I don't understand why someone with a Studer (A820?) would even waste time owning cassette? I mean: cassette was shoe-horned into being passable "HiFi" only after Henry Kloss' exploits with Advent in the early '70s; before then: it was an office memo machine and something competing with 8-track cartridge for portable convenience. The technicalities of it, in my opinion, are akin to the premise of trying to turn a sow's ear into a golden purse: no matter even if you've got a Nak 1000ZXL. Reel to Reel, from the vantage of 7 1/2ips-ONWARD (even as "dumbed-down" as commercial quarter track made from a copy less than 8x dubbing speed) IS where any serious entry point into the world of tape should always start; as you're (now) at least dealing with a format remotely close to what a studio mixdown master was made on.
RE: vinyl vs. tape comparison. There's NO WAY I've ever thought vinyl won based on anything which DIDN'T involve something related to vinyl's peculiarities influencing its character or, something which DIDN'T have to do with a record collector (already) having a special interest bias toward it. In other words; limiting the argument to always: vinyl vs. (bad and often audibly watermarked) digital clones/mid-life crisis trying to harken back to youth(YES!)/or: the gobbs of vinyl's RIAA-eq midrange boost being (mis)understood as having "more presence" to ageing ears (which: is as sonically INaccurate as, suggesting....that JBL 100´s can magically recreate studio sound connected to a 40 y.o. Kenwood receiver, aarrgghh).
THE most immediate difference between the sound of a record and, for example, a (good) 7 1/2ips reel (and, once you take that to 15: the purity of tape combined-with now the absolute silky black background just achieves a whole 'nother level) to me is: records have this upper bass/lower mid "bloat" (because of a 500Hz boost) which often sounds like a phasey and hollow "fishbowl" sound and, it just suddenly smacks into this over-trebly/2k-4k region with a VERY ARTIFICIAL sheen smothering it. TAPE HAS NONE OF THAT. The entire dynamic spectrum of tape just gels together naturally without the sense of thinking a mastering engineer was fiddling with the signal.
I've noticed in these debates, that, a common denominator among vinyl types seems to be: always a distaste of (10khz+) treble, bass, and wide stereo(?). Ironic, isn't it(?): three things vinyl cannot reproduce to the fullest extent.
RE: vinyl vs. tape comparison. There's NO WAY I've ever thought vinyl won based on anything which DIDN'T involve something related to vinyl's peculiarities influencing its character or, something which DIDN'T have to do with a record collector (already) having a special interest bias toward it. In other words; limiting the argument to always: vinyl vs. (bad and often audibly watermarked) digital clones/mid-life crisis trying to harken back to youth(YES!)/or: the gobbs of vinyl's RIAA-eq midrange boost being (mis)understood as having "more presence" to ageing ears (which: is as sonically INaccurate as, suggesting....that JBL 100´s can magically recreate studio sound connected to a 40 y.o. Kenwood receiver, aarrgghh).
THE most immediate difference between the sound of a record and, for example, a (good) 7 1/2ips reel (and, once you take that to 15: the purity of tape combined-with now the absolute silky black background just achieves a whole 'nother level) to me is: records have this upper bass/lower mid "bloat" (because of a 500Hz boost) which often sounds like a phasey and hollow "fishbowl" sound and, it just suddenly smacks into this over-trebly/2k-4k region with a VERY ARTIFICIAL sheen smothering it. TAPE HAS NONE OF THAT. The entire dynamic spectrum of tape just gels together naturally without the sense of thinking a mastering engineer was fiddling with the signal.
I've noticed in these debates, that, a common denominator among vinyl types seems to be: always a distaste of (10khz+) treble, bass, and wide stereo(?). Ironic, isn't it(?): three things vinyl cannot reproduce to the fullest extent.