DAT vs minidisc

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?

Thanks in advance!

-crabshell

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Crabshell <crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote:
>I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
>digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
>tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
>advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?

Well, MiniDisc isn't lossless.

DAT isn't bad, but there's no new equipment being made for the most part.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Crabshell wrote:

> I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
> digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
> tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
> advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?


DAT is lossless, MD is lossy (ATRAC).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Is there a reason why you don't want to record the records onto a
computer and burn them onto CDRs?

Mini Discs and DAT tape are a lot more costly than CDRs, as well.

Al

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:12:35 GMT, Crabshell
<crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote:

>I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
>digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
>tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
>advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>-crabshell

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Xns95DDA4EC17FC1crabshell@151.164.30.48> crabshell@nottoohotmale.com writes:

> I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
> digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
> tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
> advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?

MiniDisk, unless you get one of the new HD Minidisks and run it in the
uncompessed mode, uses a data reduction algorithm that acts
differently on different program material. Most of the time it sounds
OK, but you can't really tell until you record and play back. DAT
records without data compression. That's a point for the DAT

But I'm not sure that there are any new DAT recorders still being
manufactured. The last of two companies that made the transports
stopped over a year ago. So any DAT that you buy will be second-hand.
These tend to not be maintained so you may have a couple of hundred
bucks worth of refurbishment before you can get full performance out
of it. That's a point against DAT.

I'd suggest that you make CDs. You can do it on your computer, you can
play them just about anywhere, they're uncompressed (unless you do
your recording in an MP3 format to save space), and the media is cheap
as dirt. If you'd rather not use your computer for this, you can get a
stand-alone recorder CD recorder. Or if you want to get ready for the
next generation, TASCAM recently announced a stand-alone DVD audio
recorder for, I think, around $1500.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

S O'Neill wrote:
> Crabshell wrote:
>
>> I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to
>> make digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring
>> albums and tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound
>> and performance advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?
>
>
>
> DAT is lossless, MD is lossy (ATRAC).

The latest generation, Hi-MD, can record 16 bit uncompressed
PCM. Info at:

http://www.minidisc.org


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>Is there a reason why you don't want to record the records onto a
>computer and burn them onto CDRs?

What's wrong with just putting the records on and listening to them too?
I have a Lionel Hampton LP on the Fairchild right now and it sounds just
great.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 13 Jan 2005 20:21:34 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Is there a reason why you don't want to record the records onto a
>>computer and burn them onto CDRs?
>
>What's wrong with just putting the records on and listening to them too?
>I have a Lionel Hampton LP on the Fairchild right now and it sounds just
>great.
>--scott

I like playing records too. But my turntable doesn't fit into my car
or my backpack.

Al

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Crabshell <crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote:
>
>>I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
>>digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
>>tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
>>advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?
>
>
> Well, MiniDisc isn't lossless.
>
> DAT isn't bad, but there's no new equipment being made for the most part.
> --scott


There is a new format Hi-MD using 1GB MD disc which allows Linear PCM
for recording. Therefore, the only difference left between Hi-MD and DAT
is HiMD is 44.1kHz (same as audio CD), while DAT is 48kHz (same as DVD
audio).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Would I need a high powered audio card to do that?

play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in
news:cs5eu0tlgqe9b7r65p20glu1sq2ljchcc5@4ax.com:

> Is there a reason why you don't want to record the records onto a
> computer and burn them onto CDRs?
>
> Mini Discs and DAT tape are a lot more costly than CDRs, as well.
>
> Al
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:12:35 GMT, Crabshell
> <crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote:
>
>>I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to
>>make digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring
>>albums and tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound
>>and performance advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?
>>
>>Thanks in advance!
>>
>>-crabshell
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:19:20 GMT, crabshell
<crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote:

>Would I need a high powered audio card to do that?

No, but you will get better sound with a better card. You don't have
to spend too much to get something half decent.

Al

>play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:cs5eu0tlgqe9b7r65p20glu1sq2ljchcc5@4ax.com:
>
>> Is there a reason why you don't want to record the records onto a
>> computer and burn them onto CDRs?
>>
>> Mini Discs and DAT tape are a lot more costly than CDRs, as well.
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:12:35 GMT, Crabshell
>> <crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to
>>>make digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring
>>>albums and tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound
>>>and performance advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>>-crabshell
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Alas, no turntable in the Honda...

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:cs76qu$32i$1
@panix2.panix.com:

> play on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Is there a reason why you don't want to record the records onto a
>>computer and burn them onto CDRs?
>
> What's wrong with just putting the records on and listening to them too?
> I have a Lionel Hampton LP on the Fairchild right now and it sounds just
> great.
> --scott

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> Well, MiniDisc isn't lossless.

HiMD is lossless... and the portabel recorders for it are already
cheaper than the old ones. A new one might even be cheaper than or
same price as a used DAT recorder, that you don´t know much about.

>> DAT isn't bad, but there's no new equipment being made for the most
>> part.

which is a big disadvantage as it´s also getting harder to get DAT
tapes...

> There is a new format Hi-MD using 1GB MD disc which allows Linear
> PCM for recording. Therefore, the only difference left between Hi-MD
> and DAT is HiMD is 44.1kHz (same as audio CD), while DAT is 48kHz
> (same as DVD audio).

I have used DAT recorders that could handle 44.1 kHz as well...


Phil

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Philipp Wachtel wrote:
> I have used DAT recorders that could handle 44.1 kHz as well...
>
>
> Phil

Not sure what you want to say here. Being able to handle sampling rate
of 48kHz is certainly better. 44.1kHz is sufficient to my need though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:16:11 GMT, chris <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>Philipp Wachtel wrote:
>> I have used DAT recorders that could handle 44.1 kHz as well...
>>
>>
>> Phil
>
>Not sure what you want to say here. Being able to handle sampling rate
>of 48kHz is certainly better. 44.1kHz is sufficient to my need though.

If you plan on burning a CD you are much better off with 44.1

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

crabshell wrote:

> Would I need a high powered audio card to do that?

You'd *want* one that sounds good, but I'm not quite sure
what you mean by "high powered". Unlike (say) video, two
track audio just doesn't require that much processing power
to simply record[1] or play back.

Arny Krueger has a nice list of good-quality audio cards here:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/compare/index.htm

Some of the cards listed are a few years old, and there are
probably some newer cards not listed, but it might give you
some useful information anyway.

As for software, I haven't used it, there is a 30-day "tryout"
version of Adobe Audition available, and I *think* it should
be able to do everything you need based on the description
of which features are disabled (not many) in the trial version:

http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/main.html

Hope that helps.

- Logan

[1] The corollary is that all these super-deluxe consumer
sound cards that have been released over the last few years
rarely do anything that an SoundBlaster PCI128 doesn't do,
except maybe surround sound, which is just the addition of
a few more channels. Well, some of them do some 3D audio
effects, but most of those effects sound like crud to me.
Also, some of them do MIDI in hardware, but these days
MIDI can easily be done in software, so that's mostly
useless as well...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <YSGFd.1850$2e7.310@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> crabshell@nottoohotmale.com writes:

> > Is there a reason why you don't want to record the records onto a
> > computer and burn them onto CDRs?

> Would I need a high powered audio card to do that?

Even the built-in sound card in any reasonably new computer (or a $100
upgrade for an older computer) will give you as good results as a
Minidisk or any DAT recorder that you could find (and afford).

The better the sound card, the better your recording can be, but you
need a good source in order to realize the improvements over a certain
level. I'd say you should give it a try with what you already have,
then see what you don't like. It may not be the sound card that will
make the biggest improvement.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

crabshell <crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote in news:mUGFd.1851$2e7.1610
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:

> Alas, no turntable in the Honda...

If you're going for car sound, the difference between $10K converters and
those in your computer will be just about nil. I find that hi-res MP3 is
the ideal car format.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Crabshell" <crabshell@nottoohotmale.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DDA4EC17FC1crabshell@151.164.30.48...
>I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
> digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
> tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
> advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?

Yes, MiniDisc uses a data-reduction principal (ATRAC) similar to MP3. the
sound is inherently compromised. DAT uses linear PCM, and remains on
replay pretty much the same quality as the original AD conversion. Ideally
....


geoff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Can you correct me if I'm wrong-- it appears to me that the new Hi-MD
still records in a proprietary compression algorithym, but you are able
to convert it to a wave file on your computer.

If true, that would make it considerably less attractive as a medium,
wouldn't it?

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> S O'Neill wrote:
>
>> Crabshell wrote:
>>
>>> I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to
>>> make digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring
>>> albums and tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound
>>> and performance advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DAT is lossless, MD is lossy (ATRAC).
>
>
> The latest generation, Hi-MD, can record 16 bit uncompressed PCM. Info at:
>
> http://www.minidisc.org
>
>
> Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I find it rather strange-- or is it just me?-- that I can buy a 50 mm
rifle with which I could shoot down a Boeing 747 (at take-off), or
penetrate 1/2" steel plate, without much difficulty.

But if you buy a minidisk, it is assumed that you are trying to steal
music, and therefore hardware inhibit mechanisms must be built in to the
device before it can be allowed on the market.

Recording engineers need a better lobby.

Minidisks don't steal music. People steal music. Sure, get tough on
copyright pirates, but I should still be able to walk into a Best Buy,
in my recording engineer sweats, with my microphones and pre-amps strung
around my neck, and walk out with a minidisk no matter what the guy
behind the counter thinks.

Or do we need to register minidisk users?

Crabshell wrote:
> I apologize if this is the wrong newsgroup for a newbie. I want to make
> digital recordings from an analog source -- mostly transferring albums and
> tapes to a lossless digital format. Are there any sound and performance
> advantages of DAT vs MiniDisc?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> -crabshell

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bill Van Dyk wrote:
> Can you correct me if I'm wrong-- it appears to me that the new Hi-MD
> still records in a proprietary compression algorithym, but you are able
> to convert it to a wave file on your computer.

It just packages it uniquely. The data in the files is
truly uncompressed if that's how you record it. The utility
doesn't change the data but just the package around it from
their .omg file to the standard .wav file.

> If true, that would make it considerably less attractive as a medium,
> wouldn't it?

Sure would. There is still a gotcha. It is reported that
it will allow you to upload (or attempt to upload) only
twice before erasing your recording from the disc. Should
both uploads fail for whatever reason (system crash, power
outage, etc.) your recording is lost.

Come to think of it, though, I haven't actually heard anyone
who reports this problem say that they pulled the plug part
way through the attempts to see if the mark or "erasure"
occurs at the start of the transfer or after it is complete.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-01-14, Bill Van Dyk <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote:
>
>
> I find it rather strange-- or is it just me?-- that I can buy a 50 mm
> rifle

50mm would be artillery, not a rifle. You must mean 50 calibre, also
known as (literally) "armed for bear".

> with which I could shoot down a Boeing 747 (at take-off), or
> penetrate 1/2" steel plate, without much difficulty.

Don't take for granted what it can do. When I say "armed for bear", I
mean it -- 50cal BMG is about what it takes to penetrate a bear skull.
12ga shotgun slug won't do it. .357 magnum won't do it. As far as
easily penetrating a 1/2" steel plate, again, don't bet your life on it.

> But if you buy a minidisk, it is assumed that you are trying to steal
> music, and therefore hardware inhibit mechanisms must be built in to the
> device before it can be allowed on the market.

I hate the way my minidisc recorder locks me out of my own music that I
have composed and performed. I don't think that's right, and in fact,
this damned machine has asserted control of my copyrighted materials. I
think I should be able to sue Sony over it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> writes:

> Bill Van Dyk wrote:
> > Can you correct me if I'm wrong-- it appears to me that the new Hi-MD
> > still records in a proprietary compression algorithym, but you are able
> > to convert it to a wave file on your computer.
>
> It just packages it uniquely. The data in the files is
> truly uncompressed if that's how you record it. The utility
> doesn't change the data but just the package around it from
> their .omg file to the standard .wav file.
>
> > If true, that would make it considerably less attractive as a medium,
> > wouldn't it?
>
> Sure would. There is still a gotcha. It is reported that
> it will allow you to upload (or attempt to upload) only
> twice before erasing your recording from the disc. Should
> both uploads fail for whatever reason (system crash, power
> outage, etc.) your recording is lost.
>
> Come to think of it, though, I haven't actually heard anyone
> who reports this problem say that they pulled the plug part
> way through the attempts to see if the mark or "erasure"
> occurs at the start of the transfer or after it is complete.
>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Dear Bob,

It is hard to defeat Sony's upload limit. Or any other DRM for that matter.
It seems to upload about 2/3 the way, then it access/writes the disc, then
continues. If you turn on write protect on the disc, the upload won't start
at all.

The simplest and safest way is to just do realtime transfers. Somehow, via
hardware or software, loopback the computer's sound signal from output to
input, use Sony's program to play the sound and run a second program to
capture.

This is realtime, but hey, DAT is no faster! I've tried the upload and then
the WAV converter, but they are not all that fast anyway. About twice the
speed of realtime. So I just go realtime and have zero risk of losing my
data.

By the way, I've just bought a used Nomad Jukebox 3, but I haven't even had a
chance to use it. The minidisc is just so convenient and portable. No
external power or preamps are needed.

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <87k6qf468c.fsf@uwaterloo.ca> Mannr@uwaterloo.ca writes:

> This is realtime, but hey, DAT is no faster! I've tried the upload and then
> the WAV converter, but they are not all that fast anyway. About twice the
> speed of realtime. So I just go realtime and have zero risk of losing my
> data.
>
> By the way, I've just bought a used Nomad Jukebox 3, but I haven't even had a
> chance to use it. The minidisc is just so convenient and portable. No
> external power or preamps are needed.

By that I take it you're using a mic that requires power that's
supplied from the Minidisk player. True, the Jukebox doesn't provide
"plug-in power" and it's a bit larger than a Minidisk, but I sure
can't complain about the battery life. There's nothing that
prevents file transfer of recordings in either direction other than
that you need their software to access it from a computer and unless
someone's come up with a Macintosh file transfer program, it's PC
only.

By the way, what's the media cost on the high resolution Minidisk? How
much time (uncompressed) can you record on a blank disk, and how much
do blanks cost? If they're cheap, you can just file them like
cassettes or CDs, but I don't think they're that cheap yet, so, like
with flash card recorders, you're probably compelled (by cost) to just
have a few disks and recycle them. Flash cards don't wear out (that we
know about anyway) but disks do.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo