In regards to a cassette deck, what would be your recommendations based on current good used equipment still in circulation?
Might be a fun worthwhile endeavour especially as I still have a huge pile of tapes from when I used to play them in my muscle cars before switching over to Hidden Stereo systems which were then cd/ fm based not cassette/fm based as the old indash spindle fit systems were.
Not sure on budget as have not considered tape in a long while but my guess is that $300 to $350 should get something halfway decent?
Thank you
Kevin |
Recording directly from phono stage to tape is better than using preamp out. Unless, of course, you can't do it because you use onboard phono stage. That's an additional advantage of having separate phono.
I rarely listen to entire album and often have to move the needle, I make compilations on tape, though in my case of a cassette deck turntable sounds better overall. If I had good two track open reel deck I would only touch turntable when recording to tape. Each record would be basically played once - to record. They would remain in top condition for the archive and cartridge would last for at least ten years. Yeah, it's Studer, mono blocks and speakers. Preamp is not needed. |
The example I was thinking of is the way I put my reel to use; record vinyl to reel for convenience, this is constant with few variables, no matter how good the vinyl rig is, the reel playback will sound better.
I use 2 track recorded at 7 1/2 ips. The vinyl is recorded tape out on pre, to tape in on reel. As I explained, the reason the vinyl sounds better on playback, is because the sound is bigger because of the larger tape heads of a 2 track, not only does that mean more detail, but it also adds depth to the sound stage.
I know that's not the same situation as you might expect from the original statement, but I record my vinyl to reel for convenience, and that's what I get. When you compare different turntable setups to different reels, that's not valid because no constants have been stated.
|
Yes she is, appreciate the sentiments good people, long may she continue to "rock it out". |
" cool '" is an understatement - great ! |
@uberwaltzYour your 85 year old mother sounds like a really cool woman. Hope she has many more years of good listening!!
|
You are welcome. If one day you do decide to get an open reel deck or a cassette player don’t do it before consulting with the Audiogon membership. There are very knowledgeable people here who use or used to use them. Tapeheads.com can be helpful too. If you keep looking at the decks on ebay, look at Studer, Otari, Technics. Also, Revox, Tascam, Teak, Sony pro. I could get some Otari or Revox right away, but I will wait. This should be a serious project for me so I would want to have extra funds for service, reels, maybe new cables. I spend about $100 per month on audio, not including records, and can tell that it is not very little if you don't make significant mistakes. |
These forums will be the death of my wallet for sure
Now you have me looking on eBay at tape decks, thanks INNA! lol.
Tbh I am not too surprised by the majority opinions and findings
My 85 year old mother still uses her Grundig reel deck which is at least 50 years old! I remember when she was using my old JVC table, Trio amp and Akai cassette deck so she could transfer cassettes and vinyl onto her reels and still listens to them to this day!
I think she likes to watch the reels go round.....
She is also still using the Trio, JVC and the Akai and they are 39 to 40 years old too.
Last time I was there when she was playing some Tony Bennet if I remember, even though not my cup of tea at all, I do remember it sounding pretty darn good and very life like.
So easy to spend my hard earned cash nowadays, just browse eBay, read up a bit and push a few buttons on the keyboard and another toy could be winging its way towards me. Doh...... |
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! |
I would not say that is true and it definitely depends on the units and setup. So, no I would not say that is definitively true. Both can be excellent, both can be ordinary, both can be bad, and both can be a pain to setup.
|
I have to take issue and disagree with your basic premise. Tape doesn't sound "better" than vinyl it sounds different, you may prefer those differences but it doesn't actually make it better it's just a matter of preferences after all there are people who like the sound of Bose speakers , and that doesn't mean they sound better. Just saying. |
Fair enough. But that’s not what your OP was all about. A cassette is a mini reel? Interesting.
|
On the contrary, this thread is about open reel decks and tape, I only mentioned cassette as an example of a 'mini reels'.
We can compare anything to anything. |
@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.
|
Bigger, or fuller, or both is the right term, I think. Smoother too.
Cassette decks also have very slow speed. But for a cassette some Naks and Tandbergs are very impressive, especially with Vertex tape and no dolby. And that's with captured lamp power cord.
Ralph is a little attached to vinyl but he knows what he knows.
Orpheus10, when I am ready I will almost certainly go after Studer. The most important reason is transport. But also other things, including the availability of parts and of tuners who could make it almost like new. It should last me as long as I do, at least. |
Geoffkait, let me be most specific; I was referring to my deck which is a 2 track. One of my posts explains the differences in the size of the heads in 4 track and 2 track. The heads are larger in 2 track than 4 track. The playback of the 4 track will be identical to the record. The play back on the 2 track will be identical to the record, except the sound will be bigger because of the playback heads. That doesn't only go for the records, it also goes for you speakers, they will sound bigger because the source is bigger.
A small screen TV may not be better than a big screen TV, but you can see and enjoy more detail.
Think of the fundamental difference between a cassette deck and a reel, assuming high end in both cases, the reel sounds better mostly because of the larger heads. In the past, most decks were 4 track allowing you to record and playback in both directions, thereby saving money on the cost of tape. 2 Track records in one direction and that's it.
Since what has been recorded on 2 track is the same identical information that's on the record, you may not consider it better, but bigger sounds better to everyone listening.
|
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?
|
|
Atmasphere, here are the specification on my tape deck;
Reel to Reel Tape Recorder (1977-87
Technics RS-1500US
Specifications
Track system: 2-track, 2-channel, stereo/monaural system
Motor: 2 x reel, 1 x capstan
Reel size: 5 to 10.5 inch reel
Equalization: NAB
Tape speeds: 3 3⁄4 7 1⁄2 15 ips
Wow and flutter: 0.018% (15 ips)
Frequency response: 30Hz to 30kHz (15 ips)
Signal to Noise Ratio: 60dB
Total harmonic distortion: 0.8%
Input: 60mV (line), 0.25mV (mic)
Output: 0.775V (line)
Dimensions: 446 x 456 x 258mm
Weight: 25kg
How do you compare these specs to whatever it is you are referring to?
|
Conversion of electrical into magnetic and back to electrical is not the same as conversion of mechanical into electromagnetical. Ralph, you know it better than I do. As for if something is altered in any case - probably. To use an analogy, converting water into ice is not the same as converting water into wood or stone.
" The limitation of the LP is in playback " is a big understatement, I think.
Yeah, I would never buy dubs from ebay, from Russia or China or US. |
However, with the use of Dolby S, Reel to Reel can be extremely good and pushes right up there with the best. |
With tape everything stays within the domain of electromagnetic energy,
with vinyl there is a conversion of mechanical energy. Do you think
nothing is altered in the conversion ? @inna There is a conversion of an electrical signal to magnetic, and then that magnetic field is stored on the tape. Do you think nothing is altered in the conversion? Tape heads and tape are non-linear. To linearize either one, bias is added in the form of a high frequency signal that is at once so high that it can't be recorded and will not interfere (hetrodyne; i.e. 'birdies') with harmonics of the signal to be recorded. The Germans sorted this bit out during WW2 (BTW you can see one of three known Nazi tape recorders at the Pavek Museum in St. Louis Park Minnesota. If you are ever in the Twin Cities as an audiophile its a must-see). There is a certain amount of harmonic distortion associated with recording; the amount varies depending on the permeability of the record head and the formula of the tape. 3% is not uncommon at 0VU. Solid state machines need a bias trap to keep the bias signal away from the record head driver circuit- the head driver transistor can otherwise be saturated. Tubes are immune to this problem- IMO this is one reason why tube machines can make better recordings all other things being equal (which in practice they never are). In comparison to vinyl, tape has less bandwidth (on top and the bottom) and less dynamic range- it is also noisier unless the LP has been abused. This is why its practical to use an analog tape as a master for an LP- the LP encompasses the performance of the tape medium. The limitation of the LP is in playback, not record- and that is where one runs into distortion, mistracking and the like, which is highly variable depending on the setup and quality of the pickup apparatus. A good playback will have no mistracking regardless of the program material. One thing tape can do quite well is out of phase bass. It this occurs in an LP, the groove walls can get so close together that they can knock the stylus out of the groove. For this reason, circuits exist to sense out of phase bass and then cause mono operation below a certain frequency. I have found that if the engineer spends enough time with the project, there is usually a way to master it without using the processing, but engineering time is expensive, so the processing is usually left in place (BTW, its a passive process). Out of phase bass is a problem with multi-tracked recordings if the engineer isn't careful. Lately there have been a lot of 10.5" reel to reel titles becoming available; the advertised provenance being that they are dubs from working copies (there are a lot of Russian titles claiming this on ebay right now) and they are going for serious cash. I am of the opinion that if you get a title that is in fact actually dubbed from a legitimately good source using quality gear that the result is spectacular. But a lot of these dubs I've been seeing don't measure up to that- I would be not at all surprised to find that many of them are mastered from a CD; some of them I've heard are oppressive on top compared to the original LP. |
Inna, when I bought my Technics, they were almost giving reels away, and since you have been inquiring they've gone way up. I recommend that you get as current a model as possible; for example if Technics, get a RS 1700, 2 track of course. They are made to be repaired, mine has never left home, I have the repair manuel. The Otari I have is 2 piece 4 track; that's for professional work and very complex, not easy to repair. If you buy one that's not up to spec, there are places that can do that for you quite reasonable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFC-60HvOJMHere is a fantastic 2 track Otari; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp_Zpdxvuc |
Yes, Orpheus10, I read that discussion when it was current. |
There was a long intelligent discussion by people who actually owned reel to reel decks and were still using them. The OP was handyman 05-26-2010 9:02pm. You can find facts about the reels those people owned.
|
@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.
|
With tape everything stays within the domain of electromagnetic energy, with vinyl there is a conversion of mechanical energy. Do you think nothing is altered in the conversion ?
We really need tape and vinyl experts here. Maybe we should invite Walter Davis of LAST and others I don't know who to clarify it all and explain in more or less plain English. |
Maybe this has to do with dithering? The background noise introduced by the randomness of the magnetic alignment might.... might do something to increase resolution and naturalness.
|
f you are saying that transferring cd's or vinyl to tapes sounds better
then you are saying that the transfer is not an accurate transfer and
that the distortion that the tape is adding is one that pleases you.
There is nothing wrong with that but you do have to admit that you just
introduced a uphonic distortion.
Many years ago when I had CD and cassette in the same system, I used to tame the bright, hard, cold sound of CDs by recording them to cassette. That worked fairly well. Back in those days my theory was that the CD could not record the ultrasonic noise that was part of the digital experience (while my speakers could do it easily); these days my theory is that the cassette limited bandwidth and so was unable to reproduce aliasing (which is interpreted by the ear as brightness and hardness). I'm certain that the cassette was not true to the original, but it rendered the CDs listenable, so it was useful :) |
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.
|
send paper can make vinyl sound worse than tape. |
I'll stick with what I stated. Your's is more than a bit murky. But, hey, it's your pleasure not mine and in the end that's what matters. Enjoy!
|
While recording from anything to tape some coloration is inevitably added but it's not the whole story and it's not necessarilly what is found pleasing. Tape recorder 'rearranges' the elements of the incoming signal and lays them down to tape. This rearranged source might in some respects give better soundscape. Something like that, in its own way, might also happen when you record digital from digital. In other words, processing may yield better results.
Do you know what some crazy Japanese do? They have 100 volts wall current over there. They take it up to 230 volts with one step up transformer and then take it back down to 100 volts with another and claim that it sounds better. This is just an analogy and an example of a rather primitive current processing. Things are not that simple. |
If you are saying that transferring cd's or vinyl to tapes sounds better then you are saying that the transfer is not an accurate transfer and that the distortion that the tape is adding is one that pleases you. There is nothing wrong with that but you do have to admit that you just introduced a uphonic distortion.
Now if you are saying that a live mic feed is more accurately captured on tape, rather than vinyl or digital then you are saying that tape is a more honest format for capturing truth. IMO, tape using Dolby S is right up there with the best.
However, most here are reporting on the former not the later. I doubt that tape is correcting for the flaws in vinyl or digital and, in that case, it is the processing distortion you are enjoying. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
|
And if it was possible would we want it ?
Ralph, I see. Not that I was thinking of 1/2" machine, the cost would be prohibitive, and yeah few titles. |
Tostadosunidos, to begin to answer your question, I had to turn on the reel and relax in the 'sweet spot' with music emanating from that source. First question, "Is it vinyl, or CD"? I can only tell by remembering when I recorded it. If I don't have the record, it must be CD. CD's are generated from the computer to line in on the reel. Records are recorded the old fashioned way. Years ago when audiophile PC was a hot topic, I replaced cards in my computer with audiophile cards per the PC forum here and Stereophile. Right now I'm listening to Jimmy Smith "Angel Eyes", the CD from the reel. 1 Stolen Moments 7:00 2 You Better Go Now 5:15 3 Angel Eyes 8:00 4 Bess, Oh Where's My Bess 4:10 5 Slow Freight 5:47 6 Tenderly 6:25 7 Days Of Wine And Roses 7:00 8 L'il Darlin' 6:57 9 What A Wonderful World 4:25 Bass – Christian McBride Drums – Gregory Hutchinson Executive-Producer – Lola Smith Guitar – Mark Whitfield Organ – Jimmy Smith Producer – Don Sickler, Richard Seidel Trumpet – Nicholas Payton Trumpet, Flugelhorn – Roy Hargrove When I focus on the center channel, Jimmy Smith is in the house with that loud and very wide dynamic frequency range like no other organ. (When you record from CD to two track, you have actually expanded what was on the CD without distorting it; same music, just bigger with a wider dynamic range, plus you have also lost any "digitalis".) Jet black background as well, no tape noise on a good deck. What I'm hearing can not be measured, it is the emotional aspect of the music; I've gone beyond what reviewers talk about when describing components, frequency response etc. but into the story line of the song. Now that I'm into "Angel Eyes", no longer am I in this listening room, but in one of the bistros in a time long past, sitting on the same bar stool, where I sat contemplating one of the "Angel Eyes" I've known. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihZHR63UmNIWhen you got the right rig, music can take you wherever you want to go. As to your original question, it's impossible to get better than live, you have gone past the limits of logic. |
"When you transfer vinyl to reel to reel, it sounds better on playback.
The same goes for CD. Many professional audiophiles have concluded there
is nothing better than reel to reel."
Would it not be true for you that reel to reel sounds better than the original (live, acoustic) performance?
|
They are the same track width so they should sound the same....
FWIW Four track 1/2" is uncommon- 8 tracks on 1/2' is a more common format, used by lower end semi-pro machines.
|
Yeah, that's perhaps too much even for "extreme audiophiles", as Orpheus10 put it. But why not ?
Ralph, which one sounds better, 1/2" four track or 1/4" two track ? Assuming 7 1/2 ips and 15 ips speeds. |
Besides, what about 1/2" tape machines ? They're awesome! Not many titles available, but you can record your own. The format is a bit pricey... |
I just cranked my reel up (a Technics RS-1500), and right off the bat Lee Morgan's trumpet was in the listening room; I didn't have to make any effort to know that the reel was better than anything else I have, it just is. If I didn't own a reel, I wouldn't buy one; there are a lot of things you have to know when you own a reel. Although I have learned those things, I still have to go over the check list in my mind when I get involved with the R to R. Magnetism is so taboo, and you have to demagnetize the heads. When you do this, you have to remember to move all your recorded tapes a good distance away, or you will mess them up; over the years I've accumulated quite a few, so that's a headache. Bigger is better. When you compare the size of a cassette tape head, to the size of a R to R tape head. Stereo half track sounds better than stereo quarter track, assuming that both tape decks are of the same quality. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=662&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=caUcWrqIBKrVjwSFgIiw...: When you compare the convenience of all the digital methods of record and playback, one has to be an extreme audiophile to opt for reel, but for those who must have the very best, there it is. |
orpheus10, thank you. Yeah, that's the one, but A810 and perhaps A807 would be enough for me. There are A810 and A807 on ebay now, sold by some Germans, with custom tube outboard playback head preamp. That's how I would eventually want it. I'll get there in time, no doubt. |
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...🎼
|
Besides, what about 1/2" tape machines ? Not that decks don't have vibration interference, they do, so you deal with it as much as possible. Replacing lamp cord power cable should improve it further, I guess. |
The best way to eliminate unwanted vibration is to get rid of the needle and of the arm, that's, theoretically, laser-based playback. But it was never really developed. Maybe one day. |
Many years ago I noticed that the tape seemed to do something nice to the sound of vinyl.
Turned out the reason was because I was using headphones and the turntable didn’t like the vibration from the speakers. So I went about the process of providing for a vibration-free stand, platform and turntable and then the difference vanished- in fact went in favor of the LP.
Stand: custom Sound Anchors on Aurios Pro bearings
platforms: UltraResolution Technology (n.l.a.)
|
|
When you transfer vinyl to reel to reel, it sounds better on playback. The same goes for CD. Many professional audiophiles have concluded there is nothing better than reel to reel.
Since I just enjoy the results, and breaking down each element of why it sounds better takes the pleasure out of basking in the sound of a good reel, I can't help you on specifics.
|
Norman, I have Nakamichi 682ZX. Yeah, I copy my favourite cds to tape too, never really use cd player except for recording. Definitely more listenable. |
Really great discussion. Personally I prefer tape to vinyl. I am an analog junkie, but tape, especially master tapes sound best. I also love using cassette. I have hundreds and hundreds from over the years that still sound wonderful. I have an audio buddy that records every LP on the first play to TDK SA cassette, then he gives the LP's away as gifts. His tapes, all made on an Advent 201 and sound
great. He's been doing this for over 40 years. The Advent is his main source for playback and I must say it sounds really good.
I have an Advent as well (and many others) but would never consider it my primary playback.
inna, did you mention what machine you were using? I'm curious.
I love tape. It sound better (to me) than any CD. In fact my favorite CD's are usually copied to 15ips half track reel to reel, which somehow makes them infinitely more listenable.
Enjoy your cassettes. I certainly do!
Norman
|
