On Fri, April 11, 2008 8:36 pm, John Howell wrote: > At 5:51 PM -0400 4/11/08, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: >>On Fri, April 11, 2008 4:42 pm, Richard Willis wrote: >>> Just out of curiosity, how do cassette tapes fare? Have they been >>> known >>> to >>> have these type problems, too? >> >>I don't know about the gumminess. I've never seen one with the problems, >>likely because cassette formulations were quite a bit different from >> reels >>at the time. > > In fact, if I recall correctly, the original cassettes back in the > '60s DID use the formulations previously used on reel-to-reel tapes, > but at the extremely slow speed the cassettes ran (1 7/8 i.p.s.?) the > response was dreadful. Later formulations were MUCH better.
Correct -- that's because by the time of the gumminess problem (1980s), research had gone into manufacturing cassette tape of much higher quality. The cassette boom was encouraged when the Philips patent ran out, and new formulations and new devices (like the Fostex 4-track home studio) were introduced. That research actually helped drive higher-quality reel tapes as well, and by the demise of reels in the 1990s, there were Type II gum-free tapes from Maxell, TDK, and Ampex. My reels done in dbx I (linear compression) are quite wonderful -- but even some of the radio shows mastered on that Fostex (with Dolby C, I think) were surprisingly professional sounding. Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
