Cost factor and maintainability are not necessarily convincing arguments when dealing with audiophiles. You know.....
|
Actually I just wrote on the subject of audio and entropy in the last five days on one of the threads here. Oh, the Michael Fremer thread. What you’re describing is actually not really entropy. It’s simply losses in transfer from the master tape that depend quite a bit on the skill of the person doing the transfer. Entropy is measure of disorganization. It is a statistical thermodynamics principle. Gee, I must have taken Statistical Thermo in school. 😛
Furthermore, as I pointed out in my recent post on audio & entropy, on the Michael Fremer thread, the main problems - in terms of information retrieval - occur in the playback system and *the room* in which the recording is being played, with the local environment. It’s a long story. A very long story. As I pointed out, “room clutter” in quotes acts to reduce SQ. But not via the usual acoustic type things folks naturally think of. Other Feng Shui principles may or may not apply to audio SQ. Some do, some don’t.
|
I find that humble, simple in operation, Sony Walkman cassette players sound very good. I’m using several different models with Grado headphones and also titanium headphones from Radio Shack. I even have the Professional Walkman. There’s something about the elimination of power cords, house AC, AC ground, fuses, big honking capacitors, toxic transformers, speaker cables and interconnects that produces very low distortion and pure, dynamic sound. Cassettes were not (repeat not) the targets of overly aggressive compression. AND there’s no buyer’s remorse. Simplicity rules! 😀 Catch the wave! 🏄♂️
|
Well, if you wish to open the thread up to comparisons, why not compare cassettes to CDs? That is the most ironic comparison of them all. You know, why an apparently low tech medium, a medium that was dumped twenty years ago, a medium they don’t even make anymore, sounds more musical than CDs. Why cassettes sound more DYNAMIC and ENTERTAINING than CDs. Why cassettes can be appreciated on systems the entire cost of which is - for all practical purposes - ZERO. Hel-loo! |
Fair enough. But that’s not what your OP was all about. A cassette is a mini reel? Interesting.
|
@orpheus10 That’s all well and good but in the OP he says he is copying vinyl onto cassette. So we can eliminate reel to reel from the debate. Fair enough? The OP question is a general one, is there something about audio cassette that would make a vinyl copy superior to the original vinyl, you know, sound quality wise? We don’t have to compare audio cassettes to reel to reel or vinyl to reel to reel.
|
Unfortunately that is not the question, which one is better. It’s why vinyl copied on tape sounds better than the original vinyl. It is possibly related to the question, why do CDs copied to CD-ROM sound better than the original?
|
@inna not sure I go along with you 100% on your detective work. The reason I say that is tape is a magnetic medium inasmuch as the tape stores information magnetically, not electromagnetically. And the tape head reads the information on the tape magnetically, not electromagnetically. Obviously somewhere along the line the information is converted to an electromagnetic signal for output to headphones or speakers, like any other medium. Digital is optical to electromagnetic signal. Vinyl is mechanical/magnetic to electromagnetic signal.
|
Digitally remastered Audio Cassettes Sound much more analog than their CD counterparts. Smooth and dynamic. More dynamic than CD, in fact. Example: Kind of Blue, digitally remastered on cassette kills.
|
I would be remiss if I did not mention that this whole thing could simply be another case of copies always sounding better than the originals. You know, like copies of CDs always sounding better than the originals. I know, I know, you thought that was some kind of aberration. Just one of those things, just one of those craaazy things...🎼
|
Bingo! I liken digital to the Porterhouse steak that Jeff Goldblum sent through the transporter pod that came out in the second pod in the movie, The Fly. It was molecularly discombobulated and reassembled. It look like steak, it cooked like steak. But it didn’t taste like Porterhouse steak. It tasted horrible.
|
nmps
Apparently facts and intelligent debate is not welcome here...but I rather think so called"intelligent design"
IS
Hey, you gave it a shot. Now the name calling starts. That’s not a winning strategy here. Fair warning. 😄
|
It’s a supreme irony that the single most important advantage that CDs have ON PAPER -dynamic range - which is obviously (on paper) what, 40 or 50 times greater than vinyl or audio cassette? You know what I’m talking about. 90 dB dynamic range and 90 dB Signal to Noise Ratio. It sure sold me. OK, the irony is with all the aggressive dynamic range compression over the past twenty years the dynamic range of the highly touted CD has been compacted down to all red for many CDs, some SACDs, quite a few LPs. One need only take a gander at the Official Dynamic Range Database to see what the industry has wrought. But the situation is even worse than that. Even with uncompressed CDs the sound quality of digital lacks the color, tonality, and fullness in the bass that vinyl and cassettes provide as a matter of course. The King has no clothes.
|
french_fries - eggs ackley!! It isn’t really a technical argument in my opinion. If it was a technical argument the CD would always win. That’s what’s so frustrating!! 😛 It’s what you like to listen to. Music soothes the savage breast. By and large CDs are not soothing, they’re irritating. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes. The music is almost always more "beautiful" on tape than CD. CD by comparison, especially untweaked CD, sounds like paper mache, thin, rolled off, airless, thumpy and bland. Let’s compare Heifetz on CD to Heifetz on audio cassette. Same violin concerto. Same recording. What you will find is the CD version sounds super clean but threadbare and lifeless, whereas the humble cassette sounds rich, sweet and full, like Heifetz’ violin really sounds. CD doesn’t do air or sweet very well.
|
raymonda
Geoffkait,
Compression is added to get "punch". As a recording engineer I learned this from others and use it myself. If your kick sounds loose and flabby, add compression. It will give it punch. If the bass is a bit defused and lost in the mix, and compression it will give it punch and sit better in the mix.
Compression and punch in audio engineering terms and practice go hand in hand.
Ray
With all due respect I’ll stick with my definition of "punch," which one hears in live performances due to outstanding dynamic range and on recordings that have not (rpt not) been overly compressed dynamic range wise. Your "loose and flabby" and "diffused and lost in the mix" descriptions don’t actually compute for me. No offense. Most likely we’re talking about two different things. When I I hear CDs that have been overly compressed they lack "punch." That’s why I don’t like overly compressed CDs. They are loud, I’ll grant you that. Want some examples of what I’m talking about? Dylan’s Modern Times, Stones’ Bridges to Babalon and Steel Wheels and A Bigger Bang and any Radiohead CD. No Punch! MONODYNAMIC. New word! 😀 In my world music IS dynamics. You seem to be saying that the overly aggressive dynamic range compression of music in the last twenty years is actually a GOOD IDEA. Cases of overly aggressive compression can be confirmed in the Official Dynamic Range Database.
|
That Direct to Disk thing really caught on, eh? The industry had a different idea in mind. Overly aggressive dynamic range compression. 😬 |
It might be one of the big ironies of audio that tapes degrade, even though I suspect when properly cared for it’s probably not a huge problem, and that’s why digital came along. Another big irony is that solid state replaced tube electronics due to "reliability issues." Cassettes when cared for just a little do not degrade. First, tape has been the first step in most recordings ever since digital first reared its ugly head. Second because digital has been playing second fiddle to vinyl and even cassettes like forever in some VERY important respects such as emotional involvement and musicality. Yes, I know what you’re thinking, "But digital is getting better!" Perfect Sound Forever! Horray! 😛
|
stringreen
Its impossible to get audiophile sound from a car system.
>>>Let’s get real. It’s impossible to get audiophile sound from many HOME SYSTEMS. More to the point, it’s possible to get very good sound from car systems. WITHOUT much effort. Let’s see, you got battery power, no house AC issues, the car is metal so act as as RFI/EMI shield. Obviously you'd want to replace the fuse with an aftermarket fuse and the acoustic space in a car is small, a lot like near field listening, no worries about having to use a lot of acoustic treatment. Maybe a little wouldn’t hurt. One assumes the CD player buffers the data so you don’t have to worry about vibration, anyway the shock absorbers act as a seismic vibration system for very low frequencies. Finally use audio cassettes anyway. They sound better. Problem solved!
|
Huh? You were the one generalizing and preaching about how tape was used for compression. Which in itself is pretty dumb since almost all great recordings in History were recorded on, you guessed it, tape. I was just responding to the ignorant thing you said, which was itself off topic. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes. That’s why the OP reported the tape copy sometimes sounds better than the vinyl original. Case closed. |
willemj
Geoff, your experiences show our point.
Huh? I don't think so. How so, Professor?
|
Rather than calling names, shadorne, which is a sure sign of failure to win the debate, I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote. You obviously didn’t get it the first time around. I’m not talking about transferring vinyl to cassette or any such thing. I’m referring to store bought audio cassettes. You need to brush up on your audiophile jargon, since punchy is a sign of good dynamic range, not compressed dynamic range. That is why aggressive compression is bad, it's NOT punchy. Follow?
|
shadorne
Those who like cassettes may like compression - a more punchy sound. Cassette will definitely compress good vinyl. Good vinyl can have as much as 70dB dynamic range on the outer edge. Cassettes never exceeded 50 dB.
>>>>>Huh? That doesn’t even make sense. Compression gives a LESS punchy sound, a more uniform instantaneous peak. It’s only LOUDER. Methinks you probably need to spend a little time in the library. Check out the Official Dynamic Range Database and try to get a feel for which formats are overly compressed.
Shadorne
There is no need to feel ashamed that you prefer lower quality compressed audio - a lot depends on the quality of your playback system - compression in a modest car audio system usually works great and this alone probably lead to the success of cassettes (walkman and making your own compilation tapes are other factors). Of course from a sound quality perspective cassettes were a big step
>>>>Again, huh? The compression is in the manufacturing, it’s the industry that’s doing the compression, the over compression, not the equipment. Listening alone will show cassettes do not SOUND compressed whereas CDs and even vinyl often do. Wake up and smell the coffee! ☕️ I never bought into the whole perfect sound forever marketing scheme, maybe I’m more open minded than the average bear, who knows? Furthermore, Walkmans or is it Walkmen? have a myriad of advantages sonically. Maybe we can review those advantages some time, if it won't upset you.
|
I find cassettes generally sound very musical, rich and natural. By comparison CD generally sound thin and bland and "uninteresting." Oddly, perhaps, I find cassettes that are digitally remastered sound quite good - very analog and detailed with better dynamic range than their CD counterparts in many cases. Case in point - Kind of Blue digitally remastered on cassette is very dynamic, detailed and lush. It appears cassettes went out of style and production just about the time overly aggressive dynamic range compression reared it’s ugly head for CDs, later on for vinyl.
|
