Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

usb devices with digital *coax* input?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 1:30:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've got a Tascam DA20MkII with coax output, I'd like to begin transferring
my DATs to my laptop for editing and burning purposes.

Are there any good recommendations for devices with coax input that are less
expensive than the edirol ua-5 or the m-audio audiophile usb?

What are people's thoughts on getting one of the cheaper consumer devices
with optical input and then using a coax to optical changer?

Thanks!
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:44:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"harlan griswold" <harlan.griswold@mtnstream.org> wrote in message
news:35clh6F4k76lkU1@individual.net...

> I've got a Tascam DA20MkII with coax output, I'd like to begin
> transferring
> my DATs to my laptop for editing and burning purposes.
>
> Are there any good recommendations for devices with coax input that are
> less
> expensive than the edirol ua-5 or the m-audio audiophile usb?

The Behringer BCA2000 can do it - don't know how it compares in price to the
UA-5 though. However, it is quite new and the drivers are still a bit flaky.

john
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:53:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <35clh6F4k76lkU1@individual.net> harlan.griswold@mtnstream.org writes:

> Are there any good recommendations for devices with coax input that are less
> expensive than the edirol ua-5 or the m-audio audiophile usb?

How about the Edirol UA-1D. That's cheaper than the UA-5 (no mic
preamps and practically no case) and it also has optical S/PDIF I/O in
the event that you change gears at some point.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Related resources
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 10:19:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1106323348k@trad...
>
> In article <35clh6F4k76lkU1@individual.net>
> harlan.griswold@mtnstream.org writes:
>
>> Are there any good recommendations for devices with coax input that
>> are less
>> expensive than the edirol ua-5 or the m-audio audiophile usb?
>
> How about the Edirol UA-1D. That's cheaper than the UA-5
> (no mic preamps and practically no case) and it also has optical
> S/PDIF I/O in the event that you change gears at some point.

Mine never acknowledged the SPDIF output from my Stanton
STR8-80 turntable.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 9:56:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"harlan griswold" <harlan.griswold@mtnstream.org> wrote in message news:35clh6F4k76lkU1@individual.net...
> I've got a Tascam DA20MkII with coax output, I'd like to begin transferring
> my DATs to my laptop for editing and burning purposes.
>
> Are there any good recommendations for devices with coax input that are less
> expensive than the edirol ua-5 or the m-audio audiophile usb?
>
> What are people's thoughts on getting one of the cheaper consumer devices
> with optical input and then using a coax to optical changer?
>
> Thanks!
>
>


The Terratec "Producer" can do this at an affordable price.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:02:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10v4rnig2s0djb8@corp.supernews.com> rcrowley7@xprt.net writes:

> > How about the Edirol UA-1D.

> Mine never acknowledged the SPDIF output from my Stanton
> STR8-80 turntable.

So? Did you call Stanton? Did you call Edirol? Did you call
Ghostbusters?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:43:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

>> Are there any good recommendations for devices with coax input that are less
>> expensive than the edirol ua-5 or the m-audio audiophile usb?
>
>How about the Edirol UA-1D. That's cheaper than the UA-5 (no mic
>preamps and practically no case) and it also has optical S/PDIF I/O in
>the event that you change gears at some point.

We've had a few reports that the UA-1D is not bit-for-bit accurate. You
might check with Edirol to see what they say.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 12:01:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cu6kk9$aps$1@reader2.panix.com> moskowit@panix.com writes:

> We've had a few reports that the UA-1D is not bit-for-bit accurate. You
> might check with Edirol to see what they say.

Is this important to anyone other than those who try to prove the
point? Does it sound OK?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

>> We've had a few reports that the UA-1D is not bit-for-bit accurate. You
>> might check with Edirol to see what they say.
>
>Is this important to anyone other than those who try to prove the
>point? Does it sound OK?

Well, if it degrades the signal a little bit in one transfer, it will
degrade it further in the second and third and fourth...

When will you hear the degradation? I haven't the slightest idea, but
eventually you will.

Isn't one of the main points of digital audio that you can transfer the
signal and there's no degradation? Shouldn't a primary criteria for any
equipment that carries digital audio be whether it faithfully preserves
the bit stream?

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:40:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cudsfq$9qb$1@reader2.panix.com> moskowit@panix.com writes:

> Well, if it degrades the signal a little bit in one transfer, it will
> degrade it further in the second and third and fourth...

But if it's purpose is for sound capture, why would there be a second
and third and fourth pass thorugh it?

> Isn't one of the main points of digital audio that you can transfer the
> signal and there's no degradation?

I consider that one of the bonuses rather than a main point. But don't
ask me what the main point is. I'm rather ambivalent about trying to
find things wrong with something that works pretty well. And if this
didn't work very well for its intended purpose, we'd probably have
heard about it.

> Shouldn't a primary criteria for any
> equipment that carries digital audio be whether it faithfully preserves
> the bit stream?

Certainly, but how good is the bit stream that goes into it? It's
coming from an A/D conveter, probably.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

>> Shouldn't a primary criteria for any
>> equipment that carries digital audio be whether it faithfully preserves
>> the bit stream?
>
>Certainly, but how good is the bit stream that goes into it? It's
>coming from an A/D conveter, probably.

Though I'm sure that's not what you intend, it sounds like you're saying
that it's okay to use (and even recommend) a device that is not
bit-for-bit accurate. If there are other devices that can do the job
that are bit-for-bit accurate and in the same price range, I'd always
recommend the accurate one -- wouldn't you?

In this case the M-Audio Transit is accurate (I've tested it myself)
while the UA-1D may not be.

The Transit accepts optical only. If the original poster needs a coax
input, add an M-Audio CO2 (also accurate) to the Transit and it will
accept coaxial. Total price is still under $135.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:03:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cug0k1$gci$1@reader2.panix.com>, moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
wrote:

> Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> >> Shouldn't a primary criteria for any
> >> equipment that carries digital audio be whether it faithfully preserves
> >> the bit stream?
> >
> >Certainly, but how good is the bit stream that goes into it? It's
> >coming from an A/D conveter, probably.
>
> Though I'm sure that's not what you intend, it sounds like you're saying
> that it's okay to use (and even recommend) a device that is not
> bit-for-bit accurate. If there are other devices that can do the job
> that are bit-for-bit accurate and in the same price range, I'd always
> recommend the accurate one -- wouldn't you?
>

[snip]

For the record, we should remember that CDs and DATs are not bit-accurate if we
consider the error correction and interpolation they may produce.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:03:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>For the record, we should remember that CDs and DATs are not bit-accurate if we
>consider the error correction and interpolation they may produce.

And this has been a great source of frustration to all of us.

To be honest, I see no reason _not_ to demand bit-for-bit accuracy now
that we are living in a world in which it's possible.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:03:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cug2bq$ibl$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

> Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >For the record, we should remember that CDs and DATs are not bit-accurate if
> >we
> >consider the error correction and interpolation they may produce.
>
> And this has been a great source of frustration to all of us.
>
> To be honest, I see no reason _not_ to demand bit-for-bit accuracy now
> that we are living in a world in which it's possible.
> --scott


True. The CD performed pretty well as a medium designed to replace the LP for
product delivery, but it was not designed as an archival storage medium nor was
it intended to be copied generation after generation. Still we can do better
these days and should.

What physical delivery medium is completely bit-accurate, beyond direct
computer-to-computer or CD-ROM transfer? (Don't say the LP...) Maybe this is
one argument in favor of downloading.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:03:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>What physical delivery medium is completely bit-accurate, beyond direct
>computer-to-computer or CD-ROM transfer? (Don't say the LP...) Maybe this is
>one argument in favor of downloading.

CD-ROM _is_ pretty good. When it fails, you know it fails, so there is no
silent correction going on behind your back.

The Nagra-D tapes are the same way. And I seem to remember that PCM-1630
also lacked any error concealment, and when the ECC failed to correct an
error it produced very evident and horrible shrieking.

Error concealment is an excellent thing in a consumer delivery medium,
because it means media that get damaged are still perfectly playable for
the average user. I'd go further and say that error concealment is the
one thing that makes the CD better as a consumer delivery medium than the
LP.... if the LP starts out as sounding better, a few drops on a dirty floor
soon fixes that.

But, error concealment isn't a good thing in a professional medium, because
you really want to know when errors are taking place. And now, of course,
it's possible to have media with low enough error rates and good enough
error correction that interpolation and concealment isn't really a problem.
Our problem starts when consumer media like DAT and CD-R turn into
professional standards.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:49:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cug0k1$gci$1@reader2.panix.com> moskowit@panix.com writes:

> Though I'm sure that's not what you intend, it sounds like you're saying
> that it's okay to use (and even recommend) a device that is not
> bit-for-bit accurate.

Well, obviously somebody does, otherwise they wouldn't sell any. What
I'm suggesting is that there will always be inaccuracies. This one
might not be all that bad, depending on the application. I could
suggest that nobody use an M-Audio A/D converter because a Lavry is
more accurate, but I know that we can't all afford the best all the
time.

> If there are other devices that can do the job
> that are bit-for-bit accurate and in the same price range, I'd always
> recommend the accurate one -- wouldn't you?

All other things being equal, yeah, I'd encourage it. But maybe
simplicity or size or convenience is more important than possibly
inaudible inaccuracy.

Do you have any quantitative data about its lack of bit accuracy? What
effect does it have on audio? In fact, I don't even know that the
application is audio. It could be something that requires bit
accuracy.

> The Transit accepts optical only. If the original poster needs a coax
> input, add an M-Audio CO2 (also accurate) to the Transit and it will
> accept coaxial. Total price is still under $135.

I believe the original question (see the subject of the message) was
for a device with a coax input. The Edirol was one that came to mind.
You can always adapt things - but that's what I want to avoid and why
I'm seeking a one-box replacement to the Jukebox.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 11:58:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Error concealment is an excellent thing in a consumer delivery medium,
> because it means media that get damaged are still perfectly playable for
> the average user. I'd go further and say that error concealment is the
> one thing that makes the CD better as a consumer delivery medium than the
> LP.... if the LP starts out as sounding better, a few drops on a dirty floor
> soon fixes that.
>
> But, error concealment isn't a good thing in a professional medium, because
> you really want to know when errors are taking place.

I think you make a good point, but hearing errors is not the only
possible way to know that they've happened. There could be an LED
on the front panel of hardware equipment that comes on (and stays
on for a few seconds) after an uncorrected error has occurred. And
you could do the same thing with another LED to indicate errors
which occurred but which are correct. You can do an analogous thing
when processing digital stuff with software, too.

I've really never understood why you don't see this more often.
I think some CD players have been made that have such a light, but
they're really, really rare. Maybe I'm overestimating how much the
average joe cares about stuff, but it seems like that even as a
consumer you'd want to know about it if one of your CDs is damaged.
You might at least become aware of things you're doing that cause
damage to your music collection. But, maybe the principle is to
not alarm the end-user about things they can't do much about.
(Although if that is the principle, I think it's wrong...)

Of course for this to be useful, it needs to be widely supported
in file formats, software, etc., etc.

- Logan
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 11:58:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw wrote:


> There could be an LED on the front panel of hardware equipment that
> comes on (and stays on for a few seconds) after an uncorrected error
> has occurred. And you could do the same thing with another LED to
> indicate errors which occurred but which are correct. You can do an
> analogous thing when processing digital stuff with software, too.
>
> I've really never understood why you don't see this more often.


Tascam multitracks have an error LED that lights when the error rate is
too high, even before they are uncorrectable; it basically means it's
time to run a head cleaner tape. Plus you can switch on BLER display,
giving an error rate indication for each track.
!