What sounds better: cheap cassette vs good cassette vs mp3 file
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- NOTE: Audio available for download below.
In this video I'd like to show the difference between a cheap recording in a standard tape vs a high quality tape recorded in a high-end deck (a fully restored Pioneer CT-F1250). And both them vs a good mp3.
Want to do a careful listening? Download a lossless version here:
www.dropbox.co...
Don't miss the article where this video belongs to:
THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO MAKE GOOD RECORDINGS
www.walkman-arc...
This was done very nicely. we are listening to this in our masteringstudio in a very well treated room (+ - 1.5 db flat from 32Hz to 1Khz) You can hear clearly how the tape smoothed the midrange compared to the Mp3 + a nice fluffy lowend & a shimmery topend was added by the magnetizing process of the tapedeck combined with the particular chrom tape. Very pleasent and rich to the ear. we also use tapedecks (onkio integra Ta-6711 and nakamichi cr9) for restauration jobs, and people are allways impressed how good tape can sound.
What's a Nakamichi CR-9? Never seen one of those. No such thing, surely? Seen a CR-7 and a ZX-9. Own a ZX-7 and it's a thing of beauty (and amazing sound).
Was listening to my 30 year old cassettes today. They still sound great.
IF YOUR TAPES ARE 30 YEARS OLD. YOU NEVER CAN HEAR TE COMPLEAT AUDIO THAT A NEW BORN CAN HEAR. 20 HERTZ. TO 20 KILO HERTZ. AND YOU NEVER CAN GET THE PARTS FROM YOUR ORGINAL DECK. AND PUT A CASSETTE IN A CAR. THE CAR GETS HOT IN THE SUMMER. YOUR TAPE IS NO MORE AS IT WAS.
@@acefrehley3797 ayo chill
@@acefrehley3797 False
wow, the mp3 sounds flat and thin, the good cassette has more bass, also the drums sound more natural and real in the good cassette.
Ironically, RUclips audio is a (fairly poor) mp3 quality
Mp3 is made of digital bits not like a smooth line of analog
@@cobiwilliams Well, I hope it's actually AAC, as some site claimed.
Павле Станковић it’s even worse. The bitrate is 192
And the mp3 file is 320bps! I always say cassette tapes excel mp3 and certain cd
I like the way the good tape sounds, it adds something in the sound quality that's not there in the mp3. The mp3 sounded a little flat, and of course the cheap tape did not sound very good at all.
Good Tape> MP3> Budget Tape
+Nick Shomos Budget tape like Maxell UR, TDK D, Sony HF etc. recorded in a top cassette deck sounds better than all mp3s. Sure, if you play great quality cassette recorded in a bad quality boombox, mp3 wins..
Sony HF is actually a pretty good tape for the price. It sounds nice.
you are right, but you can tell difference to chrom tapes
If you look for a good and cheap deck, try with a Denon DRM-700 or a SONY K670...
Nick Shomos Good tape > Budget tape > MP3
That era of Maxell XLII is my favorite. Look at that design.
J Ribadeneyra Agreed. Mine too
J R Don't know what "Epilaxial" means, but it just sounds good
Yes I agree. The cassette design of the 80s tapes looked much nicer than the mid-90s versions. Both true for Maxell and TDK tapes and probably other brands as well.
I don't think Maxell did either!
Audio Porn at its best!
Nice comparison. I used to record a lots of stuff to tape back in the 80s to mid-90s. The Maxwell XL-II chrome tape used here was one of the types I used as well. But my favorite brand was TDK. I remember their SA-X tapes where very good. They also had the even better sounding "Metal" tapes. But those where rather expensive. The SA and SA-X tapes where better value for money.
Yep, loved TDK SA-X tapes on my Aiwa F770. Could barely tell the difference between the cassette with Dolby C and the original CD. They still sound brilliant now, although the casssette deck will now only record one channel, playback is still fantastic quality and the TDK SAX tapes haven't lost any of the sound they were recorded with.
Thank you for the very educational video. I grew up listening to cassettes, records and then CDs. And like many others I never had good tapes and definitely never had a good quality cassette deck.
Now that I have them I tried your methodology and lo-and-behold the TDK SA Type2 cassette recorded on a SONY TC-K2A .
The results were indeed excellent and since then I've started noticing how none of my MP3s (256-320kbps) are missing most of the highs, no clear cymbals in any of them. The Police songs sound quite dead.
I still have to do a test of recording from a vinyl record (like Ghost in the machine) to cassette and play that versus an MP3 of the same song. But I'm confident the cassette will not be lacking.
Thanks once again.
Neeraj
The cassette recording on the deck feels "warmer" and more lively
Cassettes will always win if you love that warmer thicker sound like I do! ♥️
Iam 21 years old and my ears are not familiarized with this quality of sound i really like it
wow the difference is really huge between the cheap and expensive player.
There's probably a noticeable difference between mp3 and cassette but we'll never know listening through youtube lol.
Oh, I see you provided a lossless version thanks!
I like the sound of the cassette in a good recorder more than the mp3. Sounds richer, less flat.
Same
you like to hear the hiss and the pop and the high end distortion in audio cassette tapes you think that is good sound of the audio cassette tapes!?
The CASSETTE SOUNDS SUPERIOR,
Cassettes are superior than mp3 indeed
@@Badassvidsz exactly. Especially with a good stereo. The hiss makes it sound live
I've always maintained the opinion that most people who think cassettes sound bad were never using decent equipment in the first place. Good recordings on a quality cassette played through a higher end cassette deck will always sound better than even the best mp3. Tapes have no compression and can support a greater dynamic range than a mp3. Now if you are listening to a song copied off the radio onto a type I cassette on a $5 walkman it won't sound good and that is what I think a lot of people associate with cassettes and forget that it is a hi-fi format. When it comes to digital I mostly use FLAC and only use mp3 when I absolutely have to such as downloads to back up vinyl and tapes since I don't have the equipment to back them up myself.
Tapes have a compression because they have a saturation that has a similar effect like a dynamic compressor. The higher the Recording Level is the harder the saturation is noticeable. Also it has different saturation effects in Highs, Mids and Lows. It depends on the Tape and the music you record. On high level recordings the highs will fall down first but if the Bass is too hard it is possible that it oversaturates and distorts before you notice the falldown of the highs. It also has a limited dynamic range. It's quite good for analog and a good Type II tape can reach around 65 dB without Dolby NR. With Dolby B it reaches 75 dB. Better Type I tapes are around 55-57 dB. It's enough for the most stuff.
So yeah Tapes can sound very good and close to the original but mp3 has no limitations beside the data compression and the known artifacts. Dynamics and Frequency response are as high as the original so it depends on sampling rate and depth.
Of course you can like the sound of the cassette more, because it adds artifacts to the music which can make it sound subjective better, but objective and technically it's never as good as digital (of course if we talk about higher bitrates, not Voice Mailboxes from the 90s). The mp3 doesn't sound noticeable different to the original if you use a good mp3 Encoder while the tape does. Especially Vinyl is the worst media ever technically and it still can sound great but in specs it loose against tape and digital.
The sad part is that you cannot hear analogue tape through the mpeg layers of youtube...
true but funny thing is even with that in mind, you can tell the difference!
Have you read the entire description? There is an available download...
I do not even think it's the original audio of the cassette, the mp3 if it is, the bombox is not, nothing to rescue here
OVNIS ACTUALES ▬ Enigmas de La Historia interesting. Why do you think that?
Sorry but it's what I think, as the previous partner says, it is difficult to hear the true audio of a cassette with the conversions of youtube and that is why I say there is not much to rescue, it is not fair for cuality a cassette, Anyway, I congratulate you on your video. greetings
Most people in the 80s had no money for expensive hifi sets with high end cassette decks. If they were lucky they could save up some money for an entry level Pioneer of Technics rack set, but most often it was the boombox that recorded on tape from a FM radio station onto a cheap cassette.
A standerd 128 -256k mp3 will indeed sound cold, harsh and flat, but for people that can't afford much, this is quite a lot..
Appreciate you shinning some light to folks who think that 80's medium sound was bad just because they could not afford good walkman or deck player and had cheap boombox or fake good brand product to begin with
This is a fascinating demonstration! I have been an audiophile my entire life. For instance, back in the 1980s I only bought expensive half speed re-mastered vinyl. I then recorded those onto a high quality cassette.
But I never was able to do a good A/B comparison of those formats and MP3. I suspected MP3 would be a little bit thinner and this seems to show that.
Internet radio is another matter. For instance, I do not know what classical stations use as their source format. I doubt any of the use actual modern audiophile vinyl. I can hear the difference, however between 128kb and 320kb. BBC apparently has one channel dedicated to lossless FLAK and I might look into it.
The boombox might also have ALC which reduce loud passages and increase soft passages squishing the dynamic range. That's why it's good to get boomboxes from the late 70's early provided they are good in the first place if they have manual record levels, separate left and right channels if possible.
mp3s have always sounded flat to me.
@@filosofen647
Ahahahahaha
geez as an audio engineer this made me realize how tinny and bad MP3 is..
It's the reason why people go back to vinyl and some to reel2reel or good tape. Sure, those could degrade with time but when you'd treat them with care and play them on good equipment that's equally treated well (cleaned/maintained) than you can enjoy those old formats for a long time.
And spotify doesn't even stream MP3, but even cheaper sound quality. So sad :/
Mp3 has that what I call "shiny" or "swimmy" sounding top end. It's fine for playing back in a vehicle but when I want to listen to something with a good pair of headphones on, mp3 doesn't cut it. Not even the 320 kb/s setting. AAC is a bit better but not by much. FLAC is definitely much better since it's lossless.
Also on satellite television, the [compressed] audio has that same annoying "swimmy" sound. Extremely sibilant with the SSS sound being very pronounced. I can be in another room and I hear SS SS S...S...SS.....S. SSSo annoying!
If u want to upgrade from Mp3 go to flacs or hi rez. vinyl is pointless since it's created from digital recordings nowm so you only add to the sound the bias and distortion of the vinyl and equipment... and cassettes are the worst format possible, going back to them is devolution!
you liked the sound better because it adds harmonic distortion, has less dynamic range, cuts high frequencies and thus sounds warmer...
Even mp3 sounds better than cassettes as long as you don't listen to it from a crappy soundcard or a bad player....
Cassette also sounds better if not through a crappy player or recorded on bad equipment. Also the recording medium improves the quality a lot, and than I mean the tape type.
Also there is another thing that people that record instruments don't realize it seems. While good MP3 or even Lossless is superior to analog in terms of noise floor, the way instruments are recorded results in undesired high frequency noise. For instance when mounting microphones directly onto brass instruments, the vibration of the instrument itself will also cause vibrations of the microphone's membrane.
This direct way of instrument recording is thus recording high frequency noise that otherwise wouldn't be audible to an audience when they are listening to a live orchestra performance. Which depending on the acoustic of the hall they are in will give an even more warmer or colder effect.
What I am getting at is that while digital might be superior, analog removes the undesired noise and creates a warmer tone upon playback that doesn't tire a person when he's listening to it. So while not perfect this benefit of analog is what makes analog more desirable for listening to than digital, cause everyone wants a nice relaxing listening experience and not a high strung one due to high frequency noise that the brain has to filter out.
When doing these types of demonstrations, it is very important to "LEVEL MATCH" because I noticed that the level on the walkman way LOUDER in volume compared to the mp3.
People will assume that LOUDER IS BETTER.....
you know that the difference hit me like a hammer! ; )
Just compare the high-end tape here with a Max quality Spotify version of the song (love Huey's work), couldn't find a difference through my Sennheiser's. Tapes are highly underrated
They just got a bad rap but when recorded right they can sound just as good or better than any other analog format! There should have been a cassette revival instead of vinyl. Cassettes are just way cooler in my opinion!
Good JOB Hugo
The Tape foreveeeeeeeerrrrrrr
Decent tape material is always recommended for a tape recorder (and especially one which is best-fit from the settings being made for the tape type in a certain recorder - except if a recorder allows additional BIAS fine-tuning for a given tape, then a more wide variety of tapes can be used). I go for superchrome or metal type. From the mp3 standpoint: 320k is good and can be called "HI-FI". 128k or less is not really.
The MP3 recording was applied wide stereo image, that is why it sounds thin.
Cassette always wins for me. Good video.
Wow man! Congrats! I love your hobby which used to be my favorite back in my country. Unfortunately I had to get rid of everything to make it here. Stay blessed and enjoy it bro!
The good tape / tape deck has a lovely warmth that the sterile, digital mp3 doesn't. Great comparison.
Was not expecting such a noticeable difference between the tape and CD! All the warmth just disappeared!
If this high quality cassette sounds this good, just imagine how it would sound on a high quality reel to reel like a Pioneer RT-707(or RT-909), Revox B77 or even more a Tandberg TD-20A SE would sound like!!
My RT-909 sounds gorgeous...
@@TheWalkmanArchive I agree, it has the same sound signature of the RT-707.
Pioneers are built like a tank!
Still cassette are very cool to use and looking beauty
The Maxell XLII sounds so perfect! I also really like Sony UX-S. I'm using a Onkyo Integra TA-2870. I also record on Reel-To-Reel quite often and got wonderful sound there using RTM LPR35 tape and my Revox B77 :)
Nice idea, but youtube compresses all audio. Even if this was a 24/96k high res audio file, vinyl, live recording it would still be a compressed recording here online. In person I'm sure the results vary dramatically, but via a RUclips stream it is merely a cause for "arguments"
For the Cheap Walkman Part, hopefully you can adjust the head to make clearer sound.
That's why I would rather buy the physical media like vinyl and audio CDs. Same with DVDs and Blu-rays because they have more MBPS than the compressed streaming video.
if you have a good cassette deck with manual bias setting you can get allmost any cassette to sounds decent.
i have a yamaha ks-650 and its one of the best decks i have ever owned recording and playback wise.
The older 80s boomboxes provided its the top of the line had decent cassette decks that have manual record level control which make them behave like standalone cassette decks in their functions.
This is a super video, good way to compare sounds and audio gear, and the only one.
Im blown away at the cassette deck and its quality!
Good old days.
Dolby S on a Sony metal master is the pinnacle for the cassette deck sound quality.
I really can't describe but i can only call it the cassette tape sound has a "texture" to it
This is the exact comparison that i have been searched for. Thank you so much!
I still prefer the MP3 to be honest, but that could just be because my headphones (Fidelio X2s) have a fairly dark sound signature.
i prefer well recorded tape...mp3 sounds thin not have good tonal balance as tape...
@@filosofen647
The same old song & dance in all of your comments :
I bet you've never had a good deck in your life to listen and judge
I even doubt if you ever had a cassette deck in your life
maybe ? some crappy boomboxes recording from fm radio stations crappy sound quality .
@@norwayphilosopher false.
I miss the original source sample in this video for a good comparison
The good cassette is still a chromium one, with a metal tape it would sound even better!
Good cassettes still sound nothing compared to CDs or MP3.
The cassette has tape hiss, it's a bulky and clunky medium for music, the sound quality is not great compared to CD or MP3.
Cassettes have a very limited storage capacity for music and the sound quality will degrade over time due to constant playing.
The cassette is the weakest form of recorded music, CD's and MP3's are far superior in sound quality, capacity and portability.
The cassette tape is an outdated medium that has been replaced by CD and MP3, it's time to move on.
I liked this video just for playin' Huey Lewis. But it was an interesting comparison. I'm not computer friendly and do prefer cassette tape and open reel to mp3.
What bugs me is how they mess up all the old music when they "remaster" it. They turn up all the volume levels, and it just sounds obnoxious. Just compared my old Joshua Tree U2 cassette to google music. The tape wins by miles. So much more dynamic and warm. Just feels alive, whereas the new streaming version is fatiguing to listen to. Thanks for the video!
Here's an idea [from a personal experience]: How about a "Cheap Tape On A Good Deck" video?
I had recorded my favorite tracks from my collection of Mercury re-releases of KISS albums on a pair of Maxwell XLII-S tapes, and one got destroyed by a cheap machine. For lack of better tape, I was forced to redo it on a 2-hr(?) Sony CD-it! Type-I, using the exact same setup as before: An Ultrix/Sharp deck w/Dolby C. Later, when this tape was played on a Yamaha K-960 deck, I was surprised by the presence of instrumentation that I never heard before. Mind you, this deck was part of a different system... but it still makes one think!😉
That's a good idea and I already thought about it some time ago. With some good very old tapes, excellent results can be achieved indeed. It's very surprising.
I'll try to do something when I have some free time...
TheWalkmanArchive
Thanks for reading. And in the meantime, I'll keep good batteries in my Sony WM_FS421 "Sport"... just to keep the presets alive.:)
I've always loved maxell. They had a good smell, cruel good sound, look etc.
Digital recordings and players are substandard. The second device was obviously the real deal as all the chords are loud and clear. The first player the chords start loud but are quickly muffled, esp. by the drums, same as the MP3. Thank you for the good video.
Great video! I heard the difference when you went from mp3 to cassette on the large deck. It sounded like it went from 16 bit 44100 khz to 32 bit 192 khz. To me the cassette sounded better and sounded like it was enhanced with just a little better treble and and a bit more quality in the bass. With headphones on, and I mean a really good pair of quality headphones you can hear the difference. Not much, but enough to make an excellent point. But it depends on how worn the tape is.
+Stephen Dobbins Totally agree.
+Stephen Dobbins You mean 44100 Hz don't you... or 44.1 kHz.
Ah still these misconceptions of digital resolution and it's effect on sound quality. The reason the cassette sounds better is because it's adding compression and distortion to the sound. It's making it technically worse, but more pleasing to the ear.
The cassette sounded more bassy and better to me.
1:53 you say much worse, i say just how I like it
I love that player, you can see all of the cassette as it's playing. That is so cool.
From what I understand most music companies used to use the cheapest quality cassette tapes that they could get away with. So if you wanted to hear the highest quality analog sound possible. Try dubbing from cd to cassette. It would be interesting to see the difference in quality between an original cassette recording and a copy from cd.
Why would you copy from a CD to magnetic tape and result a source that is inferior to the CD?
@@mikewallace8087 as noted in the video, music companies used cheap, low quality magnetic tape for their original recordings. And as I stated in the final sentence of my comment, "It would be interesting to see the difference in quality between an original cassette recording and a copy from CD."
Funny how all 3 have been digitized for us to listen to the difference. LOL It's like judging the feel of a car by watching it next to you from another car.
Sassette has more depth and bass vs the mp3 file! Very good for the classic cassett!!!
The good recording + good Tape sounds way better than the good MP3.
The sound is more... alive, filling, warmer... I like it.
TAPES SOUND BETTER ARE U FREAKING KIDDING ME TAPES SOUND LIKE GARABGE
That tape sounded way richer and bassier than the MP3 file. Very strange. I guess if you played with the equalizer a bit you could get the MP3 sounding more similiar to that tape.
You hit the nail on the head! Precisely, equalizers can make the difference between horrible sound and great sound. In fact the analog circuitry outputting the sound is rarely perfect and the frequency response isn't flat, so unless all variables are taken into consideration, measured, analyzed and compensated for, a fair comparison between analog audio and digital is not possible. In fact the vocals on the "boombox" sound too accentuated, and they sound a bit more detailed on the MP3 than on the tape... This could be compensated for using an equalizer. An equalizer could be used to make all sources sound more similar.
Fun comparison, but to really come to any conclusions about analog vs. digital you'd have to make sure all three sources are producing a flat response curve first. There is no such thing as "digital sound" since all sound needs to be analog in the end. Those analog circuits don't usually have a perfectly flat output curve.
As for me, the best sound here is "the good tape on the good deck". MP3 sounds worse, sound is not that soft. All frequences are there, but something is already lost in that sound. It's just sounds "cold" in MP3 variant. I would tell even boombox-walkman variant sounds more natural, yes, it misses low and high frequences, but still sound is more natural then MP3. But still, everything actually depends on the digitizing quality of youtube, we cannot hear real analog sound here
At some parts of the vocal on the good tape it sounded totally continuous compared to the mp3 version, which did not do so.
Would a 3 head tape deck be better in sound quality then a 2 head deck?
Mp3 is compressed twice here (youtube is the second time), Cassete is compressed once, only for youtube. I will download the lossless formats and compare again.
My ears are better than yours. I say CD's are superior in everyway compared to antiquated audio storage. Aficionados of the past are romantically delusional.
I use cassette tapes for data storage. A C60 turbo tape can store about 1 megabyte. That is about 6 diskettes (170K).
If they ever open-sourced Digital Radio Mondiale you could get 1625 or more characters per second per channel which would be about 11 megabytes on a short 60 minute cassette tape. Too bad it's in unreadable C++ (not the same a vanilla C) code and relies on AAC coding so you don't even find a binary that works...
there's almost zero bass in the mp3 - it's not even subtle. the cassette sounds soooooo good dayum
I love the organic sound of the tape in the book box.
Tape all the way guys, I don't care what you say. I'll be using tape my whole life no matter what comes out in the future. Nothing matches the physical tape.
MP3 only records about twenty percent of the signal . If there are two sounds in the music together then the quieter one is ignored . So it can’t possibly sound as good as full analogue signals .
Getting an warm sounding DAC, or a tube based one and feeding it AAC @ 256 will get you the warm sound of a tape and with greater dynamic range.
I use cassettes (I got 3 head Technics deck) and digital formats as well. This comparision is nice, but.. Analog recording converted to pc it's not analog, it's digital. The second point - the title says it's mp3 320 comparison to the top quality tape and to crappy walkman/tape. But. guys, this is youtube, where all the files uploaded here are then converted to AAC 44.100/ 192 kbps bitrate file, so even the top sound of the cassette playing in a 3 head cassette deck via youtube is worse than the cassette playing straight on the sound system at home. And the 320 mp3 which we are here listening is not 320 mp3, but AAC 191..
+Sport Odevy Have you read the entire description? there are uncompressed audio available to download...
That Maxell is awesome. One of the greatest cassette manufacturers for sure.
xl II one of the best tape! maxell and tdk all the way! cr02
THAT WAS MY FAVORITE CASSETE OF THE 80S
Something about the top end always sounds slightly wrong with MP3's, even at 320. Cassette suffers from unwanted noise in low volume parts of a recording but I think it helps the sound come across as warmer and more analogue when you can't really hear it over the music. With that said, it's not at all surprising the MP3 format won. Anyone can make a decent sounding mp3 whereas only those with expensive tape decks and knowhow can make a good recording.
I like the warmth of the cassette
@@Jordan-fn5rj cassettes are the bomb.
@@Jordan-fn5rj CDs are trash
@@Jordan-fn5rj -- Easier to collect doesn't mean better. Sorry.
@@Jordan-fn5rj Seriously? Anything older will be harder to collect. cassettes were also subject to a lot more physical wear than a CD, which is essentially touchless playback, with a laser. Sometimes a malfunctioning cassette player would actually destroy a cassette. That doesn't happen with CDs. CDs are also a lot more robust, largely unaffected by dirt, water, magnetics, and more resilient to heat. None of this means CDs sound better though.
The warm sound of cassettes is because of the tape hiss and crackles lol.
It's basically a shitty sound of an old AM radio with static and muffled high frequencies 😂 you can't be serious right now
the reason the cheap tape recording sounded muffled is primarily due to misaliged heads in the boombox, or the Walkman.
Even cheap tapes can sound good if you use a good deck. This is why this comparison is kinda meh. As the cheap tape was recorded and played on different devices compared to the Chrome Maxell that was both recorded and played in the same deck
What sounds better than all these toys is a good CD audiophile production
I can hear a wider stereo on the mp3 but the tape is also very good still. my speakers are Mordaunt-Short Avant 902i
The good cassette sounds a bit warmer than the MP3, but overall they're almost tied
The Maxelle tape sounded the best! Good comparison here
Dynamic range is totaly change for everything, casette more natural entertaining sound.
If by natural you mean static and tape hiss sounds then yes.
CD and MP3 sounds are just better, the sound quality and audio is much more crispy and clear.
Cassettes just sound like listening on an old shitty AM radio with static and tape hiss, you can't be serious right now!
Not sure why you kept calling the cheap walkman a boombox?? Well to my ear the Maxell XLII 60 sounded a fair bit better than either the mp3 or the boombox(walkman). You made a nice demonstration video,keep up the good work. Never forget tapes not dead.😃😃😃
I stll have Maxell XLII"s from the late '70's that sound wonderful! The 60 minute XLII that you've used also has a thicker tape than the C-90's, making more stable and sonically superior sound, IMHO ( with listening tests from that era ). Thanks, I really enjoyed your demonstration
High end cassette had more dynamic range than the mp3
What I was looking for. Thanks!
I like that cassette tapes give a certain warmth to the music.
Analogue (of course) wins!
it all understood but the thing is the tape recording depends on a quality of cassette tape, quality of record player. mp3 is an universal format which need no quality player, just EQ and Speakers.
EARMAKE still different DAC will produce different results. Much more subtle but will
I always bought Chrome (and Metal for much better recording) back in the '80s and '90s. I began with Realistic tapes (hey, I worked at Radio Shack in the mid-'80s, and I got 10% off on top of that.). Later on I would buy Maxel, Philips, Sony, BSF. I still have all of my recordings. The first cassette deck that I purchased was a Realistic SCT-23. It was one step below the best they had back in 1984. Had it for at least 12 years (until it stopped recording, had it serviced, but parts were no longer available...). After that one, I bought an Optimus SCT-91 autoreverse, auto cassette select deck in 1993 (which I still have). My last purchase was the Optimus SCT-57 Full Logic Controlled Cassette Deck Professional Series with Dolby B -C- S, Super Auto BLE XD Dual Cassette. Both units still work and I use them from time to time to listen to my cassette collection.
I do hear the sound of my old xl2s here wow. little youtube degradation aside, I am loving it. The mp3 sounds like a crappy version of my flac. same blend less quality
IV type sounds almost as FLAC (except tape hissing is audible). You can use Dolby C, but to my taste, with Dolby C sound is a bit...dull. Don't know how to explain. Seems to be less highs on my KX-930.
Good comparison but your tape is high bias chrome type 2, most pre recorded tapes sold were cheap crappy dull hissy feric oxide. metal and chrome tapes sounded great in a well calibrated and cleaned stereo hifi tape deck
The sad part is that you can't hear it. At all.
The cheap cassette reminds me of a lower quality MP3, like a 32 kbps one. But honestly better, cause all of the weird compression artifacts are gone and you replace it with it just sounding a bit flat.
i prefer lossless cd - high bitrate mp3 files over shitty vinyly crap tapes! vinyls are just worst! sounds terrible
Even though RUclips the good deck sound sounds richer! Love it!
It's the permanent magnet erase head and DC bias that is causing the lack of sound on the portable.
the mp3 was most likely mastered that way. I also would like to know what source you used to record on the tape. Nevertheless the tape sounds amazing.