Doc <docsavag...@xhotmail.com> wrote: >I get that you don't literally, physically splice digital tape, but perhaps >I misunderstood some other responses. You can't do any editing on an ADAT >deck? Seems that would severely limit its usefulness. If you can't edit the >digital info on the ADAT deck, what do you do with the 8 tracks of data >then?
With DASH, you can literally, physically splice digital tape. With the cartridge formats like DA-88 and DTRS, you cannot. There is no editing. You can punch in and out, but you cannot edit.
>Again, keep in mind, have never used one so if I'm not getting something >that's obvious, bear with me.
You get it right on the first take, and go. None of this dicking around forever like with Pro Tools. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> It's disconcerting that anyone would ask something like this on a pro audio > board
<snipping much stuff>
While you're certainly entitled to an opinion, at least as far as I've seen, you're the only one who felt compelled to comment that your sensibilities were thusly rankled.
Everyone is free to ignore those posts that don't interest them. My question to you is, do you feel there's absolutely nothing more beneficial you could have done with the time it took for you to express your displeasure?
I also think you're off the mark. The whole point of usenet is exchange of information. Besides the original question, there are many tangential issues that get covered as well.
I'd say a lot less bandwidth is spent on relatively "simple" questions than on lengthy, "you've got your head up your ass" - "ah, screw you, *you've* got your head up *your* ass" pissing contests that seem to arise over the most trivial of questions on here.
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xpr7t.net> wrote in message > news:11kbtn58816g9ae@corp.supernews.com > > In a studio setting (especially a budget home studio, > > etc.) there is no real advantage that I can think of. > > OTOH, in the field...
> ADAT machines seem to be pretty much designed for the > studio, and are not usually at their best for portable use.
Either way, why would you use an ADAT instead of just going directly into a computer with a multi-in card?
Doc wrote: > Either way, why would you use an ADAT instead of just going directly into a > computer with a multi-in card?
Because the ADAT is a recorder as it comea out of the box and a computer isn't. It's easy to operate, it records on inexpensive media that you can put on the shelf and store, and you only have to call one manufacturer when you have a problem.
But ADATs are more than 10 years old. At the time the ADAT came out, there were no 8-channel I/O devices for computer.
>>> In a studio setting (especially a budget home studio, >>> etc.) there is no real advantage that I can think of. >>> OTOH, in the field... >> ADAT machines seem to be pretty much designed for the >> studio, and are not usually at their best for portable >> use. > Either way, why would you use an ADAT instead of just > going directly into a computer with a multi-in card?
Good question.
If I could fit a desktop into the application I would use it. I'm not afraid to move desktop-style computers around, LCD displays and small chassis make them more feasible than ever. A LCD display and a PC in a min-ATX chassis is really not that much larger than many combos of a laptop and external multichannel interface. The so-called desktop is a ton cheaper, and superior price-performance still means something.
If I needed something smaller, I'd use a laptop with a multi-input external audio interface, preferably firewire-based.
If I needed something smaller yet I'd go with one of the flash-based very small recorders, but that would only be 2 channels.
>> At the time the ADAT came out, >> there were no 8-channel I/O devices for computer.
> How were the tracks edited/tweaked etc.?
They were done right. Or rerecorded. At a pinch, I suppose you could digitally copy from one deck to another if need be, but I still think you're looking at this the wrong way.
You would probably get a more direct answer if you said what you are actually planning to do with it, assuming that you're in the process of choosing a multitrack system to use for some purpose.
If you're just researching the pro's and con's of different multitracking systems from an abstract point of view, carry on. :)
(And if you already stated your objectives elsewhere in the thread, I must have missed it. Sorry!)
-- JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- j...@it-he.org Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB---- uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)
> >> At the time the ADAT came out, > >> there were no 8-channel I/O devices for computer.
> > How were the tracks edited/tweaked etc.?
> They were done right. Or rerecorded. > At a pinch, I suppose you could digitally copy from one deck to another if > need be, but I still think you're looking at this the wrong way. > If you're just researching the pro's and con's of different multitracking > systems from an abstract point of view, carry on. :)
> (And if you already stated your objectives elsewhere in the thread, > I must have missed it. Sorry!)
My "objective" as such has changed a bit. Yes, my query was originally strictly from a perspective of curiosity, but if you'll notice, my first query was about "DAT" and came to realize that the device I was actually thinking of was ADAT, and some of the answers raised other questions.
Certain elements of your answer don't quite sit right. It makes it sound like whatever you laid on the ADAT tracks was supposed to be the final result, end of story. To the extent that I'm familiar with the recording process, you *always* have to do more to the tracks after they're laid down. Mixing/balancing, eq, at a minimum, which means the tracks have to be transferred from the ADAT through something to something.
Some have said "they're mainly for use in the field due to portability" which is contradicted by another response of "they're made for in-studio use". If it's nothing more than essentially an 8-track tape recorder, then other than some inconsequentially lower noise levels, for studio use it's not clear to me what the advantage would be over a high quality 8-track analog tape machine. It sounds like remote, "out in the field" portability would be its one advantage.
Maybe a wider dynamic range than analog? Or no? When I say "it's not clear to me", I'm not dismissing there are issues I could be missing.
Doc wrote: > Certain elements of your answer don't quite sit right. It makes it sound > like whatever you laid on the ADAT tracks was supposed to be the final > result, end of story. To the extent that I'm familiar with the recording > process, you *always* have to do more to the tracks after they're laid down. > Mixing/balancing, eq, at a minimum, which means the tracks have to be > transferred from the ADAT through something to something.
Sure, the tracks come in to a mixer as separate parts (vocal on one track, guitar on one track, bass on one track, drums on two or three tracks . . etc.) and you mixed them through a mixer. You could also "fix" tracks in the studio with punch-ins (replacing a bad section with a new recording on the same track) and you could edit the mix, for example, put the good ending on Take 2 on to the better Take 1. But what you couldn't do on an ADAT is move a drum hit on the snare track so tht it isn't late - that sort of thing.
> Some have said "they're mainly for use in the field due to portability" > which is contradicted by another response of "they're made for in-studio > use".
You use what makes most sense. An ADAT is more portable than a 1" or even 1/2" analog tape recorder.
> If it's nothing more than essentially an 8-track tape recorder, then > other than some inconsequentially lower noise levels, for studio use it's > not clear to me what the advantage would be over a high quality 8-track > analog tape machine.
That's why people still say they like analog tape. But when the ADAT was introduced, compared to an analog recorder, the noise level was significantly lower (somewhat lower when using noise reduction on the analog recorder, but that introduces its own artifacts). Media cost was less, and equipment cost was less, and it's smaller. So to someone on a limited budget, the ADAT was an attractive alternative to an analog recorder.
Doc wrote: > Certain elements of your answer don't quite sit right. It makes it sound > like whatever you laid on the ADAT tracks was supposed to be the final > result, end of story. To the extent that I'm familiar with the recording > process, you *always* have to do more to the tracks after they're laid > down. Mixing/balancing, eq, at a minimum, which means the tracks have to > be transferred from the ADAT through something to something.
It's basically a drop-in replacement for an analogue recorder, so you'll feed the 8 outputs (or more if you've locked several machines together) into a mixer, do your balancing and equalisation through that and record the result onto a 2-track recorder (analogue or digital).
> Some have said "they're mainly for use in the field due to portability" > which is contradicted by another response of "they're made for in-studio > use". If it's nothing more than essentially an 8-track tape recorder, then > other than some inconsequentially lower noise levels, for studio use it's > not clear to me what the advantage would be over a high quality 8-track > analog tape machine.
It's cheaper, lighter, has lower media costs and is digital. Whether you consider the fact that it is digital to be an advantage over an analogue recorder depends on your point of view, but that would have been the thinking at the time it was designed.
The fact that it is essentially a fancy VHS recorder means that it will be a lot lighter than most analogue recorders, so from that PoV it is more portable. Not necessarily more reliable though, since it is still a tape transport.
From a 'what should I get' point of view, I would say that your choice sensibly falls into three categories:
1. Analogue tape recorder 2. Hard disk recorder 3. Computer (also a hard disk recorder, so to speak)
You could get an ADAT, DA88 or even a DASH/ProDigi machine, but to be honest, as far as I can see they combine the mechanical disadvantages of analogue tape with the lack of editing flexibility that a computer or high-end HDD recorder would provide. (Bear in mind that I've only ever used analogue tape and computers, so there may be advantages to digital tape that I don't know or haven't thought of).
-- JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- j...@it-he.org Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB---- uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)
>Certain elements of your answer don't quite sit right. It makes it sound >like whatever you laid on the ADAT tracks was supposed to be the final >result, end of story. To the extent that I'm familiar with the recording >process, you *always* have to do more to the tracks after they're laid down. >Mixing/balancing, eq, at a minimum,
Just as I had thought. The problem here is that you have included mixing, EQ, etc, in your usage of the term "editing" and other do not. To those who have repsonded to your query, editing is the act of changing the time relationships of songs' elements. Examples include replacing the second verse bass part with the third verse's and correcting the timing of a poorly timed snare hit. Mixing/balancing, EQ, and such are usually referred to as "remixing" rather than "editing."
> which means the tracks have to be >transferred from the ADAT through something to something.
Sure. The tracks are sent through a mixer and the stereo, 5.1, or whatever result from the mixer is recorded on the mixdown recorder.
The answer to your original question, "I wonder if using one requires any intermediary gear or computer/software between the mixing board and the inputs of the (A)DAT deck?" remains "No."
<snip>
-- ======================================================================== Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make | two, one and one make one." mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain
Doc wrote: > "Arny Krueger" wrote... > > "Richard Crowley" wrote > > > In a studio setting (especially a budget home studio, > > > etc.) there is no real advantage that I can think of. > > > OTOH, in the field... > > ADAT machines seem to be pretty much designed for the > > studio, and are not usually at their best for portable use. > Either way, why would you use an ADAT instead of just going directly into a > computer with a multi-in card?
Lots of folks are using the Alesis HD24 for location recording work. Note a post this year from "Atlanta Jay" <g>, where a fine truck was outfitted with a pair. Lots of poeple who do so then dump the track to their computer system for mixing, etc.
In time constrained situations it is far easier and faster to set up and feed a dedicated machine than it is to configure a computer system for the same work.
In many studio situations it is far more direct to work with a dedicated machine instead of a computer. One may focus more directly on the musicians and the music, and less on a screen and mouse.
All personal working choices, but there is nothing about the current ADAT iteration that makes it unsuitable for live recording work.
>> > In a studio setting (especially a budget home studio, >> > etc.) there is no real advantage that I can think of. >> > OTOH, in the field...
>> ADAT machines seem to be pretty much designed for the >> studio, and are not usually at their best for portable use.
>Either way, why would you use an ADAT instead of just going directly into a >computer with a multi-in card?
Today you probably wouldn't, but when ADAT came out, computers didn't have multichannel cards. This, incidentally, is why ADAT machines aren't worth a damn thing on the used market. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> If it's nothing more than essentially an 8-track tape recorder, then > other than some inconsequentially lower noise levels, for studio use it's > not clear to me what the advantage would be over a high quality 8-track > analog tape machine.
It was dirt cheap. It had outrageously low tape costs. And it was DIGITAL. That was a big deal, back when everything had to be DIGITAL, and analogue machines were old-fashioned.
Sure, the ADAT was unreliable and sounded like crap. But it was DIGITAL. It was what got everybody and his brother opening up low end studios on every street corner. Hell, you could buy the machine for less than the cost of a case of 1" tape. --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> It was dirt cheap. It had outrageously low tape costs. And it was DIGITAL.
It also used/uses _small_ tapes, and drives, by comparison with 1" tape. Portability does have value.
I don't know whether this makes enough difference to be worth worrying about, but one legitimate advantage of digital is that you can transfer it losslessly into a digital audio workstation.
Sony3324s and 3348s could do editing by using unrecorded tracks and doing compositing. Take 5 vocal tracks, mark each one that you want, set up which track you want it to go on and then do it. So yes, one of the best ideas of digital recording on the multitrack tape systems was that you could edit, but not like Scott is talking about with analog machines, and even at that it wasn't an easy job.
But you know most of this Richard or at least I assume you do.
> "Doc" wrote ... > > I get that you don't literally, physically splice digital tape, but > > perhaps I misunderstood some other responses. You can't do > > any editing on an ADAT deck?
> Not sure there were many (any?) digital audio tape recording > machines that you COULD "do any editing" on? Not really > their purpose, especially when it is so much easier to do non- > linear editing on a computer in the modern era.
> > Seems that would severely limit its usefulness.
> Do you really *want* to edit on any kind of *tape* machine? > Many of us who have done it would never go back. It is > roughly equivalent to editing video tape. For a brief time they > actually cut 2-inch quad tape with a razor blade and spliced > it with white splicing tape. But that was extremely painful and > lasted only long enough to figure out how to do tape-to-tape > ("linear") editing.
> > If you can't edit the digital info on the ADAT deck, what do > > you do with the 8 tracks of data then?
> You dump them into your computer and go for it. At least that > is what most of us do.
> > Again, keep in mind, have never used one so if I'm not getting > > something that's obvious, bear with me.
> Maybe if we understood your background and context, we > could better understand your questions?
> By the way, if you'd paid attention, it turns out it's ADAT I was really > thinking of.
Well, it's up to you to specify and you made the initial incorrect specification in your first post. I actually wrote a post on the differences, but then again, you chose to disparage me. Your statements was "I've never used a DAT deck but due to a conversation I was having..."
And if you were using DAT, then my statement would still stand, although as long as one knows what they are using a DAT for then that's fine. Given the specification, since you aren't talking about DAT, obviously my statement is just as false as your representation.
What I said in an earlier response is:
"Based on the data rate of recording to a specific sized tape, yes, some machines do this, but it's not DAT. It's a digital audio tape recorder, but DAT is a trademark with a standard attached. It's kinda like a Tascam 4 track cassette is the same as a TEAC cassette. Both actually have four tracks but the Tascam only works in one direction whilst the TEAC works 2 tracks in each direction. Twice the tracks on a standard cassette but not to the standard. Or 4 track RTR or even Quad RTR. There's only so much space on a tape for data whether it's digital or analog. Double the data in one direction, lose the length of stereo in both directions."
The idea was to get you to realize that tape either has a limited number of bits it can record based on width or length.
There's nothing wrong with ADAT. Tape handling wise it's not the better format, but it will still work just fine. It's like the difference between VHS and Beta. Beta had the better tape handling mechanism and faster writing speed, but VHS won out because of it's longer recording format. ADAT uses a VHS video tape deck tape handling setup and has a VHS tape writing speed. Good enough, but not the best when tape is concerned. But the price was right when they came out, and it allowed people to step into ADAT when others moved up to other formats.
I fail to find myself in fault when you have to write me and say
> By the way, if you'd paid attention, it turns out it's ADAT I was really > thinking of.
I did pay attention and you didn't say that. Forgive me for not going further to find out if you'd made a mistake.
"Largely, wrong answers stem from the inability to ask the correct questions."
This quote comes from my college Western Civ professor and I swear by it. Ask Hank, Scott, Mike or any number of others here as I've brought up the problem of how to ask questions numerous times. If you don't ask the right question you can't possibly get the right answer.
But don't worry about it either. If the answer you get bugs you, but it's not the answer because you didn't ask the correct question, then the answer is moot, however it might sound to you. If you ask a question and it's not the one you wanted to ask, and I turn out to give you what you perceive to be an asshole answer, the worst I have to do is say "ooops" if I say anything at all.
However, here, Doc, we try to make certain that people's questions are answered in toto or as close to such as possible. We can't do so if you don't formulate your question correctly, and you shouldn't demand that we follow the thread for some time in order to answer the question you wanted answered. The fact that there are some of us here that do actually speaks more about those wishing to help, mentor, and answer questions than those that don't ask the questions they wished to ask.
I always give this example, so I will do so again.
The question is "I'm going to Chicago. Can you tell me where I might buy a horse?" Now, it sounds like a reasonable question, but when one looks at it one cannot tell whether you want to buy a horse to get to Chicago or whether you wish to buy one when you get there. Does this example suffice to explain to you about HOW to ask a question? In case you can't see the possible differences then the setup should have been "I'm going to Chicago and need to buy a horse. Can you tell me where to buy one?" or "I'm going to Chicago to buy a horse. Do you know a good place in Chicago to buy one?". It's like asking two questions in one sentence and then expecting a yes or no reply to suffice. (i.e Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No. Which obvious implies that you've always beat your wife even if you've never raise a hand to her)
And no, I am not getting on you. I find nothing wrong with your quest for knowledge, just your ability to ask questions. Formulate inquires based on the required information, include enough to direct one to the proper avenue of discussion, and then don't get pissed when someone answers you with information you don't think you need. Somewhere down the line you may actually want that information.
90% of all bullshit on RAP would end if the above paragraph were followed.
Because every once in a while, you do. Admit it. You have dreams of the 90s. The girl you met and didn't shag, the song you wrote only to find out someone else had written it too, and the guitar sound that everyone started using even though you know you were the one to come up with it! <g>
Yeah, there are still those of us out there using ADAT and Tascam DA-x8 machines to do work, but hey, if it fits the job, who the hell cares?
And besides, I had some nice experiences in the 90s. Not many, but I'm getting old! <g> Certainly not as many as the late 60s!!!!
> > I get that you don't literally, physically splice digital tape, but perhaps > > I misunderstood some other responses. You can't do any editing on an ADAT > > deck? Seems that would severely limit its usefulness. If you can't edit the > > digital info on the ADAT deck, what do you do with the 8 tracks of data > > then?
> > Again, keep in mind, have never used one so if I'm not getting something > > that's obvious, bear with me.
And to explain to those that don't know what DASH is, it's a Digital Audio Stationary Head, which means it's not rotary like the ADATS and Tascams based on video technology are. DASH systems include Mitsubishi and Sony thin tape units. A Sony 3324 would be an example to look up.
But then, as I said in an earlier response, it is possible to simply do digital compositing on these systems if one wishes. One would have to physically cut the tape if they wanted to edit a bad passage out. Easier to do compositing and elimate the problem track from the portion you'd wish to edit and do the editing at mastering, but hey, who am I? Roger Nichols had a great column about how to do digital compositing on a 3348 about 9 years ago but I don't remember the particular mag. I think it was EQ. But even then one could move a mix to digital and edit, so why worry about physically splicing tape?
> Doc <docsavag...@xhotmail.com> wrote: > >I get that you don't literally, physically splice digital tape, but perhaps > >I misunderstood some other responses. You can't do any editing on an ADAT > >deck? Seems that would severely limit its usefulness. If you can't edit the > >digital info on the ADAT deck, what do you do with the 8 tracks of data > >then?
> With DASH, you can literally, physically splice digital tape. With the > cartridge formats like DA-88 and DTRS, you cannot. There is no editing. > You can punch in and out, but you cannot edit.
> >Again, keep in mind, have never used one so if I'm not getting something > >that's obvious, bear with me.
> You get it right on the first take, and go. None of this dicking around forever > like with Pro Tools. > --scott > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> The question is "I'm going to Chicago. Can you tell me where I might buy a > horse?" Now, it sounds like a reasonable question, but when one looks at it > one cannot tell whether you want to buy a horse to get to Chicago or whether > you wish to buy one when you get there.
Actually, phrased that way, it is only asking about the respondant's ability to tell the inquirer where a horse might be purchased, and therefore is correctly and completely answered by only "Yes" ("I am able to tell you...") or "No" ("I am unable to tell you.") One only infers that the inquirer desires the location of a purchasable horse.
Also, there is nothing but inference that even ties the declarative to the following interrogative. They could be two completely unrelated bits of language.
This is an example of the kinds of semantic gymnastics that get people into trouble in court or with the IRS or other investigative situations. One must always listen carefully to the exact question asked, and respond to that question and that question only. It also helps to understand the exact meaning of words in context. In the above example, if the respondant goes on to tell the inquirer the whereabouts of a horse for sale, respondant is volunteering information that the inquirer did not ask. If the inquirer is a skilled investigator, respondant just unwittingly gave up the information that could solve the investigation and perhaps affect resondant in an unexpected way.
Come on Toivo, even I wouldn't parse it out that far. The point is if one asks about a DAT, it's not the same as asking about an ADAT, and I don't believe I deserved to have been questioned on my answer. Taking the interrogative as a whole, my examples hold water. If you don't know whether one wants to buy a horse when they get to Chicago or whether they need one to get there, then the answer is going to be totally right or totally wrong, or something inbetween. But certainly it's a either or situation depending on how one reads/hears the question. If I don't know your plans, I can't answer the question correctly even if I do know the answer. If I don't know the answer I shouldn't be answering one way or the other, but then no answers would be given assuming that the original poster didn't know how to correctly formulate a question.
Perhaps you'd feel better if I'd let my initial interrogative go as I wrote it, which was "I'm going to Chicago, can you tell me where to buy a horse"? Perhaps that was the better question to point up my statements.
And didn't we have this discussion with Dave Tosti-Lane on Compuserve quite some years ago as he wondered about how to function in his college chair on dramatic arts when students couldn't formulate questions correctly?
> > The question is "I'm going to Chicago. Can you tell me where I might buy a > > horse?" Now, it sounds like a reasonable question, but when one looks at it > > one cannot tell whether you want to buy a horse to get to Chicago or whether > > you wish to buy one when you get there.
> Actually, phrased that way, it is only asking about the > respondant's ability to tell the inquirer where a horse > might be purchased, and therefore is correctly and > completely answered by only "Yes" ("I am able to tell > you...") or "No" ("I am unable to tell you.") One only > infers that the inquirer desires the location of a > purchasable horse.
> Also, there is nothing but inference that even ties the > declarative to the following interrogative. They could be > two completely unrelated bits of language.
> This is an example of the kinds of semantic gymnastics that > get people into trouble in court or with the IRS or other > investigative situations. One must always listen carefully > to the exact question asked, and respond to that question > and that question only. It also helps to understand the > exact meaning of words in context. In the above example, if > the respondant goes on to tell the inquirer the whereabouts > of a horse for sale, respondant is volunteering information > that the inquirer did not ask. If the inquirer is a skilled > investigator, respondant just unwittingly gave up the > information that could solve the investigation and perhaps > affect resondant in an unexpected way.
> And no, I am not getting on you. I find nothing wrong with your quest for > knowledge, just your ability to ask questions. Formulate inquires based > on > the required information, include enough to direct one to the proper > avenue > of discussion, and then don't get pissed when someone answers you with > information you don't think you need. Somewhere down the line you may > actually want that information.
> 90% of all bullshit on RAP would end if the above paragraph were followed.
