Topic: Seems obvious, but I need and answer...

[greenone]

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.]

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]

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

very very true. 

[F.O.Bean]

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

[HARPER]

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!]

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.