Talk:Cassette tape/Archive 1

message: Data rates for cassettes as data storage are from Slashdot. Not verified. Hotlorp 05:09, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 4k bps was a typical data rate for digital cassette tape storage in the 1980s.  --Blainster 08:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Data rates

message: The name "musicassette" or MC refers ONLY to pre-recorded cassette albums, not recordable cassettes. Lee M 01:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: MC

message: I removed a link that was essentially an ad. I saw the person who added it said it was a good example of the cassette in today's market, but it seems irrelevant. Anyone who feels different, feel free to explain why... methelfilms 03:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Can somebody with more technical expertise that what I have write a section that talks about endless-loop cassettes?  Although I think they've fallen out of favor, they were popular in answering machines and in music-on-hold systems.  Some had a metalic piece of tape that served as a "marker" for the equipment to know when the tape had made a complete cycle.  Any takers to write such a section?   Joe 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endless loop? 

message: Am I right in thinking C15 tapes were widely available for a period? I seem to remember using them for ZX Spectrum data.--bodnotbod 12:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They certainly were, as I have several. I also have some C46 (ie. LP-sized) ones. Bastie 14:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll add them into the article. --bodnotbod 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: C15?

message: The Coleco_Adam computer used two high-speed drives based on compact cassette technology.
* I remember reading an article about that; apparently the cassettes were not "normal" audio cassettes, although I don't know what the difference was (I assume it was in the tape formulation and not the shell, as it mentioned the possibility that "normal" cassettes could be inappropriately used) Fourohfour 00:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coleco ADAM

message: Anyone else feel that this since the shells for the different tape-types aren't standardised, and what you can see of the tape inside looks the same, it doesn't actually add to the point it's meant to be illustrating?
OTOH, it's a fairly good technical shot (much better than the slightly-out-of-focus, non-colour-corrected, flash-reflections-showing, clutter-in-the-background stuff that sometimes appears on Wikipedia). Perhaps it should simply be rebadged as a general shot? Perhaps I'm nitpicking...
Fourohfour 10:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — while an excellent photo, it doesn't help to explain the differences between types of cassette. Laypersons might think that the differing appearances of the shells have something to do with the different tape types, which is not the case at all. Slicing 04:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the caption; we now have an illustration of the differences between the types elsewhere anyway. Fourohfour 16:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I added a second image of a higher quality cassette, A TDK MA-X to compliment the existing phito of a low end tape, the TDK D series. Teamgoon 23:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of cassette types 

message: There should be some mention of the 8-track in here. I'd like to know how the 8-track ever got off the ground if, in addition to an inferior design, it was launched five years after the aduio casette. -Litefantastic 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind that cassettes were not originally intended for musical use, and that until the late 1960s their audio quality was (apparently) pretty ropey. I assume that the 8-track was marketed for musical use from the beginning. Whether it was actually better than the early cassettes, I don't know (doubly so because they never took off in Europe and I've never heard one). Fourohfour 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The 8-track cartridge was introduced in 1964, only about a year after the cassette.  But at the time the cassette was not much good for music, while the 8-track's 3.75 ips speed gave it a more tolerable high frequency response.  Since 8-track tape was 1/4 inch wide, the track width was about the same as a 4-track stereo cassette.  From 1964 until 1972 or possibly later, if you wanted to play music other than radio in your car, the only factory option was 8-track tape. The 8-track would play endlessly while the cassettes you had to flip over before auto-reverse came out.  The two drawbacks to 8-track were its larger size (about 4x cassette), and its proclivity to tape wow due to friction in the tape layers which had to slip past each other in the endless loop.  --Blainster 10:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to the above, cassettes were pretty fragile back in the early days - 8 tracks were much more robust and could be kicked around the floor of a truck without too much harm coming to them, and they were easy to slam into the deck without any problem. Ideal for mobile use. In car cassettes were at first very delicate little precious things that would throw a hissy fit at the slightest provocation, spilling the tape all over their prissy little innards! In-car units in the early days also cut silly corners like putting the tape in endways to save space but then not having any spigot for the supply reel and thus no back-tension on it. This was recipe for tape spillage. Also the fiddlyness of cassettes was considered too dangerous for in-car use compared to the chunky 8-track that could be loaded without taking your eyes off the road. Basically, cassetees simply weren't seriously considered as an in-car music format until the mid to late 70s. Graham 10:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8-tracks vs. the audio cassette

message: I've noticed that in addition to the "Compact Cassette" logo, the branchlist was added, and now keeps getting moved around. The problem is that with the branchlist, contents table, cassette image and logo image, there isn't enough room for all of them near the start without the layout suffering. Frankly, the way the intro looks just now isn't good, and I wish we could just settle on something that is a bit more presentable than this. Fourohfour 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branchlist 

message: This article doesnt know whether its about the cassete tape or cassette recorders. Which is it? It cant be both and needs to be split!--Light current 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says it needs to be split? Surely the two are mutually necessary? Of course, the general concepts of audio tape and audio tape recorders probably warrant separate articles, but for the Compact Cassette.... nah. Fourohfour 20:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think a split is appropriate. You can't really meaningfully discuss the development of the cassette in total isolation from the machines because improvements in both were necessary for the medium's success. There is an article at cassette deck which serves the need for focusing specifically on the machines, but I think this article as it stands has a good balance. Graham 13:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed up article! 

message: From the article:
: Although its use in the West has declined as a result of more advanced technologies, it remains widespread, and is still the dominant medium for listening to music in many third world countries.
Really? I don't think so. Where does the author got this information from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.183.111 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 May 2006  (UTC)
:: I've seen this discussed in several articles and TV programmes. As I can't specifically remember where this was however, I did a quick search of the web and found back up for it here:-
::: And outside of the music stores of the West, cassettes do continue to survive as a music format, in countries such as Afghanistan and India. In some markets, performers record directly onto cassette. [..] Turkey still sells 88 million cassettes a year, India 80 million, and that cassettes account for 50% of sales in these countries. In Saudi Arabia, it is 70%. (Source: BBC Article, June 2005)
:: and here
::: In Africa, India, and parts of the Middle-East, the cassette is still king. (Source: seemagazine.com article, 2004)
:: Hope this clears things up. Fourohfour 17:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third world 

message: What, no mention of mixtapes?  That was one of the biggest things about cassettes was that you could make a mix tape for your girlfriend.  Ah, nostalgia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.87.87.170 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 16 May 2006  (UTC)
:Ummm, in the "See also" there is Mix tape. Graham 04:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mix Tape

message: I wasn't aware that C46 was ever a common or popular cassette tape length, as the article suggests. C60, C90 and C120 have always been the standard lengths, but quite a few manufacturers produced "odd" sizes from time to time. AdorableRuffian 09:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C46 was very common for use with data storage and indie recording artists. I'll try to find a cite for that. I do know that a lot of punk tapes from the 70s and 80s are on C46. Kafziel 11:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The point of the C46 was that it was exactly the length of a typical LP. Drutt 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In the audiobooks application, where recordings may span several hours, cassettes also have the advantage of holding up to 120 minutes of material whereas the average CD holds less than 80.[12]
I'm not clear how cassette's 60 mins a side beats CD's 80. CDs take up less space and cost less per minute than tapes - though this wasnt always the case of course.
Tabby 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tape lengths 

message: In the section on "Cassette Types" it talks about 120 and 70 µS playback equalization -- does this mean microsecond? If so, isn't the recongnized SI symbol for second a lowercase s, which means it should say µs? It might be better to just say "microsecond" anyway for those who don't know what μS means.
I would change it myself but i want to be 100% sure that μS means microsecond.
"1 microsecond (1 μs) – cycle time for frequency 1 MHz, radio wavelength 300 m (AM mediumwave band)" --Microsecond 
--Robert 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it means microsecond, and so should have the lower case 's'. I've always found this nomenclature a bit odd really - because what it's really saying is that the playback equalization curves have a rolloff point at a certain frequency, corresponding to those values - 14,285Hz for 70µs, and 8333Hz for 120µs. Graham 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, thank you for that.  I was at a total loss as to what a µs had to do with equalization -- especially since the equalization article didn't mention µs at all!  Do you think it would be okay to put Hz in the main article instead of µs? --Mdwyer 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For some reason, this is the terminology used in the industry, so we should probably stick to it. It might be worth adding a footnote explaining the situation (putting it in the main text would probably bloat things out too much). Fourohfour 01:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a very tardy reply to your question, but I saw it here and thought I'd better correct your confusion. The frequencies corresponding to 70µs and 120µs are indeed those quoted, but this is the rolloff frequency of the fixed audio band preemphasis and deemphasis that is applied to these tapes, and has nothing to do with the AC bias signal. The bias typically runs up at around 100kHz and while that also varies in AMPLITUDE with tape type (the bias switch selects both the AC bias amplitude and the audio de-emphasis rolloff) its frequency is pretty much irrelevant, as long as it's way above the audible range. 203.87.74.230 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  µS?