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.

On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:57:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

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

How many commercial Dolby-C prerecorded cassettes do you have?

I don't think that *anyone*, at least anyone around here, has ever
claimed that commercial cassettes were anything other than barely
acceptable in quality, just above 8 tracks in terms of sonics.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:57:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

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

How many commercial Dolby-C prerecorded cassettes do you have?

I don't think that *anyone*, at least anyone around here, has ever
claimed that commercial cassettes were anything other than barely
acceptable in quality, just above 8 tracks in terms of sonics.

Agreed.

However, in the day of, Dolby-C was a bit controversial. It put a bigger
premium on good gain tracking because it involved the use of more
compression and expansion. Gain tracking is a big problem with cassettes.
Dolby tried to address this problem, but some listeners disagreed with
Dolby's claims about how effective their technology was. The good news is
that we don't have to worry about this kind of thing any more, except with
legacy recorded material.

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 Mon, 3 May 2004 11:00:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There is no logical reason for most people to make the best cassettes possible, since cassette
is a obsolete format and better forms (digital) of recording and playback
are routinely available for reasonable prices.

Sure there is.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:00:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There is no logical reason for most people to make the best
cassettes possible, since cassette is a obsolete format and better
forms (digital) of recording and playback are routinely available
for reasonable prices.

Sure there is.

And the answer is.........?????????

On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:03:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:57:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

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

How many commercial Dolby-C prerecorded cassettes do you have?

I don't think that *anyone*, at least anyone around here, has ever
claimed that commercial cassettes were anything other than barely
acceptable in quality, just above 8 tracks in terms of sonics.

Agreed.

That's why I was surprised that you introduced that issue. Also, I
don't think it was really clear that you were indicting
commerciallly-recorded cassettes. It looked to me that you were
indicting the entire format. I don't have a problem with the concept
that cassettes are distinguishable for digital. I *do* have a problem
with the implication that this makes it an "inferior" format. I'm not
all that interested in rehashing this issue though, since it boils
down to personal preferece.

However, in the day of, Dolby-C was a bit controversial. It put a bigger
premium on good gain tracking because it involved the use of more
compression and expansion. Gain tracking is a big problem with cassettes.
Dolby tried to address this problem, but some listeners disagreed with
Dolby's claims about how effective their technology was. The good news is
that we don't have to worry about this kind of thing any more, except with
legacy recorded material.

Yes, and I guess it's just as controversial today that some people
find well-recorded cassettes perfectly acceptable and, in some cases,
preferable to digital.

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...

On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:00:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There is no logical reason for most people to make the best
cassettes possible, since cassette is a obsolete format and better
forms (digital) of recording and playback are routinely available
for reasonable prices.

Sure there is.

And the answer is.........?????????

I addressed this in another post that I just posted.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:03:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:57:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

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

How many commercial Dolby-C prerecorded cassettes do you have?

I don't think that *anyone*, at least anyone around here, has ever
claimed that commercial cassettes were anything other than barely
acceptable in quality, just above 8 tracks in terms of sonics.

Agreed.

That's why I was surprised that you introduced that issue.

Which issue?

Also, I
don't think it was really clear that you were indicting
commercially-recorded cassettes. It looked to me that you were
indicting the entire format.

I don't think that there is any need to indict cassettes of any kind. They
are what they are - an obsolete, legacy format like 78's and 8-tracks.

I don't have a problem with the concept
that cassettes are distinguishable for digital. I *do* have a problem
with the implication that this makes it an "inferior" format.

I don't think that there should be any controversy over the idea that the
compact cassette is one of the worst sonic abortions that was imposed on the
audio world, particularly given that it was imposed in a context where we
had other readily-available forms of media ( 7.5 ips open reel tape, vinyl)
that performed and sounded better. Cassettes are that convenience-driven
generally worse-sounding media that some mislead people claim that CDs are.

I'm not
all that interested in rehashing this issue though, since it boils
down to personal preference.

How someone could say they generally prefer the sound of cassettes over
7.5 ips open reel tape, vinyl or any of the better digital formats escapes
me. Yes, I've heard some cassettes whose sound I preferred to that of a CD
with the same music on it, especially in a certain circumstance. But, that's
about the particulars, not any meaningful generality.

However, in the day of, Dolby-C was a bit controversial. It put a
bigger premium on good gain tracking because it involved the use of
more compression and expansion. Gain tracking is a big problem with
cassettes. Dolby tried to address this problem, but some listeners
disagreed with Dolby's claims about how effective their technology
was. The good news is that we don't have to worry about this kind of
thing any more, except with legacy recorded material.

Yes, and I guess it's just as controversial today that some people
find well-recorded cassettes perfectly acceptable and, in some cases,
preferable to digital.

Let's not confuse the basic properties of formats with the characteristics
of specific examples of each. A preference for the sound of a certain
cassette over a CD with the same basic music on it, should not be
interpreted in terms of the general properties of the respective formats,
because there are so many other very strong relevant variables, such as
mixing and mastering.

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 Mon, 3 May 2004 11:47:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:03:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:57:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

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

How many commercial Dolby-C prerecorded cassettes do you have?

I don't think that *anyone*, at least anyone around here, has ever
claimed that commercial cassettes were anything other than barely
acceptable in quality, just above 8 tracks in terms of sonics.

Agreed.

That's why I was surprised that you introduced that issue.

Which issue?

Prerecorded cassettes.

Also, I
don't think it was really clear that you were indicting
commercially-recorded cassettes. It looked to me that you were
indicting the entire format.

I don't think that there is any need to indict cassettes of any kind. They
are what they are - an obsolete, legacy format like 78's and 8-tracks.

I maintain that they aren't obsolete unless they are obsolete for you.
That's fine. But it doesn't make them universally obsolete.

I don't have a problem with the concept
that cassettes are distinguishable for digital. I *do* have a problem
with the implication that this makes it an "inferior" format.

I don't think that there should be any controversy over the idea that the
compact cassette is one of the worst sonic abortions that was imposed on the
audio world,

I disagree, unless you're simply talking about prerecorded cassettes
or homemade cassettes made on inferior equipment.

particularly given that it was imposed in a context where we
had other readily-available forms of media ( 7.5 ips open reel tape, vinyl)
that performed and sounded better. Cassettes are that convenience-driven
generally worse-sounding media that some mislead people claim that CDs are.

I'm not
all that interested in rehashing this issue though, since it boils
down to personal preference.

How someone could say they generally prefer the sound of cassettes over
7.5 ips open reel tape, vinyl or any of the better digital formats escapes
me.

Since I don't have either of the first two formats in my car, I can
say that I certainly prefer cassette in that environment. Also, I
can't remember the last time I used my 7.5 ips open reel tape for
making compilations, espcially since it's even better quality than the
average 7.5 ips open reel tape. and, as a storage medium, it's not
cost effective. It's great for recording homemade music though.

As to the digital aspect, as I've said, I seem to still prefer the
sound of cassette *generally* over digital for the car. This is surely
related to the masking and euphony issues. In a car, the quiet
background "advantage" of CD is completely lost, and the extended
dynamic range "advantage" is reduced as well. Digital still has random
access and random track playing ability though. If I ever get a
changer, *this* will be the reason, not sonics.

Yes, I've heard some cassettes whose sound I preferred to that of a CD
with the same music on it, especially in a certain circumstance. But, that's
about the particulars, not any meaningful generality.

I don't listen to cassettes all that often on my main system, but
occasionally I do. After about 10 seconds, I usually forget that I'm
listening to cassette.

However, in the day of, Dolby-C was a bit controversial. It put a
bigger premium on good gain tracking because it involved the use of
more compression and expansion. Gain tracking is a big problem with
cassettes. Dolby tried to address this problem, but some listeners
disagreed with Dolby's claims about how effective their technology
was. The good news is that we don't have to worry about this kind of
thing any more, except with legacy recorded material.

Yes, and I guess it's just as controversial today that some people
find well-recorded cassettes perfectly acceptable and, in some cases,
preferable to digital.

Let's not confuse the basic properties of formats with the characteristics
of specific examples of each. A preference for the sound of a certain
cassette over a CD with the same basic music on it, should not be
interpreted in terms of the general properties of the respective formats,
because there are so many other very strong relevant variables, such as
mixing and mastering.

Well, that's another issue. But frankly, the whole issue boils dow to
whether the "general properties" of the format are onerous. I maintain
that it isn't necessarily so.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:00:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There is no logical reason for most people to make the best
cassettes possible, since cassette is a obsolete format and better
forms (digital) of recording and playback are routinely available
for reasonable prices.

Sure there is.

And the answer is.........?????????

Just use Arny's answer:
"This space intentionally left blank."

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.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein spewed :

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

*****BAD SCIENTIST ALERT!!!*****

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein spewed :

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
[snip]
The ground rules for this thread were clearly stated. Focus on words like
"level matched", "reliable detection", "time synched" "ABC/hr" and "ABX"
until you can make sense of them, Bob.

The problem with Arny's "science" is that he's pretending to be what he's
not.
This is a general problem. Otherwise, I would speak only to Arny's poorly
posed question.

And indeed, it is poorly posed, to the extent that Weil, myself, and others
immediately detected that the type of recording, commercial or private,
wasn't even specified.

Arny then drags out his motheaten test equipment, and makes a table,
impressive only to imbeciles.
With mediocre cleverness, he tries to associate the table with allegedly
superior listening skills.
Due to his age and pugnacious personality, it is highly doubtful that he can
hear much more than the fundamental of a buzzsaw, which his voice
coincidentally resembles.

Arny reaches some kind of conclusion, which all of us already knew, which is
that cassettes don't sound as good as CD's -- with Weil's observation about
his car the only exception.

What's so pathetic about this non-knowledge is the extent to which Arny has
to go to present himself as a purveyor of audio knowledge.
His next foray will undoubtedly be a comparison of the RCA Victrola to SACD,
full of self-complimenting bull**** about what a fine trained listener he
is.

And with that, I pass the ball to Middius, who may administer the
coup-de-grace with his usual aplomb.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:47:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:03:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2004 09:57:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

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

How many commercial Dolby-C prerecorded cassettes do you have?

I don't think that *anyone*, at least anyone around here, has ever
claimed that commercial cassettes were anything other than barely
acceptable in quality, just above 8 tracks in terms of sonics.

Agreed.

That's why I was surprised that you introduced that issue.

Which issue?

Prerecorded cassettes.

Also, I
don't think it was really clear that you were indicting
commercially-recorded cassettes. It looked to me that you were
indicting the entire format.

I don't think that there is any need to indict cassettes of any kind. They
are what they are - an obsolete, legacy format like 78's and 8-tracks.

I maintain that they aren't obsolete unless they are obsolete for you.
That's fine. But it doesn't make them universally obsolete.


While I'm probably in a small minority, they are definitely *noit* obsolete to
me or others who make their own recorded cassettes strictly for playback in a
car environment. For reasons previously stated, I prefer to not have to worry
about the possibile playback compatibility problems of CD-R's or CD-RW's made
on a home recorder that may or may not play back adequately (or at all) on an
automobile CD unit.


I don't have a problem with the concept
that cassettes are distinguishable for digital. I *do* have a problem
with the implication that this makes it an "inferior" format.

I don't think that there should be any controversy over the idea that the
compact cassette is one of the worst sonic abortions that was imposed on the
audio world,

I disagree, unless you're simply talking about prerecorded cassettes
or homemade cassettes made on inferior equipment.


I have no problem with the thesis that prerecorded cassettes are inferior to
other types of recordings, especially digital. That said, the cassettes I
make, strictly for playback through my car audio system, are (1) Maxell MX-S 90
minute metal cassettes, (2) recorded on a modern Nakamichi DR-10 3-head
recorder, (3) using Dolby C, and (4) levels are individually set for each
recording of a specific item (the recording levels for all of my LPs and CDs
are part of my Paradox database). Playback in my car is through a Nakamichi
TD-1200 Type II Mobile Dragon that provides playback in Dolby C with the
appropriate equalization for Metal tape of course.

While my observations are purely anecdotal, I would submit that this type o
usage is hardly antiquated or inferior for its intended purpose. For most
recordings I make, unless the source is noisy to begin with, the results on a
purrely subjective level are excellent. In fact, to some extent, Dolby C
processing may actualy minimize the occasional surface noise that *might* be
detectable otherwise on * a few* LPs that even a throrough cleaning with Disc
Doctor and VPI 16.5 machine can't "clean up".



particularly given that it was imposed in a context where we
had other readily-available forms of media ( 7.5 ips open reel tape, vinyl)
that performed and sounded better. Cassettes are that convenience-driven
generally worse-sounding media that some mislead people claim that CDs are.

I'm not
all that interested in rehashing this issue though, since it boils
down to personal preference.

How someone could say they generally prefer the sound of cassettes over
7.5 ips open reel tape, vinyl or any of the better digital formats escapes
me.

Since I don't have either of the first two formats in my car, I can
say that I certainly prefer cassette in that environment. Also, I
can't remember the last time I used my 7.5 ips open reel tape for
making compilations, espcially since it's even better quality than the
average 7.5 ips open reel tape. and, as a storage medium, it's not
cost effective. It's great for recording homemade music though.

As to the digital aspect, as I've said, I seem to still prefer the
sound of cassette *generally* over digital for the car. This is surely
related to the masking and euphony issues. In a car, the quiet
background "advantage" of CD is completely lost, and the extended
dynamic range "advantage" is reduced as well. Digital still has random
access and random track playing ability though. If I ever get a
changer, *this* will be the reason, not sonics.

Yes, I've heard some cassettes whose sound I preferred to that of a CD
with the same music on it, especially in a certain circumstance. But, that's
about the particulars, not any meaningful generality.

I don't listen to cassettes all that often on my main system, but
occasionally I do. After about 10 seconds, I usually forget that I'm
listening to cassette.

However, in the day of, Dolby-C was a bit controversial. It put a
bigger premium on good gain tracking because it involved the use of
more compression and expansion. Gain tracking is a big problem with
cassettes. Dolby tried to address this problem, but some listeners
disagreed with Dolby's claims about how effective their technology
was. The good news is that we don't have to worry about this kind of
thing any more, except with legacy recorded material.

Yes, and I guess it's just as controversial today that some people
find well-recorded cassettes perfectly acceptable and, in some cases,
preferable to digital.

Let's not confuse the basic properties of formats with the characteristics
of specific examples of each. A preference for the sound of a certain
cassette over a CD with the same basic music on it, should not be
interpreted in terms of the general properties of the respective formats,
because there are so many other very strong relevant variables, such as
mixing and mastering.

Well, that's another issue. But frankly, the whole issue boils dow to
whether the "general properties" of the format are onerous. I maintain
that it isn't necessarily so.










Bruce J. Richman

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

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

"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.

I have the following observations, using a very modern Sony deck:

1. A speaking voice dubbed from DAT to cassette was obviously altered.
Metal tape produced the greatest alteration, while cheap low bias tape
produced the least.

2. I have made Dolby C recordings of orchestral ensembles on metal tape,
and
found them almost indistinguishable from the CD. My guess is that the
ensemble masks the distortion.

**Modern tapes make metal bias tapes almost redundant. Even some Type I
tapes (TDK AR-X) rival Type II and metal tapes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Why that lying sonofabitch.
I'm beginning to suspect he is a *****BAD SCIENTIST*****

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

Why that lying sonofabitch.
I'm beginning to suspect he is a *****BAD SCIENTIST*****

**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."
---

As soon as I noted that he was not:

Using a single direction deck.
Using a deck without 'tape tuning' capability.
Using Dolby C.

That the test was a joke.

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

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.

On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format is
mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then what's the
point? Why even bother?

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. All this proves is that a mediocre
player will produce a mediocre product. Nothing new about that...

"Arny Krueger" said:

To summarize, the goal was mediocrity.

Why am I not surprised? :-)

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format is
mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then what's the
point? Why even bother?

Because I'm not trying to prove that the cassette medium is poor. That was a
given in them minds of the people who were being critical of modern
recordings.

Try reading the thread title. It's firat and foremost about how mediocre
modern recordings are perceived to be.

The origional claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre that being
re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not further audibly degrade
them.

Please re-read the OP. It's all there!

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format is
mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then what's the
point? Why even bother?

Because I'm not trying to prove that the cassette medium is poor. That was a
given in them minds of the people who were being critical of modern
recordings.

Try reading the thread title. It's firat and foremost about how mediocre
modern recordings are perceived to be.

The origional claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre that being
re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not further audibly degrade
them.

Please re-read the OP. It's all there!


Well, I guess the next step in your investigation is to ask the person or
persons making the claim if this was what was meant by an average cassette
recording and then ask this person or those persons what recordings meet the
qualifications of poorness and then get a copy or copies of said recording or
recordings and copy it or them on to cassette and do your DBTs. Then you can
tell that person or those persons whether or not they were right. It seems like
a lot of work to deal with such an odd and rare claim though.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format is
mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then what's the
point? Why even bother?

Because I'm not trying to prove that the cassette medium is poor.
That was a given in them minds of the people who were being critical
of modern recordings.

Try reading the thread title. It's firat and foremost about how
mediocre modern recordings are perceived to be.

The origional claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre that
being re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not further
audibly degrade them.

Please re-read the OP. It's all there!

Well, I guess the next step in your investigation is to ask the
person or persons making the claim if this was what was meant by an
average cassette recording and then ask this person or those persons
what recordings meet the qualifications of poorness and then get a
copy or copies of said recording or recordings and copy it or them on
to cassette and do your DBTs. Then you can tell that person or those
persons whether or not they were right. It seems like a lot of work
to deal with such an odd and rare claim though.

Been there done that.

In the conference where the claim comes up fairly frequently, there was no
confusion.

Just another example of RAO flamers and trolls reading the post they wanted
to see, not the post that was posted.

On Tue, 4 May 2004 15:16:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The origional 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.

You spent much of the post trying to establish how poor the format in
general is (as you did in the above sentence).

Also, the OP said "so bad...would sound the same if recorded on a
cassette". This is a slam on the format in general. You didn't say "on
a poorly recorded cassette".

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format is
mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then what's the
point? Why even bother?

Because I'm not trying to prove that the cassette medium is poor.
That was a given in them minds of the people who were being critical
of modern recordings.

Try reading the thread title. It's firat and foremost about how
mediocre modern recordings are perceived to be.

The origional claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre that
being re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not further
audibly degrade them.

Please re-read the OP. It's all there!

Well, I guess the next step in your investigation is to ask the
person or persons making the claim if this was what was meant by an
average cassette recording and then ask this person or those persons
what recordings meet the qualifications of poorness and then get a
copy or copies of said recording or recordings and copy it or them on
to cassette and do your DBTs. Then you can tell that person or those
persons whether or not they were right. It seems like a lot of work
to deal with such an odd and rare claim though.

Been there done that.

Well why didn't you say so? What recordings were cited and what were the
results of the tests?


In the conference where the claim comes up fairly frequently, there was no
confusion.

I don't think it is fair to assume the people at RAO know what goes on there
though. We can only go by what you say on this one.



Just another example of RAO flamers and trolls reading the post they wanted
to see, not the post that was posted.








I'm sure you can clear the air on this one if you fill us in on the tests that
used specific cited recordings. What were the recordings and what were the
results of your comparisons?

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 spent much of the post trying to establish how poor the format in
general is (as you did in the above sentence).

I'm just alluding to the well-known fact that were it not for an acute need
for convenience and portability with existing relatively simple-minded
technology around 1968, the compact cassette would have never existed.

Also, the OP said "so bad...would sound the same if recorded on a
cassette". This is a slam on the format in general.

It's not a slam, its a recital of a fact that is widely stipulated. the OP
no doubt based his comment on the fact that it is widely-known that cassette
is a highly compromised medium.

You didn't say "on a poorly recorded cassette".

Cassette was and is a highly compromised medium, on the first and best day
of its life. My transcriptions weren't poor, they were average. Keep them
away from the originals and they don't sound too bad.

If you want a real thrill, get the RAP CD set 5 and try re-recording my test
file on your Tascam. Then edit it up and ABX it. You'll learn! ;-)

Just about anybody who has much experience with the pre-existing large
analog tape formats knows that they always performed better. There's no
extant controversy over the idea that they sound better than cassette.
Indeed, there was no doubt in the mind of the OP.

The technical limitations of cassette on the best day of its life are very
significant, even compared to vinyl.

You just don't see professional audio engineers saying "Let me master this
on cassette tape instead of half-track 15 ips, to get superior sound
quality". Never happened. It would be a joke! ;-)

What did happen is that way back then, people faced real-world constraints,
mostly related to and portability and what is now low tech.

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.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format is
mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then what's the
point? Why even bother?

Because I'm not trying to prove that the cassette medium is poor.
That was a given in them minds of the people who were being
critical of modern recordings.

Try reading the thread title. It's firat and foremost about how
mediocre modern recordings are perceived to be.

The origional claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre that
being re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not further
audibly degrade them.

Please re-read the OP. It's all there!

Well, I guess the next step in your investigation is to ask the
person or persons making the claim if this was what was meant by an
average cassette recording and then ask this person or those persons
what recordings meet the qualifications of poorness and then get a
copy or copies of said recording or recordings and copy it or them
on to cassette and do your DBTs. Then you can tell that person or
those persons whether or not they were right. It seems like a lot
of work to deal with such an odd and rare claim though.

Been there done that.

Well why didn't you say so? What recordings were cited and what were
the results of the tests?


In the conference where the claim comes up fairly frequently, there
was no confusion.

I don't think it is fair to assume the people at RAO know what goes
on there though. We can only go by what you say on this one.



Just another example of RAO flamers and trolls reading the post they
wanted to see, not the post that was posted.

I'm sure you can clear the air on this one if you fill us in on the
tests that used specific cited recordings. What were the recordings
and what were the results of your comparisons?

The orignal recordings were a test file that is on the Rec.audio.pro CD set
#5, last CD last track.
http://www.recaudiopro.net/rapcds/index.htm

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 1:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format is
mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then what's the
point? Why even bother?

Because I'm not trying to prove that the cassette medium is poor.
That was a given in them minds of the people who were being
critical of modern recordings.

Try reading the thread title. It's firat and foremost about how
mediocre modern recordings are perceived to be.

The origional claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre that
being re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not further
audibly degrade them.

Please re-read the OP. It's all there!

Well, I guess the next step in your investigation is to ask the
person or persons making the claim if this was what was meant by an
average cassette recording and then ask this person or those persons
what recordings meet the qualifications of poorness and then get a
copy or copies of said recording or recordings and copy it or them
on to cassette and do your DBTs. Then you can tell that person or
those persons whether or not they were right. It seems like a lot
of work to deal with such an odd and rare claim though.

Been there done that.

Well why didn't you say so? What recordings were cited and what were
the results of the tests?


In the conference where the claim comes up fairly frequently, there
was no confusion.

I don't think it is fair to assume the people at RAO know what goes
on there though. We can only go by what you say on this one.



Just another example of RAO flamers and trolls reading the post they
wanted to see, not the post that was posted.

I'm sure you can clear the air on this one if you fill us in on the
tests that used specific cited recordings. What were the recordings
and what were the results of your comparisons?

The orignal recordings were a test file that is on the Rec.audio.pro CD set
#5, last CD last track.
http://www.recaudiopro.net/rapcds/index.htm









Isn't this your own recording? Was this cited by someone as an example of such
a bad recording that it would sound the same on cassette? I thought the
original comment was in regards to modern commercial recordings.

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...

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 1:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 5/4/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 10:26:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

This seems weird to me. If you're trying to prove that a format
is mediocre by using a mediocre player and procedure, then
what's the point? Why even bother?

Because I'm not trying to prove that the cassette medium is poor.
That was a given in them minds of the people who were being
critical of modern recordings.

Try reading the thread title. It's firat and foremost about how
mediocre modern recordings are perceived to be.

The origional claim was that modern recordings are so mediocre
that being re-recorded on a poor medium like cassette would not
further audibly degrade them.

Please re-read the OP. It's all there!

Well, I guess the next step in your investigation is to ask the
person or persons making the claim if this was what was meant by
an average cassette recording and then ask this person or those
persons what recordings meet the qualifications of poorness and
then get a copy or copies of said recording or recordings and
copy it or them on to cassette and do your DBTs. Then you can
tell that person or those persons whether or not they were right.
It seems like a lot of work to deal with such an odd and rare
claim though.

Been there done that.

Well why didn't you say so? What recordings were cited and what were
the results of the tests?


In the conference where the claim comes up fairly frequently, there
was no confusion.

I don't think it is fair to assume the people at RAO know what goes
on there though. We can only go by what you say on this one.



Just another example of RAO flamers and trolls reading the post
they wanted to see, not the post that was posted.

I'm sure you can clear the air on this one if you fill us in on the
tests that used specific cited recordings. What were the recordings
and what were the results of your comparisons?

The orignal recordings were a test file that is on the Rec.audio.pro
CD set #5, last CD last track.
http://www.recaudiopro.net/rapcds/index.htm

Isn't this your own recording?

Well dooh!

Was this cited by someone as an
example of such a bad recording that it would sound the same on
cassette?

Definately not. Subsequently, another recording was cited and I obtained it
and tested it. Slam dunk!

I thought the original comment was in regards to modern commercial
recordings.

They did, but I picked this as a starting point. I covered this in the OP.

Let me quote myself:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

the above is a post that was quoted by Morein

"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."

I went on to mention a number of possible candidate commerical recordings by
name. Scan for the word "Californication".

What's unclear about "So these tests don't really relate to the original
claim."?

That's what I said in the OP, but Morien didn't quote it when he trashed my
OP.

BTW, just to clarify s888wheel, I have no exceptions to your earlier posts.
Morien went nuts, but you stayed cool.

dave weil wrote:

Well, that's another issue. But frankly, the whole issue boils dow to
whether the "general properties" of the format are onerous. I maintain
that it isn't necessarily so.

Here's a typical professional view of analog tape recording in the modern
context:

http://www.plangentprocesses.com/

"Every analog magnetic recording starts with a motor dragging a rusty strip
of plastic over various rollers and guides, and across scraping metal
parts."

sentence separated out to make the point clear to what seems to be some
mightily unwashed people

"Any inconsistency in the speed of the tape as it traverses this obstacle
course is reflected in the timing, pitch and FM error spectrum of the
recorded material. The transport's various imperfections create an
ever-changing matrix of speed variations, slow and fast, subtle or severe.
At worst this results in the familiar warps and warbles familiarly known as
"wow" and "flutter", or (as in the famous case of Miles Davis' "Kind of
Blue") long-term tuning change over time. But even the very best recordings
are affected by a varying and shifting pattern of high frequency flutters,
constantly overlapping and heterodyning, causing spurious beat frequencies
to be introduced into the program - all of which seriously interfere with
the natural harmonic structure of the musical material. This actually
dictates to a large extent the sonic signature of a particular brand/model
of a tape or mag machine. It is a little-known fact that much of the
coloration, the "sound" of a particular recorder is a result of its
mechanical design, often more so than its electronic performance. The
familiar honky and constricted sound of 50's movies is sourced not within
the electronics, but in the fast 96hz sprocket cogging, a flutter component
which is indistinguishable from classic intermodulation distortion (IM). To
eliminate these defects would be to regain neutrality and transparency, and
to minimize the unwanted colorations that distract us from our enjoyment of
the music."

There is not one idea that is controversial in this paragraph, at least in
technically-informed circles.

And if you listen to the samples of their work, you will see one common
problem with analog tape in Technicolor, and then you'll see it elegantly
solved.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
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.

**I missed nothing (as you can see from my previous quote from your post).
My post was directed at Mr Morein. I read your post in its entirety. I
examined and judged your test to be a waste of time. BTW: If you REALLY want
to test the limits of cassette technology, your Tascams, whilst OK, will not
compete with any of the Naka models I listed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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.

**I missed nothing (as you can see from my previous quote from your
post). My post was directed at Mr Morein. I read your post in its
entirety. I examined and judged your test to be a waste of time. BTW:
If you REALLY want to test the limits of cassette technology, your
Tascams, whilst OK, will not compete with any of the Naka models I
listed.

Trevoer, you just conclusively demonstrated again that you entirely missed
the point of the tests, which was NOT to test the limits of cassette
technology.

I suggest that you concentrate on reading the OP, not Morien's hatchet job
that also totally missed the point.