National Audio Video

[miroslav]

I don't think cassette tapes sound "bad"...just saying they weren't that interesting to me anymore for a long time now. having found what I consider better options.

Back in the day...they filled a need.
I had cassette versions of most of my vinyl albums, and to tell the truth, I listened more to the cassettes than I did the albums, but only because we were always driving places and on the move doing a variety of activities, so the cassette made it easy to take out music with us...that was the need the filled...but when I did sit and listen to the same albums on my home stereo...the vinyl albums always sounded way better. I never heard any "magic" with cassettes...the magic was only there because cassettes let me take my music everywhere.

I use to bring a couple of 12V car batteries, a car cassette player, and a couple of medium sized stereo speakers...camping and/or out to the beach. We would have a fire going, some 'erb, a case full of cassette tapes....and yeah, it was magic listening to Floyd, with a full moon and the waves crashing...and the big stereo speakers cranked. With the car batteries, we could get endless hours of playtime compared to a small boom-box and small batteries.

 

[lonewhitefly]

Thanks for responding. It's interesting to me that your band released on cassette, vinyl, CD and digital download and I'd be so interested to learn why you chose that to do that, how it sold, and to whom. Frankly, I'd also be interested to know how many people who buy a physical product listen to it, be is cassette, vinyl, or CD. My sister was buying vinyl for years before she ever bought a turntable...

For a few years, we sold mainly CDs, then a 7" ... the people who buy them definitely listened, as we got feedback, etc. and did not offer downloads for quite some time.

 

[lonewhitefly]

What people "like" or "believe" or "feel"...etc....is not the issue or the point.
Science is the point.

The so called "analog tape sound" that so many people refer to these days without full understanding (present company excluded, of course)...had/has nothing to do with cassette tape, yet I see all too often people talking about getting/using cassette tape in order to get "that analog tape sound".
My point was/is...that cassette tape sound is a very compromised analog tape format...but many think that because it is "analog tape"...it will give them what they are imagining...that classic '70s analog tape sound heard on so many great recordings.

That said, I take no issue with someone saying the like or prefer to use cassettes over digital...though we could devote 50 pages to the merits of using a "compromised analog system" VS a "great digital format".
AFA the simple beauty of a cassette portastudio...the easy and instant gratification with which it can be used...that too is another discussion, and again, having used 4-track reels and thousands of cassettes during my early recording years, I am only all too familiar with what they can/can't do and when they can/can't be appealing.

The main point was/is that many turn to cassettes tape in order to add some "analog tape magic" to their recordings...and they think that's all it takes. They are not looking to really get involved with analog tape recording...they're just looking for another "plugin" type solution...and that's what I take issue with. That's the hipster/retro thing...or the misunderstood "lo-fi" thing, where people think you need crappy/cheap gear in order to capture the retro sounds of the '60s & '70s.
It's almost as bad as thinking that buying a Gibson LP will let you sound like Jimmy Page...when there is so much more to it than that.

I think what people like is surely the point ... science doesn't have much to do with it.

Cassettes do indeed offer "analog tape sound".

I'll start the 50-page report and chime in when I'm done.

 

[mdainsd]

Interesting discussion.

I'd inject that perhaps this yearning for "That Analog Sound" comes from the following:

It didn't matter back in the day if the source material was recorded on that new and awesome Studier 4 track at Abbey Road or whatever.

The distribution was over AM or FM radio, vinyl and later tape (first cart 4 and 8 track, then the marginally better cassette). None of the delivery vehicles was without flaws. AM radio - rubbish. Fm radio, OK now we at least got stereo, but remember in the day FM radio was mostly classical music, add in rolled off frequency response and poor channel separation and it wasn't all that good (still isn't). Carts again rubbish by design, here the engineers perfected a system that self erases (due to all surfaces of the tape moving against the next surface, no rewind etc. Vinyl, better, but now we have the major problem with this medium, portability.

Then here come cassettes: Small, handy, better stereo separation, addition of rewind. Plays equally as well at home, in the car or on a walk. This went on until the advent of CD with its "sterile" sound.

What Im getting at is that it seems that "That Analog Sound" is what the masses heard for years on cassettes. They are now longing for that sound which more correctly titled would be "That Cassette Sound"

 

[famous beagle]

I think it's funny when people bring up all the horror stories about cassettes back in the day: warbling sound, getting jammed in the machine, etc. I was fully entrenched in cassettes growing up, and I wore those things out! I can remember maybe two or three times in all of my youth having to pull an eaten tape out of a machine. And, though I wasn't hard on my stuff (I would put them back in the box when I was done---I wouldn't leave them in a hot car, etc.), I certainly wasn't privy of things like cleaning the heads and all back then. (I didn't learn about that until I started using a 4-track.)

I would usually end up upgrading/crossgrading my boombox/Walkman/etc. before I ever had any trouble with them, and that wasn't terribly often --- maybe every three or four years? There was one boombox I kept for well over 15 years and never had a problem with it.

However, in the comparatively short time I've spent with CDs (I've spent more years with CDs probably but have really only played them a fraction of the time I did with cassettes), I've experienced way more failure issues with scratched ones skipping, etc. And if you include DVDs---especially the short time I used the mail-order Netflix service---it's WAY more. Those Netflix DVDs got so bad that it was literally just about every other one skipped to some degree (if not fatally).

To me, magnetic tape has proven to be amazingly durable when treated well.

Nowadays, we don't watch DVDs very often anymore. We don't have cable, and so pretty much all our TV viewing is via streaming (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.). On the whole it's ok, but it's not uncommon at all to have glitches here and there---pixelization, skipping, etc. I'd say it happens at least a few times a week to some degree. Granted, like I said, we use it quite a bit because we don't have cable. But still ... I think it should say something that we've simply gotten used to that level of equipment issues.

And phones ... Don't get me started. People talk about land lines sucking back in the day. I swear I have no idea what they're talking about! To me, they were so much clearer than cell phones. And I'm not even talking about dropouts, etc. That's gotten much better (although it does happen occasionally). I'm just talking about being able to understand someone when they're talking to you. I have so much trouble nowadays understanding people comparatively speaking.

Anyway ... I'm not against all new technology, but I'm definitely not one of those people that thinks all "advancements" are for the better.

Rant over.

 

[RFR]

This one band i was involved with, Masters of Reality, did a cassette, vinyl, and CD release of the first record. I have all three. The CD skips in certain players, the vinyl has developed pops, static noise, etc. But the lowly cassette is consistent, sounds good on my deck, and is issue free.

Btw, old analog phones rule!


But back to the original post. I'm glad the company is still in business and going strong. It definately fills a need, if even only for a niche market.

 

[miroslav]

When analog newbs make assumptions about what made the sound of those old albums from the analog tape golden years...if they don't understand or question any of the science behind analog tape recording, then indeed they might assume that any old analog tape will get them there, and of course, they then often opt for the lowest common denominator they can get these days...the cassette tape/portastudio path...which I know many here know was not what they used during the golden age of analog tape recording.
And if all they ever use is cassettes...then they will say they "like" that sound...which is understandable.

I'm talking about commercial recording, mixing that was done on a slightly more serious/involved level...because it is THAT music, THAT analog taper sound that people reference...not what we home rec were doing and using back in the late '70s and '80s in the early days of home recording.
Sure...we all had portastudios and basic entry level tools...because that's all that there was for the home-rec crowd.
No one then could afford a $30k pro tape deck.
These days, you can score a decent machine for one tenth of that and experience what was out of reach to most of us back in the '70s and '80s...and then, of course, ADAT came along and took home rec in another direction.

I remember when I was shopping for my !6-track 1/2"...and I was looking at the TASCAM stuff..and hearing about some new machines coming from Fostex...and one guy at a music store was telling me NOT to buy either...because there was this new technology coming out that would blow tape out of the water...he was talking about the coming of ADAT.
I'm glad I didn't listen to him.

This is very much like the discussions of formats in the digital domain.
People reference MP3 formats only because that is the lowest common denominator in digital...but these days, even the home rec guy can record/mix at much better quality than that. So just because you have a large number of people running around with their iPods listening to MP3s...that doesn't really define any higher state of art for digital recording...it just defines the lowest common denominator.

Same thing with "that analog sound"... all I'm saying is that it isn't, and never was, defined by cassette tape recording.

Anyway...this isn't about any absolute love or hate of cassettes...they have their uses...and we're all over the place in this thread, with multiple discussions and angles.
My comments are centered around the use of cassettes as the source of some definitive "analog sound" format...which I never quite found to be the case the many years I used them. Sure...you certainly get a "sound"...and overall, the music on them is listenable, and all that...it's not like horrible or anything...there's just very little that is *compelling* to me about using them...*if/when other options are available*. If not...then like with anything else, you make the best with what you got.

 

[mdainsd]

I'd wager that 99%+ of the population have never heard a first generation 2 track stereo master tape. Fewer yet would have heard a mix right off of the original source material on a multitrack machine.

So the vast majority has no frame of reference what-so-ever of any tape system that wasn't cassette, well except for us poor souls that when through the Cart era.

We are blessed to be in a place where we can acquire the pinnacle pieces of analog recording equipment, if we so desire.

 

[Strryder]

This one band i was involved with, Masters of Reality, did a cassette, vinyl, and CD release of the first record. I have all three. The CD skips in certain players, the vinyl has developed pops, static noise, etc. But the lowly cassette is consistent, sounds good on my deck, and is issue free.

Was that the album with The Candy Song/John Brown/The Eyes of Texas on it? I still really dig that record, I even have the cassette still kicking around here somewhere!

 

[RFR]

Yup!
They used to rehearse at my studio and i did some guitar and bass work for them.
Even got a chance to jam a bit with them during the time they were going through some personnel changes and auditioning for a guitarist and drummer.


Anyway I always dug the band and thought that if Cream had stayed together, they would have ended up sounding like Masters of Reality.

So one day I told this to Googe (the bass player) He just started grinning and invited me to the next rehearsal.

I just thought he was flattered, hence the grin.

Next rehearsal, guess who showed up??

Ginger fucking Baker!!!!!

What an honor to watch him in action from 10 feet away.

He went on to record Sunrise on the Sufferbus and toured with the band.

Good times!

Sorry for the long ass answer to your post, but some may find it entertaining.

It certainly was for me.

 

[miroslav]

I think what people like is surely the point ... science doesn't have much to do with it.

Cassettes do indeed offer "analog tape sound".

I'll start the 50-page report and chime in when I'm done.

Hey...I remember when you had that classic R2R deck setup a couple of years back, the one with all the history...along with some other gear and more involved analog setup than what you have now...then you got rid of it all.
I don't remember your exact reasons for that...but if I recall, it wasn't anything to do with a sudden preference for going with a cassette portastudio setup.
Why was it that you gave up on that R2R rig...if you don't mind saying again here?
I know your new setup makes you feel more liberated to write songs...and I get that, but I also recall you had nothing but praise for the R2R setup you use to have.
I mean...you must see/hear a difference in the analog tape quality between the two setups....?

I'd wager that 99%+ of the population have never heard a first generation 2 track stereo master tape. Fewer yet would have heard a mix right off of the original source material on a multitrack machine.

So the vast majority has no frame of reference what-so-ever of any tape system that wasn't cassette,

Sure....but what they heard was music that WAS recorded on open reel multitrack, mixed down to 2-track stereo master tape...and also processed by a variety of fairly decent analog gear, through some fairly decent consoles.

So that's what went down on the vinyl...sent to radio stations...and also distributed via cassette, with the better funded stuff, getting probably the best cassette duplication of that time.
That's a long way off from tracking on a cassette portastudio and mixing down to cassette...or using cassette tape as some half-assed "analog plugin" to impart some analog "magic" on digital recordings these days....wouldn't you say?

 

[miroslav]

Next rehearsal, guess who showed up??

Ginger fucking Baker!!!!!

Way fucking cool!

Always loved Ginger Baker's playing.
He was powerful, but he also played very interesting shit...I mean, he wasn't just a meat-n-potatoes pounder.

 

[sweetbeats]

Quite the discussion...

But I'm still marveling at the room full of open reel duplicators...isn't anybody else bedazzled by that? I just thought that looked COOL!

 

[lonewhitefly]

Hey...I remember when you had that classic R2R deck setup a couple of years back, the one with all the history...along with some other gear and more involved analog setup than what you have now...then you got rid of it all.
I don't remember your exact reasons for that...but if I recall, it wasn't anything to do with a sudden preference for going with a cassette portastudio setup.
Why was it that you gave up on that R2R rig...if you don't mind saying again here?
I know your new setup makes you feel more liberated to write songs...and I get that, but I also recall you had nothing but praise for the R2R setup you use to have.
I mean...you must see/hear a difference in the analog tape quality between the two setups....?




Sure....but what they heard was music that WAS recorded on open reel multitrack, mixed down to 2-track stereo master tape...and also processed by a variety of fairly decent analog gear, through some fairly decent consoles.

So that's what went down on the vinyl...sent to radio stations...and also distributed via cassette, with the better funded stuff, getting probably the best cassette duplication of that time.
That's a long way off from tracking on a cassette portastudio and mixing down to cassette...or using cassette tape as some half-assed "analog plugin" to impart some analog "magic" on digital recordings these days....wouldn't you say?

The issue with the points made in the discussion — to me — is not that cassette compares in any way to open reel decks. It doesn’t, not a chance. No disagreement there, and I don’t think you’ll find disagreement anywhere on this board with that uncontroversial opinion.

I’m talking about “digital vs. cassette” primarily, not “reel vs. cassette” (and in a larger context, you could say “digital vs. analog” — which includes cassette, like it or not!).

I believe cassette does offer “analog sound”, though definitely a different kind of analog sound than open reel. But for that matter, an Ampex 8-track vs. a Teac 8-track sounds like night and day difference … to the people using it to record.

I came to a point where hauling around monster Ampex and Scully machines didn’t really suit my lifestyle … they’re difficult/expensive to keep running, and I’ve been moving around a lot over the past couple years. The 4-track cassette is an experiment in small/portable analog options since I’m not interested in digital. To clarify, I most definitely do not use it as a songwriting or arranging tool. Since my Ampex 8-track went down (and I wasn’t able to get it fixed up), I haven’t actually completed any recordings. I have tons of in-progress stuff on a variety of formats that I may never finish.

I will say that going back to cassette may not work ultimately for me — but I’m still all for it as a medium for multi-track recording and consumer medium.

 

[miroslav]

But I'm still marveling at the room full of open reel duplicators...isn't anybody else bedazzled by that? I just thought that looked COOL!

For sure.
It looks like a very well kept duplication facility...not some factory sweat shop.


One guy I really admire for "going back" to analog and really pushing that...is Chris Mara from Welcome to 1979 studios. I almost bought an MCI console from him last year until I realized it would never make the hallway turns at my place to get it into my studio space.

Besides his beautiful studio...he also is one of the top restorers/re-sellers of MCI tape decks...and he just recently acquired a huge space that use to be a record plant. He was already doing vinyl masters...but now he's going to get into full vinyl production in that space.
If you're going to do something on vinyl...you should check him out.

 

[RFR]

I knew he did restorations. Didn't know he had a studio. I love it!

 

[miroslav]

The issue with the points made in the discussion — to me — is not that cassette compares in any way to open reel decks. It doesn’t, not a chance. No disagreement there, and I don’t think you’ll find disagreement anywhere on this board with that uncontroversial opinion.

I’m talking about “digital vs. cassette” primarily, not “reel vs. cassette” (and in a larger context, you could say “digital vs. analog” — which includes cassette, like it or not!).

OK...I wasn't suggesting that anyone thought cassette tapes could equal or top other R2R formats...what I was focusing on was the discussion about "that analog tape sound", and what that really is when people talk about it, and where did/does it really come from.

IMO...when people reference the golden years of analog tape recording, the years that yielded the albums that people reference when talking about "that analog tape sound"...it had mainly to do with many other things, cassette tape being the least of it....but yes, also a part of it.
Sure...any/all analog tape use imparts some kind of "analog tape sound" on some level...but since we agree that the difference of the tape formats is substantial...that's why I object to the broader/generic use of "analog tape sound"...because it leads many newbs and hipster retro chasers to believe that any/all "analog tape sound" is one and the same...
...that you just need SOME "analog tape" and you get the same result...etc.
THAT...IMO...totally undercuts the use/purpose/history...etc....of analog tape recording, and reduces it to an "effect"....a gimmick that can be gotten even with a cheap cassette tape recorder.

AFA the more broader analog VS digital stuff...like I said right off, you'll be into 50 pages and not have any solid conclusions with those discussions...and we've had them here all to many times for me to want to get into another one.

If I was just an analog guy or just a digital guy...I could/would probably defend my side and reject everything from the other side....but having come up from the 4-track days, the cassette tapes, the open R2R "pro-sumer" decks, and to my current 2" setup...plus having gone through all the MIDI, the sequencing days, and diving into my first DAW setup over 20 years ago, and now with a full-tilt DAW rig...I find that the lines are not there anymore that use to exist...at least I've stopped drawing them, and it's all just one big hybrid rig to me.
There is a use for both, and a value to using both...though purely from a more nostalgic perspective, I would certainly feel VERY comfortable working in an all-analog environment, and I totally understand the "cut to the chase" appeal of working strictly with a tape/mixer rig.

 

[RFR]

That's it!
Im busting out a cassette walkman, with the stereo mics, and recording everything straight to cassettes.
No more messing around for me. No outboard, no plugins, no mixing, no hassle. Just pure analog goodness.

I just need a lifetime supply of batteries and cassettes.

 

[lonewhitefly]

OK...I wasn't suggesting that anyone thought cassette tapes could equal or top other R2R formats...what I was focusing on was the discussion about "that analog tape sound", and what that really is when people talk about it, and where did/does it really come from.

IMO...when people reference the golden years of analog tape recording, the years that yielded the albums that people reference when talking about "that analog tape sound"...it had mainly to do with many other things, cassette tape being the least of it....but yes, also a part of it.
Sure...any/all analog tape use imparts some kind of "analog tape sound" on some level...but since we agree that the difference of the tape formats is substantial...that's why I object to the broader/generic use of "analog tape sound"...because it leads many newbs and hipster retro chasers to believe that any/all "analog tape sound" is one and the same...
...that you just need SOME "analog tape" and you get the same result...etc.
THAT...IMO...totally undercuts the use/purpose/history...etc....of analog tape recording, and reduces it to an "effect"....a gimmick that can be gotten even with a cheap cassette tape recorder.

AFA the more broader analog VS digital stuff...like I said right off, you'll be into 50 pages and not have any solid conclusions with those discussions...and we've had them here all to many times for me to want to get into another one.

If I was just an analog guy or just a digital guy...I could/would probably defend my side and reject everything from the other side....but having come up from the 4-track days, the cassette tapes, the open R2R "pro-sumer" decks, and to my current 2" setup...plus having gone through all the MIDI, the sequencing days, and diving into my first DAW setup over 20 years ago, and now with a full-tilt DAW rig...I find that the lines are not there anymore that use to exist...at least I've stopped drawing them, and it's all just one big hybrid rig to me.
There is a use for both, and a value to using both...though purely from a more nostalgic perspective, I would certainly feel VERY comfortable working in an all-analog environment, and I totally understand the "cut to the chase" appeal of working strictly with a tape/mixer rig.

Well, personally I think “that analog tape sound” can mean many things to many people. And I would agree that most people are thinking of an end product that included the use of the big old tape decks of the golden years. But I would take it a step further and say they are listening to the sum of an entire system and workflow (which also included multiple bounces and trips back and forth through discrete analog consoles and discrete tape machines, but I digress) … not to mention the content of the recording itself, which is of course the most important feature.

But I do believe that cassette (in it's many variations) can get you “analog sound". It’s just kinda like a super 8 version of a 35mm film. Almost a caricature.

For those who are taking digital recordings and sending them out to some device for “analog frosting”, I agree the result is not gonna sound like a classic recording if they send it out to a cassette … but i don’t think they’re gonna get that if they send it out to the finest 1/2” 2-track either. At best, they’re just gonna get a higher quality “frosting” … and honestly, the higher up you go in quality, the less noticeable the effect is going to be. So cassette might be just what the doctor ordered if they’re looking for an immediately noticeable degradation of sound. Not that I would endorse such a setup. But then again, I think the real “magic” of the art of analog recording as a craft comes from the entirety of the workflow.

 

[miroslav]

But I do believe that cassette (in it's many variations) can get you “analog sound". It’s just kinda like a super 8 version of a 35mm film. Almost a caricature.

I can accept that comparison.

For those who are taking digital recordings and sending them out to some device for “analog frosting”, I agree the result is not gonna sound like a classic recording if they send it out to a cassette … but i don’t think they’re gonna get that if they send it out to the finest 1/2” 2-track either. At best, they’re just gonna get a higher quality “frosting” … and honestly, the higher up you go in quality, the less noticeable the effect is going to be. So cassette might be just what the doctor ordered if they’re looking for an immediately noticeable degradation of sound. Not that I would endorse such a setup. But then again, I think the real “magic” of the art of analog recording as a craft comes from the entirety of the workflow.

I agree here too.
There's nothing wrong with people screwing with their tracks by bouncing them out to whatever.
That's all cool...and everyone can try whatever they think might add that spice they are after.
I just hate it when the uninformed people think THAT is all "analog tape sound" is about and that any bit of "analog tape" will get them that, and it's just all the same sound, not matter what tape format they use.