Talk:Cassette tape/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

big hole

The history section jumps straight from around the mid 70s to after the 90s, skipping the years when cassettes were at their peak entirely. That's a pretty big problem. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything in particular you'd like to see? The article does make mention of the walkman, of boomboxes, and of using casettes to get punk rock behind the Iron Curtain. I'm not sure there were any major technological developments for cassettes themselves during the 80s; innovations in fidelity from the 70s just continued to become more mainstream and edge out records. If you can give me an idea of what it's missing, I'll be happy to do the research and add the specifics. Kafziel ^Talk 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some kind of mention of those years within the chronological history, even if it's just "incremental technical improvments, sales peaked at XXX, Cds were introduced Y, overtook cassettes Z." basically a more fleshed out arc of rise and fall instead of skipping their peak. The article sort of has this information now, but the temporal leap goes from the pre-heyday to the present, and then looks back to the downfall. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really want to help but I don't see the temporal leap you're talking about. The history section does talk about the 80s, right in between the 70s and the 90s. It starts with the paragraph that says "During the 1980s" and takes up more than half of the "Introduction of music cassettes" section. The "Decline" section gives specific sales numbers and dates demonstrating the move toward CDs. The history of the CD is only relevant to the article as it pertains to cassettes; in other words, the year CDs were invented doesn't matter, only the year they began to outsell tapes (which is in the article).

I guess I'm just not seeing what's missing, but of course feel free to add any information you think it needs. Kafziel ^Talk 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the thing that threw me off is that the last sentence before the 90s talks about 70s india, so it actually goes back before it goes forward. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. When I wrote it I thought it would be best to keep all the "social impact" stuff together. If you think it would be better to split it up for the sake of chronology, that's cool, too. Kafziel ^Talk 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think splitting the social stuff isn't so bad because as people read it they can see "ok here it impacted india, ok here it impacted the soviet union" and pick up on the theme as the events are mentioned. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vinyl record deck????=

I have followed hi-fi and stereo technology sinec the 1950's and never before saw the term "vinyl record deck" Is this the British term for a phonograph turntable? "vinyl record deck" gets only 237 Google hits, several of them from this article or mirrors of it, while "turntable" gets over 10,000,000. I will therefore change the term in the article to the more familiar one. Edison 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Vinyl record deck is absurd. Kafziel ^Talk 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was a British term, wouldn't you think there would be a lot more hits than that? Hello? At a first glimpse it does appear "absurd", but after all the device is similar to a tape deck in its functionality and it plays records, so a record deck isn't that far fetched, if one wants to coin up this own term. :-) --84.250.188.136 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Error

First, the article says "Cobalt-adsorbed". In the next chapter this changes to cobalt-absorbed. Despite the minuscule literal difference between the two words, absorption and adsorption are completely different things! --84.250.188.136 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, the memories..

i haven't noticed how further away from the cassette we've been now with all those hardisks and cds. i guess it's our own "gramophone" memories..

Well, I like them too, but I'm not really into music so it doesn't make a difference. And with hard disks and MP3s it's easy to delete the songs you no longer like. I actually deleted all of my songs, because I prefer watching a movie instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.121.186 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

tape recorder for calculator

I remember that texas instruments Ti-74 could save data files on cassettes, via a tape recorder.

contradiction

This text, in "Decline" is apparently contradictory:

Cassettes are typically more rugged and resistant to dust, heat and shocks than most digital media (especially CDs). [...] However, cassettes generally have poor resistance to the excessive levels of heat encountered in parked cars during the summertime.

This ought to be resolved. –Joke 03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

8-Track adaptors

Several companies produced adaptors to use Compact Cassettes in 8-Track players. The simplest were no bigger than an 8-Track tape and only the take-up spool was driven. A lever engaged the drive, sometimes with a further position for fast forward. A slightly better version offered rewind and kept back tension on the supply spool. Another version added an AA cell to power an amplifier. The ultimate version was bulkier, with a flip up lid for the cassette and from what I remember from when they were new, it didn't rely on the 8-Track's capstan for driving the cassette, using either its own battery or a 12 volt cord plugged into the vehicle's cigar lighter socket. Among the companies who sold these were Kraco, Craig and Audiovox. Radio Shack had their own Realistic or Optimus brand which may have simply been one of the others relabled for Radio Shack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.145.226 (talk • contribs) .

Tape complexity

A Compact Cassette can vary widely in the number of individual parts it is assembled from, depending on its price.

Low end, cheap.

• 2 snap together shell halves, with open slots to view the tape remaining/used.
• 1 tape without leaders.
• 2 spools.
• 2 tape retainers to snap into spools.
• 1 magnetic shield.
• 1 pressure pad.
• 1 pressure pad spring.
• 2 guide rollers.

12 individual parts.

The cheapest of the cheap don't have guide rollers, but that's rare. These low-end tapes usually do not have liners between the tape and shell.

High-end, expensive

• 2 screw together shell halves.
• 2 clear windows. (All clear, single piece shell halves omit the seperate windows.)
• 2 anti-friction liners. (These can be anything from thin sheets of plastic to various slick polymers with ribs to reduce contact area and even graphite mixed into the plastic.)
• 5 screws.
• 1 tape.
• 2 leaders.
• 2 spools.
• 2 tape retainers to snap into spools.
• 1 magnetic shield.
• 1 pressure pad.
• 1 pressure pad spring.
• 2 guide rollers.
• 2 steel guide roller pins.

25 parts.

Some of the higher priced cassettes included sliding write protect notch covers, but those would interfere with the sensing notches for Type II and higher tapes. Those would increase the parts count to 27.

From 10 to 27 individual parts go into a Compact Cassette. This doesn't take into consideration contents lables, as most commercially recorded cassetts have their contents printed directly onto the shell halves.

That's always made me wonder how music companies could sell them for less than a CD which is produced rapidly on fully automated machinery, is essentially a single piece'*', and involves zero per-piece recording time, whereas the Compact Cassette must be high speed recorded on multiple transport machines after being assembled from its multiple parts.

'*'CD parts

• 1 polycarbonate disc
• 1 sputtered on aluminum coating
• 1 layer of laquer
• 1 layer of printed lable, so that's only 4 "parts" for the nitpickers. :)

Regarding the cassette vs. CD cost; my guess is that in the early days, this *may* have reflected setup costs (including new production plants, CD mastering costs and equipment). This would have been done from scratch *and* the equipment would have been relatively new and expensive then. Plus, the relatively small numbers of CDs sold in the early days would have been quite small, meaning they had to absorb more of the above costs per unit.

In contrast, audio cassettes were an established technology, the equipment would already have been in place, and the duplication equipment price would have been driven down by development over time and economies of scale.

Of course, there came a point where CDs *were* genuinely cheaper to produce than cassettes; AOL sure as heck weren't paying £12/$20 a go for those discs they gave away in magazines. Yet the manufacturers were still charging the same high prices they'd said would come down. Why?

Simple answer; record companies are greedy *******s who'll charge as much as they can get away with. (Casual CD piracy wasn't an issue until burners got cheap in the late 1990s). Plus, ripoff retailers like Virgin/HMV hadn't yet faced competition from online stores such as Amazon, and since the public was used to paying more for CDs (although the reason for them being expensive had long gone), they got away with charging stupid prices for them.

(N.B. This answer is original research/personal opinion, and doesn't belong in article itself). Fourohfour 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another variation on the Compact Cassette was having miniature flanged reels instead of the flangeless spools. These tapes were limited in capacity due to the inability to use more than half the available space inside for tape. The advantage to this was reducing tape edge wear to no more than a full sized reel-to-reel tape deck would have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.145.226 (talk • contribs) .

That was indeed one advantage, but the main advantage is that cassettes of this kind looked pretty darned cool. I have a couple of them still (TEAC made quite a few of them, and there's a picture of one on that page), but I think mine are all C46, a slightly inconvenient size. C60s were available, but for the reason you mention they used the thinner C90 tape to make it fit on the spool. If they had C90s, they may even have been C120 thickness, with the attendant reliability issues. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 18:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW absence of tape rollers was standard on cassette singles in the 90s.

Linerless cassettes were rare, and never fully reliable. Liners were an important part of basic cassette function, and flat sheet types were in the minority and not as reliable. All decent quality liners were 3d. This is easily understood if you appreciate why liners were used. Tabby 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness I want to mention the existence on the market of a very expensive cassette variant from TDK, in the metal or type IV variety. It was made of alloy material which covered backside and side-walls and in which flangeless spools revolved. The front and back covers were the only parts implemented in flat, but rather thick plastic. This cassette was completey rigid and the only one which never bent like the normal ones. Azimuth (head-alignment) failures -if any- did not arise from the cassette anymore, nor would tape guidance over the years suffer from this. Because of the weight and extreme pricing this cassette was never sold in large numbers and went of the market later. I only bought one. My own experience with longevity of cassettes beyond 20-25 years is that over time even the more expensive (Maxell) types tend to exhibit higher tape friction. This brings more wow at the very end of the tape, the level of which depends on the deck being used, not the type of cassette (my oldest Tandberg TCD 300 is still the best, Revox B710MKII comes second) Donvr (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposite side recording

The audio is recorded on the opposite side from the lable. Ie, when you're looking at the Side A lable of a cassette, the one or two tracks with that program are on the side of the tape opposite the lable. Very infrequently a commercially recorded tape gets put in a mass copier backwards, then makes it past quality checking to be sold with the contents lable and program on the same physical side, but 'backwards' when played. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.145.226 (talk • contribs) .

Auto Reverse

There's no mention of auto reverse technology in this article, which is especially odd given the image of that high-end Nakamichi deck that physically flips the tape over to change sides instead of simply reversing the tape direction. The methods that reversed the tape direction used either tension based sensing (which could break weak leader to tape bonds or pull the tape loose from the spools) or optical sensing that ran the tape between a light source (visible or infrared) and a detector so the tape could be reversed the instant the clear leader passed the sensor. Optical sensing decks have tension detecting as a backup for tapes with opaque or no leaders. To use an input adaptor (for CD or MP3 players etc) in an optical sensing auto reverse deck, without a reverse disabling switch, requires covering part of the opening on the side toward the transport, otherwise the deck will just sit there flipping the direction back and forth. (Like the GM factory deck in my 1986 Cadillac Cimarron!)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.145.226 (talk • contribs) .

I just changed the intro to clarify that you play the two sides of the cassette by either physically turning it over OR reversing the direction of the tape. 193.113.57.161 11:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There were head alignment issues with autoreverse, and it remained unpopular on audiophile decks. It was more popular on mid range kit. Tabby 15:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Another, very simple reason not to reverse just the tape, was the fact that you then needed more than one erase head and with three-head types also a second recording head when recording in reverse. Much to complicated too get and to keep right. Just reversing a tape for playback, i.c. in a simple car radio-cassette combination was feasible though. Autoreverse was scarce in high end machines and Nakimichi turned the cassette physically in order to keep the head alignement correct (I guess it was the Dragon model). For high-end machines like these they were the only one, neither Tandberg nor Revox ever offered auto-reverse. Donvr (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Playing video games off cassettes

I can remember playing video games off a cassette drive on either a Commodore 64 or an Atari. This would seem to be a significant phenomenon not mentioned in the article. - } (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article. There's even a picture of the Commodore tape drive. Kafziel ^Talk 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it says "data", not "video games". They weren't just used for tape backups, you know! ;) / Samsara

Video games are data. CD-ROM can be used for games, too, but it doesn't specify that in the Compact Disc article. It just says "data". Data can take a million forms; we can't list every possible application. Kafziel ^Talk 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the latest addition to the section makes the video game aspect a little clearer? Kafziel ^Talk 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a start. Still looks a bit lopsided with so much of the article dedicated to usage for audio data. (Btw, I do know what data is ;) ). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The only perhaps noteworthy addition would be specifying that "double format" cassette tape games existed, e.g. the same tape contained both the ZX Spectrum and Amstrad CPC version of a game, or Commodore 64 coupled with either of the others. Also, some of those "cassette games", when not in "double format", included a normal and a turbo loading version, with the user choosing between the two as needed. Plus, there were some copy protection schemes implemented on audio cassettes which were -allegedly- hard or impossible to reproduce just by duplicating the tapes. EpiVictor 10:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

...on making it to featured article status, and thanks in particular to those who pushed for this and worked to tidy up the few remaining rough edges. Fourohfour 11:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 12:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job people! --Anas Salloum 13:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In car audio

First, nice article - deserving of FA.

I would comment that the popularity of the cassette in the UK/Europe was considerably driven by car radio makers building in a cassette player. 8-track players were not so popular as the space in European cars meant you could have a 8track player or a radio, instead of the combined radio/cassette player. Also, prerecorded cassettes were (likely as a result) more widely available, and the potential of easily hometaping your records onto cassette meant you could take "your" music with you - and if your hometaped cassette failed you could always make another copy.

A further note; in the UK beat boxes were known as "Ghetto Blasters", referring to Black American culture. LessHeard vanU 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio-broadcasted programmes for 8-bit computers

Back in the days when 8-bit computers dominated the market we had a radio programme over here (Poland) once in a while (I was quite young then so it's hard to recollect, I'm thinking it was once a week or two), which focused on computer software. The speaker would talk of news and, as this was permitted due to lack of copyright laws and because the transmission was audio, 'play' on the radio a computer programme, which could be recorded on a tape, and then afterwards run on the computer. I wanted to add this to the article, however I've got no sources to back this up except that I remember it. I'll try to find something if anyone's interested. --Ouro 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When BBC -branded microcomputers were common in the UK in the early 1980s, late-night radio broadcasts of BBC BASIC programmes would be produced for computer users to tape on cassette and then run them on their computers. It was billed as "a Takeaway from the Chip Shop".Zagubov 13:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We've had this in the second half of the eighties till the beginning of the nineties. I think the broadcasted programmes were usually for the Atari, because we've made frequent use of this medium and I've had (damn it, I still have!) an Atari 65XE. The programme was broadcast midday and was called Radiokomputer. --Ouro 13:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Who calls them "Compact Cassettes?"??

I would support a move/rename to something that reflects English usage more, like cassette or audio cassette.--Sonjaaa 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a brand name. The design is public domain, but the trademark name still stands, just like Compact Disc. I can't remember the last time I called a CD a "Compact Disc", but it's still the correct title for the article. Kafziel ^Talk 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the alternative names redirect here, and "cassette" is hardly more common than "audio tape" or any of the others so choosing any of them over the others would be totally arbitrary, Compact Cassette is the best title for this. --W.marsh 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So for consistency should Football (soccer) be renamed to Association football then?--Sonjaaa 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the parallel. Kafziel ^Talk 00:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Errr, yes it should. I should really go and do that. Chris Cunningham 09:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing; there's more than one type of "audio cassette" (DAT, DCC...) out there. Okay, most people use it to mean the standard Compact Cassette, but I still think it's a bad title.

We can't call it "cassette", because there are many other common uses of that term.

And the article's original title "Compact audio cassette" was just inaccurate and pointless; neither a commonly-used title, nor a proper brand name.

Fourohfour 11:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What about cassette tape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looking through the recent edit history there seems to be a lot of vandalism corrections. Perhaps this article should be locked. Kc4 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This happens with every front page article. There's no need for protection unless an edit war starts or the vandalism gets to the point where it can't be handled. Gdo01 19:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

oh ok, I guess I have jsut revealed my inexpierience with featured articles with this Kc4 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, if only. See my fifth rule. Kafziel ^Talk 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought all Featured Articles were locked for 24 hours. --Munchkinguy 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From the sounds of things it definatley sounds like needed policy, it is too bad that some people get something out of pety vandalism, after it is not like there is any political gain from the Compact Cassette article. Kc4 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for disappearance of chromium dioxide and ferrichrome

I seem to remember that cobalt-energised tapes, rebranded as “high-bias” took over from chromium dioxide and ferrichrome ones because while none of them could be recorded on properly by older ferric oxide-compatible machines, chromium dioxide was a more abrasive material which shortened the usable head life of older players so they couldn't even be played on them. Anybody remember if this was the case? Zagubov 21:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of an abrasion problem, and Chromium dioxide tapes are still manufactured or at least they are still available for sale, without having to step into a dedicated audiophile shop (like it might be the case with Metal tapes). Ferrichrome was another issue though, and I have never seen a tape esplicitly labelled as "ferrichrome". Maybe some high-quality ferric tapes are actually ferrichrome and are somewhat compatible with most standard cassette recorders and players, but I never heard of abrasion problems with those either. EpiVictor 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the abrasiveness was an urban myth. Although I thought I read about it in the hifi press I never experimented with a chromium dioxide till I bought a deck that could handle them. I only ever owned one cassette which was ferrichrome (made by BASF I think). just for curiosity’s sake; old cassette decks used to have three settings with FeCr as the middle one. The idea was that it had a top chrome layer over the ferric oxide.and they must have been expensive to make. Never saw them again after the 70s and I wasn’t able to detect better sound quality over other tapes.Zagubov 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I hadn't realised this was covered by another article already Chromium(IV) oxide.Zagubov 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Head abrasion was a common problem, and caused lots of decks to be scrapped. As the head surface wore down, the head gap widened, and hf response fell. Tabby 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I personnaly owned and partly still use (semi-) professional Tandberg and Revox cassetterecorders from the 1970's and 1980's and so far head abrasion was hardly noticable in my case. Revox even delivered their B710 machines with a slightly raised frequency response for compensating future head wear (after 15 years of use the curve should've become flat). However on the reel to reel recorders I assembled myself in the 1960's head wear was much more prominent and clearly visible to the eye. Nakamichi, the most dedicated manufacturer for getting the most out of cassettes used a pad lifter to eliminate the pressure exerted on the heads by the inbuilt felt pads Donvr (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Prerecorded cassettes

If some proof is needed, I can provide photographic evidence that (new) prerecorded cassettes are still made and sold, at least where I live (Greece). Now, since my region has a mixed Greek/Turkish population, most of these prerecorded cassettes come from Turkey, usually featuring Greek or Turkish artists but international ones as well, such as Shakira. So no, at least from my experience prerecorded tapes aren' a thing of the past nor a third-world phenomenon yet. EpiVictor 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Repair" section

Isn't this in danger of turning into a "how-to" (which Wikipedia *isn't* meant to be)? Fourohfour 13:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's much further down that path now! I think every bit of how to take the cassette shell apart or repair tape should be taken out of the article.

Regarding whether Wikipedia is a how-to or not, all I could find in the guidelines was the section about tone (WP:Guide to writing better articles#Information style and tone) which states that an article should have a newspaper report or summary or businesslike tone. How-to articles don't qualify, in my opinion. Such information should go to WikiHow or a similar site. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropiate -we aren't designing a cassette or the magnetic media, we're being skilled users of what was a very common item - like sharpening a knife under knives - it just makes sense. If we moved it, then there would be a discussion on merging 'using tape' with 'tapes' - so why not - it's brief and very common for users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.25.93 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cassette single: Third opinion from interested parties

Hi there, Would be grateful if anyone interested could please take a brief look at this dispute on cassette singles, and provide your opinion. Thanks. Fourohfour 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)