Cassette tape storage formats
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
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
asked 5 hours ago
Maury Markowitz
2,134422
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
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
asked 5 hours ago
Maury Markowitz
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
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
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
asked 5 hours ago
Maury Markowitz
2,134422
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
asked 5 hours ago
Maury Markowitz
2,134422
asked 5 hours ago
Maury Markowitz
2,134422
asked 5 hours ago
Maury Markowitz
2,134422
asked 5 hours ago
Maury Markowitz
2,134422
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
|
show 3 more comments
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.
answered 2 hours ago
Will Hartung
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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.
answered 2 hours ago
Will Hartung
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
add a comment |
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.
answered 2 hours ago
Will Hartung
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
add a comment |
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.
answered 2 hours ago
Will Hartung
3,463719
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.
answered 2 hours ago
Will Hartung
3,463719
answered 2 hours ago
Will Hartung
3,463719
answered 2 hours ago
Will Hartung
3,463719
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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