Cassette tape storage formats











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












I just came across this excellent article on cassette tape storage formats.



One thing confuses me though... in the "all digital" examples, like Figure 1C, what exactly ends up on the tape? That is, if I were to simply play the tape, what would I hear?



This article also poses the question as to why everyone didn't just use CUTS. It seems like the most resistant to noise, operates at higher speeds (including 2400bps in later versions) and can be played over a telephone! Yet following machines almost always used their own format, notably Commodore and Atari.






cassette-tape







share|improve this question






















  • Fantastic article. I up-voted for the article alone, but I like the question.
    – Wayne Conrad
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Please narrow this question down to ask one question; it's currently asking two things. You can move the final paragraph to a separate question if you like. Then the title can be edited to fit the question, and perhaps you could flesh out the paragraph to not rely so much on having read the article to know what it means (what's Figure 1C?).
    – wizzwizz4♦
    4 hours ago












  • You can't start using CUTS until somebody has defined it, and by that time you have lots of tapes in circulation for your machine using a different format. So at best you have to support two formats not one, and somehow decide which format any particular tape is written in. "Don't change anything" is a simpler option to implement!
    – alephzero
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    CUTS pre-dates the formats used by Commodore, Atari, TRS-80, etc. By several years in fact. It also pre-dates MSX, which did use CUTS.
    – Maury Markowitz
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The Commodore tape format goes way back to the PET in '77. It works the same across the entire line of Commodore products that support a tape drive, which probably has a lot to do with how strange it is.
    – mnem
    3 hours ago

















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












I just came across this excellent article on cassette tape storage formats.



One thing confuses me though... in the "all digital" examples, like Figure 1C, what exactly ends up on the tape? That is, if I were to simply play the tape, what would I hear?



This article also poses the question as to why everyone didn't just use CUTS. It seems like the most resistant to noise, operates at higher speeds (including 2400bps in later versions) and can be played over a telephone! Yet following machines almost always used their own format, notably Commodore and Atari.






cassette-tape







share|improve this question






















  • Fantastic article. I up-voted for the article alone, but I like the question.
    – Wayne Conrad
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Please narrow this question down to ask one question; it's currently asking two things. You can move the final paragraph to a separate question if you like. Then the title can be edited to fit the question, and perhaps you could flesh out the paragraph to not rely so much on having read the article to know what it means (what's Figure 1C?).
    – wizzwizz4♦
    4 hours ago












  • You can't start using CUTS until somebody has defined it, and by that time you have lots of tapes in circulation for your machine using a different format. So at best you have to support two formats not one, and somehow decide which format any particular tape is written in. "Don't change anything" is a simpler option to implement!
    – alephzero
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    CUTS pre-dates the formats used by Commodore, Atari, TRS-80, etc. By several years in fact. It also pre-dates MSX, which did use CUTS.
    – Maury Markowitz
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The Commodore tape format goes way back to the PET in '77. It works the same across the entire line of Commodore products that support a tape drive, which probably has a lot to do with how strange it is.
    – mnem
    3 hours ago















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1






1





I just came across this excellent article on cassette tape storage formats.



One thing confuses me though... in the "all digital" examples, like Figure 1C, what exactly ends up on the tape? That is, if I were to simply play the tape, what would I hear?



This article also poses the question as to why everyone didn't just use CUTS. It seems like the most resistant to noise, operates at higher speeds (including 2400bps in later versions) and can be played over a telephone! Yet following machines almost always used their own format, notably Commodore and Atari.






cassette-tape







share|improve this question













I just came across this excellent article on cassette tape storage formats.



One thing confuses me though... in the "all digital" examples, like Figure 1C, what exactly ends up on the tape? That is, if I were to simply play the tape, what would I hear?



This article also poses the question as to why everyone didn't just use CUTS. It seems like the most resistant to noise, operates at higher speeds (including 2400bps in later versions) and can be played over a telephone! Yet following machines almost always used their own format, notably Commodore and Atari.






cassette-tape




cassette-tape






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 5 hours ago









Maury Markowitz

2,134422




2,134422












  • Fantastic article. I up-voted for the article alone, but I like the question.
    – Wayne Conrad
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Please narrow this question down to ask one question; it's currently asking two things. You can move the final paragraph to a separate question if you like. Then the title can be edited to fit the question, and perhaps you could flesh out the paragraph to not rely so much on having read the article to know what it means (what's Figure 1C?).
    – wizzwizz4♦
    4 hours ago












  • You can't start using CUTS until somebody has defined it, and by that time you have lots of tapes in circulation for your machine using a different format. So at best you have to support two formats not one, and somehow decide which format any particular tape is written in. "Don't change anything" is a simpler option to implement!
    – alephzero
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    CUTS pre-dates the formats used by Commodore, Atari, TRS-80, etc. By several years in fact. It also pre-dates MSX, which did use CUTS.
    – Maury Markowitz
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The Commodore tape format goes way back to the PET in '77. It works the same across the entire line of Commodore products that support a tape drive, which probably has a lot to do with how strange it is.
    – mnem
    3 hours ago




















  • Fantastic article. I up-voted for the article alone, but I like the question.
    – Wayne Conrad
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Please narrow this question down to ask one question; it's currently asking two things. You can move the final paragraph to a separate question if you like. Then the title can be edited to fit the question, and perhaps you could flesh out the paragraph to not rely so much on having read the article to know what it means (what's Figure 1C?).
    – wizzwizz4♦
    4 hours ago












  • You can't start using CUTS until somebody has defined it, and by that time you have lots of tapes in circulation for your machine using a different format. So at best you have to support two formats not one, and somehow decide which format any particular tape is written in. "Don't change anything" is a simpler option to implement!
    – alephzero
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    CUTS pre-dates the formats used by Commodore, Atari, TRS-80, etc. By several years in fact. It also pre-dates MSX, which did use CUTS.
    – Maury Markowitz
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The Commodore tape format goes way back to the PET in '77. It works the same across the entire line of Commodore products that support a tape drive, which probably has a lot to do with how strange it is.
    – mnem
    3 hours ago


















Fantastic article. I up-voted for the article alone, but I like the question.
– Wayne Conrad
4 hours ago




Fantastic article. I up-voted for the article alone, but I like the question.
– Wayne Conrad
4 hours ago




1




1




Please narrow this question down to ask one question; it's currently asking two things. You can move the final paragraph to a separate question if you like. Then the title can be edited to fit the question, and perhaps you could flesh out the paragraph to not rely so much on having read the article to know what it means (what's Figure 1C?).
– wizzwizz4♦
4 hours ago






Please narrow this question down to ask one question; it's currently asking two things. You can move the final paragraph to a separate question if you like. Then the title can be edited to fit the question, and perhaps you could flesh out the paragraph to not rely so much on having read the article to know what it means (what's Figure 1C?).
– wizzwizz4♦
4 hours ago














You can't start using CUTS until somebody has defined it, and by that time you have lots of tapes in circulation for your machine using a different format. So at best you have to support two formats not one, and somehow decide which format any particular tape is written in. "Don't change anything" is a simpler option to implement!
– alephzero
4 hours ago




You can't start using CUTS until somebody has defined it, and by that time you have lots of tapes in circulation for your machine using a different format. So at best you have to support two formats not one, and somehow decide which format any particular tape is written in. "Don't change anything" is a simpler option to implement!
– alephzero
4 hours ago




1




1




CUTS pre-dates the formats used by Commodore, Atari, TRS-80, etc. By several years in fact. It also pre-dates MSX, which did use CUTS.
– Maury Markowitz
3 hours ago




CUTS pre-dates the formats used by Commodore, Atari, TRS-80, etc. By several years in fact. It also pre-dates MSX, which did use CUTS.
– Maury Markowitz
3 hours ago




1




1




The Commodore tape format goes way back to the PET in '77. It works the same across the entire line of Commodore products that support a tape drive, which probably has a lot to do with how strange it is.
– mnem
3 hours ago






The Commodore tape format goes way back to the PET in '77. It works the same across the entire line of Commodore products that support a tape drive, which probably has a lot to do with how strange it is.
– mnem
3 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
down vote













The simple reason is that interoperability was not a primary drive for this kind of storage, especially at the consumer level. Honestly, what's the point of reading a Commodore cassette on an Atari for 99% of the use cases?



I look at the hardware on the sample diagram and, you know what? It's a lot.



Most interfaces are a few bits of analog components like op-amps and some diodes.



UARTs? That's money.



Cassette was "cheap and easy". Some worked great, some were fiddly. While it's nice that some groups were able to send programs over radios to some machines, that was hardly a primary design requirement for most implementations. Local, cheap storage was the driver. Reliable storage is a bonus. Fast storage is extra double plus good, but lower on the list.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Of implementarions, the Acorn machines each have some sort of complicated automatic shifting and accumulation with built-in start/stop bit generation and semantic interrupts for byte received, high tone detected, etc. It's a lot. But the MSX is just a current level query 1-bit ADC-type thing, exactly like a Spectrum or a CPC, with appropriate polling loops. That's as to the advocated hardware and its suitability. I agree with all your points about the lack of value of standardisation when both machines and software are diverse and incompatible.
    – Tommy
    2 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8540%2fcassette-tape-storage-formats%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
7
down vote













The simple reason is that interoperability was not a primary drive for this kind of storage, especially at the consumer level. Honestly, what's the point of reading a Commodore cassette on an Atari for 99% of the use cases?



I look at the hardware on the sample diagram and, you know what? It's a lot.



Most interfaces are a few bits of analog components like op-amps and some diodes.



UARTs? That's money.



Cassette was "cheap and easy". Some worked great, some were fiddly. While it's nice that some groups were able to send programs over radios to some machines, that was hardly a primary design requirement for most implementations. Local, cheap storage was the driver. Reliable storage is a bonus. Fast storage is extra double plus good, but lower on the list.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Of implementarions, the Acorn machines each have some sort of complicated automatic shifting and accumulation with built-in start/stop bit generation and semantic interrupts for byte received, high tone detected, etc. It's a lot. But the MSX is just a current level query 1-bit ADC-type thing, exactly like a Spectrum or a CPC, with appropriate polling loops. That's as to the advocated hardware and its suitability. I agree with all your points about the lack of value of standardisation when both machines and software are diverse and incompatible.
    – Tommy
    2 hours ago















up vote
7
down vote













The simple reason is that interoperability was not a primary drive for this kind of storage, especially at the consumer level. Honestly, what's the point of reading a Commodore cassette on an Atari for 99% of the use cases?



I look at the hardware on the sample diagram and, you know what? It's a lot.



Most interfaces are a few bits of analog components like op-amps and some diodes.



UARTs? That's money.



Cassette was "cheap and easy". Some worked great, some were fiddly. While it's nice that some groups were able to send programs over radios to some machines, that was hardly a primary design requirement for most implementations. Local, cheap storage was the driver. Reliable storage is a bonus. Fast storage is extra double plus good, but lower on the list.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Of implementarions, the Acorn machines each have some sort of complicated automatic shifting and accumulation with built-in start/stop bit generation and semantic interrupts for byte received, high tone detected, etc. It's a lot. But the MSX is just a current level query 1-bit ADC-type thing, exactly like a Spectrum or a CPC, with appropriate polling loops. That's as to the advocated hardware and its suitability. I agree with all your points about the lack of value of standardisation when both machines and software are diverse and incompatible.
    – Tommy
    2 hours ago













up vote
7
down vote










up vote
7
down vote









The simple reason is that interoperability was not a primary drive for this kind of storage, especially at the consumer level. Honestly, what's the point of reading a Commodore cassette on an Atari for 99% of the use cases?



I look at the hardware on the sample diagram and, you know what? It's a lot.



Most interfaces are a few bits of analog components like op-amps and some diodes.



UARTs? That's money.



Cassette was "cheap and easy". Some worked great, some were fiddly. While it's nice that some groups were able to send programs over radios to some machines, that was hardly a primary design requirement for most implementations. Local, cheap storage was the driver. Reliable storage is a bonus. Fast storage is extra double plus good, but lower on the list.






share|improve this answer












The simple reason is that interoperability was not a primary drive for this kind of storage, especially at the consumer level. Honestly, what's the point of reading a Commodore cassette on an Atari for 99% of the use cases?



I look at the hardware on the sample diagram and, you know what? It's a lot.



Most interfaces are a few bits of analog components like op-amps and some diodes.



UARTs? That's money.



Cassette was "cheap and easy". Some worked great, some were fiddly. While it's nice that some groups were able to send programs over radios to some machines, that was hardly a primary design requirement for most implementations. Local, cheap storage was the driver. Reliable storage is a bonus. Fast storage is extra double plus good, but lower on the list.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 hours ago









Will Hartung

3,463719




3,463719








  • 1




    Of implementarions, the Acorn machines each have some sort of complicated automatic shifting and accumulation with built-in start/stop bit generation and semantic interrupts for byte received, high tone detected, etc. It's a lot. But the MSX is just a current level query 1-bit ADC-type thing, exactly like a Spectrum or a CPC, with appropriate polling loops. That's as to the advocated hardware and its suitability. I agree with all your points about the lack of value of standardisation when both machines and software are diverse and incompatible.
    – Tommy
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    Of implementarions, the Acorn machines each have some sort of complicated automatic shifting and accumulation with built-in start/stop bit generation and semantic interrupts for byte received, high tone detected, etc. It's a lot. But the MSX is just a current level query 1-bit ADC-type thing, exactly like a Spectrum or a CPC, with appropriate polling loops. That's as to the advocated hardware and its suitability. I agree with all your points about the lack of value of standardisation when both machines and software are diverse and incompatible.
    – Tommy
    2 hours ago








1




1




Of implementarions, the Acorn machines each have some sort of complicated automatic shifting and accumulation with built-in start/stop bit generation and semantic interrupts for byte received, high tone detected, etc. It's a lot. But the MSX is just a current level query 1-bit ADC-type thing, exactly like a Spectrum or a CPC, with appropriate polling loops. That's as to the advocated hardware and its suitability. I agree with all your points about the lack of value of standardisation when both machines and software are diverse and incompatible.
– Tommy
2 hours ago




Of implementarions, the Acorn machines each have some sort of complicated automatic shifting and accumulation with built-in start/stop bit generation and semantic interrupts for byte received, high tone detected, etc. It's a lot. But the MSX is just a current level query 1-bit ADC-type thing, exactly like a Spectrum or a CPC, with appropriate polling loops. That's as to the advocated hardware and its suitability. I agree with all your points about the lack of value of standardisation when both machines and software are diverse and incompatible.
– Tommy
2 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8540%2fcassette-tape-storage-formats%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

Image
0 I have column SubToBind that shows current year ratio and column PY SubToBind which shows previous year ratio. How can I simply create a card that would be displaying them both in a nice way? Something like that: I cannot achieve that with regular card, I also tried Card with States by OKViz but also unable to see both values. In KPI visual - I dont like the word "Goal", it will confuse end users. Are there any cards or other visuals that would do the job? Thanks powerbi dax powerbi-embedded share | improve this question edited Jun 11 '18 at 20:11 Oleg ...
Read more

How to ignore python UserWarning in pytest?

Image
up vote 1 down vote favorite I am using openpyxl for parsing .xlsm files, and pytest for testing. When I open a file, I get the: OpenPyxl -> UserWarning: Data Validation extension is not supported and will be removed That is not really a problem bcs. program works and I can't change the .xlsm file to fix that. But... When I run pytest with something like: def test_wrong_file_format(): assert check_excel(open_excel('file.xlsm')) == True I will get the warning i mentioned altought check_excel(open_excel('file.xlsm')) returns True and the test should suceed... Is there a nice way to tell the pytest that "It's not a bug it's a feature" and tests should pass even when they get this warning? Is there other way than using something like: with pytest.warns(UserWarning): ...
Read more

Alexandru Averescu

Image
Alexandre Averescu Alexandru Averescu Naissance 3 avril 1859 Babele, Ismail  (ro) près de Izmaïl (principauté de Moldavie) Décès 2 octobre 1938 (à 79 ans) [ 1 ] Bucarest Origine   Roumanie Arme cavalerie Grade Maréchal Années de service 1901-1917 Commandement chef d'état-major général 2 e  armée 3 e  armée Groupe d'armée sud armée du Danube Conflits Guerre russo-turque de 1877-1878 Deuxième guerre balkanique Première Guerre mondiale Faits d'armes Bataille de Turtucaia/Tutrakan Bataille de Mărăști Distinctions Autres fonctions 3 fois président du Conseil des ministres ministre des Affaires étrangères ministre sans portefeuille conseiller de la Couronne modifier   Alexandre Averescu (en roumain : Alexandru Averescu .mw-parser-output .prononciation>a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png")center ...
Read more