How Many People Are Using Cassettes Here?

[Smithers XKR]

I don't know what sort of PC you are using to talk to us friend but it is very likely to have 3.5mm stereo jack inputs and outputs (they ALL have headphone out but some, like this Lenovo T510 no input) With a pair of stereo mini jack cables to, I assume RCA you could have a dabble with computer audio recording. Download "Audacity". Naturally a proper interface will give a far more versatile setup but I bet you will be surprised at how good most 'puter sound can be!

A really cheap interface is a gizmo called a "TEKNET" Google it.

Dave.

I have had an ephiphony moment about the Phillips DCC. I realise now that it was never really built or designed to be a studio mastering machine unlike the original DAT. The DCC was not made with 19 inch rack mount brackets and was not claimed to have recording studio quality. It used data compression, which is fine, but it is just a really nice well made digital tape deck that plays analogue tapes as well with Dolby B and C and is great for a home stereo setup.

So I have taken mine out of the studio rack and joined it up with my home stereo turntable and amp.

I hope that makes some sort of sense.

Cheers Dave

 

[TalismanRich]

I remember when the DCC came out. It would probably been a hit, had it come out a few years earlier, but by that time Compact Disc was established, and computers were beginning to ship with CD burners that could write CD-R a couple years later. You no longer needed another piece of gear, your CD player would usually play the CD-R. Ahead's Nero was being packaged with CD Burners, allowing you to burn your "mix tapes" on CD. Plus you could use them to back up your computer data (or copy your buddy's computer games)... a win/win situation. I remember putting a CD burner in my 486-66 machine running Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.

Frankly, it makes no difference whether you are writing to a DCC, ADAT or CD-R. All three are digital, it's just the storage format. There's no "analog" sound to them. The CD has the advantage of being suitable for random access, which means you don't need to spend time waiting for tape to wind, just as DVD overtook VHS. Remember "be kind/Rewind" at the local Blockbuster?

 

[Smithers XKR]

I remember when the DCC came out. It would probably been a hit, had it come out a few years earlier, but by that time Compact Disc was established, and computers were beginning to ship with CD burners that could write CD-R a couple years later. You no longer needed another piece of gear, your CD player would usually play the CD-R. Ahead's Nero was being packaged with CD Burners, allowing you to burn your "mix tapes" on CD. Plus you could use them to back up your computer data (or copy your buddy's computer games)... a win/win situation. I remember putting a CD burner in my 486-66 machine running Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.

Frankly, it makes no difference whether you are writing to a DCC, ADAT or CD-R. All three are digital, it's just the storage format. There's no "analog" sound to them. The CD has the advantage of being suitable for random access, which means you don't need to spend time waiting for tape to wind, just as DVD overtook VHS. Remember "be kind/Rewind" at the local Blockbuster?

Yeah the rewinding is a PITA, but its all part of the love for the genre. Makes no sense, just like owning an old classic car

 

[lonewhitefly]

Cassettes are valid and viable today. IMO anyone who doesn’t note this is not thinking things through, not paying attention, and/or drinking the “more technology is better” kool-aid.

Record a bunch of cassettes, put them in a shoebox somewhere, then fast-forward 40 years. Your tapes will still exist, sound like they do today, and the gear to play them back will still be readily available. Do this with literally any digital storage medium today, and this will not be the case. So which one is obsolete? Which one is future-proof?

I released my last couple (all-analog) albums on cassette. There is a manufacturing facility called NAC that is busier than ever (they manufactured my tapes and do a great job):

Troun Records

www.trounrecords.com

 

[Smithers XKR]

Cassettes are valid and viable today. IMO anyone who doesn’t note this is not thinking things through, not paying attention, and/or drinking the “more technology is better” kool-aid.

Record a bunch of cassettes, put them in a shoebox somewhere, then fast-forward 40 years. Your tapes will still exist, sound like they do today, and the gear to play them back will still be readily available. Do this with literally any digital storage medium today, and this will not be the case. So which one is obsolete? Which one is future-proof?

I released my last couple (all-analog) albums on cassette. There is a manufacturing facility called NAC that is busier than ever (they manufactured my tapes and do a great job):

Troun Records

www.trounrecords.com

Totally agree mate, I am a 57 year oldie who never got rid of my turntable and vinyl. Now they are coming back.
You cant get a DJ jam going in a club in Ibiza using downloads

Its the tactile, hands on thing IMVHO.
There are few guys here with great knowledge of classic high end analogue tape decks.

 

[Pinky]

Cassettes are valid and viable today. IMO anyone who doesn’t note this is not thinking things through, not paying attention, and/or drinking the “more technology is better” kool-aid.

Record a bunch of cassettes, put them in a shoebox somewhere, then fast-forward 40 years. Your tapes will still exist, sound like they do today, and the gear to play them back will still be readily available. Do this with literally any digital storage medium today, and this will not be the case. So which one is obsolete? Which one is future-proof?

No, that's not true at all. Magnetic tape can physically degrade over time, just ask any studio who cares about their old THICKER reel tapes that they've either copied to fresh tape or digitized, and why they're doing it. On top of that, the cheapo cassette tapes will bleed (ghost) between layers, so on a long enough timeline like 40 years the tape sitting in that position will create audible traces of the music on the tape its been spooled with.

Digital storage and cassettes both operate on magnetism, so neither is perfect but digital memory being a bit more robust just due to how it's saved/the media it's stored on. Preferred digital formats come and go, but they're all still viable. Because it's software driven, there will always be the means to playback digital files of any format in the future. There's no reason WAV, FLAC, or even MP3 are going anywhere anytime soon. For audio capture and playback they're more than adequate. 2/3 of those formats have been around for 30+ years. And if clever like me, you burn copies of the digital files periodically to CD, DVD or Bluray, physical non-magnetic formats, for safe keeping [non magnetic media with a very long lifespan when burned at slow speeds].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 [1991]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV [1991]

Again, we try to not delve into pseudo science and psychoacoustics on this forum.

 

[clamsterdamm]

I like the way cassettes sound. I’m not going to split hairs over it. I like music over ridiculous specs you’ll never notice

 

[60's guy]

I still have a reel to reel recorder that I used years ago to record and I still have the tapes of what I had recorded years ago.

I digitized a few recordings from those tape recordings only to discover that there was (for lack of better words) a loss of the fluidity and fullness that tape afforded.

 

[Smithers XKR]

I like the way cassettes sound. I’m not going to split hairs over it. I like music over ridiculous specs you’ll never notice

I think it is just personal taste. I like analogue media and have a lot of factory recorded cassette albums from the 80's that are still sounding very good now. I think it is just important how they are stored and how the machine is maintained IMVHO, so I agree Clam

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Cassettes are valid and viable today. IMO anyone who doesn’t note this is not thinking things through, not paying attention, and/or drinking the “more technology is better” kool-aid.

Record a bunch of cassettes, put them in a shoebox somewhere, then fast-forward 40 years. Your tapes will still exist, sound like they do today, and the gear to play them back will still be readily available. Do this with literally any digital storage medium today, and this will not be the case. So which one is obsolete? Which one is future-proof?

I released my last couple (all-analog) albums on cassette. There is a manufacturing facility called NAC that is busier than ever (they manufactured my tapes and do a great job):

Troun Records

www.trounrecords.com

I doubt the claim that the gear will still exist in a usable form. It's already hard to find working or salvageable decks of good quality. Heads wear out and I don't think there's any source of new ones.

 

[clamsterdamm]

I have luckily been able to restore 5 of my Sony ES decks which are Quartz Locked Direct Drive 3 Heads. I was fortunate enough to have bought them with little to no use.

 

[TalismanRich]

Cassettes are valid and viable today. IMO anyone who doesn’t note this is not thinking things through, not paying attention, and/or drinking the “more technology is better” kool-aid.

Record a bunch of cassettes, put them in a shoebox somewhere, then fast-forward 40 years. Your tapes will still exist, sound like they do today, and the gear to play them back will still be readily available. Do this with literally any digital storage medium today, and this will not be the case. So which one is obsolete? Which one is future-proof?

I released my last couple (all-analog) albums on cassette. There is a manufacturing facility called NAC that is busier than ever (they manufactured my tapes and do a great job):

Troun Records

www.trounrecords.com

Stick that digital file on your storage area in the cloud, and it will be there on your phone, or your smarty watch, or the embedded chip in your head whenever you need it in 20 years. I have wave files from the 1990s that I captured from my cassette deck via my Soundblaster card. My 486 computer still works, the files are still there. One of the belts on the cassette deck has turned to tar, and it will probably cost at least $100 just to get it fixed.

The reel to reel tapes that I had in a box in the basement were sitting in 18 inches of water in 2009. They are now in the landfill. I don't have any backups for them. The ~100 albums are still in boxes, but with no covers. The 486 computer that was in the basement still works even though it was sitting on the floor. You can see it in the attached picture. All the files, are still intact, and are backed up on a hard drive and a USB flash drive in a fireproof safe.



There are people who are tossing reels of Ampex tape after baking and hopefully being transferred to digital. Sticky Shed has made it unusable.

The supposed permanence of cassettes and tape in general is a joke. Ask the people who had master tapes in storage at Universal Studio's warehouse that were destroyed in a fire in 2008.

However, Universal executives initially said the fire destroyed 40,000 to 50,000 archived digital video and film copies of Universal movies and TV shows, some almost a century old, and including the films Knocked Up and Atonement, the NBC series Law & Order, The Office, and Miami Vice, and the CBS series I Love Lucy.[10][11][12] Universal president Ron Meyer told the media that "nothing irreplaceable was lost" and that the company had duplicates of everything destroyed.

I still have a reel to reel recorder that I used years ago to record and I still have the tapes of what I had recorded years ago.

I digitized a few recordings from those tape recordings only to discover that there was (for lack of better words) a loss of the fluidity and fullness that tape afforded.

I have found exactly the opposite. I've transferred reels of tape, cassettes and albums to digital, and compared them directly. The digital copies sounded EXACTLY like the originals with all the flaws, noises, and characteristics of the analog sources. I've played both back to back for my son (who's hearing is much better than mine), and he couldn't hear a difference either.

The only thing that I found was that the speed of the originals varied slightly over multiple plays, sometimes slightly faster, sometimes slower. It drifts, maybe 1 or 2 seconds over a 20 minute side of an album, or a few tenths of a second over a 5 minute tape transfer.

 

[Slouching Raymond]

Cassettes getting chewed up stick in my mind.
Pre-recorded cassettes were never worth the prices charged.
Who is manufacturing cassette recorders and reel to reel today? - Nobody. There's your answer.

 

[lonewhitefly]

No, that's not true at all. Magnetic tape can physically degrade over time, just ask any studio who cares about their old THICKER reel tapes that they've either copied to fresh tape or digitized, and why they're doing it. On top of that, the cheapo cassette tapes will bleed (ghost) between layers, so on a long enough timeline like 40 years the tape sitting in that position will create audible traces of the music on the tape its been spooled with.

Digital storage and cassettes both operate on magnetism, so neither is perfect but digital memory being a bit more robust just due to how it's saved/the media it's stored on. Preferred digital formats come and go, but they're all still viable. Because it's software driven, there will always be the means to playback digital files of any format in the future. There's no reason WAV, FLAC, or even MP3 are going anywhere anytime soon. For audio capture and playback they're more than adequate. 2/3 of those formats have been around for 30+ years. And if clever like me, you burn copies of the digital files periodically to CD, DVD or Bluray, physical non-magnetic formats, for safe keeping [non magnetic media with a very long lifespan when burned at slow speeds].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3 [1991]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV [1991]

Again, we try to not delve into pseudo science and psychoacoustics on this forum.

I have significant experience with lots and lots of old tape. Tape is very resilient. Failure in digital is catastrophic; even significant problems in a tape often still result in a viable playback for transfer.

"Magnetic tape can physically degrade over time" is of course true as a general statement, but *wayyyy* overemphasized in online discussions such as this. I've literally ever encountered a recording on *any* tape (including old cassettes found in thrift stores etc) that could not be made to play back. And this is out of hundreds if not thousands of random examples.

Much of the ballyhoo is about sticky shed syndrome. Which was a chemical/design flaw primarily occurring for an approx. 20 year period (possibly more, we'll see) in 1974-1994. You will never encounter any tape made prior to 1974 with sticky-shed syndrome ... and you will never encounter a tape from *any era* without backcoating that has sticky shed. And plenty of tapes with backcoating will never develop sticky shed. So this is not inherent to tape as a thing. Not that there are not other significant problems tape can have- but all can be worked with generally.

How are we talking about "pseudo science and psychoacoustics" exactly? What is your experience with regard to this topic? Because mine is significant.

 

[lonewhitefly]

I doubt the claim that the gear will still exist in a usable form. It's already hard to find working or salvageable decks of good quality. Heads wear out and I don't think there's any source of new ones.

Not only are heads still manufactured, a significant number of cassette recorders are also currently manufactured.

 

[lonewhitefly]

Stick that digital file on your storage area in the cloud, and it will be there on your phone, or your smarty watch, or the embedded chip in your head whenever you need it in 20 years. I have wave files from the 1990s that I captured from my cassette deck via my Soundblaster card. My 486 computer still works, the files are still there. One of the belts on the cassette deck has turned to tar, and it will probably cost at least $100 just to get it fixed.

The reel to reel tapes that I had in a box in the basement were sitting in 18 inches of water in 2009. They are now in the landfill. I don't have any backups for them. The ~100 albums are still in boxes, but with no covers. The 486 computer that was in the basement still works even though it was sitting on the floor. You can see it in the attached picture. All the files, are still intact, and are backed up on a hard drive and a USB flash drive in a fireproof safe.

View attachment 123173

There are people who are tossing reels of Ampex tape after baking and hopefully being transferred to digital. Sticky Shed has made it unusable.

The supposed permanence of cassettes and tape in general is a joke. Ask the people who had master tapes in storage at Universal Studio's warehouse that were destroyed in a fire in 2008.

However, Universal executives initially said the fire destroyed 40,000 to 50,000 archived digital video and film copies of Universal movies and TV shows, some almost a century old, and including the films Knocked Up and Atonement, the NBC series Law & Order, The Office, and Miami Vice, and the CBS series I Love Lucy.[10][11][12] Universal president Ron Meyer told the media that "nothing irreplaceable was lost" and that the company had duplicates of everything destroyed.



I have found exactly the opposite. I've transferred reels of tape, cassettes and albums to digital, and compared them directly. The digital copies sounded EXACTLY like the originals with all the flaws, noises, and characteristics of the analog sources. I've played both back to back for my son (who's hearing is much better than mine), and he couldn't hear a difference either.

The only thing that I found was that the speed of the originals varied slightly over multiple plays, sometimes slightly faster, sometimes slower. It drifts, maybe 1 or 2 seconds over a 20 minute side of an album, or a few tenths of a second over a 5 minute tape transfer.

Sorry to hear about the flood you experienced.

Anything can be physically destroyed- I’m not sure this points to any particular weakness of analog. I’m familiar with the Universal Fire. I’m not sure that example can be used as anything typical. Many of the tapes destroyed were 50-60 years old, and had been fine for that period.

In fact, I would argue this fire supports analog being a superior archive medium — Many of the tapes that were destroyed (like the stereo masters of the Mamas & Papas records) had no analog tape copy backups. The multi-tracks and mono masters were tossed at some point in the '70s. Since the Universal Fire, all they have are whatever digital transfers were made of those tapes, with no ability to take advantage of any "progress" made in digital formats or upgrades. Whereas the foresight of making an additional tape copy would afford that. Case in point- Sundazed recently discovered an original tape copy of the Mamas & Papas first album that was sent to the UK for overseas pressing, and they were able to release a vinyl copy of this mono mix for the first time since the late '60s.

Let’s look at a master like The Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds. The original 1/4” master was lost sometime in the ‘90s. So what did they use for most subsequent reissues? An older digital copy you might think? Nope, the mono New York copy made in 1966 (second generation dub of the master) for East Coast pressing plants … cut on Scotch 111, which is an acetate tape actually. And still in fine condition for transferring to “upgraded” digital formats, which continue to be done over and over and over since the first digital copy made in 1987 (which *was* actually used for one reissue in recent years, oddly). Incidentally, Steve Hoffman made a tape copy of the original L.A. master in 1993 when he had the tape for a few hours on loan from Captiol to release it on his DCC label. He had the foresight to make a 1/2" 2-track master at 30 ips (the original is at 15 ips mono 1/4") during that time. So when he remastered it again in 2004 (to take advantage of digital process), he was able to use this hi-fidelity transfer. And now this particular tape would probably be the most faithful in existence of the original mix.

With regard to "the cloud" being here to save us all ... I don't believe so. You are dealing with the volatility of subscription services and various providers who don't exactly have a track record of any interest in long-term archiving of anything. A shoebox in the closet sits there. Someone might even grab it when someone passes away -- I did with my grandfather's tapes, which is where this concept came to me from -- I don't think I would have accessed my grandfather's cloud storage accounts if that had been a thing.

 

[lonewhitefly]

Cassettes getting chewed up stick in my mind.
Pre-recorded cassettes were never worth the prices charged.
Who is manufacturing cassette recorders and reel to reel today? - Nobody. There's your answer.

If "nobody manufacturing cassette recorders today" is "the answer" - then the answer must be the opposite of what you are indicating ... because lots of cassette recorders are still manufactured.

Not only do you have these little things available at your friendly neighborhood Amazon; TEAC offers a nice unit, and Tascam offers an even nicer one ... and Marantz offers a comparable one too.

There may be others I'm not aware of, but a simple online search would clear up this misconception.

And again, anyone who says cassettes are over is not really paying attention IMO:

NDAs, Obsessive Buyers, and $400 for Sublime: Inside the Baffling Revival of the Cassette Tape

The humble cassette tape is in the midst of a revival, thanks to Billie Eilish, Taylor Swift, and other pop stars who are embracing the format.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[TalismanRich]

Making 2nd or 3rd generation copies for archival purposes is fine, however each successive generation is degraded from the original. Making 10 copies of a digital work for archival purposes is quick and each one is an exact duplicate of the first one. As long as you use a lossless format like WAV or FLAC, the copies are not going to degrade with each copy, any more than making 10 copies of a MS Word document will change it.

I've been archiving family films, photos, tapes and videos for about 5 years now. Once converted to digital, I simply make copies for family members. It's easy enough to have multiple backups, whereas there's no way that I would rely on making 10 cassettes of a tape from 1955 as a backup. Besides, there are only two of us that even HAVE a cassette player, and I have the only reel to reel deck.

What would be your preferred means of backing up a collection like this (from a local studio that closed some years back). A couple of local musicians who worked at the studio have dumped many of them to digital. The whole collection would literally fit in your shirt pocket once digitized. While none of these works will never be million sellers, the work is of historical value for the local music scene.



I looked at a bunch of those cassette players you pointed to on Amazon, and most are about the same quality as the Ross cassette player that I bought when I was 12. The big difference is that most seem designed to rip your cassette to MP3 format, not for serious listening to the music music at high quality. Even the $600 Tascam unit is only mediocre. Those specs aren't even as good as 128K MP3.

• 2-channel stereo dual cassette deck
• frequency response: 30-13,000 Hz (±4 dB)
• signal to noise ratio: 59dB
• pitch control: ±12%

As for new releases on cassette, well there's a word for it... TRENDY! It's the same reason you can go on Amazon and buy a rotary phone. How many people do you know that are dumping their I-phones for a landline rotary?

You are welcome to invest your money and time however you wish, but after fooling with audio stuff for nearly 60 years, I can tell you that digital recording today is a an outstanding system.

 

[lonewhitefly]

Making 2nd or 3rd generation copies for archival purposes is fine, however each successive generation is degraded from the original. Making 10 copies of a digital work for archival purposes is quick and each one is an exact duplicate of the first one. As long as you use a lossless format like WAV or FLAC, the copies are not going to degrade with each copy, any more than making 10 copies of a MS Word document will change it.

I've been archiving family films, photos, tapes and videos for about 5 years now. Once converted to digital, I simply make copies for family members. It's easy enough to have multiple backups, whereas there's no way that I would rely on making 10 cassettes of a tape from 1955 as a backup. Besides, there are only two of us that even HAVE a cassette player, and I have the only reel to reel deck.

What would be your preferred means of backing up a collection like this (from a local studio that closed some years back). A couple of local musicians who worked at the studio have dumped many of them to digital. The whole collection would literally fit in your shirt pocket once digitized. While none of these works will never be million sellers, the work is of historical value for the local music scene.

View attachment 123200View attachment 123203View attachment 123206

I looked at a bunch of those cassette players you pointed to on Amazon, and most are about the same quality as the Ross cassette player that I bought when I was 12. The big difference is that most seem designed to rip your cassette to MP3 format, not for serious listening to the music music at high quality. Even the $600 Tascam unit is only mediocre. Those specs aren't even as good as 128K MP3.

• 2-channel stereo dual cassette deck
• frequency response: 30-13,000 Hz (±4 dB)
• signal to noise ratio: 59dB
• pitch control: ±12%

As for new releases on cassette, well there's a word for it... TRENDY! It's the same reason you can go on Amazon and buy a rotary phone. How many people do you know that are dumping their I-phones for a landline rotary?

You are welcome to invest your money and time however you wish, but after fooling with audio stuff for nearly 60 years, I can tell you that digital recording today is a an outstanding system.

There is a lot to unpack in your post here, and I'm not sure most of it has much to do with my original point:

"Record a bunch of cassettes, put them in a shoebox somewhere, then fast-forward 40 years. Your tapes will still exist, sound like they do today, and the gear to play them back will still be readily available. Do this with literally any digital storage medium today, and this will not be the case. So which one is obsolete? Which one is future-proof?"

One point I am making is digital archiving requires frequent upgrading, and tape does not. Making a new analog copy of your tape every 40 years or so (along with a digital copy whenever you want) is all you would need to do. But in most cases, you probably don't even need to. 95% of the time or more, if stored decently, the tape will be fine.

The other point I am making is digital storage relies on more sophisticated retrieval and reproduction mechanisms. Tape is a simple, straightforward technology. And machines to play them back for future archiving will be plenty available. The point is not about the quality of currently manufactured cassette recorders, nor is it about whether or not a "trend" is part of the reason cassettes are increasing in sales. The point is they are not obsolete, quite the opposite. As tapes and tape recorders/players are still manufactured and readily available. Not to mention all of those from the past, which continue to be viable today as well.

Thirdly, a tape is "future proof", as in it already has "full resolution" or whatever you want to call it. It can be "upgraded" to the digital tech of 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015, and 2055 as needed. A digital file from 1995 is stuck in 1995 "resolution" and A/D tech (which may be fine- not a discussion I care to participate in ... but let's just say the jury's out on agreement of what is "good enough" for digital storage. And whether what is "good" today will be tomorrow). The fact remains that analog masters have been, and continually are, "upgraded" to digital formats over and over. I can tell you when the Beatles masters were reissued in 2009, they want back to the tapes- not the 1987 digital masters. And I can also guarantee that when the are "upgraded" again in 2025 or whenever- they will go to the original tapes, not the 2009 transfers. I would implore you to think about why this is.

I happen to personally disagree that digital is an outstanding system. What digital is IMO is a practical, functional, cost effective tool that is not better than analog in any other ways.

RE: the archive you pictured- I have no idea. What I would do would depend on many personal factors which involve more information that you're providing here. I know how I am handling my own archive of tapes- I got rid of my multi-tracks, kept all the mixes, and also have a digital copy of the mixes. The idea that I would toss these tapes because I have a digital file has never really crossed my mind. If I did not have the space for them, I might have to go that route. Or even make cassette copies LOL. But many of my masters were recorded on NOS 1960s tape to begin with. Going on 10-15 years since I cut them, they're all in fine shape so far. So my masters are 50+ years old already, probably older than the ones you pictured there (which from what I can see, appear to be 1980s-90s era and likely suffer from sticky shed).

 

[TalismanRich]

You didn't look at the boxes. Most of those tapes were recorded 1960-1970, way before sticky shed was an issue.

As for "digital storage relies on more sophisticated retrieval and reproduction mechanisms. Tape is a simple, straightforward technology. And machines to play them back for future archiving will be plenty available."

I completely disagree. Every computer for the past 30 years can play a wave file. Every cell phone in your pocket can play a wave file. It is the standard format for the world.
Disregarding the Walkmans, boomboxes and cheapo portable units, you won't walk into Best Buy and find a component grade cassette deck. Audio Advisor doesn't list one. MusicDirect has the Teac listed for $400, but no others. HighEndElectronics will gladly sell you a $40,000 Krell monoblock and all manner of turntables and digital players. They don't have a single cassette deck listed. Crutchfield has two listed, both Tascams, at $600 and $700. And Amazon. That's not a ringing endorsement of the format. Two manufacturers and a handful of sellers. I could actually get a better selection by going to a local repair shop. They have at least 3-5 units that they have repaired and have for sale.

RE: sticking them in a shoebox: I didn't use shoeboxes. But I do have a bit of experience with cassettes. Here's part of my collection , over 120. BASF Chrome, Maxell UDXL and TDK SA, Metal, Fuji FX. Scotch Ampex, Memorex, I've had them all. I've had the pads fall off the pressure piece. Memorex used foam rubber for a while which disintegrated. I've had them bind and accordion the tape until it stopped. Anything of special value has been dumped to digital. I've kept the cassettes because, basically, I'm a pack rat. I hate to throw things away. I still have the deck they were recorded on, and it works.. sort of. The rewind belt dissolved, but the drive belt is OK. I'm under no illusion that they are the ultimate in archival quality.



Clearly we have different criteria, which is fine. As I said in an earlier post, you're welcome to spend your time and money however you wish. But thinking that the compact cassette will ever be more than a novelty in the future is fantasy.