This is exactly what I said below! It was just glorified video insert-editing.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Burnham" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Early digital recording history -- a couple of followups
I was editing digital tapes in 1980 using Sony's DAE 1100, a very expensive editor using 2 U-matic
machines and a controller which worked very much like a video editor.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-11-06, at 5:11 PM, Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Tom Fine:
>> Sony was 4th (and it was the
>> pro-sumer PCM F-1 system at
>> first, followed quickly by the 1600 system).
> "Following the development of the home-use PCM-1 digital audio processor in
> 1977, the professional-use PCM-1600, which used the U-Matic machine, was
> launched in March 1978."
> May I point out that despite having the ability to record digitally what use
> is that if you cannot edit?
> Fact is that Sony was still telling me at the London AES in 1980 that they
> had no digital editor but soooooon it should be available. ;-)
> Bis, Robert von Bahr, was the first in Sweden if not in Europe? to buy the
> Sony PCM-1, 78/79?, and used it to record in parallel with his ReVox A-77
> from then on but he could not edit the digital tapes nor was there any
> medium to release any digital recording in their native form.
> When CD arrived, 82/83, the pressing capacity was so low that even if you
> did have something ready to be sent to the replicator you could be set on
> the waiting list for a year or so.
> At the 1980 AES meeting in London I got bored and walked over to Kingsway
> Hall to find DECCA/London producer Jimmy Walker and DECCA senior recording
> engineer John Dunkerley recording solo piano works with Vladimir Ashkenazy
> at the Steinway.
> Despite having a fully operational digital recorder and editing system home
> built they were still recording on two DECCA modified Studer A80 running in
> parallel using Dolby A because they did not have more than a few digital
> recorders and having many recording teams out recording scheduled works
> meant that still some of the recordings had to be made in analogue because
> of the shortage of digital recording equipment.
>> no one was making commercial digital recordings
> So to be able to make commercial recordings you must have editing equipment
> too and having the ability to record digitally but NO editing facility and
> you are still dead in the water with no ability to make a ready edited
> product for sale.
> This was the biggest reason for DECCA to make everything in house since the
> thought of having to go to the USA, Soundstream, for editing was completely
> out as far as DECCA was concerned. And the Soundstream editor was big and
> clunky and VERY slow........
> Best regards,
> Goran Finnberg
> The Mastering Room AB
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
> make them all yourself. - John Luther
> (")_(") Smurfen:RIP