DAT-Heads Digest #280
Contents:
Type O Neg/SMG Indy 3/2/97 (david geoffery thomas)
Re: DATrecording on a plane ("Mark J. Dulcey")
Anybody get S.Crow at Roseland w/guests? (Theo Forbath)
Re: DAT-Heads Digest #276 (Fnnybon@aol.com)
SV-DA10 Modifications (Douglas C White)
Re: DVD & Copyright & wrong (Norman P. Tracy)
CDR, DAT, PC (Marc Haber)
newbie offer (Victor Santore)
DVD can't play CDR (What A Long Strange Trip Its Been)
equiptment rental (Jason Frankhouser)
"Cleaning" display message ("Thomas F. Puchner")
ortf/nos (long) (Paul Tumolo)
Looking for Page/Plant 4/25/95 (Zach Maxwell)
D-8/7 in car! (Bill Robertson)
From: david geoffery thomas <dgthomas@indiana.edu>
Subject: Type O Neg/SMG Indy 3/2/97
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:07:33 -0500 (EST)
I tape dthe above show last night with my D8 and CS cardoids. The type o
negative headlining segment came out nice with only little crowd noise
between songs. The first two songs from Sister Machine Gun are missing
but the rest of the set is superb, better sound then Type o for unknown
reasons at the mixing desk. So if anyone is interested in trading for it
send me your list.
Dave Thomas
From: "Mark J. Dulcey" <mark@ziplink.net>
Subject: Re: DATrecording on a plane
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 12:05:29 -0500
> i'm about to take a plane trip and i was thinking of recording the plane
> take-off (from inside the cabin) with my D8. i realize that this is the
> exact time when most pilots/flight attendants tell you not to use any
> radio/cd/computer equipment, for fear that the RF noise would interfere
> with communications with the tower. is this really as dangerous as they
> say?
There is some debate about how real the hazard is. What IS clear is
that the airlines believe there is a danger, and that using your DAT
recorder would be against the rules; using your recorder during takeoff
could cause the airline to seize it. A DAT recorder has about the same
potential for interference as a portable CD player, since the internal
operating frequencies are similar.
From: forbath@ncri.com (Theo Forbath)
Subject: Anybody get S.Crow at Roseland w/guests?
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:15:46 -0500
hi, read a view in the local paper that panned Sheryl's Boston show, but
raved about the show in NYC at Roseland the night before. Apparently Joan
Osborne, Emmylou Harris and Levon Helm joined in on some encores. Anybody
get this? Have LOT'S to offer in trade (including many women artists,
funk, jazz, reggae and bluegrass). Thanks.
Regards, Theo
_______________________________________________
Theo Forbath
Northeast Consulting Resources, Inc. (NCRI)
1 Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
(V) 617.654.0641, (fax) 617.654.0654
email: forbath@ncri.com
web: http://www.ncri.com
NCRI: Focused on the intersection of business and IT strategy.
What's the network going to do to your business?
From: Fnnybon@aol.com
Subject: Re: DAT-Heads Digest #276
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:17:16 -0500 (EST)
RE: $50 rental deck vs. $5 2:1 trade
<< finally, the $50 for the deck is not equivalent to the $5 dat. i am sure
that the person is not renting the deck for that amount to tape only one
show. plugged into a couple of other decks this could make for a hi quantity
of shows cloned within a day or two. >>
I think the issue surrounding the 2:1 trade is that the person holding the
show is making a profit from someone else's music. the amount spent on a
rental deck is beside the point. We may be dealing with semantics, but the
act of making $5 on a trade is the very same act that a bootlegger makes when
he presses 1000 cd's and sells them for $15. He had to buy the media, and
the hardware to make the disc, so isn't he entitled to some form of
compensation?
Peace... Noel
From: Douglas C White <douglas@wpi.edu>
Subject: SV-DA10 Modifications
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:27:20 -0500 (EST)
For those who need to know..
The Technics SV-DA10 has the same mother board as the 3700' Panasonic.
It can be simply be modified to record at 44.1 AND be SCMS free. (ie
copies allowed) I know because I have one, and it works great. As far as
the 44.1 mod all you really need to do is go inside the deck and jumper
all the jumper points on the inside front panel, add one diode (I think it
was D3?) I performed these mods some three years ago so, I'd have to find
my notes to get the diode point right here, but suffice it to say it's a
very simple mod.
As far as the SCMS mod. I agreed not to reveal the secret to it with the
person who told me how to do it but here's the major clue/hint to doing
it. You only need move reposition two resistors on the bottom of the
mother board and that's it. If you would like to know the specifics give
Paul Plotnick a call at Pro Digital 1(610) 353-2400. He's pretty good
when it comes to free advice so check it out it works great..
I think the price of $700 is pretty steep for an SV-DA10, but I must say
its the same transport as the SV-3700 and is built like a tank. So
comparison shopping wise it's a really great deck to have..
regards..
-doug
_________________________________________________________________________
Rising and falling on the ebb and flow of tide, I watched in amazement as
our small craft continued sailing steadfast. We were moving towards the
horizon and a mountain of lights..
=========================================================================
Douglas White douglas@wpi.edu
Dept. of Chem. Eng.
WPI
From: ntracy@amoco.com (Norman P. Tracy)
Subject: Re: DVD & Copyright & wrong
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 97 12:04:44 CST
<rdg@aristech.com> who stated: "I attend the DVD Copyright Protection
Technical Work Group meetings and can report that the group is
evaluating more secure methods of copyright protection than SCMS."
commented:
"The music industry ranks sound quality its number one concern. The
first hurdle of the digital watermark evaluations is the audibility
testing. As far as I'm aware, the testing procedure is not Mean
Opinion Scoring or ABC/Hidden Reference, but rather Double-Blind ABX.
The watermarked music must sound indistinguishable from the original,
not simply "acceptable". The listening subjects are not people off the
street, but the world's finest mastering engineers. I took part in
unofficial listening tests this afternoon of one of the technologies,
and all of the test subjects found it to be completely transparent.
The $90,000 reference system was Wilson speakers, Krell amp, Krell
DAC." <end quote>
This reminds me of the problems Coca-Cola Corp. ran into when they
introduced New Coke. Millions of dollars worth of product and market
research told them they had a winner. In all their blind taste tests
the subjects prefered the taste of New Coke. But when they went to
market and consumers knew it was New Coke and Coca-Cola Corp. had DARED
to mess with the 'secret recipe' of Old Coke consumers rejected it en
mass as New Coke rapidly went down in flames as the marketing blunder
of the decade. If DVD is to support a super-audio only format the only
consumers who are asking for such a format are hard core audiophiles,
the average consumer is perfectly happy with the current CD format for
audio playback. Now I know audiophiles, I am one for better or worse.
Once they know some added tones or noise are in there somewhere
implementing a "watermark" anti-copy system no ammount of assurances
that "world's finest mastering engineers" could not hear it on even
$90k systems will convince them all is well. The Double-Blind ABX
method is roundly dismissed among most audiophiles and the audiophile
press as too gross a method to reveal the subtle traits in reproduction
they strive for. Refer to the articles in Stereophile and Hi-Fi News
announcing to the high end audio consumers the proposals to 'watermark'
DVD-audio sources and in both cases the authors speak in terms of
revulsion at the very concept months or years before they get a chance
to hear a 'watermarked' disk. The underlying principle of hi-fi
reproduction has always been to continually work to remove every source
of distortion from every part of the recording and reproducing chain.
The whole concept of 'watermarking' a source by ADDING something,
anything, to the desired analog output is contrary to that guiding
principle. Were the music industry really ranking "sound quality its
number one concern" they would skip 'watermarking' on the grounds it
might someday become audible as playback systems improve.
Of course the fate of the DVD format overall will not be decided by any
super-audio format DVD should it EVER appear. I find it very telling
that DVD players are appearing in the stores even before a standard for
super-audio format DVDs is agreed to. The players in this game know
that DVD will live or die not on old fashoned audio only formats but
rather on its acceptance as a video and computer format. On computers
its a given the programs, data, and graphics files will grow to fill
the new disks as our current generation of fatware becomes obeseware.
On video, well we shall see. I submit DVD will have arrived when the
major video rental chains like Blockbuster have it in all their stores
with every new release available in the format. A classic chicken & egg
problem. Why should Blockbuster double stock DVD & VHS until John Q.
Public buys DVD players but John won't buy DVD until he can rent the
latest blockbuster from Blockbuster! For myself I am very disappointed
in the video format selected for DVD. After years of looking forward to
true HDTV as the next major video format with a 16:9 aspect ratio and
+1000 lines of resolution instead we get DVD with its claim to fame
being its compressed digital video is "better than VHS". Great, that's
like being taken to a restaurant and told "the steaks here are better
than a Big Mac".
Norman Tracy
From: Marc Haber <s_haber@ira.uka.de>
Subject: CDR, DAT, PC
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 19:05:21 +0000
ntrobovi@noclant.navy.mil writes:
>When I build my computer, I want to be able to dump audio DAT to disk
>using a computer DAT drive.
If you want to insert an audio DAT into a computer DAT drive and be
able to read the information off that audio DAT, you'll need an SGI
machine.
Cheaper to get an audio DAT deck with a digital out and an SPDIF
interface for your PC (like the AdB MultiWAV Digital Pro or the
Zefiro ZA2). This will yield WAV files that can be used as a source
for burining an audio CD.
>I want to be able to process this to CD.
No problem here.
>I also want to be able to archive the analog master that I dump to
>disk using the computer DAT.
You can do a data backup of your WAV files. These backups will not
be compatible with audio DAT decks.
>If possible, I want these DATS to be
>compatible with audio DAT machines.
To do this, again, you need an audio DAT deck with digital in and
an SPDIF interface for the PC.
>What configuration? I've decided that I need a 133MhZ Pentium.
If you don't want to do any signal processing, a 486DX4-100 is
more than adequate.
>I had trouble displaying 50 minute *.WAV files (500 + Meg) on the
>32 Mb RAM in my former Gateway. So I've decided that the MINIMUM
>RAM I'll need is 64Mb.
>Does anyone think that I'll need more?
This depends on the software that you are using. My audio machine
has only 16 MB and I work with 20 minute WAV files. Never tried
any longer ones, but I suspect they will work OK.
>PHILIPS CDD 2000 (FW 1.25) CDD522 (FW 1.07) (don't know speed/buffer)
The CDD2000's current firmware is 1.26. It reads at quad speed, writes
at double speed, 1 MB buffer.
>HP Sure Store, (2 speed 512 kbuffer)
>GRUNDIG CDR 100IPW (don't know speed/buffer)
Those use the same hardware like the Philips CDD2000. Both (including
the HP) have 1 MB buffer. The firmware and the package contents may
differ.
>My former Gateway had a 3.5 Gig EIDE boot drive and a 2 Gig Ultra
>Wide SCSI "scratch disk." Unfortunately, due to space constraints
>I had to set up the EIDE as the temporary storage drive. So,
>after "dumping" from the Nakamichi, through the sound card, to disk;
>I typically had to wait 6 minutes to create the *.WAV file (usually
>about 550 Meg) on the SCSI disk.
This is a throughput of about 1.5 meg per minute. You could use
a faster disk. The fastest disk on the market, the Seagate Cheetah,
has a sustained data transfer rate of about 9 MB per second. Subtract
OS overhead and you'll have a realistic rate of 6 MB per second.
>I want to cut this time down.
No chance.
>Theoretically, at 40 Mbps, it should take under a third of
>a minute. But, theory doesn't always prove true. Does anyone have
>a dual UltraSCSI system. If so, how long to transfer?
You got caught by sales hype. The Ultra Wide SCSI _interface_ is capable
of transferring 40 MB per second. There are no disks on the market
that can sustain this data transfer rate, simply because the data
does not fly by the heads that fast.
Don't get caught by seek times. Your application's speed depends a
great deal from the speed a disk spins at. The Cheetah spins at 10 KRPM
while the fastest other disks spin at 7.2 KRPM. Chances are that your
2 Gig Ultra Wide SCSI disk only spins at 5.4 KRPM.
You should get two SCSI 7.2 KRPM disks and be sure to read from one
and write to the other disk when transferring.
>So, I think that I want an Adaptec PCI 2940UW Controller
>A 2 Gb SCSI Ultra Wide "Boot" Hard Drive; AND a 4 Gb Ultra WIDE
>A/V SCSI Hard Drive (Quantum Atlas II or similar)
>Can anyone forsee problems with using Ultra Wide versus narrow SCSI?
>Can anyone suggest types, model numbers, preferred speed/cache for these?
Sounds reasonable. I'd take an Atlas for boot drive, too.
>I want a pair of 4mm internal Dat Tape Backups
>I was thinking HEWLETT PACKARD C1534 or similar due to price.
Why a pair?
>Also, someone wrote about a type of DAT drive with "firmware"
>to record DAT audio. Please, who makes it and how do I get a hold of them.
This drive is made by Seagate and sold exclusively to SGI. They also are
the only ones that have the software to make use of its audio capabilities.
>I want a Soundblaster Model AWE 32 sound card. This is due to the
>excellent analog to digital conversion. Does anyone know a better
>A to D converter that doesn't cost a fortune?
I'd settle for a audio DAT deck, a SPDIF card and using the DAT deck as
outboard A/D D/A converter.. The AWE32 looks displaced in your 6 GB Ultra
Wide system. You can't get any decent a/d converter on a board powered by a
PC power supply that does not cost a fortune.
Since chances are that you won't get any computer DAT drive that offers
audio DAT compatibility, you are in for an audio DAT deck anyway.
Greetings
Marc
Cc: to the list aka posted & mailed
--
=============================================================================
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | s_haber@ira.uka.de
Karlsruhe, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
From: Victor Santore <vsantore@dti.net>
Subject: newbie offer
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:47:01 -0500
I have an extra copy of the Greatful Dead 2-26-77 on two 60m DATs for
blanks and postage for a newbie or one decker.
Victor
From: walstib@idt.net (What A Long Strange Trip Its Been)
Subject: DVD can't play CDR
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 14:11:48 -0500
walstib@idt.net (What A Long Strange Trip Its Been) wrote:
>DVD and CD use lasers of different spectrums. CD is in the infrared
>spectrum and DVD is in the visible red spectrum. Hence, a DVD player cannot
>read CD's without an extra laser. Some mechanisms will have an additional
>laser for CD compatability, this laser however, at least on the available
>mechanisms at this time, *CAN NOT* read a CDR, only commercially pressed
>CDs.
I was kinda tired when I wrote this and I wanted to clarify something. The
DVD mechanisms don't use TWO lasers they use different lenses. Changing the
lens makes it possible to read red book CDs but not CDR. Also, this
situation is sub-optimal for reading even red book CDs so the audiophiles
out there may want to keep a quality CD player for their CD collection and
treat DVD as an entirely separate format even if you don't use CDR's.
j.
From: jfrank@riker.neoucom.edu (Jason Frankhouser)
Subject: equiptment rental
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:57:12 -0500 (EST)
>
>
> > I can't keep up with all the Dat>Analog request. A few people
> > have suggested to me lending my tapes so they can RENT A DECK to copy
> > them.
>
> I think this points out the obserdity of the whole 2:1 argument.
> It's ok for your friend to spend $50 at a rental place and make the
> copy himself (inexperienced as he may be), but it's not ok for
> you to accept a $5 blank dat so your friend can "rent" your
> equipment, at your place, to get the tape made...
>
has this not been beaten to death? why bring this up again?
if a person wants to make money copying tapes they should open a business
(or a studio) if one has a hobby, then you are doing it for fun and not to
make 5 bucks. making 5 bucks off dead tapes is an illegitimate business,
like dealing crack.
ps the grateful dead, while being no longer :( did place restrictions
in writing on the use of their music. not for profit is mentioned.
(absurdity? nope just great music IMHO) -jason the farmer
From: "Thomas F. Puchner" <tpuchner@zoo.uvm.edu>
Subject: "Cleaning" display message
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 14:07:19 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Re: Detecting "errors" on the Sony DTC-790?
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:44:27 -0500 (EST)
>
> >With all this recent debacle involving KAO tapes (has this thread come up
> >before?) and people mentioning "error counts" and "shedding," it occurred to
> >me that I have no way of knowing when "error counts" are going up. To
> >prevent this, I've just been cleaning the heads every 10-20 hours, when the
> >deck flashes "cleaning" on the display.
>
> If your deck flashes "cleaning" after 10-20 hours, you have a serious
> problem.
>
> Seth
I think that is a built in reminder from sony to clean the heads
every 10 hours. At least that's how it works on my PCM 2600.
-Tom
From: Paul Tumolo <ptumolo@haywire.csuhayward.edu>
Subject: ortf/nos (long)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:29:42 -0800 (PST)
i'd like to take a shot at clearing up some of the confusion i frequantly
see on datheads about these two placement techniques.
strickly defined, ortf is two cardiod mics placed with their capsules 18
cm (about 7 inches) apart with an included angle of 110 degrees. nos is
two cardiods placed with their caps 30 cm apart (about 12 inches) with an
included angle of 90 degrees.
that out of the way, let me say that you would be best to ignore the
specifics. i can't tell you how many times i've seen someone strickly
adhering to the requirments of ortf thinking they were doing the right
thing- when they would have been much better off varying the distance,
angle or both. do you know how these specs came into existance? the 110
degree angle was chosen because, from the recording position (as the apex)
to the edges of the orchastra (as the rays) the angle was 110 degrees.
from this position, the french radio network found that 18 cm produced
the best sound for their purposes. a similar story underlays the dutch
network's use of the nos technique. these were empirical results. other
empirical studies (sometimes contradictory) have found that the greater
spread distance (comparing 18 vs 30 cm, not the 20 feet some dead tapers
have used) the more spacious the recording, the lesser spread the more
focused the stereo image. also, the greater angle, the more spread out the
stereo image, the lessor angle the more focused the image. (AES has a nice
compilation reprint on stereo techniques with many of the relevant studies
in it; costs about $20 and you can get it by writting to the aes office
in, i think, nyc- they have a web page.)
what this means is that you have to determine for yourself what spread to
use and what angle to use. i recomend to people that they determine the
angle by measuring the angle formed by the recording position and the
edges of the ensamble they are recording, keeping in mind your desired
results (if you are very far from a sound source -like at a phish taper
section- the included angle may be only 40degrees, or less, giving very
little stereo spread; ofcourse this is silly 'cause you are recording the
sound of two speaker stacks not an orchastra, which both ortf and nos
were designed to do; you are better off pointing your mics directly at the
speaker stacks.) the point to keep in mind is the effect of included angle
on the resulting reproduction. you'll get greater stereo spread between
the reproduction speakers (assuming the speakers form an equilateral
triangle with the listening position) with 110 than with 90, but you
may get less definition. and there is nothing wrong with selecting
something between 90 (or even 80) and 110 (or even 120). similarly with
spread between the caps, you'll get more ambiance with 30cm, less with
18cm, least with 0 inches (a coincident pair), which also gives you the
most defined image.
to give some real life examples, i do a lot of recording that isn't
stealth (and i get paid for doing it), usually live, sometimes studio
ensamble recordings. when my intended use of the stereo pair is to add
ambiance to a recording (usually to complement close micing in a
multitrack situation) i'll go with approximately 30cm of separation (i
have a stereo bar that i built and use that allows both approx. 18 and
approx. 30cm of separation; the exact amount depends of the mics i'm using
and just where i position the caps); if i want the stereo pair to be the
dominant sound source, i'm more likely to go with 18cm- or even a
coincident pair, which i like for drum overheads when recording (but not
for house pa). the included angle is determined by the recording position
and the width of the ensamble, but also by how wide i want the stereo
spread to be and how important a well defined image is. there are no
strick rules and i'll record a test piece with a set up and then modify it
if i think the set up needs modifying. obviosuly, much of the this doesn't
directly apply to stealth situations- just keep in mind the general points
and ajust your setup accordingly. flexibility is the key, not strick
adherence to rules which don't necessarily apply to your situation.
-paul
From: Zach Maxwell <zachm@lexis-nexis.com>
Subject: Looking for Page/Plant 4/25/95
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 14:26:25 -0500 (EST)
I'm looking for anyone with this Page & Plant show from
Cincinnati, OH on DAT to trade.
Zach
From: Bill Robertson <broberts@kcc.com>
Subject: D-8/7 in car!
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 14:02:36 -0600
I think cassette adapters sound shitty...here's my solution:
This is a great set-up to play DATs (or portable CD players) in the car
if you have a separate head unit/power amp set-up and your head unit
does not have a nice AUX input (if only they all did!).
Mount a 4-pole/2 throw switch (<$15 from an electronics supply store) to
your car's dashboard. Wire the output from the head unit to one side of
the switch (4 poles are R +, R -, L +, L -). Attach a stereo mini plug
to some 3-conductor shielded wire or cut the end off a stereo mini
dubbing cable (<$10 from Radio Shack) and run the wire under the carpet
from the dash to the front seat (there's probably a hole in the carpet
for you seat already - or you can cut a new hole). Connect the bare end
of this wire to the other side of the switch opposite the head unit
wires (4 poles are R +, common -, L +, jumper to common -).
Finally wire the center poles of the switch to the inputs on your
amplifier in the same order as the head unit. Changing the switch
selects either the head unit or your new AUX cable. Plug the AUX cable
into the headphone output to the D7/8 (or portable CD) and use a
cigarette lighter power supply (from SONY or Radio Shack) and crank it
up.
-Bill
PS. If you have 4 channels of amplification (F/R with a fader), just add
a second switch and use one for the front and one for the rear and
jumper the new AUX wire signal between the two switches. Your head
unit's fader will still operate that way. You can usually avoid the need
to have a fader on the AUX wire by adjusting the gain on your amps so
that the sound is properly balanced and just leave it there.
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this digest, please send email to
dat-heads-request@fedney.near.net with the word unsubscribe on
a line all by itself. If your email address has changed, you may
(optionally) specify 'unsubscribe oldaddress@olddomain' on a line
by itself -- an example is "unsubscribe liam@mit.edu." Problems or
questions about a subscription should be addressed first to dat
-heads-request@fedney.near.net, and then if needed postmaster@fedney.near.net,
never the list itself.
You can submit a message for inclusion in the next digest via this address:
Internet: dat-heads@fedney.near.net
Archives of DAT-Heads digests and related files are available on
the DAT-Heads home page:
http://www.solorb.com/dat-heads
End of DAT-Heads Digest
******************************