I know my statement "sounds as good" is subjective. It may be that I am that 1 in a million person who likes the best sound that cassettes can provide over the best digitally mastered CD that is out there. A digital CD expertly made. Crystal clear. Flawless. And maybe what I hear in the best cassettes in term of presence and soundstage is actually flawed sound and an auditory illusion that the vast majority of people cannot hear and that most readily dismiss. Like Popeye, I am what I am.
1996 was the last year Studer built new analog tape machines. For reference, when my 1988 Otari MX 5050 B II 1/2 track open reel machine was new, it was $3600 new. Which was the same price of a new ReVox B 77 same year (reference being the 1988 Broadcast Electronics catalog and price sheet). This was without options.
What I like most is how digital marketers will push the newest digital product by saying how close it mimics analog sound.
LOL. No argument there. In that regard they remind me of Nakamachi cassette decks. There were stories of people waiting around for days for John Stephens to come and fix their machine. His multitracks were so differnet in design from all the others that no one else could service them. That FM radio thing had occurred to me for the lower speed as the bandwidth of FM radio has and will always be 30 - 15 000hz. And this way you save big time on tape! My Uncle Jack was reading your post and commented, "Can't get that from Wikipedia. Sounds like someone over there knows his stuff..."
It absolutely does destroy any cassette deck. Open reel at 15 ips could be better, sure, but that’s about it. Those dsd master recorders from tascam and korg are VERY transparent and analog-sounding.
I'm not either an analogue or a digital guy, it just happens that my prefered media as inconvenient and crude as it is are vinyl records played on a decent TT and cart and a tube Phone preamp, and my second one is DSD. I understand how both works but I'm not biased by their technology it's their sound what I like. Third favourite format is PCM at 192/24, it sounds quite transparent but it's not on the same league as vinyl and DSD, technologically 192/24 should outperform both vinyl records and DSD but I don't find its sound as engaging as Vinyl and DSD. I never liked cassette tapes, it had the potential to sound great but one had to spend big $$$$ on a good deck, blank tapes and know how to adjust bias level and be careful at adjusting recording level, and despite of that the sound quality of a good tape didn't last long. I remember that on my Dolby S Sony deck from 1992 after 10/15 playings sound started to deteriorate. I didn't like the differences on azimuth from deck to deck that makes tapes recorded on one deck sound shy on treble among other things when played on other deck. Prerecorded cassette tapes were a joke sound quality wise.
Everyone has different experiences. I have dozens and dozens of Beatles prerecorded cassettes from the U.K., U.S., Yugoslavia, Canada, and other countries and they sound great, for the most part. I found a tape deck head cleaner that actually works. To take away the dull/ muffled sound that can start to develop. And admittedly have had to transplant a small minority of the tapes onto new shells. Or replace the felt pad. But I know many people's negative experiences with cassettes is real. I hear it often.
and that's totally fine! knock yourself out. here's the thing though- those DSD recorders are so transparent, I'd take a tape master and record it on there so I'd be properly preserving that hiss in its finest form!
How dare you insult cassette! (Red Fox "Sanford & Son" shadow boxing style) Come on! Come on step outside!! What prerecorded tapes were these? Where they from the 70's and early 80's? Did you buy them from Latin America or Europe? Back in the late 80's tape duplication got a major overhaul. Before 1988 pre-recorded cassette tapes were bad. Way worse than some American/Canadian duplicated tape from 1992. - 32× duplication speed - Type 1 tape - The tape duplication masters were not good. Many analog generations from the master. - No Dolby B - The tapes were duplicated on equipment that hadn't been updated since 1975. 70 - 12 000 hz +-3db And some would say I exaggerate here! By 1988 things changed: - 8 times duplication speed. - Type 2 pure BASF chrome tape. - Digital copies of the master were now used as cassette duplication masters. - Dolby B - Tape duplication equipment updated to a much higher spec. - Dolby HX Pro (Varies the bias with the high frequency content of the music) - Tape recorded with 120 u.s. eq instead of the 70 u.s. eq used for Type 2 tape. Recording Type 2 tape with 120 u.s. eq allowed for extra high frequency headroom in exchange for a little more noise. (2 db higher signal to noise ratio. I wonder if it was worth it?) The new cassettes were on average: 30 - 16 000 Hz +-3db (40 - 15 000hz +-2db) Every multi-track from the late 50's to 1969 had a spec of 30 - 15 000 hz +-2db. So if your music is from the 60's you don't need more than this. And that includes The Beatles. Were these new tapes 20 - 20 000hz +-3db? Nope. But 95% of people's tapes they made off of CD's weren't either. Seriously though I always suspicious of people who say "cassette sucked." They are usually people who stopped buying cassettes in 1984 or owned one of those super crappy dubbing decks that got heavy used in the high speed mode. You sir are obviously NOT one of those people. But I am a confused. Type 2 Chorme tape can go 100 plays before any sound degreation is noticed. And Metal a lot more. Mmm.....No....I never believed those claims either. But not a dozen plays! And the Sony 3 head Dolby S machine was some of the best cassette decks ever made. I know it is stating the obvious but did you clean your machine at least every week? I cleaned (by hand) and demagnetized the heads and all the metal Parts (by hand. No automatic thing) every two weeks or less. I had these special reusable swabs. You washed them in warm water and soap. Squeezed the excessive water out and then let them dry for an hour. I would dip them in the special cleaning solution and carefully clean the heads and the whole transport. And then I would very carefully demagnetize the heads. You can't just pop in some cassette cleaner and think that it is gonna clean everthing. Although the automatic cassette demagnetizers were very good. Back in 1985 I had a cheap two head $180 Hitachi cassette deck. I kept it in brand new condition until 1992 when a cockroach got inside and laid and egg. I could see the egg but couldn't get to it so I had to throw the machine out. (And no that is no joke. I lived in an apartment where the Roach situation was so bad they had to spray every month.) Playing my tapes in the walkman tended to ahhh....wear them out. But then my Type 2: Best of Led Zeppelin / Beethoven's Ninth Last Movement tape was played twice a day three times a week as I went to and from work back in 1987 on my $100 Sony Walkman. And that tape was jubjected to the elements. Bias is an ultrasonic frequency that is added to the recording to prevent distortion at high frequencies. Too much bias or to little bias and you will end up with a way too bright recording or one that is heavily distorted. Bias should be adjusted to achieve flat frequency response. Users who use bias as some sort of treble booster are playing with fire. And that includes several professional engineers I know who have their "own secret sauce bias recipe" to use on analog multitracks. They apply way to much bias to achieve a hotter level on tape in exchange for more noise or whatever and then bitch and wine that Dolby A makes their tapes sound funny. No kidding! Dolby Labs has made it clear from day one, "For Dolby A to function properly without side effects bias must be set as per manual..." In other words you set bias to achieve flat frequency response. If you are going to apply a real hot bias to get a hotter tape level or more highs don't be surprised if Dolby A in the decode mode doesn't sound right. The same advice I would apply to Dolby B, C or S. A few Naks had an automatic azimuth that adjusted the head height for maximum treble in play back. One Nad deck had a similar function but it was knob you turned manually. Much better in my opinion. Nothing to break down. You can adjust the head height azimuth of your playback head manually. All you need is a screwdriver. It would take me too long to explain here. And it's a pain to do this with every cassette you put in.
Back in 1980 I owned a Nackamichi 582. With Metal it achieved a nice nearly flat 20 - 000hz +-3db (30 - 19 000 hz +-2db). It was huge and heavy. But the cassette tapes never sounded like cassettes. Just like the source. But they don't make them like the Nak 582 anymore! It was easy to find out if the Dolby B tracked perfectly. During record you just switched to tape and turned the Dolby ON and OFF. I did this and heard no change in the sound. Only increase in hiss when Dolby B was switched OFF. When you say it requires a lot of work to get great sound of cassettes I am confused. Cleaning and demgnetizing your machine once a week for 20 minutes is not a lot of work.
Yea, that sounds about right. No new multi-tracks after this date either. Plenty of good used machines out there. No need for new machines. They wouldn't be as good as a Ampex ATR-124. We had one...Until it got stolen by an ex-employee who still had his set of keys. He quit! We didn't fire him. Never knew he was a thief!
A DR40 is a pretty low end machine that gets the job done in a pinch. It will sound better than a similarly priced analog machine. Any analog machine worth having for more than getting color, is many times as expensive the dr40. If someone like ampex did make a new machine, it would be prohibitively expensive for most people. certainly not a replacement for a $200 digital unit.
You emphasize the hiss but it's not a deal breaker. Presence and soundstage are what I value. Not something so crystal clear it loses the true sound of the actual instrument. The way digital can be. Artificially clear. Pristine bordering on cold and sterile. Also, please go into more detail on how "transparent" DSD is. Does that mean you can see right through its artificial sound? Some of the songs on the 2009 remastered Beatles CDs sound sugary sweet. Not in content but in their sound. To be able to realize and finally hear this super sweet ear tickling (cavity inducing) sound, is that what is meant by transparency in DSD sound? Now, let's talk again about hiss...
Well said and you are correct. It really doesn't require a lot of work. I was trying to empathize with people who feel frustrated and thwarted by cassettes. And suggest that it can take a bit of effort, and knowledge, to know how to maximize a cassette's sound. There are times, but not that often, when I have to transplant an older tape onto a new cassette shell. Or replace the felt pad. Really no big deal, you are correct. And well worth it.
I still have blisters from all that cleaning. It's a memory that I will never forget.. (Snif! Snif!) The 80's was full of all this great analog and primitive Flintstone digital technology that ahhh.....seemingly no one was using. Was I the only one that had a Nak 582 back in 1980? Was I the only one that one of those 14 bit PCM processors hooked into a HI-FI VCR? (Toshiba DX-9000C $1300 Sale price!) I was in high school and I use to hear all the time the most depressing, "We just got out new dubbing deck.....It has high speed dubbing...." Huh?! What? Should have been called High Speed destruction.... Or perhaps High Speed Suicide? They were good professional high speed dubbing decks from Tascam and Fostex that were capable of making great copy tapes at twice speed (With the Dolby B Intact too). But these were $600 - $1200 USD. You would only usually find these in studios. We still have one.....Somewhere......I think! These were $300 - $350 usually and they blew chunks. I never understood the need for the high speed cassette dub. The average album back then was 40 minutes. You couldn't wait 40 minutes? You had to have it in 20 minutes? It's not like you have to be there. You start out with a pretty good pre-recorded tape your friend made on his $250 Pioneer two head model with Metal tape. 30 - 17 000 hz+-2db. And 68 db signal to noise ratio. He has made a nice tape. A nice copy of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours off the CD. And now (you S.O.B.) you just have to make a high speed copy. Did you check the manual and find out what specs yield a much wanted "high speed copy?" No! So you make your "high speed" copy and behold it's a hissy no top end disaster. 90 - 10 000 hz +-3db. My late 60's full track (mono) quarter inch reel to reel does better at it's top speed of 3.75 ips. 60 - 13 000 hz +-3db. I inherited that machine from my grandfather I got in 1986 and he still had unwrapped RCA 7 inch reel tape from the late 60s. A nice single VU meter with switch for the limiter. All inputs and outputs were 1/8 th inch so it was aimed at consumers. And a nice built in speaker that actually priduced upper bass. Could run on 10 C cell batteries. Made lots of live recordings on those. Reel to reel just sounds better regardless of frequency response. No tape counter. It lasted until 1991. Then they lent these copies out and well...You can guess what happened. Why didn't people just buy two low cost cassette decks? Can make great copies that way.
That's a Pro Tools Plugin that adds honey flavour sweetness. I think the Abbey Road team had it set to Brown Sugar.
