How could the data be "better" than a direct-digital out from a properly-working player (ie no head
problems or mechanical issues)? I thought the main advantage of the computer-drive method was to
save time. Is there more to it?
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Sam" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping
> First, Dave, that information is very helpful.
> That said, I didn't ask because I'm worried about the theory. I was asking
> for a collaborator in testing.
> The theory's been discussed before on this list, and I'm aware that more
> than one person/organization has experimented with this to some success. It
> was also *briefly *discussed at last year's conference in DC. However,
> every time I've seen a discussion about the topic, it has never come along
> with what matters to me: testing to make sure what's coming off the DDS
> drive is the same (or better) data than what would go down the AES/EBU
> I'm still extremely interested in this situation, and after having had to
> deal with other similar formats, I've got ideas for testing that I'd like to
> do. But I don't have a working DDS setup here. I could build my own, which
> I might do, but that's a can of worms, and there's other things to be gained
> by having a collaborator in these tests.
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Jim Sam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I am inquiring if someone that's transferring DATs via DDS, etc., drives
>> would be willing to transfer a few DATs for me. I'm interested in this to
>> see how it compares to real-time AES/EBU transfers. Having data from
>> established setups would be very, very helpful.
>> If anyone's interested in this, please contact me off list. You can reach
>> me at [log in to unmask] or through this gmail address.
>> Thank you,
>> Jim Sam
>> Audio Specialist
>> Hoover Institution Archives