[24hoursupport] Re: The Myth Of The 100-Year CD-Rom

  • From: Madrachod@xxxxxxx
  • To: 24hoursupport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:21:09 EST

 
In a message dated 2/8/2005 3:10:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
0e60wq102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
There is an inevitable slight background hiss that the analog but 
computerized Marantz cassette deck cannot eliminate, which the CD recorder is 
totally 
free of, giving a superior signal to noise ratio from the CD recorder.
   Vinyl carries bass a lot better than cd.  I know this from personal; 
experience.  A few years ago I recorded a comedy single and listened to the 
master 
tape quite a few times for imperfections before sending it off to the record 
pressing plant.  There were NO P's popping ANYWHERE on that tape.  So I sent it 
to the plant, they pressed up a few test pressings and sent them to me to get 
my okay.  Every copy of the test pressing had a loud pop in one spot right 
where I said a word with a P in it.  I listened to a copy of the tape again to 
see if that was there, it wasn't.  I called up the plant to ask them why it was 
there and they said that it WAS on the tape, but it's very quiet and hard to 
hear it, and the vinyl amplifies the bass, so it brought that popping P out 
nice and loud.  I listened to the tape again VERY closely and sure enough that 
pop WAS there, but very quiet.  I couldn't afford to re-record that bit, 
re-edit the whole thing and have them master new plates for me, so I just let 
it go 
with that one pop.  Besides, it was very topical recording and I couldn't hold 
it back any longer.
    So THAT'S what I meant when I said that vinyl sounds better, the bass is 
much warmer and fuller and the sound is STILL very clear, so I don't see what 
all the fuss is about how cd's are better.

I have wondered if there is an electronic music processor that could 
eliminate this without compromising signal, but don't know anyone who can tell 
me 
about this and I can't afford to buy stuff just for experimentation.
    Did you try using DBX?

A huge reel-to-reel unit will hold a mostrous amount of recording time. It 
can take a long time to rewind one, whereas the cassette deck is a 
pop-in/pop-out affair.
    It still takes about 2 minutes to rewind a cassette and maybe twice that 
for a 7" reel, but they have twice the tape on them, too.

I do wish I had the bucks for a reel machine and a nice supply of reels.
    The machines aren't all that expensive unless you're talking about studio 
quality stuff.  The reels are a major hassle to find, either you find good 
ones and pay about $20.00 for one, or you get them at Radio Shuck for a few 
dollars and then you find out you can't use them after a year or so anyway 
because 
the oxide melts as you play them and sticks to the heads and all the tape 
guides and it takes a long time to clean the machine.  Sadly, I didn't learn 
this 
until I spent a few hundred dollars on their tapes when I was archiving my 
45's about 15 years ago.  So far, the stuff in the red boxes isn't bad, but the 
"Concertape" is the stuff I'm talking about here.  About halfway through the 
archiving I bought a Tascam stand alone cd burner and switched over to cd-rw's 
for the project.

They had tube innards, which sound 'warmer' but can be an expensive parts 
problem.
    Yeah, the really old ones, but I think they stopped using tubes in the 
mid to late `60's.

I heard the last reel manufacturer was quitting the business. Surely someone 
will pick up where they left off.
    Has Teac/Tascam stopped?

Did someone say cdrw's are more long-lasting or immune to this problem?
    That sure is what it sounded like to me.
 
                            Dale


For a web-based membership management utility and information on list policies, 
please see http://nibec.com/24hoursupport/

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 24hoursupport-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" (without quotes) in the subject.


Other related posts: