[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

So where exactly does cassette get its better musicality from.

The same place that cable upgrades get their better musicality from.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif The same place that cable upgrades get their better musicality from.

Ah, the music pixies again

 

[Night Surfer]

Head-Fi TOS#4: Using facts to back up an argument is strictly prohibited.

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif So where exactly does cassette get its better musicality from.

The same place the that records and tubes (and their inferior specs) get theirs from. Now go talk to an audiophile and argue that.

It's really pointless to argue that technical specs equal superiority. The earliest cd player that people think sound like garbage today had the specs to prove they were superior to the mediums they replaced.

Tape wow and flutter always seemed more like a spec for engineers to chase than affecting real world listening. You never really heard wow and flutter on any decent quality deck until something went wrong...

I'm listening to my ipod and we speak, though HD580 and it basically sounds brittle to me - even after pumping it through a good amp. I don't want to argue, but sometimes you really have to LISTEN to know what's going on. What tape had over many digital sources was warmth, roundness. Who knows, maybe perfection doesn't produce a perfect listen experience. Go to a concert for real sound. Are you hearing every frequency, nuance and flaw from the instruments? No, you're hearing an amalgam of a sound. Maybe music is sometimes just more enjoyable without being observed through a calculator.

Here are the spec of an average cassette deck (an Aiwa) circa 1990:

Frequency response: Metal tape 13hz-24khz +-3db at -20db level
8hz-27khz -10db at -20db level
20hz-16khz +-3db at 0db level
Signal to noise: Dolby on S 87db or 84db peak level
Wow and Flutter: 0.018 WRMS

I mean, what do you want or expect you're gonna hear? To say that you need to hit these incredible technical scores to produce "great sound" is analgous to the Classicists saying the Impressionists sucked because the didn't use a needle point brushes to paint the fuzz on a peach. If the overall presentation is ultimately pleasing, I don't think the technical specifications mean fukal.

 

[Jolida302]

If you prefer a thin, harsh, limited sound, that's because you haven't heard better. Let us know what's the best digital setup you know?

As said up, specifications mean nothing, or maybe the critrias are wrong, cause if we follow your theories, solid state are better on the paper in the midhighs than tube, whereas it's exactly the contrary in fact.
Maybe because of the pair/unpair harmonic's issue? But who cares? The important is the result, only the result. You're talking about empirical facts, me too.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolida302 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you prefer a thin, harsh, limited sound, that's because you haven't heard better. Let us know what's the best digital setup you know? As said up, specifications mean nothing, or maybe the critrias are wrong, cause if we follow your theories, solid state are better on the paper in the midhighs than tube, whereas it's exactly the contrary in fact.

I'll probably hate myself for butting into this, but I do have one thought to add. What if the parameters by which we quantify audio perormance are incomplete? What if there are other specs beside the usual suspects that have a material effect on the perception of sound? What if say, tubes, excel in some area or areas that contribute to their perceived superiority (according to some people)? After all, psychoacoustics is a very poorly understood area.

Let's say we agree that a restaurant should be judged on three parameters: food, service, and atmosphere. Now imagine that restaurants were judged, on paper, only on service and atmosphere. People who depend only on published stats would of course tout the restaurants with the best service and atmosphere, without considering the food. Others, without understanding why, would protest that a restaurant they have visited had demonstrably mediocre service and atmosphere, but some intangible (in this case, the food) just made them prefer the place, despite its miserable specs.

Silly comparison, I know, but still...

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolida302 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you believe that solid state work better in the mid highs than tube, cause according to you, some figures say all?

This is incomprehensible and has nothing to do with my point. I did not claim that "some figures say all." I made no reference whatsoever to solid state versus tubes. I pointed out that your objective assertion that cassette has better technical specs than digital that is flat-out wrong.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm listening to my ipod and we speak, though HD580 and it basically sounds brittle to me - even after pumping it through a good amp. I don't want to argue, but sometimes you really have to LISTEN to know what's going on. What tape had over many digital sources was warmth, roundness.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever captured one of your cassettes into a digital recording and listened to that on your iPod? I'd be curious to hear your impression of that type of transfer. Perhaps what you prefer is not based any flaw in the digital medium, but the flaws in the tape, which just happen to have a sound that you prefer.

Maybe if I have time at some point in the future, I'll set up a little experiment along those lines.

 

[yslee]

You know, one reason why I don't like coming here is because there's a strange lack of common sense and logical thinking here.

It's like, there's an allergy to science for some reason. The same science that brought about reproducable followed by portable music.

Anyway I'll go back to trawling for info on the new Fuze. Have fun guys!

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Here are the spec of an average cassette deck (an Aiwa) circa 1990: Frequency response: Metal tape 13hz-24khz +-3db at -20db level 8hz-27khz -10db at -20db level 20hz-16khz +-3db at 0db level Signal to noise: Dolby on S 87db or 84db peak level Wow and Flutter: 0.018 WRMS

Those are hardly 'average' specs for cassette, and certainly not for (affordable) portable units. Plus even on high-end decks it's unlikely that those would be met in the real world, or after multiple playings, etc. OTOH digital performance specs generally are repeatable, don't care about number of playings, can be scaled down to a small size without significant performance degradation, can achieve very high performance at relatively low cost, etc.

As was mentioned, if you like the kind of sound that cassettes produce that's fine, and no one ever said that subjective preferences don't matter. But it's still a huge stretch to say that cassettes, LPs, or any analog technology are superior to a decent digital recording in any way whatsoever.

 

[Jolida302]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is incomprehensible and has nothing to do with my point. I did not claim that "some figures say all." I made no reference whatsoever to solid state versus tubes. I pointed out that your objective assertion that cassette has better technical specs than digital that is flat-out wrong.

On the paper, digital may go higher in freq, but by essence, there's info missing (whatever the resolution, and the human ear/brain is not fooled) on the whole freq spectrum, plus it adds supersonic noise. I prefer a little noise or crack and pops and the music intact.
I'm only interested in the empirical perception of music, and there's more low, dynamic, highs, info, -all- on (good) analog than on digital.
Now, let me know what's your reference digital source?

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

and there's more low, dynamic, highs, info, -all- on (good) analog than on digital.

In the context of this thread I suppose by 'good analog' you mean... cassette?

Really, this is getting so nonsensical at this point that I'll have to assume you are just trolling.

 

[kpeezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolida302 /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the paper, digital may go higher in freq, but by essence, there's info missing (whatever the resolution, and the human ear/brain is not fooled) on the whole freq spectrum, plus it adds supersonic noise. I prefer a little noise or crack and pops and the music intact. I'm only interested in the empirical perception of music, and there's more low, dynamic, highs, info, -all- on (good) analog than on digital. Now, let me know what's your reference digital source?

Supersonic noise? Empirical perception? Do you even know what these words mean?

-Kyle

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolida302 /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the paper, digital may go higher in freq, but by essence, there's info missing (whatever the resolution, and the human ear/brain is not fooled) on the whole freq spectrum,

Again, you are wrong.

Quote:

Now, let me know what's your reference digital source?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpeezy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Supersonic noise? Empirical perception? Do you even know what these words mean? -Kyle

I think he means the harmonic aliases above 22.05Khz, which are of course removed by the reconstruction filter anyway, as for empirical perception that is more or less okay both as a general statement of perception (where empirical is really a noise word) and also in reference to "Critique of pure reason" but I fear it was not meant in either of those two ways...