Cassette tape vs. Vinyl/CD

[Tavman]

Old post but I have to say....

I just picked up 37 cassettes for 12.00 at a local thrift shop.
I'm playing them on a TEAC deck hooked up to an old Hitachi receiver piping through Messina speakers and they sound great!

For .25 an album I'm one happy camper...specs aside!

Just saying.......

 

[johnebravo]

I just picked up 37 cassettes for 12.00 at a local thrift shop.
I'm playing them on a TEAC deck hooked up to an old Hitachi receiver piping through Messina speakers and they sound great!

For .25 an album I'm one happy camper...specs aside!

Just saying.......

Some of the pre-recorded cassettes made in the 80s were of higher quality, using Type II tape, HX Pro, etc. I think the pressure from the introduction of CDs forced them to up their game regarding cassette quality. It was a last gasp, as it turned out. Pre-recorded cassettes in the late 60s and 70s were typically god awful . . .

 

[guest110]

I must be in the minority, but I've never heard a great sounding cassette tape. The slow speed and associated hiss and noise is very noticeable. Noise reduction only makes things worse to my ears. I'll take vinyl or a CD any day over them, even though my top preference is tape reels running at 15 or 7.5 IPS.

 

[TheNLOwner]

I must be in the minority, but I've never heard a great sounding cassette tape. The slow speed and associated hiss and noise is very noticeable. Noise reduction only makes things worse to my ears. I'll take vinyl or a CD any day over them, even though my top preference is tape reels running at 15 or 7.5 IPS.

Then you never had a good set up deck!

 

[johnebravo]

I must be in the minority, but I've never heard a great sounding cassette tape. The slow speed and associated hiss and noise is very noticeable. Noise reduction only makes things worse to my ears. I'll take vinyl or a CD any day over them, even though my top preference is tape reels running at 15 or 7.5 IPS.

OK, "great" might be pushing it. But if you begin with reasonably low expectations of what is possible with a cassette -- especially if that is based on considerable experience with mediocre pre-recorded cassettes -- then some of the pre-recorded cassettes made in the 80s using Type II tape and HX Pro might surprise you. At least, I've got some albums on cassette that sound alot better than I expected them to when I bought them for 50 cents. They're certainly listenable, and I wouldn't have those albums otherwise, and will probably never see most of them again on LP or CD.

 

[Klipshman]

I love playing around with different media. sometimes I'll take a record I've just bought(180g for instance), clean it and then record it onto RTR and sometimes via the Nakamichi ZX-7 if I want a cassette. I've been known to make CD's from original pre-recorded RTR classicals as well. It's all part of the fun. I use what sounds good to my aging tinnitus ears.

 

[modge]

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.

Just wondering do you own or ever listened to a good cassette deck?
Another thing some decks have a trim pot for recording.

 

[Klipshman]

Possibly and in fact, most assuredly, the best deck I ever owned is the Nak ZX-7. I don't care what media I use to record to it, it still sounds better than the original. Using good Type II tape/metal tape and setting up the deck for that tape checking azimuth, bias, etc., I always hear a better quality tape than the original source. Better in that I may pickup the soft swishing of drum brushes I hadn't heard before, for instance. I doubt it's my imagination.

Recording using Dolby C on the deck gives me a better sounding copy regardless of the original. I don't know the science or math behind it all and don't care. I only know what I hear sounds more distinct, crisp and more alive and for these old ears, that's all that matters to me.

 

[IXLR8]

Possibly and in fact, most assuredly, the best deck I ever owned is the Nak ZX-7. I don't care what media I use to record to it, it still sounds better than the original. Using good Type II tape/metal tape and setting up the deck for that tape checking azimuth, bias, etc., I always hear a better quality tape than the original source. Better in that I may pickup the soft swishing of drum brushes I hadn't heard before, for instance. I doubt it's my imagination.

Recording using Dolby C on the deck gives me a better sounding copy regardless of the original. I don't know the science or math behind it all and don't care. I only know what I hear sounds more distinct, crisp and more alive and for these old ears, that's all that matters to me.

Have had the Nakamichi ZX-7 for awhile now and find it to be amazing. it gets much harder to determine what sounds the best if your gear quality is excellent. Still think RTR can be your best bet on top notch recording sound but you can come mighty close.

 

[Wilhem]

It still sounds better than the original. I always hear a better quality tape than the original source. Better in that I may pickup the soft swishing of drum brushes I hadn't heard before, for instance. I doubt it's my imagination.

I'm glad you said "sounds better" rather than "is better." Every engineer knows that any recording to an analogue source adds predictable distortion to the copy. A good bit of it is called "harmonic distortion," a good name because it implies that this distorted change might sound acceptable and even "better" to some people. To an engineer, however, any change at all is anathema and something we struggle to eliminate in the recording process and confine to editing consoles.

The swishing of drum brushes is probably modulation noise. It is also a form of distortion, even if it sounds good.