Print

Print


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