I've been re-starting with compact cassette approx. one decade ago. Had some Studer/Revox Models and could audition the differences in sound quality between those models and even the cassette types and manufacturers. It was audible what character a true chrome like BASF had and which was the difference to asian pseudo- chromes. Had some different metal tapes, too.
Many of them were noisy as hell, much more noise than an excellent chrome. I don't talk about the cheap ferro or rare fe-cr types. The first type is noisy and the other is too rare to be used daily.
But when I tried out my first R2R, a simple Revox A77 and compared the sound with compact cassette, this chapter was over for me.
Sold my decks (much to early, today they have doubled in value) and got rid of those 500 cassettes.
Just because this was the first time, a tape recording sounded as I wanted it to sound. Big, deep, creamy sound, not like the always thin sounding CC decks. It is said that Willy Studer didn't liked CC. It was very clear to me from that point onwards, why. Its not about the frequency range, that may be as good. Its just for the better sonics, the more energy which can be stored on broader tapes (I only use two track, never four track) with faster speed. This is, where CC sucks.
Some people on forums often spread the word "I can't hear a difference between the recording and the original". Thats bullshit. Or something just people with mediocre sounding analog audio systems experience. Everyone who has a high definition, high resolution system that is capable of transporting energy (!) into the room and not just reproduce the whole frequency range can hear the difference.
But many people think they have highend gear at home and aren't being able to hear the difference between source and tape recording.
I hear it even with a Studer R2R or a Revox, but now it doesn't make me feel bad, because the sound is a little different, but still as rich, full and deep sounding like an analog LP record as the source. And maybe even better sounding compared to a digital source, some people say they favor the analog R2R recording of a digital source when listening to both. Well, that may be true, the effect is there. You cannot record on any medium, and the sound is still the same.
That's what I experienced many years ago with digital recordings on blank CD's from an original CD. The copy sounded different. Not that much in difference that an analog copy shows, but enough to make notice about it with the trained ear.
So every copy of any source, digital or analog is a loss in quality, but with R2R it doesn't bother me any longer. My Studer is much better than the Revox A77 though, but both degrade CC to what it always was: a cheap format for the masses with very small analog tracks and a very low speed, too low to compare with better formats, too small to compare even to the infamous Elcaset, which was a Frankenstein format between R2R and CC.
I have deep respect for the evolution of the CC in terms of sound quality and tape materials, but the format was ill fated from the beginning.
Too low were the standards for its speed and track width, once I read it was intended as a format for speech steno purposes.
Only later some people saw the chance with better tape materials to record music, too. Maybe that was possible, technically speaking, but like Willy Studer thought, its not as good as R2R and it wasn't satisfactory for me, too. Love R2R and recording, long may it live in the future.
