🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello:

	I think that you're right till a certain point. It will work indeed,
but is like a deck copy (a copy from tape to tape): with each copy you're
increasing the level of noise...it will be better if it was decoded and
saved afresh!

	I have done in a PC a routine that reads Spectrum tapes and creates
a .TAP file in a disk (a binary image of the contents of the tape, already
translated). Apart for the little space it uses (compared to .WAV), I
think it's easier to manipulate. (at least for my emulation -- still in a 
early state).

	It has it's only problems, but I am considering to put it as GNU or
something like that... to see if other people are interessed in picking were
I left.

	It reads from printer port and from a SoundBlaster: but it's still
some problems with noisy tapes.

		Bye,
		Rui Ribeiro


In article <4fbat8$lbk@dns.crocker.com>, Daniel Dee <daniel> writes:
> >Oh well.  I realized immediately after sending that no work is required at
> >all -- who cares if you can decode the data stream on a PC.
> 
> >What's important is that you can capture cassette output to a .WAV file
> >(or whatever) via the microphone in jack on a PC sound card, then play it
> >back any time you like, even trade the sound files with other owners.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> I once wrote a VERY short machine language program that reads signal
> coming into the cassette-in port of an Apple 2, and then writes it
> back out to the cassette-out port.
> 
> While cassette-to-cassette audio copy is very unreliable, the above
> method is fairly reliable even for copy-protected tapes. After all,
> the computer has to be able to read the data off the cassette tape,
> what needs to be done is just take the bit that was just read and
> write it back out again.
> 
> I bet the same method will work on any sound card.
> 
> -- Daniel Dee (daniel@wigitek.com)
>