(Purposeful misquote)They wouldn't fix cassettes low sound quality.
This isn't exactly true. Tapes can sound damn near just as good as CDs assuming your equipment and tape quality is high.or their low sound quality.
I still have whole bunch of My First Sony stuff from the 80's etc including cassette tapes. In fact, still have most of my toys from the 80's including box full of sanrio stuff. Most of the stuff still works including the Electric Pencil Shapener.I don't know anyone anymore who has a tape deck, but I've come across ads selling new blank cassette tapes.
Vinyl is pretty terrible too, at least compared to modern digital formats or reel to reel. People like vinyl because it's a big spinny thing that they can hold and look at.While there is a case to be made for vinyl on a good analog system
That's entirely subjective, on high end turntable's with good cartridges you can definitely achieve great playback. In essence it's all the same do, it depends on the recording, I have heard recordings of the same piece that wowed me, and others that made me want to puke. There are many bad(badly mastered) digital recordings as well.Vinyl is pretty terrible too, at least compared to modern digital formats or reel to reel. People like vinyl because it's a big spinny thing that they can hold and look at.
I'm talking about the medium, not comparing one system or master to another. Even the best turntable money can buy will be easily outdone by a modern $100 DAC in terms of SNR / dynamic range / distortion. Not to mention the rice krispies.That's entirely subjective, on high end turntable's with good cartridges you can definitely achieve great playback. In essence it's all the same do, it depends on the recording, I have heard recordings of the same piece that wowed me, and others that made me want to puke. There are many bad(badly mastered) digital recordings as well.
Mhh, that's just not correct. I'm not trying to argue that digital resolution is worse, because it isn't, in most instances, it is superior. There are however analog systems that can produce just as good results, granted they will cost 100-1000x times what the digital system with decent AKM or ESS chips cost. The pops and cracks are not there on truly high-end systems, I've done blind tests with other audio enthusiasts, where vinyl won. Basically 3 sources playing back the same content, through the same amplifier, one very high end turntable, one high end dac with DSD recording, and one reel-to-reel all playing back the same content. Reel-to-reel was at a disadvantage, and it was a tossup between digital and analog. Now if we are talking about performance per dollar, just go with digitalI'm talking about the medium, not comparing one system or master to another. Even the best turntable money can buy will be easily outdone by a modern $100 DAC in terms of SNR / dynamic range / distortion. Not to mention the rice krispies.
EDIT: $100 DAC is generous. A $10 apple USB headphone dongle will blow away any high end turntable. Not to say a turntable can't sound great, I have a vinyl collection too.
Your thread crapping is getting old fast.8051 do you know how to use Google?
DAT suffered from long seek time compared to CD, also multiple seeks or skipping tracks caused the spools to become uneven and you had loosen them up again. Sequential tape isn't good for anything except backups.I did find two cassette decks for sale at B&H. It looks like dolby NR isn't a thing anymore though.
I figured DAT would live on over analog cassette tapes.