I wonder why Quad Cassettes were never a thing

It may be that Quad was doomed to fail no matter what formats became available, due to the need for extra speakers and special electronics. I can understand that. Still, the compact cassette would seem to have been the ideal carrier for greater success in the market. Yes, you'd still need the extra speakers and electronics, but the compact cassette would have been far cheaper than Quad reel to reel and less clunky than the Quad 8 track format. Mass duplication would have been a relatively easy thing to accomplish and the players would have been backwards compatible with stereo cassettes at the flick of a switch. Opportunity missed so far as I can tell. I wonder if it was ever even tested. Ah well, just typing out loud. Have a nice day.

 

IIRC the format was dead before the cassette became "main stream".
And yes, I had a Quad 8-Track system....

 

I don't think cassette tape was wide enough to accomodate the 4 channels?

 

Which is surely why multichannel home theatre sound has been such an abysmal failure, sales-wise, I'm sure.

 

Cassette is 4 track - normally two in one direction, and two in the other. If all were used at once, such as how some have used multitrack style cassette recorders, quad could have been put on cassette.

 

Unlike 8 track, which was pretty much a free-for-all in terms of standards, cassette was tightly standardised by Philips who invented the format. Two tracks in each direction, four not allowed. Doubling the speed from 1-7/8 to 3-3/4, not allowed (a few manufacturers tried this and were shot down by Philips).

I can hear somebody saying, "hey, what about the four channel Tascam Portastudios?", yes, that was allowed, but only for that specific non-consumer application.

Philips also tightly regulated the shell dimensions, which increased compatibility in different machines. Memorex initially did not conform, until Philips slapped their corporate wrists and the specs were changed to conform to Philips' requirements.

As far as matrix quad on cassette - that was tried, and didn't work very well. Matrix quad depends on the integrity of phase relationships, which didn't stand up very well in a slow speed, narrow track environment.

As always, just my opinion, YMMV.

 

Also, for cars, a quad cassette would require a rewind (no auto-reverse) unlike the 8 track which was a continuous loop.

 

Trying to get it comparable with stereo and mono with very narrow gaps while not impossible would of been expensive and the only alternative using standard four channel heads - upper pair as Front and Lower as rear - would of been disallowed by Philips apart from being incompatible with standard equipment needing a Q4 logo so everybody would know it was a Quad cassette. Nice idea though.

 

One direction Quad cassette would have helped the format. The sound would have surpassed 8-track carts, and the separation would have been better than LPs. Seems reel to reel was the only dependable format that really showed off what quad could be at the time. And it was too expensive for the kiddie and young crowd to access. Cassettes would have been the Jr. reel to reel quad playback. Imagine the collectible tapes that would have long been transferred to digital had quad cassettes been issued.

Oh well, at least Audio Fidelity, Dutton / Vocalion, EMI England, and other players have stepped in and reissued many of those classic 4-channel mixes.

 

Just a side note, Techmoan stated in a recent video that he will eventually cover quad on his video channel. I look forward to it.

 

Or for Beatles recordings you could just flip it over and play it in reverse.

 

I guess you’d be stuck with 45min max play time per tape.

 

There were at least some cassettes made using the SQ matrixed quad system:



In the late '80s and early '90s there were also numerous albums available on cassette that were recorded using QSound, B.A.S.E. (Bedini Audio Spacial Environment), RSS (Roland Sound Space), or Dolby Surround, all of which were similar to previous matrixed quadraphonic systems.

 

It still amazes me how Philips got to put 18 tracks on a conventional size tape for their Digital Compact Cassette system. DCC had 9 tracks in one direction and another 9 in the opposite direction. I don't know what kind of error correction system they used but I remember hearing just 3 or 4 clicks or pops during the 4 years I used DCC. Maybe it was the metalic lid that protected the tape, that the tape itself was very well manufactured with a very even coat of magnetic CrO2 fluid but drop outs and tape wear didn't seem to be an issue for DCC. I trashed a recordable DCC tape, a Phlips branded one, I recorded on it plenty of times on purpose and it always played flawlessly. I then left this tape for recording new CD albums I bought so I could listen to them on my DCC walkman but after two years or so of use and abuse it always played right. I then moved and sold my two DCC's deck and walkman to buy a Mini Disc deck and walkman. It didn't sound as good as DCC but it was much more convenient, and recordable Mini Disc's could be re-recorded and abused too, just like DCC.

 

Eight channels on a tape 1/8" wide?

I think I know why it was never a thing.

 

It really worked.

 

Well, as I envisioned it, it would just have been four tracks in one direction.

 

Philips would not allow it (and when Quadraphonic was still a big thing, the patents for Compact Cassette were in force). Philips insisted that cassettes used by the public had to be 1 7/8 IPS, and mono and stereo compatible. 4 track cassettes and 3 3/4 IPS didn't get done or non standard formats (other than Library Of Congress talking books) until the cassette patents expired. By then, Quad was dead in the marketplace.

 

Which was also the worst matrix Quad format, and the one with the least phase coherence. And the worst quality decoders available to the consumer until the Tate/Fosgate. Sansui's QS was the best matrix Quad system available, and the only one which could be single inventory for everyone and work properly for that.

 

I think you'd have to be tinkering with azimuth, etc, all the time.

 

I don’t know why it would be any worse than stereo.

 

Maybe so. Not a medium I've ever considered top flight, merely adequate at times.

 

Well, in my opinion, cassettes first off are 1/8", run at 1 7/8 IPS, which lowers sound fidelity, etc. You'd have to have a recorder running at 3 3/4 IPS to even get adequate sound fidelity. TASCAM made Portastudio machines that were quad/four channel multitrack, and they sold well, but they were only for demo use.

 

It's not.

I used a TASCAM 4 track tape. Great little machine.
Don't let the 4 track capability confuse anyone, it works as it would a normal cassette player,
except your get 4 tracks in one direction.
Using a quality tape, you could really make some great recordings with them.
You also had a variable pitch control, so you could full mast right the control to speed up
the tape to get more quality from the tape.
Don't underestimate the old cassette 4 track, many bands used them and released product
by using them.

 

It is a cool little recorder. I have one that's broken, but I've seen them work before.
Ryan