Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: hexyjones on October 28, 2004, 03:51:04 PM

Title: Is the JB3 "better digital" than DAT?
Post by: hexyjones on October 28, 2004, 03:51:04 PM

when it comes transfers - it seems like Jb3 saves a generation...

any thoughts...?

Title: Re: Is the JB3 "better digital" than DAT?
Post by: dnsacks on October 28, 2004, 04:01:18 PM

IF the Jb3 is accurately recording the underlying bitstream AND is consistently making bit-perfect transfers to the computer then it's bit-perfect.  That would be no better or worse than making bit-perfect dat>dat transfers.

Problem is that some folks have had problems with the jb3 accurately recording the digital bitstream being fed to it.

So, bottom line, bits is bits.  There's no difference between the original and a 100th gen clone of a 100th gen clone of a dat if all clones were bit perfect.  Thus, an extra digital generation if bit perfect should be meaningless and if your jb3 is making bit-perfect recordings from the digital source it's giving you the same bits as the dat (or a bit-perfect clone of the dat) --

Title: Re: Is the JB3 "better digital" than DAT?
Post by: Brian Skalinder on October 28, 2004, 04:02:45 PM

Quote from: hexyjones on October 28, 2004, 03:51:04 PM

when it comes transfers - it seems like Jb3 saves a generation...

any thoughts...?

If you're transferring properly, it's all digital and transparent, so there are no "generations" as in analog.  One of the advantages of the JB3 is fast firewire transfers vs. real-time transfers with DAT.  I can transfer a 3 hr show in ~5min, whereas it would take, well...3 hrs with DAT.

Title: Re: Is the JB3 "better digital" than DAT?
Post by: hexyjones on October 28, 2004, 04:08:20 PM

What about DAT error rates...they can get pretty high once a deck starts to wear...correct?

How does that affect "bit perfect-ness"?

Title: Re: Is the JB3 "better digital" than DAT?
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on October 28, 2004, 04:08:52 PM

The only advantage the JB3 would have over DAT in "generational" thinking would be the miniscule chance that the DAT has problems being read during the playback>transfer process.  Sure you may have a good tape, but if your playback deck has problems, then those problems will be part of the transfer.

With the Nomad, and perhaps other HD recorders, this "transfer" has already been done when the info was recorded to the internal HD.  Sure there may be problems during the transfer from the internal HD to you computer's HD, but more than likely not...

Is one better than the other?  I'd actually say they each have pros and cons vs. the other:

DAT is proven and works very well.  JB3 is new and can be tempermental.  DAT is obsolete, HD recorders ar ethe new wave.  DAT is known to be Bit-Perfect, JB3 allows fast transfer.

"Better" is subjective.  As a person wth exp. with both, I like the Nomad 3 a lot, but would love to have an M1 or D100 as my main recorder.  I like the functionality, the proven track record, etc...

Terry

Title: Re: Is the JB3 "better digital" than DAT?
Post by: Ed. on October 28, 2004, 09:42:32 PM

i thought the njb3 was bit-perfect when fed a digital signal?

also, if you play the same DAT tape over and over again, won't the tape itself get bad in time.  If you taped with the same tape twice, the quality degrades, at least with mini dv tapes (not the same, but both digital).  wouldn't the quality degrade over time with enuf use?  granted thats a lot of use, but its possible, right?

then again, countless things could happen to the njb3 hdd.  the pros and cons are endless, i think its more or less what you think is better.

Title: Re: Is the JB3 "better digital" than DAT?
Post by: John R on November 03, 2004, 10:46:25 PM

i believe the 'good' moderator posted a pro/con comparison of p;ayers around here somewhere

here it is:  http://www.taperssection.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29057.0