Cassette tape vs. Vinyl/CD

[tubesNtape]

While there seems to be some debate about great cassette deck competing with reel to reel....it would therefore imply that great cassette can compete with vinyl/CD by extension.

So is a cassette recording of vinyl/CD on say a Nakamichi CR-7 coming out better than the original source?

What about commercially recorded cassettes vs. their CD/vinyl brethren?

 

[analoghifi]

While there seems to be some debate about great cassette deck competing with reel to reel....it would therefore imply that great cassette can compete with vinyl/CD by extension.

So is a cassette recording of vinyl/CD on say a Nakamichi CR-7 coming out better than the original source?

What about commercially recorded cassettes vs. their CD/vinyl brethren?

Id look at this in a few variations.
Lets say you bought an album on Cassette, and you bought the same album on Vinyl. Then you recorded the Vinyl onto the Cr-7a recorder using a Metal tape with Dolby.
It would be quite possible that it would sound better then the original store bought recording.
Ive found many tapes I bought didnt have the dynamic extension as my own recordings. So having said that Original Tape vs Personal Recorded Tape (given you've set up the recording properly) will surpass the original recording.

 

[cnh2]

Very true. Cassette recording source is primary. Also, remember that most "pre-recorded" cassettes were mostly Type I Dolby B (serious limitation, right there).

However a TOTL Nakamichi deck can probably get very close to the original Vinyl or CD with a good metal tape in there. There were a few "phenomenal" cassette decks back in the day-none "I" could afford, though!

cnh2

 

[Wilhem]

An accurate recording of an LP onto a personal cassette combines the defects of both media. To some people, it may "sound better"; but to an engineer or a physicist, it can only be worse.

A music cassette recorded from a digital bin (loaded from a digital master that is taken from the same stereo master tape used to make the stampers) and loaded into a high quality shell can provide better average measurements than an LP of the same album, even if the tape is ferric tape. The word "average" is critical because the geometry of a phonograph record provides only two areas on the disc where distortion is at its minimum value. As the grooves draw closer to the center hole, dynamic range and frequency response become compromised and distortion increases, unlike recordings on magnetic tape that face the same limits througout the medium.

 

[tubesNtape]

An accurate recording of an LP onto a personal cassette combines the defects of both media. To some people, it may "sound better"; but to an engineer or a physicist, it can only be worse.

A music cassette recorded from a digital bin (loaded from a digital master that is taken from the same stereo master tape used to make the stampers) and loaded into a high quality shell can provide better average measurements than an LP of the same album, even if the tape is ferric tape. The word "average" is critical because the geometry of a phonograph record provides only two areas on the disc where distortion is at its minimum value. As the grooves draw closer to the center hole, dynamic range and frequency response become compromised and distortion increases, unlike recordings on magnetic tape that face the same limits througout the medium.

Only care about the sound.

 

[chan tran]

Thanks Wilhem! I read so many posts saying that recording a CD onto cassette makes them sound better. If it really sound better to one's ears then the CD could be made that way but the recording engineer decided to make it the way it was.

 

[BOUXY]

Great Cassette Decks comparing to Reel 2 Reel?
What if it is a GREAT REEL 2 REEL Deck?

 

[sebrof]

An accurate recording of an LP onto a personal cassette combines the defects of both media. To some people, it may "sound better"; but to an engineer or a physicist, it can only be worse.

When you say it can't be "better" I think you're saying better than the LP (if I read your post right).
The guys above are saying the LP to Cassette will likely sound better than the store bought pre-recorded cassette. I agree with them from my experience.

 

[charles 1973]

Even with a Toshiba midrange cassette deck, I got very good sound, as in better than some of my CD's when I recorded Fleetwood Mac's "Mirage" on a sony crome Tape (best tape I've ever used) with Dolby B on. A shure M95ED Cartridge on a Realistic LAB 300 TT (by White/CEC) was the source. I wouldn't say it sounded better than the LP though. Even some prerecorded tapes sounded pretty good.

I have no complaint's about Cassette Tapes as a source for recording Quality. It's just with todays 24 bit/96khz Digital systems, I'd prefer using it with direct access to any Tune I choose and near LP SQ. If I had a collection of cassette Tapes I might think differently however.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

You cannot 'restore' something that is not present originally. A copy can only be (and theoretically at that) 100% the same as the original. It can never be more than the original; that is not possible.

If you prefer the sound of a copy of an original to the original because of the media it's recorded on, more power to you. It is in no way 'enhanced', 'higher fidelity' or 'increased dynamic range'. Such a world does not exist.

 

[AnalogDigit]

You cannot 'restore' something that is not present originally. A copy can only be (and theoretically at that) 100% the same as the original. It can never be more than the original; that is not possible.

If you prefer the sound of a copy of an original to the original because of the media it's recorded on, more power to you. It is in no way 'enhanced', 'higher fidelity' or 'increased dynamic range'. Such a world does not exist.

That is true. The idea of recording is to have the copy sound as close as possible to the source material.

It might sound better to you if the particular cassette deck you are using has some boost in the frequency response especially in the low end making the music sound warmer.

 

[eddisc]

Only care about the sound.

So, if one "only cares about the sound" - don't these factors effect the sound?!

>>>...dynamic range and frequency response become compromised and distortion increases, unlike recordings on magnetic tape...<<< -Originally Posted by Wilhem

 

[just dave]

You cannot 'restore' something that is not present originally. A copy can only be (and theoretically at that) 100% the same as the original. It can never be more than the original; that is not possible.

If you prefer the sound of a copy of an original to the original because of the media it's recorded on, more power to you. It is in no way 'enhanced', 'higher fidelity' or 'increased dynamic range'. Such a world does not exist.

Well said Mr.Jones :thmbsp:

 

[hammondcrazy]

I never got into cassettes and only used them in the car. I love to record my albums onto RtR and DAT. I love DAT. So much hiss and stuff with cassettes. I never liked cassettes but that is me. I also rip to my hard drive. I would love to find a dedicated hard drive recorder. if it is analog real to reel, If it's digital then DAT. I guess maybe if i had a top of the line cassette deck maybe I would feel different.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Most commercial cassettes were duplicated at absurd high speeds (like 64X to 128X) on low end tape stock. From bin loop masters which were often ran more times than ideal.

 

[tubesNtape]

So, if one "only cares about the sound" - don't these factors effect the sound?!

>>>...dynamic range and frequency response become compromised and distortion increases, unlike recordings on magnetic tape...<<< -Originally Posted by Wilhem

I was informed last night that cassettes really cannot match the dynamics of CD, vinyl, and R2R.

But it can still sound richer than CD.

As a general rule, specs are usually taken with a grain of salt. If they were everything, then there would be no use for tube amps & analog.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I was informed last night that cassettes really cannot match the dynamics of CD, vinyl, and R2R.

Correct, to a greater or lesser extent.

But it can still sound richer than CD.

I do not know what that means. There is no scientific measurement for 'richer'. However, if by that, you mean 'better', then that is purely subjective. Meaning that if you find it to sound better, then yay you. I would not expect the rest of the world to share that opinion, but I'm sure there are others who do, so you won't be alone. And there is nothing wrong with liking something that others don't.

As a general rule, specs are usually taken with a grain of salt. If they were everything, then there would be no use for tube amps & analog.

You fail to understand some basic principles. This is not science, it's logic. You cannot retrieve missing data by recording, for example, an LP onto a cassette. YOU CANNOT DO IT. It's not science, it's math.

If I have a gallon of water and I pour it into a metal container, it is a gallon of water. if I pour it into a wooden container, it is a gallon of water. I may find that I prefer the taste of the water when dispensed from the wooden container; perhaps the wood gives it a particular flavor I like. That's fine, no one is telling you what you can and cannot like.

However, under no circumstances is it ever MORE than a gallon of water. It could even be somewhat less than a gallon of water, due to spillage during the transfer, etc. But it will NEVER be more than a gallon of water.

What you are saying is that dynamic range that is NOT PRESENT on an LP somehow magics itself onto a cassette when you record from the LP to the cassette. This is inventing water. It does not happen.

Nothing to do with specs - everything to do with math.

If it sounds 'richer' to you, then that's a great thing; everyone should listen to the things they prefer, the way they prefer to do it. It does not put missing dynamic range back into a recording.

 

[Wilhem]

The typical duplication speed at the height of cassette production was 80:1. A well aligned system using BASF LH-D would produce a frequency response out to 18 kHz at 20 decibels below 200 nWb/m if the source were capable of that output. At the time of the digital bins, it was relatively easy. Better output and response was achieved with chrome tape with the record EQ adjusted for 120-microsecond playback. Wow and flutter were almost non-existant at those speeds.

In terms of the final quality, a great deal depended on the record label. MCA/Universal put the least amount of effort into quality at its plant in Gloversville, NY. They used the cheapest tape that would run dependably. Specialty Records and Allied, both WEA companies, were record labels that worked particularly hard to produce the best cassettes possible. Independent duplicators such as AMI, Cinram, and Electrosound were also sticklers for quality. By the 1990s only BASF, Aurex, and SKC were providing bulk duplication tape. Their ferric tapes were all quite good and far better than the run-of-the-mill consumer ferrics, but price restrictions prevented them from the use of cobalt enhancements that could bring them to the level of the best ferric tapes. The BASF Chrome Plus was the same as the best single-layer Chrome Extra for consumers. Neither Aurex nor SKC could produce a chrome that was quite as good. TDK attempted to get into the business with their ferric tape and with SA, but WEA and others rejected the tapes for rub-off, inconsistent performance, and bad winds that did not matter much to consumers.

The medium with the greatest dynamic range is the CD, followed by open-reel at speeds of 15 ips (the faster the speed, the greater the noise; but the output goes up twice as fast as the noise). The cassette needs Dolby B noise reduction in order to get close to open-reel and to the LP in terms of dynamic range, but it depends on how one measures. The LP has much less dynamic range close to the center hole than it does at the outer edge. The cassette has less dynamic range beyond 6kHz than it does at 400 Hz.

 

[Alex Nikitin]

You fail to understand some basic principles. This is not science, it's logic. You cannot retrieve missing data by recording, for example, an LP onto a cassette. YOU CANNOT DO IT. It's not science, it's math.

One day I'll write an article on this, however for now just a short note. Logic can not replace science. And science requires somewhat deeper understanding of what is happening than common sense usually allows. In case of a digital recording there is one obvious problem with "missing data". The problem is that we can not receive digital information directly - it has to be converted into an analogue sound pressure waveform, and that conversion is not an easy process at all - otherwise we wouldn't have so many different speakers, amplifiers, DACs and CD-players. The process of a D to A conversion is a lossy one by default - we always lose some of the original information in that process, same as we lose information in the analogue to digital conversion. But on top of the losses the D to A conversion adds something to the signal that was not there in the first place - mirror images which contaminate the sound, unpleasant noise modulation and HF components that we can not hear but which do affect the amplifying chain and decrease the sound quality. Getting rid of these problems is not easy and many different kinds of digital and analogue filters, various dithering and modulation technics are used for that purpose. Nevertheless, these problems can not be eliminated completely and they do affect the sound quality by influencing our perception on a subconscious level. If, for example, the RF noise of an inexpensive CD player or a sound card badly contaminates the signal (which is very often the case) and you record that output on tape than the tape recording and playback process works as a filter, essentially removing these RF components from the amplifier input, adding some noise to mask the imperfections of the D-A conversion and allowing us to hear more of the actual music, not less (despite an obvious loss of information). If you use a very high quality DAC than the result could be the opposite thought!

Cheers

Alex

 

[tubesNtape]

Correct, to a greater or lesser extent.



I do not know what that means. There is no scientific measurement for 'richer'. However, if by that, you mean 'better', then that is purely subjective. Meaning that if you find it to sound better, then yay you. I would not expect the rest of the world to share that opinion, but I'm sure there are others who do, so you won't be alone. And there is nothing wrong with liking something that others don't.



You fail to understand some basic principles. This is not science, it's logic. You cannot retrieve missing data by recording, for example, an LP onto a cassette. YOU CANNOT DO IT. It's not science, it's math.

If I have a gallon of water and I pour it into a metal container, it is a gallon of water. if I pour it into a wooden container, it is a gallon of water. I may find that I prefer the taste of the water when dispensed from the wooden container; perhaps the wood gives it a particular flavor I like. That's fine, no one is telling you what you can and cannot like.

However, under no circumstances is it ever MORE than a gallon of water. It could even be somewhat less than a gallon of water, due to spillage during the transfer, etc. But it will NEVER be more than a gallon of water.

What you are saying is that dynamic range that is NOT PRESENT on an LP somehow magics itself onto a cassette when you record from the LP to the cassette. This is inventing water. It does not happen.

Nothing to do with specs - everything to do with math.

If it sounds 'richer' to you, then that's a great thing; everyone should listen to the things they prefer, the way they prefer to do it. It does not put missing dynamic range back into a recording.

I didn't say that cassettes can outperform other mediums in terms of dynamic range. But I believe it is possible that most pre-recorded cassettes have less dynamic range than a good metal tape made in a nice deck off vinyl or R2R.

As far as richer sound is concerned, that's more a function of analog playback than anything else. I would say this is more realistic when the original recording was analog as opposed to digital.

But I'm not really vested in an argument championing cassette over other mediums. I root for it, but won't go overboard.

Now digital vs. analog on the other hand I will debate forever in terms of musicality despite the scientific theories that supposedly undermine analog superiority.