[pedxing]

The audio Cassette, or compact cassette as wikipedia calls it, is an ok medium. Here's a list of gripes I had about them, most of them referring to tape technologies I have experienced back in the 90's:

1) I had more tapes die from heat death than CDs - but that's because I use a CD changer in the car which is tucked in a safer place than where I would store my tape collection (basically out in the open to the sun).
2) Tape recording sucks and it requires good equipment before good reproduction happens. Perfect reproduction is practically impossible.
3) The more recently manufactured blank tapes try to pack in longer play times, making the tape thinner and more prone to tears and crinkling. My tapes from like the 70's and 80's still work because the tape is so thick.
4) I believe the extra dolby NR stuff added to the signal during playback just sucks. For most cheap boom boxes, it just bottoms out the bass quicker.
5) All those different types of metal types, like type I through V is annoying and getting a good player to play all of them correctly just adds insult to injury. Also, the "typing standard" just means variations in medium, not necessarily a step in advancing tape fidelity technology. For example, some tape players can only handle like type I and type III for playback, but not type II. Usually the ability to record on certain types of metal types is smaller than the types of metal types if can playback.
6) I hate cleaning the tape head and I wonder how in the world a tape collection can survive decades after so much plastic and magnetic particle has been shaven off.
7) The medium is basically linear access - its sort of tough to replay a song on repeat or access a song on demand. Today's on-demand media generation would find that intolerable.

 

[sejarzo]

Tape also has a big disadvantage (in the general marketplace, especially) in that it is relatively fragile compared to the other formats. I would live with a scratch on an LP, but dropouts on tape drove me nuts for some reason.

I was in college in the mid-to-late '70's, and my neighbor in the dorm had a Pioneer reel-to-reel unit that was probably the best bang-for-buck option at the time.........Revox B77's being kind of the home audiophile standard, but too expensive for virtually any college student. He never bought recorded tapes, but just used it to transfer "virgin" LP's and then listen to the tape rather than the LP, as many of the rest of us did with cassette.

More than once, something went wrong with the transport and the tape ended up in a tangled mess on the floor with either a tear or a significant wrinkle. As someone else mentioned, keeping the transports well-maintained took more effort than most users (including my neighbor!) were willing to put out. But all that guy had to do was buy another tape and re-record the LP, not put out more cash for a pre-recorded tape.

I always had a lot of trouble with print-through on cassettes as I didn't listen to them often enough to move the tape around. I do know that I bought several CD's in the late '80's on which the print-through was clearly audible at the beginning of cuts that had a "quiet" sort of intro--so the record labels apparently didn't re-wind masters as often as they should have, either.

As for Dolby, I had a cassette deck that had both Dolby B and Dolby C, and C seemed to be much better for home use, but my car deck was only compatible with B.......and tapes recorded with Dolby C really must be played back with C.......so I ended up just using B and only listening to cassettes in vehicles.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedxing The audio Cassette, or compact cassette as wikipedia calls it, is an ok medium.

The cassette is officially known as the Compact Cassette. Here's its official logo....

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad For the analog purists, why is tape not viable or popular?

For a time, the cassette was the most popular medium for music distribution in the world. Ever after CD was introduced, cassette remained the #1 format for a number of years before CD finally eclipsed it. All the reasons for cassette's downfall have already been mentioned, but there're still cassette loyalists who stand by it. I personally have over 300 pre-recorded cassettes and I still find myself nostagic about those "good old days". There's a certain "analog-ness" that can't be found on CDs or MDs.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedxing The audio Cassette, or compact cassette as wikipedia calls it, is an ok medium. Here's a list of gripes I had about them, most of them referring to tape technologies I have experienced back in the 90's: 1) I had more tapes die from heat death than CDs - but that's because I use a CD changer in the car which is tucked in a safer place than where I would store my tape collection (basically out in the open to the sun). 2) Tape recording sucks and it requires good equipment before good reproduction happens. Perfect reproduction is practically impossible. 3) The more recently manufactured blank tapes try to pack in longer play times, making the tape thinner and more prone to tears and crinkling. My tapes from like the 70's and 80's still work because the tape is so thick. 4) I believe the extra dolby NR stuff added to the signal during playback just sucks. For most cheap boom boxes, it just bottoms out the bass quicker. 5) All those different types of metal types, like type I through V is annoying and getting a good player to play all of them correctly just adds insult to injury. Also, the "typing standard" just means variations in medium, not necessarily a step in advancing tape fidelity technology. For example, some tape players can only handle like type I and type III for playback, but not type II. Usually the ability to record on certain types of metal types is smaller than the types of metal types if can playback. 6) I hate cleaning the tape head and I wonder how in the world a tape collection can survive decades after so much plastic and magnetic particle has been shaven off. 7) The medium is basically linear access - its sort of tough to replay a song on repeat or access a song on demand. Today's on-demand media generation would find that intolerable.

think you were unlucky to have just caught the tail end of cassettes as they peaked in the mid 80's technologically and then began their long decline.

A top cassette deck is still one of the best recorders available, only really bettered by open reel. My Nakamichi CR-7 easily outperforms any CD recording device not to mention my DAT machines, which makes it pretty good value for money when you consider how cheap blank cassettes are these days and the fact that with a humble D-90 it can outperform most other decks running top metals.

Yes it's a long winded process making compilations by comparsion with whacking a few files in an itunes playlist and I don't have much time to indulge in it these days but it's also a discipline just like programming any musical set.

Being limited by a running time makes you think harder about just exactly what songs work well together in series and I find myself making itunes playlists of old tapes just because they were really well put together and you could listen to them over and over because back in the day you had no choice.

Don't forget before the 80's and the advent of high end cassettes from the likes of Alpine and Nakamichi, Hi-Fi in a car didn't really exist and was limited to radio and crappy 8-track.

Also the whole breakdance thing would never have happened with portable CD. Try listening to some serious old skool hip-hop on a boom box with CD and it's no comparison as those subsonic 808 kick drums play havoc with your tracking.

 

[$qwuzzy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 Dosn't the magnetism on the tape deteriorate over time?

and vinyls better 'cause it just lasts forever!!!

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 Dosn't the magnetism on the tape deteriorate over time?

My dad just pulled some tapes out of his trunk from 20 years ago. They sound like utter crap. A mix of apple iPod earbuds outputs with a chopped up 8 kbit/ps mp3.