LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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 2015

ARSCLIST January 2015

Subject:

Re: trapped at 44.1/16

From:

Rob Poretti - Cube-Tec <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:20:13 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (186 lines)

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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
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