W
wjgypsy
New member
a friend of my said that they give my music higher fi. and a bigger dynamic range. is this true? and if it is are they relly worth it?
zeke
zeke
JR#97
New member
a friend said that huh... he's full of shit.
DAT's are not worth the money unless you deal with a lot of DAT tapes.
DAT's are not worth the money unless you deal with a lot of DAT tapes.
W
wjgypsy
New member
well, i would just be using them to mix down to. not record to. would that make a differince?
zeke
zeke
Light
New member
DAT is a shitty format (hope that doesn't offend your young ears). DATS are used because they are easy and convenient, but not because of the sound or reliability of the format. When I was using it, I would ALWAYS run at least two machines (I preferred to use three), and I would always use high quality AD converters on the master, and if I had them I would use them on the back up as well. When I had verified the master DAT, I would IMEDIATLY make one or two digital copies of the master, just so I would have an additional backup. I have had to use several of those backup DATs, and I have had several DATs arrive at the mastering house corrupted.
The short answer I do not think the DAT format is worth your time. But you probably guessed that.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
The short answer I do not think the DAT format is worth your time. But you probably guessed that.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
in this day and age, with most dats limited to 48k/44k 16 bit and a FEW thatll do 24, I dont see the sense in them anymore tho I gotta keep a few aroundfor older projects
most mastering labs have an Alesis masterlink...I have one here for utility's sake but you dont even need one of those
check this out:
http://alesis.com/downloads/software/ml9600/index.html
download the iso builder. You can burn a masterlink compatiable disk on your computer then take that to the lab
now the software is about as fucked up as the rest of alesis' product line so its a little sketchy, but itll work sometimes, just double check it
most mastering labs have an Alesis masterlink...I have one here for utility's sake but you dont even need one of those
check this out:
http://alesis.com/downloads/software/ml9600/index.html
download the iso builder. You can burn a masterlink compatiable disk on your computer then take that to the lab
now the software is about as fucked up as the rest of alesis' product line so its a little sketchy, but itll work sometimes, just double check it
Cyrokk
Farce of Nature
Just ask a pawn shop dealer about the DATs in his shop and he will tell you that he can't get rid of the damn things.
A DAT makes for a half decent intermediary recording medium, no more no less. If you have one, you can find some use for it. Otherwise, save your money and look into other options.
Cy
A DAT makes for a half decent intermediary recording medium, no more no less. If you have one, you can find some use for it. Otherwise, save your money and look into other options.
Cy
C
christiaan
Active member
The introduction of the DAT goes back quite a few years now and it was great in a time where CD-recorders were not afforable or even non-existent. Today however..
Sennheiser
New member
I remember when they were introduced. That was all the rage back then. If you didn't have a DAT, you didn't have shit.
About like any other piece of equipment. They all come and go.
About like any other piece of equipment. They all come and go.
sjoko2
New member
The time of DAT's is has passed ............thank God
H
Havoc
New member
I have 2 portable dats and like them a lot. That said, for studio use they are a thing of the past. But for easy affordable portable recording with cd quality (but not more) and a running time of >60min they are still the top.
MISTERQCUE
Not Just Anutha Brutha
Havoc said:
Time to head on into the the 21st century Havoc!
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
if you take all comers, youll need a dat or two for older projects, but masterlink is where its at lately for the most part
Carter
Total gear slut
I agree with Misterqcue. DAT machines are a pain in the butt plus the media really does not impress me at all. I would get a stand alone or build a nice computer for my recordings.
V
volltreffer
Imply depressed
At least they have this phat analog sound
Well I though of getting me a used dat sometimes ago, but they're so f***ing expensive, plus the media, plus the head caring...
It might be very nice for live recordings, but I prefer MiniDisc for that. The concerts I go to aren't too well mixed, almost always too loud, so the compression losses aren't too bad. A MD may be nice for making fast 'previews' to hear your records on other 'monitors'...
If you consider the price of a dat plus some media, you might even think of getting you a used DAW, instead...
Just my 2c
aXel
Well I though of getting me a used dat sometimes ago, but they're so f***ing expensive, plus the media, plus the head caring...
It might be very nice for live recordings, but I prefer MiniDisc for that. The concerts I go to aren't too well mixed, almost always too loud, so the compression losses aren't too bad. A MD may be nice for making fast 'previews' to hear your records on other 'monitors'...
If you consider the price of a dat plus some media, you might even think of getting you a used DAW, instead...
Just my 2c
aXel
S
sjjohnston
New member
A few thoughts, none of which are inconsistent with the consensus expressed above (which, unless you missed it, is "Don't get at DAT!"):
- DAT was a de facto standard for exchanging digital stereo recordings at one time. It's not any more. If there's anyone even remotely connected with music or recording who can't play a CDR, please expose him to ridicule. (And even when DAT was a sort of standard, it wasn't really the standard for high-end professional studios -> mastering).
- DATs use a 48k sample rate and a 16-bit word. The difference between this and the 44.1k / 16-bit CD format is not material to quality. About all it means is a DAT can have its anti-aliasing filter at 24k instead of 22.05k. If you think you might be impressed by that difference, don't be: it's about 1.5 semitones.
- There are newer formats available, which use higher sample and bit-rates than either DAT or CDR. The Alesis Masterlink seems to be fairly common, for example.
- Any box that takes an analog signal and stores it digitally has an AD converter in it, which does affect the "quality" of the recording. But there's nothing about the converter in a DAT machine that's particularly different from the converter in a CD recorder (other than the minor sample rate difference mentioned above). If anything, because DATs have fallen into disfavor in recent years, when you buy a DAT you're more likely to buy an older design. If you ignore the converters, all you're talking about is a storage medium.
- As a storage medium, anecdotal evidence suggests that DATs have more problems than CDRs. Also, the tapes are considerably more expensive.
- On the other hand, there are some nice, small portable DAT machines, and you can find them at fairly reasonable prices used. The only portable CDRs I've seen are the Marantz ones, and you're unlikely to find many used ones. This is only relevant if you're interested in highly portable recording and don't want to use a minidisk or something.
- DATs are still a fairly standard format for live-tape exchanges among Deadheads and their ilk (so far as I can tell, anyway). This is only relevant if you're a Deadhead or something similar.
- DAT was a de facto standard for exchanging digital stereo recordings at one time. It's not any more. If there's anyone even remotely connected with music or recording who can't play a CDR, please expose him to ridicule. (And even when DAT was a sort of standard, it wasn't really the standard for high-end professional studios -> mastering).
- DATs use a 48k sample rate and a 16-bit word. The difference between this and the 44.1k / 16-bit CD format is not material to quality. About all it means is a DAT can have its anti-aliasing filter at 24k instead of 22.05k. If you think you might be impressed by that difference, don't be: it's about 1.5 semitones.
- There are newer formats available, which use higher sample and bit-rates than either DAT or CDR. The Alesis Masterlink seems to be fairly common, for example.
- Any box that takes an analog signal and stores it digitally has an AD converter in it, which does affect the "quality" of the recording. But there's nothing about the converter in a DAT machine that's particularly different from the converter in a CD recorder (other than the minor sample rate difference mentioned above). If anything, because DATs have fallen into disfavor in recent years, when you buy a DAT you're more likely to buy an older design. If you ignore the converters, all you're talking about is a storage medium.
- As a storage medium, anecdotal evidence suggests that DATs have more problems than CDRs. Also, the tapes are considerably more expensive.
- On the other hand, there are some nice, small portable DAT machines, and you can find them at fairly reasonable prices used. The only portable CDRs I've seen are the Marantz ones, and you're unlikely to find many used ones. This is only relevant if you're interested in highly portable recording and don't want to use a minidisk or something.
- DATs are still a fairly standard format for live-tape exchanges among Deadheads and their ilk (so far as I can tell, anyway). This is only relevant if you're a Deadhead or something similar.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
I dont think youll find a mastering lab that still doesnt get at least 50% of its imports in DAT
its time has come and gone, but it is by no means dead yet. New generations of timecode dat are entering the market still.
its time has come and gone, but it is by no means dead yet. New generations of timecode dat are entering the market still.
V
volltreffer
Imply depressed
It may be true in the 'Pro' scene, but I think that it MIGHT be useful to have a format, that any consumer being younger than 40 has a chance to listen to...
There is still two formats that is even worse than dat:
digital audio cassette
and
video 2000
aXel
There is still two formats that is even worse than dat:
digital audio cassette
and
video 2000
aXel
S
sjjohnston
New member
pipelineaudio said:
True enough (anyway, I'll take your word for it). They certainly can and will take DATs. But you don't have to give them a DAT.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
right, they dont have to, and its probably not what you should take anyhow. The 24 bit DAT format is robust and nearly error free, but it would be hard to justify buying one. The smart tip for digital is just to use alesis' ISO Builder thingy, as nearly every lab will have a masterlink and even if they dont theyll nearly surely be able to read hi res AIFF from that same CD
H
Havoc
New member
Hey Q, I would like to, but I can't find any usable alternatives. So if you know of them, can you share your secret???? I would like a solid state recorder that can record 2 hours of uncompressed 44.1/16. Price: about $1000 like a DAP1 was. Each next 2 hours at $5 so I don't have to transfer everything.
Seriously: DAT has its problems, it sure does and I'm not trying to say otherwise. But:
- the fragile nature of the tapes is largely a myth. There are thousends of computer backups taken each day on dat tape. Do you think this would continue if it was so unreliable?
- quality is good, not stellar, but good and the best of the recordable affordable recorders. Better than MD and cheaper than solid state (or a NAGRA-D).
For stationary use it is passed, but for portable recording it is still the upper leage. So like all answers: it depends.
PS: dat can record/play 44.1/16 and 32/12 (long play mode), there even was a 4 channel mode defined but I never heard of any gear using it.
Seriously: DAT has its problems, it sure does and I'm not trying to say otherwise. But:
- the fragile nature of the tapes is largely a myth. There are thousends of computer backups taken each day on dat tape. Do you think this would continue if it was so unreliable?
- quality is good, not stellar, but good and the best of the recordable affordable recorders. Better than MD and cheaper than solid state (or a NAGRA-D).
For stationary use it is passed, but for portable recording it is still the upper leage. So like all answers: it depends.
PS: dat can record/play 44.1/16 and 32/12 (long play mode), there even was a 4 channel mode defined but I never heard of any gear using it.