EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 70, Issue 05 This issue's topics: Recording Audio VS. Digital (7 messages) HD Recording Vs Digital Tape Analogue vs Digital Audio VS. Digital (6 messages) Analogue vs Digital Equalizing digital tracks (2 messages) Audio VS. Digital recording Audio VS. Digital (5 messages) DAT and DCC (3 messages) 16-bit standalone (4 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . Please send articles to emusic-l@american.edu. Administrative mail should be directed to the editor at the address above. You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 12:12:04 EST From: Jason Price Subject: Re: Audio VS. Digital On 10/30, Jason Price wrote: >>The two basic systems that I have come across that >>track digital multitrack recorder) and an older Tascam >>Reel-to-Reel Analog 8 track Recorder. The Reel-to-Reel is >>about $1,000 cheaper, but for that much, I can get a good >>two track recorder to master down to. On 10/31, Colin Smith responded saying: >Digital 8-tracks like the ADAT by Alesis and the DA-88 have gained wide The >quality (by some people9s opinions) is better, you dont have to worry about >generation >loss when bouncing tracks, etc. One thing you might want to consider is that >you r tape costs will drop and will do so considerably if you use a lot of >tape. Im >not sure what size tape the Tascam reel to reel your talking about uses but if >it uses 1/2 inch tape and you use a lot of tape, you could make up that $1000 >in no time on tape savings alone. If it uses 1/4inch tape you may run into >some cro sstalk problems between tracks and your projects will suffer. You >also get, if I m not mistaken, editing functions I would be hard pressed to >attempt with 8 track >analog tape. Get the DA-88 or the ADAT. There are only a few questions I have about Digital Recording. One, I heard that the Alesis ADAT has a few problems. First, they are loud and obnoxious, and second, they take forever to lock up (Sync up with each other.) Does anyone know if DA-88s have the same problem? Also with the Alesis ADAT, is there an internal meathod of recording SMPTE without wasting a valuable track of audio? Next, I have heard that Analog tape delivers a thicker, warmer sound than Digital tape. Is this just a nasty rumor that is floating around? One more. Digital recording, let's take the DA-88 for Example, only samples 48,000 times per second instead of recording a constant stream of sound, thus leaving small holes in the music. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Then, when you master down to an DAT machine, you overlap the two signals leavine even larger holes in the music. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Then, you dub off copies onto a CD which creates even more, Larger Holes. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- and your final mix (CD) looks like this: - - - - - - - - Does anyone know the validity of this claim? Is the continued sampaling of audio data indeed degrading the quality of your music. It is because of these supposed drawbacks that I am still not sure wether Digital is the best thing going, although I am starting to lean more and more tward it. Thanks a bunch If you can help me out. Jason Price -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Price jason_price@cc.cranbrook.edu Bloomfield Hills, MI,US. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:47:34 -0500 From: john rossi Subject: Re: Audio VS. Digital First, ATATs are not loud or obnoxious. The only drawback to the ADAT, in my opinion (which is not humble by any means), is the S-VHS tape format itself. However, having said that, I have had 2 ADATs (now just one) and I never have had a problem with the tape or the decks. If you look at professional reviews of both the ADAT and DA-88 in Mix, you will find that the audio is comparable to any found on stationary head digital multitrack ($100,000+). What this means is that you can trade the inconvenience of having 24 tracks of digital audio spread out over three $10 tapes as opposed to one $40 tape for the cost savings of about $90,000. As to synching, when I had the two ADATs in the lock mode they synch nearly instantly. Even doing esoteric edits using locator offsets using the BRC, they synched as soon as the transports get to the locate positions. With a synched sample accuracy of 1/48,000 sec, it is all pretty tight. What's more, this tightness goes all the way to the full compliment of 16 ADATs. You can do SMPTE in several ways. First is the waste a track method. The second is to buy a SMPTE synch box from somebody like JLCooper or you can opt for the BRC which synchs the ADAT to anything and everything including MTC and the kitchen sink (sic). I think that the DA-88 has a card which can be added for a nominal cost to give SMPTE synch. If you can afford it, however, the BRC is definately the way to go. The analog vs digital debate is not straightforward. No matter what anybody says they can hear, psychoacoustic A/B tests reveal that people can't tell analog from digital signals providing the signals are of equal quality. Only one little cited study by some Japaneese acousticians has presented evidence that analog and digital signals are preceived differently. This was an EEG study and they found that it took quit a long timne to see the effect (BTW, I am starting to do a similar set of studies using more sophisticated quantitative EEG techniques). As for your final speculation about holes in the digital process, this simply isn't close. Digital copies are identical duplicates. There can be no loss of information (save for some dropout problem) since the stream of 1s and 0s are copied exactly on each successive generation. There just isn't any loss. If you compare this to analog recording where you get a 3dB change in signal to noise ratio after every generation (and where you generally start out with a dynamic range which is effectively 10 to 15 dB less than the effective range of 16-bit digital) you really have to worry a lot more about loss in analog systems than digital ones. Accordingly, the neatest thing about digital is its loss free characteristics. This will only improve as the whole audio path is relegated to digital circuits when digital mixers, switchers, and amplifier front ends become more common. There is no question. If you are buying an 8 track system your only real choice is one of the 3 digital units. John 3 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 14:55:45 -0500 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Audio VS. Digital > Next, I have heard that Analog tape delivers a thicker, warmer > sound than Digital tape. Is this just a nasty rumor that is floating around? Not quite. The *distortion* that occurs when analog tape is oversaturated is rather nice for some purposes; digital distortion just sounds awful. >From that standpoint, yes. Otherwise, not really. Different decks do sound different, but this is the case with analog as well as digital. For instance, of the reasons that the Tascam DA-30 DAT is so popular is that its A-to-D/D-to-A converters reproduce sound in a very musical manner. You might want to see if you can try out both options - tape some stuff on both and see which one you like the sound of better. > One more. Digital recording, let's take the DA-88 for Example, only samples > 48,000 times per second instead of recording a constant stream of sound, thus > leaving small holes in the music. > > --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- No. No holes. See below. [more holes deleted] > > Does anyone know the validity of this claim? Is the continued sampling > of audio data indeed degrading the quality of your music. It is because > of these supposed drawbacks that I am still not sure wether Digital is the > best thing going, although I am starting to lean more and more toward it. > Thanks a bunch If you can help me out. > The persons promulgating this fiction are either not fully aware of how digital recording works, or else they want to sell you some analog gear. :) See, what happens is the continuous signal is sampled 44.1 thousand times per second. The instantaneous signal is recorded as a number (the digitization step). Now on playback, the numbers are sent at the same rate to the digital-to-analog converter, which reproduces them as a "stairstepped" version of the original continuous wave. (No gaps. The output of the DAC holds a voltage until it's told to produce a new one.) This wave, as-is, would produce a lot of extraneous harmoic distortion because of the (relatively) sharp edges introduced by the digitization. (I say relatively because converters don't have instantaneous response; there'll be some small amount of hysteresis in the response from point to point. But I digress.) Anyway, to get rid of these high harmonics, the signal is run through a "brick-wall" low-pass filter which cuts off everything over about 20 KHz or so. Voila, a continuous wave reproduced from the analog original. People who claim they can hear gaps occurring at 44.1 KHz are either deluded or subscribers to The Absolute Sound who also believe that tube amps are better and that no one should produce records on anything but vinyl. But I repeat myself. :) --- Joe M. -- "Don't be absurd. We're scaring the locals with music for fun, not profit." (Lord Cthulhu, in Savage Henry #1) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 23:56:43 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Audio VS. Digital >I believe that the most practical reason for choosing digital over analog >when it comes to 8-tracks is the size and the expense of the media. Is that more important than the ability to do digital copies? Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 08:48:43 EST From: Jason Price Subject: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital Allright guys, I got one more for you. Since there is all this talk about hard disk multitrack recording and digital multitrack recording (DA-88, or ADAT), I was wondering which one is more practical for today's day and age. For those of us who already have a computer (Which should hopefully include all of you), the hard disk editing is definately the more cost effective way of doing things. However, considering all of the problems that I've had with my computer over the years, is this more troubble than it's worth. Will I run into storage problems or disk access problems if I record 8 tracks of audio for 10 songs? Will I run into any problems with disk access time. Is hard disk editing going to dramatically improve over the course of the next year. Is a piece of equipment like the DAD-88 or the alesis ADAT truely a more practical way to go? Basically what I am asking is which is easiest and most prictical. Jason Price P.S. If you had to pick one, would it be the DA-88 or the Alesis ADAT? Are there any major draw backs to either? Are there any major features that one has and the other doesen't? ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Price Home: (810)682-8259 jason_price@cc.cranbrook.edu FAX: (810)645-3081 Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:00:40 -0500 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital > Allright guys, I got one more for you. Since there is all > this talk about hard disk multitrack recording and digital > multitrack recording (DA-88, or ADAT), I was wondering which > one is more practical for today's day and age. If I were going to do digital multitrack recording, I'd think hard about whether I wanted to use a computer to do it or not. I still think that the principal thing you're buying with the computer is processing power after the tracks are down, rather than the best possible recording environment. > For those of > us who already have a computer (Which should hopefully > include all of you), the hard disk editing is definately the > more cost effective way of doing things. In my case - not really. I currently have *no* computer suitable for use in a studio. All my sequencing is done on the VFXsd's internal sequencer. I'd be looking at a large outlay of cash to get a basic system; to pump it up to the point where it would be practical for storing even an album's worth of music, I'd be talking about a lot more money than it would cost me for the digital multitrack. I'm not sure in general that this is true unless you've already got something like a Quadra 880AV or something like that with the audio already on-board and ready to go. And don't forget a huge hard disk, too. > However, > considering all of the problems that I've had with my > computer over the years, is this more troubble than it's > worth. Will I run into storage problems or disk access > problems if I record 8 tracks of audio for 10 songs? > Will I run into any problems with disk access time. You're talking storage in the gigabyte range. This may indeed be a problem. > Is hard disk > editing going to dramatically improve over the course of the > next year. Unless prices drop significantly per gigabyte of disk storage, probably not. > Is a piece of equipment like the DAD-88 or the > alesis ADAT truely a more practical way to go? Basically > what I am asking is which is easiest and most prictical. > I think for me personally, the DA-88/ADAT format would be simpler and easier to use. One of the *big* advantages is that no one is going to be able to blame bugs on someone else's operating system/hardware/software, since it all comes from the same manufacturer. Also, more storage is cheap, relatively speaking, and it's possible to contemplate spending the money for a backup system using a second deck to keep digital copies of your multitrack masters; this would also keep you from getting shafted if you're on deadline for something and the primary breaks. --- Joe M. -- "Don't be absurd. We're scaring the locals with music for fun, not profit." (Lord Cthulhu, in Savage Henry #1) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 11:41:32 -0800 From: atomic city Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital Jason Price writes-- > > Allright guys, I got one more for you. Since there is all > this talk about hard disk multitrack recording and digital > multitrack recording (DA-88, or ADAT), I was wondering which > one is more practical for today's day and age. For those of > us who already have a computer (Which should hopefully > include all of you), the hard disk editing is definately the > more cost effective way of doing things. However, > considering all of the problems that I've had with my > computer over the years, is this more troubble than it's > worth. Will I run into storage problems or disk access > problems if I record 8 tracks of audio for 10 songs? Will I > run into any problems with disk access time. Is hard disk > editing going to dramatically improve over the course of the > next year. Is a piece of equipment like the DAD-88 or the > alesis ADAT truely a more practical way to go? Basically > what I am asking is which is easiest and most prictical. There are people out there (hi, Eirikur) who hate recording on magnetic tape. Once you've had the experience of hard-disk-based cutting and pasting, noise reduction and other onboard edits to sound, and so on, it's tough to give it up. However, magnetic tape (analog OR digital) is cheaper, more compact, simpler, less crash-prone, and leaves you with data that can be played back by another identical machine (I dare you to just ship a 1Gig hard disk full of audio data to someone else who 'has a hard disk editor' and expect it to work on the first try). I think the best solution is a compromise; multitrack on tape, mix down to DAT, dump into the computer, clean up and edit, then spew to DAT again for CD pressing. When this is done right, it lets you work quickly and effectively and put out great product. In a best-case scenario, Atomic City's group of artists will be releasing a large number of CDs in the next year or so, all mastered this way. > P.S. If you had to pick one, would it be the DA-88 or the > Alesis ADAT? Are there any major draw backs to either? Are > there any major features that one has and the other > doesen't? Bleeaarrrghhhh. This is a tough one. For adaptability to the de facto standard, the ADAT or Fostex RD8 are more common than the DA-88, and there are old wives' tales about the 'dangers' of the DA-88's two-tracks- at-a-time recording process in general circulation, but based on what I know about tape transports I'd trust the DA-88 a lot more. Either would do fine for you, but the ADAT *is* a standard, if that matters any. mike -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * atomic@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "ah, art. i've heard of that. nah, just kidding...." (j. drukman) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 11:32:38 +1000 From: DAVID O'DONOGHUE Subject: Re: HD Recording Vs Digital Tape Reply to message text: >, the hard disk editing is definately the > more cost effective way of doing things. Initial hardware costs are still high. If you dont already have a fast Mac you will need to purchase one. At entry level, you will require an Audiomedia 2 card), at a higher level PRO TOOLS. Lets not forget a 500MB or 1 GIG hard disk. Or perhaps an Atari Falcon? If only Atari (or TIME/WARNER-who actually owns them these days?) would support this machine properly. It really couldve been a viable alternative. PC? Cubase Audio is the only Sequencer/HD recorder that I am aware of..and at the moment you are locked in to using the YAMAHA CBX box.If you wish to record 8 tracks you will need to purchase 2 of them. Is anyone out there actually using it ,that would like to comment on its effectiveness? > Will I run into storage problems or disk access > problems if I record 8 tracks of audio for 10 songs? Lets assume a song length of four minutes. 20MB will buy you 4 minutes of mono recording on one track (Linear) 160MB will get you to 8 tracks 10 songs? 1600MB Obviously I am over simplifying things (as HD recording is rarely linear) , I'm just giving you a worst case scenario. Disk access time? Get as fast a HD as you can afford, the slower drives dont do 8 tracks well at all! (They dont even do 4 tracks very well) > P.S. If you had to pick one, would it be the DA-88 or the > Alesis ADAT? Are there any major draw backs to either? Are > there any major features that one has and the other >doesen't? Go for the Alesis. For better or worse it seems to be the entrenched industry standard. There are now many 3rd party products (interfaces etc) being built for it and it is supported by many other companies. Emagic logic has a 'front panel emulation' built in, AKAI are planning ADAT compatability etc Regards David O'Donoghoe DODON@OZEMAIL.COM.AU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:27:28 +1000 From: David Rodger Subject: Analogue vs Digital Hello, Jason and everyone. I'm about to go into a studio with a band to record a record and the studio has Alesis ADATs. I've seen them, I've heard them, but I've never laid hands on one. So, as a first-time user, I'll let y'all know what I think. This will be in a bout a week's time. Happy debating, David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 09:22:30 -0400 From: Biff Padiduwitz Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital metlay sez: >(I dare you to just ship a 1Gig hard disk full of audio data to someone else who 'has a hard disk editor' and expect it to work on the first try). --------------------------------- I sey: Well you don't have to do that. For example, the Session 8 dumps to Dat. Each track is laid down in real time in (good idea just in case of corruption) followed by (or preceeded by) all the editing/session/mix information. You can back up and restore a session easily and cheaply. Only drawback is that it takes as much time as playing the session many times over to do the backup compared to a very short time if you back up to disk. Biff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 14:17:06 LCL From: Michael Carnes Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital I believe that the Akai DR4-D dumps to DAT in the same way. This might not be a bad system for some applications. A 4-Track standalone recorder can be had for around $2K plus the cost of whatever internal or external SCSI drives you want to add. From what I've seen the converters are OK and it has a number of other interesting features (MIDI, timecode, some Dig IO). They appear to link up pretty easily for more tracks. The operating model is different from the ADAT in that you get non-linear editing. Since you have a fixed drive, you can't switch jobs as quickly or as cheaply, but you can do a lot more when it's on line. It differs from the ProTools model in that it is self-contained and does not require a NuBus Mac. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 08:57:12 -0800 From: atomic city Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital Biff Padiduwitz writes-- > >metlay sez: > >>(I dare you to just ship a 1Gig hard disk full of audio data >to someone else who 'has a hard disk editor' and expect it to work on >the first try). > >I sey: > >Well you don't have to do that. For example, the Session 8 dumps to >Dat. Each track is laid down in real time in (good idea just in case >of corruption) followed by (or preceeded by) all the editing/session/mix >information. You can back up and restore a session easily and cheaply. >Only drawback is that it takes as much time as playing the session >many times over to do the backup compared to a very short time if >you back up to disk. Hm. That's a nice touch; I hadn't realized that they had it in place for the multitrack systems as well as the stereo ones. I assume that the footer information eliminates the need for any sort of sync tone, so the audio can be stored two tracks at a time on DAT? -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * atomic@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "ah, art. i've heard of that. nah, just kidding...." (j. drukman) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:09:26 LCL From: "Colin T. Smith" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital >I feel that editing an ADAT with the BRC would be easier than editing hte DR4-D. >Anyone know of plans to create a computer interface for the DR4-D, since it's price is >still rather appealing. I have edited on the D4 and it is not terribly hard, especially if you have not been exposed to one of the high end HD recorders and learned how to edit with a razor blade, then it is the best thing since sliced bread. Ill still take a Pro Tools or a Sadie or a Session 8 or Sonic Solutions (all I have to do is win the lottery). I ve heard of a computer interface but it might be for the 8 track version and I think (dont quote me) is a Mac interface. The lastest ad in Mix for the D4 makes no mention of a computer interface. If you buy a D4 do not get the optional hard drive. Its only 213 megs and they raise the price $500 according to the ad in Mix ($1, 995 w/o hard drive, $2,495 with). On top of that the drives I have experienced that come with the D4 are slow and very noisy. I have seen ads in some computer mags for a gigabyte for around $700. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 15:05:57 -0400 From: Biff Padiduwitz Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital Metlay sez: >I assume that the footer information eliminates the need for any sort of sync tone, so the audio can be stored two tracks at a time on DAT? ----------------------------------- That's exactly right, and as a result, I imagine overcomes the problems of lining up tracks that were sequentially backed up to DAT from an ADAT. Biff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 14:11:51 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital > I believe that the Akai DR4-D dumps to DAT in the same way. This might > not be a bad system for some applications. A 4-Track standalone recorder > can be had for around $2K plus the cost of whatever internal or external > SCSI drives you want to add. From what I've seen the converters are OK > and it has a number of other interesting features (MIDI, timecode, some > Dig IO). They appear to link up pretty easily for more tracks. The > operating model is different from the ADAT in that you get non-linear > editing. Since you have a fixed drive, you can't switch jobs as quickly > or as cheaply, but you can do a lot more when it's on line. It differs > from the ProTools model in that it is self-contained and does not require > a NuBus Mac. Unfortunately this same self-contained convenience also means that you do not get the convenience of visual cut and paste editing, but have to do it via a front panel more cryptic than the ADAT or D4. I feel that editing an ADAT with the BRC would be easier than editing hte DR4-D. Anyone know of plans to create a computer interface for the DR4-D, since it's price is still rather appealing. -- Arne F. Claassen On the Web: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "[I]f a license was required to drive your synth, there might be less of a need for these newbie-type questions - then again, we'd have to deal with a Department of Transportation (Workstation?) - aaahhhhh!" - Jeff Schultz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 10:14:20 +1000 From: DAVID O'DONOGHUE Subject: Re: Analogue vs Digital Reply to message text: >Hello, Jason and everyone. >I'm about to go into a studio with a band to record a record and the studio >has Alesis ADATs. I've seen them, I've heard them, but I've never laid >hands on one. So, as a first-time user, I'll let y'all know what I think. >This will be in a bout a week's time. >Happy debating, >David Just make sure they're all running the same version software and you should be OK Have Fun Regards David O'Donoghoe DODON@OZEMAIL.COM.AU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 18:32:29 -0500 From: Lawrence Robinson Subject: Re: Equalizing digital tracks I'm currently working with a 4-track, my guitar, and Performer on the Mac with two Roland Keyboards, and when I mix it down with an equalizer it over-loads some of the highs and the lows. What I need to know is whether I should even bother with using an EQ to make a 2-Track Stero recording, or whether I really need something like a Spectral Enhancer to straighten out the mix. Any and all advice welcome. Lawrence R. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 16:13:25 -0500 From: "Leo T. Nutley" Subject: Re: Equalizing digital tracks here's an idea using two eq's, one for playback and one for recording. A) first i would make sure that i was completely happy with the eq on my playback system, taking a familiar piece of music (and listening to it on another system for comparison), or do some sort of spectral analasys to flatten the eq. if you are mixing to 2 track, use that deck if possible. if there is a bias or eq controll on the record deck, check that first, but i am assuming that you are using a digital recorder. B) then i would make a recording without any eq in the recording chain, and play it back, using a second eq to have it sound right. C) Then using the new eq settings, re-record to two track and see if that corrects the problem. ***** A) 2trk reference (or occilator, or whitenoise) -> eq1 -> playback ( -> dBmeter or analyser) B) soundsource -> 2trk -> eq2 -> eq1 -> playback C) soundsource -> eq2 -> 2trk -> eq1 -> playback ***** this may be merely a brain-fart on my part, coming off the top of my head, but there you have it, i at least hope it makes sense. good luck. leo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 02:54:56 -0100 From: Thomas Inskip Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital > Allright guys, I got one more for you. Since there is all > this talk about hard disk multitrack recording and digital > multitrack recording (DA-88, or ADAT), I was wondering which > one is more practical for today's day and age. For those of > us who already have a computer (Which should hopefully > include all of you), the hard disk editing is definately the > more cost effective way of doing things. However, > considering all of the problems that I've had with my > computer over the years, is this more troubble than it's > worth. What kind of computer do you have? I work around more than a hundred computers, most of which run 24*7, and it is rare to see something go wrong if not by human intervention (actually, in the past year not even once). But of course, I'm talking about Macs, but in any case, *most* hardware nowadays rarely breaks by itself. No, I'm not trying to be snobby; just CPU conscious. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 23:52:00 PST From: Craig Marks Subject: recording Is there a list similar to this one devoted to recording and recording techniques? -Craig ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 12:35:38 -0500 From: Brian Shaw Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital I would get a DA-88, or ADAT and then use a Macintosh with sound board with stereo digital ins and outs for editing. Either AudioMedia II, SoundTools (with lots of cool plug-ins), or the Spectral Innovations card (they make one with spdifs) as a cost effective solution. This way you can do all of the editing special sound processing (eq, pitch shifts, compression, reverb) with no generation loss and lots of tracks. tinskip is right! System 7.1 or 7.5 is extremely stable with most any hardware or software application available today. Go easy on your out-of-date system extensions and you should never crash. As a consultant, I have clients that crash their machines only once or twice a year if ever. Even when you do crash on a Mac, most any problem with the file structure is automatically repaired on reboot. B Shaw : ) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 14:22:44 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital > Even when you do crash on a Mac, most any problem with the file structure is >automatically repaired on reboot. Erm, nope. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 10:07:21 -0500 From: Macalester College Music Department Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital > > Even when you do crash on a Mac, most any problem with the file structure is > >automatically repaired on reboot. > > Erm, nope. > > > Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com why not, please? Reply to me direct if you do not wish to send to the list. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Ed Forner Macalester College Music Department + + in%"forner@macalstr.edu" voice (612) 696-6189 + +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 19:19:32 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital >why not, please? Wrong list; reply going to SYNTH-L. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 04:21:33 -0500 From: Forevrl8 user Subject: Re: Re[2]: Audio VS. Digital Excuse me, but, I have noticed a referance to "SYNTH-L" before. What is it? Is it another list? If so can I join? Forevrl8 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 13:22:49 MET From: Tomas Motos Lopez Subject: DAT and DCC Greetings to everyone in this list, I am doing some research for a university project about digital audio recording systems on magnetic media. . I just came across the following formats: DASH: Digital Audio Stationary Head. DAT-S: Digital Audio Tape-Stationary. DCC: Digital Compact Cassette. DAT-R: Digital Audio Tape Rotatory (commonly DAT) My problem is that I do not have to much information about them, so I would like to ask anybody if they could point me to some sources of information, preferably on electronic format I would also like to find more about PASC ( Precicion Adaptive Subband Coding) used in DCC. Thanks for your help. Tomas. tmotos@etsit.upv.es ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 17:05:16 GMT From: Alan Fitch Subject: Re: DAT and DCC In message <9411201244.aa26948@punt.demon.co.uk> you recently said: > Greetings to everyone in this list, > > I am doing some research for a university project about digital > audio recording systems on magnetic media. . I just came across > the following formats: > DASH: Digital Audio Stationary Head. > DAT-S: Digital Audio Tape-Stationary. > DCC: Digital Compact Cassette. > DAT-R: Digital Audio Tape Rotatory (commonly DAT) > > My problem is that I do not have to much information about > them, so I would like to ask anybody if they could point me > to some sources of information, preferably on electronic format > I would also like to find more about PASC ( Precicion Adaptive > Subband Coding) used in DCC. > > Thanks for your help. > > Tomas. > tmotos@etsit.upv.es > > There have been descriptions of DCC in a number of ICCE (International Conference on Consumer Electronics) papers in 1992/1993/1994. You should search for the paper by Gerard Lokhoff as a good reference. It describes the basics of PASC as well. Also, PASC is essentially similar to MPEG-1 Audio Layer 1, so papers about that are relevant. If you would like particular references, send me an email at my work (fitch@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl) and I'll look them up. Regards, Alan P.S. I am speaking for myself, not for Philips. -- Alan Fitch (EMUSIC-L address) Tel.: +44 (0)1703 472342 (voice) E-mail: emusicL@cycle.demon.co.uk It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 08:38:18 LCL From: Michael Carnes Subject: Re: DAT and DCC Call the Mix Bookshelf at 800 233-9604. They have a lot of tutorial and more technical books on the various formats. Good luck. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 23:00:32 -0500 From: Phillip Djwa Subject: 16-bit standalone Does anyone know of a similar box to the audiomedia card that can sit outside the Mac? I.e. to be used for a powerbook? AND one that might be powered by a battery? Or could be transferred to a battery? My friend is working with seals in the arctic (this is true!) and he is using an old powerbook to record and playback seal sounds in the wild. He is studying their communication habits! Anyway, like any audiophile, he wants to make sure that the seal sounds he's playing is of a good quality, thus he'd like to use 16-bit sound. Makes sense, no? My suggestion to him was to use a DAT and amp, but he wants to be able to use some custom software that does FFT on sounds when they are in the powerbook in SDII format. I guess it would have to be fairly resistant to temperature too...although my friend says it never gets much colder than -50. He says he has to keep his powerbook in a parka in his jeep :-) Any ideas, suggestions, on how he could record and playback sounds in 16-bit from a powerbook in the wild???? ************************************* Phillip Djwa ---- djwa@iear.arts.rpi.edu http://www.rpi.edu/~djwap/index.html **********(((((((( 0 ))))))))))************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 10:58:41 -0500 From: Phillip Djwa Subject: Re: 16-bit standalone >Hi Phillip, >if your friend uses a DAT, he could presumably take it back to the lab and >transfer it into a mains powered machine? The only problem is finding a >DAT which will stand up to the extreme cold. I suggest that only a pro >machine like the Fostex PD2 or the aluminium-cased Sonosax Stelladat >could possibly do it. (Sorry, "aluminum" for all you U.S. folks!) > >Regards, David >musdr@lure.latrobe.edu.au True, and actually he has a larger standalone in his office. But what he wants to do is on the fly be able to analyze recordings he's just done, and play them back, maybe with some pitch shifting to emulate other animals... What's funny is that there doens't seem to be any 16-bit standalone...what about a converter from a DAT format like AES/EBU or SP/DIF to a powerbook? Is there a machine he could use to dump from DAT to a powerbook and back? ************************************* Phillip Djwa ---- djwa@iear.arts.rpi.edu http://www.rpi.edu/~djwap/index.html **********(((((((( 0 ))))))))))************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:56:50 -0500 From: Peter Price Subject: Re: 16-bit standalone Subject: Re: 16-bit standalone Hi Phillip, if your friend uses a DAT, he could presumably take it back to the lab and transfer it into a mains powered machine? The only problem is finding a DAT which will stand up to the extreme cold. I suggest that only a pro machine like the Fostex PD2 or the aluminium-cased Sonosax Stelladat could possibly do it. (Sorry, "aluminum" for all you U.S. folks!) Regards, David musdr@lure.latrobe.edu.au ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************