Topic: DAT RCA Out to M10

[hurrysundown]

I wanna transfer my DAT to computer.  I have a Sony D10(no digial out, just RCA)  I wanna go into the Sony M10.  Bad idea?  I have a DA-P1 w/a bad digial out and a very sick Tascam Mk30II so the D10 seems my cheapest way out.  The tapes are clones.  The D10 was refurbished at Pro-Digital so I know its healthy.  Is there really that much difference?  Does the M10 have a A>D converter?  So confused.

[noahbickart]

I wouldn't. The whole point is to keep the gene pool healthy. How many dats? I bet you can find someone on here to help you with the transfers- especially if it isn't stuff that circulates widely. Hell, I'll transfer a couple of them for you digitally...

[yousef]

One observation I would make is that when I was digitally transferring some old DATs a year or so ago, I found that I was getting the odd blip and skip in the files that had not been apparent through the speakers during transfer.

I could only surmise that the audio output was subject to error correction in the deck while the digital output was just raw: so I captured errors and all.

Immensely frustrating, especially as it required listening to each transfer again in full to see which files were affected. In the end I went for analogue transfers and couldn't discern an appreciable difference in quality.

Obviously, the digital clone route is the way to go if possible but, depending on the state of your tapes and deck, it may not be practical.

[OldNeumanntapr]

I've transferred a lot of my DATs through the RCA analog outputs, mostly because it's easier adjust levels that way. I've found that very few of my DATs  have perfect levels. I've never been able to tell any difference in quality between the RCA and Coax digital i/o.

[milford4m]

I've transferred a lot of my DATs through the RCA analog outputs, mostly because it's easier adjust levels that way. I've found that very few of my DATs  have perfect levels. I've never been able to tell any difference in quality between the RCA and Coax digital i/o.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

The downside of the RCA transfer is that you are still guessing about levels.  If you transfer digitally, you can normalize in software and have perfect levels every time.

[OldNeumanntapr]

I don't know what 'normalize' means. I use an HHb CDR 800 PRO CD recorder that I bought in '98 and is still going strong. A lot of my DATs have lower levels so it helps to boost them a bit when doing the CD transfers. The original poster said that he had a D10 without a digital output. My friend Gene had one of these and I've used it a bunch starting over 20 years ago. That machine had nice sound, (decent electronics) but the masters recorded on the D10 did NOT have an absolute time code when played back on other DAT recorders. This makes transferring those masters even trickier. I first used it to master the Dead  Inglewood Forum shows in DEC. '89.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Duh, I missed the part where the D10 has no digital output.  OP should find another DAT deck or someone to do the transfer.


About the other, normalizing is defined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_normalization more clearly than I might write about it.

I agree that boosting the levels is a good idea when doing DAT transfers to CD. Software workflow is always going to be more precise but if the only option is an analog transfer, then that works. I used to boost levels using the CDRW700's digital gain feature when transferring DAT>CD but it was the same problem as with analog transfer from cassettes; I often found that I guessed wrong and clipped the ADC somewhere later in the set.  Other people might be better at than I was.

[OldNeumanntapr]

I've been setting levels for 30 years, but even I make mistakes occasionally. I boost the levels a bit but still err on the conservative side because digital clipping is horrendous! For me, the HHb CDR 800 is easier to use with the analog inputs if the original tape has level fluctuations that have to be tracked. (My own audience masters are like that sometimes, early in the set.)

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

The downside of the RCA transfer is that you are still guessing about levels.  If you transfer digitally, you can normalize in software and have perfect levels every time.

Another down-side of RCA is the obvious analog generation...  Normally I'd be happy to help out people transfer their DATs, but I'm overloaded at the moment...  But there are others that will help out...

Terry

[OldNeumanntapr]

[/quote]

Another down-side of RCA is the obvious analog generation...
[/quote]

This just kills me. People talk about the 'analog' generation loss of DATs like it is a cassette->cassette copy generation, (which Does make an audible difference.) I remember over 10 years ago people on DAT Heads would post about 'Not spending all this $$$ on digital equipment to get an analog generation,' by using an RCA->RCA cable. I have NEVER been able to tell a difference in A/B tests between digital copies from RCA->RCA or Coax inputs. I really don't believe that it makes all that much difference.

[yousef]

I completely agree about the added analogue generation making no difference to my ears but I suppose one has to be fair to the DATheads of yesteryear: when people were trading DATs, I guess it would be possible for a recording to undergo many non-digital transfers, which might have a cumlative effect on the sound.

Nowadays, with most sharing and trading being done via FLACs, the effects of that initial analogue transfer are probably negligable.

That said, if I could get a clean digital transfer of my tapes, that would be the way I would go.

[OldNeumanntapr]

I agree.  I don't know anyone who could identify a recording that had been transferred via analog i/o over a 'pure' digital copy. (I refuse to call them 'clones') I wonder if anyone has tested the effects of compressing (FLAC) and decompressing over and over. Does That make a difference over the long term?

Do what sounds good to Your ears. I know the consumer D10 that my friend Gene had sounded really good. I think it sounded better than my D7. I would go ahead and do your transfers with that deck and they will probably sound really nice.

How do you like the M10? I'm going to need to go that route one of these days, as DAT blanks are getting almost impossible to find. 

[yousef]

Repeated FLAC>audio>FLAC conversions shouldn't have any effect on the sound - the extracted data will be exactly the same as what was input in the first place. I think someone asked about this in another thread very recently.

Speaking as someone who has gone minidisk>D8>Iriver>Microtrack>R09>M10, I have to say that the M10 is one of my happiest purchases. The D8 was my favourite recording device and the M10 is one that comes closest to it in terms of general 'feel'. Whether the sound is significantly better than that of the R-09, I'm not sure if my ears can be trusted to say.

[OldNeumanntapr]

That's what I figured. Again, it's not a generation loss.

I have both a D7 & a D8 and love them. (The D7 wore out from taping too many concerts.) I'm glad that the M10 has the same 'feel' of quality as the D8 does. It's hard to stay on top of all the changes in recording technology.

[H₂O]

All I can say on this topic is that a digital purest will look down upon a Digital > Analog > Digital transfer.  If you do a digital > digital transfer with adequate gear (no resampling, etc) then from a purest perspective you get back as closely as possible what you put in.


Going digital > analog > digital your at the mercy of your D/A > cables > A/D and any amplification circuitry in the middle.


Calling it adding a generation is a perception - some call analog generation an association with tape > tape copying where limitations in the media are amplified (i.e. tape hiss), some call just going digital > analog > digital as introducing an analog generation.


I am more of a purest and when I see xfer sources with digital > analog > digital I tend to frown upon the xfer and question the reasons behind this - but this is me.


I also frown upon digital >CD-R > EAC transfers as well as you can never know the quality of CD-R > ? > CD-R  in the middle.


If I see two sources of the same show and see the setup was about the same (similar mics, etc) and there is a questionable xfer I will certainly download the version with the better xfer.


So it's up to you.

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

This just kills me. People talk about the 'analog' generation loss of DATs like it is a cassette->cassette copy generation, (which Does make an audible difference.) I remember over 10 years ago people on DAT Heads would post about 'Not spending all this $$$ on digital equipment to get an analog generation,' by using an RCA->RCA cable. I have NEVER been able to tell a difference in A/B tests between digital copies from RCA->RCA or Coax inputs. I really don't believe that it makes all that much difference.

I'm sorry you don't like my opinion.  The fact is that you've added an analog generation to your digital recording.  But if the audio quality doesn't matter to you, that's fantastic.  But for some of us, it does matter.

I have to ask though, if people for have been saying this to you (for over 10 years), don't you think they might be onto something???

Thanks though,

Terry

[OldNeumanntapr]

Sorry guys. I guess no one here would want any of my recordings, seeing how I have transferred most of them through the RCA i/o. I guess I'm in the minority then, but I still think that my current DAT recordings sound light years ahead of the live masters that I was making with a Sony TC-153SD in 1986. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and far be it from me to pass judgement. I can definitely tell a difference when comparing MP-3 to uncompressed DAT, but I have never been able to hear any added noise because of the addition of an extra DA->AD step. If someone can then they have better ears than I do. 'Nuff said.

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

I don't want to argue with you about this...  What it comes down to is this:  there are some of us that are purists.  I want the unadulterated digital recording.  It doesn't matter to me that there is no audible difference between one or the other, which BTW, I never suggested would occur. 

For me, I want a Bit Perfect copy of your tape from the show, not some processed copy.  And frankly, I think adding the analog step to adjust levels is pointless.  If I need to raise levels at all, I'll just raise the volume and adjust the balance on my amp.  If I feel that the recording needs any kind of "mastering", I would prefer to do it on the raw recording.

But again that is just my opinion.  If you want to tweak your tapes before you release them, that is your perogative.  And if you find it easier to run via RCA rather than SPDIF, that is also your perogative.

I suppose it has to do with priorities...  For me, I am trying to record The Experience, not necessarily record the next Live Album.  If some douchebag is chatting away, so be it.  I heard it at the show, so I should hear it on the tape.  I'm not particular in that respect.  However, I have invested in a Rig and Playback that is pleasing to my ears without need for any kind of post-processing.  For me, my raw tapes are good enough.  However, I understand that not everyone will feel that way.  So when I seed Shows, I try to seed unprocessed recordings (albeit, processed from 24/48 > 16/44 for ease of use by the masses).  That way, anyone that wants to process my recording, for their own tastes, can be confident their are doing so with the "pure" recordings.

Again, your wants and needs may be different hence your different method in Transfering your DATs...

Peace...

Terry

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

It's hard to stay on top of all the changes in recording technology.

Actually, it hasn't changed very much since 86...  The only change has been the Recording Device, and that was to accomodate increasingly better formats/media.

There is technically no difference between your DAT recorder and any of the new Flash Card recorders today.  The only exception is the increased recording range (24/96+ vs 16/48) and the change in Media (memory card instead of tape).

What makes the newer Flash Card recorders convenient is the fast "transfer" - it is already transferred - all you have to do is copy the recording off the Card onto your PC as if it were any other kind of computer File (like a JPG or DOC, in this case, a WAV).  With DAT, you have to play the tape back through a player digitally into a recorder and that takes much more time as is more prone to errors like bad playback deck, debatable I/O (hahaha), computer noise, etc...

If you want any help or advice, so you can get up to speed, let me know.  I'm totally willing to help out as much as I can.  I'm no expert, but I'll try to give you some good advice...

Thanks,

Terry

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

So when I seed Shows, I try to seed unprocessed recordings (albeit, processed from 24/48 > 16/44 for ease of use by the masses).  That way, anyone that wants to process my recording, for their own tastes, can be confident their are doing so with the "pure" recordings.

I understand what you meant when you wrote that, but the conversion from 24/48 to 16/44 renders a not exact copy of the original capture so maybe not really really "pure".   

A low-quality sample rate conversion in the digital domain could negatively impact the recording more than doing an analog transfer to adjust levels and some dithering algorithm/parameter settings might be more audible than the noise inherent in a high quality analog transfer. That is why back in the day, I might choose a DAC->ADC gen over a show that has been hacked to death in the digital domain even though I'd rather have a clone of the master DAT.  For me the "pure" copy was even more for avoiding shows "remastered" by someone who "made it sound better" on their shitty home stereo.  Today I can honestly say that I don't circulate any "pure" copies of my recording.  I resample, normalize, and dither on the way to a 16 bit copy and in some cases I apply a conservative HPF to the 16-bit version so that it is listenable on normal stereos or in a car. I will occasionally edit out serious crowd issues.  That is all processing so not a bit perfect copy of my master.  Why anyone would prefer to normalize and resample in the analog domain is beyond me.



I wonder if the OP ever got his digital copy? 

[OldNeumanntapr]

quote
The fact is that you've added an analog generation to your digital recording.  But if the audio quality doesn't matter to you, that's fantastic.  But for some of us, it does matter.

I have to ask though, if people for have been saying this to you (for over 10 years), don't you think they might be onto something???
......
What it comes down to is this:  there are some of us that are purists.  I want the unadulterated digital recording.  It doesn't matter to me that there is no audible difference between one or the other, which BTW, I never suggested would occur. 
quote

Oh, OK. I don't really understand your logic. On the one hand you say that 'audio quality matters', which I wholeheartedly agree with. (You seem to infer that an RCA->RCA transfer will degrade the sound)  But then in another post you say that there is most likely no audible difference, and you just want an exact bit copy of the original.  So the only thing I can think is that it looks better on paper to you do have a 'pure' digital transfer, even though you mention the example of a screaming patron near you on an audience recording. This really makes no sense to me, but again, that is your preference. (I would think that a rowdy crowd would impact a recording far more than a difference in transfer would.) If you want the 'purest' sound of all, why tape audience recordings at all and instead, record through the soundboard? (If purity of sound is the top priority.)  But, you've said that purity of the 'experience' is top priority. I can understand that.

I guess my point is that, reading some of these posts, people looking for advice come away with the idea that a 'pure digital transfer' is the ONLY way that it should be done, and that anything else is frowned upon. It seems to me that there are a lot of other factors that lead to a good recording, ie; microphone placement, position in the venue, etc. This is the last post I am going to make about this. I'm not trying to upset anyone or change anyones mind. I just think that all this is silly.

[Jimna]

I say live and let live.  All that matters is that details be included in text files so the collector can make an informed decision.

oh and if your tape sounds better hands down nothing else matters IMO.

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

The fact is that you've added an analog generation to your digital recording.  But if the audio quality doesn't matter to you, that's fantastic.  But for some of us, it does matter.

I have to ask though, if people for have been saying this to you (for over 10 years), don't you think they might be onto something???
......
What it comes down to is this:  there are some of us that are purists.  I want the unadulterated digital recording.  It doesn't matter to me that there is no audible difference between one or the other, which BTW, I never suggested would occur. 

I guess my point is that, reading some of these posts, people looking for advice come away with the idea that a 'pure digital transfer' is the ONLY way that it should be done, and that anything else is frowned upon.

I just think that all this is silly.

I wouldn't say its the ONLY way to go, obviously what you are doing works...

I just don't understand the logic of re-digitizing a digital recording.  This seems "silly" to me.  But if you find an advantage to doing it that way, by all means continue to do so...

Terry