The Nakamichi version was the model DMP-100. Basically an upgraded Sony F1.
The one we had was customized to allow the clock signal to be referenced
to an external source to maintain sync for use in film/video production.
It also had a set of upgraded (and, as I recall, very expensive!)
anti-aliasing filters made by Apogee.
--Scott
Shai Drori wrote:
> I transfered a large f1 collection a few years ago (hundreds of tapes)
> and only one tape made problems. It is a nice format. Sound wise I am
> not a big fan though. What is the nakamichi version? BTW, does anyone
> have the technics recorder sold in the early 80's that was transport
> and electronics in one machine. The cassette was inserted upside down
> from the top.
> Shai
> PS
> Does anyone know where I can find one of the microcassette stereo
> "hi-fi" decks from the early 80's? I remember seeing at least one JVC
> machine when I was a kid in the States.
> Shai
>
> Scott D. Smith wrote:
>> Yes, in it's day, the F1 format was pretty good. I actually used it
>> for at least 2 years for production work As I recall, WFMT here in
>> Chicago was also an early adopter, using it to replace their Nagra
>> stereo recorders for many of Rich Warren's folk shows. They worked
>> pretty well, assuming that the deck and tape were in good condition.
>> The larger physical size of the tape helped as well.
>>
>> Actually, I primarily used 3/4" U-Matic as the recording medium for
>> most of my work, as the decks and tape handling were superior to most
>> of the consumer units. (Plus, we could use time code easily).
>>
>> My only major gripe was the quality of the A/D and D/A converters
>> (even in the Nakamichi version), which left a lot to be desired. Oh,
>> yeah, then there was the pre-emphasis flag issue...
>>
>> The one plus of recording on analog video decks with this format was
>> that the analog audio tracks could be used for a reference, which
>> made hi-speed locating of a specific portion of program fairly easy
>> (as opposed to the virtually indecipherable output from a DAT machine
>> in shuttle).
>>
>> --Scott
>>
>> Ted Kendall wrote:
>>> Agreed. I was at the BBC's Transcription Service in 1983, when we
>>> started digital acquisition using F1, and we were bowled over by the
>>> sound quality and agreeably surprised by the relative robustness of
>>> the medium. I transferred a whole collection (70-80 tapes) from F1 a
>>> couple of years back, using a decoder with an SPDIF output and was
>>> again surprised by the smoothness of the operation - a couple of
>>> mutes in programme is all I can remember. There were errors at stop
>>> and start points, but you'd expect that. That doesn't mean you
>>> should leave all your F1s on the shelf for another decade, of
>>> course, but for the moment, given the hardware, retrieval doesn't
>>> seem too bad. There are questions of pre-emphasis, of course...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:17 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Scott:
>>>>
>>>> Interesting thing about the Sony F1 format ... it's relatively
>>>> robust, in my experience. I have a pile of F1 tapes that were made
>>>> in the 80's and they all played perfectly last time they got played
>>>> a couple years ago (they were transferred to DAW at that time).
>>>> Most are on Betamax tapes and I'm playing them back on an _OLD_
>>>> Sony portable machine (the one that matched the original F1 unit).
>>>> I was shocked when I started playing them. All I could figure is,
>>>> much lower data-pack to tape vs. something like DAT. And, Betamax
>>>> tapes seem less sensitive to non-violent dropping and jarring
>>>> compared to say U-Matic tapes. With the few old VHS tapes I have
>>>> that were made with F1 equipment, they work fine as long as the
>>>> playback machine either has working auto-tracking-adjust or has a
>>>> tracking adjust control.
>>>>
>>>> I still use the format to time-shift radio programs (mainly NPR).
>>>> Turn on tuner, turn on F1 converter, set VCR timer, let it do its
>>>> thing. Play back at the time of my choosing.
>>>>
>>>> The last-generation F1 (EIAJ format) converter box even had a SPDIF
>>>> output.
>>>>
>>>> One other F1 story. I was told by a former Polygram employee that
>>>> most of those Japan Polygram LP reissues of Emarcy/Mercury and
>>>> Verve jazz albums were made from F1 tapes dubbed from the master
>>>> tapes at Polygram's US facility, so the master tapes didn't have to
>>>> travel overseas. Those LPs sound darn good in most cases. I think
>>>> the first-generation Japanese CD's of those albums were also made
>>>> from F1 tapes.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Smith"
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 6:58 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tom:
>>>>>
>>>>> While DAT wasn't lossy per se (at least in the recorded
>>>>> bitstream), the reality was that, depending on the tape and the
>>>>> machine, there could be a significant amount of error concealment
>>>>> taking place (or worse issues).
>>>>>
>>>>> I ate a lot of crow once when I foolishly used DAT on a day of
>>>>> pickup work on a picture, only to find that there was a problem
>>>>> with the tape when they tried to play it in post. We never did
>>>>> determine whether it was the tape or the machine that was at
>>>>> fault, but it wasn't pretty...
>>>>>
>>>>> When using DAT for production work, we had more than a few
>>>>> occasions where there were problems with either the tape, or the
>>>>> shell, (or both) which would cause severe issues when trying to
>>>>> reproduce them. My guess is that I've probably re-shelled at least
>>>>> a dozen tapes during that period to make them playable (and this
>>>>> was using high-end Sony 7000 series machines).
>>>>>
>>>>> All in all, I'm glad to see 'em go. Now, how about the Sony F1
>>>>> format?!
>>>>>
>>>>> --Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Fine wrote:
>>>>>> 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_Interstitial_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.>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|