• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Why Does 8-Track Exist?

Outland

Active Member
For a while I believed that 8-tracks were developed before cassettes. That made sense, as 8-track was developed early, and took over the car industry. Then the cassette was released, which slowly edged out the 8-track with it's superior design and sonic quality.

Apparently this is not so. The cassette was developed before the 8-track by a margin of several years.

This begs the question, why was 8-Track developed, and why was it worse than the compact cassette?

Just a thought..
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
To provide music in boats and cars which was simple and easily handled. 8 Track was simply a refinement of the Fidelipac and the 4 track cartridge systems which followed so the basic cartridge form dates to the 1950's. Until the early 1970's, 8 Tracks on average were actually superior to cassettes. The Advent 201 changed that and the introduction of CRO2 tape.
 
Last edited:
For a while I believed that 8-tracks were developed before cassettes. That made sense, as 8-track was developed early, and took over the car industry. Then the cassette was released, which slowly edged out the 8-track with it's superior design and sonic quality.

Apparently this is not so. The cassette was developed before the 8-track by a margin of several years.

This begs the question, why was 8-Track developed, and why was it so much more terrible than the compact cassette?

Just a thought..

The 8-track was a 'mid-fi' solution/improvement over the 'lo-fi' cassette.

At that time (1960s), cassettes were limited to spoken word and dictation due to the low quality of the cassettes themselves, the transport mechanisms, and the 1-7/8 ips format.

8-tracks, with their 3-3/4 ips design, were significantly better 'sounding' than cassettes. Remarkable later improvements (thanks in large part to Henry Kloss' efforts) in cassette mechanism, transport, and tape design (thanks to Philips NV's ongoing R&D and strict product license) doomed the eight-track, which never developed much past the initial design.
 
At that time (1960s), cassettes were limited to spoken word and dictation due to the low quality of the cassettes themselves, the transport mechanisms, and the 1-7/8 ips format.

But the only variable that might have changed in that formula is the "quality of the cassettes themselves". Those old decks ran at the same speed with the same transport design as the newest decks? What changed?

I suppose a finer question is; what allowed the cassette to become superior over the 8-track sonically? Was it CrO2, Dolby, etc.?
 
Last edited:
Tape formulations and bias levels changed for one. I actually had a mono Norelco portable cassette recorder that made perfectly acceptable sounding tapes IF used with decent TDK or Maxell tape and that recorder dated back to 1967. A frequency sweep showed around 50 to 8,500Hz response with an acceptable S/N figure. Even mono, I much preferred it to Ate-Tracks.
A lot of that had to do with the fact there were only two tracks on the 1/8" wide tape instead of stereo's four.
The early Noreleco/Philips, 3m Wollensak and General Electric cassette decks all used near identical transports which had very good
wow and flutter figures. It wasn't any surprise to me when I saw them later appear in the Advent stereo cassette decks.
 
But the only variable that might have changed in that formula is the "quality of the cassettes themselves". Those old decks ran at the same speed with the same transport design as the newest decks, did they not? What changed?

I suppose a finer question is; what allowed the cassette to become superior over the 8-track sonically? Was it CrO2, Dolby, etc.?

Look at a 1960s NORELCO (Philips North America) cassette player (or any Japanese copy), and you'll see a far simpler transport than what you'll see on better cassette decks from the late 1970s-on. Transports improved, the cassettes themselves improved (better bushing, slip liners, tighter tolerances, better tape), and recording technology improved (Dolby and CrO2).
 
Interesting. So the 8-track was the initial superior format, and cassette was simply developed to higher standards later.

This, in turn, begs the question of why was the cassette developed so rigorously and the 8-track left to wither as it was? Perhaps it was because development saw more potential in the cassette than the 8-track design?

It also seems to be a general consensus that the setup inside an 8-track invariably gives high W & F values as well as occasional crosstalk. That seems like an inherent defect, to me.
 
Last edited:
Ate-Tracks :lmao:

I somehow never owned an 8-track though my oldest brother did. It was a Toyo (recorder) and cost $120 in the mid 70's. I remember 8-track recorders being very expensive compared to playback only units in the early to mid 70's, and you could get cassette recorders much cheaper. I had an AM/FM Panasonic (mono) portable as my first tape machine. Blank cassettes were cheap or expensive depending on the quality. I have no idea what blank 8-tracks went for in those days.

A weird thing about 8-tracks is the track switching in the middle of the song. Even the casual listening of my brother's stereo as a 12 year old, caused me to expect that "clunk" when I heard the same song on the radio.
 
Interesting. So the 8-track was the initial superior format, and cassette was simply developed to higher standards later.

This, in turn, begs the question of why was the cassette developed so rigorously and the 8-track left to wither as it was? Perhaps it was because development saw more potential in the cassette than the wonky 8-track design?

It also seems to be a general consensus that the ridiculous setup inside an 8-track invariably gives high W & F values as well as occasional crosstalk. That seems like an inherent defect, to me.

You can't reverse an 8-track, only go forward. Huge issue. Also, the tape stretched over time as a result of the design; no cure for that.

And you're trying to grasp technical 'why' without noting the marketing 'why'. People buy what they are told to buy. Superior tech often has little to do with it.
 
A weird thing about 8-tracks is the track switching in the middle of the song. Even the casual listening of my brother's stereo as a 12 year old, caused me to expect that "clunk" when I heard the same song on the radio.

Exactly. It just doesn't make sense to me that companies would push the strange design of the 8-track over what is essentially a miniaturized reel system.

I just don't understand what the point was in developing the radical design of the 8-track when there was already a similar format that had a considerably more simple and proven design.
 
The physical construction of the 8-track is a lot less robust than a cassette. Cassettes are just mini reel to reels, no endless loops or track change strips or any of that nonsense. Its probably also a lot cheaper to make because of that, and that will definitely factor in somewhere.
 
Exactly. It just doesn't make sense to me that companies would push the strange design of the 8-track over what is essentially a miniaturized reel system.

I just don't understand what the point was in developing the radical design of the 8-track when there was already a similar format that had a considerably more simple and proven design.

One name. Earl Muntz. I told you, marketing, not tech.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wi...k tape&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q=8-track tape&f=true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_Muntz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_Muntz#4-track_cartridge

It did not matter what was superior, it only mattered what caught the public attention. It's the same today. This is not a meritocracy.

Stereo-pak_advertisement.jpg
 
What about that other format: The Playtape. I don't know anything about it except they came with our VW bus in the late 60's. It was the size of a cassette, but plugged in like an 8 track.
 
As I recall, there was 4 track before there was 8 track. I had a big chrome underdash Muntz unit that could be switched to play either one in my '57 Ford. I thought it sounded pretty good at the time.
 
It doesn't always come down to marketing. It's often licensing (of the format itself and what's made available on the format), availability of the tech across brands/platforms, etc. People will buy what is made available to them in the most places with the most titles.
 
Part of the reason they were marketed was the simplicity of the player design. They were mostly used in cars and cheap all in ones. Nothing much moved in there. Capstan connected to the motor (or a flywheel perhaps) and roller and some kind of spring to hold the cartridge in place. The head had to move up and down in 4 steps with a solenoid. That is all. They also withstood abuse better than cassettes. You could pull em out of the dash, toss em in the backseat and grab another from the heap. The fact that they had a limited life and often mistracked was of little consequence. The target audience was the guy with his first car or a newer muscle car and a 6Pack. Later they went after the stoner market.
If you used a high quality 3M tape and had a good player with a big enough flywheel it was possible to get a good reproduction with 8 tracks. I had an old Sony than worked very well.
 
The basic design of the endless-loop cartridge had been around since the early '50s, long before the cassette. Originally developed as a "talking advertisement", it grew into the Fidelipac cartridge which was almost universally used in radio stations for commercials and songs. Those carts worked just fine, because there was roughly only 5 or ten minutes of tape, at most.

Later, a California entrepeneur named Earl Muntz took that same cart, stuffed it full of tape, had Clarion manufacture car players, licensed music from a variety of labels, and sold what became the first car stereos. In the car-crazy culture of California, they became a big hit in a time when your music choices were AM radio (unless you had one of those new-fangled FM adapters). They also started to show up on the east coast, but were still a niche product until they came to the attention of Bill Lear, of Lear Jet fame.

Lear took the basic four-track cartridge, improved on it enough to get several patents, and had magnetic head companies develop an 8 track head, which meant half the tape was needed for an album - and the tape was the most expensive part of the device, not the shell. He sold the idea to Ford, and 8 tracks were introduced in 1964 - at a time when the cassette was still seen as primarily for voice recording, and a strange product from Europe besides.

8 track would always be hampered by its endless-loop design, plus the fact that four cassettes would fit in the space of one 8T, plus the fact that a cassette used even less tape for the same album as an 8T, and less plastic at a time when plastic zoomed in price due to the first oil crisis in 1973-74. It also was primarily designed for playback, not home recording.

Engineers saw that the 8 track was a dead-end, technology-wise, and threw their efforts into improving the cassette instead. The 8 track didn't disappear right away, however; it had almost a 20-year run. Not bad for a home grown, American idea that began as the Cousino Audio Vendor. Look it up!
 
There is also the fact that cassettes were mono only until the late 60's. 8-track (as well as 4-track) were stereo out of the gate so it was a viable format for the record industry. Record companies didn't start releasing pre-recorded cassettes until Philips set a standard for stereo around mid-1967, and even then they were cautious and didn't start really releasing cassette albums until late 1968 or so. 8-tracks already had a foothold by then.

Philips really dragged their heels with cassette stereo. Their very well intentioned committment to total backwards compatibilty, plus technical considerations slowed down the stereo implementation considerably. Having to split an already very narrow, fidelity challenged track width in half made things very difficult indeed. It must have been daunting to try and engineer as much out of it as possible in those pre-Dolby, pre-Chrome days.
 
It all comes down to marketing.
I worked at Video Concepts in the very early 80's. I was a big laserdisc fan and we also sold those crappy RCA "needle in a groove" video disks. I refused to sell the latter, but was very worried that RCA's marketing behemoth would get enough people to buy it to give laserdisc a run in the same way VHS took over Beta.

Fortunatley, that old RCA system is my posterchild for the concept that even powerful marketing cannot completely overcome really, REALLY bad design.

And that is a good thing. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom