Does a DAT recorder require intermediary gear?
Doc
if using one requires any intermediary gear or computer/software between the
mixing board and the inputs of the DAT deck?
How many tracks will DAT decks accomodate?
Thanks
SSJVCmag
lT91f.10942$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Doc"
<docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
DAT was designed as the digital consumer replacement of the stereo cassette.
Like cassette decks, Most DAT machines have line-level ins and outs. Some
have SPDIF digital connections
Some, especially the portables, have mic-preamps and even phantom powering.
Gareth Magennis
"SSJVCmag" <t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BF6AA33A.1450D%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
Some even have timecode.
Gareth.
Scott Dorsey
>I've never used a DAT deck but due to a conversation I was having, I wonder
>if using one requires any intermediary gear or computer/software between the
>mixing board and the inputs of the DAT deck?
No. Although you might want to use an outboard converter, since the
converters in a lot of the DAT machines is kind of poor.
>How many tracks will DAT decks accomodate?
Two, for standard R-DAT.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Doc
"Doc" <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lT91f.10942$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> How many tracks will DAT decks accomodate?
Okay, maybe it's ADAT I'm thinking of. I assume it's some kind of variation
on DAT? Same idea, more tracks?
Is any kind of intermediary software required for ADAT?
Michael R. Kesti
>Okay, maybe it's ADAT I'm thinking of. I assume it's some kind of variation
>on DAT? Same idea, more tracks?
Yes. DAT uses the relatively compact 4 mm tape format and ADAT uses the
reltively large VHS tape format, but they both use rotary heads and the
principles involved are very much the same.
>Is any kind of intermediary software required for ADAT?
No. The ADAT decks provide both digital and line level I/O and can be
used as "stand alone" devices.
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at comcast dot net | - The Who, Bargain
SSJVCmag
N1c1f.10985$q1.1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Doc"
<docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Doc" <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lT91f.10942$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> How many tracks will DAT decks accomodate?
>
> Okay, maybe it's ADAT I'm thinking of. I assume it's some kind of variation
> on DAT? Same idea, more tracks?
The only small similarity is that both DAT and ADAT use a video-type
mechanism (tape wrapped around a spinning head drum) to write 2 (DAT) or 8
(ADAT) channels of digital audio.
DAT uses 4mm tape cartridges similar to computer backup tapes
ADAT uses 1/2" Super-VHS tapes
DAT cannot do anything but rec/PB both channels at once
while
ADAT Is capable of doing any sort of change to any combination of channels
at any time.
>
> Is any kind of intermediary software required for ADAT?
'software"?
Richard Crowley
>> How many tracks will DAT decks accomodate?
Two. (Stereo, not independent)
> Okay, maybe it's ADAT I'm thinking of. I assume it's some
> kind of variation on DAT? Same idea, more tracks?
Not exactly. The original "DAT" (more correctly R-DAT)
was 2 channels on a rather small cassette using ~1/8 wide
tape. The cassettes are similar in size/shape to mini-DV
video cassettes.
ADAT was a proprietary format developed by Alesis to
record 8 channels on full-size S-VHS tape cassettes. The
equipment allows selective recording, simul-sync playback
during recording, and track bouncing.
> Is any kind of intermediary software required for ADAT?
To do what? ADAT has eight analog inputs and outputs.
If you wanted to suck 8 concurrent analog channels into a
computer, you would need the appropriate 8-channel audio
hardware, and software capable of at least 8 channels. This
as nothing particularly to do with whether the 8 channels are
coming from an ADAT recorder or from some other brand
or type of source(s).
ADAT also has an optical port that carries all 8 channels
together. This ADAT optical standard is now also used
by many other kinds/brands of equipment.
Several vendors sell computer interfaces which talk directly
to the ADAT optical link (both input and output). These
interfaces generally come bundled with at least software
which allows you to capture the 8 channels into audio files
of some type. Many also come with editing applications, etc.
norman...@comcast.net
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:di3ai9$9lt$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Doc <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>I've never used a DAT deck but due to a conversation I was having, I
>>wonder
>>if using one requires any intermediary gear or computer/software between
>>the
>>mixing board and the inputs of the DAT deck?
>
> No. Although you might want to use an outboard converter, since the
> converters in a lot of the DAT machines is kind of poor.
>
>>How many tracks will DAT decks accomodate?
>
> Two, for standard R-DAT.
I'm not sure of this, but I was under the impression that there was a DAT
protocol to record 4 tracks at the LP speed--12bit, 32ks/s. I've never seen
such a beast, but I thought it was one possible protocol.
Norm Strong
Scott Dorsey
It's not in the official DAT standard... that is a nonstandard addition
that Stellavox came up with. As far as I know, it was only implemented
on that one StellaDAT machine.
Doc
"Richard Crowley" <richard....@intel.com> wrote in message
news:di3nsp$88f$1...@news01.intel.com...
> "Doc" wrote ...
> > Okay, maybe it's ADAT I'm thinking of. I assume it's some
> > kind of variation on DAT? Same idea, more tracks?
>
> Not exactly. The original "DAT" (more correctly R-DAT)
> was 2 channels on a rather small cassette using ~1/8 wide
> tape. The cassettes are similar in size/shape to mini-DV
> video cassettes.
>
> ADAT was a proprietary format developed by Alesis to
> record 8 channels on full-size S-VHS tape cassettes. The
> equipment allows selective recording, simul-sync playback
> during recording, and track bouncing.
Well, that's what I meant by "similar". They both use oxide coated tape to
manipulate digital info. Understood that there are going to be physical
differences between the systems.
> > Is any kind of intermediary software required for ADAT?
>
> To do what? ADAT has eight analog inputs and outputs.
That's what I didn't know, if you could input directly into the box from the
board without a computer or other gizmo in between.
> Several vendors sell computer interfaces which talk directly
> to the ADAT optical link (both input and output). These
> interfaces generally come bundled with at least software
> which allows you to capture the 8 channels into audio files
> of some type. Many also come with editing applications, etc.
So a computer *can* be used to interact with the ADAT system, presumably to
end up with a more powerful system, but you can also use the ADAT as a stand
alone recorder/editor.
Scott Dorsey
>
>So a computer *can* be used to interact with the ADAT system, presumably to
>end up with a more powerful system, but you can also use the ADAT as a stand
>alone recorder/editor.
Only as a recorder. You cannot edit ADAT tapes. There's no razor blading
possible.
Doc
> Doc <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >So a computer *can* be used to interact with the ADAT system, presumably
to
> >end up with a more powerful system, but you can also use the ADAT as a
stand
> >alone recorder/editor.
>
> Only as a recorder. You cannot edit ADAT tapes. There's no razor blading
> possible.
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.
Richard Crowley
> 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?
Doc
> > 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.
Okay, that clarifies that point. However, it raises another question - so
why even use an ADAT instead of a multi-in soundcard right to a computer?
>
> > 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?
Any recording I've done has been strictly one track at a time via a
soundcard to h/d.
DC
>
> 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.
Why do I feel like I'm reliving the '90's?
Richard Crowley
> Okay, that clarifies that point. However, it raises another question -
> so
> why even use an ADAT instead of a multi-in soundcard right to a
> 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...
The ADAT recorder is significantly more robust and reliable
than a computer and an 8-input sound card. It also uses inexpensive,
removable media (S-VHS tapes) for unlimited recording time.
Zigakly
> > > 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.
>
> Okay, that clarifies that point. However, it raises another question - so
> why even use an ADAT instead of a multi-in soundcard right to a computer?
ADAT is more portable and reliable for live recording, though even for live
use HDR's are taking over in part because the transfer to DAW is faster and
more convenient. In the studio it's pointless.
Arny Krueger
news:11kbtn5...@corp.supernews.com
> "Doc" wrote ...
>> Okay, that clarifies that point. However, it raises
>> another question - so
>> why even use an ADAT instead of a multi-in soundcard
>> right to a 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.
Ironic that the second hit I got for "portable adat" on
google was the EMu 1616M laptop audio interface!
> The ADAT recorder is significantly more robust and
> reliable than a computer
Thats not a slam dunk. VCR transports are not the ultimate
in robustness. Most people's idea of laptop reliability is
based on commodity laptops, but more robust laptops are on
the market and are not prohibitively priced.
> and an 8-input sound card. It also uses
> inexpensive, removable media (S-VHS tapes) for unlimited
> recording time.
A modern multitrack computer uses DVDs as removable media,
for even more of the same kind of unlimited recording time.
DVD's and DVD-Rs are quite a bit more reliable than VHS
tapes. They are also quite a bit smaller.
Richard Crowley
> A modern multitrack computer uses DVDs as removable media,
> for even more of the same kind of unlimited recording time.
> DVD's and DVD-Rs are quite a bit more reliable than VHS
> tapes. They are also quite a bit smaller.
So are there any software solutions that write multi
(>2) track audio directly to DVDR (in real time)?
When you are recording a long weekend of festival
performances, etc, there is no time to wait around
while files are closed and then written to DVDR in
a separate (and subsequent) step?
Maybe I'm too intimately familiar with PCs to have
as much trust in them for real-time, no-2nd-take
recording? :-(
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" wrote...
>> A modern multitrack computer uses DVDs as removable
>> media, for even more of the same kind of unlimited
>> recording time. DVD's and DVD-Rs are quite a bit more
>> reliable than VHS tapes. They are also quite a bit
>> smaller.
>
> So are there any software solutions that write multi
> (>2) track audio directly to DVDR (in real time)?
No, and none seem to be needed.
> When you are recording a long weekend of festival
> performances, etc, there is no time to wait around
> while files are closed and then written to DVDR in
> a separate (and subsequent) step?
At this point we've got all these capacious hard drives,
inside and outside the computer.
> Maybe I'm too intimately familiar with PCs to have
> as much trust in them for real-time, no-2nd-take
> recording? :-(
I do it all the time. Other than operator problems, its
routine and foolproof. Operation is pretty simple.
For example, earlier this week I picked up 2 half-hour 24
track recordings (Audition/CE) that were done by my church's
sound booth backup operator. I was on vacation for two
weekends, and she easily handled the startup and saving of
files, as well as burning the CD-Rs and operating the 56
channel mixer. All I had to do is make sure there was enough
free space and train her how to start the app and save
files, which took about 5 minutes.
Off the top of my head, 24 tracks of 44/16 is about 8 GB an
hour, so 20 hours fits on a < $100 160 GB drive.
Richard Crowley
> I do it all the time. Other than operator problems, its routine and
> foolproof. Operation is pretty simple.
You are talking about a fixed-location, "studio" setting and
I'm sure it works pretty well there. I'm talking about transient,
field location recording.
>
> For example, earlier this week I picked up 2 half-hour 24 track recordings
> (Audition/CE) that were done by my church's sound booth backup operator. I
> was on vacation for two weekends, and she easily handled the startup and
> saving of files, as well as burning the CD-Rs and operating the 56
> channel mixer. All I had to do is make sure there was enough free space
> and train her how to start the app and save files, which took about 5
> minutes.
>
> Off the top of my head, 24 tracks of 44/16 is about 8 GB an hour, so 20
> hours fits on a < $100 160 GB drive.
No argument with any of that. But I maintain (from bitter personal
experience) that trying to do this on the fly out in the field (sometimes
litterally a dirt/mud field) is not nearly as reliable as in your nice
predictable, fixed, clean environment.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" wrote ...
>> I do it all the time. Other than operator problems, its
>> routine and foolproof. Operation is pretty simple.
>
> You are talking about a fixed-location, "studio" setting
> and I'm sure it works pretty well there. I'm talking about
> transient, field location recording.
That works too.
>> For example, earlier this week I picked up 2 half-hour
>> 24 track recordings (Audition/CE) that were done by my
>> church's sound booth backup operator. I was on vacation
>> for two weekends, and she easily handled the startup and
>> saving of files, as well as burning the CD-Rs and
>> operating the 56 channel mixer. All I had to do is make
>> sure there was enough free space and train her how to
>> start the app and save files, which took about 5
>> minutes. Off the top of my head, 24 tracks of 44/16 is
>> about 8 GB
>> an hour, so 20 hours fits on a < $100 160 GB drive.
> No argument with any of that. But I maintain (from bitter
> personal experience) that trying to do this on the fly
> out in the field (sometimes litterally a dirt/mud field)
> is not nearly as reliable as in your nice predictable,
> fixed, clean environment.
I'm sure it isn't.
My point was that a laptop doing the same job as a DAT is
not mission impossible in every case. And, if you make the
job nasty enough, there are now many devices that can be
preferable to a DAT.
Roger W. Norman
wonder
> if using one requires any intermediary gear or computer/software between
the
> mixing board and the inputs of the DAT deck?
It's disconcerting that anyone would ask something like this on a pro audio
board without having taken the time to do a simple google search to find the
answers. I apologize if you wouldn't recognize what you were reading, but
then perhaps the FAQs would provide you an answer that you'd learn from
because you'd taken the time to study.
John gave you a good answer, as others did, I'm sure. But the best answer
is that DAT isn't even much of a player in the market today and you have
tons of ample research topics to work with. If DAT is the level that you
are starting to work with, then research, learning and understanding are
your requirements, not getting answers from those of us that have given up
on DAT 10 years ago.
I know, I sound like I'm denigrating your question, and to a point I am, but
I'm not trying to be mean. The point is that you have a computer,
obviously, and you have the ability to do the research yourself. If you
want to verify your reseach here then that's probably much more acceptable.
However it works out, you'll undoubtedly get an answer here for any of your
questions, but the difference is that you didn't do the work yourself.
Pretty much all of us here know how to do the work ourselves and make
whatever assessments we need. You'd be best served by learning how to study
a topic on your own. We all did and do.
I am extremely pleased to see that we've lost most of the "best mics under
$100" as if there is a best mic under any dollar amount in the first place,
BUT...
As to the question of how many tracks can a DAT deck accomodate, the answer
is any number you want as long as the number is two. But you'd have known
that if you'd look up DAT.
See?
No matter how I try to do it, you are going to be offended, and I've taken
time to get on your case.
Please don't come back asking what bit depth/sample rates DAT can handle
because then I'd be even more apt to give you a hard time. But if you want
to know other things, like what portable DATs handle decent mic pre 48+
volts for phantom power and such, we can probably go into the wayback
machine and answer.
Or you might get an answer like forget DAT and look at a ZAXCOM or other
small portable digital recorder with a hard disk. In other words look at
the newest that fits your ideas of the oldest. Or by the used DAT and
figure it out. You'll learn more that way anyway.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Doc" <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lT91f.10942$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
Roger W. Norman
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.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FeGdnTlH17P7-9je...@comcast.com...
Scott Dorsey
>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.
Doc
"Roger W. Norman" <Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote in message
news:s-GdndhP9O1VUtve...@rcn.net...
> 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.
Doc
"Roger W. Norman" <Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote in message
news:s-GdndhP9O1VUtve...@rcn.net...
>
> If DAT is the level that you
> are starting to work with,
By the way, if you'd paid attention, it turns out it's ADAT I was really
thinking of.
Doc
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:tamdnfLB0LU...@comcast.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?
Mike Rivers
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.
Arny Krueger
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.
Doc
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1128766555.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> At the time the ADAT came out,
> there were no 8-channel I/O devices for computer.
How were the tracks edited/tweaked etc.?
J. P. Morris
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)
Doc
"J. P. Morris" <j...@it-he.org> wrote in message
news:4348df9f$0$2555$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> Doc wrote:
>
> >
> > "Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> > news:1128766555.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> 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.
Mike Rivers
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.
> Maybe a wider dynamic range than analog?
Yes.
J. P. Morris
> 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).
Michael R. Kesti
<snip>
>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
hank alrich
> "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.
--
ha
Scott Dorsey
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 Dorsey
> 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.
Joe Kesselman
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.
Roger W. Norman
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.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Richard Crowley" <richard....@intel.com> wrote in message
news:di46mp$feq$1...@news01.intel.com...
> "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?
>
>
Roger W. Norman
> 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.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Doc" <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47M1f.10697$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Roger W. Norman
"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.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Doc" <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47M1f.10697$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Roger W. Norman
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!!!!
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"DC" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4eKdnViMmOh...@comcast.com...
> 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? 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?
> >
Roger W. Norman
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?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:di772q$pns$1...@panix2.panix.com...
T Maki
>
> 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.
Ain't it fun? :-)
(Going way too tangential...)
TM
Roger W. Norman
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?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"T Maki" <tm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:09B2f.1171$y14...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Richard Crowley
> 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.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
T Maki
> even I wouldn't parse it out that far.
I'm with you all the way. Some of the fun with English is
the what you can do it from an interpretive perspective.
And of course your example is a good one in this context.
>
> And didn't we have this discussion with Dave Tosti-Lane on Compuserve quite
> some years ago
Yup. And the priciples remain the same.
TM
Roger W. Norman
quite
> > some years ago
>
> Yup. And the priciples remain the same.
Cool. Just checking.
Roger W. Norman
quite
> > some years ago
>
> Yup. And the priciples remain the same.
Cool. Just checking.
Doc
"Roger W. Norman" <Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com> wrote in message
> > 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.
'Tis true, and due to the feedback it quickly became apparent I had the
wrong format in mind.
> I actually wrote a post on the
> differences, but then again, you chose to disparage me.
> I fail to find myself in fault when you have to write me and say
etc.
I don't think I disparaged you, I pointed out, correctly, that you clearly
hadn't followed any further in the thread or you would have seen that I made
a correction in course due to further input from others. And we could both
say "So sue me".
I don't question your expertise, I question both the point and validity of
your somewhat lengthy diatribe. I asked a question, anyone who cared to was
free to answer, and to any who offered information I say "thanks". I also
note that you seem to be talking out of both sides, having participated in
the thread while lambasting it.
As far as this "you didn't do the work yourself" issue, that's somewhat full
of holes. Virtually every question on here could be answered that way - You
wanna know if the Japotronics Gizmobox435-X is decent? Go get one yourself
you slacker. You want to know what's a good material for acoustic
treatment? Go do research (but just not *here*) You want to know if the new
Glitzypack 6.0 software is absolutely da bomb? Buy it yourself dipwad.
You may have noticed that the thread is fairly lengthy, all voluntary
answers, all stemming from a fairly simple question. You may also notice
that there's not total agreement on certain points, including the perceived
utility and quality of ADAT. So, from the original query there's been a
unique flow of input presenting various viewpoints, now available to anyone
perusing this forum for the life of usenet or until the sun burns out,
whichever comes first. It's an open market, where everyone is free to
participate at any given point or not. While a response such as yours is
part of that mix, I believe your premise that there's somehow no value in
asking the question in the first place is not a valid one.
Roger W. Norman
ask questions. Not just me that's saying what I'm saying.
One thing is true, pick amongst it. When you don't ask the right question
you won't get the right answer. Toivo not withstanding on his analysis of
my example, this is the definitive circumstance.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Richard Crowley" <richard....@intel.com> wrote in message
news:diepi2$hs7$1...@news01.intel.com...
Roger W. Norman
> participate at any given point or not. While a response such as yours is
> part of that mix, I believe your premise that there's somehow no value in
> asking the question in the first place is not a valid one.
Fine, my statements are obviously failing to get through. I can live with
that. And since I didn't say there's no value in asking the question, I
said that the value of the answers depends on the question itself. I can
even see where you might have actually tried to type "ADAT" and ended up
with "a DAT".
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Doc" <docsa...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0nF2f.13122$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Scott Dorsey
>> 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.
True, but the big thing was the cost.
>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.
This was not an advantage at the time, but it has since become a really
big one. Back then, the only workstations were 2-track.