5 ms·

> but it is really hard to make a good sounding cassette It is unfortunate that cassettes are the lowest fidelity consumer medium (of modern times). But there

> but it is really hard to make a good sounding cassette It is unfortunate that cassettes are the lowest fidelity consumer medium (of modern times). But there is some room to optimize within that space. If you are curious: The cassettes available today are Type I, Type II ("high bias") and Type IV ("metal"), each being higher fidelity than the last, but not all portable players supported these types of tape. Dolby B/C noise reduction could improve the dynamic range of tapes a bit, but again not all portable players supported this. The ultimate was "dbx", which dramatically improved noise reduction and dynamic range ("tape hiss" was essentially inaudible), but now you're in the territory of needing dedicated rack-mount equipment to record and play your tapes. My dad was a bit of an audio buff, so I got to experience these things as a kid. Edit: according to gemini AI: * Type I had a dynamic range of about 50bB (roughly 8 bits) * High quality tape with Dolby B, C and dbx yielded roughly 65, 75, and 85dB SNR (about 11, 12.5, and 14 bits) So you could get pretty close to CD quality, but not quite.

jackdoe 10mo ago
> Type IV also they are 20$ per cassette :)
- cellularmitosis 10mo ago
  Wow! And Type I are about $2.80 on amazon. That's quite the span!
  - bayindirh 10mo ago
    Type IV cassettes were always exorbitantly expensive both due to high cost and low demand (and rarity of the hardware which can record them well). So, if you were able to afford a Nakamichi / Technics / Akai, then you'd be able to afford them back in the day.
    - inkyoto 10mo ago
      Type IV (also known as Metal) cassettes came in stunning industrial designs – BASF, TDK, Maxell etc. They were worth owing even if a Nakamichi was out of reach.
      - bayindirh 10mo ago
        Yeah, I didn't argue otherwise. What I was trying to say is, you tend to be not bothered by the price tag if you can pay for a good deck. I used to have a couple metal cassettes back in the day.
nemo8551 10mo ago
I wish the comeback was minidisc. I was just the right age to think this was the future of portable music. Mostly because I could record radio, other cds and cassettes onto them.
- kgwxd 10mo ago
  I had a 4 track mini disc recorder, and dreams of becoming the go-to "audio engineer" for all the bands in my school :)
bayindirh 10mo ago
Recording with Dolby-B on a Sony consumer level integrated Hi-Fi produced pretty solid sounding cassettes back in the day, given you have used TDK's chrome or metal blanks. Some gotchas: - Loudness wars were just beginning. - Many CDs had some analog stages in its recording/mastering stages, so none of them was sounding "razor sharp" anyway. Yesterday, I have listened Depeche Mode's Best of album on an Mechen M-30 with a good but not exquisite pair of Philips neck headphones, encoded as FLAC, and it sound superbly enjoyable. While I love vinyl, no, I won't return back to cassette (even though I have a nice deck), thank you.
bondarchuk 10mo ago
>Edit: according to gemini AI: >* Type I had a dynamic range of about 50bB (roughly 8 bits) >* High quality tape with Dolby B, C and dbx yielded roughly 65, 75, and 85dB SNR (about 11, 12.5, and 14 bits) >So you could get pretty close to CD quality, but not quite. Source? AI content without it is less than worthless.
- cellularmitosis 10mo ago
  Did you actually try any searches? Or is this just an excuse to broadcast your feelings about AI? The author of the Ogg format claims a bit more pessimistic range of bit depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM Here are some measurements of type I, II and IV: http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v_Level/album/TypeI/index.html http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v... http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v_Level/album/TypeII/index.html http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v... http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v_Level/album/TypeIV/index.html http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v... Here are the specifications of a typical dbx unit: https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/222.shtml https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/222.shtml
  - Aldipower 10mo ago
    The measurements you are linking to are showing the level of distortion (HD3 v level) not dynamic range! The Y-axis on the graphs is showing the 3rd harmonic in dB in relation to the mV given in on the x-axis. This has absolutely nothing to do with dynamic range and it is also not the signal-to-noise-ratio. The fundamental frequency in those measurements was at 315 Hz. HD3 refers to Harmonic Distortion at 3rd level.
    - cellularmitosis 10mo ago
      My bad. This Wikipedia article has a table of SNR values for 13 different kinds of tape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette_tape_types_and_formulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette_tape_types_an...
ErroneousBosh 10mo ago
Chances are you're not listening to it in an environment that's quiet enough for 65dB SNR to be even noticeable.
j45 10mo ago
It's less about fidelity, more about portability and customizability. Today we can hear all the hifi we want, it's a trip to see what the imagination can fill in as well. If you're really into walkmans, check out the Panasonic ultra small ranges.
- prmoustache 10mo ago
  The point about fidelity/quality is moot anyway when most people are listening to overcompressed[1] music on crappy bluetooth speakers and/or in a noisy environment. [1] as in dynamic range compression, not encoding
  - j45 10mo ago
    Some decade, bluetooth will get there. While it's improved a great deal, there remains a gap. Noise cancellation is getting pretty good.
    - prmoustache 10mo ago
      It is not necessarily a protocol/technology issue, more a cultural one. Most people are just not looking at quality first and will buy whatever is cheap, loud and has the form factor they want. Music is so compressed nowadays that they don't even hear a difference between crappy and better quality speakers.
      - j45 10mo ago
        Very plausible. Until they hear the same song much clearer and wonder what the difference was, as long as they enjoy music :)
Hackbraten 10mo ago
> The cassettes available today are Type I, Type II ("high bias") and Type IV ("metal") That statement feels a litle misleading. The only type of cassettes produced today is Type I. Everything else is new old stock, where you might end up with a decades-old, chemically degraded cassette.
- baobun 10mo ago
  > decades-old, chemically degraded cassette Somehow it never occurred to me. I wonder how all the C64 games in the basement are doing...
  - titusjohnson 10mo ago
    About 5 years ago or so I was able to collect my Dad's C64 collection from my Mom's house, buy some new cables and an official C64 monitor off of eBay, and gift him his old computer back for Christmas. I can't speak to cassettes, we had only cartridges and floppies. My Dad was a prolific pirate, so cases and cases of floppies. I'd say roughly 3 out of 5 worked, and we were able to boot the old game up. Karateka, 4th and Inches, Hat Trick, Bubble Bobble, Impossible Mission... I was surprised the C64 worked, honestly. It had been stored for nearly a decade in an old Barn next to decrepit plow/cattle equipment from the early 1900's, not protected from the environment at all, just an old cardboard box literally busting at the seams. At least it wasn't on the ground.
- Ringz 10mo ago
  I have sealed TDK MA-XG in mint condition. Stored in a dry, dark place. Do you say that they are degraded now?
  - Hackbraten 10mo ago
    Your metal tape might be fine if stored well. Chances are you're never going to unseal it anyway. There are, however, reports of degraded batches of the TDK SA series [0] and other brands. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome
embedding-shape 10mo ago
> It is unfortunate that cassettes are the lowest fidelity consumer medium So what? The quality of music and enjoyment of it isn't depending on fidelity. I have Adam A7X monitors I mostly use day-to-day, but when I listen to lo-fi, I change the output to the output of my monitor which are absolutely horrible, but fits the mood better.
- mrob 10mo ago
  >The quality of music and enjoyment of it isn't depending on fidelity It depends somewhat on personal preference, but also on genre. Classical music often has very high dynamic range, so analog recordings can have obnoxiously loud hiss in the quiet sections. This is probably a big reason why classical music labels were early adopters of digital recording, and why classical recordings often have a SPARS code [0] prominently displayed. Classical music was also much less affected by the loudness war, removing one incentive for buying on vinyl. You rarely see any preference for analog among classical listeners. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code
lb1lf 10mo ago
Do keep in mind 96 dB is only the theoretical dynamic range of the CD medium, 99% of recordings utilize way less. (Besides, you'd be in pain if you cranked up the volume until you had 96dB of range above your hearing threshold, anyway) CDs also eliminate wow & flutter (which ought to be pretty much inaudible on a decent deck, probably less so on an el cheapo grande walkman), which probably does more for (experienced) audio quality than high dynamic range. Oh, and better high frequency response, for the young ones. :D
Aldipower 10mo ago
I just produced an album release on Type I cassette. High quality Type I (ferro oxid) is almost comparable to Type II, but you need the correct bias settings while recording. Practically the 8bits/50db is non-sense. Really. Maybe on a very bad tape deck you have a signal-noise-ratio of 8bit from silence to the first noticeable noise? But the actual music you are playing has much more dynamic range possibilities. Tbh my recordings on tape sound more dynamic then on Spotify.

jackdoe 10mo ago

> Type IV also they are 20$ per cassette :)

cellularmitosis 10mo ago
Wow! And Type I are about $2.80 on amazon. That's quite the span!
- bayindirh 10mo ago
  Type IV cassettes were always exorbitantly expensive both due to high cost and low demand (and rarity of the hardware which can record them well). So, if you were able to afford a Nakamichi / Technics / Akai, then you'd be able to afford them back in the day.
  - inkyoto 10mo ago
    Type IV (also known as Metal) cassettes came in stunning industrial designs – BASF, TDK, Maxell etc. They were worth owing even if a Nakamichi was out of reach.
    - bayindirh 10mo ago
      Yeah, I didn't argue otherwise. What I was trying to say is, you tend to be not bothered by the price tag if you can pay for a good deck. I used to have a couple metal cassettes back in the day.

nemo8551 10mo ago

I wish the comeback was minidisc. I was just the right age to think this was the future of portable music. Mostly because I could record radio, other cds and cassettes onto them.

kgwxd 10mo ago
I had a 4 track mini disc recorder, and dreams of becoming the go-to "audio engineer" for all the bands in my school :)

bayindirh 10mo ago

Recording with Dolby-B on a Sony consumer level integrated Hi-Fi produced pretty solid sounding cassettes back in the day, given you have used TDK's chrome or metal blanks. Some gotchas: - Loudness wars were just beginning. - Many CDs had some analog stages in its recording/mastering stages, so none of them was sounding "razor sharp" anyway. Yesterday, I have listened Depeche Mode's Best of album on an Mechen M-30 with a good but not exquisite pair of Philips neck headphones, encoded as FLAC, and it sound superbly enjoyable. While I love vinyl, no, I won't return back to cassette (even though I have a nice deck), thank you.

bondarchuk 10mo ago

>Edit: according to gemini AI: >* Type I had a dynamic range of about 50bB (roughly 8 bits) >* High quality tape with Dolby B, C and dbx yielded roughly 65, 75, and 85dB SNR (about 11, 12.5, and 14 bits) >So you could get pretty close to CD quality, but not quite. Source? AI content without it is less than worthless.

cellularmitosis 10mo ago
Did you actually try any searches? Or is this just an excuse to broadcast your feelings about AI? The author of the Ogg format claims a bit more pessimistic range of bit depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM Here are some measurements of type I, II and IV: http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v_Level/album/TypeI/index.html http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v... http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v_Level/album/TypeII/index.html http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v... http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v_Level/album/TypeIV/index.html http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Recording/Measurements/HD3_v... Here are the specifications of a typical dbx unit: https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/222.shtml https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/222.shtml
- Aldipower 10mo ago
  The measurements you are linking to are showing the level of distortion (HD3 v level) not dynamic range! The Y-axis on the graphs is showing the 3rd harmonic in dB in relation to the mV given in on the x-axis. This has absolutely nothing to do with dynamic range and it is also not the signal-to-noise-ratio. The fundamental frequency in those measurements was at 315 Hz. HD3 refers to Harmonic Distortion at 3rd level.
  - cellularmitosis 10mo ago
    My bad. This Wikipedia article has a table of SNR values for 13 different kinds of tape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette_tape_types_and_formulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette_tape_types_an...

ErroneousBosh 10mo ago

Chances are you're not listening to it in an environment that's quiet enough for 65dB SNR to be even noticeable.

j45 10mo ago

It's less about fidelity, more about portability and customizability. Today we can hear all the hifi we want, it's a trip to see what the imagination can fill in as well. If you're really into walkmans, check out the Panasonic ultra small ranges.

prmoustache 10mo ago
The point about fidelity/quality is moot anyway when most people are listening to overcompressed[1] music on crappy bluetooth speakers and/or in a noisy environment. [1] as in dynamic range compression, not encoding
- j45 10mo ago
  Some decade, bluetooth will get there. While it's improved a great deal, there remains a gap. Noise cancellation is getting pretty good.
  - prmoustache 10mo ago
    It is not necessarily a protocol/technology issue, more a cultural one. Most people are just not looking at quality first and will buy whatever is cheap, loud and has the form factor they want. Music is so compressed nowadays that they don't even hear a difference between crappy and better quality speakers.
    - j45 10mo ago
      Very plausible. Until they hear the same song much clearer and wonder what the difference was, as long as they enjoy music :)

Hackbraten 10mo ago

> The cassettes available today are Type I, Type II ("high bias") and Type IV ("metal") That statement feels a litle misleading. The only type of cassettes produced today is Type I. Everything else is new old stock, where you might end up with a decades-old, chemically degraded cassette.

baobun 10mo ago
> decades-old, chemically degraded cassette Somehow it never occurred to me. I wonder how all the C64 games in the basement are doing...
- titusjohnson 10mo ago
  About 5 years ago or so I was able to collect my Dad's C64 collection from my Mom's house, buy some new cables and an official C64 monitor off of eBay, and gift him his old computer back for Christmas. I can't speak to cassettes, we had only cartridges and floppies. My Dad was a prolific pirate, so cases and cases of floppies. I'd say roughly 3 out of 5 worked, and we were able to boot the old game up. Karateka, 4th and Inches, Hat Trick, Bubble Bobble, Impossible Mission... I was surprised the C64 worked, honestly. It had been stored for nearly a decade in an old Barn next to decrepit plow/cattle equipment from the early 1900's, not protected from the environment at all, just an old cardboard box literally busting at the seams. At least it wasn't on the ground.
Ringz 10mo ago
I have sealed TDK MA-XG in mint condition. Stored in a dry, dark place. Do you say that they are degraded now?
- Hackbraten 10mo ago
  Your metal tape might be fine if stored well. Chances are you're never going to unseal it anyway. There are, however, reports of degraded batches of the TDK SA series [0] and other brands. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky-shed_syndrome

embedding-shape 10mo ago

> It is unfortunate that cassettes are the lowest fidelity consumer medium So what? The quality of music and enjoyment of it isn't depending on fidelity. I have Adam A7X monitors I mostly use day-to-day, but when I listen to lo-fi, I change the output to the output of my monitor which are absolutely horrible, but fits the mood better.

mrob 10mo ago
>The quality of music and enjoyment of it isn't depending on fidelity It depends somewhat on personal preference, but also on genre. Classical music often has very high dynamic range, so analog recordings can have obnoxiously loud hiss in the quiet sections. This is probably a big reason why classical music labels were early adopters of digital recording, and why classical recordings often have a SPARS code [0] prominently displayed. Classical music was also much less affected by the loudness war, removing one incentive for buying on vinyl. You rarely see any preference for analog among classical listeners. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

lb1lf 10mo ago

Do keep in mind 96 dB is only the theoretical dynamic range of the CD medium, 99% of recordings utilize way less. (Besides, you'd be in pain if you cranked up the volume until you had 96dB of range above your hearing threshold, anyway) CDs also eliminate wow & flutter (which ought to be pretty much inaudible on a decent deck, probably less so on an el cheapo grande walkman), which probably does more for (experienced) audio quality than high dynamic range. Oh, and better high frequency response, for the young ones. :D

Aldipower 10mo ago

I just produced an album release on Type I cassette. High quality Type I (ferro oxid) is almost comparable to Type II, but you need the correct bias settings while recording. Practically the 8bits/50db is non-sense. Really. Maybe on a very bad tape deck you have a signal-noise-ratio of 8bit from silence to the first noticeable noise? But the actual music you are playing has much more dynamic range possibilities. Tbh my recordings on tape sound more dynamic then on Spotify.