>>131389123
wtf they actually sell this?
also why do cassette tapes sound like shit but not those?

>>131389165
>why do cassette tapes sound like shit
I reject your premise, but they offer double the tape width at 8 times the playback speed.

>>131389123
you’re 10 years too late. zoomies took over and they know nothing and will just lie to give you an answer to satisfy their ego. the site is the dumbest motherfuckers now

>>131389123
No. Every analog format sounds objectively worse than CDs (although sometimes the best mastering is only released on analog).

>>131389267
you are an example of this
>>131389221

>>131389219
>double the tape width at 8 times the playback speed
thanks, so that's pretty much like sample rates (the faster a sound is played, the higher the quality)

>>131389329
Exactly, and in theory you get the closest possible repro of the master tape which from that era is usually 1/4" width at 15 inches per second.

Define better. Compared to even 16/44.1, the fidelity is nowhere close. Not even the best tape with the best NR can come close to the fidelity of digital audio. What it does do is distort in a much more pleasing way than digital audio. If you think tape/vinyl sounds better than digital, it's not the medium, it's because digital audio is linear unlike analog, so they couldn't drive the levels as hard into the analog medium, preserving more of the dynamic range.

Everybody thinks they're a fucking expert on audio fidelity. Especially men over the age of 30 with declining hearing. They argue about these things when they are no longer equipped to tell the difference. Meanwhile young people can't afford shit so they're listening to Spotify on their AirPods and barely get to take part in the conversation. It's all so damned stupid.

This probably doesn't sound better than the Japanese SACD. Not because tape is better than SACD is better than CD or whatever. But because that's the best mastered version. Now whatever these analog formats can technically do if they can be met or surpassed by digital that's quite desirable right? The sound of these old albums, the original master tapes, it's part of the charm. We don't want everything sounding like The Nightfly so tape as part of the creative process should not be discounted but faithful reproduction of recordings without careful handling to avoid environmental degradation and expensive equipment is a huge plus in the favor of digital.

It's easy to call some guy that says "lol tapes suck" a dumbass because he has never heard the output of a Nakamichi Dragon but how is a normal person going to be able to afford that let alone afford to maintain it? I'm just going to stop here. I could rant for hours about this filling up a whole page with my autism.

>>131390436
>We don't want everything sounding like The Nightfly
I actually do want that.
>tape as part of the creative process
Sure, if you want that sound, but there's no need to actually distribute it as tape. You can't ABX raw analog vs. analog through a good modern ADC/DAC pair.

>>131390590
Maybe Stevie Wonder could since he was the one who noticed that the original CD pressings of The Nightfly were from analog tape rather than digital tape. It's not just about a good ADC/DAC either but a competent person managing the whole chain and there's a lot of variables to control there you know? It's almost as if it's easier to fuck it all up on the digital side in ways that aren't immediately obvious to the untrained ear. If you're overdriving your shit in the analog domain you get distortion.

>>131389376
from what i can tell these are 15ips 1/4" and like 3rd gen from the master.
master->production copy->consumer copy

>>131391443
It's the US master though not the original Vertigo UK one so it would be 4th gen actually.

No, people like tapes because they sound worse on purpose actually

>>131391443
Yeah they're usually from a safety copy. I'd like to know if they're playing the safety copy to record each consumer reel. That's time consuming. I've heard in the old days they'd split the signal and record dozens of reels on a single playback, that's why they had a rep for sketchy sound quality.

>>131392138
>split the signal and record dozens of reels on a single playback, that's why they had a rep for sketchy sound quality
It's low current line level, it's trivial to buffer it for thousands of tape recorders with insignificant noise and distortion compared to what the tapes will introduce. Use some absurd class-A valve amp if you like, it's not like you're driving speakers or anything actually difficult.

>>131389123
>tapes
meme format, were only used if you didn't have anything else or wanted to record something from the radio or something

>>131392802
Good open reel tape is better than vinyl. Still can't compete with digital, but this isn't your crappy type I compact cassette.

>>131392138
I think they send the 2nd gen (for sabbath, 3rd gen) prod copy to rtm in France and use that to make 5 consumer copies at a time

If you want to hear the original run of classic Sabbath albums (excluding Paranoid) just get the Japanese SACDs. This isn't because SACDs are better on some technical level or something. I think it's a dumb meme format that overcomplicates things. Don't bother wasting your money. Just go to rutracker or soulseek (you'll probably end up downloading it from me if you do that) then familiarize yourself with this:

http://s-audio.systems/dsd-filter/?i=1

Don't trust conversions to PCM (WAV/FLAC) done by other people because they might not understand everything being laid out here. But if you're not some audiophile fag who is going to shell out money for hardware that can decode DSD handle it in software (foobar2000 is the easiest path) with this filter and you've achieved faithful playback while spending $0 in the process.

>>131389123
You'll get better sound quality than vinyl and better mastering than a lot of CDs, but it really is just a meme.

>>131390614
>Maybe Stevie Wonder could
He didn't even notice the fucked up slow down at 4:08 to 4:10 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gGaerOuNwU his own fucking song.

>>131396938
Sounds like tape damage to me. But you know how it is. If they didn't want to do another take, or liked that take best, fuck it leave the Strawberry Fields Forever moment in.

>>131389123
yes, I need an audiophile option for an album that was produced with a budget of 100 dollars

>>131396991
Yeah man what I need for the authentic Sabbath experience is a 1973 WWA repressing that's beat to shit, skips, and once it's released from it's cardboard coffin smells faintly of mold and shitty 70s weed.

But really, to be completely honest, audiophile Sabbath is more about the preservation of historically important recordings you know. We can't pretend like it's Steely Dan or some shit. But what's on those original master tapes (that aren't rekt like Paranoid's) should have a faithful representation. You and I should be able to hear it and study it as best as it can sound without tracking down Mint UK original vinyls, and the SACDs probably sound better if we're being objective anyway.

>>131397020
that'll be $20

>>131397020
Don’t forget a shag carpet to pass out into facefirst

>>131397080
They’re selling Paranoid too so they must have a safety copy or something. By the way these cost $300

>>131397196
They're all from the US safety copies WB has always had not the UK originals