minidisk or DAT????

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mountainmirrors
  • Start date Start date
Sgt. Pepper's sounds VERY warm and full.
Not to say that Queensryche's Empire or Metallica's Black album( I'm partial to Master of Puppets) don't sound big, full and crystal clear.
Not trying to get too far off course- my last demo was recorded on a Fostex FD4 digital 4-track through a BBE Sonic Maximizer onto cassette, and the only complaints I had was the volume level. It's fine for me at home, but SOME radio stations found it to be too lo-fi.
 
Not disagreeing with you, but from a sound-quality point of view, the 4-track EMI recorders used in the Beatles days would SERIOUSLY out-perform ANY of the analog OR digital porta-studios available today.
 
I agree. no ear fatigue. it's all about warmth.
 
Also, remember too that the Beatles had a budget that could choke a horse, let alone the best technical expertise, arrangers, and players.

Cy
 
The key words are"arrangers and players".
The Beatles would sound great jamming through sewage pipes.
 
If they were using the best players they only used Billy Preston on one track.


If you do want to disect the whole DAT vs MD thing think about the longevity of the medium, The accessibily of tape sucks compared to minidisc. The atrak compression used on the minidiscs in order to make the technology possible is its only Acchillles heel. The medium is safe for years to come because in europe and japan it is a preffered medium (or so I have read). the fact that DAT isnt used for general listening by the public can kill the medium (Only music stores carry them nowdays).

I like my 24 bit minidisc machine, Although I would never make copies after 2 generations because of the atrak compression, I do subscribe to the 20 some articals Ive read in Home recording, Mix, Recording and Electronic Musician Magazines Giving favor to MD format over the DAT format.

Oh yeah Have you heard the new generation of MD? the altrak compression has had 5 generations to improve over the original one that got accolades when it came out.
 
darrin_h2000 said:
If they were using the best players they only used Billy Preston on one track.
Click to expand...

funny.. cuz I thought they used an accomplished orchestra on Sgt. Pepper :rolleyes:

Cy
 
The 4 of them were phenomenal players.
 
90% of the tallent to come from the british invasion were in the Yardbirds, Even the most tallented Beatle could only dream of having the ability of the worst Yardbird. Sorry but I dont recall any real guitar heros coming from the Beatles.
 
darrin_h2000 said:
I do subscribe to the 20 some articals Ive read in Home recording, Mix, Recording and Electronic Musician Magazines Giving favor to MD format over the DAT format.
Click to expand...
If they've favoured Minidisc over DAT (something I admit I don't recall seeing - and I subscribe to Mix, EQ, and Recording), it obviously can't be because of sound quality.

Tell me again how a lossy storage format (where audio info is literally thrown away) can outperform a format that doesn't throw away a portion of the audio signal???

I'm not really arguing with you Darrin, I know MD has its place (I use it occasionally myself for remote live recording - ATRAC 4 algorithms). It is very convenient and does sound quite good - especially when compared to cassette.

But there is a noticeable difference in sound quality between a DAT and MD that is plainly audible in A/B comparison on even a modest stereo system.

People still need to be aware of the format's limitations and not overreach its capabilities. Its sound quality approaches 16-bit/44.1Khz levels, but is not quite there, and given the current swing to 24-bit/96KHz recording technology, it's not even close!

Bruce
 
Darren- Yes. You are correct about the yardbirds-Clapton, Page + Beck...'nuff said.
My personal definition of a great musician is possibly a little different. The Beatles wrote innovative, spiritual, raw, beautiful, moving music that will never die. If that doesn't qualify them as being great musicians, I don't know what to say... If Yngwie Malmsteen was in the Beatles shredding away, gumming us to death with his toothless scales, I'd want to puke.
Instead I can close my eyes and melt into "Julia" or "I want You".
Downside- thanks for the info on DAT vs. minidisk-
I trust your insight.
 
Yardbirds = great players
Beatles = great composers, great arrangers, good lyrics, good players.

I know which one I would rather listen to.

As for MD vs DAT, I don't use either but if I needed to DAT would be the easy choice. Bruce is right, why pick a format that throws part of your input out the window if there are other choices? Darrin is right that DAT never caught on with the general public - this was intentional, because of profit greed and early fears of digital piracy it has always been priced too high. Of course multi-track reel to reel decks never caught on with the general public either, but this never keep them from being a success in their own market.

Ultimately they will both be blown away by recordable DVD, but we have a little while before that becomes cheap enough for mass appeal.
 
The convenince of MD and the fact that tapes get screwed up all the time is why those magazines liked the MD over DAT. As far as the sound goes the tape format is uncompressed and better able to be duplicated over more generations. I like the format but saw It was disapearing two years ago. I was also doing DJ work at the time and needed the access the MD offers.

By the way there was an artical in augests Recording Mag that had an artical on MD and the new compression.

The specs on my MD include 24 bit d-a converters.


But I want one of those new DVD burners, I last saw one for 400.00 us in a mail order computer catalog. So that is allready here and priced for the consumer.
 
Converters are irrelevant in that case, because the ATRAC compression hass already done its "damage!"

But I admit - the format IS convenient!

;)

Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top