Cassette tape vs. Vinyl/CD

[Wigwam Jones]

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).

Interesting thought and I follow the logic. However, without any type of proof that this is indeed happening, I'm going to stick to the concept that you cannot copy A to B and end up with B that is superior to A. I will concede your point that it could 'effectively' happen under the correct circumstances, but I sincerely doubt that such things do happen on a routine basis.

 

[tubesNtape]

Interesting thought and I follow the logic. However, without any type of proof that this is indeed happening, I'm going to stick to the concept that you cannot copy A to B and end up with B that is superior to A. I will concede your point that it could 'effectively' happen under the correct circumstances, but I sincerely doubt that such things do happen on a routine basis.

I think the improvement can be found more in the playback of the new medium, not so much that you have a better "copy".

So the idea behind copying a CD or Vinyl onto R2R tape isn't so much that the tape has superior information, but the R2R playback medium is (for some of us) superior.

We made a few copies of vinyl and digital onto R2R tape and found the R2R playback to be the most enjoyable. Just a case of the medium, not the information.

Donald Fagen's The Nightfly (DDD) sounds better to me on vinyl than CD.

I'm curious about the Eagles Hell Freezes over LP -- supposedly all digital in the recording process, and it sounds awesome on CD. But it wouldn't surprise me if I liked it more on vinyl.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I think the improvement can be found more in the playback of the new medium, not so much that you have a better "copy".

So the idea behind copying a CD or Vinyl onto R2R tape isn't so much that the tape has superior information, but the R2R playback medium is (for some of us) superior.

We made a few copies of vinyl and digital onto R2R tape and found the R2R playback to be the most enjoyable. Just a case of the medium, not the information.

Donald Fagen's The Nightfly (DDD) sounds better to me on vinyl than CD.

I'm curious about the Eagles Hell Freezes over LP -- supposedly all digital in the recording process, and it sounds awesome on CD. But it wouldn't surprise me if I liked it more on vinyl.

You're talking about two different things here, so let's not conflate them.

1) When copied from A to B, B sounds better than listening to A.
2) A sounds better than B.

The first is when you copy a CD onto tape and end up 'liking' the sound from tape better. Fair enough; if you like it, you like it. But there is no way (save the esoteric 'accidental complementary filter' described above) that B can have information on it that A didn't have. There is no way to magic any analogue goodness onto tape when copying it from CD. The best it can be is exactly the same as the original - never better. If it 'sounds' better to you, it could be due to any number of things, all valid, but not because it contains information that was never on the original.

The second is when you say you prefer listening to an album on vinyl as opposed to CD. Again, no problem, but in that case, you are not talking about the same thing - they are two different items, not related to each other. The LP was not copied to the CD or vice-versa. So it's entirely reasonable that one could contain information (and be preferred for that reason) to the other.

You simply cannot say that item A contains X bits of information and when copied to B, it contains X+N bits of information. Not possible.

 

[analoghifi]

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.

About the Toshiba Decks and also the mention in a later post in regards to the Dynamics of cassettes not being able to reach the standards of what the Vinyls, CD's or R2R can do.
The Aurex [Toshiba] Decks that were equiped with their Adres System which was in my opinion the answer to the lacking of Dynamics and reducing the Noise Levels almost completely.
Ive made some very good recordings on some Type II and Type IV tapes using the Adres System. I think Aurex went about it saying, in order for your tapes to sound like the real deal, it would implement in sound processing to get the sound you're looking for.

 

[tubesNtape]

You're talking about two different things here, so let's not conflate them.

1) When copied from A to B, B sounds better than listening to A.
2) A sounds better than B.

The first is when you copy a CD onto tape and end up 'liking' the sound from tape better. Fair enough; if you like it, you like it. But there is no way (save the esoteric 'accidental complementary filter' described above) that B can have information on it that A didn't have. There is no way to magic any analogue goodness onto tape when copying it from CD. The best it can be is exactly the same as the original - never better. If it 'sounds' better to you, it could be due to any number of things, all valid, but not because it contains information that was never on the original.

The second is when you say you prefer listening to an album on vinyl as opposed to CD. Again, no problem, but in that case, you are not talking about the same thing - they are two different items, not related to each other. The LP was not copied to the CD or vice-versa. So it's entirely reasonable that one could contain information (and be preferred for that reason) to the other.

You simply cannot say that item A contains X bits of information and when copied to B, it contains X+N bits of information. Not possible.

All I care about is the final sound.

You concede that you have no problem with me liking vinyl & 1/4" tape over CD (which many would have a problem with) and I never argued that there was more/better information on the copy....

So what exactly are we debating?

Personally I feel that the reason why there's a difference in sound isn't about the information stored in the medium but what happens when you have to go through the process of digital to analog conversion for CDs when that's an unnecessary step for analog mediums on playback.

I don't know what it is, but I think there's something lost in that transition.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

All I care about is the final sound.

As do I.

You concede that you have no problem with me liking vinyl & 1/4" tape over CD (which many would have a problem with) and I never argued that there was more/better information on the copy....

Well, it seemed to me that that is exactly what you said: "So is a cassette recording of vinyl/CD on say a Nakamichi CR-7 coming out better than the original source?"

So what exactly are we debating?

I suspect that the difference is between our understanding of what words mean. I qualified my original response, as I have all others, by stating that there is a difference between saying one prefers one sound over another and saying that one sound is objectively better than another.

If you like it, it's 'better' to you. That does not mean it is objectively 'better'. And in the case of a copy of LP to cassette, it can't be.

Personally I feel that the reason why there's a difference in sound isn't about the information stored in the medium but what happens when you have to go through the process of digital to analog conversion for CDs when that's an unnecessary step for analog mediums on playback.

In your original post, you argued that a copy of a CD to cassette would also be better than the original CD; DA conversion happens in that case.

However, in the case of LP to cassette, taking place purely in the analog domain, there is no DA conversion taking place; which would be fine as far as it goes, but you also argued that the cassette would sound better than the original LP...

I don't know what it is, but I think there's something lost in that transition.

I think you're changing your original statement to suit the direction the argument is going.

But I am not looking for a fight. I think we both agree that people should listen to what sounds better to them. If you find cassette tape copies of LP and CD to sound better than the original, by all means enjoy it. I am afraid I do not agree with your logic as to why that would be true, but it really doesn't matter if I agree or not.

 

[tubesNtape]

As do I.



Well, it seemed to me that that is exactly what you said: "So is a cassette recording of vinyl/CD on say a Nakamichi CR-7 coming out better than the original source?"



I suspect that the difference is between our understanding of what words mean. I qualified my original response, as I have all others, by stating that there is a difference between saying one prefers one sound over another and saying that one sound is objectively better than another.

If you like it, it's 'better' to you. That does not mean it is objectively 'better'. And in the case of a copy of LP to cassette, it can't be.



In your original post, you argued that a copy of a CD to cassette would also be better than the original CD; DA conversion happens in that case.

However, in the case of LP to cassette, taking place purely in the analog domain, there is no DA conversion taking place; which would be fine as far as it goes, but you also argued that the cassette would sound better than the original LP...



I think you're changing your original statement to suit the direction the argument is going.

But I am not looking for a fight. I think we both agree that people should listen to what sounds better to them. If you find cassette tape copies of LP and CD to sound better than the original, by all means enjoy it. I am afraid I do not agree with your logic as to why that would be true, but it really doesn't matter if I agree or not.

I had a feeling it was still about cassette tapes. It was based on hearsay, which often is a dangerous thing in the audio world.

Ok, I had a hunch and no longer feel that way about cassettes.

 

[Bigerik]

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

If Alex says it, I believe it.

 

[chan tran]

He He! with all the arguing I saw in this thread I just have an idea. I can make a better sounding CD by record it onto my Nak CR-7 and then once again digitize it to my PC and burn the CD.

 

[Daunia 70]

I was always in the opinion (right or wrong) that you can never really better an original master tape (wherever it be digital or analogue).A lot of times there are more than one master tape and these of course can vary in quality.

E.G A 70's analogue master tape would sound best copied to an analogue source wherever it be vinyl/compact cassette/reel to reel.

A 90's digital master would sound best copied to a digital source wherever it be CD/DAT/Mini Disc etc.

If an original analogue master is remastered digitally ( 24 bit etc) it may sound better to some,but not to others and in the end despite the digital trickery it is still insuperior to the original source material.That's why a lot of listeners still like the original analogue recordings.

Take 'Blondie's' remastered 'Parallel Lines'/2001,24 bit remastered album,i prefer the old analogue tracks before they were remastered digitally.
Also all this depends on what sort of system/source you decide to play it back on wherever it be analogue or digital,same goes for re-recording in the home.

 

[jan_stevns]

He He! with all the arguing I saw in this thread I just have an idea. I can make a better sounding CD by record it onto my Nak CR-7 and then once again digitize it to my PC and burn the CD.

hmmm..... I haven't seen anyone mention that by making a copy to tape you would add a certain component, that was not in the original material - that is a portion of harmonic distortion

In certain amounts, it may give the copy a different sound, but it's distortion.

 

[Roving Sign]

hmmm..... I haven't seen anyone mention that by making a copy to tape you would add a certain component, that was not in the original material - that is a portion of harmonic distortion

In certain amounts, it may give the copy a different sound, but it's distortion.

Exactly - tape is a tool. Type 1 tapes can take a bit more bang than most folks think - but they dont distort easily, they compress first...it can make a big difference in the musicality of the recording.

I do live recording at a local theater for a country music show - and I've been doing some experiments running a cassette deck with Type I (TDK D90) with Dolby C - in tandem with my digital rig. Just two track stuff - I'll post some comparisons when I get the analog sets transferred.

I've always been suspicious that a lot of folks run their levels a little to conservatively - so I really let them blaze away for this recording. This will be slightly different since its not a copy - its the same source mastered on two different medias.

 

[o0OBillO0o]

One day I'll write an article on this, however for now just a short note.

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.

Nevertheless, these problems can not be eliminated completely and they do affect the sound quality by influencing our perception on a subconscious level.

**:nerd: Alert**

Alex and Wigwam, I think you both have great points.

Question:

statement: Recording A to B, where B<=A

Recording (A to B) + ANALOG to DIGITAL conversion = DIGITAL B
Recording (A to B) ANALOG to ANALOG = ANALOG B

is ANALOG B >= DIGITAL B?

 

[mayidunk]

...I've always been suspicious that a lot of folks run their levels a little to conservatively - so I really let them blaze away for this recording...

How far did you let them peak?

 

[Roving Sign]

Here's a little source comparison.

http://rovingsign.com/comp/rockinchair.m3u
(streaming link)

There are two tracks

Pick the cassette source

For direct links

http://rovingsign.com/comp/rockinchair1.mp3
http://rovingsign.com/comp/rockinchair2.mp3

(Warning: country music)

These samples were recorded live - this past Thursday afternoon. One output feeding a A/D converter to a digital recorder - the other output feeding a Yamaha Cassette deck with a TDK D90 tape and Dolby C on. The cassette deck was run well into the red, touching +12 at times.

 

[jan_stevns]

very impressive - if #2 has been through a casette deck it certainly did no harm. Only a slight compression.

 

[hbucker]

Impressive since the D90 really isn't anything special. Still, when that compression hits it's a little hard not to notice.

thx for the samples.

 

[Roving Sign]

Impressive since the D90 really isn't anything special. Still, when that compression hits it's a little hard not to notice.

thx for the samples.

I used two fresh unopened TDK D90s.

The sample here is from an older, grey case/paper label D90 - and the tape looked reddish brown in color.

For the second set of this show, I used a more recent edition of the D90 - clear case - darker tape.

I think that tape has a bit higher output in the high frequencies. (So far, only observed on headphones)

So - the newer D90 would appear to be a totally different formula (not really surprising I guess...)

Thanks for listening!

 

[mayidunk]

Love D90's!

 

[Wilhem]

o0OBillO0o-

The answer to your question depends on other elements. A premise is that B is less than or equal to A. I don't know how you mean that. I can say that if an analogue recording is copied to an identical analogue medium, the analogue defects double. Noise increases by 3 dB, for example.

If by "digital" you mean a conversion to a .wave file by a good encoder, there should be no noticeable difference in playback. (This is a mathematical fact that is logically sound since mathematics is the language of logic. It is a very rare person who can hear above 20 kHz, and an even rarer person who can hear phase distortion beyond 10 kHz.)

However, "digital" merely means encoding into a mathematical format, so just using that word does not give enough information. MP3 files are also digital, and if the bit rate falls below 128 kBs/sec, almost any untrained ear can hear the damage done to a good analogue recording.