23 Jun
2005
23 Jun
'05
6:02 p.m.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:38:28 +0100 (BST)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
The 'fancy technology' I suggested was an oscilloscope. I don't see
how
I think you've misunderstood the message. I think Sellam was refering
to 'fancy technology' inside the tape player -- things like noise
reduction circuits. You want a player without anything like that.
I understood that. Using a 'cheap' mono cassette recorder with
automatic level control and brute plain electronics is well known enough
that I'm suprised that anybody wouldn't know it. I just didn't think it
was a 'cureall' comment to say 'just use a cheap tape recorder.'
There's a lot more you can do, and Sellam's comment seemed dismissive.
A somewhat
'crude' but simple thing you can try is to listen to
the audiotape sound of the tape you created which you say was
successful. Then listen audibly to the tapes you're trying to
recover. If the pitch seems to match for the most part it isn't
a speed problem. If you have an oscilloscope, look at the
amplitude of the signal out of the cassette drive of the new
'working' tape and compare to the one you're trying to recover.
As others have suggested, use the simplest tape player you can
find. Noise reduction circuits and other fancy technology will
only cause problems.