When/How did Casssette become 'HiFi?'

I'm curious about a history lesson. When and how did cassette become hifi from meager beginnings as a mono voice dictation format competing against stereo 8-track?

Was it Dolby? Was it type II/IV tapes?

I used to think it was a combination of Dolby NR making type I tapes sound acceptable and the manufacture of high quality type II tapes. This was supported by most pre-recorded (type I) tapes being sold with Dolby up to the end of cassette in the '90s.

However, I think that isn't the case because '80s+ type Is by themselves sound good without Dolby, so something else must have happened to let cassettes take over.

A lot of Walkmen sold in the '90s didn't have Dolby anyway, which makes me think people were not using/didn't care about Dolby or thought of it as a high-end optional filter (which it obviously was not in reality) and that the tape formulations themselves had improved significantly, even for type I. That in itself is a strange phenomenon because you could buy a 1994 Walkman without Dolby and go buy a 1994 pre-recorded tape next door with Dolby, which would be incompatible with the Walkman.

 

Compact Cassette - Wikipedia

 

Dolby B and Type II tapes really started to prove that cassettes could be a viable HiFi medium.

Type III tapes never took off, and Type 4 tapes were spendy. In the early '80s you could get a case of 10 TDK SA90 blanks for about $25. A borrowed album on each side cost $1.25.

By the mid '80s, the top of the line decks from the likes of Revox, Nakamichi and Tandberg were really stunning. Even $200 machines were really good by then. Of course Dolby C and HX Pro (headroom extension) were common features. Some decks also had DBX, and by 1990, Dolby S.

I hope this helps.

 

Pretty much this^^^ Worked my way up to a Nak Dragon. About $500 worth of tapes held Amazing copies of almost 1000 albums. Dolby C on the Revox, Tandberg and Nak's really made them HiFi. And depending on where your turntable was setup, allowed you to play cassettes much louder than the turntable (which might get feedback).

 

I love this part. Cassette won this competition the day we figured out we didnt need a comb or a matchbook to prop up a cassette for it to play. HiFiGuy pretty much nailed your answer. Cassette began taking off in the late 70's when cassette players for a car appeared. By 1980, only your parents were stupid enough to get a car with an 8 track instead of a cassette. Cassette owned the mobile market in the 80s.

 

Techmoan has a very good video about cassettes.

 

I think Nakamichi began paying serious attention to engineering cassette decks to record and reproduce music in the late 1960s. Reel to Reel Tape Recorder Manufacturers - Nakamichi - Museum of Magnetic Sound Recording
This involved paying more attention to speed stability and lowering wow and flutter in the decks, with better motors and "dual capstan drive." Nakamichi - Wikipedia
Chromium tape also allowed for improvement in S/N ratio. But the dynamic range and S/N ratio of cassette is inherently limited by its 1 7/8 ips tape speed. A small number of tape decks were produced with a 3 3/4 ips speed, but the improvements are minor. And 3o minutes/side turns into 15 minutes/side.

Dolby B sound processing may have spurred that- it's very difficult to get a cassette deck to spec above 58-60dB without it. But Dolby comes with a cost, in my opinion- it always attenuates note decay and alters the frequency spectrum to some extent. Dolby recording works by boosting the upper octaves of the sound spectrum in order to process the source, and then it compensates by de-emphasizing the high frequencies when engaged in playback. And it's so sensitive to minor differences in minor playback tracking, like bias, azimuth and skew, that it only reliably sounds halfway decent when the same deck is used for source recording and playback. Nakamichi came up with a tape deck that cost an extra $500 to ameliorate the azimuth problem, and Dolby still impairs the sound.

Truth? For a lot of sources- particularly noisier and louder types of music like electric rock- I prefer cassettes recorded and played with the Dolby off. As a rule, I don't find the "gently falling rain" hiss of tape noise to be as obtrusive as a tamed, muffled Dolbyized recording. It typically sounds okay to push recording peaks pretty far into the red, too. As long as the harmonic distortion stops short of sounding like it's crunching, it sounds like it adds more impact. That's how to get the S/N ratio up on cassette- overdrive the recording a little.

For that matter, the way I perceive sound, as long as background noise is steady state- like tape hiss, or AM broadcast- I can live with a S/N ratio as low as 50dB. Analog fanciers should know that it's possible to hear signal even 10dB or so below the noise floor. That's more important to me than artificially imposed silence. And the best cassette decks, like the last Tandberg models, can get up to 60dB at 1kHz, without Dolby. I had a couple of late 1970s era TEAC decks that managed 58dB/1kHz without Dolby, and they weren't even high end. They were just well built. 60dB is a strong (if not optimal) FM level of signal to noise (but FM problems are typically much more severe than S/N background; I'll take a clear AM signal with 50dB S/N signal over a wavering, edgy, and/or multipath afflicted FM signal any day.)

As dor DBX, it "pumps." You can hear it breathing, as it envelops the signal. And Dolby C is an extension of Dolby B that processes frequency ranges down into the midrange, where the fundamentals are = it sucks, typically. A classic example of "disregard the spec sheets; use your ears."

I remember reading an interview with Steve Miller in the late 1970s or early 1980s where he said that he figured out that Dolby "contipates everything", and refused to use it when recording in the studio. (Dolby originally showed up as an outboard processor, used for reel-to-reel professional recording; then some reel to reel decks were supplied with it, and eventually it became the standard for home cassette decks.)

 

Good article and it did answer a lot of questions. An unacceptably rude answer (by a new member) to your post isn't an auspicious introduction to this forum, however.

 

It all started with this machine and DuPont CrO2 tape:

 

That is the Advent 201 with Wollensack drive system. I liked mine, but I will say it started with the earlier Advent 200 (rumored to use Nakamichi internals before Nak came out with a cassette deck or anyone had ever heard of them in the US). And BTW, the 200 had all the non-reliability of the Nakamichi Research decks...

Like an Italian sports car... you still love it even when it breaks.

 

I recall that quite a lot of people, myself included, made recordings with Dolby B switched On, but listened with it switched Off.

 

more blasts from the past...

Model 200 Series Cassette Decks

Anybody Remember an Advent Cassette Deck - Tapeheads Tape, Audio and Music Forums

 

Well, I was an audiophile during the growth of cassette. But I don't think we ever considered it "hi-fi". Maybe, when Nakamichi introduced the first 700, it was a gigantic upgrade in sound quality. So I would call that the first cassette deck that appealed to audiophiles.

 

This machine, introduced in 1971, was the first cassette machine accepted as High Fidelity. USA built to boot.

 

Pretty interesting discussion of the Advent 201- and the Advent 200- over in Audiogon: Advent 201 tapedeck: Is good for a modern setup? | Audiogon Discussion Forum

I was one of those under the misapprehension that the fabled Advent 201 was a Nakamichi-made deck- an error that's already been corrected in this discussion, as well as in the reply thread on the Audiogon forum. The preceding model, the Advent 200, was Nak-made. Also apparently an inferior machine, for the reasons detailed in the Audiogon discussion.

 

for me mid 80's...

 

Yep. This was especially popular when trading copies of live tapes that were subject to degradation with each generation removed from the source. It preserved the high frequencies- boosted them, actually- which helped compensate for the problems associated with decreased frequency response due to the inherent problems of copying cassettes and playing them back. I think it also boosted the noise level! But at least the result preserved some of the treble content and upper midrange detail.

Dolby B in home cassette decks was not really intended as a feature for copying another cassette copy- it worked best for taping higher fidelity source material like LPs or radio broadcasts, recorded to cassettes intended to be played back on the same machine with the Dolby NR switched on. Cassette tape is a very problematic medium for making copies of copies, even under the best of circumstances. Distortions like wow and flutter are additive, and speed anomalies are common, particularly in the absence of a pitch control feature. We cassette bootleg traders and listeners really had to hear past a lot of low-fi gremlins, in the old days. The more generations removed from the source, the more cassette copies eventually get to sounding like music heard over a shortwave radio...

 

It's also connected to things such as head design to maximize output, using a small head gap to bring the best high frequency response from the tape which started to come on from the 70's and the ability of the record head (where separate) to put a large signal to the tape without over saturating which is essential to gain the benefits of type IV tapes..
The combination of the two gives you the highest possible signal to noise ratio and yes the poster who said you could get to a S/N ratio of 58-60 db without dolby was right but you have to design that in rather than rely on extra processing.

 

While in the Air Force I had two cassette decks (Both Yamaha) connected to my Denon Integrated with Cerwin Vega speakers. After the second midnight shift we always had a barracks party (choir practice or fellowship) so the queuing up of the next song was a necessity of having two decks, Koss closed phones were instrumental. No records were scratched (records and TT were left safely at Mom and Dad's), this went on until I bought my first CD player. We played a mix but I mostly remember Dio, Sabbath, Zep, Bach, Wagner and Yes, it was good times and necessary to blow off steam. Was it HiFi? We sure thought so...

 

Never considered cassettes hi-fi. The tape speed was too slow (and the packaging too far removed from the art-forms seen on LPs). The Nakamichi and Revox/Studer decks certainly upped the ante, but against an LP - I don't think so.

 

I bought a Sony TC-204SD cassette deck while stationed in Thailand in 75. It was not hi-fi, but it made tapes good enough for the car.


During the mid 80s I bought a Yamaha K-1000, a Teac V800X and a Pioneer CT-90R while stationed in Europe. The Yamaha was not hifi, and it was the most expensive of the three.

 

I believe the Advent was a rebadged Wollensack. At the time, I still wasn't impressed. The 3-head Nakamichis were the first to catch my interest toward approaching reel-to-reel in sound quality. But I know now that cassette actually never even got close to r-t-r.

 

It was not a mere rebadge. Only thing Wollensak on this machine was the transport. Heads and electronics were Advent through and through. Advent had the heads custom made for the Wollensak A/V cassette transport, and the electronics are all Advent built. If not for Henry Kloss, the cassette would have stayed a dictating machine for longer. Nakamichi still didn't have reliability down yet. It took Nakamichi another 4 to 5 years to get there.

 

I can’t imagine that anyone seriously considered the cassette tape experience “HiFi”. I had considerable investments in cassette players, but never considered the sound to be anything close to vinyl.