But all I'm doing is ripping albums to cassette, I have a very high end deck and I enjoy ripping digital super-high-rez files to Dolby C recordings on Type II tape. For the rarer things, I will use certain and mainly used Type IV tapes.
>>540918920>>>/mu/
>>540918920I miss shit that had buttons like that. It was so much easier than a touch screen.
I miss google play music. Buying songs from albums. Sometimes one at a time until I bought the whole album. Least they gave us two whole weeks to download our purchases when they pulled the rug out from under everyone and tried to force them to subscribe to youtube music instead
>>540919109This tape deck will tell you how much time you have left on a tape, or elapsed, it's scary accurate (within 10-30 sec). So you can plan out how many tracks per side and make a perfect tape.
>>540918920>super-high-rez files to Dolby C recordings on Type II tapefor when you want to listen to bad copies of crap music and pay a lot to do it.
>>540918920Cool.
>>540919949>bad copiesYou couldn't tell the tape from the digital file, it's a really good deck.
>>540919324Remember PlaysForSure?
>>540920378no. you can't tell the difference.
>>540920403Agreed, you can't.Tape actually sounds better than DSD, I've ran this test with an East German tape series and I did it on /g/ years back, using big files I dumped at archive.org, only a few people could tell the difference and describe what they heard to the degree that I would accept they were human and picked up on it.
>>540918920Nothing's wrong with getting a sub. It's better than getting a dom.
>>540920575>tape sounds better>putting a digital file on tapeYou do understand what bottlenecking is right?
>>540920628DSD is a pure wave, it's beautiful and can't be beat. It's the perfect format to test other lesser formats upon, because it will capture them entirely. So if you wish to compare tape to CD to MD or whatever, you record the same exact performance and masters of all of them using DSD which even captures the nuances of each wave, and its varied interpolations, and then the user decides.You can also throw the DSD copy of a thing in there or an up-rezzed file just re-recorded into DSD for a placebo.
>>540918920>>540919109Picrel my tape deck from 1982.
>>540922253And my amp.
you know you can just rip from amazon free right?https://lucida.to/
>>540918920
>MarantzI have the Philips CD-100, and several CDM-0 mechanism players. Beatiful.
>>540920714>because it will capture them entirely.it will not. no its very good at modeling, it has a high sampling rate, but its still an approximation, it still has artifacts. You can enjoy it. You can think it sounds good, or "warm" or whatever. Just stop saying it doesn't change the signal. if you went just DSD to wave to DSD a hundred billion trillion million times, you'd only be left with noise.Having said that. People don't realize how good tape can sound. They have the memory of there shitbox car, or walkman. Mixtapes pulled from the radio. 8th generation bootlegs. Tape can sound great if the setup is tuned up. But the setup is constantly sounding worse, the belts stretch and wear, the contacts corrode, etc etc etc.
>>540923329The boss tape deck in my VW TDI is one of the nicest stereos I own, and I collect a lot of hi end vinyl and play it on high end decks with good needles and excellent tube amplifiers. Of course, sound, like music, by its very nature is subjective, but in my opinion analogue will always sound better than digital, ESPECIALLY if ir was recorded in analogue.
>>540925023A friend of mine told me "Its always analog in the end", and that really changed my view on it. As soon as signal hits speaker cone then air, its an analogue signal. Another thing poisoning most of the intuitions around digital and analog is the terrible remastering of all the digital re-releases. They don't have settings or the equipment or the experience of those mastering engineers putting down the final track. they take these stems, and just fuck them right hell up. Or they take the master vinyl, and don't consider the process itself....the master record wasn't the goal, the record was the goal. the stems didn't matter, they were only work product. I like vinyl, I like cassettes, I like reel to reel. But these mediums have real serious limits to them. The artists and technicians of the day knew and worked with the limitations (like too much bass in a track skipping needles). But if I wanted to buy a new album by a modern band, and they had options, digital tape, record. I'd never buy analog. It wasn't designed for that, no one in the production chain is familiar with them, its purely a marketing tchotchke.As for myself, too much work to be an audiophile, sold everything. I have a few vintage and new pairs of KOSS 4AA headphones, I have a many channel eq to dial it in to my liking, a few "roomerizer" VSTs to mellow out old hard panned tracks. And haven''t looked back.
>>540923329OK I agree, but DSD is the best format we have right now given the current state of technology and it's actually quite a simple format, lacking all time information and other formatting and even advanced error coding. But it can be infinitely expanded as an idea with higher speed devices, etc. It's as good as we'll get for now until something better comes along which will be the same thing with better metadata probably.Anyway good tape recordings are amazing, and few had good decks back in the day so of course most wouldn't know. I agree 100%.
>>540925590whats the oversampling "x" you are rocking with that?I like the ideas behind DSD, dont get me wrong. but its not magic. I personally can't hear any difference between 192kHz and higher sampling rates on plain old lossey formats. Once I double blinded that (the limits of my personal perception), it really cleared up where I was inserting fake data in my own perception. I recommend you do the same. Enjoy the toys, but know what they are actually getting you. I'd say for most people, its marginabley more than headphones. And for the rest of us, the pain of acoustically treating rooms, constantly maintaining these machines etc etc etc, means that good headphones and a great eq will enable far more enjoyment of music itself.
>>540925937>whats the oversampling "x" you are rocking with that?You can increase the speed of the DSD sampling to increase the precision of the wave, at some multiple it probably is good enough to not just capture the sample, but the DAC's behavior on the other end (or cassette player's particular mechanical gripes).DSD I view as a mastering format, it can't really be edited except by conversion, editing, and re-conversion at very high sample rates and bit depths. But it's like a master tape. It can't get worse than it is and magic signal processing might improve it in the future somehow.As I said one use I had was to record several sources and arrange a blind test, where the audition was purely a set of DSD files with no clue as to their sources. It's perfect for something like that.
>>540926273> It can't get worse than it is>magic signal processing might improve it in the future somehow.no no no no no....this is information theory. you have used 1 bit flipping to encode the signal by sampling the bit a ton. FLAC would be many bits sampling for instance. You can't get more information out of that signal than is in the signal. You never ever can. You can only degrade the information. Maybe you want to though, maybe it sounds better with less information in a more pleasing way. You yourself will have a perception limit for DSD sampling rates, find it, make it double blind. use the exact same super high sampled sourced, and down sample them. Then play through the sources, and order them from least to most sampled. It will be trival to find out where you are just guessing. Do the same with mp3 and FLAC. you are getting zero benefit from DSD if you are unable to actually hear the difference of a 128 kbps or 320 kbps bitrate or the difference of 44.1 vs 48. Without testing your perceptual limits, this is just a glorified and expensive masturbatory hobby. And why care about tape vs DSD if you haven't had an acoustical engineer in to treat your room? Your room is mattering waay way way more than tape vs digital....and ten year later, you'll wear some headphones lol
>>540925486For me, it's the subjective warmth of analogue. Needle on the records, magnet on the tape, vs CD or flac, for the same recordings on the same eq stereo, put down digitally or analogue, I'll choose analogue for the quality of sound and a 128kb mp3 for the convenience, and let my memory fill in the blanks. I've also started to really enjoy changing the speed of some of my lps, slowing them down 5-15%, to get a completely different album for the brain to process.
>>540926648>this is information theory. you have used 1 bit flipping to encode the signal by sampling the bit a ton. FLAC would be many bits sampling for instanceOK I'm with you.>You can't get more information out of that signal than is in the signal.You never even get that, you get the signal + something from the device(s) in the signal chain too. Every port adds something except the theoretical perfect resistor.So you get something more out of the signal than the exact signal, you get the signal + artifacts in the signal chain.>You never ever can. You can only degrade the information.You can call it whatever you want, I prefer "theory of telegraphy" ie Alexanderson type basic bitch stuff.>Maybe you want to though, maybe it sounds better with less information in a more pleasing way. That's out of scope for the time.>You yourself will have a perception limit for DSD sampling ratesI'm not doing this for my ear, but to have a high rate high bandwidth signal recorder.>find it, make it double blind. use the exact same super high sampled sourced, and down sample themYou're missing the point which is to record the signal as best you can, not simply to the best point that you can hear. Later on certain things could lead to recovery of more information (see PAL color dots) which you don't even know about, but are recording at that high sample rate.>Do the same with mp3 and FLAC.Again, no, because that's not the point.>And why care about tape vs DSD if you haven't had an acoustical engineer in to treat your room?Amateur room treatment isn't rocket science, just making a sweet spot around your couch is good enough lol.
>>540926669the "rail voltage bleed" effect of the tape heads, or needle or whatever kind of analogue is pretty huge. easy to recreate in digital, they choose not to.
>>540926910>Amateur room treatment isn't rocket science,Amateur treatments aren't science at all. Thats why I recommended an engineer. You should spend as much or more on your room as the sound producer itself. The room is effecting you sound waaay more than your speakers cone material or cables length. okay so you are basically just archiving? then yeah, crank it all the way i guess. have the data stored in triplicate, in 2 different locations. or a fire or flood will destroy all your work. Know that your family will not share your interests, make provisions for the archives before you die in your will or they will throw it all out
>>540927137>Amateur treatments aren't science at all.Sure, with stereo it's easy. Have a small spot where you listen, a couple feet wide, where the speakers are both about equally distant, and have nearly coincident angles.Even with a harsh untreated room that's how you do it. Most rooms are OK. My living room isn't treated with panels and stuff, I have bookshelves with the books all sticking out a bit more than others, some objects d'art, etc around. But it's good and random enough that it doesn't produce any unwanted filtering and my speakers and amps are good enough to drive them fully into harmony with the room, which suspends on cork (I have an old and craft built individually architected home with suspended floors for "drafting" because it was built for a shipwright) like a musical instrument, imagine living inside a double-double-double-double-double-doube bass.If you record something, you should do it as well as you can and don't compress it. It's not like 1998 any more, lol.
Anyway I feel the perfect way to rip a streaming high-bit rate and sample depth album, is onto tape. It also leaves the grid when you do that.
>>540918920Hold onto that for dear life. Very rare.
>>540927284>If you record something, you should do it as well as you can and don't compress it.if its already a digital signal, "up-res'ing" isn't getting you anything, it can actually distort the original information present in the "lower quality" original.DSD is compressed, I think you should really deep dive these topics. Its "uncompressed" in that the data is stored in the same way its played. just a long record of the single bit flipping. But taking any analogue signal at all and approximating it into a finite sample rate is compressing it. FLAC's "compression" is just for dead on the shelf storage, it is unrolled completely on playback. Thats like saying zipping your files before emailing them is bad practice, its not 1998 anymore. It literally makes no difference at all.
>>540918920Private music trackers exist. [RED] has a larger music library than Apple, Amazon and Spotify. They're all perfect FLACs. Isn't Amazon Music limited to 320kbps? Spotify streams at 256kbps.Music streaming is over UDP, which means lost packets. Enjoy your shitty music, OP.>he pays for the privilege
>>540927531Chang actually makes a really point point. Torrents and UseNet will deliver constant bitrates. Streaming means up and down and lost packets, and variable latency.
>>540927531>[RED]tell me more? Phone fagging so searching anything is difficult.And yeah, streaming is ridiculous when it's the same bandwidth to just save it and have it.
>>540927457I have a spare too. But it seems to be bulletproof. I have never seen a cassette deck with such a good timer before, for predicting how much tape is left on a side. And I have often used TASCAM professional decks which can be (and laboriously were) programmed to race to indexes (000-999) but couldn't park it like the Kyocera can.I have a matching fancy Kyocera CD deck, and IR remote control "deck" which distributes commands to the various things. I would like to find the tuner and amp some day just to collect 'em all.
those tapes will degrade and wear down faster than a cd.
>>540927721its a private tracker with big catalogue
>>540927841Wrong, I have many old audio tapes, computer tapes, disks, and even magneto-optical media that work great to this day. Some types of tapes and specific formulations could stick on the rolls, or the coating could dry up and un-adhere from the backing. But that's just stories on the Internet to me, I recovered almost all my childhood Apple II and Mac floppies from the '80s without issue intact.In geological time sure.
I bet you still use bitcoin too
>>540927973A feature of taping music is that it goes off-grid, it no longer reports as a likeshare to the mothership.
I still have my Sony Walkman from the 80s. I bought it at a goodwill back in 94 for like 5 bucks. I remember falling asleep to art bell. I was 7 years old.
>>540927966There are shelf lifes for all those mediums. Its not "geological time" but its in the decades range. Just as celluloid film has a shelf life, magnetic storage anything has an additional double whammy as not only is the substrate degrading, the bits are constantly getting cosmic ray flipped as well. But the key point is its not "geological time" its concievably within your lifetime. The more annoying or niche your storage medium is, the less likely whoever you pass this archive to will maintain it. imo If your intentions are for a forever project, you are doing it wrong. If its a personal project....you are also doing it wrong.
DSD is not compressed, not sure why you'd think that. Perhaps it's DSM that isn't but DSD must produce a 1 or 0 bit every clock, maybe the idle can be conpressed? I dunno. Please explain what you mean.You can't compress DSD with traditional compression thinking very easily.>>540928247>There are shelf lifes for all those mediums. Its not "geological time" but its in the decades range.Depends, we can still read wire recordings 100 years old and optical recordings as old, and those old pen on a hinge "recordings" can be read and reproduced in your browser with magic.>magnetic storage anything has an additional double whammy as not only is the substrate degrading, the bits are constantly getting cosmic ray flipped as wellWith most big fat tapes cosmic rays aren't shit, it's the crappy tape peeling. But yeah things have to be transcribed eventually unless they were made permanent from the start. It's why Emperors and Pharaohs wrote their most important edicts on diorite with diamond emery.DSD is as good as it looks now, it's an "analog" analog and that's cool. Theoretical issues with multbit formats are done away with, the only problem is it's unsuited to be edited... but that might be a good thing.
we should start an audiophile/audio engineering discordAdd: fecalparturition
>>540928622Checked but there are enough people doing enough things, that there is a now distributed effort to copy everything. It will be shut off at some point for sure, they will blame AI. They're already locking down everything even harder with this excuse.
>>540928387>DSD is not compressedan analog signal has more information than the resulting DSD signal. that, by definition, is compression of information. So sure its "uncompressed" and FLAC is "compressed" but that is only referring to how the file sits when its idle on the drive. Does the file have to be unrolled before playback? does it not?You could zip a DSD file, it would be smaller, it would be compressed, you could then unzip it, and its the same thing right?DSD changes and simplifies the signal just like multibit encoding do. There is a "signal processing" step in the encoding. "noise shaping" is also in the realm. And you need to consider the DSD vs PCM thing.....if you are recording to DSD from a PCM source. You have completely abandoned all the DSD defenses from the 90s. DSD is not an "analog analogue" at all! its just a high sampling digital encoding. You personally may enjoy the sound of the encoding artifacts, but just that fact alone, that it has some "color" or "tone" or "sound" to it for you should tell you the original signal's information has been tampered with>>540928704.The rise in HDD prices really worries me....
>>540922253Classy
>>540918920why cassettes
>>540928958I have a shit ton that I got in a couple lots, most of which are Type II tapes, 90+ minutes. So I blank 'em and then record. It's hundreds of tapes. Most meetings, no idea why they were on Type II. Some tapes I won't record over, there is one bunch that's all variations of foxtrot that are recorded by a live band. Should put them on the Internet Archive, but they're huge niggers.
