Dire Straits sound quality

[nopiano]

But neither was a patch on the LPs!

Often the case but really only because they couldn't afford to repro musicassettes on quality machinery in real time. From a technical perspective, type II or type IV tape on a decent recorder would comfortably wipe the floor with LPs, which compared to tape had pretty much worse of everything: worse FR, worse S/N, worse channel separation. But clearly that's a debate for a different thread

Yes, there was certainly the potential. And I think I recall a very limited number of real time mastered cassettes were available but at silly prices. I've had a few given to me back in the day made from a direct feed from a studio, or master tape, and a few from a BBC broadcast but not via the airwaves.

LPs do seem to be lasting well from a storage perspective - whereas tapes deteriorate with age and heat, etc.

 

[plastic penguin]

I've got one album tucked away somewhere: 'Making Movies'. And from memory, it sounded s##t. Then again it has been over 20 years since I last heard it.

**** as in this music sounds **** Or **** sound quality production?

Dunno. There's a good reason why it has been mothballed for the last 20 years.

 

[lindsayt]

The 1/8", 4 track, 1 7/8ips format of compact cassette is pants! It's worse than vinyl.

1/4", 2 track, 7.5ips is better than vinyl. You've got 16 times the tape area passing under the tape head each second. That makes a big difference.

 

[andyjm]

The 1/8", 4 track, 1 7/8ips format of compact cassette is pants! It's worse than vinyl.

1/4", 2 track, 7.5ips is better than vinyl. You've got 16 times the tape area passing under the tape head each second. That makes a big difference.

Cassettes were dreadful. The tape was too narrow, the speed too slow, there was no room in the cassette for a decent capstan and tape feed was erratic making reliable alignment impossible. Frequency response all over the map and dynamic range was poor. Dolby went some way to rescue the format, but cassettes are best left to moulder in the loft.

Reel to reel analogue machines were much better - I was lucky enough to use Studer A80s when I first started work. But what the glow of nostalgia fails to highlight was the morning tape head clean and alignment which fell to the studio grunt (me) to do. Or the tape head clean prior to each master take, or the tape head clean before pretty much anything.

Tape in general is a poor format for longevity. The binder deteriorates and the oxide falls off the backing, and the tapes rot. It was customary for VT operators to run their finger over 2" quadruplex video tape before it got to the vacuum gate to wipe the mould off the tape if the tape had been in storage for a long period of time.

Old tape that has deteriorated can be baked to 'fix' the oxide binder, but you only get to play the tape a few time after that before it falls apart. I do wonder what state the analogue masters are from the 50s 60s and 70s. Even in a controlled environment these things won't last forever.

 

[steve_1979]

The 1/8", 4 track, 1 7/8ips format of compact cassette is pants! It's worse than vinyl.

1/4", 2 track, 7.5ips is better than vinyl. You've got 16 times the tape area passing under the tape head each second. That makes a big difference.

Cassettes were dreadful. The tape was too narrow, the speed too slow, there was no room in the cassette for a decent capstan and tape feed was erratic making reliable alignment impossible. Frequency response all over the map and dynamic range was poor. Dolby went some way to rescue the format, but cassettes are best left to moulder in the loft.

Reel to reel analogue machines were much better - I was lucky enough to use Studer A80s when I first started work. But what the glow of nostalgia fails to highlight was the morning tape head clean and alignment which fell to the studio grunt (me) to do. Or the tape head clean prior to each master take, or the tape head clean before pretty much anything.

Tape in general is a poor format for longevity. The binder deteriorates and the oxide falls off the backing, and the tapes rot. It was customary for VT operators to run their finger over 2" quadruplex video tape before it got to the vacuum gate to wipe the mould off the tape if the tape had been in storage for a long period of time.

Old tape that has deteriorated can be baked to 'fix' the oxide binder, but you only get to play the tape a few time after that before it falls apart. I do wonder what state the analogue masters are from the 50s 60s and 70s. Even in a controlled environment these things won't last forever.

I learnt quite a lot from reading this post. Cheers.

 

[andyjm]

The 1/8", 4 track, 1 7/8ips format of compact cassette is pants! It's worse than vinyl.

1/4", 2 track, 7.5ips is better than vinyl. You've got 16 times the tape area passing under the tape head each second. That makes a big difference.

Cassettes were dreadful. The tape was too narrow, the speed too slow, there was no room in the cassette for a decent capstan and tape feed was erratic making reliable alignment impossible. Frequency response all over the map and dynamic range was poor. Dolby went some way to rescue the format, but cassettes are best left to moulder in the loft.

Reel to reel analogue machines were much better - I was lucky enough to use Studer A80s when I first started work. But what the glow of nostalgia fails to highlight was the morning tape head clean and alignment which fell to the studio grunt (me) to do. Or the tape head clean prior to each master take, or the tape head clean before pretty much anything.

Tape in general is a poor format for longevity. The binder deteriorates and the oxide falls off the backing, and the tapes rot. It was customary for VT operators to run their finger over 2" quadruplex video tape before it got to the vacuum gate to wipe the mould off the tape if the tape had been in storage for a long period of time.

Old tape that has deteriorated can be baked to 'fix' the oxide binder, but you only get to play the tape a few time after that before it falls apart. I do wonder what state the analogue masters are from the 50s 60s and 70s. Even in a controlled environment these things won't last forever.

I learnt quite a lot from reading this post. Cheers.

Thanks. The deterioration effect was well known in the industry when I was involved, and now apparently has its very own name 'sticky-shed syndrome'. Wikipedia has a much better description of the effect than I gave above.

 

[nopiano]

The 1/8", 4 track, 1 7/8ips format of compact cassette is pants! It's worse than vinyl.

1/4", 2 track, 7.5ips is better than vinyl. You've got 16 times the tape area passing under the tape head each second. That makes a big difference.

Cassettes were dreadful. The tape was too narrow, the speed too slow, there was no room in the cassette for a decent capstan and tape feed was erratic making reliable alignment impossible. Frequency response all over the map and dynamic range was poor. Dolby went some way to rescue the format, but cassettes are best left to moulder in the loft.

Reel to reel analogue machines were much better - I was lucky enough to use Studer A80s when I first started work. But what the glow of nostalgia fails to highlight was the morning tape head clean and alignment which fell to the studio grunt (me) to do. Or the tape head clean prior to each master take, or the tape head clean before pretty much anything.

Tape in general is a poor format for longevity. The binder deteriorates and the oxide falls off the backing, and the tapes rot. It was customary for VT operators to run their finger over 2" quadruplex video tape before it got to the vacuum gate to wipe the mould off the tape if the tape had been in storage for a long period of time.

Old tape that has deteriorated can be baked to 'fix' the oxide binder, but you only get to play the tape a few time after that before it falls apart. I do wonder what state the analogue masters are from the 50s 60s and 70s. Even in a controlled environment these things won't last forever.

I learnt quite a lot from reading this post. Cheers.

Thanks. The deterioration effect was well known in the industry when I was involved, and now apparently has its very own name 'sticky-shed syndrome'. Wikipedia has a much better description of the effect than I gave above.

Yes, a good summary, and why I remarked how good LPs are for longevity. Even shellac discs can still play with pretty much everything they had on them from the start. Nobody tried to create an everlasting format as far as I know, but records are doing well -- and I do wonder how long our 'downloads' of today will last (same as the generation of family photos that are forever lost to broken phones and crashed PCs!)

 

[MajorFubar]

Old tape that has deteriorated can be baked to 'fix' the oxide binder, but you only get to play the tape a few time after that before it falls apart. I do wonder what state the analogue masters are from the 50s 60s and 70s. Even in a controlled environment these things won't last forever.

50s and 60s tape is usually fine. It's the 70s and 80s stuff which suffers from sticky shed, because Ampex (IIRC) changed the formula of their binder, and they supplied pretty much all the wold's recording studios. You're right though that they won't last forever, which is why all the major studios have been feverishing digitising their analogue masters since about 1980.

I hear all the negative aspects you raise regarding cassette tape, but I'd still live with its flaws any day over vinyl. A top-flight deck with chrome tape surpasses the SQ available from records, which are so flawed in their inherrent design that they can't ever sound as good at the end of a side as they do at the start. Plus anything beyond 15-16 minutes per side and the sound is additionally compromised further, because of the increasing groove pitch.

Can't argue about durability though: LPs will outlive us all!

 

[lpv]

I do wonder how long our 'downloads' of today will last (same as the generation of family photos that are forever lost to broken phones and crashed PCs!)

just make a copy or (better) two and you wont loose any more.. stop using pc and lesser phones could help too.

 

[lindsayt]

MajorFubar, a top flight cassette deck playing carefully recorded tapes will surpass a plasticky turntable with a worn stylus and a punched off centre LP.

A top flight cassette deck will not surpass a top flight turntable playing a clean, not too scratched, punched on centre LP or 12" single.

However, top flight cassette decks are generally more affordable than top flight turntables.

 

[MajorFubar]

Digital is often portrayed as more fragile and transient than the formats which predeeded it (film, records and so on) but really it's far more secure, with just a little user-input. It's possible to make successive generation-after-generation identical copies of digital files, which means the data has the potential to last forever. With analogue it's impossible to duplicate it onto another analogue carrier without loss for each successive generation, like photocopies.

I remember doom merchants telling me all the CDs I bought in the 80s would be unplayable by now. Well all of them are, but in any case I've ripped them all losslessly to another bulk carrier (NAS) which I keep backing up losslessly to another bulk carrier (HDD), plus I store a third copy 'in the cloud'. Providing I maintain a sensible regime of backing up, I can easily ensure that they'll easily outlive me. And beyond that I don't care.

 

[Gazzip]

Digital is often portrayed as more fragile and transient than the formats which predeeded it (film, records and so on) but really it's far more secure, with just a little user-input. It's possible to make successive generation-after-generation identical copies of digital files, which means the data has the potential to last forever. With analogue it's impossible to duplicate it onto another analogue carrier without loss for each successive generation, like photocopies.

I remember doom merchants telling me all the CDs I bought in the 80s would be unplayable by now. Well all of them are, but in any case I've ripped them all losslessly to another bulk carrier (NAS) which I keep backing up losslessly to another bulk carrier (HDD), plus I store a third copy 'in the cloud'. Providing I maintain a sensible regime of backing up, I can easily ensure that they'll easily outlive me. And beyond that I don't care.

Very well put sir. I salute you!

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Digital is often portrayed as more fragile and transient than the formats which predeeded it (film, records and so on) but really it's far more secure, with just a little user-input. It's possible to make successive generation-after-generation identical copies of digital files, which means the data has the potential to last forever. With analogue it's impossible to duplicate it onto another analogue carrier without loss for each successive generation, like photocopies.

I remember doom merchants telling me all the CDs I bought in the 80s would be unplayable by now. Well all of them are, but in any case I've ripped them all losslessly to another bulk carrier (NAS) which I keep backing up losslessly to another bulk carrier (HDD), plus I store a third copy 'in the cloud'. Providing I maintain a sensible regime of backing up, I can easily ensure that they'll easily outlive me. And beyond that I don't care.

the earliest cd I have is tanita tikaram Ancient heart from 1988 and it still plays lovely now and at the same time I brought dire straits brothers in arms which sadly I scratched it but currently I am on my 6th copy of it which is a sacd .

 

[nopiano]

I do wonder how long our 'downloads' of today will last (same as the generation of family photos that are forever lost to broken phones and crashed PCs!)

just make a copy or (better) two and you wont loose any more.. stop using pc and lesser phones could help too.

Not mine, but many people I know who aren't so careful....

 

[nopiano]

Just brought the remastered version of communique

not yet checked the dr database but this is so well recorded/produced

why cant all records be made this well?

And returning to the original post, I've played the entire LP this evening. The original from 1979. Very good indeed. Excellent tracking on this hot evening!

(No info about the recording medium, but maybe an expert knows if it was an early digital master? I don't have the CD which perhaps has a spars code - remember them?)

 

[MajorFubar]

(No info about the recording medium, but maybe an expert knows if it was an early digital master? I don't have the CD which perhaps has a spars code - remember them?)

Definitely tracked and mixed on analogue. As was Making Movies and Love Over Gold. Pretty sure BIA was their first DD recording.

 

[MajorFubar]

Very well put sir. I salute you!

TYVM, sorry I missed you reply somehow.

 

[MajorFubar]

MajorFubar, a top flight cassette deck playing carefully recorded tapes will surpass a plasticky turntable with a worn stylus and a punched off centre LP.

A top flight cassette deck will not surpass a top flight turntable playing a clean, not too scratched, punched on centre LP or 12" single.

However, top flight cassette decks are generally more affordable than top flight turntables.

Let's put it another way. Both cassettes and LPs are compromised technically compared to superior carriers such as for example half-track 1/4" tape at 15IPS, which both you and I have direct experience of. But their compromises are different to each other. In their own way, the best examples of both are triumphs of engineering over flawed design, because neither of their respective inventors intended them to reproduce sound we now call hifi.

If it were possible to set up a scenario where you and I could record the first-generation master of a classic album we loved onto either an LP or cassette, and we had to choose one or the other, based on my 'preference of compromises' (in lieu of a better term) I would choose recording it to cassette. Probably a chrome tape with DBX. And if you allowed me to stretch the rules ever so slightly, I'd use 3¾IPS (in return I'd let you use 45RPM LPs if you wished). Then I'd digitise it for posterity.

 

[nopiano]

(No info about the recording medium, but maybe an expert knows if it was an early digital master? I don't have the CD which perhaps has a spars code - remember them?)

Definitely tracked and mixed on analogue. As was Making Movies and Love Over Gold. Pretty sure BIA was their first DD recording.

Thanks, Major. I'm sure you're correct. I'm onto LOG now and the sleeve shows an image with the words Reel and 30ips. That suggests good ole analogue to me!

 

[MajorFubar]

Yeah I thought as much *music2*

 

[Andrewjvt]

Ive got golden heart Its good ja

Think ill buy his other records I believe he does his own recording in his own studio now. ive seen it on youtube He has 5 atc scm300s in 5.0

Look it on youtube

I would recommend:

- All the road running (with Emmylou Harris)

- Get Lucky

- Privateering

- The Ragpicker's Dream

- Neck and Neck (with Chet Atkins)

done

 

[Rethep]

I imagine it was the first CD for many new adopters. I remember reading in WHF some time late '85 early '86 that sales of BIA alone accounted for 50% of all CDs so far sold. Staggering really.

In that way "Brothers in arms" was preceded by "Body and soul" by Joe Jackson, which did some 'introduction' for many people to buy a cd-player first!

The quality of this JJ-cd is the opposite from "Brothers in arms". Rather compressed sound, but what great music! Still one of my top 10 cd's!

 

[MajorFubar]

Ah the glory days when CDs were the new kid on the block; when albums like BIA were a staple in every hifi dealer's demo collection, and when Telarc stuck dynamic range warnings on their CDs' cover notes...

 

[nopiano]

Ah the glory days when CDs were the new kid on the block; when albums like BIA were a staple in every hifi dealer's demo collection, and when Telarc stuck dynamic range warnings on their CDs' cover notes...

Stop it! You're showing our age. ;-)

 

[MajorFubar]

Ah the glory days when CDs were the new kid on the block; when albums like BIA were a staple in every hifi dealer's demo collection, and when Telarc stuck dynamic range warnings on their CDs' cover notes...

Stop it! You're showing our age. ;-)

I was only - erm - six at the time...I was just advanced for my age [cough]