Re: Cassette speed limit

[George Perfect]

In this place, Romeo Rondeau was recorded saying ...
>
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Another post just got me wondering...
> > What's the practical speed limit for a 1/4" cassette deck before you'd
> start
> > to have problems with recording? The idea of course is to get better
> signal
> > to tape.
> >
> > Was there a technical reason the cassette four tracks ran at the same
> speed
> > as consumer decks or was it an arbitrary decision based on part
> > availability/cost?
>
> Actually some of them ran twice as fast. My guess for the reason they didn't
> go faster is that they used consumer transports and there are limits as to
> what they can do.

The capstan diameter is limited by the size of the hole in the cassette
case. I suspect there would be mechanical problems if the rotational
speed were increased too much.

Also, tape length is limited by the cassette casing size - every
doubling of speed halves the run time. At 3.3/4ips you only get 15
minutes recording out of a C60 (longer tapes are usually discouraged
because of tape thinness) - at 7.1/2ips that would fall to ~7 minutes.

--

George
Newcastle, England

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth, by hitting back [Piet Hein]

[Noel Bachelor]

On or about 5 Aug 2004 08:04:52 -0400, Mike Rivers allegedly wrote:

> > Why does everyone keep saying it's 1/8"?
>
> Because it's smaller than 1/4", and it's closer to 1/8" than 3/16".

Only just.

> We're Murkins and we talk in inches.

Yeah, I know there is a greater tendancy to use fractions in the US,
whereas it's more common to use decimals most other places.

I know here that change occurred along with the change to metric usage.
Even for a half, it's much more common here to use .5 than ½ (and easier
to type).


> And we're partially ignorant so we like to use small numbers.

So you can use 0.15", or 150 thou (in engineer speak), and no rounding
involved.


Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)