Antiquities: digital cassette as an audiophile format

In this post I want to talk about how to fix a tape recorder. No not like this. This is a story about the path of the collector of the old computer and audio iron, which creates problems for itself and courageously overcomes them. Yes, but not really. This is my second article about Philips Digital Compact Cassette format. The format failed, but not like, for example, the mini-disk “did not take off”, but with a bang: in just four years, it went from a promising new product to the closure of production. The reason for this was both business solutions and the economy, and objective technical flaws. To study such “failures”, monumental fails of a quarter century ago, is sometimes more interesting than “successes”. We have a tendency to glorify successful decisions, teams, their leaders and the company as a whole - what good fellows they are. Worth failingand the collective unconscious will not be slow to blame you for all sins: here you did it wrong, and here you did it wrong, and there you made a mistake. And what really happened?

Nobody likes to talk about failures, so I'll start with myself. Since I like to test the ancient user experience on myself, last year I bought another DCC format tape recorder. I tried to bring it into working form last summer, and ... could not. Nothing worked in it, and there was not enough experience to at least figure out exactly what problems were present and how to solve them. I recently made another attempt. The setting up of this apparatus was two complete weekends of suffering and pain. It was the most difficult repair in my career, and only exceptional luck helped me not to break the tape recorder to the end, but rather to bring it into working condition. Therefore, this is so: today I will talk about the collector's path, the forgotten digital audio format, and how it was used 25 years ago.And what about audiophiles? I will try to explain at the end of the post.

I keep a diary of a collector of old pieces of iron in a Telegram . The intrigue remains in the project: I want to investigate how well the DCC technique handles analog cassettes, and try to subsidize the Philips DCC900. I will share updates there.

I described the history of the format in a previous post. I also recommend thistranslation of an ArsTechnica article. Here is a summary. Philips DCC is a consumer digital rewritable medium. Unlike Sony, which chose magneto-optical recording technology for the mini-disc, Philips made an attempt to “squeeze everything possible” out of a traditional compact cassette. Eight parallel tracks, each with a bit rate of 96 kilobits per second, and another track with metadata are written to a tape with the same physical parameters in a slightly modified case.

In total, 768 kilobits are obtained, but due to the need for reliable correction of read errors, the effective bitrate is 384 kilobits per second. With such a bitrate, a digital audio signal, compressed with losses, was recorded on a cassette. My first device was a Philips DCC900 tape recorder, historically the very first commercial unit. A quarter of a century later, almost all devices of this model have capacitors flowing, "eating" the tracks on a circuit board that works directly with a magnetic head. This ailment was not completely cured by the previous owner, and almost completely cured by me, but not quite. An important feature of all DCC devices was the ability to play conventional analog cassettes. And so they played with sound only in the right channel. Initially, I could not solve this problem. The tape recorder was put off, almost forgottenuntil last summer I came across Philips DCC951. This is the latest home DCC recorder announced at the end of 1994. What are the main differences? It increased the speed of rewinding the tape, making searching the tracks much faster. The digital part was upgraded: the sound is processed in 18-bit format, and theoretically in terms of dynamic range this device in the mid-nineties was “better than CD”. Now you can save track names - DCC900 could only show “tags” on branded music cassettes.and theoretically in terms of dynamic range, this device in the mid-nineties was "better than a CD." Now you can save track names - DCC900 could only show “tags” on branded music cassettes.and theoretically in terms of dynamic range, this device in the mid-nineties was "better than a CD." Now you can save track names - DCC900 could only show “tags” on branded music cassettes.

In the photo above - DCC951, below - DCC900. I'm not a big fan of Philips design from the nineties, but that's not the point. Visually, the DCC951 "won." The indicator of the audio signal level was removed from the display, most of the buttons were removed for direct control of functions, adjusting the recording level, selecting an input. All this is safely hidden in the menu so that before recording you have to carefully read the instructions. The functionality of some buttons differs from that of the DCC900, no continuity.

Inside, it also got a little easier. The DCC900 senses the complexity of any digital circuit developed in the late eighties and early nineties.

The most interesting thing here is the cassette mechanism and the boards on it. The mechanism is not much different from the mechanism of a conventional cassette deck with auto reverse. True, it is much better than, for example, the mechanism in my two-cassette Sony : large steel flywheels of tonal, more iron in general. The board on top is responsible for working with a magnetic head: only signal amplification (digital or analog) is implemented there. There are two more boards at the back - one controls the mechanism and motors, opens and closes the tray, the second actually makes this tape recorder digital. The signal from the heads is processed there, digital-to-analog conversion of all signals, processing of the compressed data stream, error correction, and so on takes place. The largest board in the DCC951 is only responsible for powering and switching I / O.

Merciless repair

The device was purchased by me relatively inexpensively in the “turn on, don’t turn the cassette, I don’t know what’s happening with it” state. Served tape recorders of this model are sold at 200-300 euros, I was hoping to save money and quickly solve the problem by replacing drive belts. How cruelly wrong I was! Passives in any tape recorder need to be changed in any case. There are two of them: one connects the motor and the flywheels of the tonal, the second is responsible for opening and closing the tray. The replacement did not help: unlike my first tape recorder, this one played analog audio cassettes normally, it was unstable playing digitally recorded ones, and recording the “digit” in general was very bad. Here I made a typical novice mistake and tried to “at least do something”, changed the head azimuth adjustment, which complicated the task for myself later.For the next six months, two half-working DCC devices watched me reproachfully from the corner of the office. I did not even know how to approach them.

During this time, I got some repair tools, got a “reference” analog cassette for measuring the knock coefficient and azimuth adjustment, and most importantly, gained experience in repairing other ancient devices. The second approach to the projectile began as follows: at least it is necessary to measure the classic “tape recorders” with this test cassette itself. The first error was revealed here: I changed the drive belts, but did not replace the pinch rollers. Visually, they seemed normal to me, but that was not so. In the photo above - a video from another device, but with similar properties: dried, cracked rubber and some craters here and there. All this leads to wild detonation, and reading digital data is more sensitive to it, and not to the accuracy of the magnetic head relative to the tape.

And that's why. A small modification of the head for reading and writing with guides at the top and bottom forcibly aligns the tape. The protrusions on the head fix the clip in the cartridge on the other side of the tape, also increasing positioning accuracy. In the service manual, the azimuth is recommended to be set on a cassette with a mirror, that is, almost by eye, and this is enough. The knock coefficient in the specifications of this model is not specified at all, but for DCC900 it is 0.15% - this is a fairly average parameter for a regular tape recorder, but since digital data is buffered, this is enough for DCC. The initial detonation exceeded 0.5%; as a result, the replacement of the rollers led it to values ​​of about 0.1%.

Has it earned? No. Reading was still unstable even with a proprietary digital cassette, and the recording seemed to stop working at all. At this point, I proactively replaced all the SMD capacitors on the read / write and digital signal processing cards. At least they do not flow in DCC951, but this does not mean that they have retained their parameters for over 25 years. After that, the reproduction of digital sound worked stably, and it seems to be a record, but not quite. About ten times during the repair process, I said to myself, “now everything works,” only in half a day to find another problem. It was necessary to solve two of the most difficult (for such a novice repairman, like me) problems.

Problem One: Line In. When connecting the source to the digital input, there were no problems, but the tape recorder passed the analog signal through itself with terrible distortions. Here, too, at first I sinned on the capacitors: in turn I soldered them all and measured the parameters with an ESR tester, and they all turned out to be working (four hours). At the same time I discovered that someone before me replaced the chip of one of the two operational amplifiers. With the quality of soldering, it’s even worse than mine (although it would seem, where is it worse?). I tried to install a similar chip (hour), it did not help. I checked all the connections (another hour) - the background went away, but the distortion remained. In desperation, I put there a known working operational amplifier from the line output circuit - unsuccessfully (a couple of hours). Here there was a moment that I often had before in mastering Linux: you can do something randomly for a long time trying to achieve a result,but sooner or later the open source will force you to carefully read the manual. It’s necessary to think and poke a soldering iron into the device according to a previously developed plan. I opened the circuit of the tape recorder, began to compare it with the real state of things (three hours), identified two points where you can measure the voltage supplied to the amplifier microcircuits. I did not immediately understand how to measure (an hour), and when I understood it I found out that the voltage is much lower than the required 10 volts. Two resistance were found guilty. After replacing them (2 minutes, but after three days to order parts), the distortions disappeared.where you can measure the voltage applied to the amplifier microcircuits. I did not immediately understand how to measure (an hour), and when I understood it I found out that the voltage is much lower than the required 10 volts. Two resistance were found guilty. After replacing them (2 minutes, but after three days to order parts), the distortions disappeared.where you can measure the voltage applied to the amplifier microcircuits. I did not immediately understand how to measure (an hour), and when I understood it I found out that the voltage is much lower than the required 10 volts. Two resistance were found guilty. After replacing them (2 minutes, but after three days to order parts), the distortions disappeared.

: . It is regulated by a tuning resistor on the board near the magnetic head. That it was not adjusted correctly, I did not immediately understand. The tape recorder recorded and reproduced digital sound normally, problems arose when rewinding with the search for the next track. It works like this: a tape recorder pushes its head away from the tape a couple of millimeters and rewinds the cassette, and at a really high speed (a 90-minute cassette is less than a minute from start to finish). In the process, he reads the very ninth track with metadata and looks for track markers. The write current, sufficient for reading in normal mode, was too low to work in such an unusual situation. The recording current is set using an oscilloscope and a measuring digital cassette. And if I simply don’t have the first one, then I simply will never find a service cassette. Configured by eye:increased current until the tape recorder did not begin to see track markers when rewinding. But at the same time, reading errors climbed (they can be controlled in the service menu): a too powerful signal overloaded the inputs. Slightly reduced, providing both reading music and reading a service track when rewinding.

You should not judge the quality of all devices by two copies of a dubious history. On the network, any devices released 25-30 years ago are discussed mainly in the context of repair, but few work normally. In any case, it was the most difficult repair of my career, in which I managed to avoid some fatal errors, such as a broken cable, which cannot be replaced. Why did it happen with the DCC technique? The classic tape recorders of those years are now also usually broken in several places, but with all the defects, they continue to function somehow: the analog technique has many shades of performance. It seems to me that Philips DCC combines the typical drawbacks of cassette mechanisms (coming with age) and the nature of the digital device. If something goes wrong, then nothing works, the music does not play, and the collector is upset.Repairing DAT digital recorders of the same age and in a similar initial state can be even morelarge-scale .

The correctness of the deck operation parameters is checked by measurements in the RMAA program . In this program, it is highly desirable to compare the device with some other. The two columns on the left are a comparison of the Philips DCC951 and Sony MDS-JB980 MD. On the right - they are, but without recording to the medium, that is, in digital-to-analog conversion mode, without data compression. The results are very similar. Both devices belong to the same price category, but there are five years of difference between them, the minidisc deck was released in 2001 and has on board the most advanced version of the ATRAC sound compression algorithm at that time.

The most interesting thing here is the measurements of the amplitude-frequency characteristics using a multi-tone signal. They indirectly show how lossy compression works in the most difficult situations: a powerful signal is present in the entire frequency spectrum, and priorities must be set. A minidisk always has a characteristic broken line on this graph. At DCC everything is exactly up to 8 kilohertz, further small deviations. Measurements also show how the encoder is forced to cut high frequencies to fit the test signal at a given bit rate. The minidisk “ceiling” has 17 kilohertz, the DCC has 18.5. For comparison, I cited the behavior of the modern LAME MP3 codec with a bitrate of 320 kilobits per second: even in such a “torture” test, it shows a flat frequency response up to almost 20 kilohertz. I will not arguethat this difference in the graphs leads to some real differences in sound. But I know for sure that the first versions of the lossy compression algorithm for the minidisk generated well-artifacts (morehere ). Philips did the right thing in this part right away, and by 1994 it had only improved the result. In objective terms, and in my subjective perception of sound quality, the Philips DCC951 is an excellent device. Similar parameters in mini-disc technology for 1996 were achieved in high-end devices with a price that was more than twice as expensive ($ 500 for Philips versus $ 1200 for Sony MDS-JA3ES ).

How to record a digital cassette

This is a cassette, it should be easy, insert and write. Not so fast! Theoretically, you can insert a tape and start recording from anywhere, but this is the wrong method. When recording to a blank cassette along with music on a tape (on the very ninth official track), an absolute timer is written. It must be continuous, so the tape must be rewound to the beginning and the operation is Lead In: the tape recorder fixes the beginning of the recording, from which the time is counted. If the tape is not completely recorded, and you want to add a couple of songs, you need to press the Append button - the tape recorder will find the marker for the end of the previous recording and continue recording the timer from there. This is done to simplify navigation between tracks "almost like on a CD" after recording, but the process complicates a bit. It is logical to record a tape in one pass from start to finish. Okay, insert the tape, rewind to the beginning, write Lead In, and then “it will cope”. True, with one caveat: the first side will end sooner or later,you will need to flip the magnetic head and change the direction of movement of the tape. The tape recorder will do this for you: it predicts how much tape is left, and shortly before its end activates auto reverse.

The reverse in Philips DCC is very fast, but it still takes a 3-4 second break, which may fall in the middle of the song - somehow messy . You need to choose a point of change of sides yourself, and here the format offers you a choice of two options.

Where we deem necessary, the recording must be stopped and put one of two special markers. In the first case (in the figure above), upon reaching this marker, the tape player rewinds the tape to the end and starts writing side B from the very beginning. In the second case, the deck instantly switches to the second side and starts playback. These are two common scenarios for tape recording. The first option is if you have two albums on a 90-minute tape, and a pause to rewind between them is uncritical. In the second version, one album on both sides of the cassette, the reverse occurs between adjacent tracks, the pause between them should be minimal. The numbering of tracks occurs accordingly: in the first case, on the second side, the countdown starts over, in the "landscape" mode, the numbering is end-to-end. Conveniently! Well yeah. Can't help but recallthat in a minidisk or on a CD, the problem of "auto reverse" in principle does not exist! A similar delay occurred on two-layer DVDs, where a short pause usually accounted for the change of scenes in the film.

The next ingredient to the “right” DCC record is track markers. The easiest way is to connect a CD player via digital input and rewrite music from a CD. Then the track markers from the CD will be automatically transferred to the cassette. If the source is analog, or digital without markers (for example, a sound card with SPDIF output), tracks are automatically arranged in silence between songs. This is convenient, but also messy : the change of tracks can occur without pauses, or vice versa, the silence in the middle of the song will be perceived as a new track. In general, it turns out that the most correctThe method is a manual recording of markers with preliminary planning of a point and a method of changing sides. Since the tape recorder is 18-bit, I decided to record a couple of albums on it from a digital source in high resolution. Most of these releases are available in 96 kilohertz / 24 bit format, and you need to convert them to 44/24 beforehand - DCC951 does not even understand the frequency of 48 kilohertz if the signal is 24 bit (it may be incompatible with my sources, for example, with a sound card it refused to work at all).

Then everything is “simple”: insert the cassette, do the Lead In procedure, select the digital coaxial input to which the portable player with the SPDIF output is connected. We start recording, start playback on the player and do not move away from the tape recorder for the next hour, gently pressing the button to identify a new track every time the previous one ends. Convenient, right? To record mini-discs, I sometimes use a similar procedure, but I arrange the tracks after recording. On DCC, this is extremely inconvenient: the format does not support searching for the desired fragment with accelerated playback. At the end of the second side, you can put another special marker. Upon seeing it, the tape recorder automatically rewinds the tape to the beginning of the first track on the first side. Signed up! Wait, that's not all. The DCC951 supports recording song titles. And if so,need to register tags!

It is done like this. The cassette is rewound to the first track, the text input mode is activated, and characters are entered from the remote control using a method similar to typing SMS on old mobile phones. Only Latin is supported, and only letters and numbers, as well as signs +, -, *. There are no punctuation marks, only upper case for letters. You can enter text without the remote control, then you need to search for the desired character with two buttons on the front panel. After entering the text, press the “Record” button, the tape recorder winds up the tape to the track marker and enters what we entered into the service track. Next track: rewind to its beginning. We make sure that the tape recorder does not accidentally rewind the tape a second earlier, to the marker, otherwise the text will be written in the wrong place! We write the text, press “Record”, wait, rewind, repeat as many times as there are on the cassette tracks.

I specifically describe the process as detailed as possible so that you feel the whole "charm" of working with a vintage format. The whole process of entering letters for one tape (two albums) took me about 20 minutes. That's it! Now I have done my best, recorded a digital cassette in the best possible way. If you recently cleaned the head and rollers, adjusted the recording current, maybe it will even be played without loss of signal - in the recording process, it is impossible to evaluate the quality, as on a conventional tape recorder with three heads. In my case, the setup took a lot of time, but after that the tape recorder worked reliably. Is it somehow easier to record a digital cassette? It is possible, but only with the help of a portable recorder Philips DCC175 connected to a computer - there you can create a record with all the tags in advance, and then the data will be transferred to the media offline. A set of a recorder and a cable for communication with a PC was released in 1995 with a microscopic run, and now such a rarity costs wild money.

How does entering track names work on a minidisk? As of 1996, you will also have to enter letters from the remote control. But, firstly, you don’t need to rewind anything - select a track and enter a name. Secondly, the data is stored in memory and written to the beginning of the disk. During playback, they are available at any time. DCC does not know the name (or even number) of the track until you get to the starting marker. Since 1998, you can connect a keyboard to a number of mini-disc decks and enter text from it. Since 2001, there was a way to record music directly from a computer, in accelerated mode. The cassette has two big problems compared to the minidisk. Firstly, data access is not arbitrary. This makes editing very difficult. If you decide to replace one track with another or overwrite part of the tape, then you will need to renumber all the tracks:the tape recorder will wind the tape back and forth for 5-7 minutes, look for all the markers, if necessary, overwriting the track number. Secondly, there is no single table of contents. It is present only on branded cartridges. Judging by the Philips documents, the idea to implement Table of Contents at the beginning of the cassette was, but the required functionality did not fit into the controller’s limited memory. In the DCC branded cassette (which you bought in the store) all the names of the tracks are constantly available, the tape recorder switches between them faster, because it does not search for them sequentially, but knows what time it takes to rewind the tape. To date, there is no way to record a DCC tape “like from a store”, with all the format chips.It is present only on branded cartridges. Judging by the Philips documents, the idea to implement Table of Contents at the beginning of the cassette was, but the required functionality did not fit into the controller’s limited memory. In the DCC branded cassette (which you bought in the store) all the names of the tracks are constantly available, the tape recorder switches between them faster, because it does not search for them sequentially, but knows how long it takes to rewind the tape. To date, there is no way to record a DCC tape “like from a store”, with all the format chips.It is present only on branded cartridges. Judging by the Philips documents, the idea to implement Table of Contents at the beginning of the cassette was, but the required functionality did not fit into the controller’s limited memory. In the DCC branded cassette (which you bought in the store) all the names of the tracks are constantly available, the tape recorder switches between them faster, because it does not search for them sequentially, but knows how long it takes to rewind the tape. To date, there is no way to record a DCC tape “like from a store”, with all the format chips.the tape recorder quickly switches between them, because it does not search for them sequentially, but knows exactly what time it takes to rewind the tape. To date, there is no way to record a DCC tape “like from a store”, with all the format chips.the tape recorder quickly switches between them, because it does not search for them sequentially, but knows exactly what time it takes to rewind the tape. To date, there is no way to record a DCC tape “like from a store”, with all the format chips.


When everything is recorded, you can finally listen to music. In the “play an album from beginning to end” mode, a digital cassette is not very different from a minidisc or CD: it plays high-quality sound, shows track numbers and time. You feel the difference when you want to skip a track, or when playback reaches the end of the side. In the video above, I recorded “digital cassette sounds”. I divided the small musical fragment into seven tracks, at the end I put the reverse marker, after another 15 seconds - the rewind marker to the beginning. Unlike optical media, you can hear that the tape recorder is working. When rewinding, it makes sounds similar to a VCR, while finding the desired track, it winds the tape back and forth for a while to more accurately aim at the very beginning (a miss is allowed up to half a second). Clicking heads, moving gears, in general - working. This is a major flaw in the media. More precisely, it was a disadvantage 25 years ago. In 2020, when all physical media are dead, this feature of the work is even kind of cute.

Dirty hacks

The biggest potential for creative abuse of the format is the DCC175 portable player mentioned above with a computer connection. Unfortunately, cables for communication with a PC were released a little more than 1000 copies. A proprietary circuit is implemented inside the cable, so making the cable with the device itself will not work. At the time of publication, the only set of computer DCC sold for 1000 euros - too expensive. I implemented the simplest hack, widely known in narrow circles, tried to get the tape recorder to recognize an ordinary tape as a digital one.

It is easy to do. The digital cassette is identified by the openings on the case, opposite which there are microswitches in the mechanism. A separate block of three holes encodes the length of the tape, the second identifies the tape as DCC and allows you to lock the recording. I took apart the usual cassette and drilled holes in the right places. I tried two types of tape - the usual cheap first type Sony and TDK SA second type “chrome”. The result was not impressive: the tape recorder recognized both tapes as DCC, but playback after recording did not work either there or there. Nothing counted on the Sony cassette. On the tape of the second type, a track with a timer was registered, but in the service menu it was clear that at any moment the tape recorder is able to read only two tracks with data from eight.

Why is that? In DCC cassettes, another tape is similar in chemical composition to the tape in VHS video cassettes. It has other characteristics that the digital tape recorder is not designed for. But it’s also the stability of the cassette mechanism: in DCC, the accuracy of positioning the tape is increased due to the additional metal insert under the tape, which is fixed by the protrusions on the magnetic head. The rollers are inside an enlarged diameter, and the tape is pressed against them by two additional elements. I tried to insert DCC tape into the case of a regular cassette, but the result was also far from ideal. Judging by this video, Sony UX-S and UXPro cassettes of the second type provide less reliable recording, and possibly other “expensive” cassettes from the past with additional stabilization. It is unjustified to use them economically - they cost no less than original digital cassettes. Alas, at the moment there are no options for making new digital cassettes with their own hands.

Another interesting area for research is the modification of the digital part of conventional tape recorders using modern microcontrollers. The image above is a project by Jacques Goodsmith. Last year he demonstratedreading data directly from the tape by connecting the microcontroller to the data buses on the digital board of a standard Philips DCC730 tape recorder. The project is under development, and the details have not yet been published, although the author promises to do so. The final point of the project should be not only reading, but also writing data “bypassing” the standard recorder circuit. Theoretically, this is what will make it possible to record tapes in the "company" format with all the provided features - a constantly accessible table of contents, full-fledged tags with uppercase and lowercase letters, punctuation, and simplified navigation on tracks. Similar work on reverse engineering is being carried out for a minidisk, where the situation is both simpler and more complicated. It’s easier, because devices with a computer connection are widely available. More difficult,since in addition to the proprietary encoder, there is a proprietary protocol for communicating with the computer, and the data transmission is encrypted. The DCC uses a standardized data compression algorithm, there is no encryption, transmission inside is partially carried out using standard I2S buses. The problem is that there are several times fewer fans of a digital cassette than fans of a mini-disk (and there are also a few left). Not the fact that in the end it will turn out to fasten the USB port to the DCC deck. A pity: in addition to tags, the standard provides for recording textual and graphic information (with output to TV!). You can make a weird audio medium even weirder.that there are several times fewer fans of a digital cassette than fans of a minidisk (and there are also a few left). Not the fact that in the end it will turn out to fasten the USB port to the DCC deck. A pity: in addition to tags, the standard provides for recording textual and graphic information (with output to TV!). You can make a weird audio medium even weirder.that there are several times fewer fans of a digital cassette than fans of a minidisk (and there are also a few left). Not the fact that in the end it will turn out to fasten the USB port to the DCC deck. A pity: in addition to tags, the standard provides for recording textual and graphic information (with output to TV!). You can make a weird audio medium even weirder.

The Audiophile Must Suffer

Since the previous publication of DCC information in the public domain has become much more thanks to the founder of the DCC Museum in Los Angeles, Ralph Porankevich, known as Dr. The DCC . Ralph makes money on his hobby - restores DCC devices to perfect condition upon customer request, and also collects all artifacts related to the media: stationary and portable devices, branded music cassettes. Last year, he shot a movie with crowdfunding funds .about DCC, with testimonials from contributors, including then-Philips director Ian Timmer. The premiere of the film took place in Eindhoven, where the company’s headquarters used to be located, and a series of lectures was also held there. And it was them, and not the film, that seemed to me the most interesting.

The most informative presentationwas conducted by Gais Wirtz, at the end of the eighties - Philips product manager, essentially a DCC project leader on the business side. The slide above shows the business case for a digital cassette. It was expected that a tandem of two formats would continue to exist. Instead of vinyl and audio cassettes, there will be a CD and digital rewritable media. It is important for the audio equipment manufacturer to satisfy the demands of the ordinary consumer. A secured music lover buys one device for playback and a thousand media (records, CDs or something else). The average person buys a tape recorder and some cassettes, on average, the family accounted for only 40 cassettes, discs or records. There are few music lovers, a lot of ordinary people, and here the main money will be earned on them, and it is they who will make the format massive if they accept it. Necessarily need a portable:most of the revenue the audio industry earned on it. DCC was created as a cheap medium, and compatibility with old analog cassettes was introduced as an important motivator for the purchase. It was assumed that a person with small incomes in the early nineties would go buy a new tape recorder (CD is more expensive and useless), and return with a DCC device, because it costs the same, is compatible with its 40 cassettes and sounds better when recording to new media .compatible with its 40 cassettes and sounds better when recording to new media.compatible with its 40 cassettes and sounds better when recording to new media.

Something went wrong? Yes all! The project started in 1989, it was expected that the first devices would go on sale two years later, in early 1991. Nothing came of it. The most critical component of the DCC tape recorder, the reading head, was outsourced for development. The contractor missed the deadline, Philips had to create the technology again and on its own, which postponed the commercial launch for two years, until the end of 1992. It was also not possible to keep the price within the planned framework - as usual, in reality the mechanism turned out to be a bit more complicated than just a “cassette with DAC”, this is also evident from the design of my devices. On the slide above are the project prices of various types of equipment in the Dutch guilders. A hi-fi deck at the start of sales should have cost less than 200 euros, in fact it was 600 and higher. Meanwhile, traditional tape recorders and tapes fell sharply,including due to the globalization of the economy - an automated production of cheap cassette mechanisms was created. The layman could no longer buy DCC, because he "costs the same." A digital cassette sold for $ 8-10, a regular one cost $ 1-2 (if it’s decent, but it was still indecent). Prices for decks for ordinary customers were exorbitant, a simple cassette could be bought for 80 bucks (if it’s decent, but after all ...) The DCC portable appeared only in 1994, and also cost far from a penny.a simple cassette could be bought for 80 bucks (if it’s decent, but ...) The DCC portable appeared only in 1994, and also cost far from a penny.a simple cassette could be bought for 80 bucks (if it’s decent, but ...) The DCC portable appeared only in 1994, and also cost far from a penny.

Finally, the World Wide Web appeared, computer multimedia technologies loomed on the horizon. In the early nineties, there was little practical benefit from them, but this changed the expectations of market participants: they began to invest in this bright future. Minidisk Gais Wirtz does not consider a competitor, or rather DCC was forced to compete, as it didn’t plan to be in the same price category with him. The sound quality of the digital cassette attracted other people altogether - those same music lovers on whom the iron producer will not make a lot of money. CD sales growth, as we now know, continued until the beginning of the new century, and retailers relied on this medium, pushing shelves with DCC, minidiscs and other game to hell. All this was superimposed on financial problems at Philips itself, and as a result, someone in top management in 1996,after only three full years of the carrier’s existence, he pulled out the cord of the life support system, fixing losses.

My personal experience has shown that the technical flaws of the format also played a role. Comparison with no less old minidisk decks is not in favor of DCC: the test of time, digital cassette decks passed the “two plus”. DCC offers the benefits of digital audio with all the drawbacks of magnetic tape: a complex mechanism, the degradation of heads and tape. I recently complainedthat the modern computer industry has a tendency to develop new technologies, constantly breaking compatibility with old ones, which are not so bad. So DCC is just an example of development without disrupt! They took a time-tested mechanism and media, added a little new, and provided backward compatibility. Did it work out well? No. There were a lot of reasons to choose the tape and the principle of recording with a stationary head: compatibility, ease of duplication on existing equipment, and user experience that was easy for the average person from the late eighties. Sony, which decided to "do everything in a new way" in the end achieved more, albeit not in money, but at least in the perception of the audience. Apple in 2001 generally first launched a breakthrough technology on the market, and only then began to negotiate with music publishers. And it worked!The mantra “do not change horses at the crossing” does not always work.

And now what should I do with these devices? I have both analog tapes and minidiscs, and in general, a little tired of DCC's invincible glitches, I wanted to sell it all to the next collector. But I put so much time and effort into the repair, and was so proud of the result that I now have a different plan. My running retroformats will still be a mini-disc and an audio cassette. And the digital cassette will be my audiophile medium . Real audiophiles will object to me: like that, lossy compression, a cold, soulless figure. I’m not talking about sound right now, it suits me in this case. And about experience, about suffering. Typical audiophile formats are vinyl and tape reels. Listening to them or recording them on a reel is a whole process, a ritual, with a mass of important small details - cleaning the vinyl from dust, setting up a tape recorder for recording with the best parameters. And I have the same thing, see the description of the recording process above!

Therefore, this is so: on DCC I will record my favorite albums, and in the end I will record a small number of them. Now I have about a hundred DCC cassettes in stock, and there are so many records. I will use digital sources of the best quality, and I will record each tape as accurately as possible, in all form, with track markers and tags. I will also draw up the cassette and case beautifully. In the photo above - the first attempt, where the need to play with fonts is clearly felt. I will reproduce a scenario from the nineties, when every month I could afford one new cassette, which I listened to holes. Unlike analog tape recorders, vinyl and minidiscs, which, I have no doubt, will work for more than a dozen years, there is an element of uncertainty. How long will the devices last after my qualified repair? How fast will tape degrade as a result of regular listening? How long will magnetic heads last? How soon will the stock of sealed cassettes be exhausted and when will their prices fly into space?

Unclear. And good. In the face of this uncertainty, I will use this format. As lively, with character, pleasant, but not very reliable, unique, but not particularly needed by anyone. Slowly aging on the way to the famous finale. In general, like our whole life.