I have to beg to differ...Load/Dump on the Sonic was in the background.
I could cut/prep a CD as the load was being completed in the background - and a minute later, start burning a test master.
Of course this is a disc that just had to have tracks top/tailed, sequenced and have spirals set...
But then again, if it were one of those crazy classical discs with a thousand edits on it, it would not even be CLOSE: . random access versus 1000 pre-rolls/post rolls?!
Cheers!
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rob Poretti - Sales Engineer - Archiving
Cube-Tec North America LLC
Vox.905.827.0741 Fax.905.901.9996 Cel.905.510.6785
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Donahue
Sent: January 23, 2015 3:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] trapped at 44.1/16
I have to admit that while expensive, the upgrade to the DAE-3000 was a huge step in the right direction. I made thousands of masters on one and with the combination of the DMR4000 as recorder and the DMR2000 as player.
Also, the later addition of the PCM7030 as a player made things even faster. Honestly, it was a long time before I could make a master as fast on Sonic when compared with the DAE-3000 (When you factored in Load/Dump time on Sonic...).
Also, the edits were sample accurate and repeatable. You could also get away with 10 sec pre-roll when using the DAT interface.
All the best,
Mark Donahue
Soundmirror, Inc.
Boston, MA
> On 23/01/2015 03:29, Rob Poretti - Cube-Tec wrote:
>
>> Yea... what really ticked me off about the DAE-1100 was that
>> 8/12?-bit memory wheel, to fine-tune your edits. When you were
>> "scrubbing" against a transient, you could visually reference it
>> against small markers positioned around the wheel. Theoretically you
>> match the transient against a physical position of the knob - which
>> translated into the trimmed edit point.
>>
>> The problem was, that as you recursively scrubbed up against the
>> transient, the position would actually *move*around the wheel! It
>> was very subtle, but after about a minute I could move the transient
>> location from one marker to the next...
>>
>> When I showed that to the Sony rep - he suggested I set the edit
>> point faster!
>>
>> When I first saw a Sonic - I thought - now THAT'S what I'm talking about!
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>> _/
>> Rob Poretti - Sales Engineer - Archiving Cube-Tec North America LLC
>> Vox.905.827.0741 Fax.905.901.9996 Cel.905.510.6785
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>> _/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted Kendall
>> Sent: January 22, 2015 5:45 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] trapped at 44.1/16
>>
>> Well, Tom, I don't know what sort of fragrant ancient this makes me,
>> but I edited U-matic on Sony's own DAE 1100A. Assembly editing was
>> the order of the day, building the master in sequence from first note to last.
>> 1610 tapes could be edited with a simple video editor as, unlike the
>> F1 system, each frame held a its own set of complete words, whereas
>> the F1 spread them across frame boundaries, causing an error even on
>> perfect video edits.
>>
>> The DAE 1100A allowed finer resolution than this, as it had on-board
>> memory
>> - not much, but enough to allow almost arbitrarily fine edits
>> provided, and this is the rub, you could hear what was going on. This
>> was problematical because the scrub and preview editing was something
>> like 8-bit resolution, so if you were trying to excise a small click,
>> you had to work by guess and by God. Rehearsal edits were at full
>> resolution, but it took anything up to two minutes to rehearse an
>> edit, once the U-matics had woken up, rewound, found their place,
>> argued a bit and commenced the 30s pre-roll.
>>
>> Once I left the BBC, I hired their edit suite occasionally, until
>> Sadie came along (v1.75, IIRC). It was night and day, and I abandoned
>> U-matic forthwith!
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/01/2015 18:39, Tom Fine wrote:
>>
>>> The 1630 was balky but surprisingly flexible for inserts and edits.
>>> There were single-note inserts done on a couple of Mercury CDs,
>>> notes taken from unedited B reels to replace damaged splices. Andy
>>> Nicholas at Polygram Studios got very good at this kind of thing. I
>>> think the key with inserts is that they had to fit into the
>>> parameters of the video frames, since the whole thing was kludged-over U-Matic system.
>>>
>>> The PQ code thing is still not foolproof. I use DDP Creator and it's
>>> still a manual-entry process at a computer keyboard, under the
>>> assumption that the clerical person at the record company entered
>>> and registered the correct PQ codes in that text document attached
>>> to the e-mail. The modern computer screen is more friendly on the
>>> eyes, compared to the green dots of the old 1630 editing monitors.
>>> To my annoyance, it is still standard industry protocol not to use
>>> the CDText fields to hard-set tag information at the time of
>>> creation. I am not positive about this, but I think CDText is SOP
>>> with hybrid SACD's. I admit, I don't own a boatload of those discs,
>>> but most of those I do own have CDText in the CD layer, plus varying
>>> levels of robust textual information in the SACD layers. All of that
>>> is somewhat irrelevant as it's a near-dead format, unfortunately.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stamler"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:21 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] trapped at 44.1/16
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/22/2015 5:57 AM, David Gerard Matthews wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Until sometime well into the 90s, the only way you were getting a
>>>>> CD pressed was to go from a Sony U-Matic 1600 series machine or
>>>>> (much more
>>>>> rarely) the similar JVC machine. This means that practically every
>>>>> single CD pressed until 2000 or so (and most cassettes and even
>>>>> vinyl) passed through a Sony 1600, 1610, or 1630. These machines
>>>>> have pretty lousy converters, although you could do a direct
>>>>> transfer from DAT if you had the right equipment.
>>>>>
>>>> The people in Chicago must have had it; they took an AES signal
>>>> from a pro DAT and brought it into the 1630 digitally, thus
>>>> bypassing the 1630's converters completely. By then DAT recorders
>>>> had better convertes on them than 1630s.
>>>>
>>>> There was some way you could do some rudimentary editing and
>>>>> sequencing with the system. I think it required two machines, but
>>>>> I can't say for certain, because while I have used the 1630 system
>>>>> pretty extensively for format transfers, I've never edited on it.
>>>>>
>>>> You could add PQ codes using a single U-Matic transport. We never
>>>> tried to do real editing.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Paul Stamler<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/21/2015 8:18 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To Dave's point, there were many albums made on tight budgets
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> were recorded on DA-88's and mastered right to DAT. This was
>>>>>>> before there was much mixing "inside the box," so the DA-88
>>>>>>> audio went out the lousy DACs into an analog console (usually
>>>>>>> not a very high quality one, at those budget levels) and then
>>>>>>> was mixed directly to DAT. I have no idea how they did
>>>>>>> sequencing and editing without a DAW, but this could easily be
>>>>>>> done on a Sonic/Mac II workstation in the early 90s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also on the lower-budget system that used Turtle Beach's
>>>>>>> software
>>>>>> SoundStage to edit and sequence 16-bit audio. I got one around
>>>>>> 1993, and paid $1,200 for it (with the interface, which was
>>>>>> S/PDIF in and out. For some reason it also had MIDI inn and out.
>>>>>> Anyone want to buy mine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I paid another $1,200 for a hard disk for that system. It held a
>>>>>> big 1.2 gigs. I had to juggle things on and off it when editing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I also remember sequencing an album, recorded to DAT, on
>>>>>> analog This was in 1992; we then dubbed it to DAT and brought the
>>>>>> DAT tape to a mastering house in Chicago to be transferred to
>>>>>> 1630 and have PQ codes added.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this means I'm officially an old fart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
|