Cassette vs. CD?

OK, I know this is asking for trouble, but the idea that digital sampling sacrifices the detail inbetween the samples is nonsense. Because any information inbetween the samples is above the Nyquist frequency, which at 44.1kHz sampling is above 20kHz. Which means we can not hear it. The Batbat maybe can, but we can't.

No detail is sacrificed below the nyquist frequency. Not any at all. A couple of guys came up with the mathematical proof of that, which is called the Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem. If you wish to refute that, you can at least do it with a similarly sound argument rather than conjecture. Quantization distortion is certainly a real thing, but at 16 bit it is negligible, which can not be said of the spades of distorion in a cassette deck.

Analog has an effective nyquist frequency as well, because physical constraints prevent the system from responding fast enough to the input waveform. That is exactly the same concept as "losing the detail between the samples", I am sorry to tell you. In the case of a half decent cassette deck, don't expect much back above 14kHz or so.

All of these vinyl repressings you are buying are surely likely cut from digital masters. I would be surprised if most of them are not. Even your older vinyl could have been cut with a digital delay line in the cutting lathe and almost all newer pressings will be as well. They have been around since the 1970s and in that era they were not hi-res by any stretch of the imagination. So how many of your discs are actually "all analog"? If the truth be told you wouldn't even know. So it begs the question. Where is all this extra detail that the cassette captures but a digital sample rate and bit depth this is most likely higher than the master the disc was cut from can't actually coming from . Even vinyl can not add detail that is not in the master to begin with.

 

Critical listening did someone say? I do it often!

But to get a great listening experience you need a mid or TOTL tape deck and tweaks to get the best from tape? Okay, sure. I'm sure you do given the limitations of the format and need to use either Chrome or Metal tapes.

Or you could've bought a £250 Marantz CD-52 in 1992 and equaled it. Fast forward (geddit?!?) a quarter of a century and you're left with the enthusiasts and the nostalgia crowd.

Incidentally, Nyquist Shannon works for me. I'm surprised there's even debate on the wider matter still.

 

My tapes were always cased and played on an Integra home deck along with an Alpine deck in the car both being kept in very good condition and the tape still broke along with the pads coming off. I'm just as critical of my car rig as I am my home setup. I try to get the best reproduction from either one and thoroughly enjoy listening to both. I never disliked cassettes, they're just an old and outdated format and I've moved on. I suppose I should move on from vinyl also because it pops and ticks making it virtually unlistenable but I just love to practice the black art of records and turntables. OTOH I did make a boatload of cassettes using vinyl as a source.

 

No, but I'm sure we've all had a cassette deck that has ended up with half a cassette's worth of tape wrapped around the pinch roller.

 

An Austin 7, yesterday:-




It might even have a tape deck.

 

The guy is enjoying his experience because his deck is prolly enhancing some frequencies, which along with some distortion and even a reduced dynamic range is making he think he's getting an aurally more exact or satisfying experience. So far so good. Maths in the wind. And this is coming from a guy who prefers the sound of vinyl over that on CD, but fully aware CD is superior.

But preaching the superiority of the format over CD to an audiophile forum ?!

 

That's my Jolida JD100 CDP, not my JD9 phono stage although both have been known to boogie.

 

Better bat ears than tin ones. I'm good with that.

 

I use my Dragon all the time. I also use my Marantz SACD player all the time and I use my three turntables all the time. It's not one format vs another format for me. It's enjoying the music using all the formats that I'm capable of using.

 

Exactly.

 

The problem is that 'detail' -- in audiophile circles -- is not a product of wave frequencies, its a subjective value determined by the perceiving party. Just like sacrifice. I understand there may be relatively objective measurements or values that can be calculated, but thats only part of the big equation.

Correct: distortion exists. Now the real question is: what's the difference between negligible and spades? Any mathematicians in the house?

 

Yes, different systems have different colourizations that we have our own subjective preferences for, but you have missed the point. The point is that the idea that quantifiable components of the sampled waveform are lost at conversion is a commonly held certitude. That is false conjecture.

If you wish to say things like "digital is too clinical" or "analog is warmer", I can accept that. But do not present subjective opinions objectively.

 

Here's another subjective opinion/point of view:

When I listen to CD's, I often hear a perfectly clear sound.

When I listen to cassettes on a decent cassette deck, I hear a "perfectly" natural and authentic sound.

Along with some slight hiss during the quieter sections.

I know digital is supposed to reproduce something totally and completely.

But I don't know any music that sounds that clear in real life.

 

Had over 1000hrs of GoGD on tape. Don't miss a single one with all the amazing Cds now avail.

 

Ok, Nyquist... Let's have a think on this...

What is the difference between a sound wave and a sine wave?

What is the difference between frequency and timbre?

How do we differentiate a middle C played on a grand piano, sung by any number of vocalists or screaming through a dimed out Marshall JMP 50 watter with a '69 Les Paul hooked up to it... a late '50s Fender Strat... an '80s Charvel San Dimas?

And perhaps, most pertinent, how and where does the Nyquist Theorem address, make provision for and provide an equation for the answers to the above questions?

 

I still play my wonderful 80's LP needle drops that I transferred onto high quality cassettes then later onto CD...they sound fabulous...lots of stuff that did not make it to digital... some nice 12" single mixes come to mind.

 

Nyquist says that anything below the frequency limit will be recorded faithfully. Timbre, coloration, minute differences, it'll all be there.

And: Analogue behaves just the same.

 

Indeed. One of the reasons I finally moved away from vinyl was exactly this.

 

Or it might even have a reel to reel deck.

 

CDs win for track accessibility w remote. Cassettes for mix tapes I guess.
I preferred the usage to CD R discs a bit of a hassel.

 

Is Nyquist a digitally based measurement?

If so, then this would seem to necessarily bias it in favor of digital content vs. analog content.

No matter how often the digital people talk about how faithfully and accurately digital reproduces....I know of no real life music that sounds as crystal clear as digital.

If you have analog instruments and you want more life-like and authentic sound, you look to analog.

Digital is better for digital instruments, like today's "modern" music with digital synths.

 

I agree with your preferences. I enjoy the "tone" that analog has. The "noise" or "distortion" that comes along with a tape or record is acceptable
to me, given that the overall sound is more natural to my ears.

 

Have to disagree with this. Plenty of examples, even in my own collection, of well recorded discs, orchestras, vocal, etc, that worked very well. And I've heard enough in live performance, and indeed in private sessions, to know that digital works just fine for acoustic instruments reproduction. I wouldn't have gone down the playback route I did were it otherwise.

 

As ssmith puts it! Although I'm getting also back into casettes (probably for sentimental reasons rather than anything else), I just want to highlight the irony as on its day it was considered a crappy/convenience format (the mp3 of its day probably), at least on the non-audiphile circles I was frequenting (we were all aspiring to a Nakamichi though)...