Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Get that song on tape! Errr... disk?
User avatar
tdbajus
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Back in Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by tdbajus » Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:53 pm

Larry Mal wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:41 pm
I never see any need to get a fucking Portastudio so I can make bad and noisy recordings no one will ever want to hear.

I make beautiful and clean recordings that no one wants to hear!
You are magnificent, Larry.

I would prevail upon the OP to go to Guitar Center and get whatever UAD Apollo you think you can afford, take it home for a weekend, and try it out.
If you have the opportunity to borrow a 4 track, record onto both units.

I doubt you will be returning the UAD interface. I have an Apollo8, and it's made recording incredibly easy- everything sounds fantastic.

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12307
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by Larry Mal » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:11 pm

I need a new interface.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

User avatar
Fuzzbuzz
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:43 am

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by Fuzzbuzz » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:16 pm

I don't disagree, Larry. To the OP, try to find an AFFORDABLE Reel to Reel that's in GREAT working order. You will need the mixer to go with that. Don't forget all the cables. Oh yeah, you will need some mic preamps too. I'd imagine about $2000 should get you going. And dude.... fucking sonically tho.... you are going to sound amazing!

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12307
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by Larry Mal » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:33 pm

Fuzzbuzz wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:16 pm
I don't disagree, Larry. To the OP, try to find an AFFORDABLE Reel to Reel that's in GREAT working order. You will need the mixer to go with that. Don't forget all the cables. Oh yeah, you will need some mic preamps too. I'd imagine about $2000 should get you going. And dude.... fucking sonically tho.... you are going to sound amazing!
Sigh.

Well, I've owned three reel to reel machines, haven't spent any "reel" money on them (see what I did there!).

They made portable ones, that would record to the 1/4" format (7.5 or 15 ips). It would be much better than cassette, specs-wise, anyway- I can't vouch for any particular machines.

Go to eBay and search for "portable reel to reel".

Since you can record to them, they'll have a pre-amp in them, so you won't need a mixer. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from. You'll need a cable, that's for sure.

So, sure, a professional 8 track 2" machine would cost a lot of money. But the 1/4" machines don't. There's plenty of fun reel to reels out there to learn analog recording on. Like I say, you can do a digital mix, then send that out to tape, then bring it back in to digital, and bam, you've got the analog sound. And much better than any fucking cassette, because cassettes suck.

Please don't make absurd situations out of what I've said. I have a good amount of experience here, I know cassettes well, I owned two Portastudios and so I know they suck. Cassettes weren't a novelty to me growing up, it was the standard. I have worked with reel to reel to some degree- have you? I know digital recording very well.

A Portastudio might be useful as a live rig, the digital ones, anyway. But there is no point to a cassette. None. Nothing. You're dreaming.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

User avatar
Fuzzbuzz
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:43 am

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by Fuzzbuzz » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:39 pm

Larry Mal wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:33 pm
Fuzzbuzz wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:16 pm
I don't disagree, Larry. To the OP, try to find an AFFORDABLE Reel to Reel that's in GREAT working order. You will need the mixer to go with that. Don't forget all the cables. Oh yeah, you will need some mic preamps too. I'd imagine about $2000 should get you going. And dude.... fucking sonically tho.... you are going to sound amazing!
Sigh.

Well, I've owned three reel to reel machines, haven't spent any "reel" money on them (see what I did there!).

They made portable ones, that would record to the 1/4" format (7.5 or 15 ips). It would be much better than cassette, specs-wise, anyway- I can't vouch for any particular machines.

Go to eBay and search for "portable reel to reel".

Since you can record to them, they'll have a pre-amp in them, so you won't need a mixer. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from. You'll need a cable, that's for sure.

So, sure, a professional 8 track 2" machine would cost a lot of money. But the 1/4" machines don't. There's plenty of fun reel to reels out there to learn analog recording on. Like I say, you can do a digital mix, then send that out to tape, then bring it back in to digital, and bam, you've got the analog sound. And much better than any fucking cassette, because cassettes suck.

Please don't make absurd situations out of what I've said. I have a good amount of experience here, I know cassettes well, I owned two Portastudios and so I know they suck. Cassettes weren't a novelty to me growing up, it was the standard. I have worked with reel to reel to some degree- have you? I know digital recording very well.

A Portastudio might be useful as a live rig, the digital ones, anyway. But there is no point to a cassette. None. Nothing. You're dreaming.
EBAY! HAHAHA.. 1/4"! HAHAHAHA Larry you're a funny dude! I’m just messing with you man. Clearly you have an opinion about cassette.

I’ve had a little reel to reel experience. In addition to owning two machines for the last 20 years, That’s all I recorded on u til about 2001 when Stepped into a friends fully digital studio for the first time.

User avatar
øøøøøøø
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12231
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by øøøøøøø » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:08 pm

There are some very curious points being made in this thread, a few of which seem to reflect misunderstandings of some of the terminology and theory behind both analog and digital audio.

I will make some time later to press for more clarity. Our OP friend should be getting good information as they make their decision.

User avatar
julius2790
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:07 am
Location: Just outside Raleigh, North Carolina

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by julius2790 » Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:49 pm

I have a Tascam 414 and a 488 (8-track version). IMHO there is a useful aesthetic to the cassette that is difficult to get from the DAW though I like to use both. What I like to do is cut to tape and then bounce to the DAW for mixing and whatnot.

I feel that the preamps on something like a 424 or even a 414 are special and can be used without cutting to tape though the tape still seems to add vibe on vocals, acoustic guitar, and drums especially.

A couple of my friends made a run of pedals that are based off a 424 Tascam preamp and if anyone is interested please check out http://www.424recording.com.

Jay (The Wizard) on the board came up with a schematic for a pedal that allows for the 4-track sound and can be used with a DAW or digital interface. You can use his pedal with a mic or any guitar/bass/synth and here are some vid samples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OsKC8MBvaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijbc4aRnyok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkouGHGcArY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTftSNCvF48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoVgkA0cXjs

I wish I had access to a real tape setup but the 4-track vibe is super cool for the kind of music I like to try and create. Here's an example of the kind of stuff I've been doing with the 4-track to DAW setup:

https://soundcloud.com/julius2790/downt ... sting-time

https://soundcloud.com/julius2790/lover ... s-braggers

https://soundcloud.com/julius2790/one-spot

https://soundcloud.com/julius2790/i-call-her-moonbeam

https://soundcloud.com/julius2790/pull- ... from-a-jar

I really feel like if you are into 60's kind of sounds that using the 4-track or something that approximates the preamp can be worth exploring. You have issues with tape drag when bouncing to a DAW from cassette but you can time correct things without too much difficulty and I feel that the vibe from the tape is well worth the effort at times.

User avatar
øøøøøøø
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12231
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by øøøøøøø » Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:25 am

OK, I'm back!

All "quotes" below are paraphrases of points other users have made in this thread. I've paraphrased so as not to blatantly call anyone out for being "wrong." Hopefully by doing this we can keep it impersonal and keep the focus of the conversation on audio. Multiple users' comments are represented below anyway, so few are innocent. :)

---
Cassettes reproduce up to 15kHz, and that's terribly inadequate
Yes, content above 15k can be meaningful for "air" and such, but bandwidth to 15k would really be "not so bad" all things considered. The inner grooves of an LP record typically have less top end extension than that, and nobody seems to complain when they talk about how 'amazing' their vinyl sounds. But all that aside-- bandwidth to 15k is incredibly optimistic for cassette, and requires everything to be functioning in tip-top shape on its best day. The reality is usually far worse.

---
The more size you have for an analog medium-- the wider the tape tracks or the wider the spacing of the grooves on an analog disc-- the better the sound
This is a bit misleading. A wider tape track allows better performance chiefly in one area, and that's signal-to-noise ratio. More space on the tape = more magnetic domains, which means you can print a hotter level, which gets you further above the (fixed) noise floor of the tape. It doesn't really affect bandwidth or so-called "resolution" (which I've never seen a clear, empirical definition of).

---
Recording to tape always causes compression
This is another myth. If you print at a hot level, you reach full saturation-- all magnetic domains at a given point are aligned either positive or negative, and you can't print any hotter. This usually manifests as good-old-fashioned clipping, but if pressed, I could concede that it sometimes acts as a sort of peak limiting. If you're just below that point, I could imagine that a bit of saturation could take place in advance of full clipping as the pool of randomly-oriented magnetic domains starts to run low, but in all honesty, I think the narrative of "tape compression" is vastly overstated.

In any case, if you print at a relatively low level, magnetic tape doesn't meaningfully compress at all. If you're using Dolby A or SR, you can print at a level low enough to where saturation isn't really an issue. Tape compression is a thing, I guess... it does exist under certain circumstances, but it's attribution as some magical "always on" thing that is synonymous with "tape sound" is largely internet folklore.

---
If you want the tape sound, just bounce to tape after you're done, or track to tape and dump into the DAW
Will it sound different if you do that? Sure. Will you capture some "tape flavor?" I concede. Will you retain all of the disadvantages of tape (noise floor, head bump, etc) and therefore hear some "tape flavor?" Yes.

Is that the same as recording and staying in the analog domain? Absolutely not. And the better your tape machines are, the better they're aligned, and the better your analog recording practices... the more the output will sound like input (read: the less "tape flavor" you will get), anyway.

---
'CD Quality' is obsolete and was never good.
16/44.1k isn't obsolete, and it's still perfectly fine as a delivery medium for a two-track stereo mix that a consumer will listen to. Early CDs were bad, but we've come a long way since the 1980s.

16 bit 44.1k is very poor as a multitrack medium, where you'll be turning digital "faders" up and down, truncating and combining multiple tracks (more on that later). But as a two-track delivery medium? It's excellent when done well. And it's still the basis for many/most delivery media even as CDs slip into complete obsolescence.

---
CD quality is scientifically-proven as all a human can hear, and therefore it's totally adequate for multitracking
No such unambiguous scientific "proof" exists or could exist (let's get that out of the way first). But 16 bit 44.1k when properly implemented and well-dithered can achieve excellent performance.

But excellent performance is not inherent in the format or there for the taking--you have to work for it.

16 bits @ 44.1k can be manipulated with some funny math to perform far better than its raw specs would indicate. But even when all of that is done well, the DAC has to be well-implemented or its low-ish sampling rate could produce artifacts of one form or another in the audio band.

It's a bit deep to get into here, but briefly-- there's a lowpass filter below the Nyquist frequency (1/2 sampling rate, or 22.05kHz in this case). This filter is where most of the real-world issues with this sampling rate originate. If the filter isn't steep enough, you can get aliasing distortion (which sounds pretty ugly). If it acts on frequencies that are too low, you can get rolloff in the top of the audio band. If it's as steep as it needs to be, you can get problematic phase shift in the top of the band, enough to be audible, etc etc etc. Basically, implementation is everything.

And that's just for the two-track.

When multitracking with "CD quality" audio, you have a new problem: the noise floor at 16 bits is fixed, and is (theoretically) 48dB worse than 24 bit. That's an astronomical difference. For a two-track master, this is largely irrelevant; 96dB of dynamic range (dithered to 120 or so) is practically plenty. But if you're combining several tracks, this extra noise floor can add up and be perceptible. If you're manipulating level in the digital domain (i.e. moving a virtual fader), the problems can rapidly compound.

This applies pressure to print at hotter levels to "beat the noise floor" just as you might on tape. However, clipping in the digital domain is WAY more obvious (and subjectively worse-sounding) than saturating tape. With 24 bit, you can print at much more conservative levels, and with 144dB of theoretical dynamic range, noise floor essentially never becomes an issue, even with low print levels, low fader levels, and many many combined tracks.

---
22.05 kHz is inadequate because musical instruments produce content above that band, even though humans can't hear it
No. This is a red herring. The shortcomings of 44.1k as a sample rate don't stem from its 22.05kHz bandwidth so much as they stem from an impractically-tight transition band for the nyquist filter.

To avoid aliasing distortion, all frequencies above 22.05kHz must be attenuated infinitely, ideally without disturbing the frequencies below 20kHz.

That's a VERY steep filter, and is very hard to design in the real world without some tradeoffs. At 96kHz, your transition band becomes very wide-- Nyquist is 48kHz, which gives you a full 28kHz (over an octave at this frequency) to transition from "full up" to "full off." That means the filter slope can be shallower (causes less phase shift), and later (less-likely to disturb in-band signal). This allows fewer design tradeoffs to be made. This--NOT irrelevant ultrasonic content--is the advantage of higher sampling rates

---
Nobody liked CDs when they came out because they've never been very good
Nah. CDs got a bad rap when they came out because implementation was abysmal. A properly-dithered 16 bit signal can give you >120dB of usable dynamic range. This is more than enough to resolve any subtleties in the quietest reverb tails you can imagine. It can get you well above the threshold of pain and far below the sound of your own blood pumping in your ears in an anechoic chamber.

A well-implemented Nyquist filter above 44.1k can also perform very well indeed, now, compared to when the technology was in its infancy four decades ago.

---
[picture of stair-stepped audio superimposed on a sine wave, as though to imply that the coarseness of these stair-steps determine resolution]
This isn't how digital audio works. It's a misleading graphic, and has led to untold levels of misunderstanding. It's not anyone's fault... it's just a bad 'internet narrative' that's facile and oversimplified. The Nyquist filter I was discussing above makes the stair-steps go away.

It seems counterintuitive, but it's true-- there are no "stair-steps" or "slices of time" in the output of a digital audio device. The complete, analog waveform is reconstructed from the sampling data, in all of its perfectly-smooth, continuous, analog glory. The samples are not the signal. The samples are data points that allow the complete analog waveform to be "drawn" in a fashion that's at least theoretically-identical to what it was on input.

The discrepancies that make people hate poorly-implemented digital ("coldness" "brittleness" "harshness" etc) are a result of sub-optimal implementation. Very often, ironically, the "thin and brittle" characteristic of cheap digital audio can be traced to poor-sounding analog stages within the devices!

---
We can't hear dithering, because our brains engage in a process called aliasing that does the work for us
I think there are some problems with terminology here.

Dithering absolutely can be perceived versus truncating a 16 bit digital file. Proper noise-shaped dither expands 16 bit's dynamic range by as much as 24dB. This means 24dB of recoverable signal that would otherwise be below the noise floor of 16 bit audio. It might not be the most obvious thing in the world on a Discman in your car at 60mph, but if you're sitting down and listening for pleasure, on some program material you may perceive more detail as a result of this recovered information (particularly in terms of ambience, space, localization, reverb tails, etc).

Aliasing is not a process that our brains do. It's a form of distortion that occurs in a digital electronic device when there is insufficient low-pass filtering at the Nyquist frequency (1/2 the sample rate). It is, for all intents and purposes, unrelated to dither and therefore has no relevance in this context.

What aliasing actually is: when a PCM digital system is presented with frequencies greater than 1/2 its sampling rate, it produces an insufficient number of data points to reproduce those frequencies. This "tricks" the system into thinking that very high frequencies are actually lower frequencies, and it reproduces those "phantom" lower frequencies instead. This gives you sizzly artifacts that are correlated with signal and sound absolutely awful. If you've heard the sound, you will never forget it.

It's important to note that aliasing is a function of sample rate, and is completely unrelated to bit depth or dither.

---
Bit depth above 16 is unnecessary, because why capture sounds our ears can't hear?
Frequency response/bandwidth has nothing to do with the bit depth--we should begin there. Bit depth determines noise floor-- nothing more.

24 bit has a theoretical dynamic range of 144dB (that is, the difference between the noise floor and the loudest sound it can produce undistorted). 16 bit offers 96dB of dynamic range. 12 bit gives you 72dB, which is still quite usable in some applications (believe it or not, this is about the same as 2" 24 track running at 15 IPS!)

It seems crazy based on all the nonsense you will read on the internet about digital audio... but even 8 bit PCM digital, with its 42dB dynamic range, is still good enough for some applications!

But let's not get it twisted-- the frequency response of all of the above will be identical as long as the sample rate for each is the same. If the dynamic range of the material were to be sufficiently narrow, you would not even hear the difference between 8 and 24 bit, all else being equal.

BUT-- 144dB of theoretical dynamic range is nevertheless MUCH better than any of the alternatives, especially when combining multiple tracks (where noise is cumulative), and for real-world signals that have sounds which decay into silence.

---

That's enough for now. Nobody has even read this far anyway. And if you have, again I'll stress that I don't want to "call out" any member or members here for spreading bad information... but I likewise thought it would be a bummer to leave it out there unaddressed.

User avatar
tdbajus
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Back in Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by tdbajus » Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:59 am

Larry Mal wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:11 pm
I need a new interface.
I just bought the Apollo8, and I would keep it over the set of manley, langevin, chameleon labs neve clones, and Metric Halo 2882 I used to have. Rock solid, converters are amazing, and the plug-ins unparalleled.

The major downside is that UAD really gouges you on the plugs, but they will be the first ones you go for, every time.

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12307
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by Larry Mal » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:19 am

Ah, right. I forgot, I kind of "broke up" with UAD since I had a couple of UAD-1 cards that was made obsolete by that company. I forget the details but I do remember vowing not to do business with them in the future even though I loved those plug ins, especially their plate reverb one.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

User avatar
BearBoy
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:39 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by BearBoy » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:32 am

øøøøøøø wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:25 am
Nobody has even read this far anyway.
I did :) . Thanks for posting.

User avatar
tdbajus
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Back in Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by tdbajus » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:53 am

Larry Mal wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:19 am
Ah, right. I forgot, I kind of "broke up" with UAD since I had a couple of UAD-1 cards that was made obsolete by that company. I forget the details but I do remember vowing not to do business with them in the future even though I loved those plug ins, especially their plate reverb one.
The EMT plates are amazing.

I also got screwed, because I originally bought the UAD1 with the deluxe package. The plugs transferred, but I had recycled the computer and the UAD card, so when they allowed you to turn in the UAD1 for credit on the new stuff, they wouldn't give me the benefit of the doubt.

Furthermore, all of the subsequent bundles they offered at the time included plugs that were part of the original deluxe package- meaning that because I had made a big investment when the really needed it, I would have to pay full price for the ones I didn't have. When I asked if I could substitute plugins of equal value, the customer service guy was a complete asshole.

You may have noticed that now they offer generic "buy any three plugs for $X" now. Their customer service has changed- the last dealing I had with them the guy bent over backwards to help me out.

Still, since it has so many outputs, I just wired up two that are devoted solely to reamping stuff, and while their space echo emulation is cool, I can run out to various pedals for even more fun.

User avatar
tdbajus
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:09 am
Location: Back in Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by tdbajus » Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:53 am

BearBoy wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:32 am
øøøøøøø wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:25 am
Nobody has even read this far anyway.
I did :) . Thanks for posting.
Yeah, your post ruled, and was greatly appreciated by at least two people.

User avatar
øøøøøøø
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12231
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by øøøøøøø » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:42 am

Something interesting to piggyback on a point about bit depth from the post above--

To prove that noise floor is the only difference between bit depths, have a go at this blind test. It's Neil Young's "Rockin' In The Free World" at both 16 bit and 8 bit.

https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_1 ... lYoung.php

Take the test and see if you can guess whether the file is 8 bit or 16 bit 19 out of 20 times. That's a 95% confidence interval, at which point you can be fairly certain that you're not just getting lucky.

I was able to choose correctly five times in a row just now... but ONLY in headphones, by paying VERY careful attention to the noise floor. The 8 bit example, if you listen closely, has a layer of white noise that's mostly masked by the open hi hat, but if you're really careful, you can distinguish it.

In terms of "resolution" (whatever that means) and frequency response, the signal that's present is the same in both... the noise floor is just higher. If we were able to hear a silence on the recording (with a note decaying into it), however, the difference would be more obvious.

Compact cassettes have about 50dB of dynamic range (sometimes stretching to 60). This isn't too much better than 8 bit noise performance. That's already "not great." But if you combine multiple tracks, you're increasing the hiss by 3dB each time. Then if you do bounces or go down generations, you're getting 3dB noisier each time as well. If you're printing at a low level and not taking advantage of the full dynamic range, you're then getting noisier by that amount of 'untapped potential.' So you can quickly see how cassette four tracks get very noisy very quickly.

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12307
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Anyone have recs on a cassette 4 track?

Post by Larry Mal » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:02 am

Well, I was going to skip the rest of this thread for the most part, but I do have some quibbles with what you wrote and some of your paraphrasing simply misquoted me entirely. I know that was your point, but Brad, while you are free to disagree with me on anything and I love the conversation, and it's of course always possible that I could be more clear or even outright wrong, it is a little lame of you to twist my words around to something that I never said in order to make a point. Who does that?

For instance, I wrote:

"Basically, tape is an analog, so it literally writes an analog waveform of what it records (vinyl does that also in the grooves). The more "real estate" you give that analog to write to, the better sounding it is (there are exceptions)."

I did not write:

"The more size you have for an analog medium-- the wider the tape tracks or the wider the spacing of the grooves on an analog disc-- the better the sound"

I would not have been able to write anything about the wider the spacing of the grooves on an analog disc because I don't even know if that's true sitting here right now. You later say that, "A wider tape track allows better performance chiefly in one area, and that's signal-to-noise ratio."

When is "better signal to noise ratio" not considered better sound? You are really quibbling with me over that? I mean, I guess I could have been more technically accurate, but still... I'll say that "better signal to noise ratio" does in fact equal "better sound" anytime. Also, bear in mind that I said "there are exceptions", namely, a lot of people feel that you can get tighter bass sounds at 15ips rather than 30.

I also did not write this:

"Cassettes reproduce up to 15kHz, and that's terribly inadequate"

I wrote:

"I'm finding it a little hard to get accurate figures for the frequency range of cassettes, like I say. The figure of 15k seems to be accepted:

Compact cassettes may have a response extending up to 15 kHz at full (0 dB) recording level.

I seem to be reading that cassettes also only start hearing bass frequencies around 50k."

I wasn't talking about what a cassette reproduces ("plays back") but rather the frequency response that a cassette can capture ("write to"). I view a recording medium that cannot capture the "full range" of sounds that an instrument to be able to play or microphones to be able to record to be inadequate, especially in the face of digital competition that can capture the full range, and is cheaper, and provides better editing and everything else on top of it.

And for the record, I am still not 100% on the recordable frequency ranges that cassettes can capture, which is why I said so.

Regardless I am confident that cassette tape cannot capture the full range of sound that digital audio can capture. You and others might disagree with me on the importance of sound above 15k, and that's fine. I happen to think it's important to capture that, I think there is useable sound there (more than "air"), you might disagree, like I say.

Still I see no reason to accept a medium that allows for anything other than recording the full 20-20k. There are microphones that shunt off immediately at 15k, to be sure. But there are plenty that go all the way up to 20k and I want the medium I record to to be able to put down everything that any microphone I put in front of a sound source can capture. Why would I not?

You also quote me as saying that CD quality was never good, which I'll hold to. We can disagree with whether or not it was ever very good, you might think so. But regarding it as being obsolete, well, the 16 bit nature of "CD quality" has long been surpassed by 24 bit, which is better in every way I can think of. I probably also don't need to remind you that the CD as a format has been seeing plunging sales for quite some time now, I haven't double checked these figures but assuming they are correct, CD sales went from 943 million at the peak in 2000 or so, to less than 99 million less than a decade later. That's a tenth... that's a huge drop.

I don't have figures to tell me what CD player sales are, I'll imagine they have also fallen. There is no Apple computer currently made that has a CD or DVD player built into it, Dell is following suit, and I'll suggest that in five more years pretty much almost all computers one can buy will not have a CD/DVD drive built into them.

So yes, the CD is obsolete. It has been long surpassed in performance and is a fading medium that will not be well known in twenty years.

You go on to disagree with an admittedly simple graphic I put up:

"This isn't how digital audio works. It's a misleading graphic, and has led to untold levels of misunderstanding. It's not anyone's fault... it's just a bad 'internet narrative' that's facile and oversimplified. The Nyquist filter I was discussing above makes the stair-steps go away.

It seems counterintuitive, but it's true-- there are no "stair-steps" or "slices of time" in the output of a digital audio device. The complete, analog waveform is reconstructed from the sampling data, in all of its perfectly-smooth, continuous, analog glory. The samples are not the signal. The samples are data points that allow the complete analog waveform to be "drawn" in a fashion that's at least theoretically-identical to what it was on input. "


Brad, I wasn't talking about output. My words, right before I put that image up, were, "I see no reason not to capture everything that the instrument creates. Why not? Disk space doesn't cost much these days." Right? I'm talking about recording here.

That article wasn't talking about output, it was talking about how sampling works for recording, right?

Did you read the article, it was linked there? Or did you just look at the graphic?

Because the article says, "Multi track recorders vary between 16/44.1 and 24/96. When you buy one you have to decide which way to go and get it right the first time."

So yeah, that graphic shows a very simple picture of a sine wave being sampled. That's not inaccurate, is it? Digital might output an analog (or at least something our ears will accept as an analog), but it does not record ("sample") an analog. Two different concepts.

What is in between two samples of audio at 44.1k? Nothing. It wasn't recorded. All your computer knows is what the two samples themselves were. And that's inherently not an analog, and that's what the graphic was showing.

It wasn't saying anything about digital output.
Last edited by Larry Mal on Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

Post Reply