Print

Print


 HE WAS REFERRING TO THE 20 BIT STORAGE IN SBM USING SONY DAT MACHINES.

Paul Turney

Paul Turney Recording Limited T/A Sirensound
SIRENSOUND DIGITAL UK
Somerford House
22 Somerford Road
Cirencester
GLoucestershire GL7 1TW
England, United Kingdom

(0044) 1285 642289
Skype: peakleveldevil

INTERNATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER
GB31MIDL40172501398415
BRANCH IDENTIFIER CODE
MIDLGB2126F

Company registered in England and Wales number 4293934
VAT Registration number 739846968
Company registered address:
5 Gosditch Street, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 2AG England
Sirensound Digital Audio

-----Original Message-----
From: Mew, Peter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 08:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping

Hi TomCould you please explain how a 44.1 16 bit DAT can offer a betterresolution than a 44.1 16 bit CD master? (However Slight)Or were you comparing a DAT at 48KThanks-pm-----Original Message-----From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom FineSent: Fri 22 Jan 2010 0:49To: [log in to unmask]: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT rippingHi Scott:My take on DAT is, transfer what you got and be out of the format. Butin its time, it wasn't lossy and it even offered (slightly) betterresolution than a CD master. Also, Sony had "Super Bit Mapping" (20-bitA-D conversion down-converted to 16-bit storage) available even onlower-end machines.All in all, sound quality wise, DAT was superior to MD and otherlossy-encoded media.I bet most of us here would have killed for one of these little $300flash recorders when we bought our first $1000+ DAT recorder. Yousound-for-picture guys would have mass-killed for one of these high-endmany-tracks flash recorders.-- Tom Fine----- Original Message -----From: "Scott D. Smith" To: Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:22 PMSubject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT rippingAs Tom nicely points out in his summary of the life of the DAT, itindeed was never meant to be a professional format.After Sony realized their misstep in the market, they hurriedly triedto figure out how to re-coup their development costs. The thinkingbeing: 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 soundfor a feature film ("The Package")in 1988, I sat on a panel discussionat the New York AES show, discussing the pros and cons of the formatfor pro use.At that meeting, I distinctly recall pointing out the numerousshortfalls of the format for pro users, and was nearly booed off thestage by a contingent who thought it was the greatest thing to comearound since the introduction of the CD. Hey, perfect sound, right?Funny-I haven't really heard too much from that crowd lately...--Scott D. SmithChicago Audio Works, Inc.Quoting Tom Fine :> When DAT first came out, the original press on it was "here's a> cassette-like home medium for the digital age." But thecopy-protection> scheme made it impossible to use it as many people were usingcassettes> 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 eventsat> 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 atthat> 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 adoptedDAT> 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 itsmarket.>> -- Tom Fine>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Kendall"> > To: > 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 mediumat 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 verytolerant 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 allon any machine except a >> Fostex D20 - and that had the error light continuously on! Theaudio, however, was quite OK.>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul G Turney">> To: >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:18 AM>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] DAT ripping>>>>>> Further to this, you will find that some mechanisms perform betterthan 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 alwaysmeant 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 correctableerrors. We are then assuming that >> both systems will correct the errors the same way since both usethe schemes implemented. How >> do we know which system has fewer errors over the other? Myexperience with rotary head >> systems is that sometimes second or third reading yielded betterresults, I think due to >> "cleaning" actions of the previous playing. Maybe we should comparefive readings of the same >> cassette?ShaiTed Kendall wrote:> In my view, yes.>> Consider - youhave two data files. One is a >> text document (for the > sake of argument). The other is a digitalaudio 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 errorscompletely and accurately.>> >> Suppose now that there is an error in the storage medium which istoo > 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. Theaudio file, however, can be >> rendered > inoffensive by interpolation, and this is implemented inthe 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 arerecorded 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 datis that almost all tapes >> have some form of >> errors on them. I think the idea in dds isthat 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 atcoping with these (my >> experience with >> Sony is better than tascam for example, but Isuspect this is highly >> >> subjective). All in all, I think the DAT format was the worddigital >> format I have ever >> come across.>> Also' checking two files one against the other willnot necessarily >> prove one >> format better than the other. If you get some audio, how >> can yoube sure one stream is >> correct and the other is corrupt? >> Either the dat or dds streamcould be better, or am I >> missing >> something in the methodology?>> Shai>>>> Tom Finewrote:>>> 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 dothe >>>>> comparison Richard mentions.>>>>>> Please ping me off-list if youhave a working PC-drive >> transfer >>> chain and want to exchange DATs and computerfiles.>>>>>> -- 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 iscoming 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 phaseof one, and get dither or >> silence.>>>>>>>> In both instances, we're pulling numbers off thetapes (although >>>> the >> basest representation of the numbers is analog on the tape, the>>>> processing in both >> instances interprets these analog signals as >>>> either ones orzeros).>>>>>>>> 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 datarecorder, >>>> 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 probablynot 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 twomethods,>> and >>>> those bursts would be where the audio DAT's errorconcealment>>>>>> kicked in. Other than that, they should be identical, presuming>> you >>>> haven't introduced an interstitial error in one copy orthe other.>>>>>>>> I'm glad to >> see Chris offering to help. I am interested in this. I >>>> wouldalso like to know who is set >> up with the DDS Mass Ingest of >>>> DATs as I am sometimes askedwho can do large DAT >> collections. At >>>> the moment, I am not interested in doing anybecause 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:>>>>> HiJim:>>>>>>>>>> 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 advantageof 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'task because I'm worried >> about the theory. I >>>>>> was asking>>>>>> for a collaborator intesting.>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 tome: testing to make sure >> what's coming off>>>>>>>> the DDS>>>>>> drive is the same (or better) data than whatwould go>> down the >>>>>> AES/EBU>>>>>> pipeline.>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm stillextremely interested in this >> situation, and after >>>>>> having had to>>>>>> deal with othersimilar formats, I've got ideas >> for testing that >>>>>> I'd like to>>>>>> do. But I don't have aworking DDS setup here. I >> could build my>>>>>>>> own, which>>>>>> I might do, but that's a can of worms, andthere's>> other things >>>>>> to be gained>>>>>> by having a collaborator inthese tests.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks,>>>>>> Jim>>>>>>>>>> Richard L. Hess email:[log in to unmask]>>>>> Aurora, >> Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX>>>>> Detailed contactinformation:>> >>>>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm>>>>> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------