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