Talk:Compact Cassette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Compact Cassette is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 27, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005#{Section}|2005 press source]] article for details. The citation is in: "Not long left for cassette tapes", BBC News online, June 17, 2005.

This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Track layout 2 Article title 3 Image of cassette types 4 8-tracks vs. the audio cassette 5 Lindos links 6 Branchlist 7 Mixed up article! 8 Third world 9 Mix Tape 10 "Actual size" image 11 Tape lengths 12 µS? 13 big hole 14 Vinyl record deck????= 15 ah, the memories.. 16 tape recorder for calculator 17 contradiction 18 8-Track adaptors 19 Tape complexity 20 Opposite side recording 21 Auto Reverse 22 Playing video games off cassettes 23 Congratulations 24 In car audio 25 Radio-broadcasted programmes for 8-bit computers 26 Who calls them "Compact Cassettes?"?? 27 Vandalism 28 Reason for disappearance of chromium dioxide and ferrichrome 29 Prerecorded cassettes 30 "Repair" section 31 Cassette single: Third opinion from interested parties 32 New info on track & tape width

[edit] Track layout

"the two stereo tracks lie adjacent to each other rather than a 1/3 and 2/4 arrangement. " -- could someone explain this for the layperson? -- Tarquin

I think it means that the tape is laid out like this:

1111111
2222222
3333333
4444444
<---> direction of tape

rather than:

1111111
3333333
2222222
4444444

Where 1 and 2 are the stereo channels of side one, and 3 and 4 are the stereo channels of side two. How to put that into simple language without taking up half a page is a different matter, however... --Camembert

The second diagram is wrong. Compact Cassette recorded the side A stereo on track 1 and 2 in the first diagram (and side B on tracks 3 and 4. Reel-to-reel recorders, on the other hand recorded the side A stereo on tracks 1 and 3 in the first diagram (and side B on tracks 2 and 4). This meant that although the stereo recording could be played back on 4-track mono machines (provided it permitted replay from both sections of the head), they could not be played back on 2-track mono or stereo machines. Mono 2-track recordings could be played back on mono 4-track machines (and stereo machines if the machine would play from one track only - as most did).

Interesting. But I don't understand how this change is advantageous. Bastie 12:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it means that it's easier to build cheap monophonic players because they can get by with only two heads. One head can read both the left and right tracks in one direction and the other head can read the left and write tracks in the other direction. That makes their mechanics simpler and cheaper. I'm not an engineer, but that's how it was explained to me once. If anyone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it. Joe 13:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good diagram of the types of R2R recording. Bastie 13:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is how the channels are located. By having the channels this way, makes it possible for mono playes to play stereo recordings (in mono) and vice versa. atmo 23:52, 9 February 2006 (CET)

We should have our own diagrams of this; they should be fairly simple to do. I was thinking of doing some of my own when I get off my lazy ass, but if someone else wants to do them first, no problem with me. Fourohfour 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that a Stereo compact audio cassette, actually has five tracks... Tracks 1, 2, 4, and 5 have audio on them. Track 3 is silent... Side one is made up of Tracks 1, 2, and half of Track 3. Side Two consists of The Second Half of Track 3, plus Tracks 4 and 5. The Silent Track in the Center is there to help prevent crosstalk between the two sides.§ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garr1984 (talk • contribs).

That's interesting, but can you find a reliable source for it? Fourohfour 11:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was in some Handyman's encyclopedia, in a section discussing how to repair 8 Track and Cassette Tapes. Garr1984 04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)§

Discussion continued at New info on track & tape width dated 22 March 2007 --Blainster 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Is 'compact audio cassette' a meaningful term? The official name is "Compact Cassette", and it's usually referred to as an "audio cassette" or simply "cassette" nowadays... so where did this hybrid come from? Has it ever been used except as a result of this article?

I'm not convinced that it's worth changing the title of the article now (too much hassle with links), but if this is simply a neologism, wouldn't it be preferable to discourage its use elsewhere?

Fourohfour 10:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd strongly favor "Compact Cassette" too, because it's the official name, and this would keep it in line with Compact Disc, and Digital Compact Cassette, the name of both of which derives from Compact Cassette. But it might be a pain with all the links. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the only reason I didn't change it long ago... I'm sure that with the proper tools and/or admin powers it would be fairly simple, but I haven't looked into it yet. Fourohfour 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin, it was no problem, so I did move it. Quite a lot of articles linked to "Compact Cassette" anyway, but I fixed all the redirect pages, of which there were many; less than half of articles linked to the previous article title "Compact audio cassette" so it was a problem that needed fixing anyway. I'll fix as many article links as I can but might look into getting a bot to do it instead. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff, nice to see you changed it anyway! Fourohfour 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tape" was the most common referal in my corner of the globe (Central United States).

[edit] Image of cassette types

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 8-tracks vs. the audio cassette

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Lindos links

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. AlistairMcMillan 21:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised and puzzled by this comment. Firstly, I have added no links to my own private website (I do not own or control Lindos Electronics). Secondly, Wikipedia is full of external links to company sites, often of poor quality. Lindos is a very high profile company in the area of audio measurements, and the articles on its site are very pertinent to many Wikipedia topics. The test sheet database is a novel public resource, built by users, rather like Wikipedia, and hence of great interest to those reading audio topics and to Wikipedians. My personal interest has always been in improving the understanding of audio quality and measurement, and that is my role now, through my own business Lindos Developments, which does not sell anything but has income from IP rights. Perhaps you should have a go at the IPod page. That's pure product advertising for one manufacturer!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lindosland"

[edit] Branchlist

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)

[edit] Mixed up article!

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Third world

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)

[edit] Mix Tape

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)

Mixtapes were not exclusive to cassettes. It has been done on reel to reel in the 50's & 60's. When I was a kid in the late 70's & early 80's, I would make mix tapes on 8 Track to play on the portables in the cars. And people now do it on CD-R. So mixtapes have no exclusivity to cassette. Teamgoon 12:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Actual size" image

In reference to the thumbnail of the Compact Cassette, Blainster's edit summary says he put it back to being large (300px) so that it's close to actual size. I've no wish to get into an edit war, so I've not made it smaller again, but I do think it wrecks the page for people with lower screen resolutions, by consuming potentially half of the available content space. (Some people still use 640x480!) This lack of accessibility is a shame. I'd see your point though, if it were possible to make things look actual size; that might be useful. But it's not what you've done here by specifying a number of pixels. The tape looks about half actual size on my widescreen laptop, for example, because it has very small pixels. If it looks actual size to you, that's a factor of your monitor. I'd suggest taking a new photo of a tape alongside a ruler or reference object. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A ruler only demonstrates something that should already have been explained verbally; e.g. if we're told that a tape is 12cm wide, having a ruler "show" this adds nothing. Why? If someone can't visualise 12cm, then showing it on a ruler isn't that helpful, unless the ruler represents an object of well-known size. And we often don't get to see the whole thing anyway.

If it's really necessary to have measurements on the photograph, then (e.g.) double-ended arrows with lengths marked for width, height and depth would be less intrusive. Fourohfour 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree, but I wasn't trying to be an advocate of rulers, I was merely hoping to be constructive rather than just negative. But it's moot anyway — Blainster revisited the page and decided to specify a smaller thumbnail. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tape lengths

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)

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)

I recall TDK C46s from the 1980s (they always had the widest range). They were sold reasonably widely, but I still reckon their sales were dwarfed by C60s and C90s. Nor do I know if anyone else sold them. Common? It's all relative. As for data, wasn't that those short C12/C15 cassettes? Fourohfour 01:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] µS?

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, this one has always been a mystery, even to me. And converting 120 or 70 "microseconds" to Hertz taking them as period durations would give 8.33 KHz and 14.285 KHz accordingly, which means that if those were AC bias frequencies they should be pretty audible and far from "high frequency" standards (they would double if they were taken to mean semi-periods, though). EpiVictor. Then again, tape bias works exactly by mixing a high-frequency AC signal to the recorded signal...only that those AC bias frequencies appear too low compared to the intended frequency response (20HZ-16KHz for Chrome tape, somewhat worse for Ferric tapes). Maybe then the "S" refers to some other kind of unit like e.g. magnetic induction? EpiVictor 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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..

[edit] tape recorder for calculator

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) .

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) .

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)