Topic: DAT vs JB3 question

[fozzy]

wtf

     etree.org Community Bittorrent Tracker         
      
         no such torrent

he pulled it, wtf.  guess we hurt his feelings.  I didn't bother to d/l but i'd love to seed it for you mark if you are not planning on it

[silentmark]

I haven't got around to the transfer yet, but once I do I'll be in touch, thanks ...

Heh I wish he didn't pull it as I would have been curious if he even responded anymore ...

[silentmark]

Heh I see another seed by this guy http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=12783 but I think he got the point as he is not listed as "taper" ...

[hexyjones]

the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???

There are anecdotal reports of the CO2 producing artifacts - dropped or misplaced samples - with certain gear combinations and powering options.  At any rate, simple digital format converters don't resample, though they have the potential to introduce artifacts.

Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!

You may (or may not) be suprised to find Mr tOdDoW is a good friend of mine - I assure you he is not as dumb as his etree posts make him sound...

I find that a lot of the younger guys - who have had CDs their whole lives - have a harder time grasping basic concepts of analog vs digital signals - older guys - like myself grew up on analog. So when CD came out - there was a great interest to understand the technology, and it really helped already haveing a strong understanding of analog signals.

I have a set of mics that I plan of passing on to tOdDoW...once he does the whole job himself - Im sure his viewpoint will change...

FWIW - I never put my name on anything I tape - I dont know why - I just think its too much of an obvious attempt to associate myself with someone elses greatness...

FWIW2 - I had noticed tOdDoWs tendency to dismiss the actual taper on other seeds - I knew sooner or later he would get his ass bit.  I told him he should give the lead taper some time make the transfer. If the recording doesnt surface in a certain amount of time - then seed yours...I think there should be some etiquet when seeding "patched" recordings...at least ask the lead taper if he plans on seeding...

[silentmark]

Well I can tell you this, friend or not, dumb or not (even though all you have to do is ask someone who is tuned in or just search the web and read or just come here  ), I highly doubt I will give him a patch the next time I'm in town, shrug, lesson learned ...

Fozzy - I have the raw transfer done, just need to listen again and track it out, stay tuned ...

[John R]

bummer i missed all the bruhaha, love reading free entertainment on the internet

TOD²OW!_©]  << that handle is entertaining and hard to look at for too long, must be hell to enter, unless he keeps it permanently on a clipboard

[Tim]

the CO2 isn't even bit-perfect, correct???

There are anecdotal reports of the CO2 producing artifacts - dropped or misplaced samples - with certain gear combinations and powering options. At any rate, simple digital format converters don't resample, though they have the potential to introduce artifacts.

Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!

You may (or may not) be suprised to find Mr tOdDoW is a good friend of mine -

So are you still defending the CO2? Have you run any actual tests? Every test that Jamie Lutch ran showed dropped and missed samples. Can you demonstrate that the CO2 no longer drops or misses samples?

[Brian Skalinder]

Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!

No, not really.  The fact remains:  no one - with any combination of gear, under any circumstances - has ever proved the CO2 bit-transparent.

[SparkE!]

Hmmm...do I detect a softening of your position on the CO2 thing? That I can agree with...!

No, not really.  The fact remains:  no one - with any combination of gear, under any circumstances - has ever proved the CO2 bit-transparent.

Yeah, and I'm still wishing that someone would take enough time to do a little reverse engineering on the CO2 and publish the schematic.   It really makes me wonder what could possibly be going on that it would not send a bit literal copy of what went into the box, unless it just doesn't drive the output LED hard enough to reliably send the 1's in the bit stream.  The concept should be pretty simple:

When you receive a logical high voltage = Turn the LED on
When you receive a logical low voltage = Turn the LED off

Seems like it would take a horrible design concept to screw that one up.

FWIW, I posted a schematic for the ODL-276 on this thread:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=36146.0;all

Reposted here:



Hopefully, someone will eventually post a schematic for the CO2.  I'd feel a lot better about the CO2 bashing if someone could actually point out the design flaw that is responsible for the reports of non bit perfect transfers using the CO2.

[fozzy]

i wonder if the CO2 just has a crappy optical TX or if they forgot the capacitor.  Hopefully someone can atleast post a picture of the internals.  converting coax to optical is fairly trivial the only additional thing you need is +5v or +3.3v to power the optical TX. 

[hexyjones]

here is the other side of the CO2 -

[SparkE!]

What's the part number on the chip right below the "MID" in  MIDIMAN?

[silentmark]

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=12783

Well I will not be giving this person a patch ever again, I don't know if I should respond or just let it go ...

[Nick Graham]

TAHT GUYS FUKED UP!1!!!1 H3 PUT WAY 2 MANY LOL AND LMAO IN HIS POSTS 2 TAEK SERIOUSLY1!!1 WTF

[Tony B]

"So good luck to you in your quest for "taper" recognition. Meanwhile, I'll be jammin' too some killer tunes! LMAO"


uhhhh......

Nothing really you can say to this one. It speaks volumes.

Me? I'm gonna go 'jammin' to that master I'm too lazy to BT (taper recognition be damned, I say)