10-11-2018, 07:58 PM
Very interesting. So that isn't supposed to be there. Since both Teac drives did this, it must be something in this specific revision. Both are the "149-U" revision.
I can't think of a normal use case from back in the day where drive makers would have taken this behavior in to consideration. So, logically this behavior could vary from drive to drive.
I can't think of a normal use case from back in the day where drive makers would have taken this behavior in to consideration. So, logically this behavior could vary from drive to drive.