How Many People Are Using Cassettes Here?

[TalismanRich]

Smithers, DCC and MiniDisc both used data compression to get enough music on their small formats. It's a bit like MP3 vs Wave. If Geezer Butler is wailing away on his bass, it's going to make you perceive less of the more subtle high frequencies of his hi-hat and cymbals. So, when the encoders look at the signal, it might drop out a good chunk of the highs since they are masked. If you look at MP3 files, at 128k, there's not anything above about 16K. At 320k, it will extend out to 20kHz.

I have heard the differences between 128k MP3 and the original wave file, but at by the time I got to about 224k, I ccouldn't distinguish any difference. This was some years back, and by now my hearing is much worse, so I would probably not be able to hear the difference today. Even then, it was relatively minor.

I do remember when I got my first MP3 player, and since CF cards were pretty small back then, I did a bunch of albums at 64kbs. On any half decent stereo, you could clearly hear the difference. I tried both MP3 and WMA. Both were bad. I bumped things up to 96k as a compromise between getting enough music on a 32MB CF card and acceptable quality.

It's the same as using JPEG for pictures. Take a photo at 10MP, and convert it to JPEG. Then start zooming in, and you'll start to see the difference in quality, as more and more information is dropped. You lose sharpness of edges, and fine details like hair will be "smoothed" into an indistinguishable mass. Do the process 2 or 3 times and you really see a difference. If you just load and save a BMP file, it will always be the same. The tradeoff is having a 36MB file vs a 2MB file.

 

[Smithers XKR]

AFAIK Smithers, DAT is a 'linear' digital system as CD is and .wav recording. I have never used DAT but I still have a Philips DCC machine and some still sealed blank cassettes. DCC does use a form of 'compression' which a useful but technically wrong word, the recorder uses a process similar to MP3 I believe. I have not fired it up for years but IIRC it was bloody close if not AS good as CD? 18bits I think was claimed. My son used it to store takes from the Teac and remix them. Compared to tape there was no loss of quality. You cannot of course copy tape to tape without SOME loss of dynamic range.

I also have a two Minidisc decks, a format I think never really got a chance. It would be far better in cars than cassette or CD. But like DCC MD uses a 'lossy file reduction system and so really should not be compared to the very best analogue (1st gereration 15ips master tapes) nor indeed CD. Now that you can have 32G of storage on something the size of your little fingernail for about $10.00 I see no need of MP3?

Dave.

For home recording I think the DCC is a decent machine and I like that it plays analogue cassettes, that is a nice little feature

 

[Smithers XKR]

AFAIK Smithers, DAT is a 'linear' digital system as CD is and .wav recording. I have never used DAT but I still have a Philips DCC machine and some still sealed blank cassettes. DCC does use a form of 'compression' which a useful but technically wrong word, the recorder uses a process similar to MP3 I believe. I have not fired it up for years but IIRC it was bloody close if not AS good as CD? 18bits I think was claimed. My son used it to store takes from the Teac and remix them. Compared to tape there was no loss of quality. You cannot of course copy tape to tape without SOME loss of dynamic range.

I also have a two Minidisc decks, a format I think never really got a chance. It would be far better in cars than cassette or CD. But like DCC MD uses a 'lossy file reduction system and so really should not be compared to the very best analogue (1st gereration 15ips master tapes) nor indeed CD. Now that you can have 32G of storage on something the size of your little fingernail for about $10.00 I see no need of MP3?

Dave.

I remember minidisc Dave. It was a shortlived format but it was a very much popular used format for solo artists for their backing tracks when I was playing in the bars and clubs in my band in the late 90's. The singers and duos would swear by MD backing tracks as the format had a lot more function and ease of use than backing tapes for live work. I was never convinced of the audio quality of MD in a recording environment though. I dont think the resolution and quality had moved on that much and they were superceeded quite quickly. Just a more convenient media for live work at the time IMVHO

 

[Smithers XKR]

Smithers, DCC and MiniDisc both used data compression to get enough music on their small formats. It's a bit like MP3 vs Wave. If Geezer Butler is wailing away on his bass, it's going to make you perceive less of the more subtle high frequencies of his hi-hat and cymbals. So, when the encoders look at the signal, it might drop out a good chunk of the highs since they are masked. If you look at MP3 files, at 128k, there's not anything above about 16K. At 320k, it will extend out to 20kHz.

I have heard the differences between 128k MP3 and the original wave file, but at by the time I got to about 224k, I ccouldn't distinguish any difference. This was some years back, and by now my hearing is much worse, so I would probably not be able to hear the difference today. Even then, it was relatively minor.

I do remember when I got my first MP3 player, and since CF cards were pretty small back then, I did a bunch of albums at 64kbs. On any half decent stereo, you could clearly hear the difference. I tried both MP3 and WMA. Both were bad. I bumped things up to 96k as a compromise between getting enough music on a 32MB CF card and acceptable quality.

It's the same as using JPEG for pictures. Take a photo at 10MP, and convert it to JPEG. Then start zooming in, and you'll start to see the difference in quality, as more and more information is dropped. You lose sharpness of edges, and fine details like hair will be "smoothed" into an indistinguishable mass. Do the process 2 or 3 times and you really see a difference. If you just load and save a BMP file, it will always be the same. The tradeoff is having a 36MB file vs a 2MB file.

This is really interesting stuff Talisman. I understand the terms you use but it is complicated. I like to simplify things by using dynamic compression with a rack compressor just to take the wave down a little in the dynamic range without losing any feel or changing the feel of the sound. And I like to work with a more flat EQ as a start point. It is easier to mix up than mix down IMVHO. Hope this makes some sort of sense

 

[TalismanRich]

That type of compression is totally different from data compression. Audio compression like you are talking about is simply decreasing the dynamic range. If the signal goes from 1 to 100dB, you put 2-1 compression on it and you only go from 1 to 50dB. You can then raise the overall level so that you might end up with 30-80dB range. It's still 50dB from softest to loudest.

Data cmprssn is mor lik levng out ltrs in a sntens. U cn stil read th wrds, n undrstd the meanng bt fewr letrs r used. At sm pnt u lo mny lts n mng gt lst. Ds t mk sns?

 

[Smithers XKR]

That type of compression is totally different from data compression. Audio compression like you are talking about is simply decreasing the dynamic range. If the signal goes from 1 to 100dB, you put 2-1 compression on it and you only go from 1 to 50dB. You can then raise the overall level so that you might end up with 30-80dB range. It's still 50dB from softest to loudest.

Data cmprssn is mor lik levng out ltrs in a sntens. U cn stil read th wrds, n undrstd the meanng bt fewr letrs r used. At sm pnt u lo mny lts n mng gt lst. Ds t mk sns?

I get it. Data compression vs audio compression

 

[Smithers XKR]

That type of compression is totally different from data compression. Audio compression like you are talking about is simply decreasing the dynamic range. If the signal goes from 1 to 100dB, you put 2-1 compression on it and you only go from 1 to 50dB. You can then raise the overall level so that you might end up with 30-80dB range. It's still 50dB from softest to loudest.

Data cmprssn is mor lik levng out ltrs in a sntens. U cn stil read th wrds, n undrstd the meanng bt fewr letrs r used. At sm pnt u lo mny lts n mng gt lst. Ds t mk sns?

Yes I think I understand, the data compression is different from squashing the audio waveform, the less data reduces the quality as it reduces the digital resolution therefore making the waveform less accurate wheras audio analogue compression simply reduces the dynamic range of the wave form.
Got it

 

[Smithers XKR]

That type of compression is totally different from data compression. Audio compression like you are talking about is simply decreasing the dynamic range. If the signal goes from 1 to 100dB, you put 2-1 compression on it and you only go from 1 to 50dB. You can then raise the overall level so that you might end up with 30-80dB range. It's still 50dB from softest to loudest.

Data cmprssn is mor lik levng out ltrs in a sntens. U cn stil read th wrds, n undrstd the meanng bt fewr letrs r used. At sm pnt u lo mny lts n mng gt lst. Ds t mk sns?

Something like that?

 

[Smithers XKR]

That type of compression is totally different from data compression. Audio compression like you are talking about is simply decreasing the dynamic range. If the signal goes from 1 to 100dB, you put 2-1 compression on it and you only go from 1 to 50dB. You can then raise the overall level so that you might end up with 30-80dB range. It's still 50dB from softest to loudest.

Data cmprssn is mor lik levng out ltrs in a sntens. U cn stil read th wrds, n undrstd the meanng bt fewr letrs r used. At sm pnt u lo mny lts n mng gt lst. Ds t mk sns?

If you listen to this Talisman mate.... it is supposed to be a little live jam....
But then any sound engineer can hear Paul's double tracked vocal..it is a dead giveaway mate

 

[TalismanRich]

... to say nothing of the phantom bass that George is playing on that Fender Jaguar! He must have really detuned that thing!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

There's a phenomenon called psychoacoustic masking where a tone at one frequency will render lower level tones at nearby frequencies inaudible. Audio data compression uses algorithms based on psychoacoustics to identify what parts of a recording you won't hear. That information is removed from the audio stream to make the file size smaller.

Psychoacoustics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Slouching Raymond]

Data compression is more about spotting waste, and cutting it out, without degradation of the message.
On a telephone system, you could identify the silences between words, and not bother transmitting those bits.
If it is english text you want to transmit, there is plenty of redundancy, with similar words or sequences re-occurring many times. You assign them a short code,
and just transmit the codes.
I once analyzed the format of graphics files of type '.gem', and they used compression, such as 'repeat this byte so many times'.
It is often possible to have completely lossless data compression.

 

[Smithers XKR]

Data compression is more about spotting waste, and cutting it out, without degradation of the message.
On a telephone system, you could identify the silences between words, and not bother transmitting those bits.
If it is english text you want to transmit, there is plenty of redundancy, with similar words or sequences re-occurring many times. You assign them a short code,
and just transmit the codes.
I once analyzed the format of graphics files of type '.gem', and they used compression, such as 'repeat this byte so many times'.
It is often possible to have completely lossless data compression.

Yes Ray... you hit the nail on the head here
My original query was about the Data Compression use in the original Phillips DCC system when I bought one on a budget for one third of the price of the original Sony DAT in 94. I am sure the DAT was better quality, not disputing that.
Thanks for clarifieng this. Taking out data that the ear does not hear would not affect the perceived sound.
Thanks

 

[Smithers XKR]

Data compression is more about spotting waste, and cutting it out, without degradation of the message.
On a telephone system, you could identify the silences between words, and not bother transmitting those bits.
If it is english text you want to transmit, there is plenty of redundancy, with similar words or sequences re-occurring many times. You assign them a short code,
and just transmit the codes.
I once analyzed the format of graphics files of type '.gem', and they used compression, such as 'repeat this byte so many times'.
It is often possible to have completely lossless data compression.

Just had an awful experience. This is why I am a musician and truly useless with tech and manual stuff. I have a couple of portable 8u racks. Top one has the sexy stuff ...... JV1080, midiverb, graphic, compressor, patch bay, MTC etc.

Bottom one had an ADAT and a DCC
Bought another ADAT for 90 quid.... great.... 16 track digital now and fills up the 8u rack perfect.
Didnt know that the DCC has feet on it. Opened it up and to remove the feet on it i would have to take out the circuit boards.
Bah humbug

So now the DCC has had the mounting brackets removed and will be part of the home hi fi system in the music room. Thats cool... it sits nicely on top of the CD player and it plays analogue cassettes , so all is ok.
So now looking for a nice 2u second hand DAT for mastering or even an analogue deck with good dolby, that would be cool.
I have seen a Tascam DA20 looks mint for £130. Is that worth me considering as a budget machine?
Cheers guys

 

[ecc83]

Tascam DA20 MkII

Paul White checks over the latest incarnation of an old friend.

www.soundonsound.com

An excellent machine it seems ^ But why buy 25 year old technology to record two channels? A modest Audio Interface will deliver easily AS good audio quality and any Win 7 PC or later laptop will run a 2 in 2 out interface nay bother.

In no particular order*...Focusrite 2i2, Behringer UMC 204HD, MOTU M2, Native instruments KA6 and many others.

*The KA6 has S/PDIF inputs if you want to be REALLY pikky!

Dave.

 

[Smithers XKR]

Tascam DA20 MkII

Paul White checks over the latest incarnation of an old friend.

www.soundonsound.com

An excellent machine it seems ^ But why buy 25 year old technology to record two channels? A modest Audio Interface will deliver easily AS good audio quality and any Win 7 PC or later laptop will run a 2 in 2 out interface nay bother.

In no particular order*...Focusrite 2i2, Behringer UMC 204HD, MOTU M2, Native instruments KA6 and many others.

*The KA6 has S/PDIF inputs if you want to be REALLY pikky!

Dave.

Not going for the Tascam DAT as have managed to take the brackets off the DCC and shoehorn it into the back of the rack without having to remove the feet
Will certainly look into a PC interface tho, sounds interesting. Thanks Dave

 

[ecc83]

Not going for the Tascam DAT as have managed to take the brackets off the DCC and shoehorn it into the back of the rack without having to remove the feet
Will certainly look into a PC interface tho, sounds interesting. Thanks Dave

I don't know what sort of PC you are using to talk to us friend but it is very likely to have 3.5mm stereo jack inputs and outputs (they ALL have headphone out but some, like this Lenovo T510 no input) With a pair of stereo mini jack cables to, I assume RCA you could have a dabble with computer audio recording. Download "Audacity". Naturally a proper interface will give a far more versatile setup but I bet you will be surprised at how good most 'puter sound can be!

A really cheap interface is a gizmo called a "TEKNET" Google it.

Dave.

 

[jamesperrett]

Not going for the Tascam DAT as have managed to take the brackets off the DCC and shoehorn it into the back of the rack without having to remove the feet
Will certainly look into a PC interface tho, sounds interesting. Thanks Dave

The Tascam wouldn't have fitted anyway as it is 3U high. DAT is also a fairly unreliable recording medium so I wouldn't recommend it for new users.

If you want a standalone recorder to mix down to then I'd suggest one of the portable recorders like the Zoom H2n or H4. The Zoom will also work as an audio interface with a computer if you decide you would like to go that way so you aren't limiting your options too much if you go that route.

 

[Smithers XKR]

The Tascam wouldn't have fitted anyway as it is 3U high. DAT is also a fairly unreliable recording medium so I wouldn't recommend it for new users.

If you want a standalone recorder to mix down to then I'd suggest one of the portable recorders like the Zoom H2n or H4. The Zoom will also work as an audio interface with a computer if you decide you would like to go that way so you aren't limiting your options too much if you go that route.

Thanks for the advice James, yes I have a very nice Yamaha MT8X analogue 8 track from the old days that served me well for demos 30 years ago. I think I probably am just making things difficult for myself with the old ADAT machines. I have read that the motors are a bit industrial and can cause issues. But... I would not be bothering with old tech if I did not like the challenge of overcoming problems and fixing stuff. I want to learn about and use everything I have including the free DAW I downloaded. I have set myself a 2 year learning plan.
I know I am a bit odd.
Thanks James

 

[Smithers XKR]

Tascam DA20 MkII

Paul White checks over the latest incarnation of an old friend.

www.soundonsound.com

An excellent machine it seems ^ But why buy 25 year old technology to record two channels? A modest Audio Interface will deliver easily AS good audio quality and any Win 7 PC or later laptop will run a 2 in 2 out interface nay bother.

In no particular order*...Focusrite 2i2, Behringer UMC 204HD, MOTU M2, Native instruments KA6 and many others.

*The KA6 has S/PDIF inputs if you want to be REALLY pikky!

Dave.

Yes agreed.. I will research and learn how to interface the data from the 2 ADATs into the PC DAW with an interface to master everything instead of using the DCC to master the songs to. The DCC is a very nice machine and it plays analogue cassettes as well, and trying them today they sound bloody great, but I dont think the DCC was ever really meant to be a studio mastering unit. It was not fitted with rack mount facility for 19 inch.
So I will use the DCC with my home stereo and look into a PC interface from the ADATS.
Thanks Dave