No, You Won`t [Pic]

Submitted by: Jake_Justus 1 year ago Funny

Short-sightendess can be amusing.
There are 16 comments:
Female 2,691
Sad. But then again, I have a Crosley turntable that plays my 78 shellac discs.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
turd is sort of right, digital is more convenient plus as it`s digital, you get no transmission problems, no noise build up, leaking channels and and and..

But a lot of the modern music is still transferred to magnetic analog tape at some point, it has qualities that just are so hard to simulate perfectly. It is warmer than digital, you can push over the limits and it sounds even better then. The same reason why tube valves and amps are still used today, digital gives you crystal clean, unchanging sound time and time again, always the same..

The choice to use analog is it makes the good kind of errors, randomiz, distort sound in harmonic manner etc.. They really didn`t even know analogs best qualities when they invented those technologies. If given choice, every single inventor from back then would choose equivalent digital version (like say 12bit, 28kHz..), they were trying to make an error free medium..
0
Reply
Male 621
My dad got almost the same model of one of these when I was a kid. My younger brother has it now, and it still works after nearly 40 years. It`s not used much, I transferred the best of the stuff we had on it to digital, so it probably /could/ last as long as the advertisement says.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

I wouldn`t say analog tape is "better" than digital. Audiophiles tend to say it`s "warmer" and more natural, while digital has a brighter sound with a larger dynamic range.

Consumer level audio files, like mp3, can`t compare. Professional audio moved to digital but mostly because of convenience and cost.

A 3" reel to reel can EASILY belong and compete in any modern studio where quality is concerned.
Digital is convenient, since the audio will be compressed anyway.

0
Reply
Male 7,031

I had a Sony sound-on-sound reel-to-reel when I was a teenager. It was fun making demos with the sound-on-sound capability.

What is amusing about this ad isn`t the quality of the machine, it`s the implication that it would still represent the state-of-the-art decades after it was first introduced.
0
Reply
Male 3,057
I have one of these! I`m pretty sure it still works, even though I haven`t done anything with it in 25 years...
0
Reply
Male 7,123
And yet we do.
0
Reply
Male 1,253
Still got my 4 track Teac in use in my studio. Running it back out of an old Musicman valve preamp into Canadian built Yamaha speakers, there is no better sound.
0
Reply
Male 13,624
I`d love one of those
0
Reply
Male 7,352
@SmagBoy1

If you have the hearing for it, analog is superior in sound quality.

Analog sounds better because the sound that was recorded is naturally analog.

It really makes a difference in classical music, where a digitized glissando does not sound the same as an analog glisssando (either played or analog recorded)

Of course superior analog sound requires much more expensive and properly maintained equipment. So, for the most part, I listen to digital.
0
Reply
Female 7,838
Bet more than a few are still extant and working well.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

I would love to have one!!
Digital is much much more convenient, but analog sound is still incredible.

Don`t let cassette tapes represent what analog tape is truly capable of.

0
Reply
Male 2,096
Great sound on these. They (and Akai) were the standard for musicians home studios in the 60s and 70s
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Here it is in action! :-)

Some audiophiles loves them some analog. So, *certain* great grandkids will love it. :-)
0
Reply
Male 2,675
The gold watch would pawn easier.
0
Reply
Male 7,031
Link: No, You Won`t [Pic] [Rate Link] - Short-sightendess can be amusing.
0
Reply