DAT-heads Digest #621
Contents:
VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital ("Dan Boardman")
Re: Sony M1 vs. D100 (ISTEIN2@aol.com)
ISO: Tom Mcrae, Richard Ashcroft, Haven UK ("Terry Singla")
Help! Edirol UA-1D and TCD-D8 (Peter Aronson)
audioslave ("alf")
what's security like at Gaylord Entertainment Center (H Vargas)
VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital (Comnaround@aol.com)
Re: VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital (Joe Rioux)
Re:VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital (Keith Bode)
Re: DAT-heads Digest #620- VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital (acffh)
Follow-up: Edirol UA-1D and TCD-D8 (Peter Aronson)
VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital ("DRider")
From: "Dan Boardman" <boardman@bellsouth.net>
Subject: VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:11:53 -0500
Come on over to my house and I'll A>B an LP and CD of the same material -
you tell me which sounds better - I'll wager you any amount you would like
to bet that (if you have any kind of ear at all - maybe not considering you
seem to only be listening to digital sources) - you will the majority of
the time, pick the analog LP - don't get me wrong until digital came along I
had all but given up trading cassettes because of the noise loss in copying.
By the way LP production is on the increase not the decrease.
Dan Boardman
From: ISTEIN2@aol.com
Subject: Re: Sony M1 vs. D100
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:19:06 EST
Other than the fact that the D100 imprints SCMS coding on 1st generation
digital clones, the M1 is identical in every other way. Except, of course,
the color is black rather than metallic. If you already have an SCMS-free
DAT deck, the D100 is fine as a playback deck.
>>From: "Dark Star Enterprises" <jtsalike@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Sony M1 vs. D100
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:29:36 -0500
I am looking at getting another deck.....I know the main difference between
the M1 and D100 is the use of SCMS but are there any other differences I
should be made aware of?
Thanks for the help>>
From: "Terry Singla" <terrysingla@hotmail.com>
Subject: ISO: Tom Mcrae, Richard Ashcroft, Haven UK
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:57:32 +0000
Hey, I'm looking for any shows from Tom Mcrae, Richard Ashcroft and Haven UK
that I don't have.
I know that Tom had some gigs in late 2002, and will be starting up in the
next week or so. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Terry
www.hitmanscorner.com
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
From: Peter Aronson <lists@getfearless.com>
Subject: Help! Edirol UA-1D and TCD-D8
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:20:15 -0600
Hello all,
I'm hoping someone can help me -- does anyone have experience using a Sony
TCD-D8 (or D7) with the Edirol UA-1D? I'm trying to feed audio into my
Powerbook G4 (which has no analog audio inputs... don't get me started...)
and I'm not getting any audio signal. Here's the setup:
TCD-D8 --> Core Sound 7-pin-to-coax cable --> UA-1D --> Powerbook
The computer is recognizing that the UA-1D is connected as a valid audio
input source, but I'm not getting any signal. Is anyone else using this
setup? Any words of wisdom?
If I can't get this to work, I'm thinking of just buying an iMic so I can go
from analog out to analog/USB in. Or maybe the M-Audio CO2 to convert like
this:
TCD-D8 --> Core Sound 7-pin-to-coax cable --> CO2 optical out --> UA-1D -->
Powerbook
Looking forward to hearing people's ideas.
Thanks,
Peter
--
"Nobody believes the official spokesman... but everybody trusts an
unidentified source."
- Ron Nesen, press secretary to former U.S. President Gerald Ford
From: "alf" <md2001@mclink.it>
Subject: audioslave
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:33:38 +0100
I would like listen some HQ recordings of this group.
Have a huge list where you can find something in trade.
Alf
From: H Vargas <h_vargas_2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: what's security like at Gaylord Entertainment Center
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:34:57 -0800 (PST)
if anyone has taped any shows at this venue recently,
please email me off list about the security at this
venue, e.g. are there any metal detectors, patdowns,
etc.
thanks!
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
From: Comnaround@aol.com
Subject: VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:08:10 EST
A few things... I don't think anyone here was reminiscing about the good old
days or the superiority of VHS and Beta HIFI over TODAY'S digital recordings.
I'm not sure how this got started but I did state in my post that I preferred
most of my EARLY HIFI masters over my EARLY DAT masters. This was like in
1991 through maybe 1993. Today's digital recordings sound so much more real
than say a Casio DA 7 plugged right out of the soundboard in 1992. Isn't this
as simple as the improved and affordable converters available today along
with a greater base of knowledge on how important the actual A to D prosess
really is? Anyone more knowledgeable want to speak up on this?
As far as older HIFIs I have found them a bitch to convert if you can't get
the tracking to match up exactly. At the time it seemed like the way to go. 6
hours of music or two shows on one tape for around 3-4 bucks Vs 7-8 bucks or
more for a blank DAT. No flipping and superiority to cassette.
When vinyl is done right and on a high end system there really is no
comparison in my book. I can't afford that type of trip so I decided to
invest in a Bell Canto DAC. Best investment I have ever made in my home
stereo.Digital music has never sounded so good to me as it does now.
One other thing. I know it's the Internet and people have a tendency to
flame and argue and whatever. Maybe not here but I suppose I have been guilty
in other places. From now on I am going to try and stay as kind as possible.
The world really needs more of that all over the place. Even right here. My .
02
mark lynn
From: "J R" <ja5667@hotmail.com>
Subject: VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:53:51 -0500
Please, no lengthy debates of how some people prefer their humming,
distorted, and lower quality sounding HiFi VHS tapes over today's superior
DATs and CDRs. You are probably the same as those who say vinyl records
sound "oh so way better than CDs. Their so warm and vibrant sounding" Yeah
with all kinds of defects like scratches, pops and clicks that detract from
the real sound and the enjoyment of the music.
Those who prefer records over CDs grew up with listening to the pops and
clicks and when they weren't there on CD, their songs just didn't sound the
same anymore. CDs are made to make the music sound as it always should
have. So you can hear like you were in the studio with the artist, without
pops and clicks and humming noise.
And as far as HiFi VCRs go, well they are on the way out. Just look at how
many new and different kinds of home DVD recorders have hit the market in
the past year. There are at least 5 times as many as the year before and at
cheaper prices too. Plus DVDRs are also coming down in price. You know
why, because Digital recording is superior to the analog recording devices.
Even the movie theaters in the big city's are going with digital projectors
instead of film. Give it up vinyl and HiFi fans, you're fighting a losing
battle. You won't change the minds of those growing up in the digital age,
things are just too clear and perfect.
From: Joe Rioux <jrioux@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:16:59 -0500
> From: "J R" <ja5667@hotmail.com>
>
> Please, no lengthy debates of how some people prefer their humming,
Please, no opinions stated as fact.
> distorted, and lower quality sounding HiFi VHS tapes over today's superior
> DATs and CDRs. You are probably the same as those who say vinyl records
> sound "oh so way better than CDs. Their so warm and vibrant sounding" Yeah
> with all kinds of defects like scratches, pops and clicks that detract from
> the real sound and the enjoyment of the music.
Well that's your *opinion* because it's certainly not fact. Who are
you to say what someone else should or will prefer?
And as for "real" sound - I would argue that the full analog
waveform reproduced on an LP is more close to the "real sound"
than the sampled one on a CD (which is then pumped through
noise shaping algorithms etc.).
I think that you're mistaking clarity for quality. But then
that's just my *opinion* and I'm sure you won't agree. So
let's agree to disagree.
From: Keith Bode <t.tunakebo@verizon.net>
Subject: Re:VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:36:55 -0800
> Please, no lengthy debates of how some people prefer their humming,
> distorted, and lower quality sounding HiFi VHS tapes over today's
> superior
> DATs and CDRs. You are probably the same as those who say vinyl
> records
> sound "oh so way better than CDs. Their so warm and vibrant
> sounding" Yeah
> with all kinds of defects like scratches, pops and clicks that detract from
> the real sound and the enjoyment of the music. Those who prefer records over CDs >grew up with listening to the pops and > clicks and when they weren't there on CD, >their songs just didn't sound the same anymore. CDs are made to make the music >sound as it always should have. So you can hear like you were in the studio with >the artist, without pops and clicks and humming noise.
I just love posts that include a first sentence like this one, I don't
know if I am alone in this, but it seems to me that this post starts out
with "my opinin counts, and your's isn't worth hearing". As I
understand it this is a discussion list, so if a topic is brought up,
it's open for discussion. Personally, I'm not going to reply to a bunch
of statistical data, nor argue much of what the original post stated. I
agree VHS is going away, once DVD-R media become's more affordable.
Perhaps it will take the development of less expensive DVD-RW media,
somo peple recrod one show daily, or one show weekly, can record over
and over on the same disc. Personally, I have a decent DVD player and
only rent movies on DVD. The picture quality of the DVD is s much better
than VHS. And when a DVD recorder come out that allows recording of
Audio only, with selectable signals from 16/44.1 to 24/192, that will
make a lot of equipment obsolete.
Over the last year or so, I bought a decent turntable. I also have
bought some very good condition used records. I did this after reading
in numerous places about the sound quality of records over CD audio.
Most of which is very pristine. There are also a number of companies
that are relasing audiophile 180g records, most of which are re-releaes
of previously released records. I picked up on eBay one record in
virtually perfect condition, that I have had for a number of years. I
put it on the turntable, and played it. The record is clean, no pops
and scratches, and it sounded better than the CD to me. Many CD's have
sound that is to crisp, IMO, s they don't sound natural. Listening to
the CD's, the snares, cymbals and sometime lead guitar riffs of a given
band have mor "bite" t them on CD that they do live. In the early to
mid 80's, I had all of my records stolen. Virtually all of them had
never been played on anything but a Technics SLD-202, a nice, reasonably
priced, diect drive turntable, with a high-end AT cartrige, and never
had more that 1.5g tracking force on them. When I started rebuilding my
music collection I bought a few recrds, than bought a CD player around
86, and bought all CD's until some point last year. I don't believe a
turntable and records is right for everyone. I do think there are
people ho appreciate them, and notice, and appreciate what records have
to offer. My purchases, when I make them, will still be predominantly
in CD format. However there are people who enjoy older records, that
don't have a lot of scratces and pops in them. I don't believe records
are dead, or they ever will be. There is a demand, and posibly a
growing demand, for records. They aren't and never will be the media of
choice for the vast majority again. Yes, I started buying record's in
the 60's, and completely wore out some records, and replaced them.
I used to make cassette's of most of my CD's, as I didn't have a CD
player in my truck. I played some of the tapes through my home stereo.
It was not always easy to tell weter t was a cd or a tape. If that tape
was copied, there would probably be hiss added, and it would be as clear
as the surce. Not having used a portable recording rig, and being able
to say that a DAT master sounds worlds better than a cassette master, I
can't say that the master sound is hugely different. Whate analog
duplication does do without quetion is add hiss and noise to each
subsequent generation, which properly transferred digitl does not. Most
of the recordings circulating prior to 88 or 89 were transferred from
analog master to digital. And I think we are pretty happy with them.
In other applications, like the movies, etc, I believe analog is dying
fast. It's a matter of time, and other analog audio and video will be
gone, and so will DAT.
Keith
--
If you love animals, check out www.wotwild.com.
Contact me for sale through 2/10/03.
Your kid's will love them.
From: acffh <morst@tds.net>
Subject: Re: DAT-heads Digest #620- VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:49:12 -0600
OK, how about a short debate, or I'll just soapbox it. . .
After listening to live tracks and playback from a 2-inch 24-track
analog studer open-reel deck, all 16 bit digital audio sounded like
tinny crap to me. It's truly hard to believe the loss of quality we
are putting up with for the sake of convenience when we fail to use
reel-to-reel tape decks to master shows.
Sure, digital is crystal-controlled for speed accuracy, and has
little-to-no surface noise, but it can sound very very cold and
gritty compared to the real world, or even good analog tape. Analog
does have a fatter sound, and if you can't hear it you're either deaf
or closed-minded or simply have not had a proper A-B test.. There is
undeniably some surface noise on Vinyl, but fast reel-to-reel tape
doesn't have nearly the same problem, and NEITHER WOULD HI-FI VHS!
The lower signal-to-noise ratio of analog may be evident between
songs, but most rock and roll is mostly loud, not loud-to-soft like
classical. Also, analog tape compression is a tool that can be used
to shape sound by limiting dynamics of loud signals such as drums and
bass. This reduction of peaks interferes with linearity but not with
musicality.
I am guilty of the convenience factor- I use DAT for field recording,
but I'm not going to attempt to fool myself into thinking that I do
it because it SOUNDS better. It does not. It is much lighter, and
more reliable, and the media are WAY more compact. I do not wish to
store 1000 open-reel tapes, but I have that many DATs. . . Oh yeah,
digital is way more economical right now too.
If I wanted to make a reference recording of speech or testimony I
would surely use digital, but for something intended to be pleasing
to the ear, I think musicality is a better gauge than accuracy.
Although real-world constraints like time, money, space,
environmental conditions, and so forth often make us choose the easy
compromise, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that digital
is something which it is not.
Anyhow, flame away if I'm wrong, but if we differ in opinion, there's
nothing I can do about that.
thanks for reading.
-tom
PS- My comments are in regard to 16-bit 48KHz or 44.1KHz digital
audio. I have not compared 96KHz or 192KHz to analog yet, so that
may be the balm. .. now if we can get small, affordable field
recording devices to sample that for us! (laptop world here I come!)
Please, no lengthy debates of how some people prefer their humming,
distorted, and lower quality sounding HiFi VHS tapes over today's superior
DATs and CDRs. You are probably the same as those who say vinyl records
sound "oh so way better than CDs. Their so warm and vibrant sounding"
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: Peter Aronson <lists@getfearless.com>
Subject: Follow-up: Edirol UA-1D and TCD-D8
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:13:39 -0600
Never mind my previous message =8B I got my existing setup to work, more or
less. It seems that the key was this: The DAT (TCD-D8) needed to be
connected to the Edirol UA-1D *and playing audio* at the time I connected
the UA-1D to the computer, and I can=B9t press stop =8B if I do, I lose the
connection and have to disconnect the UA-1D and reconnect it with the audio
playing. Strange setup... must be a Macintosh quirk.
Peter
========
> I'm hoping someone can help me -- does anyone have experience using a Son=
y
> TCD-D8 (or D7) with the Edirol UA-1D? . . .
From: "DRider" <Hawkwind@attbi.com>
Subject: VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:19:25 -0500
JR - get a grip dude!
you sound like the corporate execs that said DAT is Dead - years ago...
that did not stop the production and sales of DAT machines for many years
after....
and the very existence of this list.....
come on!
> Those who prefer records over CDs grew up with listening to the pops...
that just it - we grew up
looks like you still have some of your own growing up to do
come on down to my Florida residence and I will prove you wrong in person
your little rant here is like saying all CD players are the same
and no one CD player sounds better than the other
go to an audiophile shop and compare your CD player to a Meridian
obviously you never heard some of the first CD's when they came out
the vinyl sounded better and in many cases STILL does
plus, there are STILL albums that came out that are STILL
not available on CD
plus, I'll bet you own some store bought CD's that were mastered
directly from the vinyl and you don't even know it
I think those pops and clicks are in your head
because you obviously are some wookie that does not have a clue!
sometimes it's sickening to see you wookies rant about something
you don't know anything about
D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "J R" <ja5667@hotmail.com>
Subject: VHS Vs. DAT / Analog Vs. Digital
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:53:51 -0500
Please, no lengthy debates of how some people prefer their humming,
distorted, and lower quality sounding HiFi VHS tapes over today's superior
DATs and CDRs. You are probably the same as those who say vinyl records
sound "oh so way better than CDs. Their so warm and vibrant sounding" Yeah
with all kinds of defects like scratches, pops and clicks that detract from
the real sound and the enjoyment of the music.
Those who prefer records over CDs grew up with listening to the pops and
clicks and when they weren't there on CD, their songs just didn't sound the
same anymore. CDs are made to make the music sound as it always should
have. So you can hear like you were in the studio with the artist, without
pops and clicks and humming noise.
And as far as HiFi VCRs go, well they are on the way out. Just look at how
many new and different kinds of home DVD recorders have hit the market in
the past year. There are at least 5 times as many as the year before and at
cheaper prices too. Plus DVDRs are also coming down in price. You know
why, because Digital recording is superior to the analog recording devices.
Even the movie theaters in the big city's are going with digital projectors
instead of film. Give it up vinyl and HiFi fans, you're fighting a losing
battle. You won't change the minds of those growing up in the digital age,
things are just too clear and perfect.
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this digest, please send email to
dat-heads-unsubscribe@datheads.phish.net
If your email address has changed, you may (optionally)
send the message to
dat-heads-unsubscribe-oldaddress=olddomain@datheads.phish.net
and the old address will be removed.
Problems or questions about a subscription should be addressed
via these avenues and then if needed to
dat-heads-owner@datheads.phish.net
or
postmaster@datheads.phish.net
never the list itself
You can submit a message for inclusion in the next digest via this address:
Internet: dat-heads@datheads.phish.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
******************************