Andy.. i read your response woth interest. It dawns on me that your qualifiers are subjective and dependent on your hearing which will be different from others as they'll be to others as well.
I appreciate your descriptions and relate to a vinyl 2 box collection i was given of the classical greats but my turntable is midrange at best. A technics manual arm unit with anti skip and speed adjust.
Speakers are again technics and not particularly specialiswd in the higher frequency end.
"Tactical cues" = vibrations e.g. in your seat and very measurable. I think you complicate things.
//
Have you tried the newer ones ?
They were developed past the time CDs became popular.
They're highly portable of course but advances in their players yielded increases in their reproduction and even convenience.
I'd imagine that a faster moving medium like R2R woul have a higher tendency to remove material from the tape but thats just a gut feeling.
Ah i hadnt connected that but isnt that a feature of the speaker or indeed transducer placement.
I have transducers bolted to the seat which produces vibrations lower than the 20hz threshold of hearing.
Brilliant for tactile engagement...
Unfortunately measurment is the only way to truly agree on what we're talking of as all the rest is waffle...subjective.
The devices we are usung to communicate are worldwide and despite all the differences of users particulars and indeed techical architecture... they communicate freely because of internationally agreed standards of measurement and protocols.
This way each participant knows exactly what is neant by a phrase or utterance.
Indeed measurement and standards are extremely important when comparing different technical devices for faithful reproduction otherwise opinions are like ears... everone has a pair.
I hadn't noticed psychoacoustics before.. looking at the wiki it seems that the listening experience varies between people listening to the exact same equipment from the exact same position in exactly the same room...oweing to the biilogical differences between the listners themselves..including psychology, ear pathway, brain function and more.
But this would make any discussion of the qualities of a particular equipment for listening to music as totally subjective and therefore lacking verasity for the purpose of comparison.
If equipment is being compared... then a basic scientific (psychoacoustics is a scientific discipline as wiki announces) principle is to keep all factors the same and only change one.
This principle is so central to science that it forms the first and key message to secondary school students..even before they do experiments themselves to learn about and indeed compare aspects of the world we live in.
So... I feel very uneasy about comparing equipment like cassette or R2R within the parameters of an arbitrary listener who undoubtably differs in their listening biology to me.
It's Dolby SR that is the superior tape noise reduction system, not "S". And it IS superior, but it also is quite expensive, really meant to be used with professional open reel-to-reel tape recorders.
I'm aware of that and that it doesnt apply for the reasons you stated.
SR is meant for music professionals and largely unaffordable for the average home listener.
S was the best tradeoff on price for quality that could be made.
So S is the way to go becauae the vast majority of people who enjoy music aren't professional recording artists.
My experience with cassettes is that I have to listen to my favorite songs all over again, it's totally different in digital format because I can hear the high end better, especially the high hat changes the character of the song completely, not to mention the punchier bottom end.
Here's one for all of us: physiological changes while listening to music:
http://jass.neuro.wisc.edu/2013/01/Lab%20Report%20602_5%20final%20submission.pdf
It is true that sound had to be felt as well as heard: here is some information, but how do we do this at low frequencies? Maybe some sort of a massage chair type of device?
Bass: the Physical Sensation of Sound | Audioholics
to quote:
All quite relevant.
Last edited:
Yep cds did make it sound clearer but cassetts have moved on since then so that now the average person would not know if a cd was playing on a hi fi or indeed a cassette.
Recall that hearing starts to degrade from the age of 12.
Yes its true that music is the one stimulus that 'lights up' more parts of the brain than any other interaction.
"Plenty of bass" = frequency response
"transparent top end" = distortion, transient and harmonic
"quality of tone, particularly in the top strings" = any of: distortion as above; frequency response; or phase anomalies
Wholeheartedly agree. Fidelity and hence enjoyment. As I read that I heard an organ note - somewhere at the bottom of the pedal board, maybe 30Hz - at a level that made me stop reading and just be happy for a second.
Music Reproduction Systems - what are we trying to achieve? was the original poster's question. My answer is: getting as near as possible to sitting in the best seats of concert hall, cathedral or wherever.
Over many decades I have discovered that is a difficult but worthwhile task because "I am unlikely to hear the 1920 edition [ of Vaughan Williams London Symphony ] live".
As one of my neighbours says 'I need to listen live about once a week to feel right.' That's probably not subjective either.
Andy
I can't give you figures, but any trick used to enhance cassette can be used for R2R - but with the advantage that you are already starting from a much better position. That is why R2R was used for decades as the mastering and archive medium. People only used cassettes for demo tapes and music distribution - apart from a few pirate recordings.armarra1 said:
You seem very keen on cassette. Do you have a commercial interest? You seem very reluctant to accept that R2R (which I guess you have never seen or experienced) is simply better. Higher speed, wider tracks, thicker tape, more oxide - R2R with no tricks almost matches cassette with all tricks in use.
Originally Posted by armarra1 View Post
This is also true of speaker wires. If they arent thick enough then they cannot carry the full spectrum of notes due to the cross section not being wide enough to allow the different frequencies to pass through.
If its not thick enough then the higher frequencies get theortled by the BASS notes.
Im sorry I don’t agree on this. I’m using Duelund 16 awg single run for my ML Odyssey & there’s no deficiency of lag of bass on any heavy music that I play.
This is also true of speaker wires. If they arent thick enough then they cannot carry the full spectrum of notes due to the cross section not being wide enough to allow the different frequencies to pass through.
If its not thick enough then the higher frequencies get theortled by the BASS notes.
Im sorry I don’t agree on this. I’m using Duelund 16 awg single run for my ML Odyssey & there’s no deficiency of lag of bass on any heavy music that I play.
For me I’ll be very happy if my system can mimic whats all in the recordings. One can never replicate live from recordings. Just too many variables invovled . Assuming that you can come close then it can only be in one recording why, different venues, mic, acoustic enviroment, equipment etc etc. What’s really important to me is getting correct timbre of instruments, over tones, decay & naturalness. As diyers, we all know that it’s easier said then done.
I have no commercial interest.
I'm not a recording professional therefore i have little knowledge of R2R and from the sound of it neither do you apart from anecdotal.
I can accept that R2R is reputed to be of very good quality... wgat i am pressing though is that because CDs halted peoples interest in cassettes, few are aware of just how good they became in both versatility and quality.
Im not shooting down R2R so please dont be offended but i am reminding people tgat cassettes resurgence in recent years is due to a late acceptance that analog forms of music reproduction carry with them a certain charm and now a higher quality than they had uaed all those years before digital.
Rather than just relying on a memory of times gone by... im enticing people to take a look and a listen to the cassette format on a decent deck that was produced after the CD took over.
With a possible 11 hours of continuous custom recorded tape play and the quality of dolby S and other frequency curve technologies like FLEX.. the cassette becomes a very good choice for the home hifi enthusiast. Im not dwnying R2R is reputed to be very good on quality.