ADATXT Blackface to another ADATLX20 or XT20?
- Thread starter alba359
- Start date
Blue Bear Sound
New member
You can get the newer units - but you will still need to use 16-bit formatting for tape and sync compatibility.
Bruce
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound
New member
No... it means format as 16-bit even on the new machines (the new units can format both 16 and 20 bit)
Bruce
Bruce
sonusman
Banned
As I recall Bruce, you can actually run the 20 bit machines at 20 bit while syncing to a 16 bit machines. The bit rate has nothing to do with the syncing. Sample rate on both machines are 48KHz by default, so they should sync just fine.
The only limitation is that the 20 bit tape CANNOT be played in the 16 bit machine.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this, but I don't think I am.....
Ed
The only limitation is that the 20 bit tape CANNOT be played in the 16 bit machine.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this, but I don't think I am.....
Ed
Blue Bear Sound
New member
No... you're right... I wasn't thinking when I added the "sync compatibility" part... it IS the sample rate that would affect that, and it wouldn't be different between the older and new machines...
My bad................
Bruce
My bad................
Bruce
Good call Ed. It may be worth noting that what the bit rate does actually effect is the dynamic range of the medium. The dynamic range is roughly figured as 6 times the bit-rate. This is because your resolution is dependant on that amount of binary storage space you allocate for value representation. In other words, if your ADAT clock reads .013358 volts, depending on your bit-rate, it may have to truncate this number to .01
The resulting error is referred to as quantization error. Going back to our original equation, we can see that the dynamic range of your 16 bit ADAT will be 96dB… not bad. Your new 20 bit will have about a 120 dB dynamic range. So what? What the hell’s your point?!?
Record your drums and percussion instruments (even if they’re sampled) onto the 20 bit adats. That’s where you will need the extra headroom. 24 dB will go a LONG way to giving you some padding for those initial transients.
BTW… When some moron comes to tell you should ditch your 16 and go all 20 bit, remind them that Alanis Morissette’s multi-platinum “Jagged Little Pill” was recorded solely on those old Blackface adats (using the stock converters and clock!)
Hope that helps!
Brad Gallagher
http://www.just-for-musicians.com
The resulting error is referred to as quantization error. Going back to our original equation, we can see that the dynamic range of your 16 bit ADAT will be 96dB… not bad. Your new 20 bit will have about a 120 dB dynamic range. So what? What the hell’s your point?!?
Record your drums and percussion instruments (even if they’re sampled) onto the 20 bit adats. That’s where you will need the extra headroom. 24 dB will go a LONG way to giving you some padding for those initial transients.
BTW… When some moron comes to tell you should ditch your 16 and go all 20 bit, remind them that Alanis Morissette’s multi-platinum “Jagged Little Pill” was recorded solely on those old Blackface adats (using the stock converters and clock!)
Hope that helps!
Brad Gallagher
http://www.just-for-musicians.com
sonusman
Banned
Well Brad, I surely wish the math equated into actual real world numbers in converter world. It would be awesome if the 20 bit machines had a real world dynamic range of 120dB!!! It would be awesome of MOST converters had this kind of capability.
But, your point about "dithering" WHILE recording is quite true, and is a good case in point about higher bit depth in digital recording. It truely IS a good idea to put highly dynamic instruments, such as drums and vocals on higher bit depths. This is not to say that EVERYTHING doesn't benefit from higher bit depth. Surely it does, and I have heard with my own ears some of it's benefits.
I do have to say though that higher bit depths tend to mean a "bit" less (har har....that is funny...bit less....) when you are going to mix in the analog world. If you are using a digital mixer, or mixing in software, the higher bit depths means ALOT more to the overall outcome. To illustrate:
When I first started working at the current studio I am at (housing a Yamaha O2R mixer....) I was wondering why my mixes that were going out the D/A sounded very much different than what I was monitoring. No, it wasn't a huge thing, just a slight weirdness in how the DSP sounded played back. I KNOW that my Lynx cards converters play back pretty much EXACTLY what I heard monitoring.
Turns out that the O2R was dithering to 16 bit because the owner usually mixed to DAT tape where he would need this to happen, but since I was outputting the mixer to a Drawmer, then to a soundcard, I didn't need this dithering at 16 bit. I switched it to 20 bit, and oh my!!! We had to make several changes to the mix because the dithering changed. We could actually HEAR the difference. We then compared the mix that was optimized for 20 bit dithering by changing the dithering to 16 bit dithering again. Oh my!!! You could hear the difference again!!! Not as much depth, and the EQ's tended to sound a bit more sterile and cold. Now I have to remember to check this setting depending upon how I am mixing. If I am mixing to DAT (I don't care for this way, but have to do it sometimes because I don't pull in my computer to the studio unless the client really has a project that warrants it) I have to set 16 bit dithering. If I am mixing out of the Stereo outputs to my soundcard, I set it to 20.
Anyway, just a little ramble. It will be nice when you can just record in damn 24 bit 96KHz sampling rate and just keep it there. Dithering implications and sample rate conversion anamolies are a drag to deal with when I have to mix in the digital world. Of course, my trusty old Soundcraft Ghost console saves me from these things....
Have some mixes coming up that I will be using it on again, and the O2R will be for some very specialized things but still outputting to the Ghost at mix. So, sample rate will not be an issue anymore.
A little side note about the Type I and Type II ADAT's. I have found that the Type I's are less prone to problems!!! I don't get as many tape errors on them, and the transports, while slower in Rewind and Fast Forward, seem to sync more reliably, and don't break down as much. ALL the Type I machines I have ever used worked very well. Only about half of the XT versions I have used worked well.
Also, I have noticed that on the Type II machines, here and there, I get a sound that seems to just "flatten out". Not sure how else to describe it. A certain hit on a drum, or vocal part will just sound REALLY funny, like a punch in, even though there is no punch in at the spot. I have heard this in several recordings I have done and am at loss to figure out why it happens. It is almost like the recorder just didn't quite catch all the sound or something. It has happened with several brands of tape, and with record levels that went from -40 to -2. Two other engineers have heard the same thing after I pointed it out, and we have solo'ed the track to try to ascertain what the problem was. We are unable to figure it out. This has happened on 5 different machines.
Maybe soon here, some of these harddisk recorders are really going to step up and offer a package that is worthy of investment. Currently, none of these systems seem to offer everything I feel a professional recording studio really needs to function in a high quality way to warrant their cost.
We shall see what we see in the next year.....
Ed
But, your point about "dithering" WHILE recording is quite true, and is a good case in point about higher bit depth in digital recording. It truely IS a good idea to put highly dynamic instruments, such as drums and vocals on higher bit depths. This is not to say that EVERYTHING doesn't benefit from higher bit depth. Surely it does, and I have heard with my own ears some of it's benefits.
I do have to say though that higher bit depths tend to mean a "bit" less (har har....that is funny...bit less....) when you are going to mix in the analog world. If you are using a digital mixer, or mixing in software, the higher bit depths means ALOT more to the overall outcome. To illustrate:
When I first started working at the current studio I am at (housing a Yamaha O2R mixer....) I was wondering why my mixes that were going out the D/A sounded very much different than what I was monitoring. No, it wasn't a huge thing, just a slight weirdness in how the DSP sounded played back. I KNOW that my Lynx cards converters play back pretty much EXACTLY what I heard monitoring.
Turns out that the O2R was dithering to 16 bit because the owner usually mixed to DAT tape where he would need this to happen, but since I was outputting the mixer to a Drawmer, then to a soundcard, I didn't need this dithering at 16 bit. I switched it to 20 bit, and oh my!!! We had to make several changes to the mix because the dithering changed. We could actually HEAR the difference. We then compared the mix that was optimized for 20 bit dithering by changing the dithering to 16 bit dithering again. Oh my!!! You could hear the difference again!!! Not as much depth, and the EQ's tended to sound a bit more sterile and cold. Now I have to remember to check this setting depending upon how I am mixing. If I am mixing to DAT (I don't care for this way, but have to do it sometimes because I don't pull in my computer to the studio unless the client really has a project that warrants it) I have to set 16 bit dithering. If I am mixing out of the Stereo outputs to my soundcard, I set it to 20.
Anyway, just a little ramble. It will be nice when you can just record in damn 24 bit 96KHz sampling rate and just keep it there. Dithering implications and sample rate conversion anamolies are a drag to deal with when I have to mix in the digital world. Of course, my trusty old Soundcraft Ghost console saves me from these things....
Have some mixes coming up that I will be using it on again, and the O2R will be for some very specialized things but still outputting to the Ghost at mix. So, sample rate will not be an issue anymore.A little side note about the Type I and Type II ADAT's. I have found that the Type I's are less prone to problems!!! I don't get as many tape errors on them, and the transports, while slower in Rewind and Fast Forward, seem to sync more reliably, and don't break down as much. ALL the Type I machines I have ever used worked very well. Only about half of the XT versions I have used worked well.
Also, I have noticed that on the Type II machines, here and there, I get a sound that seems to just "flatten out". Not sure how else to describe it. A certain hit on a drum, or vocal part will just sound REALLY funny, like a punch in, even though there is no punch in at the spot. I have heard this in several recordings I have done and am at loss to figure out why it happens. It is almost like the recorder just didn't quite catch all the sound or something. It has happened with several brands of tape, and with record levels that went from -40 to -2. Two other engineers have heard the same thing after I pointed it out, and we have solo'ed the track to try to ascertain what the problem was. We are unable to figure it out. This has happened on 5 different machines.
Maybe soon here, some of these harddisk recorders are really going to step up and offer a package that is worthy of investment. Currently, none of these systems seem to offer everything I feel a professional recording studio really needs to function in a high quality way to warrant their cost.
We shall see what we see in the next year.....
Ed
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Just to add to your observations on the Type II ADATs sync reliability. Sync seems to be more of a problem when not using the BRC... Before getting the BRC, I'd experience odd glitches here and there with tapes going out of record spontaneously, or not dropping into record on a punch-in....
The problems have disappeared since I started using a BRC.............
2nd... I have since discovered that a great majority of sync problems have nothing to do with the sync mechanism or s/w, but simply have to do with bad or poorly formatted tapes. In a multi-unit setup, the XTs really only like playing back tapes formatted in their own machines.... I used to use 1 machine to do all my formatting, and I would always seem to have occasional sync glitches periodically in other machines until I realized it.
Also... when using multiple tapes in multiple machines (as in 16/24/32 tracks, etc...) It's a good idea to format the series in each intended machine all at the same time to ensure optimum sync timing across the series of tapes..........
Bruce
The problems have disappeared since I started using a BRC.............
2nd... I have since discovered that a great majority of sync problems have nothing to do with the sync mechanism or s/w, but simply have to do with bad or poorly formatted tapes. In a multi-unit setup, the XTs really only like playing back tapes formatted in their own machines.... I used to use 1 machine to do all my formatting, and I would always seem to have occasional sync glitches periodically in other machines until I realized it.
Also... when using multiple tapes in multiple machines (as in 16/24/32 tracks, etc...) It's a good idea to format the series in each intended machine all at the same time to ensure optimum sync timing across the series of tapes..........
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Yeah sure Ed.... you could have told me that A LOT sooner (like 2 years ago!) -- woulda saved me some frustration!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Ed, your point is well noted. I have noticed a big difference in the audio quality between 16 and 20 bit converters. However, it has little or nothing to do with the resolution. Judging from the little I have read and heard, I am much more inclined to believe that these are results of clock errors.
On another note, there is no reason why you should ever need a 96 k sampling rate. Any given sampling rate is able to reproduce a frequency two times the sampling rate. This frequency (the Nyquist frequency) dictates the highest frequency that can be represented without aliasing (foldover). To prevent foldover, we use low-pass filtering in the circuitry. The real world logistics of these filters mean that instead we get about 40 percent instead of fifty. 48kHz can more than represent 20-20 (which is more than most adult males can hear anyway). 44.1 is just a hair away, utilizing a more complicated D/A converter layout.
If someone is selling 96k gear, it is either to compensate for poor filters or as marketing hype. BTW, I always found all our ADATs to be rather finicky. They always locked up fast or slow depending on the time of year, humidity, and phase of the moon ;-) Usually the slow phase happens when there are clients in the control room!
Brad Gallagher
http://www.just-for-musicians.com
On another note, there is no reason why you should ever need a 96 k sampling rate. Any given sampling rate is able to reproduce a frequency two times the sampling rate. This frequency (the Nyquist frequency) dictates the highest frequency that can be represented without aliasing (foldover). To prevent foldover, we use low-pass filtering in the circuitry. The real world logistics of these filters mean that instead we get about 40 percent instead of fifty. 48kHz can more than represent 20-20 (which is more than most adult males can hear anyway). 44.1 is just a hair away, utilizing a more complicated D/A converter layout.
If someone is selling 96k gear, it is either to compensate for poor filters or as marketing hype. BTW, I always found all our ADATs to be rather finicky. They always locked up fast or slow depending on the time of year, humidity, and phase of the moon ;-) Usually the slow phase happens when there are clients in the control room!
Brad Gallagher
http://www.just-for-musicians.com
Hey Ed... I never said any sampling rate will do. What you're hearing has nothing to do with the difference in sampling rate. The truth is it's just hard to do anything 48,000 times a second at perfect intervals. If I had time like that, I'd be more of a musician and less of an engineer!!!
I just finished writing this article today. In fact, this thread kind of inspired it. I haven't had time to do a whole lot of proofreading, but you'll get the basic idea. It addresses many of the things we've been talking about. Let me know what you think. I'm gonna link it on the forum here, to get some responses, but I'm not linking it on my site. http://www.just-for-musicians.com/digital-audio.html
I may sell off the first electronic/print rights. Do you know anybody? Thanks.
Brad Gallagher
http://www.just-for-musicians.com
I just finished writing this article today. In fact, this thread kind of inspired it. I haven't had time to do a whole lot of proofreading, but you'll get the basic idea. It addresses many of the things we've been talking about. Let me know what you think. I'm gonna link it on the forum here, to get some responses, but I'm not linking it on my site. http://www.just-for-musicians.com/digital-audio.html
I may sell off the first electronic/print rights. Do you know anybody? Thanks.
Brad Gallagher
http://www.just-for-musicians.com