Author Topic: Seems obvious, but I need and answer... (Read 4841 times)

HARPER · « **on:** December 19, 2005, 12:14:08 PM »

Ahh...my first post.

Greetings! Harper here. I am in the process of writing a book about Lotus and am in the process of clarifying the circulation of recorded shows.

My question is this: If some one records a show directly from the soundboard with a Philips CDR778 with no analog to digital converter, that show would be a SBD recording, and not a DSBD. There has to be a A>D converter there to make it DSBD.

Am I correct? I'm pretty sure I am. There seems to be alot of Lotus labeled as DSBD recordings, just because they were recorded onto a CD-R recorder.

Thanks!

HARPER

PS. To everyone here who has recorded Lotus: you are my hero!

anhisr · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:17:28 PM »

The CDR has one

HARPER · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:19:20 PM »

So any recording using a CD-R recorder is a DSBD?

What about a Sony TCD-D8 or a Tascam DA-P1? Does there have to be a A>D converter to make it DSBD? $:-\$

greenone · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:27:03 PM »

Most soundboards don't have digital outs to begin with, which is part of the problem with a DSBD naming scheme. DSBD is normally used for any recording made to digital media (CD, DAT, hard drive) from the soundboard.

Any digital recorder with an analog input has an A>D inside it...otherwise you have no way to get from an analog signal to a digital signal!

I don't know much about the Philips CDR778, but even so, I would call SBD>CD recorder a DSBD and I think most other folks would as well.

anhisr · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:28:16 PM »

It would be complete if we knew what was used for A>D on all the DSBD that are out there but, we don't.

HARPER · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:31:04 PM »

Thanks for the help. I truely appreciate it!

Patrick · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:53:19 PM »

I thought that DSBD meant that the board had a digital out, either coax or optical. While they haven't been many, I've seen a few boards that hae digital connections.

TNJazz · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:00:34 PM »

DSBD is fine, because the CDR burner has the A>D.

However, labeling it DSBD -> (whatever) is incorrect, unless the board has a digi out.

I see a lot of stuff labeled DSBD -> DAT, which is way wrong IMO.

My .02
Dirk

anhisr · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:54:22 PM »

It should read SBD> V3 ( or whatever A>D is being used)

SparkE! · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2005, 03:19:05 PM »

I believ that DSBD is short for Digital Soundboard, so it should not be used except for in the case that the soundboard has a digital output.

bluegrass_brad · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2005, 03:45:40 PM »

from etree.wiki:
DSBD:Digital SoundBoarD recording. A recording made directly from the sound board to a digital recording device (e.g. a DAT deck or a laptop). The opposite is AUD or DAUD.

SparkE! · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2005, 05:50:24 PM »

Quote from: bluegrass_brad on December 19, 2005, 03:45:40 PM

from etree.wiki:
DSBD:Digital SoundBoarD recording. A recording made directly from the sound board to a digital recording device (e.g. a DAT deck or a laptop). The opposite is AUD or DAUD.

Notice that they say digital recording device, implying that the connected device is receiving digital information.

Quote from: Moke on December 19, 2005, 03:47:41 PM

youngsters

they were called dsbd's long before any digital boards were available.

Still seems like a misnomer to me. It makes more sense to maintain the knowledge of which device did the A/D conversion:

SBD > PCM-M1 would mean you went analog into the PCM-M1 and the A/D conversion was done in the DAT recorder
DSBD > PCM-M1 would mean that you went digital into the PCM-M1 and the A/D conversion was done in the soundboard

Either way, you end up with a Digital recording.

Patrick · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2005, 07:34:28 PM »

Quote from: SparkE! on December 19, 2005, 05:50:24 PM

SBD > PCM-M1 would mean you went analog into the PCM-M1 and the A/D conversion was done in the DAT recorder
DSBD > PCM-M1 would mean that you went digital into the PCM-M1 and the A/D conversion was done in the soundboard

That's how I see and understand it, but I'm a "youngster," so I guess I wouldn't know...

cleantone · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2005, 09:39:46 PM »

Quote

so it should not be used except for in the case that the soundboard has a digital output.

While that makes complete sense, I personally never thought that. IMO, there doesn't have to be a digital output for something to be a DSBD. I guess now that there really isn't much analog tapers it might be thought of differently to new folk. Soundboard to digital media. How picky can we be? Even digital consoles with lightpipe snakes take an analog feed from the XLR's, you know? I feel like as long as it wasn't recorded to an XL-II it is DSBD. Of course the go between should be labeled.

On another note, your writing a book about Lotus? Holy crap. I had no idea they had a book worthy following. Nice. What kind of context do you need this info for? Are you making a setlist/known recording type of thing? Or is it more biographical type of writing? Interesting.

Ed. · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2005, 09:46:00 PM »

"seems obvious" but its really not. Great thread and very informative! +t's all around.

greenone · « **Reply #15 on:** December 19, 2005, 09:56:18 PM »

Quote from: Moke on December 19, 2005, 03:47:41 PM

youngsters

they were called dsbd's long before any digital boards were available.

My reasoning exactly - I like the SBD>DAT or SBD>V3 denomination better than DSBD, but given the choice between SBD and DSBD for any type of soundboard feed to a digital recorder, the DSBD abbreviation pre-dates boards with digital outputs and it'd be way confusing to redefine DSBD now. If you really want to say that it's a digital feed, I'd say SBD>S/PDIF coax>recorder or SBD>TOSlink>recorder or SBD>AES>recorder.

Ed. · « **Reply #16 on:** December 19, 2005, 10:03:49 PM »

Quote from: Moke on December 19, 2005, 10:01:20 PM

now to the real question,.... why go sbd? :ducks:

exactamundo! I tape a lot of local bands and when I contact them to see if they want a copy of their show they ask me if its a soundboard. My response is always "no, its better than a sbd, I'll send you a copy and you can see for yourself."

after they listen, they always seem to agree.

Patrick · « **Reply #17 on:** December 19, 2005, 10:22:28 PM »

Quote from: Moke on December 19, 2005, 10:01:20 PM

now to the real question,.... why go sbd? :ducks:

very very true.

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #18 on:** December 19, 2005, 11:59:42 PM »

for lotus, screw the dsbd's anyway and d/l grider and mine onstage stuff

HARPER · « **Reply #19 on:** December 20, 2005, 08:44:52 AM »

Cleartone,

It's both. 1998-present of setlists, a fair amount of recorded shows, and the fan base to boot, for sure. As far as recorded shows, for now all I'm adding is from source > media info and who recorded it. Seperate section for setlists, a history, and a slew of other goodies. Im sure the first version will be rough, but the first step is the hardest.

SparkE! · « **Reply #20 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:45:09 PM »

Quote from: cleantone on December 19, 2005, 09:39:46 PM

Quote
so it should not be used except for in the case that the soundboard has a digital output.

While that makes complete sense, I personally never thought that. IMO, there doesn't have to be a digital output for something to be a DSBD. I guess now that there really isn't much analog tapers it might be thought of differently to new folk. Soundboard to digital media. How picky can we be? Even digital consoles with lightpipe snakes take an analog feed from the XLR's, you know? I feel like as long as it wasn't recorded to an XL-II it is DSBD. Of course the go between should be labeled.

This topic has also been debated in other forums. I think the general consensus remains that DSBD can mean one of two things, depending on whether you are talking about othe recording itself or whether you are trying to identify a particular type of equipment.

1. DSBD can refer to a digital recording whose source is the soundboard. This is the case argued by moke and several others here. It is common to use this designation when the exact recording chain is unknown. For example someone in the middle of a digital daisy chain coming from the soundboard may not know all of the equipment ahead of his, so his recording is classified as DSBD. Often that designation (incorrectly, in my opinion) also ends up as part of the lineage information. For example: DSBD > PCM-M1 when in fact the chain may have been much longer than that, but the taper happens to own a PCM-M1. In this case, DSBD only means that the taper's equipment recorded a digital signal whose source was ultimately the output of a soundboard. I'd personally like to see this written as SBD > digital daisy chain > PCM-M1 or SBD > unknown A/D > chain > PCM-M1 or SBD > taper chain > PCM-M1 or something else that shows it is a digital recording derived from the soundboard signal.

2. DSBD can refer to a soundboard whose output is digital. This is the case argued by myself and others. The idea is that this identifies the specific type of equipment used in the chain, not simply that the recording was digitally recorded.

So, I agree that DSBD has been used as a designation of a digitally stored soundboard recording. However, I'll also argue that the DSBD used in that manner should not be part of the designation of the equipment lineage used to make the recording. So, sure, call the recording itself a DSBD recording, but don't call the soundboard a DSBD unless it has digital outputs and you are taking your signal from those outputs.