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:

Monospaced 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:

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:52:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (337 lines)

Hi Peter:

I was comparing the ability of DAT to do 48K.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mew, Peter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping


Hi Tom
Could you please explain how a 44.1 16 bit DAT can offer a better
resolution than a 44.1 16 bit CD master? (However Slight)
Or were you comparing a DAT at 48K

Thanks
-pm

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Fri 22 Jan 2010 0:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping

Hi Scott:

My take on DAT is, transfer what you got and be out of the format. But
in its time, it wasn't lossy and it even offered (slightly) better
resolution than a CD master. Also, Sony had "Super Bit Mapping" (20-bit
A-D conversion down-converted to 16-bit storage) available even on
lower-end machines.

All in all, sound quality wise, DAT was superior to MD and other
lossy-encoded media.

I bet most of us here would have killed for one of these little $300
flash recorders when we bought our first $1000+ DAT recorder. You
sound-for-picture guys would have mass-killed for one of these high-end
many-tracks flash recorders.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott D. Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping


As Tom nicely points out in his summary of the life of the DAT, it
indeed was never meant to be a professional format.

After Sony realized their misstep in the market, they hurriedly tried
to figure out how to re-coup their development costs. The thinking
being: Hey-if consumers won't use it, maybe we can dump it on the pros!

Subsequent to my experience using DAT recorders to record sync sound
for a feature film ("The Package")in 1988, I sat on a panel discussion
at the New York AES show, discussing the pros and cons of the format
for pro use.

At that meeting, I distinctly recall pointing out the numerous
shortfalls of the format for pro users, and was nearly booed off the
stage by a contingent who thought it was the greatest thing to come
around since the introduction of the CD. Hey, perfect sound, right?

Funny-I haven't really heard too much from that crowd lately...

--Scott D. Smith

Chicago Audio Works, Inc.

Quoting Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>:

> When DAT first came out, the original press on it was "here's a
> cassette-like home medium for the digital age." But the
copy-protection
> scheme made it impossible to use it as many people were using
cassettes
> at that point (tape-to-tape copies), duplication of DATs was a costly
> endeavor since they can't be run off on a mass-duper like cassettes.
> Remember that at that time period -- the Walkman era -- cassettes were
> the primary mass medium for music in the US, having passed LP numbers
> in the late 80's. So a cassette replacement needed to have a major
> pre-recorded component. The record companies had invested or were
> investing billions in CD plants, that's what they wanted to be the
> _ONLY_ consumer mass-medium. So it was another case of clever hardware
> engineering for a market that wouldn't buy in quantity. BUT, DAT was
> immediately and enthusiastically embraced by the portable-recording
> market, specifically higher-end radio recording, recording of events
at
> colleges and other venues, and the Grateful Dead taping army, among
> other audiences. So, quickly, quantities of recorded DAT tapes started
> piling up in various organized and non-organized archives. Also at
that
> time, recording-industry people realized DAT was a good way to make a
> listening/proof copy off the same digital buss feeding the
> U-Matic-based mastering system. After all, any producer or record
> company exec could have a DAT machine in their home or office, but few
> to none could have a 1630 playback system. So more DAT tapes started
> piling up. Then, lower-end studios and self-recording folks adopted
DAT
> due to convenience and cost. Many more small studios than we'd like to
> think were mastering to DAT throughout the 90's and even into this
> decade. Also the commercial/industrial sound production business. And
> sound-for-picture.
>
> So, yes, never intended for the professional uses which became its
market.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Kendall"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping
>
>
>> As far as I know, DAT was never intended as a professional medium
at all, but a domestic one.
>> The anti-copying furore in the US which led to SCMS scuppered that,
so the Japanese had to sell
>> it as an F1 replacement.
>>
>> Agreed, though - those first generation machines can be very
tolerant of marginal tapes.
>> Whether this is a mechanical thing or more generous interpolation,
I wouldn't know. I also
>> harbour memories of a particular DAT which refused to play at all
on any machine except a
>> Fostex D20 - and that had the error light continuously on! The
audio, however, was quite OK.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul G Turney"
<[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping
>>
>>
>> Further to this, you will find that some mechanisms perform better
than others, the PCM 2500
>> for example will play tapes that the 7000 series won't.
>> And often more plays will yeild a better file, but DAT was always
meant to be an editing
>> medium, not long term storage.
>>
>> Paul Turney
>> Sirensound Digital Audio
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shai Drori [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 09:14 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping
>>
>> 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?ShaiTed Kendall wrote:> In my view, yes.>> Consider - you
have two data files. One is a
>> text document (for the > sake of argument). The other is a digital
audio file. Both have errors
>> > in the storage medium. This is inevitable, so we devise error >
correction strategies
>> (redundancy, check codes, etc). These allow us > to correct errors
completely and accurately.>>
>> Suppose now that there is an error in the storage medium which is
too > large to be
>> corrected. This will cause an obvious error in the text > file,
which is unaceptable, so the
>> system does not allow for it and > declares the file corrupt. The
audio file, however, can be
>> rendered > inoffensive by interpolation, and this is implemented in
the DAT audio > format. If
>> we retrieve DAT audio in a system which does not admit of >
interpolation, we therefore know
>> that the data are accurate, as any > uncorrectable errors are
recorded as such.>>>> -----
>> Original Message ----- From: "Shai Drori" > To: > Sent: Thursday,
January 21, 2010 7:37 AM>
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping>>>> My own experience with dat
is that almost all tapes
>> have some form of >> errors on them. I think the idea in dds is
that errors are better >> fixed
>> than dat machines. There were many machines that came off >>
assembly lines not at spec, thus
>> making the tape not a standard tape. >> Some machines are better at
coping with these (my
>> experience with >> Sony is better than tascam for example, but I
suspect this is highly >>
>> subjective). All in all, I think the DAT format was the word
digital >> format I have ever
>> come across.>> Also' checking two files one against the other will
not necessarily >> prove one
>> format better than the other. If you get some audio, how >> can you
be sure one stream is
>> correct and the other is corrupt? >> Either the dat or dds stream
could be better, or am I
>> missing >> something in the methodology?>> Shai>>>> Tom Fine
wrote:>>> I'm happy to do a SPDIF
>> to hard drive transfer and then exchange
>>>>> tapes with someone using a PC-drive transfer system so we can do
the >>>
>> comparison Richard mentions.>>>>>> Please ping me off-list if you
have a working PC-drive
>> transfer >>> chain and want to exchange DATs and computer
files.>>>>>> -- Tom Fine>>>>>> -----
>> Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" >>> >>> To: >>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20,
>> 2010 5:14 PM>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
Tom,>>>>>>>> After I saw your
>> post and re-read Jim's post, I think I understand >>>> where he is
coming from.>>>>>>>> What
>> we _should_ be able to do is take the DDS ripped file and an >>>>
AES/SPDIF'd copy of the DAT
>> from an audio DAT machine, align the >>>> starts, invert the phase
of one, and get dither or
>> silence.>>>>>>>> In both instances, we're pulling numbers off the
tapes (although >>>> the
>> basest representation of the numbers is analog on the tape, the
>>>> processing in both
>> instances interprets these analog signals as >>>> either ones or
zeros).>>>>>>>> I would not,
>> without doing the tests that Jim is talking about, be >>>>
100.0000% confident that the two
>> files are identical.>>>>>>>> I think that the DDS reading could be
"better" than the audio
>> DAT >>>> reading as there is no error concealment stage in a data
recorder, >>>> so if you
>> grabbed all the bits via the DDS route, you could be sure >>>>
that they were
>> correct.>>>>>>>> These are all subtle differences and are probably
not as large as >>>> the
>> "Interstitial Errors" that Chris Lacinak is talking about here:>>>>

>>
http://www.avpreserve.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Digital_Audio_Inter
stitial_Errors.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would expect some burst differences between the two
methods,
>> and >>>> those bursts would be where the audio DAT's error
concealment
>>>>>> kicked in. Other than that, they should be identical, presuming
>> you >>>> haven't introduced an interstitial error in one copy or
the other.>>>>>>>> I'm glad to
>> see Chris offering to help. I am interested in this. I >>>> would
also like to know who is set
>> up with the DDS Mass Ingest of >>>> DATs as I am sometimes asked
who can do large DAT
>> collections. At >>>> the moment, I am not interested in doing any
because of anticipated >>>>
>> remaining headlife on my machines, the growing lack of parts for
>>>> DAT machines, the need
>> to transfer my own DAT collection first, and
>> >>>> the analog work that I have piling up.>>>>>>>> Cheers,>>>>>>>>
>> Richard>>>>>>>> At 04:27 PM 2010-01-20, Tom Fine wrote:>>>>> Hi
Jim:>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>> To: >>>>> Sent:
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
>> 12:45 PM>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All,>>>>>>>>>>>> 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>>>>>> pipeline.>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Thanks,>>>>>> Jim>>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>>>>>>>>
>>

- --------------------------------------------------------------------




Music from EMI

This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have
received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete it from
your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of this email is strictly
forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.

This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group Limited.

Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW

Registered in England No 229231.


N --------------------------------------------------------------------

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

August 2020
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