LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2010

ARSCLIST January 2010

Subject:

Re: DAT ripping

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:00:05 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

Hi Richard:

I'm aware of the difference between correction and concealment. For usable audio, the concealment 
should be applied. My question was, is it applied in a direct-to-computer system and if not is there 
software to apply it so as to end up with an audio-usable copy? Granted, digital audio is "bits is 
bits," but if the end result is not usable audio, it's not very useful bits.

-- Tom Fine


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping


> At 06:41 AM 2010-01-21, Tom Fine wrote:
>>Ted, I understand the point of knowing about an error. But, does the tape-drive-to-computer method 
>>CORRECT the error for the purpose of USING the audio? That's the whole point of error-correction 
>>in the DAT machine design (and in CD players) -- to make the audio stream usable to the average 
>>listener. What is the point of transfer if the audio can't be used? So far no one has confirmed 
>>that the direct-to-computer method provides as good error correction abilities as just playing the 
>>DAT.
>
> Hi, Tom,
>
> Please do not confuse error CORRECTION and error CONCEALMENT. DAT, audio CD, CD-ROM, and DDS have 
> a layer of error CORRECTION. Audio DAT and audio CD have an error CONCEALMENT layer AFTER the 
> error CORRECTION to compensate for errors that were beyond the scope of the error CORRECTION. DDS 
> and CD-ROM, I believe, both have an extra layer of error CORRECTION. However, this is not 
> implemented on reading the audio media.
>
> In other words, both the DDS drive and the DAT player will have the same level of error CORRECTION 
> for the DAT (audio) tape. The DAT player will add error concealment which is not necessarily what 
> we want when making a preservation master.
>
>>As to Shai's point about multiple passes -- I too have had success once in a while re-playing what 
>>had been a dropout. It doesn't work all the time, but often enough that I'll do it with problem 
>>tapes.
>
> Yes, that can either get better or worse -- and cleaning can also help.
>
>>And yes, problem tapes can have the "error" indicator light flashing constantly or on for long 
>>periods of time yet recovered music stream flowing out.
>
> The "error" indicator comes on at some threshold within the capability of the error correction 
> protocol in most machines. The Panasonic SV3800s that I have provide a four-digit error readout. 
> Many machines have a two-digit error readout which is essentially the two left digits of the 
> four-digit readout on the Panasonic. I believe this is a hexadecimal readout, but I'm not sure at 
> the moment. However, on most playback of normal tapes, I get "error" readings up to let's say 02xx 
> and those are all correctable. Where I start to hear problems are around 07xx and higher. When I 
> made the tapes, I rarely saw errors as high as 0100. So any errors below that would not even show 
> on a two-digit machine. I think I remember being upset when I saw an error into the 004x region. 
> It stays for long stretches of time at 0000.
>
>>One other point -- you have the same mechanical issues with a computer drive as a DAT machine, no? 
>>It's the same method of a rotary head recovering data from a magnetic tape, isn't it?
>
> It's the same method of recovery, but the computer drive may (or may not) be more robust than the 
> audio drive/transport.
>
> If I recall properly, there were two different drum sizes that were somehow made to be compatible. 
> The porta-DATs had a drum of half the diameter of the studio/home machines. I'm keeping my D8 DAT 
> Walkman as an alternative for recovering some tape in the future where this might be a benefit.
>
> At 04:14 AM 2010-01-21, Shai Drori wrote:
>>Okay, that I understand, but I am thinking about correctable errors. We are then assuming that 
>>both systems will correct the errors the same way since both use the schemes implemented. How do 
>>we know which system has fewer errors over the other? My experience with rotary head systems is 
>>that sometimes second or third reading yielded better results, I think due to "cleaning" actions 
>>of the previous playing. Maybe we should compare five readings of the same cassette?
>
> As I understand it, the DDS tape readout software will flag any uncorrectable error in a log file 
> (which I've also referred to as a printout). I believe it logs it by A-time.
>
> I also recall that the DDS playback method will fail if there is no ATIME on the tape.
>
> As to your comment about correctable errors -- who cares where there were correctable errors as 
> they were corrected. All hard drives today have error correction and it's used regularly in normal 
> usage.
>
> Also, don't confuse analog playback with digital playback. With digital, all you need to do is 
> keep the error level within the correctable range and you're done. With analog, there is NO error 
> correction and you need to get everything absolutely as good as you can. The Drop Out COMPENSATORs 
> in analog (video) machines are the same as the error CONCEALMENT protocols in digital machines.
>
> In audio, our equivalent of "drop out compensators" was increasing tape surface area per unit 
> time. In pro video formats there was little option for changing track width or tape speed. In some 
> respects, that is why 15 in/s 1/2-inch 2-track with IEC equalization ended up being close to the 
> ideal stereo mastering format for analog audio. That seems to be the point where cost, 
> performance, low-frequency response, high-frequency response, noise, and azimuth wander are all 
> optimized. 0.2 inch x 15 in/s is 3 sq in/s of tape per track. Compare that to DAT or analog 
> cassette...you do the math <smile>.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager