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


-----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
> scheme made it impossible to use it as many people were using
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> -- 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:>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would expect some burst differences between the two
>> and >>>> those bursts would be where the audio DAT's error
>>>>>> 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
>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------