Seems obvious, but I need and answer...

[HARPER]

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]

The CDR has one

[HARPER]

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]

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]

 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]

Thanks for the help. I truely appreciate it!

[Patrick]

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]

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]

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

[SparkE!]

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]

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!]

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.

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]

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]

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.]

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