Was this now largely forgotten intended for domestic use
audio recording format really much better than Philip’s compact cassette?
By: Ringo Bones
Yep, Sony’s Elcaset is one forgotten sad failure of a
domestically intended audio / music recording format supposedly launched as a
much better engineered “replacement” for Philip’s compact cassette. Even a Time
magazine tribute to former Sony Corp. CEO Akio Morita back in December 7, 1998
never mentioned Elcase while William Lear’s Eight-Track tapes and Peter Carl
Goldmark’s 33 1/3 RPM vinyl LPs were mentioned. But is or was the Elcaset truly
better than the compact cassette as an audio and music recording medium?
At the time – during the early 1970s - when Sony intended to
launch a more user-friendly domestic audio recording format that is of higher
fidelity than Philip’s compact cassette, cassette tape formulation technology,
as we know it by the 1980s, was still in its infancy. Metal / Type IV position cassettes
were yet to be invented – and even TDK’s famed cobalt-doped Super Avilyn Type
II high-bias position tapes were still years away from being invented and
marketed. Even Sony’s own top-of-the-line hi-fi cassette tape decks
manufactured under license from Philips has a high-frequency bandwidth that
barely crawls above 16,000 Hz. And don’t forget Sony’s “jealousy” with the
runaway success of the compact cassette by the start of the 1970s finally made
their engineers hatch a plan to launch a “better-sounding” replacement.
Maybe as it was the only format launched by Sony that was
bigger than its intended competitor that might have contributed to its failure,
the Elcasete – due to its higher tape speed – at 3 ¾ inches per second twice
that of the compact cassette’s 1 7/8 inches per second – easily exhibited
better wow and flutter characteristic than its smaller competition. And using
tape that’s the same thickness, 6.3 mm as standard quarter-track open reel
tapes (like those Barclay-Crocker open-reel tapes) – compared to the compact
cassette’s 3.8 mm thickness – Sony’s Elcaset easily exhibited better
signal-to-noise ratio, higher recording levels – which amounted to way better
sound quality than the Philip’s compact cassette. Elcaset decks easily reached
25,000 HZ during tests at the time – in 1976 – where most top-of-the-line 1,000
US dollar compact cassette decks can barely crawl past the 16,000 Hz mark. Running
more tape at higher speed past the head easily gave Elcaset a greater potential
performance advantage over the compact cassette, even if bulk and cost were the
price to pay. But why did Elcaset fail?
According to hi-fi enthusiasts old enough to experience the
format launch first hand – back in 1976, Sony never made and marketed
prerecorded music Elcasets for them to compare wit their do-it-yourself audio
and music recordings. Not to mention audio enthusiasts at the time never
“wanted” anything better than their quarter-track open-reel tapes, which was
the “ultimate” in domestic audio recording and music playback at the time.
Sony’s Elcaset uncomfortably fell somewhere in between – hardcore hi-fi
enthusiasts consider “closed cassettes” with lower-fidelity convenience. And
even while running at 3 ¾ inches per second, audiophile quality open-reel prerecorded
tapes – like those from Barclay-Crocker – ran at 7 ½ inches per second, easily
providing better sound than Sony’s Elcaset. At around 18 or so months after its
release, Sony Elcaset tape decks – like the EL5 and EL7 recording decks and
even their ELD8 “walkman-type” portable Elcaset player were soon heavily
discounted, and by 1979, Sony’s Elcaset dies with barely a whimper.
These days, one can sometimes find old but still in perfect
working condition Elcaset decks being sold in weekend hi-fi swap-meets at around 10 to 12 US dollars or so – even
with a complementary set of 10 or more unused blank Elcaset tapes still
enclosed in their original shrink-wrap unopened probably since 1976. Surprisingly,
the Elcaset blank tapes often given away as freebies on second-hand Elcaset
decks are, more often than not, the premium Ferrichrome type. I managed to buy
use one myself back in the mid 1990s and all I can say is that Elcasets are way
better – sound quality wise than Philip’s compact cassette. Modified cassette
tape systems that ran at 3 ¾ inches per second – twice that of the standard
cassette tape speed of 1 7/8 inches per second – still can’t compete with
Elcaset especially in the critical mid-band region, which the soul of music
resides.
Even when recording
from a CD Redbook standard 16-bit 44.1 KHz sampled Sony Super-Bit-Mapped
release of Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue album, Sony’s Elcaset obliged me and most
users I assume, with that hard-to-define “out-of-speakers” quality that was so
appealing about open-reel tapes – or high-end vinyl LP replay and 1990s era CD
set-ups that cost over 5,000 US dollars. If you are lucky enough to find a
still pristine 2-channel open-reel first generation master tape to dub from,
Sony’s Elcaset could probably provide better sound quality than Super Audio
CDs!
Sony's Elcaset - this was launched way before their famed Sony Walkman. I've heard Elcaset being demoed in Singapore back in 2005, and I think it even sounds better than Super Audio CD - especially in the midrange audio band. BTW - why is it that TDK's Super Avilyn cobalt doped / cobalt absorbed cassettes were said to be made around 1974 when every older relatives of mine who were hi-fi enthusiasts during the 1980s say they only saw Super Avilyn cassettes being advertized near the end of 1981?
ReplyDeleteHeard a Sony Elcaset unit being tested in Singapore back in 2006. Given Elcaset's ability to reproduce walk-around soundstage, it is probably the closest Sony ever had to manufacturing a single-ended triode amplifier.
ReplyDeleteA single-ended triode amplifier by Sony, May Anne? That'll be the day.
ReplyDeleteI think you spelled "Elcaset" correctly one out of three times in your article.
ReplyDelete