dbx: The Forgotten Cassette Tape Noise Reduction System?

Though it was touted during the cassette tape’s heyday as the noise reduction system that can make tapes as silent as digital recordings, has dbx now been relegated to the technological dustbin of history?

By: Ringo Bones

As a budding hi-fi enthusiast during the latter half of the 1980s and a semi-pro studio musician during the late 1980s and the early 1990s, it seems – from my own perspective – that the dbx noise reduction system is more popular in the pro-audio field than in home hi-fi. And even though in this day and age of barely-legal and barely-audiophile sounding digital music downloads, has dbx been largely forgotten?

Even though the dbx name had only been familiar to hard-core audiophiles who want to extract the last ounce of performance from cassette during the 1980s, dbx – the company – is much more than a mere “cassette tape noise reduction company”. The company, I think, has two main business addresses – their consumer gear division can be contacted at dbx, Incorporated, 71 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02195. While their pro audio division can be contacted at (well, at least according to the business card they gave me back in 1990) at dbx Professional Products, A division of AKG Acoustics, Inc. 1525 Alvarado Street, San Leandro, California 94577, USA.

Product wise, dbx is a family of noise reduction systems developed by the company of the same name that was used not only for cassette tape noise reduction for the home, but also for professional applications in the “modern” recording studio and for noise reduction of sound reinforcement systems used for  live stadium concert applications. The original dbx Type I and Type II systems were based on so-called “linear decibel companding” – that is the audio signal to be recorded onto a recording medium has its dynamic range compressed and then its dynamic range is expanded upon playback to not only make it sound as close to the natural recorded event as possible, but also to transcend the dynamic range limitations of most existing analog recording mediums at the time. The dbx companding-expanding system was invented by David E. Blackmer of dbx, Inc. in 1971.

In practice, the dbx noise reduction system encodes the audio signal to be recorded (or transmitted) with 12-dB preemphasis (boosting the high frequency part of the audio spectrum) prior to compression. The purpose of which is to further boost the high frequency signal content above the hiss level. An additional preemphasis network is placed in the control voltage (detector) signal path. The extra boost further reduces the compressor gain, keeping recorded high-frequency program content below the saturation point of the tape. This ensures that high-level input signals will not saturate the tape.

There are actually two types of dbx noise-reduction systems, Type I is intended for high speed – 15 inches per second tape speed or greater – tape recording and playback operation and for use with any other wide-band audio transmission system. For slower tape speeds and other restricted bandwidth media – like cassette tapes and vinyl LPs – the dbx Type II noise-reduction system is used. The main difference between Type I and Type II dbx noise-reduction systems can be found in the level detection circuits.

At around 1981, if one wants to record and plays back his or her prerecorded dbx tapes or wants to dbx encode his or her DIY cassette tape recordings, he or she can use an external stand-alone dbx noise reduction processor like the dbx Recording Technology Series Model 224 which was advertised in Stereo Review magazine’s January 1981 edition with a MSRP of about 300 US dollars – which is already a lot of money in 1981, and I have the good fortune to use this myself near the end of the 1980s. At the time, the dbx Recording Technology Series Model 224 was touted as the then “cheapest” way to achieve recordings having a signal-to-noise ratio of 90dB – akin to then existing digital recordings – for home use / making DIY recordings. In cassette tape use, the dbx noise-reduction / dbx NR system operates throughout the audio range and does not require matching record and playback levels. Thus, there is no tracking problem that can affect treble response.

However, it has been noted that playback response at the frequency extremes, particularly at the treble end, tends to be not as good with dbx as with Dolby B and C NR – i.e. Dolby B and C NR tend to sound more natural on acoustic Classical and Jazz music compared to dbx. The dbx system achieves about a 30dB reduction in noise while Dolby B NR only achieves about 10dB while Dolby C NR 20dB. So why did dbx, despite its excellent specs, got “crowded out” in the market place by lesser-performing Dolby noise-reduction systems?

The general lack of acceptance of the dbx noise-reduction system in the consumer electronic marketplace during the go-go 1980s is that all dbx encoded recordings sound unacceptable – i.e. has an over-compressed dynamic range or no variation between loud and soft musical passages – when played on playback equipment without dbx encoding despite the very excellent improvement in sound quality. The first generation of dbx stand alone noise-reduction processors intended to be connected to your existing playback equipment – like your cassette tape deck and turntable for vinyl LP playback – were kind of prohibitively expensive for most hi-fi enthusiasts back in 1981. And despite allowing you to play your cassette tapes and vinyl LPs with the same lack of noise and hiss as that of the late 1970s era professional digital recording system – the JVC DAS-90 system - mainly used in digitally recording and mastering mainly Classical music performances around 1980 – dbx died barely a whimper around 1982. Even dbx encoded vinyl LPs released during 1973 to 1982 were capable of having a signal-to-noise ratio of 120 dB, by the way, Redbook spec 16-bit 44.1-KHz sampled CDs were only capable of around 98dB signal-to-noise ratio - and the JVC DAS-90 digital recording system probably has a lower signal-to-noise ratio than this - even with hiss free full digital recordings.

In my own experience, the dbx noise-reduction system seems more suited to recording and listening pop/rock music without the residual hiss from the cassette tape medium. Even though the cut-price dbx decoding of my own Technics RS-T55RP cassette tape deck, a cassette tape recording of Night Ranger’s Sister Christian was played back with a dynamic range punch reminiscent that of a live stadium rock concert, though as the strongly stuck drums died down, the softer piano parts of this particular Night Ranger song tend to pump and wheeze the cassette tape’s hiss – the oft criticized aspect of dbx artifacts known as breathing / noise modulation. And it seems that even pro audio gear made by dbx primarily aimed for live concert stage noise reduction – i.e. the dbx 563X Hiss Reducer – which around 1990 was primarily used to reduce the hiss of guitar effects stomp boxes using the rather noisy LM 741 op amp IC as the active gain element – also works as an excellent external cassette tape noise reduction / hiss reduction box too. 

Dolby C: The Black Sheep Of The Dolby Noise Reduction Alphabet?

It may be a relatively unknown variant of the Dolby noise reduction system during cassette’s heyday, but is the Dolby C noise reduction system the “black sheep” of the Dolby noise reduction alphabet?

By: Ringo Bones 

From my own perspective, it seemed more like a “dark horse” than a black sheep of the then existing Dolby noise reduction variants used to reduce cassette tape hiss. But most veteran audio enthusiasts’ low opinion on Dolby C primarily stems from the fact that those few commercially produced prerecorded music cassette tapes that are Dolby C encoded tend to sound harsh when played on tape decks that aren’t equipped with the Dolby C noise reduction system. But is it really like that in practice during the heyday of the cassette tape? But first, here’s a primer for those who are unfamiliar on what the Dolby C noise reduction system is all about.

With Sony’s Elcaset failing to dethrone the reign of cassette tape near the end of the 1970s and other music media that offer potentially better sound quality – like quarter-track open reel tapes, 8-Track tapes and the vinyl LP – seems to be relegated to the more “extremist” audiophiles and therefore deemed not a threat to the cassette tape’s profitability, the creators and manufacturers of Philip’s compact cassette tape tasked themselves to improve its then existing sound quality further by formulating a “improved” version of the Dolby B noise reduction system. Thus Dolby C was born.

Dolby C was introduced around 1980 and it managed to provide about 15 dB of noise reduction (A-weighted). It is constructed by combining the effect of two Dolby B systems together with an expansion to lower frequencies. This is primarily accomplished by splitting the side-chain companding action between two dynamic range processors. Each dynamic range processor is operating within a separate input level range. In record mode, a high level (-30 to -10 dB) dynamic range compressor is followed by a low-level (-50 to -30 dB) dynamic range compressor.

Dolby C noise reduction is effective above approximately 150 Hz and achieves about 18 to 20 dB of improvement in noise reduction / signal-to-noise ratio in practice. Although Dolby C noise reduction employs more treble boost than Dolby B noise reduction, Dolby C includes a special recording characteristic to avoid saturating the cassette tape being recorded to at extremely high audio frequencies - i.e. audio signals above 10,000 Hz. Therefore, Dolby C noise reduction tends to have more headroom than Dolby B noise reduction – making Dolby C freer from tape saturation when recording high frequency audio signals at high recording levels. Tape saturation not only causes harmonic distortion to rise to unacceptable levels but it also reduces the recorded treble level – a phenomenon called foldback. With anti-saturation and spectral skewing techniques, Dolby C noise reduction was intentionally made to be a much improved version of the Dolby B noise reduction it was first set out to supersede.

Dolby C first appeared on high-end cassette tape decks in the early 1980s. The first commercially available cassette tape deck equipped with a Dolby C noise reduction system was the NAD 6150C, which came into the market in 1981. And unbeknown to most audio enthusiasts at the time, the Dolby C noise reduction system was also used on professional video equipment for audio tracks of the Betacam (that used Betamax videotapes) and the Umatic SP videocassette formats.

In actual use, prerecorded cassette tape that used the Dolby C noise reduction system during recording tend to sound much worse when played on equipment that doesn’t have a Dolby C noise reduction system “decoder”. Or maybe its just at the time in the early 1980s, most prerecorded cassette albums recorded with Dolby C are intended for audiophile audiences – i.e. Classical and acoustic Jazz. If Dolby C was used on heavy metal rock albums of the time, consumers would have viewed the increased high-frequency harshness as added clarity akin to a very loud stadium rock concert circa 1980s.

Another criticism of Dolby C is that – especially with piano and other transient rich relatively quiet acoustic recordings – the cassette tape’s background hiss can be heard to vary with the main recorded music signal. A phenomenon now called breathing and / or pumping. Nevertheless, by the time the consumers’ complaints about Dolby C noise reduction became widely heard, the powers-that-be of the “cassette tape cartel” were already formulating a way to make a better version of Dolby C at the very tail end of the 1980s.

Dolby B: Noise Reduction Alphabet For The Masses?

Famed for lifting a lowly dictation medium – the Philips’ compact cassette – to true high fidelity status, does the Dolby B noise reduction system deserve to be called the noise reduction alphabet for the masses?

By: Ringo Bones

The Dolby B type noise reduction system makes use of single chain signal processing. The filter is a fixed-gain variable bandwidth device. The resulting output of the Dolby B-type encoder is a boosted high frequency output response which gradually flattens out as the high-frequency output level rises to avoid tape saturation. The Dolby B circuit reduces noise above approximately 500 Hz and achieves about 8 to 10 dB of noise reduction. Despite becoming the ubiquitous noise reduction system of choice during the heyday of the compact cassette, the Dolby B type noise reduction system would not have existed at all without the help of Henry Kloss.

During his early work in radio astronomy, Ray Dolby got inspiration on how to make an effective noise reduction system for analog tape based recording form his own work in trying to extract very weak cosmic signals from background radiation noise, which later became the working principle behind Dolby A, a noise reduction system that then became in standard use in professional recording studios during the start of the Golden Age of Stereo near the end of the 1950s. Despite its effectiveness, Dolby A was deemed too complicated for domestic use that domestic hi-fi enthusiasts during the 1950s up to early 1960s had been doing their do-it-yourself audio recordings on their consumer-grade open reel tapes without the help of any form of noise reduction whatsoever.

In 1967, after hearing about Ray Dolby’s famed noise reduction system – the Dolby A type noise reduction system – which then became more or less the standard noise reduction system used in every professional recording studios, Henry Kloss tried to urge Ray Dolby to develop a much simplified version of Dolby A for domestic use. Dolby later on complied and developed a simplified consumer version of the Dolby A-type noise reduction system which we know today as Dolby B, which Kloss originally saw as a boon to home / domestic open reel tape users. Dolby B then became a runaway success in the domestic open-reel tape recording front that one of the first open-reel tape machines intended for home use that adopted the Dolby B type noise reduction system – the now famed Revox A77 open-reel tape deck – got a very favorable review on the August 1972 issue of Stereo review magazine that reviewer Julian Hirsch said “he cannot imagine how the sound quality of this machine could be improved in any way” when he tested the Revox with the Dolby B noise reduction engaged. By the way, Dolby B was also used on 8-Track tape systems back then. 

Somewhat later, Henry Kloss linked the Dolby B noise reduction system with a previously unsuccessful Du Pont product – the chromium-dioxide tape. And thanks to the magical consumer product midwifery that Kloss excels, these inventions helped make the Philips compact cassette tape – introduced primarily for office dictation purposes – become a viable musical storage medium that went on to surpass the vinyl LP in sales during the very end of the 1970s.

  For any type of Dolby noise reduction system to work properly, the level in playback must be matched to the level in recording. Without such “tracking”, treble frequencies can sound muffled or suppressed. Fortunately, the Dolby B type noise reduction system seems to function more or less adequately if there’s no gross mismatch in playback and recording levels. And what makes Dolby B very popular to consumers despite the next generation of Dolby noise reduction systems slated to replace it is that Dolby B also works adequately in cassette tape playback equipment that are not equipped with any Dolby noise reduction system whatsoever, thus gaining the approval of the masses who during the 1980s more than a half of them probably don’t own a cassette tape playback equipment equipped with any form of Dolby noise reduction system. 

Dolby A: Breakthrough Legacy of the Dolby Noise Reduction Alphabet?

It might be superseded by newer “alphabets” in the Dolby Noise Reduction series, but does Dolby A truly qualify as a “breakthrough legacy” in noise reduction of tape-based recording?

By: Ringo Bones

There is a little-known fact that Ray Dolby of analog audio tape noise-reduction fame did his early work in radio astronomy. In fact his inspiration for his famed series of “alphabets” of noise reduction schemes which later on eventually lifted the lowly Philips compact cassette tape into the realm of high fidelity and earned Ray Dolby enormous wealth – came from his work in trying to extract very weak cosmic signals from background radiation noise. But the question now is, did the first of the series of the “alphabet” of Dolby’s noise reduction systems – namely Dolby A – truly qualify as a breakthrough legacy when it comes to noise reduction in the high-fidelity tape-based recording and playback?

After American open-reel tape recording pioneer 3M studied Jack Mullin’s World War II – era “war booty” -i.e. Helmut Krüger’s open-reel tape recording and playback system used by the Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft to broadcast both live Orchestral music recordings and Adolf Hitler’s speeches, it was only capable of a dynamic range of 60 decibels and was later deemed “inappropriate” for true high-fidelity sound during the very dawn of the Golden Age of Stereo. Ushering in a series of innovative methods to improve the dynamic range of tape-based recording and playback by increasing its dynamic range / signal-to-noise ratio to make it much closer to sound like a live musical performance.

The Dolby type-A noise reduction system first used during the start of the post World War II studio recorded music trend that compresses certain portions of the audio signal prior to recording. It does not operate on high-level signals. Dolby A uses a side chain operation where the signal is split into four bands, each of which is processed separately. In the pro-audio / studio recording world, Dolby A almost gained a universal acceptance when it comes to recording and mastering in the recording studio.

Some “purist” analog recordings made as relatively recently as during the late 1960s to the 1970s – either of Classical music or studio recorded pop/rock music persuasion – that does not use Dolby A or any other form of noise reduction seem to have developed a cult-like following of achieving a more life-like sound in comparison to their counterparts that used Dolby or other form of noise reduction. And despite these master-tapes possessing slight residual tape hiss due to the fact that these tapes were recording music while run at their highest possible speed, they do seem to cast doubt as to whether we need noise reduction at all when recording in the studio when all that noise reduction does is ruin the naturalness of the recorded sound. And some pop/rock recordings made during the late 1960s and 1970s that don’t use any form of Dolby noise reduction even sound natural despite of the overdubs.

 Surprisingly, some hi-fi enthusiasts were even surprised by the naturalness that resulted when recording onto cassette tapes without any form of Dolby noise reduction, though the cassette tape deck used in this recordings were modified to run at 3 ¾ inches per second – twice that of standard cassette to enable it to record with signal peaks at +10dB on the deck’s VU meters. So there are times that better more natural sounding recordings can be achieved by not using Dolby A or any other form of noise reduction for that matter. Well, at least Dolby A eventually paved way for its “younger brother” that’s intended for home / domestic / consumer applications called Dolby B. 

Remembering The Dolby Encoded Stereo FM Broadcasts And The Cassette Tape Deck Hi-Fi System

Working musicians back then often cringe at the idea, but do older hi-fi enthusiasts still remember the time when the hi-fi cassette tape deck and the FM tuner worked as a complete “recording system”?

By: Ringo Bones

Working musicians back then whose livelihoods are more or less solely dependent on the revenue of the sales of their copyrighted works often frown upon the prospect of the masses relying as their main recorded music source off-air recording from FM stereo broadcasts. Worse still, near the end of the 1970s, a number of FM stations being run by broadcasters / engineers with “Golden Ears” started to broadcast their music programs in a format called “Dolbyized FM” or “Dolby-Encoded FM broadcasts” where a hi-fi enthusiast with a well-aligned and set-up hi-fi cassette tape deck could “potentially” make off-air recordings whose sound quality that’s as good as or even better – and judging by my first hand experience of finding such cassette tapes in recent garage sales and swap meets often way better – than prerecorded music cassette tapes sold by major labels in licensed music stores. Even though no “integration” yet exists between the i-Pod and the “legal and licensed” online music stores selling downloadable digital music in the form of preemphasis for jitter reduction and what have you – was the “integration” between the hi-fi FM tuner and the hi-fi cassette tape deck via Dolby-encoded FM stereo broadcasts the only time in history where there is system integration between broadcasting and home recording?

Since big-wig engineers running those online “licensed and legal” digital music downloads seems to be sitting on their asses when it comes to pushing for better sound quality, I’ll just reminisce about the good old days of using your hi-fi cassette tape deck to record Dolbyized FM broadcasts. By the late 1970s, “affordable” hi-fi cassette tape decks – if you consider 400 US dollars affordable back in 1979 – started to enter the market that can integrate with FM stations providing Dolby-encoded broadcasting service. Usually in its Dolby noise selector switch - usually with the 19-KHz pilot tone filter for the cassette tape deck's built-in Dolby noise reduction system to work properly with Dolbyized FM stereo broadcasts, there is a position labeled FM which is used to process audio from an FM station that Dolby-encodes its programs. In this mode, recording-level controls are disabled and the input level is controlled usually by two screwdriver controls – on the rear apron – using the test tones that are periodically transmitted (usually in the wee hours of the morning an hour prior to their regularly-scheduled broadcasts) by FM stations that use Dolby processing. The FM mode also converts the 75-microsecond deemphasis of the tuner’s output to the 25-microsecond required by the Dolby noise-reduction system.

Cassette tape decks that are designed to be integrated with Dolby-encoded FM broadcasts are usually equipped with recording heads that are an engineering tour-de-force in comparison to their early 1990s era siblings because cassette tapes recording heads used in such machines back then had to be driven to about +10dB with most tapes before third-harmonic tape distortion reached the reference 3 percent level. While ones made by leading brands – like Sony, Nakamichi and Teac just to name a few -  had to be driven to +13dB before the 3 percent third-harmonic distortion mark is reached. Recording heads used in “affordable” cassette tape decks made around 1994 or later started to reach the 3 percent third-harmonic distortion mark if the signal reaches +4dB – even with metal tapes!

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a good cassette tape deck that is designed to cope with the likely “excesses” of the Dolby-encoded FM broadcasting system usually have a headroom of 7 to 10dB beyond the Dolby level before distortion reaches 3 percent. Therefore, Dolby-encoded FM programs can be recorded with fully effective Dolby operation with no risk of tape saturation and the resulting loss of high frequency signals and increased distortion. And their VU meters are accurate to within 1dB of the correct 200 nW/m flux level for a standard Dolby tape.

On most recorders back then, if the FM Dolby signal levels are adjusted correctly for the Dolby system, with 50 percent modulation corresponding to a Dolby-level meter indication on the recorder, 100 percent modulated peaks will be at +6dB and will almost certainly overload the recorder. The only alternative in most cases is to set the Dolby tone from the FM transmitter (50 percent modulation) several decibels below the meters’ Dolby points, which can degrade frequency response and noise reduction but will not distort. These examples are based on recording the signal without decoding – a theoretically preferable approach. Often, the easiest solution is to decode the Dolby-encoded signal and record it in that form at correct levels.

Where Does Tape Hiss Come from?

Even though there’s already a number of ways invented to reduce it to near inaudibility, but can you still remember when last time you asked: “Where does tape hiss come from?”

By: Ringo Bones

Believe it or not, all forms of electronic devices generate noise largely because a noise voltage is generated by the random state of movement of free electrons since they tend to dodge to and fro from atom to atom in a random manner. Thus all current-carrying components can contribute to the overall noise signal but those at the front-end of the channel of high amplification devices (like phono head preamplifiers and tape head amplifiers) are the most critical.

The noise produced by the electrons whizzing about within the electronics – including the power-supply hum of a well designed cassette tape deck – however is negligible compared with the noise produced by the tape passing over the replay head. In most situations, the noise level of the main power amplifier electronics is approximately 15dB below that of the combined noise generated by the cassette tape deck’s front-end preamplifier and tape hiss. Thus it is the tape noise which is the most troublesome in audio systems built around hi-fi cassette tape decks.

Tape noise or hiss – whether from analog based tape systems like open-reel tapes, 8-Tracks, cassettes or even Sony’s famed Elcaset – primarily results from the lack of homogeneity of the metal coating or other magnetic medium used. Tape hiss actually has a frequency that starts from 500-Hz, the annoying level, and then extends within 2,000 to 3,000-Hz, the unbearable level. Even though tape noise steadily remains constant with increasing frequency, the hiss that irritates most hi-fi enthusiasts the most mainly lie within the 500-Hz to 3,000-Hz part of the audible spectrum thanks to the Fletcher-Munson Equal Loudness Contour response of the human hearing that makes the 2,000 to 3,000-Hz region the nexus of human hearing audibility.

At present technology, the ferrous particles – or other “advanced” magnetic formulations – can never be distributed absolutely uniformly throughout the coating and the resulting aggregation of the discrete magnetic particles create their own discrete magnetic fields which during replay manifest itself as a noise electromotive force or EMF at the playback head and thus be amplified along with the desired audio signal. And by the way, noise is also produced from the mild irregularities in the traction of the tape towards the record head pole pieces during recording – which explains why during much of the 1980s, the heyday of the cassette tape, manufacturers made increasingly elaborate shell structures and internal mechanisms of their flagship blank cassette tapes as a way to further reduce tape hiss.

Was Sony’s Elcaset Better Than Philip’s Compact Cassette?

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!