Decent iPod to cassette adapters

So totally wrong I'm just going to say 'DONKEY MAGIC' and leave the thread.

Everything else you said I agree with.

Yes, but we aren't using the 'format' so all of that is irrelevant. We are using a system that fakes the patterns on the tape but those faked signals are not subject to the same limitations of the original 'format' that you mention above.

I think you are confusing storage formats with signal delivery methods?

not really, you do lose quality in the conversion as the magnetic form of audio storage is not as accurate or as clear as the optical method used by CDs... this is regardless of the type of cassette adaptor used

there is a marked difference in the quality of these things though... my mate has a ixos one and it's utter shite, I've got a maxell one and my dad has a sony one and they're both really good, you can't hear much of a difference between that and CDs

I think you are wrong.

1. these adapters do not use magnetic tape.

2. CDs don't use optical storage, it's a physical format similar to vinyl but on a very small scale.

3. Magnetic storage is not worse than CD, what do you think hard drives use?

You are confusing methods of storage, reading and signal delivery.

I put a tape deck into a car last year because it is the easiest way to use an ipod without shelling out a fair bit of cash.

1. They use a magnetic head similar to the one used to read actual cassette tape, and they work by converting the audio to a magnetic form that the tape player can understand... the conversion from a digital audio feed to analogue and then to a magnetic form, and finally back to an audio signal. At every point in that process you lose some audio definition.

2. CDs are defined as optical media:

They are not physically read with a head like a tape or vinyl, despite the fact that the way the information is stored on the disk (as a series of pits and physical markers) is considered an evolution of vinyl. That is why CDs are referred to as optical media (along with DVDs as well : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc )

3. You're nitpicking... The precision and accuracy of magnetic audio in this case is far worse than the kind used in hard drives... in the case of cassette tape it is worse than CD in terms of both storage and durability: a well-played or old cassette will deteriorate in quality, a CD of similar condition will not provided it has not been scratched or mistreated (subjected to heat etc). This is unavoidable because the tape is held against the heads as it is read, causing friction and over time, physical wear and deterioration of the data (which again, does not occur in hard drives because of the way they are read.)

I won't argue the toss over the fact that you can get more information onto a hard drive... because that wasn't my original point. I said "magnetic form of audio storage", referring to tape and not to HDDs. The only thing I didn't do was to clarify my point properly.

1. I didn't say that wasn't the case, you said 'magnetic form of audio storage' and that is irrelevant to this debate. Please quote me where I said that there is no degradation of the signal in this method?

2. (http://www.elpj.com/) So I guess vinyl is now optical too? I was trying to point out that there is a difference between a storage format and the reading of that format but I didn't make it very well.

3. We are not talking about audio tapes. How hard can that be to understand? Discussion of the durability, frequency response, seek times, temperature resilience etc etc etc has absolutely nothing to do with this subject. The only relevant subject is how much a signal is degraded by it being passed from one tape head to another and I understand it to be minimal and far superior to a C90.

Last point, how about DATs?