Cassette vs. Reel-to-reel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sonic Idiot
  • Start date Start date
Sonic Idiot said:
You all have good things to say about analog sound, but are adding very little to the literary canon concerning rhetoric...

Han, expand, please, on your assertion regarding high end tape decks vs. consumer reel to reels. Please elaborate on the specific attributes of the techonolgy. Or anyone else, for that matter. I'm trying to learn more about why cassette is worse than reel to reel. We've established tape speed and width as two factors. What else?
Click to expand...

Like I said about the Nakamichi 582 cassette deck, the cassette format can sound very good. There was a shootout many years ago where they compared the 582 to a number of open reel recorders and it turned out that the Nakamichi sounded better than most R to R machines. Actually it sounded as good as the Tandberg TD20A, which is probably the best sounding consumer (prosumer) R to R machine ever.

Only real professional tape machines sound better.
Pro tape machines have better electronics, better head technology and a much better tape transport. Besides that the machines were made for 24/7 duty.

So this chatting about the poor quality of cassettes is nonsense. A cassette player can sound very good and very analog. Tape compression comes from tape, whether it's 1/8" or 2".

Like any tape machine, a cassette player needs alignment, which is being forgotten most of the time.
 
Fat analog effect

Having been in the professional realm when analog was KING, you can get a nice fat and warm "sound" by re-recording. Also, overshooting a bit and getting a warmer or rounder sound is possible with cassette, but it has to be an exceptional machine.
 
Hi guys, keep in mind larger tape, faster speed and higher level tape all increase headroom. Headroom is the opposite of tape compression. To say that a half inch two track has the best tape compression is a weird statement. I have five 1/4 inch halftrack machines, some run 7.5/15 and some 15/30. Not one of these machines will give me the tape compression that my old Telex Viking 1/4 inch 1/4 track does at 7.5 ips. Older type low level tape like Scotch 206 and similar are very good for this sound also. This is not to say that the Telex is the best sounding machine I have. The ATR-102 was a great machine but you have to print very hot levels to get a lot of tape compression on the 1/2 inch version. This causes a lot of print through issues. When I first set up my Otari MTR-10 for GP-9 I was so pleased with the reduction in noise but shocked at how much had printed through almost instantly and yet there was almost no tape compression. You could hear music where there was none. Quality of the machine and sound doesn't have anything to do with how much tape compression it can provide. Paul.
 
Beck said:
That's just a stupid statement, Bear. You know as well as anyone that this is a very controversial issue with equally qualified people on both sides, who just don't see eye-to-eye (or ear-to-ear).

Some have invested so much into digital technology that they can't/won't examine this issue objectively.

As for me, I have chosen analog, and can just as easily choose digital if and when it performs to my standards.

On the issue of hearing coldness in digital recording -- you either hear it or you don't. Those who hear it (or are aware they hear it) obviously have superior hearing/perception. Thousands of dollars of equipment does not a recording engineer make. Not everyone is physically wired for it. Just as having a Stradivarius will not make one a violinist.

The negative effects of digital are insidious. To most there is an almost subliminal discomfort but they're not sure why. It's like having dirty contact lenses or something. You can still see, but you have this underlying sense of annoyance.

Those who are able to detect the subtle nuances and imperfections in recording technology, digital or not, are really the only people that DO belong behind a console.

:cool:
Click to expand...

I used to do analog recording (Tascam MSR16, Fostex E-16). One day, I had no tape in stock. I bought a Fostec D2424LV for live recording. I set it up and tested before the band came in to record. I set the Fostex to 24/48 and started to record. We recorded all the tracks for a song while the singer and guitar player were arguing over the Dig vs Analog thing. The singer was convinced about digital beig "cold" and "lifeless". He could hear a digital recording a mile away, as could his "audiophile" friends. Well, in the end at mixdown, the guitarist noticed I was using the Fostex D2424LV. He said nothing. The singer loved the sound and listened over and over. He asked what new tape formulation I was using, or what was different? He said the recording was really warm sounding but clearer than before. The guitarist pointed out that it was a *digital* recording. That ended that discussion.

I point this out to say that I use high-end equipment and have a very good mixing board. The sound of the Fostex D2424LV is really remarkable and certainly does not sound "digital" in any way. I think that if digital sounds "cold", then it is probably other equipment that is not up to the task. Analog may mask substandard equipment and definately colors the sound. With excellent equipment, you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference. In arguing over the two, you have to argue in comparison. You can't argue a Studer 24 Track vs Roland 24 track dig. Argue a Tascam MSR24 vs Fostex D2424LV (or equiv.)
 
I believe the thread was about the cassette vs reel to reel thing, not an analog vs digital discussion.

Like Paulie says, it's hard to get tape compression from a +9 tape, maybe a really good cassette machine isn't a bad choice.
 
Han said:
I believe the thread was about the cassette vs reel to reel thing, not an analog vs digital discussion.

Like Paulie says, it's hard to get tape compression from a +9 tape, maybe a really good cassette machine isn't a bad choice.
Click to expand...


If that is the discussion, then R to R all the way. Cassette format is a joke and always has been. Maybe there are a few machines that sound comprable to a good R to R, but not many. I have a Nakamichi top of the line deck from the mid 80s that sounds damn good, but does not match a good R to R. I would never use the cassette format to master any valuable recording. I can't believe this discussion exists, really. I think many here are just too young to have lived through the era of cassette. Back then, cassette was the only format to mix down to (like a vinyle LP, or CD). We wanted cassette to go away soooo.........bad..........Lovely hiss, grinding tape on the heads because of the blinding tape speed and the hoardes of useless noise reduction schemes that put the final nail in the crappy sound.

I do not want to go back, thankyou.

We finally went to DAT, and never looked back.
 
"We finally went to DAT, and never looked back."

And we all know how reliable DAT turned out to be! :D
 
And FWIW, in talking about cassettes, you have to remember who invented the format. It was Fischer-Price, and the end products were for kids, not audiophiles.
 
But in the end, you can make a bass sound pretty punchy by recording it to a cassette and transport it to your DAW.

Some R to R's will do better, but not with a hot tape.
 
MadAudio said:
And FWIW, in talking about cassettes, you have to remember who invented the format. It was Fischer-Price, and the end products were for kids, not audiophiles.
Click to expand...

Except of course, it was Philips, and the first products was aimed solely at professionals (more specifically secretaries ;) ).
 
However, Fischer Price DID use Audio cassettes to record video.:eek: And that was a childrens product. :p
 
regebro said:
However, Fischer Price DID use Audio cassettes to record video.:eek: And that was a childrens product. :p
Click to expand...

It was Black & White only and not full screen either!

The PLX-200, it was called, I believe?

Cheers! :)
 
Fischer-Price

Actually, I've always thought F-P were most probably responsible for the apology of a cassette-deck on the early Bose Acoustic Wave™ Music Systems…

- Wil
 
The Ghost of FM said:
It was Black & White only and not full screen either!
Click to expand...
And it used up a 90 minute casette in 5 minutes. :)

Totally cool idea, but no market.
 
I recently saw one of those F-P video units sell on ebay for about $250! And I saw another one that the owner had done all sorts of mods on. It looked pretty funky.
 
Paulie, your statement about distortion versus printthrough is nonsense.

You hear more printthrough because static noise is reduced.

What can be a problem with big multitrack machines which were modified to 2-track or mono is that amplifiers clip still before the tape is well saturated. Tascam states 28dB headroom (0dB equals 0.8% distortion) for most of their machines, what should enable high magnetic levels.

The term "compression" is misleading. The cutting of the trebles makes a sound which I would describe as "a nicened limiter". Although it is really astonishing how much of it some sounds and mixes can take - music is art, art is artificial and abstract, describing the laws of nature.
 
Uli, I'm not sure what you're trying to say but the noise level stays where it is and only appears lower because the output gain can be reduced due to the increased signal, Thats why I hear more print through. And try to be a little more polite, Paul.
 
I do not understand you either, but I know for sure that printthrough is not raised by track width (except for the case when track width approaches tape thickness, for example with the narrow tracks of digital tape machines).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top