Was I the only one who bought into Sony's Elcaset format? It was reel-to-reel in a cassette:
It had response up to 22 Khz or so. Not quite a match for real R2R but close. We paid $1,000 for it 1977.
Dr. Sean Olive: New Evidence That Gen Y'ers Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction
- Thread starter Ron Party
- Start date
It had response up to 22 Khz or so. Not quite a match for real R2R but close. We paid $1,000 for it 1977.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Was I the only one who bought into Sony's Elcaset format? It was reel-to-reel in a cassette:
It had response up to 22 Khz or so. Not quite a match for real R2R but close. We paid $1,000 for it 1977.
That reminds me of the short-lived competitor: digital compact cassette (DDC) by Philips discussed here. If we include professional tape formats, for awhile I recorded music on a Sony F1 digital recorder that used BetaMax tapes around 1985. When I arrvied at NRC about that time they had some Technics digital recorders that used VHS tape, that were eventually replaced by R-DAT.All of these formats were pretty short-lived.
I remember DCC as well, but I have something else to ask which has always kinda interested me. Why is it that Philips/Sony seem to do so much development together?
John
I used to record on analog machines all the time: Ampex, Studer/Revox and a 24-track machine called Lyrec(Danish) with 24 channels of Telecom Noise Reduction. It was a drag having to calibrate those machines (azimuth, bias,etc) every time you used them not to mention razor blade editing. At 30 ips they had no bass.
When digital recorders came out, there were some listening tests done on 5 different analog tapes machines versus the digital ones that you might want to read here. Some of this data showed up in a workshop on at AES London which I attended last month There seemed to be no conclusive results on which one was favored - except one which wasn't liked. People could identify the analog machines by differences in their lower signal-to-noise ratios. By today's standards these tests are not particularly well done.
A Subjective Comparison of Five Analog and Digital Tape Recorders
Carefully controlled double-blind listening tests were performed on two popular analog studio tape recorders and three low priced digital tape recorders. Studio and concert hall performances were recorded in parallel on the machines. Twelve experienced listeners provided analytical ratings for each of five programs replayed in random sequence by the machines. Individual listeners exhibited preferences dependent on both the program and the machine. However, there was also evidence of a population preference.
Hi John,
Both are big companies with deep pockets. But, many of the designs/inventions/advancements in technology in this field is quite costly. And the 2 giants can split the cost as well as the research/design/implementation. And with time each company brings its own take on a project to market. As an example, each has brought their CD drives to market.
Rich
Yes there's not a whole lot of info as to the testing methodology available unless one pays $20 for the article-of which I am loathe for any area since I feel it is a rip off since the authors don't see a penny!
But it's kinda hard to believe, given the quality of the early digital recorders, esp. the cheap ones, that there was even a contest--unless as you say, they just were talking about tape hiss/quietness (exactly the selling pt to the public about digital too). Any properly set-up Studer deck (even my highly modded Technics playing back the Tape Project tapes or some others that have come my way) would blow those digital recorders out of the water. when it comes to music though.
Remember JGH jumping on the early Sony digital recorder bandwagon and its measurements (Gordon should have known better and remembered the catastrophe of early ss gear and relying on the importance of measurements; it's what led him to found SP) and eventually backtracking? Gordon loved R2R and has a regularly running column in SP in those days on tape recording-since so many audiophiles did their own recording back then.
BTW, U47 here, otherwise known as Rich Brown, has a pair of 2 track Lyrecs. If I remember Rich correctly, someone in Canada is handling the line now.
You also raised the point about bass and 30 ips performance; obviously that's been discussed to death. But what has always puzzled me is that if you --and I know you said you played piano--have copies of Ivan Moravec's performances on Connoisseur Society (esp. the one or two mastered at 45 rpm). They were recorded on a modded 30 ips deck and I'll be darned if I can hear any bass compromises--esp. considering Moravec played a Bosendorfer. The only explanation is that they somehow got around the problem or re-eq'd the recording. I guess Alan Silver would know
I have several questions for you about this study, as I'm sure others here at WBF do, but for now I'll start with questions regarding program content:
If I correctly understand the slide presentation - a big assumption on my part
Related to this, I often read that one of the concerns with blind testing is familiarity with program content. Was this a concern in any way with the Gen Y study? I ask because my teenage son, who I believe to be like many of today's Gen Y'ers, listens to a lot of hip hop but rarely listens to the kinds of music used in the study.
Today someone mentioned my study in German blog on high tech. I met this writer a couple of weeks ago when he was visiting Harman as part of a press tour, and he asked me about how low quality affects our ability to sell/demonstration high quality sound reproduction.
The basic summary is that Berger's MP3 study has been challenged by me, and that sound quality is not a matter of personal taste (not my words), but something that can be scientifically measured. Since Berger's study was completed 2-3 years ago , he argues the quality and bit rates of music file downloads have improved and the days of kids listening to low quality Mp3 are coming to an end. What kids really need to worry about is how loud their headphones are (not to mention how loud and dynamically compressed the music is that they listening to).
I wish things were as simple as that.
Last edited:
I'd second that. From observation of what would if anything be a much better educated slice of late teens early twentys kids the ubiquitous white craptastic ear buds and iPhone rules. As does the number of songs possible to get on said iPhone more than quality.
Rather sad as I've found that at least the current edition of iPod Classic and an upgrade to Shure ear buds running Apple lossless to sound pretty decent for a portable solution.
Rather sad as I've found that at least the current edition of iPod Classic and an upgrade to Shure ear buds running Apple lossless to sound pretty decent for a portable solution.
For mobile situations, I listen to Apple Lossless on Ipod currently with Etymotic ER4P's. Much better than my Walkman circa 1980.
I do intend on running for tests where we test the influence of the fidelity of the playback system on MP3 preference. Certain time-based MP3 artifacts may be more audible over headphones - even crappy ones.
Last edited:
While this is somewhat dated as I haven't been motivated to retry it system fidelity can make a major difference in audibility of mp3 artifacts. Back when the fuss started about file sharing and the original Napster I downloaded a couple mp3's from a site that claimed to be legal in their hi-rez format. Hi-rez to them was 128 kbps. I got material I was familiar with as opposed to whatever was popular at the time. When I played this over the craplastic PC speakers (Creative Labs sat/sub in MC) I had at the time via a Soundblaster card, SBLive I think, they sounded much like the CD's over the same system. Note that this was hardly a hi-rez playback system either. Sound was there for gaming for which it did ok for the time.
Hearing this I thought maybe there was something to this mp3 thing, lossy compression or not. So I went and played back the same thing over the main system. DAL Carddeluxe into (I think) Casablanca I and a Perreaux 3150 amp driving B&W 801 Series 3 speakers. The preamp may have been a Mark Levinson or Perreaux. Not totally sure but you get the idea. I couldn't hit stop fast enough. My first thought was that the 6 transistor radio my grandfather gave me at around age 6 sounded better. An 80's era Dictaphone was a higher fidelity source. I didn't bother doing any more in depth listening, instead simply erasing the files and never looking back.
I expect the codec's have come a long way since then but haven't really seen the need to investigate. No need to compromise with lossless compression available. The only lossy format I've listened to much in the last few years is XM. A change in headphones made a difference there. Delphi supplied what looks like standard issue iPod cans except in gray instead of white. Made a difference in quality and comfort. Still didn't elevate the sound to the grab you and make you listen variety but adequate for background use. Something I've also noticed on their pay extra 'CD quality' online streaming. Ok for background but not involving in the least.
I'll be interested in the results of the testing. Better codecs, lossy or not, can't hurt.
Similar threads
