Actually, LP can have an edge over tape when it comes to HF, because it's not subject to saturation the way tape is. I'm not sure why you think LP can't produce the full frequency range in wide stereo, but it sounds like you're not using a good phono stage, so that may be your problem.+1 The LP has much wider bandwidth than any audio tape format. Lower distortion and noise too.
164 responses Add your response
4trackmind RE: vinyl vs. tape comparison. There's NO WAY I've ever thought vinyl won based on anything which DIDN'T involve something related to vinyl's peculiarities ... the gobbs of vinyl's RIAA-eq midrange boost being (mis)understood as having "more presence" to ageing ears ...You sound confused. The RIAA curve is complementary - what is applied to the LP is inverted on playback. Good RIAA stages easily achieve accuracy to the curve within fractions of a dB. THE most immediate difference between the sound of a record and, for example, a (good) 7 1/2ips reel ... records have this upper bass/lower mid "bloat" (because of a 500Hz boost) which often sounds like a phasey and hollow "fishbowl" sound and, it just suddenly smacks into this over-trebly/2k-4k region with a VERY ARTIFICIAL sheen smothering it. TAPE HAS NONE OF THAT.What 500Hz "boost" are you talking about? What phono stage are you using that suffers this issue? ... a common denominator among vinyl types seems to be: always a distaste of (10khz+) treble, bass, and wide stereo(?). Ironic, isn't it(?): three things vinyl cannot reproduce to the fullest extent.Actually, LP can have an edge over tape when it comes to HF, because it's not subject to saturation the way tape is. I'm not sure why you think LP can't produce the full frequency range in wide stereo, but it sounds like you're not using a good phono stage, so that may be your problem. |
I don't understand why someone with a Studer (A820?) would even waste time owning cassette? I mean: cassette was shoe-horned into being passable "HiFi" only after Henry Kloss' exploits with Advent in the early '70s; before then: it was an office memo machine and something competing with 8-track cartridge for portable convenience. The technicalities of it, in my opinion, are akin to the premise of trying to turn a sow's ear into a golden purse: no matter even if you've got a Nak 1000ZXL. Reel to Reel, from the vantage of 7 1/2ips-ONWARD (even as "dumbed-down" as commercial quarter track made from a copy less than 8x dubbing speed) IS where any serious entry point into the world of tape should always start; as you're (now) at least dealing with a format remotely close to what a studio mixdown master was made on. RE: vinyl vs. tape comparison. There's NO WAY I've ever thought vinyl won based on anything which DIDN'T involve something related to vinyl's peculiarities influencing its character or, something which DIDN'T have to do with a record collector (already) having a special interest bias toward it. In other words; limiting the argument to always: vinyl vs. (bad and often audibly watermarked) digital clones/mid-life crisis trying to harken back to youth(YES!)/or: the gobbs of vinyl's RIAA-eq midrange boost being (mis)understood as having "more presence" to ageing ears (which: is as sonically INaccurate as, suggesting....that JBL 100´s can magically recreate studio sound connected to a 40 y.o. Kenwood receiver, aarrgghh). THE most immediate difference between the sound of a record and, for example, a (good) 7 1/2ips reel (and, once you take that to 15: the purity of tape combined-with now the absolute silky black background just achieves a whole 'nother level) to me is: records have this upper bass/lower mid "bloat" (because of a 500Hz boost) which often sounds like a phasey and hollow "fishbowl" sound and, it just suddenly smacks into this over-trebly/2k-4k region with a VERY ARTIFICIAL sheen smothering it. TAPE HAS NONE OF THAT. The entire dynamic spectrum of tape just gels together naturally without the sense of thinking a mastering engineer was fiddling with the signal. I've noticed in these debates, that, a common denominator among vinyl types seems to be: always a distaste of (10khz+) treble, bass, and wide stereo(?). Ironic, isn't it(?): three things vinyl cannot reproduce to the fullest extent. |
My recollection of the tape vs vinyl comparisons stemmed largely from comparing open reel to reel tapes at 30ips vs 33rpm vinyl. Under only those circumstances did tape even come close to besting vinyl. Now if one talks about open mic recordings on reel to reel 30ips tapes, then the outcome is different. |
I can’t remember who posted about the 1/2 track, but I agree. What made it so good was running at high speeds and the width of the tape, made for the best reproduced sound I’ve ever heard. There simply isn’t enough room on a cassette tape and they run so slow, it’s too easy to get saturation. There are a number of older LP’s that sound awful. I had a friend come over last week and they brought a cd of the group Stained. It was very dynamic, well produced and sounded awesome. I’m really not “in to” that type of music anymore, but it sounded great. I proceeded to put on the album “Aqualung.” It Sounded like an am radio, compared to the Stained cd. What a shame, the producer/engineer rolled so much of it off. Really like that album, but can’t hardly listen to the cd or lp. Some albums just weren’t very well recorded or mixed down. |
Ez answer recording on tape makes sound better than recording on vinyl quality of player is also contributing factor I remember having first original cassette Ride the lighting that I always preferred listening to over CD and wasn’t impressed of vinyl either I’m sure i or anyone else can share more instances or already shared in this giant solitaire |
Alot of discussion here on this topic, i got reel and cassette and cd and lp, to make a point? All i can say with certainty is at chicago axpona 2017 show, i went to alot of rooms and listened to some uber expensive turntables , but one small room i visited had the best sound ive ever heard in my life, Frank Zappa was playing on a seriously good sounding/looking Technics 10" reel playing 15" p.s. probably a master tape, my God! i could close my eyes and reached out and touched the man! All those 30-100k turntables sounded pretty mundane compared to that, so in my mind and ears the RTR tape @ 15 ips cannot be beat providing the deck and tape are 1st rate in this life or the next to come,imho. |
Ive heard recordings made from vinyl to an Akai GX something? Reel to reel. I know this isn't a Tandberg or Revox, but I didn't think it sounded better than vinyl. I noticed losses, increased hiss, loss of top end, and less bass. But I know what the OP is talking about. Tape has a certain sound. I take objection to his assertion that tape sounds "better". I agree it sounds different, but don't agree it's better. Back in the days of tape and before CD, I didn't hear anyone saying a recording of vinyl on tape sounds better than vinyl. To me this assertion is weird. I can understand the OP having his personal preference, as we all do, but I don't agree with it. If he simply asserted that he enjoys the sound of tape, I'd be OK with that. But, to somewhat answer his question. "What makes tape sound like tape", in my experience from recording live music on it, and recording records and CDs on it, I'd say it's the losses and technical limitations that make it sound like that. Those losses and limitations round off transients and blur sounds together, and this gives a certain sort of sound. I know a guy who has a studio who has on occasion mixed down his multi track digital recordings to tape to get "that" sound as an effect. I agree that it can be a pleasing effect when used artistically. All formats to my ears have a intrinsic sound of thier own. To my ears digital has the most detail and least colourations. Vinyl though pleasant has a lot of resonance and noise when played back - listen on headphones if you want to hear it easily. Tape, is second best to digital, it has a dragging smeared and grainy sound compared to digital. On its own, tape can sound nice. Any unremasterd CD of tape recorded music (meaning any music recorded from 50's to late 70's) reveals the characteristic sound of tape. Compare those recordings to any music digitally recorded and the absence of smear, noise, grain and colourations is immediately apparent when hearing the digital recording. |
Back home and able to hook up the Nak 582 for the first time. To start with I had no idea it was so LARGE! I have it connected in my second system as it is too wide to fit in the rack of my main system. Impressions so far are very positive, first few tapes spun through sound very lively and airy. Quite impressive for $100......serviced 5 years ago and then put away. My steal of the month. |
"We also simultaneously recorded to 6-track magnetic film which is analogous to reel to reel" This is not cassette and in no way reflects the inherent problems with cassette. The point isn't about whether analog or digital is better but, rather, whether cassette or high rez digital is better. And, on that note, IMO, there is no contest. High rez digital wins out by far. "Cost factor and maintainability are not necessarily convincing arguments when dealing with audiophiles. You know..... " For ultimate sound, you are right. But, for the cost you would need to spend on cassettes you would be better off going with reel to reel. Further, to demonstrate the issues with cassette compare 1st generation through 5th generation copies of a cassette duplication. All the glaring problems and distortion associated with cassettes are laid bare! Couple that with not using noise reduction, as some have advocated, and the problem is even greater. I've owned many of the best cassette decks and still own a Nak 700 mkII and Kyocera D811. I have even better decks in the past. My experience on location, in the studio have easily led me away from cassettes many, many years ago. However, I still have hundreds of hours of masters that I keep for archival purposes. All of which have also been transfered to 96/24 using the best digital equipment! |
nmps, i think you have to accept that we all hear differently. There are characteristics of analog reproduction are a more pleasing to people, just as there are characteristics of digital reproduction that are pleasing to others. I am also in a business that overlaps with the sound business and did an analog v. digital test on a feature film mixing stage. We did a mix and recording of the final sound of a film (of which the music score is a separate element) to hard drive as is the norm now.... this on the finest equipment available, directly from a Pro Tools session. We also simultaneously recorded to 6-track magnetic film which is analogous to reel to reel and the way film sound used to be mastered . We did a playback of both units so we were able to A/B and there wasn't a person in the room that didn't think the analog master sounded way better. More real. More human. With the music especially, the analog master showed way better accuracy of tone and reproduced the sense of the room the music was recorded in way better than the digital master. I think there's just something about analog that reproduces ambient space and it makes tone and space feel more real. |
orpheus10, you are absolutely right. Problem is that I am the responsible one for strategic finances, and with power come the obligations and rationality. I could get $5k Studer in no time but I will not. Still, I am working on it. Besides, I also need good tube phono stage, what I have now won't cut it for a high level open reel deck. Life is short but not very short. |
Inna, I think you are beginning to see the light, and at a good time I might add. When I bought my reel, they wouldn't even dust the thing off for you, take it as is. Now, since they can get decent money for a reel, they make sure it's running properly, and that's a good thing for someone who can't fix stuff. I think this is the best time to buy a reel; new ones are too expensive, and any kind of demand is going to deplete the good used one's; life is too short to sit back and desire something that's at hand for you to get. |
I have two Sony Cassette decks; Sony TC-KA3ES. The purpose for having two, was to make tapes in the listening room, and listen to them late at night in the bedroom. That worked out just fine, but when metal tape was no longer available, I began to lose interest. That deck really popped with metal tape, but the music didn't hold my interest with lesser tape. Our oldest automobile had a tape, but after we traded that in, it made the deck totally obsolete. I only use it for the few spoken word tapes that I have. What does anybody think it's worth? http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/sony/tc-ka3es.htm |
| Post removed |
As I stated Inna, Technics are easy to work on, and I haven't found a better company to work with. I began rebuilding mine immediately after I bought it: Black Gate Capacitors, transistors, everything that was rubber got replaced, and I also ordered the repair manual, this deck has never left home, and I get totally immersed in the music every time I play it. |
Let's hope my hearing will be almost intact for a long time. Problem with Otari, sort of a problem, just as with Studer, is that it has only balanced in/out. My amp and phono stage don't. Using adapters is a wrong way to go about it. Having XLR/RCA cables is not quite right either, not to mention two sets of expensive cables. Adding Jensen transformer is a way to go, but again new cables plus transformer. As I said, doing it right is expensive or very expensive. I might start with better two track Revox and 7 1/2 speed and see how it goes. Still, even that is quite expensive. Technics is another possibility. |
Inna, this is very close to good as it gets for a home enthusiast, Studer is for commercial use and very expensive,but I know you know that. The tape handling of this deck is very close to Studer. If you wait too long, your hearing will have gone and you wont be able to enjoy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp_Zpdxvuc&t=241s |
The signal to noise ratio of Dolby SR is around 90dbs.Right. Lathe cuts are better than that; so far the only pressings I've found that get into the range come from QRP, the pressing plant owned by Acoustic Sounds. Quite literally the playback electronics are the noise floor. I've often wondered what Dolby S could do for the LP... |
Before I became an audiophile, I was a working electronics technician who worked with many measuring instruments, some that measured sound beyond human audibility. That was when I judged audio gear by it's specifications. I often wondered why those crazy audiophiles paid big money for equipment that was inferior to mine; theirs had more noise and distortion. I acquired a loaner CJ preamp that clearly had both noise and distortion, but sounded better musically better than my SS rig. I had to call a friend over to see if I wasn't going batty. After he confirmed that the CJ sounded better, I quit judging by specification, and let my ears tell me what sounded best. No instrument can measure all the components involved in music, other than your ears; and that's what audiophiles use to judge their gear. |
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 analogy does not hold up. Yes, there are two different processes involved and they both do quite well. Saying that one is inherently better than the other strictly out of the process ignores the progress of that technology. However we do know the specs that are out there and they have been there for a while- tape has not been advancing as much as the LP in recent years as there are very little in the way of modern tape machine producers. The LP sector has new pressing machines, new tone arms, new turntables and so on and so enjoys the advantages that come with newer technology. How do you compare these specs to whatever it is you are referring to?30Khz bandwidth is good for tape- but the LP has had bandwidth beyond that since the advent of the Westerex 3D cutterhead (1959). Its electronics are bandwidth limited at 42KHz. The head can go higher than that but the bandwidth limit is there to prevent damage to the head due to the RIAA pre-emphasis (which is +6db per octave). The bandwidth has been there in playback since sometime in the early 1970s. The distortion is comparable, depending on the playback. A well set up arm and cartridge will have lower distortion figures; a poor setup will be much higher. The noise floor of a **well-pressed** LP exceeds the best of tape even with Dolby S. Inferior pressings will be considerably noisier (note added emphasis). |
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. |
Funny that you should ask. Let me suggest first that In most situations vinyl disks are made from master tapes. Assuming that entropy works for audio too, information theory tells us that the process of tape to vinyl will cost us information, there will less in the vinyl media than the tape because the Law of Entropy says so. The traditional solution to this has been direct-to-disk recordings. Second is that the vinyl reproduction has a high level of 'surface noise' added to the signal, I jokingly call that 'clogging the holes between the notes". Consider that the silence between notes is important to the illusion of our stereo systems. Audio Entropy, lot's of if. I have written about this in the audio system at http://www.austinaudioworks.com/design-philosphy/audio-entropy Relax, it is all an illusion anyway. |
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! 🏄♂️ |
That's actually what I was thinking of suggesting. You just got Nottingham, set it up, see how it sounds. What if you will want to upgrade your phono stage to make it right, or replace the Shelter cartridge it will come with ? I always do one source at a time. orpheus10, you were helping with cassette decks because Kevin asked for an advice. He also has a lot of recorded tapes to play. As for open reel decks ebay prices, I would say you need at least $1k to get Otari or better Revox, then you would have to pay a few hundreds or more to have it serviced, plus blank reels and plus good cables, XLR in case of Otari. I will not approach all this until I have at least $2.5k to spend. And Studers are usually around $5k or more, condition unknown. |
@inna The main problem with ever increasing budget is that pretty soon I will be approaching r2r prices and then its well just a bit more will get an even better model , repeat ad infinitum! I am in no rush, tapes have sat in boxes for 6 or 7 years now so a while longer will not hurt. Lets see if I can find any Xmas bargains! |
@orpheus10 I certainly appreciate the help and advice and seriously hope you do not think you are wasting your time! Since when has any audiophile been accused of being rational.....lol. It may be a passing phase but its one I am interested in right now. R2r may follow who knows? From what I see of the successful sales of cassette decks on eBay I would have little problem moving a deck on again at a later date. |
I have no idea why I'm wasting my time trying to help somebody find a cassette deck when it makes absolutely no sense; right now I'm listening to the 2 track, and no cassette deck I've ever heard is even in the same ball park. I "gave" my ton of cassette tapes away, and never looked back. A good cassette deck is not cheap, and with a few more hundred, you could have a good reel to reel. Plus I've seen reels that cost no more than expensive cassette decks, but audiophiles can rationalize the irrational. |
Some information is correct while some is misleading or plain wrong. The very best Nakamichi deck is 1000ZXL, Limited and regular. The very best Tandberg, aside from pro models, is 3014A and 3014 is close. Revox cannot compete at this level. Studer is better, uses top Sony heads, but cassette Studer is not reel Studer. |
These are the best cassette decks available on ebay. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Top-10-Cassette-Decks-/10000000204927180/g.html http://www.ebay.com/gds/Revox-Nakamichi-and-Tandberg-the-Pros-and-Cons-/10000000001829134/g.html Revox B215 was unmatched in smooth frequency response, vanishingly low hiss levels and overall clarity of sound. There it is, take your choice. |
I am not familiar with them but CR4A and CR5A should be okay for playback. I think, they were made in Taiwan not Japan, and they will not have classic warm Nakamichi sound. Tandberg 440A is good, should be around $500, I am not sure about its reliability, though. Recording directly from phono or cd player is a way to go. Good interconnects make a difference. |
I am thinking for my budget and intended very occasional use that a lower model may be in order. Like the cr3a,4a or 5a. At present I am thinking of using mostly to play existing collection of tapes( I also have a friend who has a vast collection of tapes and no deck that I am sure I could "borrow" some), rather than record anew. Partly due to my DAC/pre has no tape out function so would have to go direct from phono stage or CD player or vault to the deck to record anyway. Decks along these lines seem to be $250 to $500. Lots to consider before jumping in! |
Kevin, I took a look at what's available on ebay right now. I can see that prices for good decks are going up. Of what I saw the closest to your price range that I would bother with is Nakamichi 582 for around $600 including shipping. The seller promises to service the deck before shipping it. Those old decks really need service form time to time. I have no personal experience with Nak 582 but it's good. I read a lot about cassette decks years ago before choosing Nak 682ZX, which is I believe the best performance value. Couple of extra hundreds of dollars go a long way when it comes to cassette decks. But if you are very serious there is a rare Nak ZX-9 for $1400 serviced by Willy Hermann. That's where I service my deck. He currently does only overhauls which is in fact not full overhaul but partial overhaul, including all the calibrations, alignment, transport disassembly etc. For my deck he charges about $650, I do it every five or six years. |
