Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: bc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ben Cox)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: digital recording: DAT vs. 601 (Boo to the RIAA)
Message-ID: <7666@uwm.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 90 14:59:59 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 45
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Steve_Graham@ub.cc.umich.edu writes:

>Last night, recording the U. of Mich. Men's Glee Club, I found myself using a
>Panasonic SV 3700 (I think) DAT machine.  I've seen DAT machines before, but
>this is the first one I've had any hands-on experience with.  It has a number
>of useful features and I found it a pleasure to use, though the book could be
>better--I never did find out the difference between a "skip ID" and a "start
>ID" (can anyone clarify this?)

On playback, when a skip ID is encountered, the playback will be muted and the
tape shuttled to the next start ID.  So if you recorded that dead space between
numbers where the conductor was blowing the pitch pipe for the Glee Club, or
tripped getting onto the podium, you just put a skip ID after (or before) the
applause and you won't hear it.

At UofIll we use the Sony PCM-2500A/B system which seems pretty nice, although
we have had a couple of DAT's turn up blank -- even after we watched the levels
bounce, not paused, counter moving, etc (no off-tape monitoring on DAT's yet).
Has anyone encountered this problem?

[...]
>(As an interesting aside, I was surprised to find that the "digital in" RCA
>jack on the Sony 601 could accept data from both the EIA RCA digital output
>jack, and from the AES ("professional standard") XLR digital output jack with
>equal ease, as far as I could tell.)

!

>My first impressions of the sound of the DAT machine were favorable.
>Although the comparison is unfair, during dubbing I listened to both the DAT
>and 601 via their respective headphones jacks and found the DAT much more
>enjoyable.  In comparison the Sony seemed spiky and hard, cold, "digital".
>It is unfair because the Sony had an extra d/a and a/d conversion in the
>chain, and because the headphone amps may not represent the true sound of the
>devices.  But it confirmed the general impression I had while doing the
>original recording with the DAT deck.  At the risk of sounding rather
>"California", the DAT seemed more "organic".  However, I emphasize that this
>is a first impression.

I have found, while sitting in the audio booth after recording a concert in our
Great Hall, that I often forget that what I am hearing is the recording and not
the live monitor of the hall mics.  Of course, what did I expect?  :-)
--
-- Ben Cox
bc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu