Board:   [DoveNet] Debate
Subject: Re: CA bill No. 1043 age
From:    Nightfox
Date:    Sat Oct 03, 2026 20:18

Subject: Re: CA bill No. 1043 age verification
@VIA: DIGDIST
  Re: Re: CA bill No. 1043 age verification
  By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Fri Oct 02 2026 10:37 am

 Ni>> With cassette tapes, it was fairly easy to make a copy of a tape with a
 Ni>> dual cassette deck.

 PF> I had tons of cheap boom boxes growing up, including a couple of those
 PF> that would let you dub a cassette. You know, not one of them recorded
 PF> accurately - the copy always ended up sounding sped up so I never got into
 PF>dubbing tapes.

I hadn't really noticed the speed issue when copying tapes, but maybe at the time I just didn't notice.  I havenoticed that some cassette decks play slightly fast or slow.  Years ago, I digitized a cassette onto my PC using a boom box that my mom had, but there were parts that didn't really sound good, so I wanted to re-do it. I bought a USB cassette deck from Amazon and digitized it again with that, and it did sound better - and I noticed the USB cassette deck played slightly slower.  I have a feeling the boom box I originally used may have been playing it too fast (rather than the USB deck playing too slow).

 PF> I think the issue is that there's some degradation. You could make a tape
 PF> for friend 1, if friend 1 made a tape for friend 2 and friend 2 made a
 PF> tape for friend 3, the sound degradation would be cumulative.

Yeah, I believe the tape hiss and possibly other noise tends to get recorded onto the second tape.

I've also heard of cassette-based multi-track music recorders that had the same problem - I recall reading that some would work by swapping cassette tapes, so each time you recorded a new track along with the previous track, the previously recorded tracks would sound worse due to cassette audio degradation. At least, for analog tapes.

Nightfox

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
.