Topic: any analog/tape dinosaurs left?

[weroflu]

Listening to some older cassette walkman recordings vs sony m10, I have to be honest, the cassette wins. Granted it was a wm-d6 so it's on the higher end of the cassette spectrum.

Noise never bothered me much from cassette. Same for the missing information above 15-17k.

Trying to decide to go cassette or pony up for a nagra/stella.

[vanark]

While I never recorded to cassette, I've done a fair number of transfers and the transfer time alone is worth the switch to solid state/hard disk recorders.  I would never get stuff transferred if I had to do it via cassette.

[raymonda]

Listening to some older cassette walkman recordings vs sony m10, I have to be honest, the cassette wins. Granted it was a wm-d6 so it's on the higher end of the cassette spectrum.

Noise never bothered me much from cassette. Same for the missing information above 15-17k.

Trying to decide to go cassette or pony up for a nagra/stella.

Trust your own ears. If you prefer the sound of cassette over today's digital, well then you have answered your own question. That being said, good luck trying to buy cassette tapes.

I have always preferred digital over cassette tape. I bought a Panasonic SV 250 back in 1989 and felt it was a big jump in performance over my Sony D5. Digital has come along way since 1989, and short of having a R2R, is the best for in field recording. R2R is impractical for field recordings, so I guess digital is the best for in field.

If you really enjoy the sound of cassettes, you could always do what many studios do, which would be to go DAD. Or, buy a tube preamp or buffer.

BTW, what is it about day's digital don't you like?

[runonce]

You might enjoy this thread

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=156713

[John Willett]

I always hated cassette sound - distorted, noisy and tape speed variations.

The same problems with open reel, but to a lesser extent.

Digital is far far better.

BUT

Digital reveals microphone deficiencies that analogue hides and you need to learn different techniques to get the best out of digital.

But I would never want to go back to analogue recording due to the high level and high quantity of distortions.

It's just that some people prefer all that distortion to clean and accurate sound - just like some people prefer MP3 and, in the old days, some people preferred AM radio over FM (before they learned that FM was much better).

[yltfan]

A friend back East has been a cassette enthusiast for years, but when I saw him last December, he was using an R-09.

These days, I can see no reason to use tapes--even the DAT kind. Or mini disc, jb3, anything without the ease, quality of our current options.

[acidjack]

I think one reason cassettes could sound "better" to someone for taping is that cassettes tend to provide some bass rolloff relative to digital.  At least, that's what I felt like was the case when I went to DAT from my D6. 

HQ open reels are a bit of a different story, at least IMO; for the same reasons people like listening to vinyl, a really HQ reel may provide a certain "analog warmth" that pleasing to the ear.  I think a lot of older studio recordings on reels sound more pleasant, and the ones done in today's world on reel to be "retro" tend to sound good to me, too.  Of course, the physical medium isn't the only factor in why something from the 1970s sounds different than something from 2013, for a host of reasons...

[John Willett]

Of course, the physical medium isn't the only factor in why something from the 1970s sounds different than something from 2013, for a host of reasons...

I agree with this - recording technique was, in many ways, much better in the 60's and 70's.

Mainly because the lack of tracks meant that they were more disciplined and also it was more about recording a "performance", rather than stitching together musical notes without any real performance or feeling in them.

[rastasean]

I had only a few tapes in my youth but they were pretty much all destroyed with subpar tape players eating my tapes. CDs can get scratched but it doesn't mean the entire album is destroyed.

The vintage thing for music these days is listening to modern music on records. I can understand if you have an actual album for when they were mass produced, but are the records today just a digital recording written to an analog format?

[acidjack]

The vintage thing for music these days is listening to modern music on records. I can understand if you have an actual album for when they were mass produced, but are the records today just a digital recording written to an analog format?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Also, mastering for vinyl is (as I understand it) fundamentally different, resulting in a mix that may have a tone the listener likes more (I won't say "warmer" or "more natural" since those are not quantifiable).  For one, I think you cannot totally slam the levels on vinyl with compressors the way you do on digital, from what I've read.

Most vinyl I buy comes with a download card.  There's clearly a difference in the sound of the record and an MP3 - and not just the usual "MP3s are compressed and therefore terrible" type argument.  They just sound rather different.  I find some stuff makes more sense to listen to on vinyl than others.  Stuff like, say, Bob Dylan's new record, made with beautiful vintage gear, really sounds good on record and maybe has a different flavor than on digital (the record comes with a CD, too).  Something like a modern keyboard-driven, overcompressed band like Passion Pit, owning the record was just owning a giant less portable copy of a CD. 

[OOK]

That being said, good luck trying to buy cassette tapes.

http://nationalaudiocompany.com/Audio-Cassettes-C1.aspx

[raymonda]

That being said, good luck trying to buy cassette tapes.

http://nationalaudiocompany.com/Audio-Cassettes-C1.aspx

$50.00 for 10 tapes, which is about the same cost for metal tapes 20 years ago given inflation, maybe a little less. If this is the path the OP wants to go, well, here is a resource for tapes. My experience with BASF tapes were never as favorable as it was with Maxell metal tapes but they might work just as well.

If this pleases the OP ears, then there are plenty of D5's and 6's over at ebay. You can pick one up one in good condition for somewhere around $300-1500. I owned both a D6 and D5 and IMO the D5 made much better tapes. The D6 was really second rate. Sure it made good recordings but when compared to the D5 in the same chain was no where near as good. Also, the best D5's sounded best with the erase head removed, something Oade did as mods back in the day. finally using an external mic pre-amp would also benefit, since the mic pre's in the 5 are a bit less than desirable, unless this is the sound desired.

Also, many of today's LP's are cut from digital masters. Very few are pure analog, and some from 44/16 masters, e.g. the most recent Beatles box set from 48/16. If anything was deserving of using the analog masters for an ultimate analog release you would think this would have been it........but the engineers at Apple felt otherwise....just like many others do.

IMO, although a great LP set up will give you things that digital won't......I have $5000 invested in my turntable/cartridge and phono pre-amp, (not really a lot of money...but a lot to me) own over 2500 albums, and only buy LP's as new releases not cd's or down loads, believe that truly great analog sound comes from a top shelf R2R not from a turntable. Not that truly great sound can't come from a $200,000 TT front end but the actual masters or R2R copies from the masters are really where the great sound resides.

One last thought or two.......sometimes we confuse...."What sounds better vs was sounds more accurate to the original source". At the end of the day I can always make something sound better when I start with something that begins with more accurate but if something is too colored it is very difficult to make it sound accurate to the original source.

So, I go the path with the most accurate recording system and make it sound more pleasing afterwards, either through post editing software or playback hardware. Sometimes the right pre-amp, amp, speaker, D2A or tube buffer does the job in a better way than a colored recording chain. All bets are off though when I choose mics for multi-tracking, where I will pick a mic for the interaction with the instrument I'm capturing. However, even in this case there is something about the choice I make that goes along way to truth to timbre in the critical zone of the instrument's voice.

Anyway, this is how I trust my own ears and for the OP I stand by "Trust your own ears". At the end of the day you have to be happy with the sound you are capturing and creating.

[DSatz]

I'm sorry but I really wouldn't consider the Sony WM-D6 to be a very good cassette recorder, despite its having Dolby noise reduction; it had high levels of scrape flutter and modulation noise, and was damn near impossible to set up for flat response and low distortion with any given type of cassette tape. Among Sony's portable, two-head recorders, the TCD-D5 was quite a bit better sounding (with a much better transport), but still a bear to set up properly--there were no continuously adjustable bias or EQ controls; you had to solder and unsolder various bridges on the circuit board for an approximate adjustment.

Any decent three-head, closed-loop dual capstan deck (Tandberg, Nakamichi) would outperform either of those machines, but such designs weren't available in battery-powered models; even Nakamichi's portable decks were two-head, and rather hard to set up. Superscope and later Marantz sold a three-head portable, but it had a mediocre single-capstan transport.

Here's the thing: If a recording device changes the sound of whatever signals you feed in to it, it is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE for that alteration in the sound to be a good thing in every instance. Whatever form of distortion is being perpetrated may sound good some of the time, but if there was a form of distortion that ALWAYS made a recording sound better, then you could further improve all your recordings by re-recording them through the same form of distortion again, and if you repeated the exercise they would again sound even better, and so on ad infinitum.

Since that's obviously absurd, I think you should just consider yourself lucky if you like the results that you got.

--best regards

[bombdiggity]

The thing that "unretired" me from this was taking my old d6 and little Sony single point ms9xx mic (which wasn't my a rig even then) to a last minute find on a lark since that was all I had at that point that I had cable for (included of course) and knew still worked.   

I've been to the venue a few times since and it is still the best sounding thing I've come out of there with.  I attribute that to the mix - which was phenomenal in a hall that is quite difficult.  I don't think the dinosaur rig did any real damage though.  Maybe I would have gotten better all other things equal but I have no complaints.  It was really a good recording. 

I wouldn't spend $1000 on a d5 or d6 though.  And I still haven't had time to do a proper digital transfer of that tape (either). 

[George2]

I'm still here. I recorded The Dead a couple of times with D5 and AKG C33 for a friend.. my gear.....he bought tickets and the rest.

[taosmay]

Regarding when lp's are from original analog sources, didi anyone else here happen to catch david lemieux say today that dick's pick number 4 (2.13 & 14 1970) will be released soon on vinyl, which jeffry norman recently remastered direct from the master reels? It is from this new remaster that the vinyl will come from. I heard this on this day in GD history, on xm radio.

[rastasean]

so this means the album will be written to using analog methods?

[raymonda]

so this means the album will be written to using analog methods?

Maybe yes or maybe no. My guess is from new remastered digital sources. It did say new remastered, right. Hopefully high resolution.

[taosmay]

so this means the album will be written to using analog methods?

Maybe yes or maybe no. My guess is from new remastered digital sources. It did say new remastered, right. Hopefully high resolution.

Definitely no digital in the chain at all - that is what David said. Pure analog vinyl LP's from the original master reels.

[raymonda]

so this means the album will be written to using analog methods?

Maybe yes or maybe no. My guess is from new remastered digital sources. It did say new remastered, right. Hopefully high resolution.

Definitely no digital in the chain at all - that is what David said. Pure analog vinyl LP's from the original master reels.

That good news

[raymonda]

so this means the album will be written to using analog methods?

Maybe yes or maybe no. My guess is from new remastered digital sources. It did say new remastered, right. Hopefully high resolution.

Definitely no digital in the chain at all - that is what David said. Pure analog vinyl LP's from the original master reels.

That good news

oops, not so fast.


POSTED ON http://www.stevehoffman.tv/
 
Morning All,
 
My name is Karl Groeger and I am the owner of Brookvale Records and Looney Tunes. I am the one putting out the Dick’s Picks series on vinyl.
 
We have been working very closely with The Dead on these releases and I welcome your questions and concerns.
 
As a fan first, I knew there would be challenges going into this project and I think we are doing an amazing job with them. I would like to address 2 concerns I see brought up here. Sound source and side splits. Of course these are critical.
 
While we want of course the source tapes to every show, we are at the mercy of The Dead for masters for both ART and MUSIC. For the first shows the Dead simply does not have the original masters for them. We had no choice except to go from the CD.  My first reaction was, thats impossible, how do they not have the masters? Well after about 6 months of searching they just do not have them.  It looks like though for future releases they have about 90% of the masters on all the volumes.
 
OK so we don’t have the masters. Can we go from the CD? How is that going to sound? Well they sound great! (Check out the reviews on brookvalerecords.com).
 
We had a choice to use anyone we wanted to master this vinyl from the CD. We were suggested to use Rainbo pressing. I decided not to.  I have been a HUGE face of both RTI and GOTTA GROOVE RECORDS. I think both plants have been making some great QUIET records. After about another 6 months of discussions, we choose Gotta Groove to re master and manufacture the vinyl on 1 and 2. And I could not be happier. Although YES the CD is not ideal to go with. BUT I think it came out EXCELLENT! Or I would not put my name on it. I have actually made LPS from masters on another project that did not sound half as good as these dead records do. I hope you will enjoy them.
 
SIDE SPLITS. Yes this is going to be another challenge for sure. With vol 2 you notice that it is a 3 sided record? WHY I decided to not make a side 4 because I could keep the JAM going on side 3. Where ever possible I will also keep the jam and do our very best with track listings and side splits. It will be a challenge YES. BUT I DO NOT THINK that its a reason NOT to do these.
 
I love vinyl. I think it is the perfect way to listen to The Dead.
 
I welcome your comments. (crap…ha ha).
 
Thank you for your time guys I hope this addresses some concerns.
 
Best,
 Karl

Brookvale Records is proud to announce that we will be collaborating with mixing and mastering engineer, Jeffrey Norman. Brookvale Records will be releasing Dick’s Picks Series volume 3 and volume 4 this February on vinyl and Jeffrey will be doing the mastering for us. We would also like to announce that he will have access and will be using the ORIGINAL master tapes for this project. As we get more information we will let you know. Pre orders for these releases will go up next week. STAY TUNED!
 
For more information on Mr. Norman, you can click these links below:
 
http://www.mockingbirdmastering.com/
 
http://www.dead.net/features/interviews/mixing-and-mastering-dead-s-archives-jeffrey-norman
 
FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES!
 
Mr Norman talks about mastering vol 3 and 4.
 
“I was excited to get the chance to remaster the early Dick’s Picks’ releases for vinyl…they were originally mastered for CD in 1995-96, and I was looking forward to hearing the 1/4″ source tapes once again, 17 years later. What I didn’t expect was the dramatic improvement the new mastering gives to these classic releases. The original CD resolution is 44.1KHz/16bit (as is any released CD), while the mastering I am now doing for the vinyl releases is 96KHz/24bit. I’m now using a state-of-the-art analog to digital converter (Pacific Microsonics Model 2)….and I’ve probably gotten better at doing this over the years! I used the original CDs as a guide for the new mastering, but when listening to the CDs I feel like I’m listening in black and white, while the new mastering feels like I’m listening in color. It’s very exciting!
 
A few observations: the mixes for Dick’s Picks Vol. 3 and Vol. 4 couldn’t be more different. The Pembroke Pine show (Vol.3) is quite bass strong and powerful. The Fillmore East show (2/13-14/12) on the other hand is very bright and a little bass shy. Both represent the ears and interpretations of the mixers at the time (Betty Cantor Jackson at Pembroke Pines, and Bear at the Fillmore East), and both capture the quality and excitement of these shows. I did some equalization on both shows to enhance the presentation but kept true to what the original mixers intended. As typical of all Grateful Dead shows, both these two shows are very dynamic….there’s a wide range of volume from quiet to very loud. I tried to keep the dynamics intact, with very little limiting, using limiting mainly as protection against digital overs.
 
In choosing the songs for each side of vinyl, the goal was to be true to the flow of the show and keep the fidelity as high as possible. There is a physical limitation to the length of a vinyl side….if it gets too long there is a loss of bass and level. Ideally the sides would be no longer than 20 minutes, and for the most part that was accomplished. However there are a few sides that are longer than ideal, but because of the way the music lays out there was no way around a few longer lengths. Also because of those side length constraints, there are some songs that had to be split in two (i.e. Vol.4 Dark Star, The Other One, and Lovelight)…sorry, you’re going to have to flip the record to get the entire “good stuff”.
 
Considering that these tapes are 40 years old (in the case of Vol. 4, Fillmore East), they sound phenomenal! There are some issues on the original recording that can’t be fixed (i.e.. L/R movement side to side in Vol. 3 Eyes of the World), but that in no way takes away from this great music.”

[taosmay]

Thanks for this research and information raymonda, but I am confused. At one point in the Karl Groeger statement, he says "For the first shows the Dead simply does not have the original masters for them.", but then under the Jeffrey Norman statements it is said "FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES!" What gives with that discrepancy?

[raymonda]

Thanks for this research and information raymonda, but I am confused. At one point in the Karl Groeger statement, he says "For the first shows the Dead simply does not have the original masters for them.", but then under the Jeffrey Norman statements it is said "FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES!" What gives with that discrepancy?

For some reason they only have, a 44/16 master copy of vol. 1, which I find disappointing. Some how the master reel got lost. so guess  what, everyone who has volume  1 on cd has as good of a copy to the original as it gets. sounds like they have analog masters past that, or at least until vol 4. We will see. They can skip Hartford 83 for vinyl, as far as I'm concerned. That is one that does not really sound that good. It came from a cassette master and the mix is marginal. I think a matrix of this show would be the way to go and then put it on vinyl.

[taosmay]

Thanks for this research and information raymonda, but I am confused. At one point in the Karl Groeger statement, he says "For the first shows the Dead simply does not have the original masters for them.", but then under the Jeffrey Norman statements it is said "FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES!" What gives with that discrepancy?

For some reason they only have, a 44/16 master copy of vol. 1, which I find disappointing. Some how the master reel got lost. so guess  what, everyone who has volume  1 on cd has as good of a copy to the original as it gets. sounds like they have analog masters past that, or at least until vol 4. We will see. They can skip Hartford 83 for vinyl, as far as I'm concerned. That is one that does not really sound that good. It came from a cassette master and the mix is marginal. I think a matrix of this show would be the way to go and then put it on vinyl.

Okay, but since we were originally talking about them putting out Dick's Picks Vol.4 (2/13 & 14/1970) on Vinyl,  your latest post would now seem to indicate that since this is past Vol. 1, this new vinyl release should be from the master reels?

Also, going to those links you posted, I could not find the quotes attributed to Jeffrey Norman, starting with "FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES!"

[raymonda]

Thanks for this research and information raymonda, but I am confused. At one point in the Karl Groeger statement, he says "For the first shows the Dead simply does not have the original masters for them.", but then under the Jeffrey Norman statements it is said "FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES!" What gives with that discrepancy?

For some reason they only have, a 44/16 master copy of vol. 1, which I find disappointing. Some how the master reel got lost. so guess  what, everyone who has volume  1 on cd has as good of a copy to the original as it gets. sounds like they have analog masters past that, or at least until vol 4. We will see. They can skip Hartford 83 for vinyl, as far as I'm concerned. That is one that does not really sound that good. It came from a cassette master and the mix is marginal. I think a matrix of this show would be the way to go and then put it on vinyl.

Okay, but since we were originally talking about them putting out Dick's Picks Vol.4 (2/13 & 14/1970) on Vinyl,  your latest post would now seem to indicate that since this is past Vol. 1, this new vinyl release should be from the master reels?

Also, going to those links you posted, I could not find the quotes attributed to Jeffrey Norman, starting with "FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES!"

Yes, at least for vol 4, they will be using the original master tapes and since Bear's recordings were never high in bass there may not be much compression needed to cut the master.

I think, from what I have read, they are using the original masters when available. However, don't think that these will be direct transfers. First, the original masters were made live to 2 track and if you have ever tried mixing on the fly with headphone you know how difficult it can be to get things right. A bit of post editing can go a long way to greatly improve the master 2 tracks. IMO Betty did the best job and some of Bear's sound great, too. But even in theses cases some post editing is still needed. Also, sound board that were recorded in doors often sound worse because they are not being mixed for the recording. Often, outdoor sound boards sound much better, since the sound man, Healy, needed to put all instruments in the mix in order to get acceptable venue sound, e.g.Buffalo 1990, but that isn't a Dick's pick.

I think that it would have been cool to get other shows that have not be release out on vinyl along with high Rez DVD and down loads. But that is just my thoughts. There are plenty of incomplete shows that might have been good for this or even non release full shows. But, I won't complain because any vinyl is a great thing.

[taosmay]

I completely agree with all those thoughts and opinions, raymonda. Thanks for your input. Totally psyched about DP vol. 4 on vinyl, although worried about side splits, with those famous long jams from 2.13.70...

[DSatz]

I think maybe I can help clarify this confusion. When I started working as a recording engineer for a major label, I went through the same thing myself.

Inside the recording industry, the term "master tape" means "the equalized copy that the producer has approved for duplication" (e.g. LP and/or CD mastering). It specifically doesn't mean what the audiophile community seems to think that it means (i.e. "the original, real-time, live recording"). Different labels have different names for them--at RCA, for example, they were called "work parts" while they had some other name for them at Columbia/CBS/Sony/whatever.

Record companies and producers have exploited this misunderstanding for many years by issuing recordings labeled "direct from the master tape." Whoopie--in their terms the "master tape" may well be a fourth-generation copy.

--best regards

P.S. for anyone who ever fell in love with the sound of a vinyl LP: I've heard the "master tapes" of several LPs where I was also familiar with the sound of the LP itself as played on a good phonograph. There was little similarity apart from the notes being played. Vinyl LPs are anything but a transparent medium, so if you want them to sound good, you have to orient your entire recording method toward their peculiarities. As a result, many LP "master tapes" tend to sound rather bad when played back on high-quality monitoring equipment.

And I think that explains a lot of why so many of the first CDs "issued from the master tape" were rejected by audiophiles. The CD medium is sonically very nearly transparent, and what people were hearing was the sound of master tapes that had been conceived and tailored for LP duplication.

[raymonda]

I think maybe I can help clarify this confusion. When I started working as a recording engineer for a major label, I went through the same thing myself.

Inside the recording industry, the term "master tape" means "the equalized copy that the producer has approved for duplication" (e.g. LP and/or CD mastering). It specifically doesn't mean what the audiophile community seems to think that it means (i.e. "the original, real-time, live recording"). Different labels have different names for them--at RCA, for example, they were called "work parts" while they had some other name for them at Columbia/CBS/Sony/whatever.

Record companies and producers have exploited this misunderstanding for many years by issuing recordings labeled "direct from the master tape." Whoopie--in their terms the "master tape" may well be a fourth-generation copy.

--best regards

P.S. for anyone who ever fell in love with the sound of a vinyl LP: I've heard the "master tapes" of several LPs where I was also familiar with the sound of the LP itself as played on a good phonograph. There was little similarity apart from the notes being played. Vinyl LPs are anything but a transparent medium, so if you want them to sound good, you have to orient your entire recording method toward their peculiarities. As a result, many LP "master tapes" tend to sound rather bad when played back on high-quality monitoring equipment.

And I think that explains a lot of why so many of the first CDs "issued from the master tape" were rejected by audiophiles. The CD medium is sonically very nearly transparent, and what people were hearing was the sound of master tapes that had been conceived and tailored for LP duplication.

You actually have 3 masters. The original, in this case, two track. The master for cutting, which came from the original master and the master disc, which will make stampers. When the cutting engineer sets out to cutting the received master to disc an additional level of compression/limiting can be added in order to get a master disc that will print playable copies that won't have your cartridge and arm jumping all around.

I don't agree with your comment about highly colored LP's from the original mastered tapes. If that was your experience, then I would say the cutting engineer had some issues. My experience with LP's is that they can sound very much like the original master, when done right. Now considering 50-60's lps, there are a lot of different curves that need to be considered. Also, cartridge loading, impedance and set up are critical. You also have to ensure that the LP copy is from the actual master. A lot of albums were not cut from masters but rather copies, especially those that came from across the pond and vise/versa. When a label was sending tapes out to be pressed across the pond it was common to send a second generation copy and not the master..........and, a lot of cases when the second third and forth pressing were done, they too could have been pressed from second generation copies.

A lot more work has to go into getting your lp's to sound good, where as digital is plug and play. Lp's are better left for the OCD type person.

Finally, the quality of the press and stamper is an important factor. In the seventies and eighties it was not uncommon for presses to over stamp and use cheap, compromised vinyl. It was rumored that part of the plan to move CD's was to press poor quality vinyl. If you remember when CD's came out it took a few years to take hold, so record companies wanted to do everything they could to push a new medium which would allow them to sell their catalog all over again.

I'm not one to trumpet one medium over the other. I love vinyl, "when done right" as much as I love digital, "when done right". I have some vinyl that absolutely cream their digital counter parts and I have some vinyl that absolutely stink. I also have some digital that is unlistenable, too. However, in the end, I do agree that the best analog is reel to reel and the best digital is high rez and not cd standard. Although cds have gotten much better over the past 10 years or more and vinyl can sound pretty darn accurate, too.