wjm@whuxj.UUCP (MITCHELL) (01/17/84)
I am quite concerned about the news that more prerecorded cassettes were sold in 1983 than LP's. If this trend continues, will our "friends" in the record companies decide sometime in the future that LP's and CD's are "unpopular" and decide only to release recordings in the cassette format? While the cassette is certainly the most convenient form of program material, especially for automotive and Walkman use, it does have several drawbacks for the serious audiophile: 1. As bad as LP quality is, prerecorded cassettes from major record companies are the PITS. They are recorded on low-quality duplicator tape, either use no noise reduction or only Dolby B, and tend to (on classical works) split the music in the middle of a movement to put exactly the same amount of music on both sides (Tape, even el cheapo duplicator stock, costs money, you know). Also, since most tapes are recorded at high speed, (8 to 16 times real time in most cases), noise is increased and treble response suffers. There are some companies that do produce high quality cassettes (the same ones that produce high quality LP's) that are recorded in real time, on high quality tape, with dbx noise reduction, but even these cassetes are subject to the following problem. 2. Based on some problems I've been having with good name brand (Maxell UDXL) cassettes going bad on me (the tape fails mechanically, by getting creased) after 4 years or so, I have serious doubts that cassettes can be used as an archival storage medium. Cassettes are fine for use in your car deck or your Walkman (especially if you own the LP or CD version of a recording and can re-dub it when the cassette fails), but I wouldn't want a cassette to be my only copy of a favorite recording. 3. I don't think that even the best cassettes are capable of the audio performance of a high quality LP or CD. 4. It is rather difficult to edit a cassette tape, either to produce a new recording or to repair a damaged tape, due to the narrow tape and the low recording speed, which compresses the sounds together. However, there is a tape medium which is capable of reliable archival storage and can exceed LP sound quality (and may - if some of the technical improvements that have been applied to cassettes are applied to it - give the CD a run for its money), namely open reel. Unfortunately, the advantages of open reel tape have been neglected by the mass audio media (although they are well known to those that do serious recording). Admittedly, open reel decks are not inexpensive, nor is it as convenient as cassettes, but is there any other choice for a serious archival tape medium? I'd appreciate knowing if my cassette problems are fairly common (I suspect they are) and which brands are mechanically most reliable. Bill Mitchell CSO Whippany, NJ (whuxj!wjm)
peters@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin) (01/17/84)
As a committed cassette user, I couldn't agree more with your comments
on quality of pre-recorded cassettes. Also, the medium is inherently
much more limited than either open-reel or vinyl discs (not to mention
the digital media that have been the subject of much discussion here
lately). With good noise reduction one can do very well with cassettes,
especially on material which has been recorded originally with a good deal
of compression (read: just about everything except "classical" and some jazz).
But if you take these same methods -- e. g., dbx -- and apply them to
the inherently better media, such as discs, once again cassettes are
out of the running.
I haven't experienced mechanical destruction of tapes. This is a function
of your deck. My Nakamichi is kind to tapes as well as ears. Walkmen
and automobile decks may be more harsh. *** By the way, can anyone
suggest a good automobile cassette deck, not too expensive? ***
Incidentally, since I have 3 heads on my Nak I can monitor from the tape
when recording. On about 50% of program matter (generally new pop, rock
or country albums I've purchased) I can't be sure I detect a difference
between source & tape. My set-up is not "high-end," so with better
amp, spkrs, etc. maybe I could. When I do detect a difference it's in
the highs: I lose a certain "edge" to the vocals, cymbal rolls, etc. I can
get better frequency response by recording at a lower level, but then
I lose signal-to-noise; with highly compressed material this isn't a
problem. For input material with a high dynamic range I usually peak
the record level higher than I otherwise would; this compresses the
program material. I find the loss of high-frequency responce less
annoying than noise during soft passages. This is a personal choice,
and is typical of the kinds of compromises cassettes put you to.
{philabs,cmcl2!rocky2}!cubsvax!peters
(Peter S Shenkin; Dept of Biol Sci; Columbia Univ; NY, NY 10027; 212-280-5517)emrath@uiuccsb.UUCP (01/18/84)
#R:whuxj:-7800:uiuccsb:5700023:000:2284 uiuccsb!emrath Jan 17 15:30:00 1984 I have been using cassettes (not the same ones, mind you) since about 1967-8, when I bought my very own GE am-fm-cassette portable (the precursor to the ghetto blaster!). I got serious around 1973 with an Advent 201. I keep my home "hi-fi" cassettes at home, where they won't get munged by the car player, weather, etc. Mostly, these are tapes that I recorded. The few pre-recorded tapes I've tried are quite inconsistent, some sound real good, but most just don't measure up. My experience is that cassettes have a useful life of only 2-10 years, depending on brand and quality. The problems I seem to have with older tapes is extreme cases of scrape flutter and the shedding of oxide. I believe the scrape flutter problem was seriously aggravated by my current (fairly long lived) tape deck having much too high a take-up torque. This has been remedied and things seem to be getting better, but it takes a very long time to know for sure. I too don't think tape is a good medium for any kind of archival storage. Whether cassette, open-reel, PCM encoded VCR tape, or whatever, the tape will eventually start shedding oxide, and there goes your signal, as well as messing up the machine (when it gets to the point where I have to clean the deck half-way through a tape, then again at the end, it's time to retire that tape!). Maybe with digital signals, one would be willing to dub tapes onto new stock every 10 years or so without loss of signal quality, but not me - too many. For archival storage, I have been using vinyl records. I hope to be using CDs for the next 20 years or so (this in addition to the vinyl that can't be or isn't worth replacing). And if I'm still around, I expect to see somthing like a CD only solid state. It doesn't rotate but merely plugs into a zero-insertion force socket or something like that. Such a radical change in format is a time when things like more bits/sample and more samples/sec can be added. I guess there will ALWAYS be room for improvement. All this rambling makes me think that I don't need an archival medium that I can record. Especially if the pre-recorded format is a long lived medium and costs less than about 1.5 times a blank medium that I can record. But then, the recording industry already knows this, don't they?
pmr@drufl.UUCP (01/19/84)
What would the "ultimate" storage medium be? Remember the classic sci-fi movie "Forbidden Planet?" The storage medium in this show appeared to be an optically-recorded crystaline cylinder, a technology being seriously developed today. The player appeared to be a perfectly smooth, controll-less "salt shaker" with one hole in the top. (I wonder how the cylinders were ejected? They never showed that part.) I hope to be around to talk to the youngsters about cassettes in the same way that the olde timers of hi-fi talk to us today about Edison cylinders. Yours for higher fidelity, Phil Rastocny AT&T-ISL ..!drufl!pmr
gregs@uo-vax1.UUCP (01/21/84)
#R:whuxj:-7800:uo-vax1:31400001:000:1571 uo-vax1!gregs Jan 19 09:47:00 1984 I have had similar problems with Maxell tapes over a period of 4-5 years. One tape I had simply deteriorated in its ability to hold high frequencies (~15K) for more than a few seconds. The tape would sound fine when played back immediately by the playback head during recording, but upon rewinding and playing it back again, the high end "wavered" in and out as much as 10 dB. I sent the tape back to Maxell and they sent me a new one, with a test sheet for the old tape. They recognized the problem, no questions asked. I mainly use TDK SA-X now (better than SA I have found, by 2-3 dB in high end and 1-2 dB in low), but almost all of my old SAs (up to 8 years) now squeak quite loudly when rewinding, and some while playing. Naturally, what's on those tapes is irreplacable, so I can't send them back. I have had nothing but bad luck with commercially prerecorded tapes. I've never bought one, I've just listened to friends' tapes. I hear rumors that the quality is improving, but haven't experienced it myself. I have yet to try a Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab tape, but I hear they're quite good! I saw a picture of a wall of Nakamichi 582s doing the recording. I'm not a fan of open-reel, simply because it looks like too much trouble to load the tape, and I get such fantastic response on my cassette deck. However, cassettes just won't do for archival storage. I am curious whether any open-reel owners have ever experienced what I have with the Maxell tape on their reels. ------ Greg Stewart University of Oregon hplabs!hp-pcd!uoregon!uo-vax1!gregs