XPost: rec.audio.pro, comp.dsp   
   From: gah@ugcs.caltech.edu   
      
   In comp.dsp Dick Pierce  wrote:   
   (after I wrote)   
   >> On the other hand, the improvements in cassette tapes, especially   
   >> high bias and metal, I believe were consumer side driven.   
   >> Pros could afford to run the tape fast enough, consumers needed   
   >> high quality at low speed and narrow tracks.   
      
   > Well, I would disagree strongly. The consumers did not perceive   
   > ANY "need" for high-bias and metal tapes until AFTER the   
   > products were introduced to the market. And the research that   
   > went into the tape formulations themselves was not at all   
   > driven by the consumer market, it wasn't even driven by the   
   > audio market: it was driven by the requirements of high-speed   
   > data recording for computer and scientific use.   
      
   It is likely true that they originated from computer use, but   
   adapting to audio use had to be done by someone, at some cost.   
      
   As I remember some of this, part of it was Philips' requirement   
   that audio cassettes, originally for voice recording, keep the   
   narrow track and slow speed to stay compatible.  Then BASF,   
   with the patent for CrO2, got people interested enough to drive   
   the development of cassette decks to support high bias, but for   
   patent reasons the tapes were expensive.  Then others developed   
   the cobolt-doped ferric oxide, as a compatible but cheaper,   
   especially without the BASF patent, tape.  In addition, there   
   was the development of Dolby B, C, and dbx, to squeeze the   
   signal into the available space with reasonable frequency   
   response and noise.   
      
   For pro-audio use, the obvious answer is faster tape and wider   
   tracks, and pretty much that is what they did, as far as I know.   
   For patent reasons that wasn't allowed for cassettes.   
   (I even remember the L-cassette, ELCA, a larger version   
   of the Compact Cassette, with wider and faster tape.)   
      
   > Most of the "research" for the consumer market was, well, market   
   > reserch.   
      
   It seems to me that there was consumer demand for something that   
   would record at least as good (frequency respone and noise) as   
   good vinyl LPs, and cassettes did that.   
      
   For metal tape, that may have been especially market research   
   driven.  Everyone "knows" that metals are strong.  We buy metal   
   wrenches and tableware because we know that it will last longer   
   than plastic.  So it must also be better for audio, right?   
      
   Many tape players have a switch for metal, though the equalization   
   is the same as for type II tapes, though that isn't always marked.   
   It is the ability to market the feature that counts.   
      
   > I would go so far as to say that for the last 40 years, many   
   > audio "innovations" were not driven by either pro or consumer   
   > audio "needs," but were, in fact, hand-me-downs from other   
   > disciplines.   
      
   That is true in many cases, and likely here, too.  There is still   
   the cost of adapting the technology.  For one, tape optimized for   
   storing digital data is not at all optimal for analog data.   
      
   Not having followed it all that closesly at the time, I believe   
   that pro-audio went to digital recording at about the time that   
   consumer cassette audio was being improved.  We had the digitally   
   mastered vinyl LPs, and home high-bias tape to make copies   
   (for car use, obviously).   
      
   -- glen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)