> 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.
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.
It's just annoying to post unverifiable numbers without a credible source and expect others to do the hard work of verifying it (or just take you at face value, probably). It has nothing to do with AI except insofar as your own feelings on AI convinced you this is a reasonable method of communication.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.