# Do you still own a tape deck ?



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

I did not know where to post this on the forum, but as big rolling tapes may still be used in studios...

Last week, Mrs mawmow told me a word about a cassette she used to love listening to "in the old days". Looking through the bunch of those tapes I still have, I found her "jewel" !

What she does with it ? She listens to it on a furniture compounded of a turntable, a tape deck and a CD engraving device she had offered me to help transfer vinyls and tapes on CD. It was a long and fastidious project I barelay began... and never ended !

Why I write about that ? Well in this morning edition of La Presse, I read that a small French company (Mulann, in Avranches, nearby Mount St-Michel) which used to produce tapes for train/subway tickets brought back the production of these nice old two sided cassettes. They export to more than thirty countries. These cassettes would now cost some 5,30$ each !

Two weeks ago, I wandered through new vinyles stands at Archambault : Geeee ! Amonst these, I found copies of my old vinyles that are now worth three to five times I used to pay then.

Well, after my old vinyles, do my old cassettes make their way back ? ;-)
I could be a rich man !!!

But who still own a tape deck ?
"Guilty !"


----------



## Verne (Dec 29, 2018)

I still have my very first REAL cassette deck I bought back when I 18. 36yrs ago. TEAC something or other. GUILTY !!!!!


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

All I have left is a Panasonic boom box from almost 30 years ago. AM/FM/CD/cassette. I used it camping, on various jobs, and on the back deck for many years but it's been retired to the cottage for a long time now. Still works. 

Back in my youth I had a pair of Seabreeze reel-to-reel machines that were eventually replaced by Akai and rack mount Pioneer reel-to-reel decks. This picture shows my rig from 1981, the Pioneer deck (mostly used for mixing tracks down from the Akai) would have been to the right of the Akai. Not sure what the cassette deck is in the photo, but I had a series of Akai, Sony, Kenwood, Pioneer, and others. 

I sent boxes of old cassettes to a fellow forum member years ago.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

I "have" a TEAC cassette (at my son's home). 

I took it into a tech and he said: "The build quality on that thing is unbelievable. I can't imagine how much it cost new."


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

@Mooh awesome reel-to-reel!


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

I keep a 1/4" reel to reel, 2 Cassette decks, 2 DAT decks, 2 VHS decks, VHS-C Camcorder, DV Camcorder with new media for transfer jobs in the studio. I also have 2 nice turntables fitted with Shure cartridges.

They have saved the day a few times for folks needing a nostalgia fix, or wanting to save the memories of a loved one.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

mawmow said:


> Well, after my old vinyles, do my old cassettes make their way back ? ;-)
> I could be a rich man !!!
> 
> But who still own a tape deck ?
> "Guilty !"


Tapes won't make a comeback like vinyl - the reasons being that they don't have the same cachet/nostalgia value (some but it's very nichey) and also because (since they are no longer viable as a portable format; their advantage in the 80s which allowed them to chip away at vinyl's market share) of smaller artwork, annoying cases that break, and a perception of poor audio quality (audiophiles mostly hate them and slag the audio quality online everywhere vs vinyl which they praise; I have defended it many times - not perfect, but later era tapes with the tech advancements made by the mid 90s sounded really good, and vinyl is far from perfect as well, though it 's shortcomings have become endearing to us vs tape's - nostalgic as said above).

Though to be fair, tapes have also made a bit of a comeback, though not as big/mainstream (new indie bands use cassette as a release format because easy, cool, and cheap for short runs at pro quality - yes there are still tape duplication places in Toronto and Montreal at least- will also sell you blanks for DIY or to use for recording). There is also a lasting legacy of tapes in pop culture - 'mixtape' is still a word that in popular usage and images of cassettes are used in memes, Tshirts, posters and the like (most of which have nothing to do with actual cassettes), so maybe, especially now that vinyl, even brand new releases nevermind valuable classics, are getting stupid expensive ($30-40 for anything mainstream in a store and that's without a download code; $20 and up for anything used and not completely undesirable - again in a store; online is much cheaper but then the shipping kills it unless large order and I can rarely find anyone who has enough records that I want all at once, but that's a bit of a tangent).

Used cassettes are not so in demand at all and you can usually get them for a buck or 2 at the local thrift store (a lot of Billy Idol, for some reason, at least around here).

.... and yes I still have a tape deck (2 duals and a higher end single actually)... and if we are expanding the list of outdated formats I also have a DAT, VHS, and portable BetaCam SP 4 track that's fun to record on but I have not used in a while.

Here's the last tape (4 track cassingle) my band put out, about a year ago (we have a vinyl LP being pressed right now):



















$5 if anyone wants one - if it can qualify as oversized lettermail I can ship anywhere in CA for $2 (will check today as I have to go to the post office anyway - otherwise not worth it - seriously a hair over 2cm thick and price jumps to $18 - makes no sense and is hurting independant artists so bad domestically - at least to the US there is 'small packet' service but you need to build domestic fanbase to survive - it would be the single cheapest/easiest thing to do to stimulate the national music scene to have media mail that was affordable so people could buy a single record or tape without paying more for shipping than the actual music).

Edit: the tapes will qualify as oversize lettermail ( possibly not if in a proper plastic case).


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2019)

Guilty here too.
3 cassette decks, 2 receivers, 2 turntables, 3 sets speakers and a '61 Phillips reel to reel with a box of big band and blues tapes.
Add a modern 200 cd player.
300+ albums.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

I use the cassette deck in my car almost daily, and they're all I have at the camp.


----------



## Blind Dog (Mar 4, 2016)

I purge, turn my back, it's everywhere!

No shortage of cassette stuff here. Teac was my gateway. That's a Yamaha TC-800GL cassette bottom, center.

Around every corner, I find a pleasant surprise. I'm a vintage slut.





















Edit: I kept thinking A-170 for the original real cassette deck I had forty plus years ago. It was kinda the piece of gear that taught me all gear is not created equal. Don't know whether to curse it, or go on a safari.










The things you remember, and the things you forget ...


----------



## John Reilly (Apr 7, 2018)

I still have my Tascam 4track from the 80`s , to review old ideas from time to time .


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Blind Dog said:


>


Cool. Details on reel-to-reel decks? And speakers too. Nice.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

I have a Denon cassette deck and a B&O turntable.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

tape just doesn't have the same mojo as vinyl


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> tape just doesn't have the same mojo as vinyl


Depends on how you set your levels when you record them.
80's and onwards, every album I bought new would be played once. To record.
I listened to the tape throughout the years and never touched the album again.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

knight_yyz said:


> tape just doesn't have the same mojo as vinyl


That's right; it has it's own unique mojo. 

Sweet setup there @Blind Dog


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

knight_yyz said:


> tape just doesn't have the same mojo as vinyl


I know what you are saying, and I agree, but heard a couple of guys who made an album of songs recorded on various cheap tape decks, just to appreciate all the different hisses, wobbles, etc of each deck.

So maybe tape has ITS OWN MOJO? LOL.

I'm sure they weren't serious, but for some reason, at the time, I thought it was pure genius. The songs were decent retro-style originals and one guy even travelled from the west coast to the east to do it. Dedicated tape enthusiastst!

I searched for it but can't find it online. Too bad, it would have been the perfect addition to this thread.

EDIT: posted before seeing @Granny Gremlin comment. Ha,ha. Whats that GG: "Great minds think alike " or "Fools seldom differ"?


----------



## SaucyJack (Mar 8, 2017)

I threw one out last weekend. It had been sitting under the bed for years.


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

To be honest, I have to add I built my hi-fi chain some thirty years ago when vinyles were deemed to disapper but CDs were not that good at the befinning of their era. So I added a tape deck to copy my vinyles so that I could let them live for a long time... I had the whole thing resetted in 2006 while I was going away for many years... so still working fine.


----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

I have three cassette player/recorders, an old Fostex X-15 4 track recorder, a boombox with a built in cassette deck and an NAD cassette hooked up to my home stereo. I also have a Sony DAT recorder/player. Also, if we're talking about video equipment I have a JVC VHS recorder/player that still works fine.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I have one-a dual deck so you can dub from one to the other--but only one works these days.


----------



## Blind Dog (Mar 4, 2016)

KapnKrunch said:


> Cool. Details on reel-to-reel decks? And speakers too. Nice.


Thanks Kapn, and Granny.

The one on the left is an Akai GX-630D SS, and the one on the right is an Akai GX-635D. (The 630 was $35 -- didn't need so much as a bulb -- river was flooding its banks in rich folks' subdivision "Millionaires' Row" -- a perk of global warming.)(Didn't pay a lot for the 635 either -- kijiji map showed it as being 50 klms from the closest secondary road.)

The Altec 19 speakers were amazing. The walnut pair after those (oaks) were mint, and sounded crappy. I think somebody '_upgraded_' the xover. Have the Klispsch version, La Scalla, now.

The 19s are sitting on my Altec 816 bins, I've got a set of the (high) horns/drivers, so as soon as I get a xover I'll have a custom set of (more manageable) Altec 19s. The bass in stuff like Steppenwolf's, Snowblind Friend just envelopes you. The minty console is a '59 Magnavox Concert Grand with 16 x 6V6 GT power tubes. They argue about how many watts (60?) but I just figure it's like Rolls Royce horsepower rating, "_Power is adequate._" It's my pride and joy. The Phantom remote is even original fussy owner minty, and all the manuals are with it. It's magic for fm jazz. I'll tap into the console to power the horns, and I have a pair of Yamaha PC2002 for the bins. Should do it.

The flanking speakers are 1978 Technics SB-E100. I always seem to go for the horns, even the console has them.



















The vintage stereo stuff pays for my guitar addiction. 

My neighbours are pretty quiet, _or else_.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

@Blind Dog Very cool Akai decks.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

A have a Concord reel-to-reel and an Akai 4000db open reel, in addition to a nondescript Scott dual-cassette. I bought a Tascam 424 MkII 4-track mini-studio cassette mixer/recorder and a Tascam 38 1/2" 8-channel deck, which I have not used yet. It needs a new capstan motor. All of this excludes the 
8-track machines I have for my collection of 8-track cartridges.


----------



## tonewoody (Mar 29, 2017)

I still have a pair of Nakamichi's. Currently in storage after a moving a while back.

Personally, I would rate cassette tape fidelity to be more satisfying than much of the mp3/streamed music I hear.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2019)




----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

tonewoody said:


> I still have a pair of Nakamichi's. Currently in storage after a moving a while back.
> 
> Personally, I would rate cassette tape fidelity to be more satisfying than much of the mp3/streamed music I hear.


Digital graininess drives me nuts, I'd rather good quality cassette as well. Lo-fi cassette is better than lo-fi mp3. I had an mp3 player that made everything sound like sandpaper. However, once digital crosses the threshold where I either don't hear it or can suppress it, I'm perfectly happy with it. I can't define that threshold, and it seems to move on me. When CDs first arrived I was alternately blown away by the sound quality, or disappointed, but nonetheless I totally invested in it. As I've aged and my hearing has degenerated a little (and the tinnitus is massive) I've either become more tolerant or less aware.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2019)

Even though I don't have my turntable set up,
I miss the pop/crackle when you drop the needle.


----------



## Frenchy99 (Oct 15, 2016)

Still have a Teac tape deck and a Sony one somewhere... I held on to my vinyl's, turntable and some tapes. Have an old Roberts tube Reel to Reel hiding somewhere downstairs...


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

No more audio tape decks, but I still have a few old VHS machines that I keep running, to play old, ummmm errrrrrr, art movies. Yea, that's the ticket, 'art movies'. 

Nice setup there, @Blind Dog . Love the Altecs. I used to have the baby brother to those Technics youi have, but they got moved along decades ago. Unlike guitars and amps, I don't collect hi-fi gear and am more inclined to 'replace' rather than 'add to'.




Granny Gremlin said:


> .... and yes I still have a tape deck (2 duals and a higher end single actually)... and if we are expanding the list of outdated formats I also have a DAT, VHS, and *portable BetaCam SP 4 track* that's fun to record on but I have not used in a while.


Now that's a serious piece of hardware! I worked on quite a bit of BetaCam in the 80s. Most people think 'consumer Beta' when they see that - and they couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## tonewoody (Mar 29, 2017)

Mooh said:


> Digital graininess drives me nuts, I'd rather good quality cassette as well.


It's interesting (and annoying) that many people seem blissfully unaware of how shitty low res digital sounds!

Gargling high hats, weird phasey artifacts, completely different eq song to song. It's all kinds of wrong.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

High/Deaf said:


> Now that's a serious piece of hardware! I worked on quite a bit of BetaCam in the 80s. Most people think 'consumer Beta' when they see that - and they couldn't be further from the truth.


Yeah, the audio quality is pretty damn good (good mic preamps; made by Ampex for Sony) - used it for some location soundtrack work for a short indie film, in addition to some jam recordings.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

[duplicate post]


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

tonewoody said:


> It's interesting (and annoying) that many people seem blissfully unaware of how shitty low res digital sounds!
> 
> Gargling high hats, weird phasey artifacts, completely different eq song to song. It's all kinds of wrong.


Which leads to one of my major pet peeves with some (note, not all) modern mixing techniques, the completely different reverb and/or delay from instrument to instrument, making what could be a live sounding piece sound like the players were in different buildings never mind rooms. Drums sound like they're in a non-reverberent studio booth, vocals in a small theatre, guitar in an arena, sax in a mountain valley. Maybe I grew up too much with classical and baroque recordings, chamber orchestras and the like. Conflicting digital-itus doesn't help either. The performances often don't even pretend to sound live.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've probably posted this before, but some time in the early '80s, one of the audio gurus - possibly Len Feldman, Julian Hirsch, or one of the other regulars who wrote for _Audio _and _Stereo Review_ - wrote in one of those magazines that we were in an early phase of the adoption of digital recording. His article was in response to the complaints about the irritating harshness of digital recordings at that point (bear in mind this was 35 or more years ago). He noted that, after years of using mic'ing techniques intended to compensate for the loss of high end, when using tape, recording engineers simply needed to adapt their methods to complement digital recording. He wasn't so much blaming engineers for bad sound, as much as encouraging patience on the part of listeners, and urging them to wait a bit until engineers had figured out how to get desirable sound in this new medium. 

Of course, in the decades since that message was conveyed, digital resolution has changed considerably. Bear in mind that the CD standard agreed upon by the industry was 14-bit resolution, and 44.1khz sampling rate. (Many $130 digital guitar pedals are going to have 24-bit resolution and 96khz sampling.) Perhaps engineers who were raised on 14bit/44.1khz have to adapt their techniques once more.

I'm sure that engineers in the 1960s had to adapt their recording and mic-ing techniques when other tape media, like chrome tape, etc., started appearing, as well as when double-ended noise reduction like Dolby and DBX started showing up.

It's like my guitar-playing uncle Santana-with-the-bandana Roseannadanna used to say: "It's always something!".


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2019)

mhammer said:


> double-ended noise reduction like Dolby and DBX started showing up.


You mean Dubly, right?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Stereo Review, I loved that magazine. High Fidelity as well. Subscribed to them both from time to time, or bought them at the news stand. Never missed.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Stereo Review, I loved that magazine. High Fidelity as well. Subscribed to them both from time to time, or bought them at the news stand. Never missed.


Then you'll like this: STEREO REVIEW:  Consumer audio and music magazine beginning in 1958


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

mhammer said:


> I've probably posted this before, but some time in the early '80s, one of the audio gurus - possibly Len Feldman, Julian Hirsch, or one of the other regulars who wrote for _Audio _and _Stereo Review_ - wrote in one of those magazines that we were in an early phase of the adoption of digital recording. His article was in response to the complaints about the irritating harshness of digital recordings at that point (bear in mind this was 35 or more years ago). He noted that, after years of using mic'ing techniques intended to compensate for the loss of high end, when using tape, recording engineers simply needed to adapt their methods to complement digital recording. He wasn't so much blaming engineers for bad sound, as much as encouraging patience on the part of listeners, and urging them to wait a bit until engineers had figured out how to get desirable sound in this new medium.
> 
> Of course, in the decades since that message was conveyed, digital resolution has changed considerably. Bear in mind that the CD standard agreed upon by the industry was 14-bit resolution, and 44.1khz sampling rate. (Many $130 digital guitar pedals are going to have 24-bit resolution and 96khz sampling.) Perhaps engineers who were raised on 14bit/44.1khz have to adapt their techniques once more.
> 
> ...


16 bit for the record ( pun intended) but the point is still valid.

Extrapolating that argument, our current disease of overcompressing everything can also be traced back to transition from analog to digital recording. Back with tape, you had to maximise signal strength to minimise noise floor. This meant the use of compression or at least limiting to be able to get the hottest signal possible to tape. Studios advertised how many tracks they had to record on and how many channels of compression ( among other things) they had.

With digital this is no longer required ( and I personaly usually do not compress on the way on to the computer) but it also made unlimited channels of compression readily available. To the old mindset where more available channels if signal processing was desirable, and which was accustommed to never having enough, this was an incredible boon and so everything got compressed because they could and they were excited about it and louder is better. 

Turns out having limitations and having to make choices was a good thing ( many an pro engineer has said this).

Now the same thing is happening with digital boards becoming the norm at all venues. Everything gets compressed because it can. Further, they have default processing chains for every type of sound source, the idea beig that it speeds up setup because you load the, for example, snare drum default and you’re halfway there. Problem is ( this decreases at the pro pro level) that human nature steps in and in many cases ( especially indie level- like not your sound guy; the venue’s guy, where the guy hasn’t ever heard your stuff) there is a temptation to just be ok with the default and not fix it if it aint broke. Everyone starts sounding samey ( as has already happened with record production - there is a top 40 sound). It does not help that these defaults are based on current norms of what the ideal studio drum or guitar etc sounds like already.


----------



## tonewoody (Mar 29, 2017)

Mooh said:


> Which leads to one of my major pet peeves with some (note, not all) modern mixing techniques, the completely different reverb and/or delay from instrument to instrument, making what could be a live sounding piece sound like the players were in different buildings never mind rooms. Drums sound like they're in a non-reverberent studio booth, vocals in a small theatre, guitar in an arena, sax in a mountain valley. Maybe I grew up too much with classical and baroque recordings, chamber orchestras and the like. Conflicting digital-itus doesn't help either. The performances often don't even pretend to sound live.


Oh come on,...once the end user applies the 'Rock Stadium' preset on their digital receiver it will sound amazing!


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Then you'll like this: STEREO REVIEW: Consumer audio and music magazine beginning in 1958


Thanks for that, looks like I'm going to have a good read and a trip down memory lane.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Granny Gremlin said:


> 16 bit for the record ( pun intended) but the point is still valid.
> 
> Extrapolating that argument, our current disease of overcompressing everything can also be traced back to transition from analog to digital recording. Back with tape, you had to maximise signal strength to minimise noise floor. This meant the use of compression or at least limiting to be able to get the hottest signal possible to tape. Studios advertised how many tracks they had to record on and how many channels of compression ( among other things) they had.
> 
> ...


I would actually argue that compression IS the sound of rock.
Historically, compression, or at least heavy limiting, was needed for a number of reasons. First, on vinyl disc, greater dynamics requires more space for wider wiggles (this is why 12" singles became popular during the disco era - one song spread over 12" at a faster speed yields bigger thump). So compressing the final mix was needed to fit more music on an LP. I have a vinyl copy of an older Todd Rundgren album with something like 52 minutes of content, in total, and it is compressed to the Nth degree.
Second, rock emerged out of AM radio, long before FM became a thing in the very late 1960s, and AM has serious limitations with respect to dynamics and S/N ratio. You will not find any traditional analog broadcast studio without a bunch of limiters on the rack. So we grew up hearing limited recordings through limited AM broadcast.
Third, tape technology of the time was easily saturated. Later-developed tape formats could handle wider bandwidth and bigger peaks, but the early ferrous stuff could reach its maximum signal-handling capacity easily. Keep in mind that tape is simply a coating of one or another oxides on an acetate backing ( Being already oxidized means it won't oxidize any further. Traditional tape looks like rust because that's pretty much what it is.). Like any magnetic material, it can be "charged". But that very thin layer is supposed to retain that charge, just like the polepieces in your '54 Strat pickups. The differences between smallest and greatest charge isn't that much.
Fourth, tube guitar amplifiers of the '40s, '50s, and into the mid-'60s also had limited headroom. Indeed, we like the "sag" of such amplifiers.
So, add it all up and we have dynamics-limited amplifiers, being recorded onto dynamics-limited mag tape, being stuffed into dynamics-limited vinyl LPs, being played on dynamics-limited AM radio.

This is why I say that compression IS the sound of rock. Certainly, advances in recording and broadcast technology, as well as music-reproduction technology, not to mention high-headroom amps, has made greater dynamics possible, and even appropriate for some kinds of music. But that sound is the benchmark we compare "proper-sounding" music to.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

mhammer said:


> I would actually argue that compression IS the sound of rock.
> Historically, compression, or at least heavy limiting, was needed for a number of reasons. First, on vinyl disc, greater dynamics requires more space for wider wiggles (this is why 12" singles became popular during the disco era - one song spread over 12" at a faster speed yields bigger thump). So compressing the final mix was needed to fit more music on an LP. I have a vinyl copy of an older Todd Rundgren album with something like 52 minutes of content, in total, and it is compressed to the Nth degree.
> Second, rock emerged out of AM radio, long before FM became a thing in the very late 1960s, and AM has serious limitations with respect to dynamics and S/N ratio. You will not find any traditional analog broadcast studio without a bunch of limiters on the rack. So we grew up hearing limited recordings through limited AM broadcast.
> Third, tape technology of the time was easily saturated. Later-developed tape formats could handle wider bandwidth and bigger peaks, but the early ferrous stuff could reach its maximum signal-handling capacity easily. Keep in mind that tape is simply a coating of one or another oxides on an acetate backing ( Being already oxidized means it won't oxidize any further. Traditional tape looks like rust because that's pretty much what it is.). Like any magnetic material, it can be "charged". But that very thin layer is supposed to retain that charge, just like the polepieces in your '54 Strat pickups. The differences between smallest and greatest charge isn't that much.
> ...


Compression became (part of) the sound of rock. Progressively more and more so. That's fine. Aside from the practical considerations of the recording mediums of various eras, judicious use (which is arguably already more compression than is required for those practical considerations that no longer apply; certainly more than used in earlier eras of e.g. single room mic recording - and yes I realise that they only had very basic leveling amps at the time) makes things dense without clutter; what engineers refer to as 'glue.' There is also the compounding effect of compressing at both track and (sub)mix and mastering levels - in this era of unlimited channels of fx, it is even a thing to use 2 different compressors in series on a single track, even on a dirty guitar, when high gain sounds are already compressed by their very nature).

What I am talking about is over-compression. The threshold for this is subjective, but even in engineering circles it is generally agreed that most things in the mainstream (and even indie rock) are overcompressed. That is the sound of the top 40 hit machine, and along with things like what @Mooh referred to re reverb, and the factory cookie cutter vocal chain (compression, autotune, eventide harmoniser etc - we've all seen the youtube joke video) come together into what I refer to as surreal-fi. It is not the sound of rock and it is applied to almost any music of any genre that hopes to be played on radio and make a few bucks. Even Jazz has not remained unscathed, though the touch is still much lighter than anything in the pop spectrum. Only classical has remained near completely opposed to the concept - this is also the one genre where a single mic, or mic array, to record a whole work at once live off the floor is still the norm vs multitracking in/overdubbing. Some indie and lesser (in terms of market saturation not anything else) mainstream stuff occasionally dabbles in that as well - sometimes as a matter of cost (fewer studio hours), sometimes (like classical) as a matter of legitimacy/fidelity to the performance, sometimes as a matter of sound/tone (whether that be lofi or just to keep things sounding 'live'), sometimes all of the above.

This has ramped up significantly from the late 80s to now.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I suppose we could write a whole treatise on compression and its "proper" role. Certainly if one switches back and forth from network TV to a DVD or even Netflix, the difference in dynamic range between the two is palpable, with commercial network TV being _seriously_ compressed, and home-viewing of films feeling like you have to keep your finger on the volume control at all times. (Personally, I'd love to have a limiter option built into TVs and/or soundbars in anticipation of those loud bursts.)

Classical music, and to a lesser extent, things like acoustic jazz, assume that preservation of dynamics is an important element of how things should sound. After all, neither of them have things like deliberate distortion to convey an "I *mean* it" urgency or emotion. I have a Deutsche Grammophon pressing of a piece by Argentinian composer Mauricio Kagel that I simply cannot listen to any distance from the volume control, because the dynamic range is such that the quiet parts can be below the noise floor of the real world and the peaks suck every watt from the stereo amplifier. That's not a criticism, but rather an illustration of how "normal" full dynamics are in classical music.

That said, I think your point about over-compression is well-taken. I still maintain that _some_ degree of compression remains an essential part of rock, but there is a difference between "some degree" and the seeming mere 10db of dynamic range that some kinds of material seem to have.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I saw kids going through tapes at the value village the other day. They were picking out
90s stuff, Nirvana etc. I found a Soundgarden CD and was happy with that. 
IMHO LPs are still a thing because of the cover art size, and the cool factor. For some it's the sound, or nostalgia.
I still have 2 cassette decks, both thrift store finds. I used to make tapes for the car, but the last car we had with a tape deck was in 2008...and now the new cars don't even have CD players.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

One thing about tape is it don't skip. I seen a U2 cover band playing a large out door festival and low and behold the guitar player handed the sound person a tape to use for a backing track . I still use them .


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2019)




----------



## tonewoody (Mar 29, 2017)

tomee2 said:


> I saw kids going through tapes at the value village the other day. They were picking out
> 90s stuff, Nirvana etc. I found a Soundgarden CD and was happy with that.
> IMHO LPs are still a thing because of the cover art size, and the cool factor. For some it's the sound, or nostalgia.
> I still have 2 cassette decks, both thrift store finds. I used to make tapes for the car, but the last car we had with a tape deck was in 2008...and now the new cars don't even have CD players.


Ah, Value Village. Many moons ago, my girlfriend and I used to grab a dozen cassette tapes at VV every few weeks. Her Toyota Corolla tape deck was voracious and many a tape died for the cause.

'Cassette Roulette' we called it.

The freaky thing was that one cassette never died despite 'spinning the wheel' many many times over the course of several years...

The invincible 'Tone-Loc, Loced After Dark' still holds it's special spot in my tape collection!


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

Distortion said:


> One thing about tape is it don't skip. I seen a U2 cover band playing a large out door festival and low and behold the guitar player handed the sound person a tape to use for a backing track . I still use them .


Nope ! Unfortunately, tape deck needs service when tape "slips"...



tonewoody said:


> Ah, Value Village. Many moons ago, my girlfriend and I used to grab a dozen cassette tapes at VV every few weeks. Her Toyota Corolla tape deck was voracious and many a tape died for the cause.
> 
> 'Cassette Roulette' we called it.
> 
> ...


Many tapes used to grip because of thin plastic sheets between the rolls and the case and I "cured" many : opening the cassette along the fusion line, used to get these sheets out and the cassette would work normally again . Fortunately, some were screwed (instead of thermally closed) and easy to service.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Distortion said:


> One thing about tape is it don't skip. I seen a U2 cover band playing a large out door festival and low and behold the guitar player handed the sound person a tape to use for a backing track . I still use them .


But they aren't without their own specific problems. Ever left one on a speaker cabinet for a few hours.

When I was in live production, a singer handed us her backup tape. My assistant put it in the deck and when advised, pushed the start button. A few seconds of dead air and I realized he'd accidentally pushed the record button instead of the play button. Later that night, for the actual performance, the singer had to do without the first few seconds of her intro. Such is life.


----------

