On Jul 1, 3:57*pm, Barry wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE....

What's an iPod?

I read the article also. Most people look at the cassette as
equivalent withthe 8-track tape. But I bet these same people would
be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way
better specs than a Ipod. I have seen some of the Naks with freq.
response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq.
response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from
digital at even the highest bit rate. I'm just sayin'..........

In article c00f6359-d5a8-4daa-a6e7-526e88d76b91
@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...
On Jul 1, 3:57*pm, Barry wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE....

What's an iPod?

I read the article also. Most people look at the cassette as
equivalent withthe 8-track tape. But I bet these same people would
be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way
better specs than a Ipod. I have seen some of the Naks with freq.
response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq.
response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from
digital at even the highest bit rate. I'm just sayin'..........


I sold hifi stuff from about 72 until 79 or so, and the midrange decks
that I bought very cheaply from Panasonic/Teac/Akai/Sony/Onkyo would all
do at least 17K absolutely minimum, and many would go over 20 or even
22K. Most of them could record an LP well enough that it was very
difficult to tell the difference between the copy and the original. Some
actually had a slight bass boost, kind of a bonus back then, as records
had the bass cut most of the time.

I paid less than $200 for almost any of those decks, and if they were on
closeout, it was closer to $100. I still have a Technics deck I bought
in 1979 for a whopping $119+ shipping, and it works perfectly. I
recently bought another Technics deck, the same model as the first one I
bought at 14 years old. I got it from a guy on Ebay, and it looks and
sounds like it just came out of the box. Mine lasted over 27 years
before the take up reel motor died. I tried and tried to find one, and
finally scrapped it, only to find a perfectly working, but cosmetically
challenged one at Goodwill a couple months later. The one I have now is
slightly different, as it turned out there were four slightly different
versions of the same model. Panasonic/Technics did a lot of that with
cassette decks for some reason. A friend of mine's brother has the same
deck, with slightly different fonts on the labels, and the Technics logo
is smaller, too. My original one had sliding level pots, it's the only
one I've seen like it, except in pics, but every other one I have seen
in person has regular rotary pots for the level. The panel layout shows
that the sliders were the original design as there is a lot of wasted
room all around them.

I never could take 8-track sound for very long, the wow drove me up the
wall. Not to mention the track changing in the middle of songs.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.

LukeP wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:57 pm, Barry wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE...

What's an iPod?

I read the article also. Most people look at the cassette as
equivalent withthe 8-track tape. But I bet these same people would
be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way
better specs than a Ipod. I have seen some of the Naks with freq.
response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq.
response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from
digital at even the highest bit rate. I'm just sayin'..........

Sad. You can't hear much above 10 K; why do you care about 24?

You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around
your POS Nakamichi.

In article ,
says...
LukeP wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:57 pm, Barry wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE...

What's an iPod?

I read the article also. Most people look at the cassette as
equivalent withthe 8-track tape. But I bet these same people would
be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way
better specs than a Ipod. I have seen some of the Naks with freq.
response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq.
response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from
digital at even the highest bit rate. I'm just sayin'..........

Sad. You can't hear much above 10 K; why do you care about 24?

Speak for yourself. I can still hear over 20K with my right, and over
17K with my left.

You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around
your POS Nakamichi.

Except the Nak sounds way, way better. Even high bitrate MP3's sound
pretty bad, if you can still hear. They do sound a lot better than
satellite radio though.

--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.

On Jul 2, 7:44*am, dave wrote:


Sad. *You can't hear much above 10 K; *why do you care about 24?

You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around
your POS Nakamichi.

LOL! LMFAO! HEIL HITLER Professor DaviD! ROTFLMAO!

"dave" wrote in message
m...
Sad. You can't hear much above 10 K; why do you care about 24?

You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around your
POS Nakamichi.

1) One cares about whether one can get 24KHz reproduction out of a tape
machine (or any other reproducer) beause the flat response curve at the high
end actually affects the sound at lower frequencies (the characteristics of
musical instruments are that many carry large numbers of harmonics, which,
even if you cannot hear the harmonic itself, would change the intrinsic
sound were they not there at all)

2) There is NO mp3 player that can as accurately reproduce a complex audio
waveform as well as a high end cassette machine. I don't care how many
samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant
playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well
as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come
out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of
stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your
ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the
point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog
device.

On 07/02/09 15:48, Brenda Ann wrote:

2) There is NO mp3 player that can as accurately reproduce a complex audio
waveform as well as a high end cassette machine. I don't care how many
samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant
playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well
as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come
out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of
stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your
ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the
point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog
device.





If you take a look at a 1khz square wave after digital
conversion, you'll see ringing at both ends of the flat top. You'll
see that same ringing wherever there is a hard rise or fall. Is it
audible? Oh yeah. More so on a naked square wave. Less so in complex
music. But you can hear it.

You'll see this wherever there is hard digital filtering, such as
anti-aliasing on CD players. You'll see it where there is copious
amount of data loss, as in MP3.

An MP3, at it's best is a 4:1 data loss. The songs on iTunes and
elsewhere are mostly 10:1 data loss. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

Noise may be reduced, but it's hardly high fidelity audio. And
though cassettes have their many flaws, a properly set up Nak will
have more noise, but far less digital artifacting and zero data loss
than any MP3.

I have a few old reel to reel tape recorders/players.Two of them were
made by Webcor, they look just alike each other.One of my other reel to
reel tape recorders/player is larger than the Webcors and it has three
speeds.I own several other old much smaller reel to reel tape
recorders/players too.I bought all of them at thrift stores and flea
markets years and years ago.
cuhulin

On Jul 2, 3:48*pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
I don't care how many
samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant
playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well
as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come
out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of
stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your
ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the
point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog
device.

Nonsense.

Format 1 bit DSD (Direct Stream Digital)
Sampling frequency 2.8224 MHz
Dynamic range 120 dB
Frequency range 20 Hz - 50 kHz

The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB
from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz!
Try to duplicate that with any "high-end analog device".

Quantum physicists state the universe is digital. It is your inferior
sensory organs which can not resolve the digital universe.
Get over it! Radio is the enemy - ANALog is dead!

"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 3:48 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
I don't care how many
samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the
resultant
playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as
well
as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come
out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of
stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your
ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the
point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog
device.

Nonsense.

Format 1 bit DSD (Direct Stream Digital)
Sampling frequency 2.8224 MHz
Dynamic range 120 dB
Frequency range 20 Hz - 50 kHz

The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB
from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz!
Try to duplicate that with any "high-end analog device".


Sorry. Apples and oranges.

I once built a two transistor pre-amp that was flat from 10 Hz to over 2
MHz. Thing is, it didn't have all that good of a distortion figure.
Digitally reproduced analog waveforms have distortion. There is simply no
way around it. You cannot make a true, perfect sine waveform out of a bunch
of square waves. It can't be done.

Further, the universe is most certainly not digital. About the closest thing
you get to digital in the universe is a hydrogen atom. But even the radio
frequency wave output from a hydrogen atom is a sine wave: analog. Digital
can only be a representation, in various degrees of fidelity, of an analog
signal.