Live data from Hacker News

Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

fastcompany.com

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#121
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with vinyl is it degrades every time you play it and you have to be very careful handling it so you don't get fingerprints on it.

Product idea: a vinyl record player with a built-in A/D converter, hard drive and label recognition. The first time you play a new record it records it. The second time you play it you hear the recording, and the player makes a show of spinning the record and moving the needle (without actually touching it). All the tactile pleasure of vinyl, none of the degradation. The needle would last longer too. If the hard driv…

>Would also be fun to watch unsuspecting vinyl nerds gush over "superior analog sound".

-When in university, I built myself a DAC (nothing fancy - a quad of PCM1704's and a very minor revision to the reference design)

Anyway, I put a couple of tubes on top, connecting only the filament voltage. Lots of oohing and aahing as to how 'organic' and 'analog' it sounded.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#122
post #73

This word gets thrown around a lot but, hipsters! As others have attested there is nothing good about tapes. There are very good reasons why vinyl has survived (You can manipulate it with your hand when djing, and see the music on it, also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process) But tapes, no, they are shit.…

>(...)also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process -This, with all due respect, is a myth. Much as I love my LPs, by any objective criteria the CD (or any digital media) beats them handsomely. Dynamic range, frequency response, noise floor, channel separation - even on the best mastered, half-speed cut, heavy…

I think it's possible that there's a subjective advantage to the simplicity of vinyl, the fact that the listener can see and easily comprehend some of how it works, and since music is subjective, it's the only quality that really matters.

I just had a discussion with some people who know a lot about music who said that vinyl sounded better because it recorded the shape of the sound waves in music. They didn't have an explanation for how CDs or digital formats like FLAC worked other than that they did some kind of incomprehensible digital process to create sound. I argued that all sound has to be coverted to an analog wave in the end, and they were open to the idea, but I think this perception shows that how people understand the process of how music is created affects their perception of it, just like many or most people would say that music sounds better when it is played live, even while being manipulated through electronic equipment, rather than being recorded on electronic equipment and then played.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#123
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(...)also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process -This, with all due respect, is a myth. Much as I love my LPs, by any objective criteria the CD (or any digital media) beats them handsomely. Dynamic range, frequency response, noise floor, channel separation - even on the best mastered, half-speed cut, heavy…

Yeah, it's true that CDs are technically superior. But vinyl is certainly high enough quality that it's good enough. Tape is noticeably low quality. But vinyl records, regardless of their technically deficiencies, sound really good. And, at the end of the day, if music sounds good, it is good.

I agree fully; I still buy LPs on occasion as I enjoy listening to them more - the whole ritual of getting ready for playback, the large cover you can enjoy while listening..

While not perfect, it is plenty good enough - and, my personal take is that I do not buy to have a perfect reproduction of whatever was created in a studio - I buy to enjoy myself. LPs are brilliant for that purpose.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#124
post #73

This word gets thrown around a lot but, hipsters! As others have attested there is nothing good about tapes. There are very good reasons why vinyl has survived (You can manipulate it with your hand when djing, and see the music on it, also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process) But tapes, no, they are shit.…

>(...)also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process -This, with all due respect, is a myth. Much as I love my LPs, by any objective criteria the CD (or any digital media) beats them handsomely. Dynamic range, frequency response, noise floor, channel separation - even on the best mastered, half-speed cut, heavy…

Dynamic range? Post-mastering, vinyl has a larger dynamic range than any cd. Most cds have no more than 6db real dynamic range. Frequency response? How many people own speakers that can go below 70hz, or can hear about 15khz? (Midrange is where it's at) Noise floor? Ok, I can give cd that one. Channel separation? A/B and you won't hear a difference.

Moreover, anyone arguing for "realism" and "accuracy" while blasting the sound of a 100 watt Marshall stack through tinny-sounding earbuds on a recording where an acoustic guitar is louder than the drum kit and the keyboards sound like they were recorded in the Grand Canyon is really, really missing the point.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#125
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(...)also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process -This, with all due respect, is a myth. Much as I love my LPs, by any objective criteria the CD (or any digital media) beats them handsomely. Dynamic range, frequency response, noise floor, channel separation - even on the best mastered, half-speed cut, heavy…

I thought it was an inherent limitation in LPs (track skipping probability increases with loudness) that meant they are not mastered into oblivion like CDs?

If anything vinyl has more of a problem with dynamic range. Most LPs are cut with a variable width groove, ie. the grooves are actually cut closer together during softer sections so that more music can be cut on the disc. As long as the groove doesn't pop out (as would happen with a large stereo separation in the low frequency content) or physically meet the other groove then not popping out is just a matter of correctly weighting your cartridge (more weight wears the record out faster, though. So having no dynamic range would actually make it easier to cut and ensure that this doesn't happen.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#126
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was an inherent limitation in LPs (track skipping probability increases with loudness) that meant they are not mastered into oblivion like CDs?

-If you wanted to, you could master an LP with 0 dynamic range; it would work just fine. (Provided the average signal level was low enough to keep the needle from going haywire attempting to follow the LF grooves) What quickly becomes a problem for LPs is too much energy in the LF/bass region, which will cause the needle to skip and jump all over the place. The RIAA correction curve is a measure to alleviate this pro…

There's a lot more to mastering than "sent through the last loudness war compressor", for cd as well as vinyl. Not a guess - I've sat in the room with a mastering engineer while working and talked to him about it.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#127
post #21

The article makes a very astute point: that people are attracted to the physicality, the tangibility of "analog" things. Whether out of nostalgia (because we've been there) or retro fascination (when we haven't lived it firsthand), we can develop an emotional connection with a single physical objects that succinctly and permanently hold an abstract concept in a physical package -- like a letter, a book, a music recor…

Yeah, sharing a link to a book or an album doesn't exactly have the same heft as handing or shipping a physical copy to someone. I think it's good to prefer physical (when possible) with stuff that's more personally important.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#128
post #97

This word gets thrown around a lot but, hipsters! As others have attested there is nothing good about tapes. There are very good reasons why vinyl has survived (You can manipulate it with your hand when djing, and see the music on it, also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process) But tapes, no, they are shit.…

>if u really want a kooky old physical medium go with minidiscs! They were amazing! They were. I still have my old mini-disc recorder in a closet somewhere. Back from the days when the number of components in your stereo "tower" was a marvel. Record player on the top, dual cassette module with the soft open, equalizer with a bunch of sliders on it. Receivers with a multi-channel, digital sound level read out. The ana…

I still use a pair of speakers from a stack like that. They're almost as old as I am and still sound great. Still have the EQ and dual tape deck with the soft open, too - I even still use the latter, to rip tapes of stuff you just don't easily find in any other medium.

I would've sold a kidney for a component minidisc recorder, back in the day. The ones you could plug a keyboard into, so you could title tracks without poking at tiny fiddly buttons on a pocket recorder for hours at a time? Oh, I'd sit staring at a catalog and dream.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#129
post #73

This word gets thrown around a lot but, hipsters! As others have attested there is nothing good about tapes. There are very good reasons why vinyl has survived (You can manipulate it with your hand when djing, and see the music on it, also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process) But tapes, no, they are shit.…

>(...)also its technically possible to get better sound quality than digital via high quality, high speed, vinyl and an all analog recording to stamping process -This, with all due respect, is a myth. Much as I love my LPs, by any objective criteria the CD (or any digital media) beats them handsomely. Dynamic range, frequency response, noise floor, channel separation - even on the best mastered, half-speed cut, heavy…

I listen to vinyl myself, and I also have some limited knowledge of the science involved. I don't claim to be any sort of an expert in acoustics but I do have a basic grounding in DSP from my undergraduate days as well as high-school physics to refer to ...

I have to say I enjoy vinyl for a number of non-qualitative reasons. Nostalgia. Tactility. The cover art. The fact that the medium feels like it has more of a "wholeness" to it. My system is fairly modest: A pair of battered Technics turntables plugged through a mixer as preamp into a bog-standard stereo. It's certainly not audiophile quality.

But I am constantly struck by how visitors comment on the sound quality when I play my records for them. To a certain extent, I can put it down to a placebo effect, but many often refer to a "warmer" sound. Even with the dust-crackles and occasional pops!

There are a couple of things I could think of that could explain it. Firstly is that the accepted human range of hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz .. from what I recall of CD sampling it is set at 44.1k samples per-second, twice the dynamic-range in anticipation of Nyquist aliasing.

I can't help but wonder if there are "inaudible" frequencies that are chopped out in this scheme. The deep bass-tones that our ears don't pick up but are felt in our body. These frequencies could resonate external physical fixtures perhaps creating a more immersive acoustic experience.

I've also heard it been said that these inaudible frequencies can be picked up by the body, in particular the stomach and chest cavity, which could give the sound a more visceral quality. Certainly this is the case in a club or even a lounge setting. Apart from being able to physically scratch and manipulate this would also explain why vinyl has persisted moreso in these environments.

Aside from this acoustic hocus pocus there might be a more fundamental reason for perceived qualitative differences, and that is to do with implementation. CD as a technology is sufficiently provisioned to capture the entire range of human audio, but for reproduction you are always at the mercy of your DAC.

It's important to remember that when you're listening to digital sound you are listening to an analogue signal that's reproduced by modulating an oscillator, whereas with an analogue recording you're listening to the original analogue signal.

This isn't an issue for well built sound system but is that most people's experience? Whereas whenever we listen to records the DAC simply isn't an issue. This may not result in "better" sound but it would make it distinguishably "different". I remember being struck, when repairing one of my turntables just how little electronics there was on the audio line: Pretty much a straight uninterrupted line from the stylus out to the pre-amp.

One final thought is that, who even listens to CDs any more? We're so used to listening to music on our phones or computers, from a number of formats at varying compression levels and of varying quality, through poor quality headphones or car stereo systems. It could just be that our expectations have been slowly been lowered by ever decreasing reductions in quality to the point that when we do hear something reproduced as its master intended it is a notable experience.

Re: Music's weird cassette-tape revival is paying off

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the same process of "competent" mastering that increases dynamic range etc results in a product with less fidelity to how recordings from certain eras were originally enjoyed[1]. There were comparatively few recordings made that were intended to be consumed exclusively on cassette. [1] Granted, it would have been perfectly possible to master CD audio to vinyl's sonic limitations and even introduce artificial…

Mastering shouldn't increase the dynamic range. It should rather preserve all meaningful dynamic range, while making the most of the medium.

Well if we're being strictly accurate it could mean preserve meaningful dynamic range of the master recording in a manner which ensures that it'll sound like it has a greater dynamic range when played using the new output medium than the vinyl recordings which everyone's actually used to listening to the song on. But that's rather cumbersome phrasing amounting to essentially the same thing, besides which I'm pretty sure that in practice a lot of remastering involved actively increasing dynamic range etc. relative to the original master tape because the sound engineers (i) wanted to restore dynamics and other aspects of sound quality lost during the original mastering process and (ii) thought it sounded better and would sell more CDs. I guess ultimately it depends whether it's believed that fidelity to how it sounded to the original sound engineer mixing it in the recording studio or fidelity to how it sounded to a generation growing up listening to records is the priority.
Post reply on HN