Could a cassette tape be used as a master?

I think he's confused the term "master" with the term "source".

 

To clarify, to me the "master" means the original source tape the music was recorded on.
"Source" means a clean playable copy with no drop outs which could be used to copy to CD.
I don't recall studio's using cassette tape as masters, although there are exceptions to most everything, I guess.

 

Are we reading the same thread?

 

King Crimson's "Earthbound" was recorded live to a cassette and released as a (budget-priced) LP.

 

Thanks for your thoughts on this everyone! Lots to think about!

 

Steady On by The Easybeats is mastered from someone's cassette. You can hear the tape slow down and speed up in some tracks and lots of hiss on others.

Mike Oldfield claimed the first Virgin CD of Tubular Bells was sourced from a cassette.

Mental Notes by Split Enz (first Aussie CD issue) is definitely from a cassette (cold ending on the title song)

 

Original post said this:
Sometimes I dream about what I could do if I had record-cutting technology in my garage. I think of some of my favorite albums that never made it to vinyl, a couple examples include Phish "Billy Breathes" and Deconstruction's self-titled album. Those did however make it to cassette tape. Since that technology is analog, could you theoretically use it as a master if you had the right equipment?
Which to me means use the consumer bought cassette version of the mastered recording (a commercial pre recorded tape) as a new master. Or am I miss understanding him?

 

And he carried it around in his back pocket for a week or so.

 

Like Kevin Gray did when cutting an album from 1" tape. He used a digital playback as the preview and the analog tape as the delayed signal going to the cutter head. I think we could probably agree that 99% of the time an LP is going to be cut 1. from an analog tape on a deck with a preview head 2. From an analog tape into a digital delay or 3. from a digital file .

A cassette, DAT, 78 record, microcassette, elcassette or 8 track tape, if it's going to be used to cut an LP, will be transferred to something else first.

 

Yeah, that's another way, but not the way I was thinking of. It's a very similar concept though.

How about making a tape copy, starting it before the master, and using it for the preview signal? The only issue would be timing but I don't see that as much of a problem.

 

some high end cassette decks could approach 22khz, but probably can't now (they are old). for practical purposes there is nothing on a cassette that can't be captured on redbook cd with complete accuracy. if you were to make vinyl from a cassette source that sounded better than a cd from the same source, it is either due to different equipment being used, something being done wrong, or ephonic distortion in the vinyl itself.

im a vinyl collector but lets not let that stand in the way of science and reality. cassette is such a compromised media in the first place (frequency range, dynamic range, wow and flutter issues) it doesnt make much sense to me to use it to master vinyl. just make a flat transfer using the best adc you can get.

 

Interesting thread. Great read, thanks.

 

"Nebraska."

 

My thoughts on this statement. I think that since the music industry at large tends to use the terms "master" and "source" interchangeably for marketing purposes, I suppose there's no harm in folks doing so in a public forum as well. Don't forget that a "master" isn't necessarily the source tape the performance was originally recorded on (e.g., first generation session reel). Many reissues of all genres and artists claim to use "original master tapes", but these could be anything from the original session tapes to (first, second, third, etc.,) generation album reels or stereo mixdowns and mono fold-downs.

 

I found the AIFF files and I'm looking at using them to produce the vinyl of my dad's music. It obviously wouldn't be full analog, but these are pretty high resolution files (1411 kbps bit rate, 16 bit/44,100 kHz) and they sound good. I have to accept that there is technically nothing about the vinyl that will be better than the CD. I still want to hear it on vinyl though.

 

What type of documented problems are you referring to?

And at what low levels?

I know many cite that as an issue with Redbook, but besides anecdotal stories, I have really found nothing to back that up really.

Not trying to give you a hard time doug, for real, but ....It is repeated often, but I am having a hard time finding anything factual stating that.

 

Here is a good question for you. Have you ever used a digital volume control like some CD players have? Most don't like them because they don't sound as good at low levels than they do at high levels. If you buy into this, there is your answer.

If the digital volume control works in 24 bit or greater mode, these problems become nil.

An easy way to tell is to listen to a slow fade on a song. Does it retain it's same quality as it fades out? It should. It rarely does on CD if the fade goes down low enough.

Remember that it has nothing to do with the overall level as seen on the VU meters. You can have minute low level detail in a song at it's loudest parts.

I obviously can't cite you any factual information to prove this. You'll have to either discover it for yourself or continue to believe what you do.

 

Nebraska.

If the Beatles can use a cassette as a master(Free As A Bird), you can too.
Evan

 

I just wanted to read about it.

I do not necessarily believe any one thing. I have heard that effect on some fade outs, but not on others. I have read differing reasons for it occuring, and have read stuff saying that low level linearity is not an issue.

Honestly I have no dog in the fight. I thought I have heard low level issues on CD before, but in ways that do not always make logical sense.

Other CDs I have heard do not have the same issues.

 

FWIW I made an EP a few years ago tracking on cassette. It was mastered from cassette too, a Nakamichi DR-3 using TDK D90, +4db, no NR:

roktak.bandcamp.com/releases

 

There was a quote I read once from a guy that worked in a duplicating house and pressing plant when DAT and PCM1630s were the big formats, saying that people would be surprised how many times a cassette had to be used due to dropouts/problems with the digital master.

 

I don't see why not. But I'm biased...
I own several top of the line decks that are in perfect alignment. With good tape I can create the source as new. It depends so much on the decks alignment status and the tape and skill of recording.
Many studios give a cassette master to the artist after a session.

 

I recently resurrected a live John Hartford show I recorded in 1983. I was given a mono feed off the soundboard, added a couple of spaced omnis to get stereo and pick up the crowd's sing-alongs, and recorded it on my Tandberg TD20A SE reel to reel.

When it came time to master it (a word that's been used incorrectly often in this thread), I mastered it on a Nakamichi Dragon cassette deck using Dolby C and a $15 Denon MG-X 100 tape, one of those fancy-dancy metal tapes of the era which was in a ceramic shell. The result sounded great (still does). During mastering, I needed to add a bit of compression and EQ, and I remember having to compensate for the natural compression the cassette format added into the process. Other than that, I can see no problem mastering to a cassette deck. Its sound, whether it be compression, limited dynamic range or the natural high frequency roll-off most cassette decks have as the signal approaches 0 VU, just become part of the music. Do it right and the deck itself can benefit the performance. Do it wrong and you'll end up with mud.

 

Need to record just a little below the tape SOL.