checked with him and he uses Sony APR5000 to APR5000 or A810 with Doshi to APR5000
If tape is so good why does it record so poorly?
- Thread starter Kingrex
- Start date
To me, the immediate giveaways of "cassette sound" (which, to even entertain the idea of trying to compare it to the full-range analog resolution of 1/4" R2R; even at 7 1/2ips, let alone 15!, is a patently absurd troll argument only punters would waste time attempting --- something they always seem to do in audio forums when, strangely, *R2R* topics come up???); however, those giveaways are:
The bass response of a cassette is all over the place like a fast and loose mushy mess.
There is always a "pinched"/compressed feeling to the upper midrange in the 4k region of cassette audio. Not even a (1/4") 3 3/4ips mass-duped Ampex R2R, circa 1969, sounds as dynamically "narrow" as that --- the 3 3/4 reel hissy as can be above 9k, yes, but not with that congested-ness in the upper-mid/lower treble.
I had both a Nak BX-300 and a Teac V-800X until the CDR era came in 1999 if I wanted a "portable" copy of something. The wow&flutter were never intrusive sounding on either of them, but a Philips CDR-770 made a more exacting copy of the source I was recording than the cassette ever did.
The bass response of a cassette is all over the place like a fast and loose mushy mess.
There is always a "pinched"/compressed feeling to the upper midrange in the 4k region of cassette audio. Not even a (1/4") 3 3/4ips mass-duped Ampex R2R, circa 1969, sounds as dynamically "narrow" as that --- the 3 3/4 reel hissy as can be above 9k, yes, but not with that congested-ness in the upper-mid/lower treble.
I had both a Nak BX-300 and a Teac V-800X until the CDR era came in 1999 if I wanted a "portable" copy of something. The wow&flutter were never intrusive sounding on either of them, but a Philips CDR-770 made a more exacting copy of the source I was recording than the cassette ever did.
I know of at least one studio in Europe that uses Otari for doing digital remasters. They will also be coming up with very limited copies of analogue reel to reel.
Wow, did you guys feel better getting that off your chest?
Decks vary enormously, but whatever. The experts have spoken.
Did you try a ZX9? Not saying it is better than the best R2R but it was difficult to distinguish it from a TASCAM 24/96 recorder.
I always felt the CR7 was the best record/playback deck that Nak made? You think the ZX9 is/was better?
So you never used any other top-of-the-line Naks? Or the late era (1990's) premium Pioneer or Tascam decks?
I have to correct one of my statements above that I haven't heard the CR-7 side-by-side with the ZX-9. My friend who has 4 Nak machines as well as a Technics X1000 R2R deck informed me that one of the Nak decks was in fact a CR-7 (he still has it). I was thinking it was another lower machine but it was a CR-7.
I can say definitively that the ZX-9 makes MUCH better recordings than the CR-7. All of my friends machines were refurbished and in top working order. The ZX9 was very close to the original source in direct A/B comparisons, whereas recordings with the CR-7 and the other two machines (one was a 680zx) and the R2R. As I mentioned, it was a virtual clone of a good TASCAM 24/96 digital recorder.
There is often a romantic idea of Reel to Reel tape. A really good tape recorder is basically 'transparent'. The only difference is a slight rise in back ground noise, which is less at 15 ips over 7.5 ips, and less on half track versus 1/4 track. But if the sound is changing considerably when comparing the monitor switch (hearing the original versus hearing the output from the play head near simultaneously) then there is something wrong and the fault should be remedied, or the machine scrapped if its beyond cure. Seriously - a properly set up tape with at 15 ips the correct EQ and bias, will not sound different to what ever has gone into it. There is a slight loss of fidelity at 7.5 ips, not that most would hear, and a greater loss at 3.25 ips when the bandwidth comes down to about 12 kHz. This is more to do with the tape head gap width being relatively wide so suits a faster tape. Cassette tape heads have incredible small head gaps which is why they can, on proper high end recorders, extend to 20 kHz (just.. at -20 db) but the tape noise is very high, so requires a noise reduction for it to be tolerable. Incidentally my tape machines with Dolby A or Dolby SR have fantastic signal to noise ratio. My only bug bear is the machines are heavy. So in short - if your tape recorder is giving you the 'Rose tinted' effect - its seriously out of spec.
A properly working tape machine produces a 3rd harmonic which can be significant if the record level is nearing or past 0VU. That will cause the tape to sound a bit warmer.
Yes, that's why some mastering engineers run digital recordings through a tape recorder (or use a tape machine plug-in) ! I don't find this distortion objectionable, and I much prefer to push the level to close to the limit and often regret not doing so when doing live recordings. Better S/N ratio is worth the mild saturation when using tape.
The 3rd harmonic isn't objectionable; it is treated by the ear the same as the 2nd, which is to say its relatively innocuous and adds a bit to 'warmth'.
You are right that it isn’t objectionable but it is not treated the same by the ear...
The premise of this thread is very good.
Imo, bettering the electronics will get you mostly there. Those that have tackled the repro end have shown the strides that can be made. Now on to the record side
We're working on that but can't even get parts for the repro cards, yet alone another "project"!?
Charles
Imo, bettering the electronics will get you mostly there. Those that have tackled the repro end have shown the strides that can be made. Now on to the record side
We're working on that but can't even get parts for the repro cards, yet alone another "project"!?
Charles
Similar threads
