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.