Topic: Getting back in the taping scene after 10 years.

[rodeen]

I really like my DR100mkii.  I haven't been asked for a patch for years but I still carry a digital splitter with me in my bag in case I get asked.  One out goes to my deck, one to the patcher.  The Tascam is about the same price as the Sony but can take digi in and provide P48.  Tons of features for the money. 

It's nice to want to have the digi out for others, but it's true, there does not seem to be a lot of patching these days, and with the new wave of CF and SD decks, there seems to be less people out there with machines that take a S/PDIF feed, so you can offer an analog feed at least. That said the Tascam DR100MKII makes a lot of sense if you are uncomfortable with the MT. It is an easy to use versatile deck. At least it has S/PDIF in to accommodate your gear which makes the most sense. The m10 really does not have digi in or out, so that would seem to be a poor choice for your gear.

[Gene Poole]

I really like my DR100mkii.  I haven't been asked for a patch for years but I still carry a digital splitter with me in my bag in case I get asked.  One out goes to my deck, one to the patcher.  The Tascam is about the same price as the Sony but can take digi in and provide P48.  Tons of features for the money. 

It's nice to want to have the digi out for others, but it's true, there does not seem to be a lot of patching these days, and with the new wave of CF and SD decks, there seems to be less people out there with machines that take a S/PDIF feed, so you can offer an analog feed at least. That said the Tascam DR100MKII makes a lot of sense if you are uncomfortable with the MT. It is an easy to use versatile deck. At least it has S/PDIF in to accommodate your gear which makes the most sense. The m10 really does not have digi in or out, so that would seem to be a poor choice for your gear.

My first piece of kit was the M1 DAT.  My first few recordings were patches (digital or analog); either from the soundboard, or from someone at the show with the best setup in the taper section.  Once I got my own mics, I was often "that guy" with the best setup.  I seem to recall that there were always 2 or 3 people with just a DAT or minidisc (just like me earlier) wanting a patch.  I guess things have changed a lot.  Instead of a patch, you can just download it from the taper's site the next day.

[Fried Chicken Boy]

First off, welcome back to taping, Gene. 

There are some good suggestions here in this thread, and running SKM-184s > PS2 > SBM-1 > Microtrack seems like a fine option since the SBM is a solid A/D.  You might want to PM hi and lo and compare notes as he still runs one from time to time (the "Super Battery Muncher" as he calls it, lol).  The part of the signal chain that gives me pause is the Microtrack.  While some tapers have run them without problems, there are others who have had reliability and battery issues, and there are even reports here on TS and elsewhere of the battery overheating and exploding.  Otherwise, it could be fine as your bit bucket. 

Speaking of "bit buckets", this topic has been beaten to death elsewhere on these forums but it bears repeating here.  A true bit bucket is a device that bypasses it's analog stage (if it has one) and acts strictly as a repository for the digital signal from another device (the 1's and 0's) that has already done the A/D converting.  The Sony M10, Roland R-05, Edirol R-09HR, Tascam DR-05/07/40/60, etc.?  All nice decks but they ain't bit buckets. 

[bombdiggity]

Speaking of "bit buckets", this topic has been beaten to death elsewhere on these forums but it bears repeating here.  A true bit bucket is a device that bypasses it's analog stage (if it has one) and acts strictly as a repository for the digital signal from another device (the 1's and 0's) that has already done the A/D converting.  The Sony M10, Roland R-05, Edirol R-09HR, Tascam DR-05/07/40/60, etc.?  All nice decks but they ain't bit buckets. 

True.  If I had a hand in blurring that re: this thread sorry for that.  I think I only applied that term to the MT, which I think does actually represent that it can function that way (though I may be mistaken). 

[Gene Poole]

Speaking of "bit buckets", this topic has been beaten to death elsewhere on these forums but it bears repeating here.  A true bit bucket is a device that bypasses it's analog stage (if it has one) and acts strictly as a repository for the digital signal from another device (the 1's and 0's) that has already done the A/D converting.  The Sony M10, Roland R-05, Edirol R-09HR, Tascam DR-05/07/40/60, etc.?  All nice decks but they ain't bit buckets. 

True.  If I had a hand in blurring that re: this thread sorry for that.  I think I only applied that term to the MT, which I think does actually represent that it can function that way (though I may be mistaken).

The MT is a fine bit bucket.  It has a coax S/PDIF in and, in fact, the only reason I bought it was for its ability  to take a feed straight from the digi out of my DAT machines and make a computer file out of it.  Back in the day, it was difficult to get a PC with a sound card that didn't resample on the fly, had the horsepower not to stutter during the transfer, and had an OS that was up to the task.  I have verified that the MT makes bit-perfect copies with the S/PDIF-in. 

I've replaced the battery with a generic polymer cell that fit the case (can't remember what it was for, but it's got 1400 mAh and I think the original was 1100 or so).  I also have a battery sled that will power the thing indefinitely (it runs out of space on the card long before it runs out of juice).  I've got the latest firmware which seems to have fixed most of the major shortcomings other users have mentioned.

[Gene Poole]

Back in the day, it was difficult to get a PC with a sound card that didn't resample on the fly, had the horsepower not to stutter during the transfer, and had an OS that was up to the task.  I have verified that the MT makes bit-perfect copies with the S/PDIF-in.

Nothing against the MT, but back in what day?  I had such a computer in 2000.

I think the first version MT was introduced in 2006?  PC stuff was even more functional then, although the MT would win on price.

Well, It was probably about 1996 or so when I first decided DAT wasn't a reliable medium for all my recordings.  I fought with PCs and numerous soundcards before I found a setup that worked reliably and that probably would have been around 2000, but it was still a pain in the ass.  The MT made it so much easier and I probably transferred more recordings that way than any other.

Maybe I'm getting senile too.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

No, I agree with you there, computer recording was a minefield in the '90s.

A situation not at all helped by the SoundCrapster...

Terry

[voltronic]

No, I agree with you there, computer recording was a minefield in the '90s.

A situation not at all helped by the SoundCrapster...

Terry

Ahh, my first sound card.  I don't think it would even fit in most computer cases today...

[H₂O]

DAT > SDT-9000 SGI FW 13.1 > SCSI > DAT2WAV

Best way to transfer DAT's since 2000 at least

Basically this is reading the audio directly off the Tape and creating a WAV file from it - bypassing all conversion to SPDIF (re-clocking the signal, etc) and back again

I have found this a very reliable method of transfers that only a Sony PCM-7040 deck can beat (as the error correction code in DAT2WAV is not the best but better then none as in all other DAT xfer software I have found)

[H₂O]

As long as you have a good clock - You to take the data off the tape read the FRAME data and then encode it to be sent on the wire based on the frame data from the tape - The data is clocked by the internal clock on the DAT recorder and then sent to your sound card to be read off the wire unclocked and converted back into data

These are all unnecessary steps where errors can be introduced

It's like converting a CD from a CD player to a computer via a sound card - versus using EAC.

[H₂O]

I absolutely did not mean analog output as this would obviously cause a generation gap.


SCSI is an interface bus to the drive/transport - similar buses exist on some Pro DAT decks such as the PCM-7040 - and possibly other decks - The signal over these buses on these older designs are typically parallel (SCSI is 8bit's in it's Narrow configuration and 16bit in it's wide configuration)


When a DAT deck reads a tape it is not immediately turned into a SPDIF signal it is typically sent as a parallel digital signal to a buffer then depending on how large this buffer is ECC is performed to attempt to correct errors (in higher end Pro decks this buffer can be used as a pre-record buffer and for basic editing functions) - after this it is then the ECC'd Frames are transcoded to clock and a digitial audio stream and fed to the DSP/DA for analog output, meter outputs, etc - and also to the SPDIF/AES circuitry. 


[size=78%]SCSI serves an [/size]entirely[size=78%] different and lower level purpose then SPDIF[/size]

Advantages of the DAT2WAV route:
 - SDT-9000 decks can read tapes at slightly better than 2x speed
 - DAT2WAV creates a log file outlining all encountered errors in the transfer allowing you to pinpoint issues on a tape very quickly
 - DDS drives are designed for much higher life cycle then DAT recorders
 - DDS drives are 4 motor designs
 - DDS drive parts are very easy and cheap to find so it is very easy to repair
 - DAT2WAV allows you to create an image of a dat tape (never done this but it could be useful in a case of last resort) - stream of the DAT frames off the tape

[H₂O]

One other thing to note is that not all DAT decks and DAT setups are the same.


I find that DAT2WAV works with about 90-95% of older tapes without issue and the problem tapes I send through my 7040 which works most of the time - you will always encounter bad tapes nothing can transfer with out errors - but to do it right you need to have a few different ways to transfer tapes - a single type of DAT deck is not enough IMO.

[H₂O]

I agree that SPDIF is unlikely to add to errors to the xfer process - as long as you are using good cables and a good stable target recorder/sound card


But my point is that using a computer with a dds drive is essentially turning the computer into a dat player and eliminates a lot of the transfer chain, allows for direct tape access, and for much faster transfers


software could be developed like EAC that would improve on reading errors tapes although this would likely require multiple tape reads and put more ware on the drive and tape

[shownomarcy]

I really dislike(d) my Microtrack Probably because I bought it used... its internal battery was absolutely dead and in spite of the external powering via usb with 4 (!) AA battery still didnt work well. I bought it just to have a 2nd recorder, so I was really happy to find such a beautiful recorder like Tascam DR-2d.

[dallman]

I really dislike(d) my Microtrack Probably because I bought it used... its internal battery was absolutely dead and in spite of the external powering via usb with 4 (!) AA battery still didnt work well. I bought it just to have a 2nd recorder, so I was really happy to find such a beautiful recorder like Tascam DR-2d.

There are a great number of excellent small recorders on the market right now and the Tascam DR2D is one of them. However for this situation the OP was looking for a bit bucket and also had the MT which was a bit bucket. The Tascam DR2d is not. As bit buckets go, the MT was the smallest in the non stratospheric price range. It has its quirks, but as a bit bucket, the MT is pretty solid. There are other choices, but the Tascam DR2d is not appropriate to this OP's requirements.