Opinions on Akai cassette tape decks? GX-A5X?
Tape Guy
when it comes to high end machines.
Are there any tech specs for them? Frequency and phase response, S/N
ratio?
I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX noise reduction, and was
wondering how such a deck compares to these so-called high-end machines?
Akai's specs list the frequency response at 20 to 19khz +/- 3db using
metal tape.
S/N listed as 60 db (metal) and 75-80 db with Dolby C. DBX is listed as
115 db (dynamic range, not S/N).
Wow and flutter: 0.05% (WRMS), 0.12% (DIN WTD).
Distortion: 0.65% (metal)
There seem to be quite a lot of Akai decks with model numbers starting
with GX. Why so many different models? Which Akai deck was the best?
Scott Dorsey
>Seems that Tandberg or Nakamichi or Revox tape decks get all the press
>when it comes to high end machines.
>
>Are there any tech specs for them? Frequency and phase response, S/N
>ratio?
Yes, they are on the data sheet.
For the most part, they all have godawful flutter specifications. And
unless you adjust the bias properly for the particular kind of tape
and set the Dolby levels correctly, the frequency response numbers on
the data sheet are meaningless.
One of the major differences between the high end machines and the
cheaper machines is that they allow you to actually set bias and level
properly for the tape you are using, without having to open the case.
They also allow you to adjust the azimuth properly for correct playback
in most cases, because it's always wrong.
>i've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX noise reduction, and was
>wondering how such a deck compares to these so-called high-end machines?
>
>Akai's specs list the frequency response at 20 to 19khz +/- 3db using
>metal tape.
Those are not really meaningful, unless they are measured with precisely
the metal tape the test was done with. They also imply (especially that
-3dB at 19 KC part) that the azimuth is correct, which it never is.
So that's really not anything you should expect to see in the real world.
>S/N listed as 60 db (metal) and 75-80 db with Dolby C. DBX is listed as
>115 db (dynamic range, not S/N).
These also are very optimistic numbers, but again imply the levels are
set precisely so that the reference tone levels match up and the NR
system doesn't start pumping. Again in the real world this is never
the case.
>Wow and flutter: 0.05% (WRMS), 0.12% (DIN WTD).
That's what I would consider to be intolerably high, but it's not out of
line for cassettes.
>distortion: 0.65% (metal)
This is a meaningless number because it does not include a reference level.
At some point I hope the distortion is much lower than that, and at some
point you can increase the operating level so it is much higher. It also
is very dependant on the tape itself.
>There seem to be quite a lot of Akai decks with model numbers starting
>with GX. Why so many different models? Which Akai deck was the best?
Because Akai has been in business for something like fifty years now, and
they made a lot of products over that time period. I think asking
which cassette deck is best is like asking what kind of sewage tastes
best... they are all pretty dreadful.
In the real world, the cassette deck that sounds best is the one that
is most correctly adjusted. That means either automatic or vernier
azimuth control on playback, and it means bias and level controls on
the front panel.
The rest of the issues you just live with... cassettes have a whole lot
of flutter and you will never get a piano to sound right because of the
flutter modulation. Life's just like that. You live with it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mr.T
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:goa95m$s3j$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> >There seem to be quite a lot of Akai decks with model numbers starting
> >with GX. Why so many different models?
>
> they made a lot of products over that time period.
True, but misses the reason that "GX" was Akai's original term for their
"Glass and Crystal (Glass-Xtal) ferrite heads", and they seemed to stick
with it.
Similarly in the days of their R-R machines, the X model numbers came from
their designation of "Cross (X) Field Heads", a lot of those too.
MrT.
Mr.T
> of flutter and you will never get a piano to sound right because of the
> flutter modulation. Life's just like that. You live with it.
Actually no, you dump them in the nearest garbage bin and move to CD
recording like many of us did over a decade ago.
And before then the people who wanted HiFi used R-R machines rather than
overpriced cassette machines like the Nakamichi's which were *far* inferior
in every way to a similar priced (and even far cheaper) R-R, except for
convenience, and tape cost.
The only real use of cassette I ever found was in car entertainment until
car CD players put an end to that, thank god!
MrT.
Tape Guy
> > Akai's specs list the frequency response at 20 to 19khz +/- 3db
> > using metal tape.
>
> Those are not really meaningful, unless they are measured with
> precisely the metal tape the test was done with. They also
> imply (especially that -3dB at 19 KC part) that the azimuth
> is correct, which it never is.
If I'm only going to be playing back the tapes that were recorded by the
same deck, then how important or how critical is the azimuth setting in
that case? As long as I don't change it, it should be ajusted perfectly
when playing back the material that it recorded previously - no? (this
deck has a single play/record head).
David Nebenzahl
Maybe not.
Years ago (long predating digital), some friends of mine in a local band
produced their EP[1] using a Teac Portastudio--you know, the little
4-track cassette recorder. It was done in a studio, with good mikes, but
using this minimalist equipment.
The record sounded great, and still measures up to similar recordings of
the time. So maybe a little less snobbery here, huh?
[1] For those who think a "record" is a CD, stands for "extended play",
a small 7" record revolving at 33-1/3.
--
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won't use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
upgrades. As long as there is hardware and software out there that
doesn't work, I stay in business. Incidentally, my company motto is
"If this stuff worked, you wouldn't need me".
- lifted from sci.electronics.repair
David Nebenzahl
True to some extent--it's bad if the record and playback azimuths
differ--but the azimuth still needs to be perpendicular to tape travel
for best results.
I can't believe that these Akais are somehow *more* prone to bad azimuth
settings than other cassette decks. I sense a bit of snobbery in some of
these responses. What cassette deck does *not* have azimuth-setting
problems? Basically, if any decent deck is properly adjusted, and is not
dropped or hammered upon, the azimuth setting should be fine. This is
normally done at the factory when the thing is assembled. (Unless
someone has evidence that Akai was lazy about azimuth adjustment.)
Tape Guy
> > If I'm only going to be playing back the tapes that were recorded
> > by the same deck, then how important or how critical is the azimuth
> > setting in that case?
>
> True to some extent--it's bad if the record and playback azimuths
> differ-
How can they differ if they're both integrated into the same head?
> -but the azimuth still needs to be perpendicular to tape travel
> for best results.
Cosine law says that you can have a wide variance (in terms of degrees
away from 90) and still be essentially perpendicular.
> --
> Incidentally, my company motto is "If this stuff worked, you
> wouldn't need me".
> - lifted from sci.electronics.repair
Microsoft's motto: If it works, it's not complicated enough.
mako...@yahoo.com
Yes, I think the glass crystal heads are the GXC machines, and I had
very good luck with one of those.. Mr Dorsey of course is correct,
in a cassette machine its all about the azimuth adj.
Ask someone about the machine (not Akai) with the auto azimuth adj, if
you have a lot of tapes to playback you might consider one of
those.....I never had one, I can't tell you about it.
Mark
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> > If I'm only going to be playing back the tapes that were recorded
>> > by the same deck, then how important or how critical is the azimuth
>> > setting in that case?
>>
>> True to some extent--it's bad if the record and playback azimuths
>> differ-
>
> How can they differ if they're both integrated into the same head?
They can differ if a tape is recorded on one machine and played back on
another with different azimuth; that's what I meant.
>> -but the azimuth still needs to be perpendicular to tape travel
>> for best results.
>
> Cosine law says that you can have a wide variance (in terms of degrees
> away from 90) and still be essentially perpendicular.
But perfectly perpendicular is still better. You can work it out on
paper: tape speed = 1-7/8 ips, frequency = 10K ... if azimuth is off,
high frequencies start disappearing, for one thing.
--
Personally, I like Vista, but I probably won't use it. I like it
because it generates considerable business for me in consulting and
upgrades. As long as there is hardware and software out there that
doesn't work, I stay in business. Incidentally, my company motto is
David Nebenzahl
> Ask someone about the machine (not Akai) with the auto azimuth adj, if
> you have a lot of tapes to playback you might consider one of
> those.....I never had one, I can't tell you about it.
Curious about this: never heard of a cassette machine with auto azimuth
adjustment. On the fly? Some kind of servo mechanism? How does/did that
work?
Paul Stamler
> Seems that Tandberg or Nakamichi or Revox tape decks get all the press
> when it comes to high end machines.
>
> Are there any tech specs for them? Frequency and phase response, S/N
> ratio?
>
> I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX noise reduction, and was
> wondering how such a deck compares to these so-called high-end machines?
Badly.
Here's the problem, and it doesn't show up in specs that any manufacturer
ever quotes. Cassettes suck in many ways, but one of the biggest is that
each cassette incorporates a pressure pad to hold the tape against the head.
This adds a large amount of "scrape flutter", aka "modulation noise" to the
signal -- the tape speed is altered, and the audio frequency modulated, by a
noise signal. You hear it as "roughness", which tracks the signal level.
It's measurable, for sure, but nobody ever quotes it, because cassettes do
such a lousy job at it.
Except Nakamichi 3-head twin-capstan decks. They have ridges on either side
of the head assenbly which push the pressure pad away from the tape,
drastically cutting down the scrape flutter. They maintain tape tension with
the dual capstans.
Nobody else did this, because Nakamichi either bought the patent or obtained
an exclusive license on it from the folks who invented it (Eumig).
As a result, there are two categories of cassette decks: Nakamichi
three-head decks and everything else.
> Akai's specs list the frequency response at 20 to 19khz +/- 3db using
> metal tape.
>
> S/N listed as 60 db (metal) and 75-80 db with Dolby C. DBX is listed as
> 115 db (dynamic range, not S/N).
And it'll sound terrible, too.
> Wow and flutter: 0.05% (WRMS), 0.12% (DIN WTD).
>
> Distortion: 0.65% (metal)
At what frequency, at what level, what kind of test? A single distortion
number, unfortunately, tells little or nothing.
> There seem to be quite a lot of Akai decks with model numbers starting
> with GX. Why so many different models?
It's called marketing; they designed one for every possible price point.
> Which Akai deck was the best?
None of them. See above.
Peace,
Paul
Paul Stamler
news:49a8c6ad$0$2696$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 2/27/2009 8:51 PM mako...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
>> Ask someone about the machine (not Akai) with the auto azimuth adj, if
>> you have a lot of tapes to playback you might consider one of
>> those.....I never had one, I can't tell you about it.
>
> Curious about this: never heard of a cassette machine with auto azimuth
> adjustment. On the fly? Some kind of servo mechanism? How does/did that
> work?
Nakamichi Dragon. One of the tracks on the playback head was split -- two
sections, each reading half of the track. A detector looked for phase
differences in the high frequencies due to azimuth errors, and a small motor
adjusted the head to the least phase difference.
Peace,
Paul
Mr.T
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> > The only real use of cassette I ever found was in car entertainment
until
> > car CD players put an end to that, thank god!
>
> Maybe not.
>
> Years ago (long predating digital), some friends of mine in a local band
> produced their EP[1] using a Teac Portastudio--you know, the little
> 4-track cassette recorder. It was done in a studio, with good mikes, but
> using this minimalist equipment.
>
> The record sounded great, and still measures up to similar recordings of
> the time. So maybe a little less snobbery here, huh?
Nope, I had the misfortune to use a Teac Portastudio once, in fact a friend
still owns one which he never uses anymore since going digital a decade ago.
My current MOTU and M-Audio rigs outperform a Teac portastudio by several
orders of magnitude in all parameters, and are also far superior to my reel
to reel decks, so anyone claiming a Teac portastudio stands up these days is
talking out his ase!
MrT.
David Nebenzahl
Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
more than a couple decades ago.
Scott Dorsey
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:goa95m$s3j$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> >There seem to be quite a lot of Akai decks with model numbers starting
>> >with GX. Why so many different models?
>>
>> Because Akai has been in business for something like fifty years now, and
>> they made a lot of products over that time period.
>
>True, but misses the reason that "GX" was Akai's original term for their
>"Glass and Crystal (Glass-Xtal) ferrite heads", and they seemed to stick
>with it.
Yes, this is true. Although today we'd just call those ferrite heads.
>Similarly in the days of their R-R machines, the X model numbers came from
>their designation of "Cross (X) Field Heads", a lot of those too.
God, I hope I never see another one of those pieces of crap ever again...
I think I still have a few bins of Roberts parts in the warehouse.
Tape Guy
> > I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX noise reduction,
> > and was wondering how such a deck compares to these so-called high-
> > end machines?
>
> Badly.
>
> each cassette incorporates a pressure pad to hold the tape against
> the head. This adds a large amount of "scrape flutter", aka
> "modulation noise" to the signal
>
> Except Nakamichi 3-head twin-capstan decks.
That's cool.
How much time do you spend adjusting the play and record heads so they
track each other?
> > Akai's specs list the frequency response at 20 to 19khz +/-
> > 3db using metal tape.
> >
> > S/N listed as 60 db (metal) and 75-80 db with Dolby C. DBX
> > is listed as 115 db (dynamic range, not S/N).
>
> And it'll sound terrible, too.
Sounds great. What's the Nakamichi's frequency response and S/N ratio?
Does it have DBX?
> > Wow and flutter: 0.05% (WRMS), 0.12% (DIN WTD).
> >
> > Distortion: 0.65% (metal)
>
> At what frequency, at what level, what kind of test? A single
> distortion number, unfortunately, tells little or nothing.
Is Wow and flutter frequency dependent?
What are the Nakamichi's numbers?
Scott Dorsey
>> of flutter and you will never get a piano to sound right because of the
>> flutter modulation. Life's just like that. You live with it.
>
>Actually no, you dump them in the nearest garbage bin and move to CD
>recording like many of us did over a decade ago.
Unfortunately there's a lot of stuff recorded on cassette out there, and
folks need to transcribe it. That's why the high end cassette decks are
still fetching good money. And let me reiterate that if you are doing
transcription of old tapes, you absolutely need to be able to change the
head alignment and the reference levels.
Scott Dorsey
>If I'm only going to be playing back the tapes that were recorded by the
>same deck, then how important or how critical is the azimuth setting in
>that case? As long as I don't change it, it should be ajusted perfectly
>when playing back the material that it recorded previously - no? (this
>deck has a single play/record head).
Indeed, if you're never going to interchange tapes, the need for accurate
azimuth is reduced. But if you're not going to interchange tapes, why
use cassette at all?
Scott Dorsey
>I can't believe that these Akais are somehow *more* prone to bad azimuth
>settings than other cassette decks. I sense a bit of snobbery in some of
>these responses. What cassette deck does *not* have azimuth-setting
>problems?
The Nak Dragon doesn't, since it has an automatic azimuth setting system.
Some Tascam models and a couple other Nak models don't since they have
vernier controls to accurately adjust the azimuth.
>Basically, if any decent deck is properly adjusted, and is not
>dropped or hammered upon, the azimuth setting should be fine.
I have never seen a cassette deck in my life with correct record azimuth.
And of course, once you use a different cassette shell than you set the
machine up with, it's different again. I very frequently get tapes for
transcription where the azimuth wanders from the beginning to the end of
the tape, and where the two sides seem to have different azimuth. It's
just not a stable transport mechanism.
Scott Dorsey
>
>How can they differ if they're both integrated into the same head?
If the head gaps aren't parallel. But that's ANOTHER huge set of
nightmarish cassette issues.
Scott Dorsey
>On 2/27/2009 8:51 PM mako...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
>> Ask someone about the machine (not Akai) with the auto azimuth adj, if
>> you have a lot of tapes to playback you might consider one of
>> those.....I never had one, I can't tell you about it.
>
>Curious about this: never heard of a cassette machine with auto azimuth
>adjustment. On the fly? Some kind of servo mechanism? How does/did that
>work?
He's talking about the Nak Dragon or one of the imitators. They have
in addition to the normal head gaps, an alignment head with very narrow
tracks, two of which subtend the actual track recorded on the cassette.
There is a phase comparator circuit that looks at the theta between the
two tracks and moves the head back and forth until they are locked.
Not only does this set the azimuth correctly, but it keeps the azimuth
locked on as the tape rolls, which is a wonderful thing when you have
tapes with azimuth drift to deal with.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
>today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
>more than a couple decades ago.
I would tend to disagree. There was a pretty good market for 1" and 2"
studio decks back then....
mako...@yahoo.com
>
> > -but the azimuth still needs to be perpendicular to tape travel
> > for best results.
>
> Cosine law says that you can have a wide variance (in terms of degrees
> away from 90) and still be essentially perpendicular.
>
>
I disagreee with that, the gap is on the order of 1 micron, even a
slight mis-alignment of the angle in effect increases the gap width
which directly reduces the high frequency response limit.
THe azimuth setting on a cassette deck is one of the most critical
settings in all of electronics land. And it's even more critical if
you ever sum the L and R channels into mono.
Mark
Paul Stamler
> Paul Stamler wrote:
>
>> > I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX noise reduction,
>> > and was wondering how such a deck compares to these so-called high-
>> > end machines?
>>
>> Badly.
>>
>> each cassette incorporates a pressure pad to hold the tape against
>> the head. This adds a large amount of "scrape flutter", aka
>> "modulation noise" to the signal
>>
>> Except Nakamichi 3-head twin-capstan decks.
>
> That's cool.
>
> How much time do you spend adjusting the play and record heads so they
> track each other?
None; they're mounted in a common housing.
>> > Akai's specs list the frequency response at 20 to 19khz +/-
>> > 3db using metal tape.
>> >
>> > S/N listed as 60 db (metal) and 75-80 db with Dolby C. DBX
>> > is listed as 115 db (dynamic range, not S/N).
>>
>> And it'll sound terrible, too.
>
> Sounds great. What's the Nakamichi's frequency response and S/N ratio?
> Does it have DBX?
There are quite a few different models of Nakamichi, all with different
specs. However, the frequency responses and S/N ratios vary all over the
place, depending on what type of tape is used. Because of that, published
specs for cassette decks are not comparable with one another.
So far as I know, Nakamichi never made a model with dbx.
>> > Wow and flutter: 0.05% (WRMS), 0.12% (DIN WTD).
>> >
>> > Distortion: 0.65% (metal)
>>
>> At what frequency, at what level, what kind of test? A single
>> distortion number, unfortunately, tells little or nothing.
>
> Is Wow and flutter frequency dependent?
Wow and flutter are measurements of mechanical imperfections in the
transport, and have nothing to do with the frequency on the tape except
inasmuch as they frequency-modulate it.
> What are the Nakamichi's numbers?
There are so many Naks that you'd be better off looking up a particular
model's numbers on the net. Bear in mind, though, that comparisons between
published frequency responses and S/N ratios are meaningless, and
wow/flutter numbers can be deceiving unless you know exactly how the
performance is being measured and weighted. That says, essentially, that you
can profitably compare wow/flutter numbers between the products of one
manufacturer, but not between different manufacturers.
Peace,
Paul
Tape Guy
> I disagreee with that, the gap is on the order of 1 micron, even a
> slight mis-alignment of the angle in effect increases the gap width
> which directly reduces the high frequency response limit.
Even though I've messed with the tape head adjustment screws on other
decks in the distance past, perhaps there's something I don't
understand.
If the magnetized region on the tape has a certain width, then I would
think that you want to do two things with the head adjustment:
a) move the head so that the coil gap is centered directly over the
center of the magnetized region.
b) adjust the head angle so that the coil gap is perpendicular to the
magnetized track.
I don't see how both (a) and (b) can be done with only a single screw
adjustment. If there is only 1 adjustment screw, then you can turn it
so that you achieve (a) but the result might not mean the gap in the
head is perpendicular to the track. If you turn the screw some more,
you might achieve (b), but the gap might not be centered over the track
(but it will be perpendicular to it).
Am I right, or am I missing something here?
And again, if I am mainly concerned with tapes that are recorded and
played back on the same deck, then how critical is this adjustment so
long as it doesn't change over the long term?
And to what extent is a mis-alignment built into heads that contain both
recording and playback coils?
Some of the comments here seem to indicate that a head with combined
record and playback coils can never be as perfectly aligned as a deck
with separate recording and playback heads. I can't see the logic in
that argument.
D.M. Procida
> Some of the comments here seem to indicate that a head with combined
> record and playback coils can never be as perfectly aligned as a deck
> with separate recording and playback heads. I can't see the logic in
> that argument.
The issue there is that different characteristics are required for play
and record heads. Combined record/playback heads are a compromise.
Daniele
--
For sale: iBook G4 1.33MHz, 1.5GB RAM, super condition
<http://search.ebay.co.uk/220368472534>
Scott Dorsey
>
>If the magnetized region on the tape has a certain width, then I would
>think that you want to do two things with the head adjustment:
>
>a) move the head so that the coil gap is centered directly over the
>center of the magnetized region.
This is the head height adjustment.
>b) adjust the head angle so that the coil gap is perpendicular to the
>magnetized track.
This is the azimuth adjustment.
>I don't see how both (a) and (b) can be done with only a single screw
>adjustment. If there is only 1 adjustment screw, then you can turn it
>so that you achieve (a) but the result might not mean the gap in the
>head is perpendicular to the track. If you turn the screw some more,
>you might achieve (b), but the gap might not be centered over the track
>(but it will be perpendicular to it).
The azimuth is the important part. The height can be off a little bit
and you can get away with it.
If you look at the mount on a regular studio tape recorder, you will
see at least four different adjustments. Sadly there isn't much room
in a cassette deck to built mounts like this.
>And again, if I am mainly concerned with tapes that are recorded and
>played back on the same deck, then how critical is this adjustment so
>long as it doesn't change over the long term?
It changes over the long term. It changes from one part of the tape
to the next on a lot of these machines, even. Remember the whole
stability rests on the cassette shell and two little stamped-metal guides.
>And to what extent is a mis-alignment built into heads that contain both
>recording and playback coils?
Depends how well the heads were made. The folks at Nakamichi are better
at it than the folks at Tascam. Much of the reluctance of cassette
deck manufacturers to go to three-head designs was the difficulty of
aligning the two together.
>Some of the comments here seem to indicate that a head with combined
>record and playback coils can never be as perfectly aligned as a deck
>with separate recording and playback heads. I can't see the logic in
>that argument.
It's true, because as the head profile wears, the relative positions
change. Remember we're talking about tape with teeny-tiny tracks
running really slow here, so it doesn't take much change to have an
audible impact.
However, it's academic since there's no room to fit conventional
seperate heads into the shell... the shell design is the main limitation
here. The whole thing was intended as a cheap format for dictation
machines, it was never intended to do the kind of things people have
forced it into over the years.
Mike Rivers
> If the magnetized region on the tape has a certain width, then I would
> think that you want to do two things with the head adjustment:
>
> a) move the head so that the coil gap is centered directly over the
> center of the magnetized region.
>
> b) adjust the head angle so that the coil gap is perpendicular to the
> magnetized track.
Yes, that's correct.
> I don't see how both (a) and (b) can be done with only a single screw
> adjustment.
It can't. But some head mounts (maybe not common on cassette decks) have
three screws so you can adjust the height as well as get the face of the
head
flat with the tape. as well as adjust the azimuth. However, most
inexpensive
machines, and some expensive ones as well (like my Ampex MM1100) depend
on adherence to standards (there's an NAB and IEC standard for track
dimensions
and placement) and accurate manufacturing tolerances. There is usually a
need
to touch up the azimuth when working with tapes coming in from all
directions, but
the height and alignment with the tape can be stable on a well
constructed deck.
Scott will tell you (and he'll be right) that no commercial cassette
deck is built
to such close tolerances and stability, however.
> And again, if I am mainly concerned with tapes that are recorded and
> played back on the same deck, then how critical is this adjustment so
> long as it doesn't change over the long term?
There's some loss from having the magnetic field slanted, but it's not
really a big deal. The problem with cassettes is that the tape isn't very
accurately guided so the tape path tends to drift from end to end of
the tape. So you can get the azimuth correct once, but it may never be
exactly correct again. The worst effect with a stereo recording is that
as the tape skews relative to the head, one track is slightly displaced
in length from the other relative to the head gap. This results in a phase
error between the tracks.
> And to what extent is a mis-alignment built into heads that contain both
> recording and playback coils?
An equally good question is how good is the alignment between tracks of
a multitrack (2 or greater) head? That's known as gap scatter and every
head manufacturer that cares about his heads has a tolerance for that which,
if exceeded, calls for the head to be rejected (or sold as a lower grade
head).
> Some of the comments here seem to indicate that a head with combined
> record and playback coils can never be as perfectly aligned as a deck
> with separate recording and playback heads.
The problem is that you can't do anything about it. But if it's good
enough,
then the relation between record and playback head gaps will never change.
--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
(mriv...@d-and-d.com)
Scott Dorsey
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>Tape Guy <Ta...@Guy.com> wrote:
>
>> Some of the comments here seem to indicate that a head with combined
>> record and playback coils can never be as perfectly aligned as a deck
>> with separate recording and playback heads. I can't see the logic in
>> that argument.
>
>The issue there is that different characteristics are required for play
>and record heads. Combined record/playback heads are a compromise.
That's a third thing.
Your choices:
1. Separate record and play heads. Impossible for cassettes because of
the limited space in the shell opening. Gives you the ability to
adjust everything properly, although it requires doing the mechanical
alignment twice, obviously. This is how conventional studio machines
have worked for years.
2. A single record/play head. This means you lose confidence monitoring,
it means you are stuck with a gap that is really too wide for optimal
playback and too narrow for optimal recording. And it also means the
bias setting is a freaking nightmare of record, rewind, playback cycles.
Okay for cheap voice recording applications, not acceptable for anything
else because of the alignment difficulties.
3. The record and play heads in the same body. This is what most "3-head"
cassette decks do. Individual pole pieces for the record and play
sections, but mounted in the same package. This means your mechanical
alignment is only as good as the alignment of the pole pieces when the
assembly as made, since the two sides can't be adjusted individually.
It's pretty cheesy, but it gives you confidence monitoring and it fits
into the shell.
D.M. Procida
> The whole thing was intended as a cheap format for dictation
> machines, it was never intended to do the kind of things people have
> forced it into over the years.
And yet despite that, it worked pretty well, especially towards the end.
Sony's Walkman Pro hit a very useful compromise between affordability,
convenience and sound quality, as did some of the better Portastudio-
type machines, and both were used to record commercial albums.
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> The whole thing was intended as a cheap format for dictation
>> machines, it was never intended to do the kind of things people have
>> forced it into over the years.
>
>And yet despite that, it worked pretty well, especially towards the end.
>Sony's Walkman Pro hit a very useful compromise between affordability,
>convenience and sound quality, as did some of the better Portastudio-
>type machines, and both were used to record commercial albums.
Yes, it's something of a miracle that it worked as well as it did, and
you can thank a combination of the folks at Dolby who managed to adapt
their noise reduction system to a format with ragged low frequency
response and not have it mistrack severely, and the folks at Sony who
figured out how to make cheap tape guys that were mostly stable. Nobody
ever predicted it would wind up in as many different markets as it did.
Tape Guy
> > And yet despite that, it worked pretty well, especially towards
> > the end.
>
> Yes, it's something of a miracle that it worked as well as it did,
> and you can thank a combination of the folks at Dolby who managed
> to adapt their noise reduction system to a format with ragged low
> frequency response ...
I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my Akai deck.
Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi owners?
Scott Dorsey
Is your Akai deck aligned for the tape you're using? Response problems
and level issues will cause both Dolby and dbx to pump, but they pump
differently in ways that aren't necessarily predictable.
david correia
"Paul Stamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Except Nakamichi 3-head twin-capstan decks. They have ridges on either side
> of the head assenbly which push the pressure pad away from the tape,
> drastically cutting down the scrape flutter. They maintain tape tension with
> the dual capstans.
>
> Nobody else did this, because Nakamichi either bought the patent or obtained
> an exclusive license on it from the folks who invented it (Eumig).
>
> As a result, there are two categories of cassette decks: Nakamichi
> three-head decks and everything else.
Didn't the 2 head Naks also push away the pressure pads?
One of the weird things with Naks is that the cassette recordings they
made would sound like crap on some brand's decks.
We had to pull a $1,500 Nak 680zx out of our control room and replace it
with a Sony 3 head deck back in the day, cuz we would run into the
occasional client that would remark about how crappy our cassette of
rough mixes from the last session sounded.
Thank you thank you for recording onto CD.
btw I booted that 680zx recently and it no longer plays back. The
transport seems fine and the heads are clean and demag-ed. The deck
doesn't have too many miles on it either. Any recommendations on where
to send it that doesn't charge 2 arms and a leg?
Man, whoever thought Nakamichi would ever not make or service cassette
decks ...
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Keith.
"Paul Stamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:jkfql.407397$Mh5.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I have a product and test report on a Nak. 1000 in an Australian Stereo
Buyers guide for Cassette and Tape recorders if there is interest.
Keith.
Paul Stamler
news:noemail-517C58...@forte.easynews.com...
> In article <6i6ql.41258$4m1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Paul Stamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Except Nakamichi 3-head twin-capstan decks. They have ridges on either
>> side
>> of the head assenbly which push the pressure pad away from the tape,
>> drastically cutting down the scrape flutter. They maintain tape tension
>> with
>> the dual capstans.
>>
>> Nobody else did this, because Nakamichi either bought the patent or
>> obtained
>> an exclusive license on it from the folks who invented it (Eumig).
>>
>> As a result, there are two categories of cassette decks: Nakamichi
>> three-head decks and everything else.
>
> Didn't the 2 head Naks also push away the pressure pads?
Nope -- at least, mine didn't, and some others I saw didn't.
Peace,
Paul
Mike Rivers
> One of the weird things with Naks is that the cassette recordings they
> made would sound like crap on some brand's decks.
There he goes again with that "sound like crap." But it's true that
Nakamichi used a different equalization curve from everyone else. It's
part of what made their cassette machines sound better than most.
> btw I booted that 680zx recently and it no longer plays back. The
> transport seems fine and the heads are clean and demag-ed. The deck
> doesn't have too many miles on it either. Any recommendations on where
> to send it that doesn't charge 2 arms and a leg?
I don't know what Stephen Sank's status is these days. He drifts in and
out of illness and availability, but he did Nakamichi repairs and didn't
charge an arm an a leg for his mic repairs. You might knock on the door
and see if anyone answers.
http://www.thuntek.net/~bk11/home.htm
Arny Krueger
> Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
> today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
> more than a couple decades ago.
It's been over 25 years since the audio CD became the standard for sound
quality in a distribution format. Even 2 decades ago, the only justification
for the Portastudio was that it was the best we had at the time, not that it
was really adequate.
IME audio cassette is a horrible medium by modern standards. Anybody who
cares to dispute this need only post an Audio Rightmark test based on a
cassette record/play cycle that comes within an order of magnitude of the
2-in, 8-out digital audio interface that comes "free" on a modern PC system
board $75 such as the Asus M3A78-CM.
Scott Dorsey
>
>One of the weird things with Naks is that the cassette recordings they
>made would sound like crap on some brand's decks.
Yeah, the problem is that the Nak actually met the published specifications
for track width, while most other machines used reduced track widths to
allow more alignment slop. A lot of cassette decks couldn't hold height
alignment well enough to keep the second side audio from leaking into the
first, and the narrower track width helps that.
This gives you the SAME problem that we had before with 1/4" 2-track and
"European Stereo" formats... but the fringe effect problems are far,
far worse because the tracks are so small. Much of the high frequencies
are on the edge of the track... so if you have a Sony machine that IS
perfectly aligned for height and has the head in the center of the
track, you lose much of the high end.
>We had to pull a $1,500 Nak 680zx out of our control room and replace it
>with a Sony 3 head deck back in the day, cuz we would run into the
>occasional client that would remark about how crappy our cassette of
>rough mixes from the last session sounded.
We got the Tascam 122 for that. The capstan belt drive on those was
kind of ingenious and did actually bring flutter down somewhat, but
you had to replace the belt every couple of years and the eject button
would break every six months or so.
>btw I booted that 680zx recently and it no longer plays back. The
>transport seems fine and the heads are clean and demag-ed. The deck
>doesn't have too many miles on it either. Any recommendations on where
>to send it that doesn't charge 2 arms and a leg?
Steve Sank is still doing Nakamichi repair, and he used to be a warranty
repair center for those machines. My bet is that you have some relay and
switch contacts that need cleaning.
Tape Guy
> > I find that dbx gives better performance over dolby C on my Akai
> > deck. Was that a similar experience for Nakamichi owners?
>
> Is your Akai deck aligned for the tape you're using?
I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.
William Sommerwerck
I am a huge fan of dbx, but it is not generally suitable for cassette decks.
I once made a live recording of "Alborada del Gracioso" on a 700 II, with
metal tape and dbx II. * "Alborada" has a tremendous dynamic range, and the
recording successfully captured it -- but you could hear the noise
"breathing" ** in quieter passages. The effect is even more pronounced with
solo instruments having a high crest factor, such as piano.
Oddly, dbx II permits significantly higher recording levels -- without
distortion or dulling -- than Dolby does, but I've never been able to figure
out why.
Regardless, dbx and cassette recording are not really meant for each other.
Mix with caution.
* I was obliged to. My reel-to-reel machine was not working that week.
** I acknowledge that there is a difference between "breathing" and
"pumping", but I've never been able to keep them straight.
Scott Dorsey
Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,
if they are both aligned right. In general, I think dbx Type II
gives higher effective S/N but has poorer handling of transients
than Dolby Type C.
But in the real world, the reason you pick a noise reduction system is
for compatibility with everybody else. And for cassettes, that pretty
much always means Dolby B... if you give anything else to a customer,
odds are they won't be able to play it right.
Another interesting configuration that I kind of like is using Dolby
HX-Pro without noise reduction. The HX-Pro gives you a little bit more
headroom so you can bring your levels up. The end result is a tape that
is still noisier than one made with NR, but without the interchangability
issues that you get with NR. Hell, half the time you make a tape with
NR, the customer will play it back with the NR disabled because it sounds
brighter that way...
Tape Guy
> >I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.
>
> Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,
It shouldn't.
Any recording mechanism or process that favors one type of spectral or
signal content over another is not worth a pinch of salt.
Seems to me that dbx was technically superior to Dolby B and C, and any
deck that had dbx built-in was at least giving the owner the ability to
try the format and use it more faithfully recorded and played back
material compared to dolby.
Richard Crowley
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.
>>
>> Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,
>
> It shouldn't.
With heavy emphasis on the theoretical.
> Any recording mechanism or process that favors one type of spectral or
> signal content over another is not worth a pinch of salt.
That pretty much characterizes all the consumer NR schemes.
(And many of the "pro" schemes, as well, IME)
I preferred the hiss to the unrecoverable signal destruction.
If the hiss was gone, it was assumed that that part of the signal
was AWOL as well.
At least I don't have to make that tradeoff anymore.
Chris Hornbeck
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>btw I booted that 680zx recently and it no longer plays back. The
>transport seems fine and the heads are clean and demag-ed. The deck
>doesn't have too many miles on it either.
Does the "Stop" lamp still light? If not, replace it
(tiniest 12 lamp ever) and/or bridge across it with
a 680 Ohm resistor.
Yeah, sounds strange, but the lamp is part of the
tranport logic, and affects muting.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> >I'm just asking if Nakamichi owners preferred using dbx over Dolby C.
>>
>> Depends entirely on the source material which one will sound better,
>
>It shouldn't.
>
>Any recording mechanism or process that favors one type of spectral or
>signal content over another is not worth a pinch of salt.
Sorry about that, you've just described every recording method known
to mankind. Life is just like that.
Cassettes all have flutter. This is annoying as hell on solo piano,
but you can't tell a bit of difference on a harpsichord.
Noise reduction systems all have linearity issues of one sort of
another... you don't get that extra S/N for nothing.
>Seems to me that dbx was technically superior to Dolby B and C, and any
>deck that had dbx built-in was at least giving the owner the ability to
>try the format and use it more faithfully recorded and played back
>material compared to dolby.
If all you care about is the S/N number on the data sheet, dbx Type II
is hard to beat. If you want something that doesn't pump annoyingly
on transients, dbx Type II can be a real problem. Both dbx and Dolby
systems also of course exaggerate frequency response problems in the
signal path, which can be a problem in the real world.
You do not get something for nothing.
David Nebenzahl
Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that
was released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up
well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality.
All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.
That's all.
--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "fuck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.
- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)
Mr.T
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:49a91c3c$0$2721$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
> today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
> more than a couple decades ago.
ONLY in your opinion. I had *far* superior R-R equipment, and it was VERY
happy to go digital.
But as long as *you* were happy :-)
MrT.
Mr.T
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
> point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
> least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that
> was released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up
> well to the *then-current standards* for sound quality.
It did NO such thing, you just *think* it did. Recordings made in the
fifties on studio R-R decks were better than anything a portastudio could
ever produce.
> All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
> not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
> than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.
It totally deserves the contempt most people gave it at the time, let alone
compared to today's equipment!
So tell us David what is the complete opposite of "an audio snob"? Are you
*totally* deaf perhaps?
MrT.
Mr.T
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gobiij$a15$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Unfortunately there's a lot of stuff recorded on cassette out there, and
> folks need to transcribe it. That's why the high end cassette decks are
> still fetching good money. And let me reiterate that if you are doing
> transcription of old tapes, you absolutely need to be able to change the
> head alignment and the reference levels.
Sure, and I have the necessary capabilities, but find the demand is not
really there. Most cassette music recordings were simply convenience dubs of
records, or even worse, commercial copies of records. The personal
recordings people often want transcribed are usually voice or low quality
demo's anyway, and low cost of transfer is more important to those people
than trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear!!!
MrT.
David Nebenzahl
Wasn't just me, but a group of musicians, their engineer, and their
audience (many of who were also musicians), who happily bought their
records and played them.
But if you say it couldn't be done, then I guess it never happened. I
must have dreamt the whole thing up. After all, you seem to know better.
Mr.T
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> Wasn't just me, but a group of musicians, their engineer, and their
> audience (many of who were also musicians), who happily bought their
> records and played them.
Some people are easily pleased, but most just don't know how crappy the
quality is until after they have bought it and played it.
And then there are a few magical performances that people will put up with
crappy quality simply because that's all that is available. Doesn't mean
most wouldn't prefer something far better though!
> But if you say it couldn't be done, then I guess it never happened. I
> must have dreamt the whole thing up. After all, you seem to know better.
I never said crap *couldn't* be produced on a portastudio, many people did
it.
Fortunately most were demo's rather than material released to unsuspecting
paying customers.
Any artist who charged for such crap would not get my money a second time.
Of course people these days listen to crappy quality as much as they ever
did, low bit rate compressed streaming media for example. They don't usually
expect to pay for it though. Try releasing that portastudio recording on CD
and see how many you sell, and how many complaints you get.
MrT.
nebulax
Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio. It
didn't sound great, but he was up front about how the recording was
made, so I don't recall anyone complaining about it. I'm not sure how
many copies it sold, but it reach #3 on the Billboard pop album chart
in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_(album)
-Neb
D.M. Procida
> I never said crap *couldn't* be produced on a portastudio, many people did
> it.
> Fortunately most were demo's rather than material released to unsuspecting
> paying customers.
> Any artist who charged for such crap would not get my money a second time.
Poor old Bruce Springsteen, nobody warned him. Or Bill Callahan. Or
Ween.
Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
a notion.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
Procida) wrote:
>
> Poor old Bruce Springsteen, nobody warned him.
> Or Bill Callahan. Or Ween.
>
> Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to
> make a virtue out of the limitations of a medium such
> as cassette.
No, plenty of musicians were able to make money.
That fact does not chnage physics: compared to
other recording medium available at the time, it
WAS crappy. The lowered standards and expectations
did not change that fact one iota.
Those that claim that something of the ilk of a
portastudia were capable of making technically
better recordings than even something like a
contemporary Revox A-77 do so for one of several
reaons:
1. They did not compare recordings made on the
two machines that were both set up by competent
technicians.
2. They are hopelessly naive and nostalgic
3. They like the obvious distortions the medium
produces and use it as an effect.
> It's not that singular a notion.
Nor is the fact that McDonalds sold billions upon
billions of hamburgers. Does that fact make them
better?
The portastudio was, at the time, a very convenient
device. That is not in dispute. The portastudio
was used by any number of musicians and pretenders.
That is not in dispute. Some of those recordings were
very popular. That is not in dispute.
But if you're going to make a claim that it performs
to some technical level, such a claim is subject
to technical scrutiny and, being a person who was
QUITE competent at tape machine set up, and having
set up THOUSANDS of cassette machine and reel-to-
reel machines of all persuasions, INCLUDING porta-
studios and A77s and Naks and Akais and studio R-R
machines, I most assuredly WILL dispute such claims
as nothing more than uninformed technical nonsense.
If a claim is made that the popularity of a recording
in an arbitrary market is a direct and inevitable
consequence of the technical superiority of the
equipment used or even of the competence of the
engineering involved, such a claim is aburd on its
face.
The portastudio and its ilk fit will in a particular
niche market. It provided convenience at the
expense of signal quality: an intrinsic property
of the cassette medium. You wanted better
quality, at the time, you got it at the expense
less convenience. If the intrinsic limitations of
the casse4tte medium were a low priority for
your project, then it was a perfect match.
Any extrapolation beyond that is fantasy.
Mike Rivers
> Some people are easily pleased, but most just don't know how crappy the
> quality is until after they have bought it and played it.
And many are enthralled with the new capability that enhances their
creativity and lets them do things they've never been able to do before
on the budget that they have. To someone who listens only to surface
quality, it may indeed not sound very good. But to someone who listens
to the music, if it's good, the "crap" rapidly melts away.
That's not to say that sonic improvements aren't important, but they're
not as important as the art and talent that's being recorded.
> And then there are a few magical performances that people will put up with
> crappy quality simply because that's all that is available. Doesn't mean
> most wouldn't prefer something far better though!
Most really don't care. Some might prefer better quality, and for them,
there are boutique recordings, some of which are even actually of good
performances. 25 years ago, cassette was a popular distribution medium.
Today we have MP3 files and U-Toob videos played back through cheap
computer speakers or giveaway earbuds. Now THAT'S crap! I dare say that
more people "upgraded" their cassette decks for music listening back
then than upgrade their computer speakers for music listening today.
> Of course people these days listen to crappy quality as much as they ever
> did, low bit rate compressed streaming media for example. They don't usually
> expect to pay for it though.
Think about the real problem with this. It's not about the quality of
the recording, it's about the state of music production.
Laurence Payne
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
>of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
>a notion.
Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.
Mike Rivers
> Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio.
That's an urban myth. He did writing and pre-production on a Portastudio.
> didn't sound great, but he was up front about how the recording was
> made, so I don't recall anyone complaining about it.
Did they not complain about it because he was up front about it being
recorded in a home studio (on an MCI 8-track, as I recall), or did they
not complain because it sounded very much like songs like that SHOULD
sound? When I hear his recent Pete Seeger tribute album, I keep
wondering "Why did they mix it THAT way?" To me, that's crap. But man, I
sure do LOVE the mic preamps and A/D converters they used on that
recording. It really brought the quality up to the highest professional
standards. <g>
audioae...@gmail.com
these same people now use low bit rate mp3's as their method of
distribution.
just check out myspace. lemmings are what you want to follow.
Arny Krueger
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> On 3/1/2009 5:14 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
>> news:49a91c3c$0$2721$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>>
>>> Reread my post: I didn't claim that a Portastudio would "stand up" to
>>> today's equipment. I said it was more than adequate for a recording made
>>> more than a couple decades ago.
>>
>> It's been over 25 years since the audio CD became the standard for sound
>> quality in a distribution format. Even 2 decades ago, the only
>> justification for the Portastudio was that it was the best we had at the
>> time, not that it was really adequate.
>>
>> IME audio cassette is a horrible medium by modern standards. Anybody who
>> cares to dispute this need only post an Audio Rightmark test based on a
>> cassette record/play cycle that comes within an order of magnitude of the
>> 2-in, 8-out digital audio interface that comes "free" on a modern PC
>> system board $75 such as the Asus M3A78-CM.
>
> Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
> point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
> least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that was
> released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up well to
> the *then-current standards* for sound quality.
>
> All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
> not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
> than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.
>
> That's all.
Exceptions don't prove any rule. I suspect that a recording made on a
portastudio could be sucessful even today, if it had exceptional musical
values. After all, musical values are still the most important part of any
recording.
D.M. Procida
> > Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to
> > make a virtue out of the limitations of a medium such
> > as cassette.
>
> No, plenty of musicians were able to make money.
I don't think you understand what "making a virtue of limitations"
means.
> But if you're going to make a claim that it performs
> to some technical level [etc etc etc]
I didn't, and I'm not. You've wasted a lot of effort addressing a point
I didn't make.
D.M. Procida
> >Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
> >of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
> >a notion.
>
> Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.
Why ever not?
Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio. It
>didn't sound great, but he was up front about how the recording was
>made, so I don't recall anyone complaining about it. I'm not sure how
>many copies it sold, but it reach #3 on the Billboard pop album chart
>in 1982.
It sounded pretty awful, really. But it sounded like Bruce Springsteen,
and people buy records because of who is playing on them and not because
of how they sound.
Still, people pay me to make good-sounding recordings, so I tend to be
biased in favor of such.
Scott Dorsey
>nebulax wrote:
>
>> Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio.
>
>That's an urban myth. He did writing and pre-production on a Portastudio.
Are you sure about that? It sounds pretty dreadful... if that was
recorded on an 8-track MCI machine, his engineer should really be
ashamed of himself.
Laurence Payne
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.
>
>Why ever not?
>
>Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
>audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
>reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.
Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
that Portastudio really added something!"
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
Procida) wrote:
> <dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to
> > > make a virtue out of the limitations of a medium such
> > > as cassette.
>
> > No, plenty of musicians were able to make money.
>
> I don't think you understand what "making a virtue
> of limitations" means.
I most assuredly do, thank you for your concern,
but a limitation is a limitation. The fact that the
artistry SURVIVED the limitation does not make
that limitation virtuous as you would seem to
suggest. How would this particular recording be
BETTER than if done on technically superior
equipment? THAT would be making a virtue out
of a limitation.
> > But if you're going to make a claim that it performs
> > to some technical level [etc etc etc]
>
> I didn't, and I'm not.
Well, since this is not a private discussion but a
public thread, you certainly wouldn't be wrong if
you were to explore the ambiguity in the number
of people covered by the word "you/"
> You've wasted a lot of effort addressing a point
> I didn't make.
That's not a judgement you get to make for me.
And since I HAVE done a rather large amount of
work in this particular realm, spread out over
more than a third of a century, this particular
tome was not even a proverbial walk in the park
by comparison.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> > >Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
> > >of the limitations of a medium such as cassette. It's not that singular
> > >a notion.
>
> > Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.
>
> Why ever not?
Exactly! Why put any effort in to trying to do better?
That's what made America what it is today! :-)
> Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts.
It's as often begrudingly tolerated.
> Both artists and audiences value imperfect
> media, for a complex variety of differing
> reasons. Recording artists aren't different in
> this respect.
This is beyond calling a bug a feature: this is
valuing the mediocre as high art.
It's an excuse for being merely good enough.
Fortunately, there are those that reject the notion
of crap as art and really do strive to reach a
perfection, even if it is unobtainable.
One thing that technology has done for the world:
it has enable millions to be within reach of stardom,
fame or glory. But it hasn't made a single one of them
any better.
D.M. Procida
> >> Good music survives imperfect media. But let's not romanticize it.
> >
> >Why ever not?
> >
> >Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
> >audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
> >reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.
>
> Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
> that Portastudio really added something!"
Is that funny?
Mike Rivers
>>> Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio.
>> That's an urban myth. He did writing and pre-production on a Portastudio.
>
> Are you sure about that?
Well, one or the other was an urban myth. The story as I read it was
that he used a 4-track cassette for some demos, brought it to his
producer and proposed recording those songs at home. Apparently along
the way, someone said (about the cassette) "Yeah, we can use a couple of
tracks from that." and new tracks were built around Springsteen's
originals. There may have been bits and pieces that went into the final
mix.
> It sounds pretty dreadful... if that was
> recorded on an 8-track MCI machine, his engineer should really be
> ashamed of himself.
Homey songs for homebound people, I guess. I've only head a couple of
songs from the Nebraska album and frankly, I never cared enough about
the singing or the songs to bother to listen closely enough to critique
the recording quality.
Mike Rivers
> I most assuredly do, thank you for your concern,
> but a limitation is a limitation. The fact that the
> artistry SURVIVED the limitation does not make
> that limitation virtuous as you would seem to
> suggest. How would this particular recording be
> BETTER than if done on technically superior
> equipment? THAT would be making a virtue out
> of a limitation.
I think that what Daniele was referring to is the all too common
technique of using distortion or restricted bandwidth, or maybe a carbon
microphone salvaged from an old telephone to make a part stand out in a
mix. It's not that they couldn't have recorded it better, this was a
production decision. Of course one might question the taste of the
artist or producer to record everything that way when better equipment
and techniques are available to him, probably even within his budget.
I see no reason to brag that such-and-such a financially and/or
artistically successful project was recorded on a Portastuio. It's just
a fact to be filed away. I'm sure that if the Beatles were recording
today, they'd be using ProTools, and only using the famed 4-track
Studers for "tape effects."
Laurence Payne
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> >Imperfect media are celebrated in all the arts. Both artists and
>> >audiences value imperfect media, for a complex variety of differing
>> >reasons. Recording artists aren't different in this respect.
>>
>> Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
>> that Portastudio really added something!"
>
>Is that funny?
Only to someone who might say "Both artists and audiences value
D.M. Procida
> > Both artists and audiences value imperfect
> > media, for a complex variety of differing
> > reasons. Recording artists aren't different in
> > this respect.
>
> This is beyond calling a bug a feature: this is
> valuing the mediocre as high art.
>
> It's an excuse for being merely good enough.
I don't think so. Some years ago I curated an exhibition of digital art,
actually called "Limited", in which various limits (formal, thematic,
material, techological) were foregrounded.
The limits imposed by the comission limits, as well as the artists'
self-imposed limits, were not only part of the work, but made it
possible too. Simply speaking technically, the work could not have been
executed, could not have existed, in a superior medium.
Thinking that limits mean that something must be inferior is like
thinking that the short story is an inferior form to the novel, because
it has to have fewer words in it. And that's just silly.
The 12 pieces (and the essays that accompanied the exhibition) are at:
<http://www.apple-juice.co.uk/pages/limited.php>
> Fortunately, there are those that reject the notion
> of crap as art and really do strive to reach a
> perfection, even if it is unobtainable.
Many of them also understand the difference between the poverty of media
and the poverty of artistic imagination, which is something that:
> One thing that technology has done for the world:
> it has enable millions to be within reach of stardom,
> fame or glory. But it hasn't made a single one of them
> any better.
seems to acknowledge. The quality of art is not tied to the technical
advantages or deficiencies of its media.
D.M. Procida
> > I don't think you understand what "making a virtue
> > of limitations" means.
>
> I most assuredly do, thank you for your concern,
> but a limitation is a limitation. The fact that the
> artistry SURVIVED the limitation does not make
> that limitation virtuous as you would seem to
> suggest.
Limitations aren't virtuous, but a virtue can be made out of them.
Artists can adapt to and exploit the limitations of a medium.
> How would this particular recording be
> BETTER than if done on technically superior
> equipment? THAT would be making a virtue out
> of a limitation.
I don't know which particular recording you're speaking of, but I can
think of plenty of examples (from music and elsewhere) where the
limitations of the medium are important to the work.
In some, the limitations of the medium are appropriate and adopted on
aesthetic grounds (sometimes, a technically superior medium would be all
wrong and would fail to work). In others, the limitations of the medium
impose themselves and oblige the artist to adapt to them.
In either case the resulting work is different from what would be
obtained by working in a technically superior medium. Maybe you think
that - other things being equal - a superior medium will make a better
work, but I don't.
Photographers sometimes choose Polaroid; film-makers, Super-8;
scupltors, concrete. Cartoonists have to adapt to newsprint. In all
those cases media with far fewer limitations exist, but in most cases,
using a technically superior medium would simply make a different kind
of work - not better or worse, just different.
D.M. Procida
You're mistaken, in that case. To me it seems neither amusing nor odd
that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey, that
Portastudio really added something!"
In fact I'd find it somewhat inexplicable if they did.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>I think that what Daniele was referring to is the all too common
>technique of using distortion or restricted bandwidth, or maybe a carbon
>microphone salvaged from an old telephone to make a part stand out in a
>mix.
Maybe. When would you choose the special magic of a Portastudio to
enhance a track?
Laurence Payne
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>In some, the limitations of the medium are appropriate and adopted on
>aesthetic grounds (sometimes, a technically superior medium would be all
>wrong and would fail to work).
We're getting into quirky definitions of "technically better" here :-)
Powell
"Tape Guy" wrote
> Seems that Tandberg or Nakamichi or Revox tape decks
> get all the press when it comes to high end machines.
>
I don't think that's true, not by the mid 80's (your Akai
GX-A5X), both the Tandberg and Revox were
one-trick-ponies (only one model). Nakamichi was the
only real mover in your group having 8 models in their
lineup ranging from $300 to $1,850 MSRP.
By my count there were 22 manufactures selling
cassette players at or above $500... 8 manufactures
selling desks over $1,000.
> Are there any tech specs for them? Frequency and
> phase response, S/N ratio?
>
> I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX
> noise reduction, and was wondering how such a deck
> compares to these so-called high-end machines?
>
Of your small group the Nak's had the best specifications
20-20,000 kHz +/- 3 dB. 0.04 W&F 72 dB SN w/noise
reduction. There were a lot of manufactures doing as
well, by the mid 80's
> There seem to be quite a lot of Akai decks with model
> numbers starting with GX. Why so many different
> models? Which Akai deck was the best?
>
At the time Akai had 10 models in their lineup. Five
had the GX while the balance had the HX designation.
The top model was the GXR99 MSRP $800 your
GX-A5X ($229) is 5th model down from the top.
philicorda
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>>> Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio.
>>> That's an urban myth. He did writing and pre-production on a
>>> Portastudio.
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>
> Well, one or the other was an urban myth. The story as I read it was
> that he used a 4-track cassette for some demos, brought it to his
> producer and proposed recording those songs at home. Apparently along
> the way, someone said (about the cassette) "Yeah, we can use a couple of
> tracks from that." and new tracks were built around Springsteen's
> originals. There may have been bits and pieces that went into the final
> mix.
The version I read...
They were meant to be demos, but when he started recording the 'proper'
versions, they did not have same vibe. So, they went through a long and
tortured mastering process and eventually got the original versions
sounding ok.
There were a couple of overdubs, but it's really minimal stuff.
I think the sound suits the material. It's quite a bleak and dark album
so the roughness worked.
>
> > It sounds pretty dreadful... if that was
>> recorded on an 8-track MCI machine, his engineer should really be
>> ashamed of himself.
>
> Homey songs for homebound people, I guess. I've only head a couple of
> songs from the Nebraska album and frankly, I never cared enough about
> the singing or the songs to bother to listen closely enough to critique
> the recording quality.
'Nebraska' is about a 19 year old serial killer. Not all that homey.
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> > I've got an Akai GX-A5X with Dolby B, C and DBX
> > noise reduction, and was wondering how such a deck
> > compares to these so-called high-end machines?
>
> Of your small group the Nak's had the best specifications
> 20-20,000 kHz +/- 3 dB.
That would be at a significantly reduced reference
level, like a minimum of 10 dB below dolby reference
level.
>0.04 W&F
And that was a weighted figure
> 72 dB SN w/noise reduction.
And that was also A-weighted as well.
And all these specifications were under the
assumption that the machines had been
specificallly biased for the the tape being
specified. NAK was no better in this sense
than anyone else: out of the box, they'd often
not meet spec until tweaked.
Paul Stamler
news:d6654126-e7f8-4fde...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 2, 6:44 am, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
>
> Poor old Bruce Springsteen, nobody warned him.
> Or Bill Callahan. Or Ween.
>
> Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to
> make a virtue out of the limitations of a medium such
> as cassette.
<<No, plenty of musicians were able to make money.
That fact does not chnage physics: compared to
other recording medium available at the time, it
WAS crappy. The lowered standards and expectations
did not change that fact one iota.>>
A word about Springsteen's "Nebraska": He did the demos on a PortaStudio
that he often used as an "audio notebook", with the intent of then recording
the material in a real studio for release. Unfortunately, when he hit the
real studio, he found that, try as he might, he wasn't getting performances
that were as good as the ones he'd done into the PortaStudio. Something
about the vibe was just right when he was putting down the demo tracks,
something he never quite recaptured.
So he chose to issue the PortaStudio recordings instead, in spite of the
significantly lower quality, because he wanted to give his audience the best
possible performances. Not because he recorded on the PortaStudio with the
intent of releasing those recordings.
As someone who listens to 78s, I can sympathize, even as I wish someone had
been able to record Robert Johnson in a high-quality medium. But I'm glad to
have the Johnson performances we have, and Springsteen likewise.
All that said, these days people use better recorders for audio notebooks.
Peace,
Paul
philicorda
> <dpierce.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6654126-e7f8-4fde...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 6:44 am, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.
> Procida) wrote:
>>
>> Poor old Bruce Springsteen, nobody warned him. Or Bill Callahan. Or
>> Ween.
>>
>> Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
>> of the limitations of a medium such as cassette.
>
> <<No, plenty of musicians were able to make money. That fact does not
> chnage physics: compared to other recording medium available at the
> time, it WAS crappy. The lowered standards and expectations did not
> change that fact one iota.>>
>
> A word about Springsteen's "Nebraska": He did the demos on a PortaStudio
> that he often used as an "audio notebook", with the intent of then
> recording the material in a real studio for release.
He had not used a four track previously, it was bought along with a
couple of SM57s by his guitar tech, who acted as engineer on the
sessions. They also did a little acoustic treatment to the recording room.
> Unfortunately, when
> he hit the real studio, he found that, try as he might, he wasn't
> getting performances that were as good as the ones he'd done into the
> PortaStudio. Something about the vibe was just right when he was putting
> down the demo tracks, something he never quite recaptured.
>
> So he chose to issue the PortaStudio recordings instead, in spite of the
> significantly lower quality, because he wanted to give his audience the
> best possible performances. Not because he recorded on the PortaStudio
> with the intent of releasing those recordings.
Much of the sound comes from it being mastered onto a cassette boombox,
which had lain at the bottom of a local river for a few months
previously. (This part I find a little hard to believe. )
I'm restoring the same model 4-track, a Teac144, at the moment. Being the
first ever cassette 4 track, it has an unusual track width and tape
heads. Both were particular to that model and never used again. It will
be interesting to see what it can do.
I'm confident it will make me sound exactly like Bruce Springsteen and
thus sell millions of records.
>
> As someone who listens to 78s, I can sympathize, even as I wish someone
> had been able to record Robert Johnson in a high-quality medium. But I'm
> glad to have the Johnson performances we have, and Springsteen likewise.
I heard the first Raconteurs album a few days ago. For a recent big
budget album it sounds dreadful. Produced in a 'retro' fashion and then
mastered to oblivion, I bet some of those Robert Johnson recordings are
cleaner. :)
David Nebenzahl
> "David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:49aaf123$0$2695$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
>> On 3/1/2009 5:14 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>>>
>>> IME audio cassette is a horrible medium by modern standards. Anybody who
>>> cares to dispute this need only post an Audio Rightmark test based on a
>>> cassette record/play cycle that comes within an order of magnitude of the
>>> 2-in, 8-out digital audio interface that comes "free" on a modern PC
>>> system board $75 such as the Asus M3A78-CM.
>>
>> Yes, yes, no argument with anything you said. Still massively misses my
>> point, which I will cease to try to get across after this: I know of at
>> least one recording, made by some friends, made on a Portastudio, that was
>> released commercially (small distribution) and which measured up well to
>> the *then-current standards* for sound quality.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that this humble piece of equipment, that, yes, *does
>> not measure up to today's standards*, nevertheless deserves more respect
>> than is being given by the audio snobs who replied here.
>>
>> That's all.
>
> Exceptions don't prove any rule. I suspect that a recording made on a
> portastudio could be sucessful even today, if it had exceptional musical
> values. After all, musical values are still the most important part of any
> recording.
Thank you for that; at least you're not reflexively consigning the
efforts of my friends to the "crap" pile just by virtue of the equipment
they chose to use, some *two decades* ago.
The recording did have "exceptional musical values".
Mike Rivers
> When would you choose the special magic of a Portastudio to
> enhance a track?
When it did what I wanted it to do. Some people might think it adds that
magic analog warmth. But I wouldn't. I don't know what that is.
Mike Rivers
> And all these specifications were under the
> assumption that the machines had been
> specificallly biased for the the tape being
> specified. NAK was no better in this sense
> than anyone else: out of the box, they'd often
> not meet spec until tweaked.
See today's Dilbert: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-03-02/
Mike Rivers
> 'Nebraska' is about a 19 year old serial killer. Not all that homey.
I had no idea. You're obviously a fan. I'm not. But I meant "homey" in
the context of what people like about Springsteen's sound - not
overproduced.
Mr.T
"nebulax" <neb...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:ee0d9db2-2604-485e...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio. It
>didn't sound great,
Exactly.
MrT.
Mr.T
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1ivy8c8.5f2qvn2hg0c6N%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
> Plenty of successful recording musicians are able to make a virtue out
> of the limitations of a medium such as cassette.
You mean their still able to make money, of course. But there is no "virtue"
in crap.
MrT.
Mr.T
> I don't think you understand what "making a virtue of limitations"
> means.
OK *you* tell us then what "virtue" there is in the obvious limitations of a
portastudio.
Do you really claim Bruce would have sold *less* records if he used a proper
recorder?
If you do then I think you are a complete moron!
But can I prove he would have sold more, of course not.
What is indisputable is that his most loved, biggest selling, and most often
played recordings were NOT made on a portastudio. Maybe that should tell you
something, or he would have used one for all his recordings wouldn't he?
MrT.
Mr.T
> Limitations aren't virtuous, but a virtue can be made out of them.
No you still fail to mention a single "virtue". That some records can be
sold *despite* their sound quality is not in dispute.
> Artists can adapt to and exploit the limitations of a medium.
Substitute *despite* the limitations.....
> I don't know which particular recording you're speaking of, but I can
> think of plenty of examples (from music and elsewhere) where the
> limitations of the medium are important to the work.
Many people claim this of course, they don't want to admit they might have
done better with the proper tools.
> In some, the limitations of the medium are appropriate and adopted on
> aesthetic grounds (sometimes, a technically superior medium would be all
> wrong and would fail to work). In others, the limitations of the medium
> impose themselves and oblige the artist to adapt to them.
You keep confusing "adapt" and "despite" for "virtue".
> Photographers sometimes choose Polaroid; film-makers, Super-8;
> scupltors, concrete. Cartoonists have to adapt to newsprint. In all
> those cases media with far fewer limitations exist, but in most cases,
> using a technically superior medium would simply make a different kind
> of work - not better or worse, just different.
Now you have it, "different" does not mean "better" or "a virtue", just
*different*!
MrT.
Mr.T
"philicorda" <philicordaN...@NOSPAM.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CQWql.14834$q45....@newsfe07.ams2...
> I'm restoring the same model 4-track, a Teac144, at the moment. Being the
> first ever cassette 4 track, it has an unusual track width and tape
> heads. Both were particular to that model and never used again. It will
> be interesting to see what it can do.
Just don't compare it to a ten dollar sound card or you will be extremely
disappointed.
> I'm confident it will make me sound exactly like Bruce Springsteen and
> thus sell millions of records.
You forgot the smiley, here are a couple for you :-) :-)
(BTW "Born in the USA" wasn't recorded on a portastudio.)
> > As someone who listens to 78s, I can sympathize, even as I wish someone
> > had been able to record Robert Johnson in a high-quality medium. But I'm
> > glad to have the Johnson performances we have, and Springsteen likewise.
Of course, any recording is better than none at all, a good quality
recording *much* better still, you'll actually listen to it more often.
MrT.
Mr.T
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g4qnq4t4th2fjsamo...@4ax.com...
> Funny that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey,
> that Portastudio really added something!"
Of course it does, noise, distortion, wow & flutter, cross talk, etc etc.
etc.!!!!!!!!!
I have often said that, and so have many others.
MrT.
Mr.T
>> You're mistaken, in that case. To me it seems neither amusing nor odd
>> that no-one ever says: "Lousy song, lousy performance. But hey, that
>> Portastudio really added something!"
>
> In fact I'd find it somewhat inexplicable if they did.
Actually I'd find their technical knowledge deficient if they *didn't* say
it added noise, distortion, wow, flutter and a dozen other nasties!
MrT.
Mr.T
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Ho6dnYWHD4vhQTbU...@giganews.com...
> Exceptions don't prove any rule. I suspect that a recording made on a
> portastudio could be sucessful even today, if it had exceptional musical
> values. After all, musical values are still the most important part of
any
> recording.
Sure, but the stuff most people keep playing is when a good performance is
combined with good sound quality.
Of course it probably doesn't matter so much for punk and rap, but then I'm
nor sure there are any "musical values" there :-)
MrT.
Mr.T
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> Thank you for that; at least you're not reflexively consigning the
> efforts of my friends to the "crap" pile just by virtue of the equipment
> they chose to use, some *two decades* ago.
>
> The recording did have "exceptional musical values".
Nobody claimed otherwise, it still doesn't make crap sound quality a
"virtue" though! Much more likely all they could afford at the time.
MrT.
Mr.T
<dpierce.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9215a5e5-1f78-45b4...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> Of your small group the Nak's had the best specifications
>> 20-20,000 kHz +/- 3 dB.
>That would be at a significantly reduced reference
>level, like a minimum of 10 dB below dolby reference
>level.
In fact -20dB was the norm for cassette including Nakamichi.
> 72 dB SN w/noise reduction.
>And that was also A-weighted as well.
Yep, and Dolby-C. And no NR system is completely transparent, which people
seem to forget. The problems were far worse with cassette of course, and
much less with R-R and Dolby SR for instance.
MrT.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Yep, and Dolby-C. And no NR system is completely transparent, which people
>seem to forget. The problems were far worse with cassette of course, and
>much less with R-R and Dolby SR for instance.
IF you could get the cassette aligned properly, the Dolby artifacts could
be pretty far down. Problem is that usually the bias and levels on the
machines were way off, and the NR pumped like crazy.
Comparing with SR is not fair, because if anything SR and A are a lot more
touchy about tape machine problems. SR will pump like mad if you look
at it... it's great on an ATR-100 but put it on a 350 and you're in trouble.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
D.M. Procida
> > I don't think you understand what "making a virtue of limitations"
> > means.
>
> OK *you* tell us then what "virtue" there is in the obvious limitations of a
> portastudio.
There are none. It's up to an artist (in any medium) to *make* virtues
of its limitations.
In the case of music recorded on a Portastudio, you'd have to listen to
it to judge to what extent the artist had been successful.
D.M. Procida
> > Photographers sometimes choose Polaroid; film-makers, Super-8;
> > scupltors, concrete. Cartoonists have to adapt to newsprint. In all
> > those cases media with far fewer limitations exist, but in most cases,
> > using a technically superior medium would simply make a different kind
> > of work - not better or worse, just different.
>
> Now you have it, "different" does not mean "better" or "a virtue", just
> *different*!
In this context, "virtue" doesn't mean "better" either. It simply means
a quality or characteristic worth having.
It's up to the artist to make a virtue of the limitations of the medium.
Sometimes it won't be possible, sometimes it won't be appropriate for
the art in question, and sometimes the artist will seek other virtues.
But sometimes, an artist will make a virtue of a medium's limitations.
It's not exactly a strange idea.
Ray Thomas
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gogojr$lah$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>nebulax wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce Springsteen's album "Nebraska" was done on a Portastudio.
>>
>
> recorded on an 8-track MCI machine, his engineer should really be
> ashamed of himself.
Scott, I recall reading a book chapter about the making of Nebraska, and
the author documented the many attempts at mastering what was basically a
portastudio mixed down to cheap ghetto-blaster master-cassette. The Tascam
Portastudio 144 was definitely the recording deck, with an echoplex tape
echo the only 'effect' for vocal slapback . There were numerous attempts
made to get it to 'track in the wax' and the level was dropped down to
around -7dB before it would translate to playable vinyl. This album went to
vinyl first, and didn't appear on CD until several years later. I was always
surprised by the mastering problems he wrote about, given that the source
would have been a pretty compressed cassette with little or no dynamic range
to tax the cutter stylus.....compared with, say, the average Ampex or Studer
master tape of the same era. Couldn't figure that out.....maybe they had to
do a lot of noise reduction ?
Best info source is "Two Hearts" the biography by Dave Marsh, see pages
357- 361 at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLJZ84jaxhsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Two+Hearts+%2B+Dave+Marsh#PPA357,M1
For additional material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Plotkin
and
http://www.antimusic.com/reviews/09/BruceSpringsteenMonthNebraska.shtml
and http://www.brucebase.org.uk/9.htm
Ray