[PRR]

> ...good cassette recording, you basically get back what was on the source

> With MD it sounds like everything was taken apart and put back together again with slightly smaller "parts".

That's one way to put it.

Analog comes back dirty and bent, like when you loan your new car to your brother in law. Dolby gives you some choice between Bent and Dirty: Dolby gets the signal out of the noise but doubles response errors.

Cassette tape has it bad, because it was invented to be a dictation machine. It was not serious music until Henry Kloss (God rest Henry) heard the first Pro Dolby and talked Dolby into making a simple version that normal people could afford. That and the early true CrO2 tapes made music no worse than 3.75ips 1/4" tape, with no threading or tangling and much lower cost and weight.

The signal on the tape "is" the magnetic analog of the original acoustic wave. It is "real".

Compressed Digital is re-created from nothing and a few shorthand notes. Or like when your car is stolen and stripped, and some cheap mechanic fixes it with assorted parts similar to the ones that are missing. Or: A good secretary can note every third word the boss dictates and still type a proper letter. Digital compression may only take every tenth word, and isn't quite as clever as a good secretary.

For instance, I have heard "cymbals" on a complex sax solo. I figure the decompressor was made to do pop-music well, and pop is full of cymbals, and they eat bandwidth so are over-compressed. A "good pop decompressor" will fake a good cymbal from scant clues. But apparently it will fake a cymbal from bits of squeaks and clacks in a sax solo.

Note that I am not indicting un-compressed digital. I feel that Audio CD can be as good as any affordable analog format. High-speed well-tweaked reel tape can be better than consumer CD players, but who has $100/hour for tape stock and a calibration technician sitting by the recorder?

-PRR

 

[PRR]

> the meter, the DoubleD sign is marked at +3db

VERY odd. I do recall that Yamaha sometimes did things differently. But this quirk does not ring a bell.

The Dolby Level was a good maximum for 1980 tape. Tapes got better and "0VU" slid up to +2VU or so (i.e., Dolby Level at -2VU). DD at +3VU is either very conservative, or their meters worked strangely. Dolby Level is specified as a steady tone, and music is jumpy, so there is always some peak-factor built into the meters. Maybe Yama's meters used a different factor. The fact that DD is the next to top light also says you are not normally supposed to go higher.

If it sounds bad above a certain level, don't do that. There is a slight chance that the machine is out of adjustment, but usually when they are more than a tad off they just get no-doubt sick. I would bet Yama just did something different. They can be like that. (Fascinating company. They don't make anything that anybody needs, like ships or toilet paper, so they have to be sure it is something we want or they will be out of business.)

> (0VD at 0, so what does 0VD mean?)

damifIknow. Maybe I've forgotten all I once knew, but this may again be a Yamaha New Idea that didn't catch on.

> I've tried setting it higher than 3 on the knob, but low end distortion would be very obvious by about 4

This tells me little. I don't know the output level of your source, and recorder input levels varied widely those days. 3 or 4 is reasonable for CD deck and cassette recorder so I'm sure you found what works in your specific collection of gear. Since 1992 or so, levels seem to have settled down: nearly all my newer analog decks will take a 2V max signal at 3.9 on the knob. But analog-in CD recorders still vary. And I remember in 1983, every new deck was an adventure in finding levels.

> a single deck should give better recording quality than a double deck around the same price range. So is that true?

You have to ask? Twice as much for the same price.... something can't be "as good" or else someone is getting ripped-off (and it isn't the maker or store).

Actually, sometimes a single and dual worked the same for about the same price. I remember when dual-decks got down to $109, and singles were $99. Both used the same $10 transport, with a $10 board and box. So they were probably $20 and $30 at the factory, and $80 for shipping, distribution, and profit. (Gross profits in hi-fi are always high, but net profits can be quite slim... it isn't that easy to sell this stuff.)

But another thing: most of the dual well tape decks ran the record side 0.5% slower than the play side! Why? When you make a copy (which is why we bought them) if the copy tape hits the end before the master, we complain that the end of the last song is lost. They can't make the two decks run at exactly the same speed (and tapes vary a bit) so they err on the side of being sure the recorder gets to the end after the player does. Most listeners don't complain about 0.5% speed and pitch variation. My musican clients were less happy, and could be upset if I gave them a copy of a copy. Not the noise, but the pitch was now too far off to stand.

> the Yamaha deck only has 2 heads, two motors and one pinch roller... somewhat like an entry level machine back in the early 80's or there were stuff much worst?

Two motors is one more than many later machines had. Some mostly-excellent Teacs had just one. All later entry level decks had just one.

Two pinch rollers is more often a sign of a bidirectional deck. A very-few top machines sported two pinch rollers used at once, but tension control is very difficult. Reversable decks use one or the other pinch roller. And we always "knew" that a 2-way deck was a bad idea. There is enough problem holding that skinny tape aligned one way, how can it be aligned for two different directions? Tests on reversable decks usually showed significant differences in response one way than the other.

Reversable really got common with the WalkMan. If you have one flywheel, and you twist the player, the speed WOWs. If you have two counter-rotating flywheels, the WOW can mostly cancel. As long as you have two flywheels, one each way, it costs little more to add a pinch roller and get a "feature". And while high-end audiophiles avoided bi-di decks, real people loved them, and the technology leaked from portables into parlor decks.

> this MUTE button on mine which I have no clue what it does!!!

It may just kill the sound, same as turning the knob to zero. I was never sure why: maybe to cut needle-drop noise, maybe to blank commercials.

On some, pressing Mute while recording does a fade-out and then stops the deck. Mute again may even start the deck and fade-in.

> everytime I push rec pause and then start recording by pushing play, I can hear a click sound of the head assembly loading on my tape recordings,

Click in the room or click on the tape? Click on the tape is probably a fault. It may just be a capacitor gone leaky over the years. That may "cure" itself as you use it some more.

It could also be magnetized head. One feature of 2-head over 3-head is that the Play head is also the Record head and the Record head tends to self-demagetize itself, so the Play head is also de-magged. With a 3-head, you really do have to use a head demagnetizer. But the de-mag effect in Record is not strong and field may have built up over the decades. I don't even know here you would buy a head demagnetizer today.

-PRR

 

[PRR]

> they are type 1 tapes with the ferrite ground fine enough to meet the type 2 standard. they are not true type 2 formulation.

You clearly know your type II tapes more than I do. I picked a tape that seemed good, made the machines work with it, and rarely pushed the limits. Even big-band jazz doesn't push tape like pop/dance music does. Most classical never goes into the top or bottom octaves enough to matter.

However, if "Type II" means "it has Chromium Dioxide (CrO2) in it".... My understanding was that nobody used much CrO2 after the first few few years. It is hard on heads, and head wear was a real problem (until improved ferrite head-cores were developed). And they found better grinding techniques and other additives that met the goals of "CrO2" specs without much or any CrO2.

And there seemed to be more differences among various Type II tapes. While there was a standard, some makers deviated more than a bit. In part, because some decks were flawed enough to sound better with a tape that was a few dB off the standard. And some listeners wanted tape response that was not "flat". If you offered three models of tape, and one made dull decks sound bright and another made bright decks sound more natural, you could grab a lot of market share one way or the other.

So the model of tape that you knock may not have been aimed at your deck and ears. It might work for someone else.

In fact, if I recall correctly, I used a lot of Maxell XL-II (not -s). The -s variant was too "zingy" for my music and decks. (And price was a factor, I'm ashamed to say.)

It is very wise to be aware that these tapes come in "flavors", like not all vanilla ice cream tastes the same. But that goes with the inaccurate nature of consumer tape decks (and dare I say?: consumer ears). One man's meat is another man's poison?

-PRR

 

[Duncan]

Unless TDK has screwed with their formulations since the last time I used analogue cassette, the 'reference' tape (here in the UK at least) was TDK SA Type II, or... with a little extra headroom, the TDK SAX... Many decks were biased to use SA as their type II reference!! The Original Sony UX (NOT UXS with the silly little red guide rollers) was also quite good, but not on a par with TDK imo

For type I, the TDK AR (and more favourably the ARX which was the best, period... but discontinued) were hard to beat, on a well engineered deck, these sounded superior to many type IIs

Type IV, that is the land of the TDK MAX, and Sony Metal Master (superceded by Super Metal Master)... You've just gotta love Sony for the ceramic housings, and the stencils for labelling... just a killer when you ran out of the letters you wanted

Another older, classic Sony IMO is the 'Metal-ES' type (IIRC the forefather to the Metal Master) - Plenty of headroom there

Maxell XLII (the GREY housed tapes) were really good, but IIRC the XLIIS (with the BLACK housings) were too peaky in the treble, made for harsh recordings...

Agfa, there is a brand that i've never had any faith in... I've only ever used their type I offerings, but they sounded so dead it was unreal!!

Also definetly avoid Sony FX / HF (type I) tapes no dynamics at all... and the FXII (type II) which to my ears sounded more like type I... completely sucked!!

I've never seen ANY type III cassettes (Ferri-Chrome)... these supposedly had more headroom, and a more balanced sound than Metal tapes... I guess that was the reason for that type being cancelled... don't want something supposedly inferior sounding better do we.....

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by PRR A good secretary can note every third word the boss dictates and still type a proper letter. Digital compression may only take every tenth word, and isn't quite as clever as a good secretary

And there you have it in a nut shell... Quote:

A "good pop decompressor" will fake a good cymbal from scant clues. But apparently it will fake a cymbal from bits of squeaks and clacks in a sax solo

Are you serious? Is this true?