end Sony."

Now "average-performing cassette"

Powell, why don't you post some reliable unbiased evidence that your
personal, presumably high end cassette machine significantly outperforms my
HCD-VA550. Of course this is a fool's mission because the weakest link in
even a mainstream-at-the-time $59.95 cassette machine was the tape. But
fool's missions seem to be your forte, Powell.

Ironically, even the better $60 cheapies of the day did a pretty good job of
exploiting the best cassette tape blanks, as the machines were typically
used. For example, people who knew about the real-world performance of these
boxes know that the azimuth of a cassette machine is a moving target as the
tape rolls.

A friend of mine who did a lot of duplicating had a bank of $450+ Tascams
for duplicating. He did some listening tests and technical tests and
replaced them with a larger bank of carefully-chosen mainstream machine that
each cost about 20% as much. He tuned them up for tape he bought by the
case whenever he bought tape, and kept them clean. If anything, he got
better results.

The truly interesting cassette machines of all time were computer-controlled
boxes that didn't seem to see much light of day, except as prototypes. They
would do a fairly complete automated analysis of a roll of tape and then
make recordings that were dynamically optimized for that tape. Problem was,
even with all that, they were hamstrung by the basic properties of cassette
tape, which are less than mediocre by modern standards.

Powell, have you ever seen the frequency response of a top-quality machine
at Dolby level? You probably wouldn't even buy a speaker with rolled-off
response like that!

It's the tape that dominates, because if you test an even just average
machine with a current loop, you get a completely different and far more
impressive story. Do you know what a current loop is, Powell? That is,
without looking it up!

The Sony HCD-VA550 is neither.

Sure it is. At the time I bought the HCD-550 mainstream cassette machines
sold for something like $59.95 for a good single-well non-reversing
machine. This is a higher-end machine, which means that it less than high
end, but more than mainstream.

More *intellectual dishonestly*, Arny.

You are really pretty good at intellectual dishonesty, Powell. Keep up the
*good* work. Those of us who can see through you get the laughs! Tell us
again about the micro-imaging of that low-buck mic preamp with gratuitous
audible distortion that you seem to affect.

What happened to the prerequisite duck quacks, Powell?

If it doesn't sound like a duck, how do we know that it is the real Powell?
;-)

Perchance Powell you had a fleeting moment of personal insight, and realized
how stupid you've sounded all these years?

Arny Krueger" wrote:



UnionPac2001 wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip



To shed some light on this I fired up a fairly modern and
lightly-used higher-end Sony consumer cassette recorder that I use
quite a bit for cassette transcription work. It generally sounds
good to me. I use it at least weekly, but this is light use
compared to how a cassette machine would be used by a consumer who
primarily listened to cassettes. Its a multi-function box, but the
cassette part was rarely used.

Call me nosy, and this may have been answered somewhere in the other
71 posts in this thread (I only made it to post 15).

What exactly is a "multi-function box, but the cassette part was
rarely used"?

It's an odd Sony piece that had AM-FM, cassette, and CD changer in one box,
but no power amps. Over the years it has turned out that all of the
individual components were really pretty fair performers all by themselves
(the CD player being the most mediocre). The whole enchilada has been
reliable and long-lasting.

The CD changer was the only part of the combo that has received heavy use
and it still works pretty well, mechanically. However, it is a circa-1994
single-bit converter design. So, while the mechanics and tracking are still
pretty good, the technical quality of the converters is not the best, to say
the least. They are outperformed by the converters in a 2004 $39 Apex DVD
player. It's good enough to use to figure out that a freshly-burned CD plays
properly, has the tracks in the right place, etc.

How's about the make and model #?

Sony HCD-VA550.

And to re-iterate for the umpteenth time in just this thread, this
particular cassette machine was chosen as an average-performing cassette
deck, not as a demonstration of the SOTA in cassette decks. The goal was to
have somewhat degraded performance as compared to the best that is
available. Teac pro machines and a HX-based machine on hand were
intentionally not used, because it was feared that they would be too much
above average for cassette machines.

The HCD-VA550 sounds like a very versatile, space-saving piece of equipment.
But I find it hard to believe that the cassette portion (auto reverse, no
less[eeew]) would be considered "higher end" Sony, as first claimed. It MAY be
considered "average-performing", depending on your definition of average. MY
definition of "average" in a cassette deck would probably cost in the range of
$200+ (with reasonably decent specs) for a single-well unit. YOUR definition
of "average" is obviously lower than mine, not that it matters either way.



Sorry I missed the point that:


this
particular cassette machine was chosen as an average-performing cassette
deck

Forcing you:


to re-iterate for the umpteenth time in just this thread

I was quite sleepy at the time. Sorry for the oversight.

Teac pro machines and a HX-based machine on hand were
intentionally not used, because it was feared that they would be too much
above average for cassette machines.

Understood. Thanks for the reply. : )

Jeff