On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 20:28 +0200, Hartmut Noack wrote: > Am 31.05.2011 00:45, schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > > On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 18:05 -0400, Mike Holstein wrote: > >> ralph > > > > > I heard a lot of Linux recordings I like, but never one that regarding > > to the sound quality was comparable to any professional studio recording > > or any analog home recoding. > > I never heared any recording made unto cassette, that had a sound > quality comparable with the first primitive recordings I made with > Audacity on a Terratec EWX -- some 10 years ago. > > Excuse the hard words but your notions are plain nonsense. I do not > speak about software at all here, sound quality has nothing to do with > software at all. > You can actually make a audiophile recording of a Jazz-trio on Linux > simply using a capable interface (like the RME plus a decent IO-module), > good preamps, good microphones and good musicians playing good > instruments in front of them. With jack_record or Ardour or Mixbus or > Gramofile: at your option. > > Yes, top-notch analogue equipment still beats everything else but > certainly not a cassette-recorder. > > best regards > > HZN
A maintained Yamaha MT44D, that does mean that you've got to clean and demagnetize it. Recalibrating is tricky and expensive, but you can buy cassettes, test them and if they are ok for your Yamaha MT44D, then you buy a bigger charge of those cassettes. I did use exactly this tape recorder when I worked for studio development at [snip], so I could compare my home recordings to top-notch studio recordings. A cassette recorder isn't nearly as good as top-notch analog equipment, but much better than my two TerraTec cards. Of cause, the cassette recorder was less good than a Firewire Motu device I could test at this time. I know that most 4-track cassette recordings are disgusting, but most people don't know how to maintain gear in the right way. It's possible to use the demagnetizer and to make things more worse, than they were before demagnetizing ;) etc.. The biggest difference between cheap and expensive analog equipment is the durability. Some of those rich guys I was working for collect old equipment, mics, pre-amps, tape recorders. I heard Telefunken tape recorders (Senkel, nicht Kassette, dunno the term in English, is it 1/4"?) that still were top-notch, thought those recorders were older then I was. Neither a home recording cassette recorder nor a microchip for any sound card will live that long. A lot of people will disagree even with your opinion, they say that no analog equipment is better than digital equipment and then use the tape saturation plugin ;) that never ever is able to do tape saturation, nearly as good as even a consumer cassette recorder. Tape saturation can be that good, that you don't need a compressor for the stereo sum! You can use disadvantages of some equipment as an advantage. It's easier for top-notch, but also, very limited possible for cheap analog equipment. It's a pity that this knowledge falls into oblivion. Listen to old Beatles recordings, older than Abbey Road ;), they did use gear comparable to the quality of a 4-track cassette recorder! I'm not a talker, Beatles LPs are available, but avoid loudness war remastered CDs. -- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
