Jump to content

Talk:Cassette tape/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


New info on track & tape width

I went looking for data on tracks and found more than anticipated. The region between tracks left unrecorded is referred to as a guard band, not a track or silent track, plus there is a guard band between each of the 4 tracks of the stereo cassette. This archived specification page lists the track width as 24 mils (0.61 mm), a number that is closely corroborated in a discussion group as 23.5 mils. But the most interesting thing is that I kept running across the tape width as being 3.81 mm, rather than the 3.18 mm that we agreed on as a result of the archived discussion of this page in December 2005. One of the editors at that time claimed that he had actually measured the width with a vernier caliper, getting a result "a fraction under 3.18 mm", which just happens to be 1/8 inch. I deferred to him without making my own measurement. It now seems that our assumption of good faith in accepting his original research was unwarranted, especially since the journal of the Audio Engineering Society says the width is 3.81 mm. So I dug out my best steel straight edge scale, with engraved 1/64th inch increments, and several cassettes all measured between 9 and 10 64ths, about 3.7 mm, clearly closer to 3.81 than 3.18 mm. With these results in hand, I will boldly change the numbers to conform to reality rather than our previous reasonable assumptions. --Blainster 19:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the figure may be correct, but as 1/8 of an inch is 3.175 mm (i.e. nowhere near 3.81 mm), I've tagged the claim as dubious. I'm also unclear if the reference given (name=IEC) refers to the previous two sentences, or not (as it isn't an online resource); if the latter, then we need the reference for the figures included in the text. Fourohfour 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not crystal clear, but the evidence is cumulative. Don't take my word on measuring the tape, please check it yourself. The Google search on "cassette + width + 3.18" gives 18,000 hits while "cassette + width + 3.81" gives 12,000 hits. But the 3.81 number has more reputable sites such as IEEE, AES, and ANSI. Isn't it strange that the standards sites all reference 3.81 and not 3.18? A little thought shows that the highly specialized tape manufacturing business doesn't allow non-standard tape widths to be economically feasible. Note that this DC100 article mentions "modified Philips digital tape cassette used in the HP 9830A" and "Unlike the DC300 [1/4 inch QIC tape], the DC100 used narrower tape (measuring 0.150 inches, although known as eighth-inch tape)". So the DCC (Digital Compact Cassette and digital data cassettes use the same tape width as compact cassette, which is 0.150 inch or 3.81 mm. --Blainster 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This site: Magnetic Tape Story is in German, but if you scroll down to 1963 in the history you will see the tape width of the cassette given as 3.81 mm. Note that in Germany they didn't have to deal with metric to English conversions. The development date is given here as August, 1963 in Hasselt, Belgium with one of the engineers named Haarler. The first model was called the EL-300 (in the U.S. it was the Norelco Carry-Corder 150). This AES abstract gives the name of another engineer as L.F. Ottens (elsewhere called Lou Ottens). --Blainster 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, this may be what you are looking for: The TDK spec sheet for their standard "Dynamic" audio cassettes, showing that the tape width is indeed 3.81 mm. --Blainster 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. What I meant was that if the real width really is 3.81mm, then where did the 1/8" figure come from? Even allowing for approximation, 3.81mm is between 1/6" and 1/7". Even allowing for being "nominally" 1/8", who claimed this in the first place? I've removed it; if there's any mention of 1/8" in some plausible literature, please feel free to put it back though. Fourohfour 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly not put it back, because I think that because the reel to reel format was 1/4 inch, the cassette was halve of its width, equals 1/8 inch by definition. And of course computer tapes, once extensively used in the IBM Mainframes and its clones were a full inch tape width. So the logical explanation is that widths are all fractions of an inch in the power of two. Just as standard paper formats (not the US letter) in the A-series are also halves of each other. As a former standards guy I would not expect otherwise Donvr (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Where to put info on the old RCA tape cartridge?

In 1958 RCA introduced a 1/4-inch tape cartridge that was obviously a forerunner of the cassette. It looked remarkably like a cassette... just much larger; even larger than the elcasette. It had about a six inch by nine inch footprint. Here's a picture: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/rca_cart.jpg

And here's an archived RCA promo film: http://www.archive.org/details/Revoluti1958 (the stuff on the tape cartridge starts about halfway through at 7:58)

They ran at 3.75 ips and used four interleaved stereo tracks, just like open-reel 1/4 inch stereo. They had very little market success. I saw them used in high school language labs in the late 60s.

Should info on this go in the Compact Cassette article, perhaps under an "earlier attempts" section head? It certainly shouldn't be in the four-track cartridge article, as it's radically different even though it is a "four-track cartridge." Jeh 10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

...speaking of which, the Elcasette should probably be mentioned here too, in the "successors" section with a link to the main article. Jeh 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the article is already as long as it should be, and covers the title subject quite well. What you request sounds interesting and notable, but it probably deserves a separate article. Fourohfour 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It certainly does. AFAIK, it was referred to by RCA as the "RCA (Victor) tape cartridge" with no specific format trademark. I might therefore start RCA tape cartridge if someone else doesn't beat me to it! ProhibitOnions (T) 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Memory size

How many bytes a cassete tape can store? Is this usefull information to compare with disketes IMHO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.50.163 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I suspect that figuring out the answer to this would be borderline original research. Fourohfour 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two possible answers to that: maximum theoretical and maximum practical. Maximum theoretical can be based on assumptions about frequency response and SNR ratio. Assuming a rather poor 50 SNR ratio and a 10 KHz bandwidth, the Shannon–Hartley theorem says the maximum bit rate should be 166 kbit/sec for a single track (20 KB/sec). Using standard stereo tracks would nearly double that etc. Of course that's the maximum density achievable on a given quality of tape with the "best" modulation method available, and the simple FSK used in 80s homecomputers was nowhere near that efficient, however dedicated data streamers came quite close, assuming the tape quality could be considered constant and reliable. For example of practical systems using non-trivial modulation methods and multiple tracks, some figures have already been provided in the following posts. EpiVictor 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
From the article: "A rate of 2000-bit/s equates to a capacity of around 660 kilobytes per side of a 90-minute tape." ie. roughly comparable to a 1.2MB 5.25 floppy dish, but much slower of course. Drutt 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Special purpose data cassettes were able to store 60 MB by 1990 (ex.: Maynard Maynstream 60M, Maxell CS-600HD) and later up to 150 MB (Maxell CS-600XD). --Blainster 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Were they based on the Compact Cassette format though? Fourohfour 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, shell and tape were physically compatible. The only visible difference was a square notch (rather than an indentation) out of the center along the write protect edge. They were commonly known as "streaming cassette tape" or "cassette streamers". I just checked an old manual. The tapes could store 27 MB on 4 linear tracks, 60 MB on 9 tracks, and 150 MB on 18 tracks. Data transfer rate was 86 kB/sec. Recording density was 10 kB/in for 20/60 MB and 12.5 kB/in for 150 MB. They used the DMA channel and a PC bus card for data transfer on MSDOS PCs. Maybe this stuff needs its own article. This format is not mentioned on Template:Magnetic tape data formats. --Blainster 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah; I know what you're talking about now. My father had some old (used) ones that I think they were throwing out at his work; used them (as normal cassettes) for recording computer programs onto. Fourohfour 12:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


I used a few of those special data ones as ordinary music cassettes, and wasnt very impressed with them. Fancy cases but cheap tape. Just a way to justify more profit I suspect, the prices they sold for in the 80s were excessive. But at least they were much better than domestic grade C10s, which were not good quality IMLE of them.

When assessing data capacity for domestic cassette use, bear in mind that IRL dropouts occur with tape, and with no error correction implemented the data has to maintain integrity through every dropout, so one can rely on no more than 5kHz or so before the implementation starts becoming too unreliable. Even 5kHz does not make for a consistently reliable system.

FWIW there were a small number of computer-only decks (not to be confused with the many standard analog decks sold as computer decks) which used digital recording of a basic sort. The analogue signal was simply comparatored and clipped into a digital stream that was recorded onto the tape at a high saturation level. No erase head was then needed. A comparator was used on the playback signal. Reliability was improved. The system was 100% compatible with ordinary analogue recorders.

Maybe a separate article for computer data on cassettes is the best option. Tabby 15:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

MZ 80K

The Sharp MZ 80K was the first Sharp computer using the Z80 chip and was the first with an integral cassette deck. Circa 1978/9. It was sold in the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.75.152 (talk • contribs).

I put a heading on this comment, as it seems to have nothing to do with what preceded it. Was it meant to go in the article itself? Fourohfour 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Article length

In the section on the RCA Tape Cartridge, Fourohfour wrote:

To be honest, the article is already as long as it should be, and covers the title subject quite well. What you request sounds interesting and notable, but it probably deserves a separate article. Fourohfour 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article length could be made a lot more manageable by pushing most of the section on recorders and players into the separate article that already exists for that material. As it is, people seem to keep adding details here that really should be there... IMHO of course. Jeh

You're probably right, but it's not something I can be bothered doing today :)
I still think that the RCA Tape cart would warrant its own article regardless, though. Fourohfour 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

NR?

My '92 Chrysler LeBaron has a button on its tape deck to turn something called 'NR' on and off (It doesn't seem to make a difference in tonality). I just bought some new Maxell tapes, and they have little checkboxes on the track-list sleeve that says 'NR O-YES O-NO'. But I can't find anything in here about what NR is or what it possibly could be or stand for. Anyone have any information? PolarisSLBM 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NR stands for noise reduction. It is probably Dolby B noise reduction (or a clone of it); if the player has the "Dolby System" logo somewhere on it then this is what it will be. Some players use a different system called Dynamic Noise Reduction that does not require cassettes to be pre-encoded; it essentially turns down the high-end volume during quiet passages to reduce the perception of tape (or FM) hiss. If your player has a "DNR" logo on it somewhere, this is what it is, and if it does, please take a picture of it and add it to the Dynamic Noise Reduction article - the logo, or at least an image of a player equipped with it, is sorely needed. Regards, ProhibitOnions (T) 12:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at it. It doesn't say DNR or have a Dolby logo. PolarisSLBM 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"NR" usually meant a clone of DNR. You can tell DNR from dolby by switching it in during recording: DNR has no effect on recording, its a basic play-only NR system.
However if its a '92 deck its bound to be dolby, not DNR. Marking this as NR was not usual.

Tabby 15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I need some help....

I am doing a project for school and I am having a very hard time finding the information I need, I need to know....


1.) How many different 8 track tapes have been released?

2.) How many different Compact Cassette tapes have been released?

I can guarantee you now that *no-one* will *ever* know the true answer to that one, even approximately. Aside from deciding what to count as a "proper" release, there have been countless releases in many countries all over the world, including third world markets, etc etc. At best someone might be able to estimate to within an order of magnitude of the correct figure, but anyone who says that they "know" this for a fact is lying. Fourohfour 11:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

3.) How many different reel to real tapes have been released?

If anybody cna help me that would be great, thank you, respond or email me at shawnmort@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriotfan012 (talk • contribs).

New material... but article getting too long. Move elsewhere?

I reverted this change, not because I thought it was bad, but because it went into too much depth in an article that is already really as long as it should be.

Here is the material:-

Among home computers that primarily used data cassettes for storage in the late 1970s were Commodore PET (early models of which had a cassette drive built-in), TRS-80 and Apple II Plus, until the introduction of floppy disc drives and hard drives in the early 1980s made cassettes virtually obsolete for those who could afford such drives, such as professional users and computer enthusiasts. However, for many consumers it was a different story. Floppy drives in the very early 1980s were extremely expensive, sometimes costing more than the home computer itself, and floppy disk software also tended to carry a much higher price tag than cassette software. For both these reasons, many consumers in the 1980s (a time when many bought their first ever computer) opted for cassette-based computers and cassette software, even when disk-based software was available. Cassette based home computers were very popular in the UK and the rest of Europe, whose 8-bit software market was dominated during the 1980s by cassette games for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64 and Amstrad CPC. Due to the large userbase which cassette-based computers built up in the 1980s, commercial cassette games continued to be released in Europe until the early 1990s.

Can anyone think what we should do with this?

Fourohfour 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would insert a shortened version of this in a specific part dedicated to non-audio use of the cassette. For the Home computers you omitted the Texas Instruments type TI-99A. I used to possess one many years ago and still own the Philips tape deck with the special start/stop 3,5 mm socket (I lost the special TI-cable though). As I remember correctly the cassettes to be used were (C-)15 minutes.

Philips intended for the successor of the compact cassette, the DCC or digital variant, that data storage would form a key element because of its pure digital nature. Especially for the portable DCC-machine, this made sense. However they never assured stable software for its use and since DCC went quickly of the market, this application never became widespread. Donvr (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

bandwith ?

I find almost nowhere information about bandwith. I find between 15 and 20khz for high end cassette (and recorder) model. But, what about typical cassette and typical recorder ?

15 and 20kHz are very optimistic figures. The player might have been able to handle such fs, but putting 20kHz through the whole rec + play cycle would be a feat indeed. The few spec sheets I saw for recorders were in the region of 8kHz bandwidth for ferric, and over 10 for chrome. (Not certain but I think bandwidth also varied with recording level.)

Tabby 15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the former statement. When measured at -20dB recording level, most high end machines reached at least 15 kHz, later claims from 3 head machines Tandberg TCD 3x0 and Revox B710 included the 18-20kHz range. Of course within a margin of -3 or -6 dB relative to the the midrange level. As always with these figures one should keep in mind that those cassettes should not be exposed later to high ambient temperatures. Ferro tapes were quite sensitive to losing higher frequencies under those conditions, chrome tapes fared better and metal tapes were the best for registering and retaining these higher frequiencies over the years. I'm personally using a Revox B710MII for playing cassettes of over 20 years old and only the mechanical properties sometimes leave something to be desired, but electrically i find no problems with high frequencies and transparency of sound!

I personally measured the TCD 320 once (I just sold it) and it indeed went up to 18 kHz at -20dB recording level. For higher recording levels the attenuation becomes much higher on ferro and chromium tapes, but metal tapes provide better response. In the cassette heydays, some people regretted the Dolby system because it raised the recording level at the detriment of headroom above 10 kHz. Note that the later Dolby C raised higher frequencies less than the B-system exactly for this purpose. Dolby HX Pro improved head room even further.

There is also another issue at very low frequencies, which have to do with the shape of the recording head. Summing up: a machine providing a real 20-20kHz range is not very easy to manufacture, but perfectly feasible. Donvr (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's strictly OR, but just using my own bogstandard home equipment (e.g. a cheap Grundig or Amstrad stereo mini/midi system or a Phillips boombox, and a low-midrange Sony or Phillips walkman for playback) I can get genuine 15~18kHz reproduction even without dolby (not even an option!), though there is of course a fair bit of noise at the top end. Still, signal can be recovered with noise filtering, and playing the result back with and without a hard 15kHz LPF gives audibly different results. The fine results seem to depend largely on tape brand (Maxell "Colours" and various Sonys = horrid, TDK D = excellent, TDK FE = perfectly acceptable (16-ish, as good as 128k MP3); TDK CDing unlistenable, as I don't have a chrome switch, would probably be excellent in a more advanced deck...), a bit on head alignment, and - with my equipment - not a great deal else. When playing back commercially recorded tapes results are a little more reliable and on average sliiightly better. I think the best I saw was a consistent 19kHz top end, which is practically out of my detection range anyway, though mostly if it reached that high it was a bit variable and would waver rhythmically between, say, 17.5 and 19.5. If I had been in possession of enough money to get good quality analogue seperates from my local hi-fi store whilst at university, rather than lumping only half that potential investment on an MDLP player-recorder instead, I think I could have got some very fine results from "humble" compact cassette tape. As it was, the minidisk (optically hooked up to a CD player) did a steady, noiseless 17.6kHz in LP mode without any fuss ;) 193.63.174.11 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Tape Types

I'm fairly sure I bought new ferrichrome tapes in the early 90s, Realistic brand from Tandy, reduced as end of line, so I think sales of FeCr went on at least as far as then. They certainly weren't popular though.

Now my memory's a bit vague on this one, can anyone cofirm/deny this? IIRC there were real metal tapes (silver tape) and metal bias tapes (black tape). I rarely bought type IV, but I think (and am not certain) the latter version quickly took over from the former, since it was a cheaper mfr process, probably doped cheaper material types. In practice the high price tags on all type 4s ensured they saw few sales.

Finally in the later days of cassettes there were chrome EQ ferric tapes. These were prerec ferric tapes designed to be played on the chrome setting, giving reduced noise. Such tapes could also be produced by copying a chrome tape played at 120us onto a ferric tape. It was a workable trick, but tended to cause some confusion in practice. Many decks had 120/70 selector switches controlled by the cassette shell, making manual switching difficult. Tabby 16:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


FWIW there were also some cassettes with head cleaning leaders, ISTR scotch or 3M Tabby 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At least all the High Q Maxell cassettes I use (XL I-S, II-S and IV-S) have tape endings which clean the heads. I even used these tapes before putting DCC-tapes in, for cleaning the multiple gap heads of these machines (because of the complicated recording/playback arrangements I stopped DCC later on). Since Maxell promoted their type IV tapes as the only ones sure not to rust (and indeed they do not) by embedding all metal particles inside other materials, the color of the tape is not a direct indication whether its "real" metal or just metal bias. Double layer FeCr tapes were criticised for their envisaged vulnerability for losing its top CrO2 layer. Whether this critiscism was justified nobody will know, they got off the market quite fast Donvr (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual property aspects

I notice that Compact Cassette has what looks like a trademarked logo. Was there a licensing scheme in the 1960s and 1970s? Did cassette manufacturers have to pay money to Philips for every cassette tape produced? More info on this in the article would be useful. -Rolypolyman 03:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Philips, Royalties, and CD-ROM

Many years ago I read an article claiming that Philips' invention of the Audio Cassette in 1963, along with tiny per-cassette royalties, made them very rich over time. Since international patents expire after 17 years, it was 1980 when Philips announced the CD-ROM as a replacement technology and then did it all over again. Maybe someone can verify this and add it to the main article. --Neilrieck (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Take note: Philips is working with Sony attempting to promote Blu-ray technology --Neilrieck (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct on both issues: the compact cassette as well as the Blue Book CD standards got Philips and later Philips and Sony a lot of money and they expect a similar effect with Blu-ray. In the latter case they have to share with more parties of course or trade in these rights for other ones. As a former high Philips guy told me recently: you hardly make money on hardware nowadays, but IPR is what it is all about Donvr (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Third World, (not) again

I changed the Third World at the end of Introduction of music cassettes section for the most acurate Developing country. As can be seen in the caput of Third World article pasted below:

It is a term used, along with First World and Second World, (now more commonly called "developed countries"), to broadly categorize the nations of the Earth to three social, political, and economic divisions. It is also known in some academic contexts as the Global South.

And because it does not appear at the BBC article reference number 8.

Spra from portuguese wikipedia 200.142.179.71 (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

:Sorry, Fixing external links 200.142.179.71 (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete?

Hmmmm. Not when you can walk into any Wal-Mart or Target and find newly manufactured blank tapes and machines to play them. Hell, my 2005 car has a cassettte player as standard equipment and I think you can get it as an option on most cars today. John celona (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The only place the article calls the cassette obsolete is in the section on its use for computer data storage. But since you brought it up, the cassette is clearly obsolete from a technological standpoint, and out of fashion as well, though there are many places where it is still widely used. --Blainster (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The cassette is hardly out of fashion, or obsolete. Lost of music is still released on cassette. -Violask81976 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost of music is still released on cassette. This is a remarkable assertion... But, fortunately, one that can be easily tested. If you can provide one link to a website that sells pre-recorded music cassettes, I will believe you. BTw, I assume we're talking about real music; not some special interest, cultist, sub-genre? --Oscar Bravo (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a site that has over 17,000 "pre-recorded music cassette" items for sale right now-http://www.ebay.com/. I should also point out that in large parts of Africa and Asia local artists frequently record and sell on cassette. The world doesn't end in New York or London you know. One source states that "cassettes are the reality of everyday music in Africa" http://www.vanderbilt.edu/register/articles?id=13029. Plus, of course, one can walk into a local Wal-Mart and buy brand new blank cassettes-as many Western artists do. 68.224.206.168 (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just today a British company released a cassette compilation for 99 pence. http://musosguide.com/rough-trade-bring-back-cassettes-for-record-store-day/3909 68.224.206.168 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Devotional music in India has a lot of releases on audio cassettes. Cassettes album are still the cheapest and best option. Cassette album cost is Rs 35 to 50 whereas CD album cost is Rs 125 to 150. Lahari Recording Company, Bangalore and Symphony Recording Company, Chennai (Madras) still make cassette releases. Symphony catalog is here: http://mybhaktisong.com/devotional.htm. - RN
OK! You've convinced me... Taking a global perspective, it is clear that the compact cassette is still widely used to distribute pre-recorded music. In fact, I would even remove the still from my previous sentence since there is probably a stable and even growing market in the product. It looks like the CC has found a niche and will be around for a long time to come (might even outlast CDs :-) --Oscar Bravo (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Error

"The use of better modulation techniques like QPSK or those used in modern modems, combined with the improved bandwidth and signal to noise ratio of newer cassette tapes, allowed much greater capacities (up to 60 MB) and speeds (10–17 kB/s for data rate) on each cassette."

Is that really supposed to be 10-17 kilobytes per second? That's what "kB" means. The previous chapter talks in terms of bits per second, so even if this actually is correct, there is an inconsistency. --84.250.188.136 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Tags:

Someone appears to be putting Citation tags on the articles. I urge that person to put a simple web-search on each of those section and verify himself. People usually contribute to article based on their geography and know better. For example in India audio cassette even in the presence of CDs is sometimes very aggressly priced depending on certain film releases. The success of Southern Indian Telugu language films in combating pirated CDs is due to such aggressive pricing of tapes.

In similar the relationship between Indie labels and audio cassettes is well documented in recent news. Citation tags is now questioning news articles, for instance : http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/mar/29/audio-cassette-comeback.

K David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.82.185.3 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

CD's Capacity

In the "Decline" section, it is said that "the average CD holds fewer than 80" minutes. This is mostly likely uncompressed. Shouldn't this be pointed out? Also, the proceeding reference points to a dead link (#12). 72.84.160.187 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, well... yes. The average CD, which in comparison to an audio cassette will be an audio CD, DOES hold LESS than 80 minutes of audio. Very very few commercial pressings will hold more than 80 minutes (if they do, it's likely blank space designed to make home stereo-type CD recorders balk at copying the whole thing), and the CDR spec simply does not allow for defining a blank disk with an ATIP showing more than 79'59"74f. Anything you get more than that is unofficial, and achieved by overburning, and decidedly out of spec. QED.
Audio compression in terms of "fitting more running time into the same disk" is absolutely disallowed as CD Audio players are very simple devices that would, depending on their level of sophistication, either play back the compressed data as unpleasant pink noise, or just mute it. We're not talking about MP3-CD players, it's an unfair comparison, unless you're going to bring some kind of MP3-tape player onto the scene.
80 minute, pressed disks themselves push the very boundaries of the official spec in terms of track density and scanning speed. The vast majority of audio CDs will, I would take a wager with you, clock in at under 75 minutes - particularly if we disallow home-made compilations and instead only consider commercial ones where going over 74 minutes is rare, though certainly not unknown. The average will probably be less than 70 minutes if not less than an hour, as few artists make albums that stretch past 50~60 minutes. It's still not too difficult to fit a CD on each side of a C90 (as I did recently; La Roux on one side, F+TM's Lungs on the other), and failing that, either one each side of a C120 or just wrap a single one around a C60. 193.63.174.11 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of parts in a Compact Cassette

A low-end tape could be constructed from as few as 14 components.

  • 2 snap together tape shells with open holes for viewing tape remaining/used
  • 2 guide rollers
  • 1 tape
  • 2 leaders, directly glued/melted to tape
  • 2 spools
  • 2 leader clips
  • 1 magnetic shield (the metal bit behind the pressure pad, as thin and inexpensive as possible, some just used a shiny sticker or nothing at all)
  • 1 pressure pad
  • 1 pressure pad mount

A high end tape could be constructed from as many as 29 components.

  • 2 screw together tape shells
  • 2 clear windows
  • 5 screws
  • 2 write-protect sliders
  • 2 guide rollers
  • 2 steel guide roller axel pins
  • 1 tape
  • 2 leaders
  • 2 pieces of leader attaching tape
  • 2 spools
  • 2 leader clips
  • 2 anti-friction inserts between shell and tape spools
  • 1 magnetic shield (the metal bit behind the pressure pad, much thicker than in cheap tapes)
  • 1 pressure pad
  • 1 pressure pad mount

Some variations used completely clear shells and anti-friction inserts to eliminate the need for window inserts, or used clear anti-friction inserts to provide some protection against entry of dust through the open window holes. Some only used screws in the four corners. There were also a few tapes with more than 29 components which had spools with sides like miniature reel-to-reel reels, though they were limited in capacity due to the inability of the tape to wind beyond the middle of the shell.

In contrast, a CD is made of only 4 components.

  • Polycarbonate disc with audio or computer data pressed in
  • Metal reflecting layer
  • Lacquer coating
  • Printed label or other protective coating

Cheaper recordable CD discs omit the label and only have the lacquer coating, but add the dye layer so still have four components. A protective coating puts it up to five, still nowhere near the number in the cheapest tapes.

Makes one wonder how the music industry justified the much higher prices for CDs VS tapes when tapes had to cost a lot more in materials even for the cheapest versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when did the music industry ever justify a price hike? They sold CDs to us on the basis that the sound quality was superior to vinyl (if you recall, CDs originally were marketed as a replacement for 12" vinyl discs. It was a few years later, when in-car CD players appeared that they began to attack the cassette market). However, I think the main point is that the cost of a recording is not strongly correlated to the physical cost of the medium; rather it is dominated by the intellectual property cost of the composition. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Double Speed" recorders were "prevented by the wording of the licence" ?

Some time in the 1980's, I read a brief article in a UK Hi-Fi magazine, stating the sale of "double speed" cassette decks had been blocked.
These were hi-fi separates - *NOT* the Tascam Portastudio nor any similar "studio" device.

The article stated:

  • a major brand-name - I forget which one - had intended to sell cassette decks with an additional "double speed" mode: recordings were made at twice the standard linear speed.
  • Philips had threatened legal action, as this contravened the licence agreement which stated something like: "a cassette recorded on a given machine should play back properly on a random player"

To emphasise: this article referred to "hi-fi separates" - NOT machines like the Tascam "Portastudio" style.
Nor was it referring to a "high speed dubbing" mode - cassettes recorded at "double speed" would be played back *at that speed*.
Nor was it a player sold by Tandy / Radio Shack that could *play* an existing tape at double the regular speed, yet shifted the frequencies:( for example a voice recording would play at double speed, but retain the original frequency balance, rather than the the usual "Mickey Mouse" voice change.
86.25.121.212 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that BIC sold several such double-speed models in the U.S. Sales were quite low and the models were discontinued - whether because of legal action by Philips or poor sales, I don't know. Jeh (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tape Rot ?

I was wondering if someone knew more on tape rot? Perhaps just a rumor? Or baking tapes, where old tapes become brittle, if they aren't out right cracked you can bake the tapes and get a little more life out of them, enough to transfer to another format.
Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.170.143 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.123.3 (talk)

Maxell UR-30

Frequently, I recorded a Maxell UR-30 Normal Bias in March 2010. Some date like that. It is too short but it was confusing. The As and Bs in the white tape is green. Green is a secondary color. That's the rarest Maxell ever. -User:FlaggyAznavour —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

Theoretical limit of data storage

Twice now I have removed a new paragraph describing the theoretical limit of data storage on compact cassette if a helical scan were used. Here is what I removed:

Using the same helical scan technique that VHS video tapes use a areal bit density of 17.8 Gbit/m²[1] and the area of an C-60 tape would result in 11.6 Gbit of storage (1387 MByte and 395 kByte/s transfers. Using a dynamic of 78 dB, maximum frequency of 20 kHz and tape length of 60 minutes. The capacity becomes 55.6 MByte and transfer speed of 15.8 kByte/s.

The reference is http://web.phys.tue.nl/fileadmin/tn/de_faculteit/capaciteitsgroepen/FM/FNA/Students_Education/Lectures_Courses/Coehoorn_Lecture-Notes-SVs-Part1-final.pdf, a university lecture.

I found this paragraph full of conjecture, with no relation to the Compact Cassette as implemented. Unrealistic assumptions were made, such as the full width of the tape being used, a high frequency not obtained by the majority of playback devices, a transfer speed pulled out of thin air and an arbitrary tape length chosen. I do not consider this speculative information useful to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. I will also add that this conjecture assumes that the tape can be physically handled with the same precision as the tape from a VHS cassette, something that has not been demonstrated. Jeh (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Flaws section

The 'Flaws' section currently reads:

While ubiquitous and accessible, cassette playback suffered from flaws frustrating to professionals and home recording enthusiasts. Tape speed could vary between devices, resulting in playback pitch that was too low or high. Speed was often calibrated at the factory, and could not be changed by users. The slow tape speed limited fidelity and tape speed consistency, resulting in poor wow-and-flutter. Different tape formulation and noise reduction schemes artificially boosted or cut high frequencies and inadvertently elevated noise levels.
  • "While ubiquitous and accessible" is superfluous. I understand it's there for contrast, but IMHO it's better to just state the facts. This section is about flaws, so just talk about the flaws.
  • "suffered" is melodramatic. I'm not strongly opposed to the phrasing "suffered from flaws", but when stating facts, you could just as well say it "had" or "was affected by" flaws.
  • "frustrating to professionals and home recording enthusiasts" is both superfluous and unverifiable. Surely some of the flaws, like speed/pitch variations, were frustrating to everyone who noticed them, even casual listeners. So I think the first sentence should simply say "Cassette playback was affected by several flaws" or "Cassette playback had several flaws", nothing more.
  • "The slow tape speed limited fidelity and tape speed consistency" is awkward phrasing. Slow compared to what? And after just talking about speed variations, it sounds like you're talking about abnormally slow speed. I think the point is to say something more like "The standard speed of 1.875 inches per second limited fidelity, and the inexpensive motors normally used for playback weren't always capable of reliably maintaining that speed, resulting in poor wow-and-flutter." Right?
  • The last sentence says that high frequencies were "artificially" (another superfluous word!) boosted or cut by different tape formulation and noise reduction schemes. I don't doubt that's true, but are the effects of tape formulation and noise reduction schemes on frequency response really flaws? Clarification is needed as to what is meant. Was this statement meant to stand on its own, or is it really trying to say that this eq-ing of the high frequencies is to blame for an increase in noise? Regardless, saying that noise levels were elevated by noise reduction is nonsense to the lay reader. Clarification is needed.

I also tried to add a statement that not only could playback pitch be affected by improperly calibrated tape speed, but the high-end eq-ing for noise reduction or for tape formulation was adversely affected as well. This was reverted on the grounds that the effect on eq was surely too small to notice, but I stand by it. I've had many-a deck which played too fast over the years. I would often use them to play tapes which had been recorded at normal speed and which were either Type II or IV or which had Dolby NR. It was my experience that during playback, enabling the proper NR or selecting Type II or IV as required inevitably resulted in an obviously excessive amount of the high end and upper midrange being cut; it was noticeably more muted than when the same settings were used on a deck playing at normal speed (or at whatever speed the tape was recorded). I realize "in my experience" is unverifiable original research, so I'm not going to insist on including it, but by that reasoning, the entire paragraph needs to be scrapped. —mjb (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks for your fine-tooth English comb! Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tape Tea

In my country (Brazil), there are people, usually homeless people or drug-abusing men, that boils the tape to extract the chemicals and then drinking the beverage to get high. The liquid is called "Tape Tea" (“Chá de Fita”) and some people (with very good reasons) think it is brain-damaging. With more and more old tapes being disposed, the ill practice achieved a peak on its use. Should it be noted on this Wikipedia Article? 189.77.162.33 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but only if you can reliably source it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct title: Compact cassette

No capitalization is required in the title. The correct title for this article is Compact cassette. Any objections to a move?--Wetman (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Objection here. It was a brand name,a proper name for a particular standard for audio tape. It's rather like "personal computer" vs. "Personal Computer" - you can only get the second one from IBM. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed Dutch to Belgian invention.

[2] Quote: Rijk van geworden zeker?, vroegen we. Nee dus. En daar had Roos nog nooit bij stilgestaan. Op de patenten prijkt de naam van haar vader, maar de winsten gingen naar Philips. Translation: Profits went to Philips -a dutch company- where Mestdagh worked, but on the patents it clearly states Gilbert Mestdagh is the inventor.[3] [4] 83.101.80.250 (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Novel Magnetoelectronic Materials and Devices, 2003" (PDF). 100615 web.phys.tue.nl
  2. ^ http://www.radio1.be/programmas/de-beste-belgische-uitvinding/cassette
  3. ^ https://www.google.com.ar/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:%22Gilbert+E.+Mestdagh%22&gws_rd=ssl
  4. ^ http://patents.justia.com/inventor/gilbert-e-mestdagh

Sony's new tapes

Would Sony's new tapes fit into this article? I believe they were announced yesterday, 5 may 2014. Here are two links to describe them:

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-sony-185-tb-cassette-tape-storage-record-20140505-story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/04/think-the-cassette-tape-is-dead-then-why-did-sony-just-cram-148tb-of-data-onto-one/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.4.204 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Like Digital Compact Cassette, they'd probably get their own article if they get any play beyond the announcement - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Though most articles that quote this press release use a picture of a compact cassette as illustration, the actual product is most likely very unlike the compact cassette, and probably just a new format of Digital Linear Tape. Jac Goudsmit (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Compact Cassette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Tape construction complexity

Compact cassettes varied a lot in the number of parts. They could have as few as eleven - 2 spools, 2 leader clips, tape and leaders (or just tape with no leaders), 2 snap together shell halves with integral roller pins (no slip liners, open window slots), 2 rollers and 1 pressure pad with spring. Or they could have as many as twenty-four - 2 spools, 2 leader clips, tape and leaders (or just tape with no leaders), 2 screw together shell halves, 2 clear window inserts, 5 screws, 2 slip liners, 2 metal roller pins, 2 rollers, 2 sliding write protect tabs and 1 pressure pad with spring. The intrduction of all-clear shells removed the need for clear window inserts, reducing the high-end parts count to twenty-two. Counting the tape, leaders and splices increases the parts count, especially with tapes using multi-segmented leaders made with different materials. There was another style made that had spools made like miniature reel-to-reel spools. Those didn't use slip liners and always had all clear shells to show off the miniature spools. I've never owned one of that type so I don't know how the spools are made to know their number of parts. An exploded view image of both a cheap and a high end compact cassette showing the different number of components would be a good addition to this article. It could also be used to say something about the much higher cost of albums on audio CD VS Cassette when by parts count, complexity and time to produce each tape (given that even with "high speed" duplication each cassette took far longer to replicate than the practically instant replication of a CD) a Compact Cassette had to cost more to manufacture. Bizzybody (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassette tape manufacturing

A short video showing some of the methods used to manufacture tapes at National Audio Company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMTpvr9HXeI Bizzybody (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Antitheft packaging.

I never found it to inhibit browsing and this is the first time I've heard anyone complain about it. *shrug* That sounds like a silly supposition, that it hurt sales.

I grew up in the late 80's/early 90s and bought only cassettes.  :-S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.221.29 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Low freqiuency equalisation

As well as the high frequency (70/120 uS) equalisation. Low frequency (1590/3180 uS) equalisation is used. All cassettes decks manufactured before 1970 used 1590 uS while those manufactured after 1974 use 3180 uS. Equipment manufactured between those two years used 1590uS for Ferric (IEC Type 1) cassettes and 3180 uS for all other types. Eq standards for open reel tapes varied according to tape speed [1] As for High frequency equalisation Ferric (IEC Type 1) gennerally used 120 uS and 70uS was used for all other types but there were some exceptions such as some Chrome/Cobolt cassettes (manufactured by BASF) designed for 120 uS and pre-recorded musiccassettes which alwaysd used 120us regardless of tape type. 86.175.231.58 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Audio data and video

As well as audio and data there have been attempts ar recording monochrome video (see PXL-2000 ) onto cassette tape. Strictly speaking Phillips (holders of the "Compact cassette" trademarks and patents) regarded such things as "Teddy Ruxpin" storytelling dolls, Data recording, Video recording, Tascam portastudio, 4 track recording, double (or half) speed recording and even (initially) some noise reduction systems (e.g. Dolby) and high bias tape formulations as "non-standard" formats which threatened to undermine the universal compatability of the compact cassette formats. In later years they took the same view of "copy protected" and other non-standard optical discs projibiting the use of the "compact disc" trademark. 86.175.231.58 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted my edits

I disagree. Most people looking up information on cassettes, including my millennial daughter would "love" (and she did) to know this upfront. I will change what i did to make it less detailed, but it is important to know in the introduction. Drycroft4 (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It is too detailed for the lead, especially in the first paragraph. It was also inaccurate, as some recordable cassettes have a sliding tab for write protection. If you can fit that all in with one fairly short sentence, I'd be impressed. - BilCat (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Color me impressed. Good job keeping it succinct and to the point. - BilCat (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compact Cassette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Stranger Things OST

The Stranger Things OST is available on cassette, eg https://nerdist.com/stranger-things-soundtrack-cassette-tape-vhs/

Should I add this to the "21st century use" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.197.73.199 (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost certainly. I say "almost" because I'd wait for a better source than Nerdlist, but otherwise this is exactly what "21st century use" is for. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Tape types

There's a contribution at Talk:Tape bias#Article needs table that is probably best incorporated into this article. Any objections? Any volunteers? ~Kvng (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Metric figures

MeanMotherJr had inserted metric measurements implying the cassette was developed under the metric system. Jeh reverted because they were "improbably precise". Certainly the tape dimension (1/8") is of non-metric origin. It looks like the cartridge dimensions also are round numbers in inches. The fact that it was developed in Holland in 1962 doesn't necessarily indicate it was a metric design. Were the Dutch using the metric system in 1962. Were these particular engineers using the metric system for this project? We need citations. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the factor is exact 2.54 to get the centimetric measure. There's no need for a source. And the English Wikipedia covers countries using imperial and metric length measure systems. So undoing my edit can not be copied. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 18:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Jeh as well. I would support the use of a template to auto convert from imperial to metric - as it's not unreasonable to assume that there are readers out there who hail from exclusively metric locales and have no idea what 1/8 inch actually is - but imperial should definitely take precedence and be the first used number. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The tape width isn't actually 1/8 inch, it's 0.150 inch; "1/8 inch" is just a convenient close number. But the Dutch most certainly were using metric in 1962. I have no problem with the notion that the original Philips specs were in metric, and WP generally prefers metric anyway - but aside from the tape speed and perhaps the tape width, it was clear to me that the edit I reverted had simply taken all of the existing inch measurements and multiplied them by 25.4. Since some of the existing inch measurements had obviously been rounded off severely that is not the right way to get to good numbers, hence my original revert. We need to find a published standard. Jeh (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's my edit which emphasizes SI units first in the conversions. My edit also says that the tape wasn't 1/8th inch but was called that, and it removed "manually" flipping the tape because there were some machines (Nakamichi RX series, for example) which flipped the tape by way of a turntable mechanism. I also changed the 1/4" tape example from stereo to 4-track, as that was the more popular consumer format. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This technical description by Philips in 1970 has all we need to know.[2] Indeed the Dutch were using metric as their base units, but legacy standards in tape speed were expressed in inches per second (1 7⁄8 inch/s for the compact cassette, i.e. 4.76 cm/s). Tape width is 1.50 0.150 inch yielding 3.81 mm. Mono tracks have a defined width of 1.5 mm each from the edge of the tape, with an undefined gap (0.81 mm if the tape is 3.81 mm wide). Stereo tracks are further divided into left and right segments of 0.6 mm width, with a 0.3 mm gap. — JFG talk 21:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It's obvious that Philips was not working in a vacuum. They started with some SI figures for the main tape size and speed, then they performed the rest of the engineering in the metric system. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Surely you mean they started with imperial figures… I have edited the specs according to the 1970 document, with conversions from inches for tape width, and from mm from track widths.[3] Looks like this approach best reflects the history, per MOS:UNITS. — JFG talk 21:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Just as surely, you didn't really mean to write "Tape width is 1.50 inch". :D – Oops; corrected! — JFG talk 21:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The Philips document is very informative, and authoritative, but alas doesn't say a thing about the cassette dimensions.
Edit - added: Nor does Philips' patents! e.g. here. Not surprising - the dimensions are not crucial to what's being patented.
btw, the ones I just measured were more like 3.9 inches across the main body of the cassette shell; I can only get to 4.0 by including the protruding guides. The 2.5 inch height claim otoh seems very darn close. I have not found an authoritative document from Philips on this point. I found this from the NAB, but it only claims to describe a standard "NAB Audio Cassette" and given that Philips is not listed among the contributors, that's not what I'd consider a "horse's mouth" document. Being a publication of a US organization, it's all in inches. Jeh (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Well in the German project, an user reverted an modified the template:convert to preview use, only. I am waiting until the next account removed my contribs due "I cant find that number in the references". Can someone checkuser what ging on here? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 10:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying, or asking about, or for. "checkuser" is a tool used by specially-privileged admins to investigate reports of sockpuppetry, that is, one person using two or more accounts to create a false appearance of support for their opinion. If you suspect sockpuppetry you need to report it at the sockpuppet investigations page. Jeh (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem was more in cutting numbers of factors similar to reduce π to 3 instead a minimum of 3.14159265 while a factor of 2.54 still ends far more early as π which has no end. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Expansion on C-180 tapes

Something makes me think that the longer a tape is, the thinner it is (as in that's a coincidence). I think that if there was explanation on how longer tapes were made (not just the C-180 whose magnetic tape was near transparent), it would clear things up (not just me even though it seems illogical that longer tapes coincidentally had thinner tape). Thank you!211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your interpretation. The Tape length section makes it clear that the longer the recording time of a tape, the thinner it is. Where do you see confusion? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. There is only so much space within the cassette body for the tapes. The tape had to be thinner in order for the spool to hold more (ie longer) tape on the spool without increasing the size of the cassette body, which had to be of a standard size to fit it the players. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@211.27.126.189: In other words, the C-180 tape is not thinner simply because it is longer. It has to be thinner so that the longer tape will fit on the spool within the limited space of the cassette's body. I hope that helps. - BilCat (talk)
I'm still confused, but regardless of why longer tape lengths have thinner tape, I think it should be added in the article. PS does the same length (in cm, ft, m or whatever you use) of tape get loaded regardless of the recording time?211.27.126.189 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't be offended here, but based on your above comment - do you actually know what a cassette tape is? I think you may have some fundamental misunderstanding of what cassette tapes are, and how they operate. We're unable to help further until that's sorted out. As per BilCat, a cassette tape consists of a standard sized plastic shell that only has enough physical space inside for a certain amount of tape mass or volume. If you want more tape you can either keep the thickness of the tape and use more volume, or make the tape thinner and use the same volume of space. As the available space is fixed - it has to be thinner. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I think a better way would be to explain this would be to imagine that the tape was veery thick. I do know what a cassette tape is, but the thing is I needed explaining of something and I think the article needs to have the explanation, too.211.27.126.189 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
At this point, I don't have a clue what you're talking about, nor what you think the article needs to explain. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm having particular trouble understanding what the IP means by this question:
: "Does the same length (in cm, ft, m or whatever you use) of tape get loaded regardless of the recording time?"
The amount of tape that gets "loaded" into a cassette deck is the amount of tape in the cassette. It doesn't leave the cassette.
Maybe the IP is thinking of the way VCRs draw out some of the tape to wrap it around the head drum and past the other heads, guides, and capstan and pinch roller - that doesn't happen at all in audio cassettes. The amount of tape you see (almost three inches) when you look at the side of the cassette is the amount there is. It doesn't get "loaded" into the deck, not at least in terms of pulling any more of it off of the spools.
Finally, all standard cassette machine roll tape at 1.875 inches/second (one and seven-eighths), regardless of the length of the spool in the cassette.
I hope this helps, but I won't be surprised if it doesn't. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Loaded as in feeding it into the tape during manufacturing, not pulling it out like with VCR.211.27.126.189 (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming the spools are pre-loaded before assembly. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking about whether the spools are the same size.211.27.126.189 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I give up. - BilCat (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Why?211.27.126.189 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Size, in terms of tape length? Of course they're not the same length. If one tape plays for 30 minutes on a side, and another plays for 45, how could you possibly imagine that the two tapes might be the same actual length? Jeh (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

On average a cassette tape uses 1.5m of tape for every minute of audio - as a rule of thumb. Ergo a C60 will have around 43m of tape inside it, because the tape is dual sided, so only half the length is actually required. A C90 will have 65m, and a C180 130m, etc.

With regard to the actual size of the spools with their tape wrapped around it, a C15 will have a lot less tape, and even with the cooking ferric used will take up physically less space than a C180 - so technically, the answer is "No" the spools may not be the same size. However once you reach the maximum available space then the spools will stay the same maximum size and the tape will get progressively thinner in order for it all to fit.

You know, we actually have an article for this - Audio tape specifications - maybe you should head over there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Thanks. 2. I compared C-90 and C-46 and the spools in both seemed to have little to variation in the width. Based on this logic, I don't know how a tape can't be the same length if 1 tape seems to have pretty much the same spool width as another with a much longer or shorter recording time. Even I'm confused slightly. I just hope things aren't going to get too offhand (or should I say I hope things will stay Onhand! No offence).211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Have you forgotten the beginning of the discussion, in which you raised the issue about longer tapes being thinner? To reiterate: The longer-playing tape uses thinner tape, allowing more of it to fit in about the same space in the cassette shell. And no, it's not a "coincidence", it's by design. Without the thinner tape, anything with longer playing time than about C-60 would not be possible. So up until C-60 the tape pack gets larger with the run time, but after that they have to go to thinner tape. Jeh (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Then why did I see a C-46 and C-90 as having almost the same spool width (pun)? PS I hope you got my jokes and weren't offended by them,211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any jokes and I have no idea why you think there was a pun in your previous. I see only someone who is doing a really good job of either pretending to be, or actually being, unwilling to read and understand. And that's the AGF reaction.
If you used the same thickness tape as is used for a C-46 in a C-90, ie you made no other change, the tape pack (what you are calling the spool) would get larger (and might not fit in the cassette).
If you keep the same tape length but make the tape thinner, the tape pack would get smaller.
If you double the length and use a thinner tape, the two effects will somewhat cancel each other - so the tape pack might be about the same size as in the C-45. But it could be somewhat larger or somewhat smaller, depending on the relative thicknesses.
In general, if you start with a box that contains n things, and it is more than half full... and now you want to put twice as many things in the same-size box... the things are going to have to be smaller. And if you make the new things half as big as the old, the box will appear to be about as full as the previous one. I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding why that is so difficult to understand.
By the way, when you are not understanding something, asking for explanations, and still not understanding, it's really best to avoid any sort of joking. It can't possibly aid in understanding, and indeed may contribute to further misunderstanding. Jeh (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, I think this discussion isn't going anywhere, though.211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we just close this? I only wanted to know what's being discussed for interest, not because I had to.211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You're the one who suggested the article change and asked the followup questions. If your questions have been answered, or if you just don't care any more, whatever... if you don't want to participate any more, just don't. But thread creators don't own their threads on WP, so the discussion may continue without you. There is rarely a decision to close a thread (except for some discussions re things like deleting an article or changing a guideline). Usually people just drift away and stop contributing to the thread, and eventually it gets moved to the talk page archives, if that's been set up.
I personally think the article need do nothing more than it already does to explain the points mentioned above, but maybe that's just me. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Well it's also my opinion that this discussion is fruitless.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Maximum cassette length

The article mentions TDK C180 (1.5 hours per side) cassettes but there were also C240 cassettes. Most equipment manufacturers did not recommend the use of C120 (or longer) cassettes as the thin tape was liable to streaching, breaking and print through (echo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.231.58 (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

240 minutes refers to VHS for sure, probably not for compact cassette because even C-180 was quite transparent and 240 might be on the verge of being fully transparent.123.243.100.66 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Lifetime etc...

Dear writer,

What I miss in the article is information about the lifetime of the Compact Cassette.

This means once how many times can you "rewrite" such a tape before the quality is unusable?

Twice How much time does it take before the content of the tape has withered so far that the tape is unusable?

Regards.

J.P. (Jan) Clifford 145.129.136.48 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful information to have. The trouble is a) sourcing it to a reliable source and b) the fact that there were and are a huge variety of both cassettes and decks out there, some of much better quality than others. Some of the tapes are much more subject to "wearing out" than others, and some of the decks put a lot more wear on the tape than others.
I can tell you with near certainty that it's not the "writing" to the tape, just the mechanical process of passing it through the deck. The magnetic domains don't care how many times they're flipped back and forth; a "play pass" wears out the tape exactly as much as a "record pass" does. Either way the tape is dragged through a (sometimes roughly made) cassette shell, made to make a couple of sharp turns, turns around pulleys that are not necessarily smooth nor smoothly-turning, dragged across a tape head while being pressed against the head by a felt "pressure pad" with greatly varying pressure (unless you have one of a few very expensive decks), pressed between the capstan and the pinch roller, and finally, usually, wound and unwound quickly between a pair of "slip sheets", which are supposed to be very smooth and low-friction but... again of varying quality.
And there is aging of the materials, which happens even if the cassette is put on the shelf and never run through a machine. Some "new old stock" cassettes are unusable today due to this. With some the magnetic material will shed the first time they're tried. Others have gathered mold, and in still others the "binder" (glue) that holds the mag. stuff to the tape has gone bad in various other ways. But like the "pass wear" it varies widely with the quality of the materials, the manufacturing process, and of course the storage conditions (heat and humidity are the big variations).
Given all that, I can't imagine how anyone could have credibly claimed any specific figures for either shelf lifetime or pass wear that could be applied to all tapes used in all machines. The variables could easily cause at least a factor of five range of results: I've had cassettes that went bad within a few years of purchase; I have some today that are working fine that I know date from the 70s (because TDK changed their label design in the 80s). But even if we were to state something like "the expected lifetime of a cassette varies greatly depending on...", we'd need to find reliable sources for that.
Maybe there are some audio enthusiast blogs out there whose owners or participants might remember where there's good info on cassette lifetime. But... it's unlikely anybody is researching and publishing much of that stuff today. So it wouldn't necessarily apply to tapes you buy today. (If you can find any!)
Still, thanks for the suggestion. Info on lifetime (even on the difficulty of citing a lifetime) would be completely valid to add, if it can be reliably sourced. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your extensive story. I guess you are right and it's main reason is that it is a consumer product. The DAT tapes for storing computer-data a much more and better documented! But then you address profession!

145.129.136.48 (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no definite answer. See this review of the subject and its bibliography. The manufacturers' estimates made in 1980s varied between 10 and 30 years - under perfect storage conditions. However, by now this is all pointless because decades of storage introduced a big unknown into the equation. Today, anyone can say 'I have a 1975 Maxell and it's perfect', but far more have perished to the elements - sort of survival bias. The archivists' consensus, it seems, that the surviving tapes will outlive the decks. The tape will be ultimately killed indirectly, by mechanical breakdown of decks, not chemical degradation of tape. Retired electrician (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Compact Cassette → Cassette tape – The common name of this product today is "cassette tape". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I missed it because I assumed cassette tape was an ambiguous term I guess because I know too much about old tape formats. ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments

Wish I'd seen this before it happened. Oppose, too late. It's printed right on the cassettes! --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Another victory for dumbing-down. :( Jeh (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
In regard to the edit summary "oh, why don't we just call them "tapes"? Everybody does, after all": Tape is ambiguous, and as such isn't available. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
But it's the WP:COMMONNAME, which seems to be treated as an absolute requirement. Jeh (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Fine, if you can explain how to have forty-plus articles about items all commonly known as "tape". - BilCat (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
We regularly tape a program on our PVR. We'll be reduced to pointing and grunting. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
BilCat - save that argument for the next time someone uses WP:COMMONNAME as an absolute must-comply criterion, ignoring little inconvenient details like the name that's actually printed on the item in the photo in the article. I was being facetious. I wanted to keep the trademark name here. Jeh (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone call it a "compact cassette",.and have rarely seen it in print either. I guess no one I know can read, along with most writers. - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
As George Carlin said, "People are dumb". Oppose. The name is printed on the cassettes themselves. Mikus (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The scope of article after renaming

Sorry for very late gatecrashing... that unfortunate renaming passed unnoticed. Anyway, what's done is done - but then what is the subject and scope of the article after renaming? Quite obviously it's not Compact Cassette anymore, but what is it? Is it about cassette formats in general (emphasis on casette), or about tape formulations that were loaded into various cassette formats (emphasis on tape)? As the author of an article on the latter subject in another 'pedia, I can assure you that there's plenty of nontrivial info on either Compact cassette tapes, or the video cassette tapes, and even more on the data cartridge tapes (being the longest-running and still evolving, front-line technology). Retired electrician (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Necessary disclaimer: I import and sell vintage tapes (both cassette and reel-to-reel), so there's a remote conflict of interest and not-so-remote burden of real-life experience and insider knowledge, which may be incorrect. Retired electrician (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we need a disambiguation page cassette tape (disambiguation) which points to all the types of cassette tapes and a disambiguation statement in the lede of this article explaining this article is about the "Cassette Tape" originally developed by Phillips and frequently called "cassette," "music cassette" or "audio cassette". Tom94022 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tom94022: Cassette tape (disambiguation) exists and is accessible from a hatnote at the top of this article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I missed that. It's a start but the hat note could be improved to make it clear that this article is about the "Philips Compact Cassette" and its variants while the disambiguation page needs links to the missing all computer cassette tape links. Tom94022 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Retired electrician:The scope of the article is still Compact Cassette. The reason for the rename was to align the title with the name most readers will be familiar with, see WP:COMMONNAME. ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I never called it cassette tape. Everyone I know called it "cassette" or "audio cassette". Mikus (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Then what would be the proper name for an article on compact cassette tapes (literally, see this skeleton draft)? Retired electrician (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems the draft article goes into a lot of detail on the "Philips Compact Cassette" which is the subject of this article. So this article could incorporate the draft article or the draft could be named something like, "Philips compact cassette - technical details" and linked from here. I would suggest incorporation herein. Tom94022 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There's some misunderstanding here. The draft does not say a word about Philips, other than a courtesy nod to the inventors of the format. The draft is about the chemical aspect of the subject, so there's more BASF, Pfizer, DuPont or Maxell rather than Philips. Retired electrician (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Or perhaps its semantics, the draft is about the Compact Cassette invented by Philips and variants thereof? AFAIK, they all conform to the Philips form factor; is that incorrect? Tom94022 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Also note that all of the suppliers u mention were likely licensed by Philips, so the article really is about the "Compact Cassette, invented by Philips and feely licensed to multiple manufacturers." And the draft article is about chemical aspects of Compact Cassettes, manufactured by Philips and it licensees. Other cassette tapes have different form factors and chemical aspects than the draft. Tom94022 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I've now updated both the hat note and the disambiguation page. Tom94022 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
They weren't licensed by Philips. By 1970 the Compact Cassette was a free open standard; Philips forfeited any financial rights in their agreement with Sony. Philips was not making compact cassette tape and did not own critical tape-related patents; tape in the original Philips-branded cassettes was made by BASF. Philips specification was tailored to then available BASF technology, not the other way around. And after that, chemists developing new formulations had no obligations to Philips, just like today's petrol companies have no obligations to Ford or Ferrari. After all, the Compact Cassette was only one segment of magnetic media market: there were video tapes, later video cassettes, data storage tape, hard drives, 8-tracks etc. Retired electrician (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The Compact Cassette was licensed by Philips, some free and some not, see Standardization Key To Cassette Future. Patents of course expire so it may be that by sometime in the late 1970s a license from Philips was no longer necessary. Tom94022 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This publication reflects a particular quirk of North American market as it was in 1967. Compact Cassette penetrated North American market very slowly, much slower than Japanese and Western European markets. Elsewhere, it was already an established medium with hundreds of big and small vendors, but in the US Philips was fighting the fight alone. That's why Billboard cared to write about 'Philips and their minions licensees'. Five years later it will be 'The Japanese' and almost no mention of Philips... Retired electrician (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

To those who are moving this article, please see the RM above. On Wikipedia we do not move an article away from the title agreed at an RM. If you want to move it then open another RM. Also note WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassette tape scratching

I heard that cassette tapes can be "scratched" just like doing vinyl scratching. Any info on cassette tape scratching is welcome. Komitsuki (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Scrubbing (audio)? A technique mostly for open-reel tape. I haven't heard of this being done with cassette. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Lou Ottens and his team

I was astonished that the work leading to both the compact cassette and the compact disc and the inventors/designers behind them is not well documented yet. I suggest a page about Lou Ottens as a first step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.236.148 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Note we have an interview with Ottens which would be a lovely source on the early days of the compact cassette - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I added this ref to Cassette tape § Introduction of the Compact Cassette ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Compact Cassette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

[4] was a bad archive. I removed it and marked the link as dead. [5] was a WP:SPS and I could not WP:V cited material from the archive version so I replaced it with {{cn}}. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassette types

No longer in article ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The recording 'bias' equalizations also were different (and had a much longer time constant). "

Scrambled information. The bias is not equalization. It has no time constant. Equalization is used on recording and playback. Bias, a completely different thing, is used on recording only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Compact Cassette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

[6] and [7] are still live and I have adjusted to indicate this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturers

I was curious how many cassette tape manufacturers were still in business, and if it's a small number, who they are. It might be interesting to have a graph of the number of manufacturers worldwide over time. -- Beland (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See Cassette tape § 21st-century use and revival and this cited source from there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
There might be many no-name manufacturers in far away countries, especially as they might be more popular in less developed countries. Gah4 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cassette_tape/Archive_3&oldid=1136594516"