2011 RIP auto cassettes

On 2/13/2011 6:31 PM, Clive wrote:
> In message >, bob urz
> > writes
>> No they did NOT have DOLBY from early on.
>> the first cassettes had no Dolby B, no CRo2 tape,
>> and inferior tape heads. they were basically made
>> for dictation and such, not HiFi. early units were mono only.
>> Eventually, they evolved where the 8T did not. When things
>> like Dolby B and CRo2 tape first came out, they were on high
>> end very expensive machines. eventually, things like DBX, and
>> Dolby pro were added to the mix.
> Cassettes didn't ever have Dolby A, but did acquire Dolby B from fairly
> early on, chrome tape within a few years, first on Hi-Fi then on lower
> end stuff, the only difference needed being in the level of bias to
> saturate the tape.

Early on NO. the cassette was developed in 1963 by Phillips

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassette_deck

Dolby designed Dolby b in 1968 for cassettes and other magnetic media

> http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...on_Systems.pdf


the first Dolby b successful marketed cassette deck was the advent
series 200 in the early 70's

> http://www.davidreaton.com/Cassette_Decks.htm


This was a home unit. NOT a car unit. It was not until the mid 70's the
the cassette took off as a mass market affordable media and started to
displace the 8Track off its throne.

There is more to CRO2 tape than bias. It required different equalization
to to be properly utilized
120us for std tape and 70us for cro2 tapes.
early car decks did not have Dolby or a CRO2 switch.

Yes, cassettes did displace 8Tracks. But it did NOT happen overnight.
And the cassette was NOT a HiFI run away success early on. There was
a learning curve on both the decks and the media.

bob

In message >, bob urz
> writes
>On 2/13/2011 6:31 PM, Clive wrote:
>> In message >, bob urz
>> > writes
>>> No they did NOT have DOLBY from early on.
>>> the first cassettes had no Dolby B, no CRo2 tape,
>>> and inferior tape heads. they were basically made
>>> for dictation and such, not HiFi. early units were mono only.
>>> Eventually, they evolved where the 8T did not. When things
>>> like Dolby B and CRo2 tape first came out, they were on high
>>> end very expensive machines. eventually, things like DBX, and
>>> Dolby pro were added to the mix.
>> Cassettes didn't ever have Dolby A, but did acquire Dolby B from fairly
>> early on, chrome tape within a few years, first on Hi-Fi then on lower
>> end stuff, the only difference needed being in the level of bias to
>> saturate the tape.
>Early on NO. the cassette was developed in 1963 by Phillips
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassette_deck
>Dolby designed Dolby b in 1968 for cassettes and other magnetic media
>>
>>http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...ish_PDFs/Profe
>>ssional/212_Dolby_B,_C_and_S_Noise_Reduction_Systems.pdf
>the first Dolby b successful marketed cassette deck was the advent
>series 200 in the early 70's
>> http://www.davidreaton.com/Cassette_Decks.htm
>This was a home unit. NOT a car unit. It was not until the mid 70's the
>the cassette took off as a mass market affordable media and started to
>displace the 8Track off its throne.
>There is more to CRO2 tape than bias. It required different
>equalization to to be properly utilized
>120us for std tape and 70us for cro2 tapes.
>early car decks did not have Dolby or a CRO2 switch.
>Yes, cassettes did displace 8Tracks. But it did NOT happen overnight.
>And the cassette was NOT a HiFI run away success early on. There was
>a learning curve on both the decks and the media.
The Philips N4201 was on sale here in the UK as hi-fi in 1971.
8-tracks didn't really exist this side of the pond at any time.
--
Clive

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:34:28 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

>bob urz > wrote in
:
>
>> http://www.dealerscope.com/aggregate...nt/classic-ad-
>> requiem-tape-deck?sponsor=newsletter/12-volt-tech&b=2010#
>> utm_source=12-volt-tech&utm_medium=enewsletter_continue&utm_campaign= 20
>> 11-02-10&utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_
>> medium=Email&utm_campaign=12+Volt+Tech+February+10 + Campaign
>>
>> bob
>
>
>
>Bleah.
>
>Here, let me help by providing an UNbroken link:
><http://www.dealerscope.com/aggregatedcontent/classic-ad-requiem-tape-deck?sponsor=newsletter/12-volt-tech&b=2010#utm_source=12-volt-tech&utm_medium=enewsletter_continue&utm_campaign= 2011-02-10&utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_medium=Email&utm _campaign=12+Volt+Tech+February+10+Campaign>
>
>I remember when they were called "Compact Cassettes". They were
>actually contemporary competitors with 8-tracks in the '70s.
>But 8-tracks were so awful that the Compact Cassette became
>the standard.


I recall listening to compact cassette when they first came out (I had
reel to reel) and saying they would never make it in the market
because their sound fidelity was so awful. The sound was awful but it
turned out people didn't care.

Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>I recall listening to compact cassette when they first came out (I had
>reel to reel) and saying they would never make it in the market
>because their sound fidelity was so awful. The sound was awful but it
>turned out people didn't care.

And that, in short, is the nature of consumer release formats. Nobody
ever want wrong underestimating the end user's interest in audio quality.

The Elcaset died, the Philips Compact Cassette and the 8-track lived.
Now we have low-rate MP3s and whatever horrible compression Sirius and XM use.
It sounds like trash because the customer doesn't care.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2/14/2011 5:53 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-02-13, > wrote:
>> A 120 minute cart sounds like some kind of educational tape.
>
> Mine are "Capitol" brand blanks meant to be used in home 8T recorders.
> I've never seen a factory-recorded cart of that length.
>
>> sounding pretty good. The cassettes always had problems with tape speed
>> and tracking and tape jamming. Thank God for digital formats.
>
> Whatever floats your boat. I don't care for digital media and won't be
> adopting it; I'll be sticking with records and tapes indefinitely.
>

The whole perversion about modern recording "tech" is less is more.
I suppose you can partially blame Sony for some of the early Bit
compression technology's such as ATRAC and such in the Mini-disk.

Modern MP3's are NOT high fidelity. They trade utility of putting 100's
of songs on a chip for fidelity reduction.

Young people are more concerned about how many apps they have on their I
Phones than how good it sounds

bob

On 2/14/2011 9:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ashton > wrote:
>> I recall listening to compact cassette when they first came out (I had
>> reel to reel) and saying they would never make it in the market
>> because their sound fidelity was so awful. The sound was awful but it
>> turned out people didn't care.
>
> And that, in short, is the nature of consumer release formats. Nobody
> ever want wrong underestimating the end user's interest in audio quality.
>
> The Elcaset died, the Philips Compact Cassette and the 8-track lived.
> Now we have low-rate MP3s and whatever horrible compression Sirius and XM use.
> It sounds like trash because the customer doesn't care.
> --scott

RCA actually had a large cartridge machine that used 1/4" tape in the
early 60's Looked kind of like a cassette on steroids. My dad who was
in the TV business had one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_tape_cartridge

bob

On 2/13/2011 7:39 AM, bob urz wrote:
> On 2/12/2011 6:28 PM, Clive wrote:
>> In message >, dsi1
>> > writes
>>> What is the longest tape practical in an 8-track? What is the tape
>>> speed? My guess is that they had the potential for a better sound than
>>> the cassette mainly because the tape was probably faster than a
>>> cassette. Thanks.
>> 8-tracks ran at 3 3/4 inches a minute, double that of compact cassette,
>> however they had 8 (hence the name) tracks on 1/4 inch tape, whereas
>> compact cassette tape was half as wide but with only two tracks if mono
>> or four tracks if stereo. Whilst it might seem that the 8-track could be
>> superior, cassette had the big advantage of Dolby from early on. What's
>> more, cassette didn't need lubricated tape, the 8-track did.
>
> No they did NOT have DOLBY from early on.
> the first cassettes had no Dolby B, no CRo2 tape,
> and inferior tape heads. they were basically made
> for dictation and such, not HiFi. early units were mono only.
> Eventually, they evolved where the 8T did not. When things
> like Dolby B and CRo2 tape first came out, they were on high
> end very expensive machines. eventually, things like DBX, and
> Dolby pro were added to the mix.
>
> A *******ized version of the 8t existed for years after the
> death of the 8t in the NAB cart they used in the broadcast industry.
> These carts had a big hole where a external pinch roller was inserted
> into the cartridge, vs the 8T's internal smaller pinch roller
>
> bob

That's right! I used those carts when I took broadcasting classes. They
were kinda fun and worked very well especially considering the alternative.

On 2/14/2011 1:53 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-02-13, > wrote:
>> A 120 minute cart sounds like some kind of educational tape.
>
> Mine are "Capitol" brand blanks meant to be used in home 8T recorders.
> I've never seen a factory-recorded cart of that length.
>
>> sounding pretty good. The cassettes always had problems with tape speed
>> and tracking and tape jamming. Thank God for digital formats.
>
> Whatever floats your boat. I don't care for digital media and won't be
> adopting it; I'll be sticking with records and tapes indefinately.
>

My main problems with tape were the dropoffs and stretched or damaged
tapes and variable frequency response depending of the condition of the
heads and variable speeds through the head, and problems with the pinch
roller and with the transport mechanism and problems with the cassette
housing and pressure pad - other than that, they sorta worked OK.

Roger Blake > wrote:
>On 2011-02-14, bob urz > wrote:
>> RCA actually had a large cartridge machine that used 1/4" tape in the
>> early 60's Looked kind of like a cassette on steroids. My dad who was
>> in the TV business had one.

Very few of those machines existed. RCA never actually sold it.
If you had your father's, it would be worth big money.

>I have several cartridges of this type but no machine to use them on.

More likely you have Type A broadcast cartridges, which are continuous
loops, not reels. Also an RCA invention.

The smaller Type C broadcast carts were the fathers of the Lear 4-track
cartridge and the 8-track (which, unlike the Lear and the carts, had an
integral pinch roller in the cartridge instead of as part of the machine).
They were a horrible abomination and could not keep azimuth worth a damn.

I can do transcription of any of these tapes if you're desperate.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ashton Crusher > wrote in
news
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:34:28 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
> wrote:

>>
>>I remember when they were called "Compact Cassettes". They were
>>actually contemporary competitors with 8-tracks in the '70s.
>>But 8-tracks were so awful that the Compact Cassette became
>>the standard.
>
>
> I recall listening to compact cassette when they first came out (I had
> reel to reel) and saying they would never make it in the market
> because their sound fidelity was so awful. The sound was awful but it
> turned out people didn't care.



Reel-to-reel was a pain in the ass: bulky, sloppy, messy. 8-tracks were
better, but...

Compact Cassettes were the most convenient, and were easily transported in
your pocket. Plus they made popular the portable cassette player, something
that was impossible with reel-to-reel, and inconveniently bulky with the 8-
track cassette. Hello Sony Walkman!

Technical excellence is only /one/ of /many/ criteria consumers consider
when making purchases.


--
Tegger