Open offer to JL and PE, "in the name of microtonality"

boys:

{Jacky, you wrote...}
>Will somebody with a way to transfer Paul's mini-disk to mp3, please
>step forward, in the name of microtonality? There must be someone out
>there with one of these things, who can run it into their soundcard.

I can, and will, do the conversions. To keep good signal-to-noise ratio, write me off-list as to the details (I'll give you my mailing address, you tell me what sample rate you want the mp3's in, titles, etc.)

>Dang - don't record in this format again Paul! }: )

Nonono. It is a very handy tool: pretty darn good recordings, easy to setup, instant access to tracks (unlike cassette), etc. There is NO good reason to not document live gigs and concerts at this point with a tool like a mini-disk, field-recording style...

Cheers,
Jon

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> boys:
>
> {Jacky, you wrote...}
> >Will somebody with a way to transfer Paul's mini-disk to mp3,
please
> >step forward, in the name of microtonality? There must be someone
out
> >there with one of these things, who can run it into their
soundcard.
>
> I can, and will, do the conversions. To keep good signal-to-noise
ratio,
> write me off-list as to the details (I'll give you my mailing
address, you
> tell me what sample rate you want the mp3's in, titles, etc.)

Jon,

Thanks for offering to do this for Paul. I would recommend recording
them into your sound card @ 44.1 k, and "normalize" the waves
afterwards to about -.03 dBs. When you encode the MP3s, make them at
the standard 128 kbs. This is the way MP3.com likes them.

Since with this method, you may be unable to do a digital transfer,
if you have a compressor available, you may want to route the outputs
to this, so as to avoid possible clipping at loud peaks.

At last report, John Starrett has possession of these disks.

>
> >Dang - don't record in this format again Paul! }: )
>
> Nonono. It is a very handy tool: pretty darn good recordings, easy
to
> setup, instant access to tracks (unlike cassette), etc. There is NO
good
> reason to not document live gigs and concerts at this point with a
tool
> like a mini-disk, field-recording style...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

This is a good point - I still use a DAT for this. Was just hoping to
hear his music more quickly.

Jacky

> > setup, instant access to tracks (unlike cassette), etc. There is NO
> good
> > reason to not document live gigs and concerts at this point with a
> tool
> > like a mini-disk, field-recording style...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
> >
>
> This is a good point - I still use a DAT for this. Was just hoping to
> hear his music more quickly.
>
> Jacky
>

To me the big down-side to Minidisc is that it uses a lossy compression
algorithm to fit the data onto the disc. I would say in general that DAT is
preffereable.

Todd

Todd Wilcox wrote:
>
> > > setup, instant access to tracks (unlike cassette), etc. There is NO
> > good
> > > reason to not document live gigs and concerts at this point with a
> > tool
> > > like a mini-disk, field-recording style...
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jon
> > >
> >
> > This is a good point - I still use a DAT for this. Was just hoping to
> > hear his music more quickly.
> >
> > Jacky
> >
>
> To me the big down-side to Minidisc is that it uses a lossy compression
> algorithm to fit the data onto the disc. I would say in general that DAT is
> preffereable.

I'm not defending the mini-disk but my Sony DATman has major
problems with the heads getting clogged.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

[Jacky Ligon wrote:]
>>Will somebody with a way to transfer Paul's mini-disk to mp3, please
>>step forward, in the name of microtonality? There must be someone out
>>there with one of these things, who can run it into their soundcard.

[Jonathan M. Szanto:]
>I can, and will, do the conversions. To keep good signal-to-noise
>ratio, write me off-list as to the details (I'll give you my mailing
>address, you tell me what sample rate you want the mp3's in, titles,
>etc.)

Thanks for volunteering, Jon.

[Jacky:]
>>Dang - don't record in this format again Paul! }: )

[Jon:]
>Nonono. It is a very handy tool: pretty darn good recordings, easy to
>setup, instant access to tracks (unlike cassette), etc. There is NO
>good reason to not document live gigs and concerts at this point with a
>tool like a mini-disk, field-recording style...

I'm curious. Later posts also brought up DAT as an option for making
live recordings, and pointed out that mini-disks are "lossy" to some
extent. Questions:

. Just how "lossy" are mini-disks? I've heard they're pretty good,
but have no direct experience with them.

. Just how reliable are DAT's? A list member a while back warned
that they can die suddenly. Are they extremely reliable when first
recorded, so that digital transfer can be used to copy them to hard
drives and/or CD's?

. Do mini-disk players support digital out, or only analog out?

. How long will mini-disks be supported?

. How long will DAT's be supported?

. How much do reasonable quality recorders for each cost? How about
media? Both are re-writeable, aren't they?

JdL

JdL asked:
> I'm curious. Later posts also brought up DAT as an option for making
> live recordings, and pointed out that mini-disks are "lossy" to some
> extent. Questions:
>
> . Just how "lossy" are mini-disks? I've heard they're pretty good,
> but have no direct experience with them.

Here's a source I found quickly:
http://www.hip.atr.co.jp/~eaw/minidisc/aes_atrac.html

The first paragraph of this page mentions that the compression algorithm
(ATRAC) uses psycho-acoustic principles. That means the compression scheme
would be similar to MP3 compression. Most people feel MP3s sound just like
CDs, but others (like myself) claim to detect annoying artifacts of the data
compression.

> . Just how reliable are DAT's? A list member a while back warned
> that they can die suddenly. Are they extremely reliable
> when first
> recorded, so that digital transfer can be used to copy
> them to hard
> drives and/or CD's?

Any magnetic medium will fail sooner or later. With DAT, there is actual
contact between the read/write head and the tape, so frequent recording
and/or playback on a DAT will decrease its longevity. That being said, once
a DAT or Minidisc (also magnetic) is recorded, it is bound to fail sooner or
later. I've never seen a DAT fail on its first reading after being recorded,
so transfering to a hard drive from DAT is certainly reliable. I doubt
there's a big reliability difference between the two formats, unless
Minidisc heads do not touch the disc, which I find unlikely.

> . Do mini-disk players support digital out, or only analog out?

Like DAT machines, some players will have digital out (and maybe even
inputs) and some won't.

> . How long will mini-disks be supported?

Hard to say. That would depend on the success of the format, which in my
mind is in question at this time. I believe Minidisc is a proprietary
Sony-only technology, so it's success in a mass market sense will be limited
by that, in my opinion. Frankly, as NVRAM prices drop over time, systems
with similar sound quality and no moving parts, like the Diamond Rio, may
very well supercede the Minidisc. Sony itself may even try to replace the
Minidisc with its memory stick technology, which is also proprietary.

> . How long will DAT's be supported?

This technology is fairly well entrenched. Because it records PCM,
professional and corporate studios use DAT all the time. The number of DAT
machines on the market is staggering, and almost identical technology is
used for data backups in the IT community. DAT is also faster in terms of
data throughput than magneto-optical technologies, so far, even though it is
restricted to linear access. Probably DAT will live until it is replaced by
systems with no moving parts (currently expensive NVRAM), or by much faster
magneto-optical systems (like some kind of super DVD-RAM that holds more
data and is ten times faster). Both of those technologies are years away,
I'd say.

> . How much do reasonable quality recorders for each cost?
> How about
> media? Both are re-writeable, aren't they?
>

Both are rewritable. Like any technology, cost will vary so wildly with
features and quality that it's hard to say. There's a FABULOUS Tascam
portable stereo DAT recorder with built-in phantom power, S/PDIF, dual XLR
inputs and the works for $1200. Studios may spend more than $5000 for a
rack-mountable DAT player with shuttle dial and the works, and you should be
able to get a decent Sony DAT player for around $500. www.fullcompass.com
definitly will list DAT players, and probably lists Minidisc players and
media for both.

Todd

Thanks, Todd, for your very detailed response to my questions about
DAT vs. mini-disk. My guess is that many on this list are interested,
as I am, in recording options for our (and others') work. I have a
soundcard capable of A/D conversion and a CD burner, so that's my main
method, but it's not portable.

One thing you said surprised me:

>DAT is also faster in terms of data throughput than magneto-optical
>technologies, so far, even though it is restricted to linear access.

What kind of speed are we talking about here? CD-R's and CD-RW's can
be read on some drives at 10x or 20x times audio speed (which for CD
quality PCM is 176400 bytes/sec) - can DAT really beat that?

Thanks again.

JdL

JdL wrote:
> One thing you said surprised me:
>
> >DAT is also faster in terms of data throughput than magneto-optical
> >technologies, so far, even though it is restricted to linear access.
>
> What kind of speed are we talking about here? CD-R's and CD-RW's can
> be read on some drives at 10x or 20x times audio speed (which for CD
> quality PCM is 176400 bytes/sec) - can DAT really beat that?

Well, I confess I was referring to write speed, not read speed. Of course,
when recording, write speed and access is critical. DATs can be written to
by high end technology at tens of MB per second. In addition, I don't
believe any CD burners available yet allow pauses in the middle of burning,
at least not without leaving audible artifacts, which is another big
liability in terms of recording.
To me, CD-R is ideal for archiving, since it's not magnetic, and therefore
will not degrade while simply sitting on a shelf. Of course, the format is a
bit young to know how long its shelf life REALLY is, but I have printed CDs
from about 15 years ago that are still fine, whereas I haven't seen a floppy
disk more than about six years old that still works.

Todd

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17460

> Thanks, Todd, for your very detailed response to my questions about
> DAT vs. mini-disk. My guess is that many on this list are
interested,

Just as a minor aside... I went into a appliance shop the other day
looking for DAT tapes. The guy behind the counter said, "Well we
only have 30 minute ones, and that's all you can find nowadays...
since the new mini-disk came out..."

Of course it was a lie, but it shows how the new disk is affecting
thinking about DAT...
_______ ______ _ __
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@c...>
wrote:
> Just as a minor aside... I went into a appliance shop the other day
> looking for DAT tapes. The guy behind the counter said, "Well we
> only have 30 minute ones, and that's all you can find nowadays...
> since the new mini-disk came out..."
>
> Of course it was a lie, but it shows how the new disk is affecting
> thinking about DAT...
> _______ ______ _ __
> Joseph Pehrson

Joseph,

I'm glad you detected the bunk here. You can get them many places
*cheap* on the internet. Perhaps this cat doesn't surf!

Jacky

BTW: It was I, who said they will croak on you eventually - my
experience - and a sad one. {: (

Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17460
>
> > Thanks, Todd, for your very detailed response to my questions about
> > DAT vs. mini-disk. My guess is that many on this list are
> interested,
>
> Just as a minor aside... I went into a appliance shop the other day
> looking for DAT tapes. The guy behind the counter said, "Well we
> only have 30 minute ones, and that's all you can find nowadays...
> since the new mini-disk came out..."
>
> Of course it was a lie, but it shows how the new disk is affecting
> thinking about DAT...

Minidisk isn't affecting DAT as much as hard disk recorders and
dedicated
CD-R burners. When I was looking for a replacement machine last summer,
salesmen tried to talk me out of a DAT machine. Before someone jumps
forward with a comment about how salesmen just push what they get a good
commision
on, some composer friends were doing the same thing.

db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

db wrote:
> Minidisk isn't affecting DAT as much as hard disk recorders and
> dedicated
> CD-R burners. When I was looking for a replacement machine
> last summer,
> salesmen tried to talk me out of a DAT machine. Before someone jumps
> forward with a comment about how salesmen just push what they
> get a good
> commision
> on, some composer friends were doing the same thing.

Personally, for fixed installations I'd agree with the salesman that DAT or
even ADAT is a waste of money and effort. Hard disk recording has so many
advantages over moving tape that it's just not a contest.

To me, DAT vs. minidisc is a portable question. I'd say Minidisc is best for
situations where one simply wants to take audio notes or reminders for
future ideas or explorations, whereas DAT is a must for any recording that
may eventually end up in a completed work, and therefore sound quality is
important.

Todd

The key parameters are sample width and sample rate, with more being better
as far as audio fidelity is concerned and less being better as far as cost
is concerned. IIRC, DAT is 48K 16-bit samples per second, CD is 44.1K 16-bit
samples per second and DVD is 96K 24-bit samples per second. Hard drives are
whatever your hardware and software are capable of doing. So what are these
parameters for a "minidisk"??

--
M. Edward Borasky, Borasky Research
http://www.borasky-research.com
mailto: znmeb@borasky-research.com

"There's no fuel like an old fuel" -- the National Coal Institute

> is concerned. IIRC, DAT is 48K 16-bit samples per second, CD
> is 44.1K 16-bit
> samples per second and DVD is 96K 24-bit samples per second.
> Hard drives are
> whatever your hardware and software are capable of doing. So
> what are these
> parameters for a "minidisk"??

Ok... a little clarification is in order:
Audio CDs are always PCM at 44.1 KHz, 16 bits per sample.

A DAT is kinda like a computer hard drive, in the sense that your "software"
(in DAT players this is in the form of ROM) controls how you put data on it.
Most audio DAT applications record PCM at 16 bits per sample, and either
44.1 KHz or 48 KHz or your choice of either as sampling rates. I believe
sample sizes and sample rates are available for in DAT recorders, but I
haven't seen them. NB: if you buy a DAT player, try to get one that will let
you record 44.1 KHz, that way you won't have to do any tedious resampling if
and when you want to burn to audio CD.

DVDs are a little wierder. DVD-audio is, in fact, PCM at 96 KHz, 24 bits per
sample. However, there's a chance that DVD audio players will be made to be
able to read PCM at 44.1/16, so that a much longer program can be put on one
disc (we're talking the entire Ring cycle here). Video DVDs have audio, but
it's never 96/24. Usually you can choose between PCM 44.1/16, or Dolby AC-3
(which is not PCM and therefore doesn't really lend itself to sample rate
and size comparisons), or the DTS format (see Dolby AC-3).

Hard drives and software do allow many formats, including several sample
rate/sample sizes of PCM and others. You can even get AC-3/DTS authoring
software.

Minidisc is more like AC-3 or MP3 in the sense that it doesn't make much
sense to talk about sample sizes and sample rates. According to a site I
visited the other day, the AVERAGE bit rate for ATRAC is supposed to be 2.3
bps. That's not a sample size OR a sample rate, because in ATRAC encoding
both of those can vary, based on the psychoacoustic analysis of the program
material. If you do see sample size and/or rate information given regarding
a Minidisc player, then it most likely refers to the sampled sound prior to
encoding; the playback will not be at that quality.

Finally, as much as I love pontificating on my digital audio technology
knowledge, I feel like we may be boring the other list members, who are
probably interested in tuning. Perhaps this conversation may be taken
off-list. Also, I'm sure e-groups or topica.net have other lists devoted to
this kind of thing.

Todd