Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital transfer question

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:07:05 AM

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

I'm transfering many hours of DATs into the computer so I can back up
the audio and burn CDs. I've been going out of the DAT via a coax
cable into the computer -- the DATs were all recorded at 48k, so I
have to convert them to 41k after they are in the computer. I'm using
Samplitude and Voxengo R8 brain for the conversions & I'm not liking
what I lose... I have some decent converters (Ramsa/Panasonic WZAD96)
and I wonder if I would be better off just re-recording the DATs at
41k, 32-bit resolution, via the analog outs of the deck. It would also
save me a ton of time not to having SRC the files, but mainly I'm
concerned about the sound. I can hear a definite difference in what
comes of the DAT deck vs. what I hear after the files are converted.

Thoughts?

Al
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:51:23 AM

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

Al,
I assume that after you are converting to 44.1khz, you are transferring
the file back to the DAT to compare to the 48khz version? Or even
listening to both files from the sound card's DA?

This would help eliminate some of the variables which may cause the
sound differences you hear.

Mike
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:45:31 AM

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

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2gkq81t4r0o5pc2bt071vu9q3511p6msq7@4ax.com...
> I'm transfering many hours of DATs into the computer so I can back up
> the audio and burn CDs. I've been going out of the DAT via a coax
> cable into the computer -- the DATs were all recorded at 48k, so I
> have to convert them to 41k after they are in the computer. I'm using
> Samplitude and Voxengo R8 brain for the conversions & I'm not liking
> what I lose... I have some decent converters (Ramsa/Panasonic WZAD96)
> and I wonder if I would be better off just re-recording the DATs at
> 41k, 32-bit resolution, via the analog outs of the deck. It would also
> save me a ton of time not to having SRC the files, but mainly I'm
> concerned about the sound. I can hear a definite difference in what
> comes of the DAT deck vs. what I hear after the files are converted.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Al

Hi Al,

What do you have in the way of D/As? How about taking the digital out of
your DAT into your best DA converter and then recording the analog out of
the DA converter into the analog in of your AD converter and record to your
computer at 44.1?

Best of luck!
--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Related resources
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:16:56 AM

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

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2gkq81t4r0o5pc2bt071vu9q3511p6msq7@4ax.com...

> I'm transfering many hours of DATs into the computer so I
can back up
> the audio and burn CDs. I've been going out of the DAT via
a coax
> cable into the computer -- the DATs were all recorded at
48k, so I
> have to convert them to 41k after they are in the
computer. I'm using
> Samplitude and Voxengo R8 brain for the conversions & I'm
not liking
> what I lose...

Get better software, I guess. Audition does very clean
conversions from 48 to 41.

> I have some decent converters (Ramsa/Panasonic WZAD96)
> and I wonder if I would be better off just re-recording
the DATs at
> 41k, 32-bit resolution, via the analog outs of the deck.

It takes a pretty sorry SRC to degrade things as much as
even a fairly good converter pair. A software SRC has many
potential practical advantages over back-to-back converters.
In this day and age it takes pretty sorry software not to
deliver them.

> It would also
> save me a ton of time not to having SRC the files, but
mainly I'm
> concerned about the sound. I can hear a definite
difference in what
> comes of the DAT deck vs. what I hear after the files are
converted.

>thoughts.

Questionable listening tests or questionable equipment.

You can evaluate the quality of a SRC by simply pumping some
test signals through it, and seeing how much degradation
there is. If you're running on a PC, try this software -
its simple to use, its free and it works:

http://audio.rightmark.org/download.shtml

Thinking about it, this software is pretty picky about the
input SRC = output SRC. So, round trip it.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:31:50 AM

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

The converters are outboard for playback from the computer, but I'm
going into a coax input that is on an RME soundcard. The only thing I
use the card for anymore is the lightpipe and coax ins & outs.

On 19 May 2005 21:51:23 -0700, mike.mermagen@gmail.com wrote:

>Al,
>I assume that after you are converting to 44.1khz, you are transferring
>the file back to the DAT to compare to the 48khz version? Or even
>listening to both files from the sound card's DA?
>
>This would help eliminate some of the variables which may cause the
>sound differences you hear.
>
>Mike
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:08:20 AM

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

playon wrote:

> I'm transfering many hours of DATs into the computer so I can back up
> the audio and burn CDs. I've been going out of the DAT via a coax
> cable into the computer -- the DATs were all recorded at 48k, so I
> have to convert them to 41k after they are in the computer. I'm using
> Samplitude and Voxengo R8 brain for the conversions & I'm not liking
> what I lose... I have some decent converters (Ramsa/Panasonic WZAD96)
> and I wonder if I would be better off just re-recording the DATs at
> 41k, 32-bit resolution, via the analog outs of the deck. It would also
> save me a ton of time not to having SRC the files, but mainly I'm
> concerned about the sound. I can hear a definite difference in what
> comes of the DAT deck vs. what I hear after the files are converted.

> Thoughts?

I've just been going through this, too. No application I have here does
SRC as well as does the MIO itself. Whatever Metric halo did it seems to
work really nicely. In your case I'd say do some xfers via resampling
from the analog and listen what you think.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:15:35 AM

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

> It takes a pretty sorry SRC to degrade things as much as
> even a fairly good converter pair. A software SRC has many
> potential practical advantages over back-to-back converters.
> In this day and age it takes pretty sorry software not to
> deliver them.

Potential = theoretical; practical = reality. In theory a lot of this
works better than it does in practice.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:15:36 AM

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

On Fri, 20 May 2005 05:15:35 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It takes a pretty sorry SRC to degrade things as much as
>> even a fairly good converter pair. A software SRC has many
>> potential practical advantages over back-to-back converters.
>> In this day and age it takes pretty sorry software not to
>> deliver them.
>
>Potential = theoretical; practical = reality. In theory a lot of this
>works better than it does in practice.

Thank you.

Arnie, the software I have is excellent, but thanks for the
suggestion.

Al
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:15:36 AM

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

hank alrich wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>It takes a pretty sorry SRC to degrade things as much as
>>even a fairly good converter pair. A software SRC has many
>>potential practical advantages over back-to-back converters.
>>In this day and age it takes pretty sorry software not to
>>deliver them.
>
>
> Potential = theoretical; practical = reality. In theory a lot of this
> works better than it does in practice.

None that correctly implement the theory. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:54:16 AM

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

I recently did a comparison. I played back the DAT through a Benchmark DAC1
and recorded it into my CardDeluxe at 44.1kHz 32 bits, then reduced it to 16
bits. I also loaded the 48kHz DAT directly into the computer via S/PDIF and
did a sample rate conversion in CoolEdit (uses the same SRC, as far as I
know, as Audition). I was extremely hard-pressed to tell them apart in a
level-matched comparison, even sighted.

Note that this was a *very* good D-to-A and a darn good A-to-D that came up
even with a software SRC. With lesser converters, as are almost certainly
found in your DAT recorder (they certainly are in mine), I would expect the
software to come up better. So unless you have access to a D-to-A at least
equal to the Benchmark, I'd say go for software conversion, getting a copy
of Audition if necessary (I've always liked the CE/Audition SRC better than
any I've heard elsewhere).

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:54:17 AM

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

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:cYeje.794638$w62.679004@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I recently did a comparison. I played back the DAT through a Benchmark DAC1
> and recorded it into my CardDeluxe at 44.1kHz 32 bits, then reduced it to
> 16
> bits. I also loaded the 48kHz DAT directly into the computer via S/PDIF
> and
> did a sample rate conversion in CoolEdit (uses the same SRC, as far as I
> know, as Audition). I was extremely hard-pressed to tell them apart in a
> level-matched comparison, even sighted.
>
> Note that this was a *very* good D-to-A and a darn good A-to-D that came
> up
> even with a software SRC. With lesser converters, as are almost certainly
> found in your DAT recorder (they certainly are in mine), I would expect
> the
> software to come up better. So unless you have access to a D-to-A at least
> equal to the Benchmark, I'd say go for software conversion, getting a copy
> of Audition if necessary (I've always liked the CE/Audition SRC better
> than
> any I've heard elsewhere).
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>

Thanks for the info Paul. I haven't tried what I suggested yet but 'on
paper' it sounded like something worth trying.

John L Rice
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:54:17 AM

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

On Fri, 20 May 2005 05:54:16 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>I recently did a comparison. I played back the DAT through a Benchmark DAC1
>and recorded it into my CardDeluxe at 44.1kHz 32 bits, then reduced it to 16
>bits. I also loaded the 48kHz DAT directly into the computer via S/PDIF and
>did a sample rate conversion in CoolEdit (uses the same SRC, as far as I
>know, as Audition). I was extremely hard-pressed to tell them apart in a
>level-matched comparison, even sighted.
>
>Note that this was a *very* good D-to-A and a darn good A-to-D that came up
>even with a software SRC. With lesser converters, as are almost certainly
>found in your DAT recorder (they certainly are in mine), I would expect the
>software to come up better. So unless you have access to a D-to-A at least
>equal to the Benchmark, I'd say go for software conversion, getting a copy
>of Audition if necessary (I've always liked the CE/Audition SRC better than
>any I've heard elsewhere).

Have you ever compared the Audition SRC to Samplitude or R8 brain? I
just transferred one of the DATs via the analog outs, & it's pretty
hard to hear the difference.

Al
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:40:52 AM

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

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fv3r811jk7v07e1od5afcfeqnkimaj7ebk@4ax.com...


> Have you ever compared the Audition SRC to Samplitude or
R8 brain? I
> just transferred one of the DATs via the analog outs, &
it's pretty
> hard to hear the difference.

The best comparison involves using an absolute standard as
your reference.

In the case of my Audition SRC tests, I converted files from
96 to various lower sample rates, and then back up to 96.
Adding the upconversion back to 96 only makes it harder for
the SRC.

Then I did comparisons of various 96 KHz sampled files.

All of the files I used in my tests can be downloaded from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

You can listen for yourself using software that you can
download for free from
http://www.pcabx.com/training/getting_started.htm or
www.pcabx.com .
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:42:17 PM

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

playon wrote:
> I'm transfering many hours of DATs into the computer so I can back up
> the audio and burn CDs. I've been going out of the DAT via a coax
> cable into the computer -- the DATs were all recorded at 48k, so I
> have to convert them to 41k after they are in the computer. I'm using
> Samplitude and Voxengo R8 brain for the conversions & I'm not liking
> what I lose.

If you're using r8brain in its maximum quality mode you're getting
nearly the best (if not the best) software-based SRC there is. A Weiss
box will probably beat it, but not much else.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:00:03 PM

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

playon <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>I'm transfering many hours of DATs into the computer so I can back up
>the audio and burn CDs. I've been going out of the DAT via a coax
>cable into the computer -- the DATs were all recorded at 48k, so I
>have to convert them to 41k after they are in the computer. I'm using
>Samplitude and Voxengo R8 brain for the conversions & I'm not liking
>what I lose... I have some decent converters (Ramsa/Panasonic WZAD96)
>and I wonder if I would be better off just re-recording the DATs at
>41k, 32-bit resolution, via the analog outs of the deck. It would also
>save me a ton of time not to having SRC the files, but mainly I'm
>concerned about the sound. I can hear a definite difference in what
>comes of the DAT deck vs. what I hear after the files are converted.

If your SRC algorithm sounds bad, I would strongly suspect that using
two layers of conversion will sound worse.

You might consider a higher grade SRC system.

Also, if the tapes were recorded at 48 ksamp/sec, they might also have
been recorded with emphasis too. Make absolutely sure the emphasis bit
is being preserved properly if it is set.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:18:51 PM

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

Are your levels on the source tape very hot and close to clipping? If so
try pulling them down 1db before the conversion..... The SRC process could
be causing overs?

Rgds:
Eric
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:29:33 PM

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

Yeah the tapes are pretty hot. However there seems to be no way to
pad down the digital signal going into the coax input... that might be
why I'm preferring the analog transfers, when doing the digital
transfers I had some peaks going into the red in Samplitude.

ASl

On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:18:51 -0500, "Eric K. Weber"
<eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote:

>Are your levels on the source tape very hot and close to clipping? If so
>try pulling them down 1db before the conversion..... The SRC process could
>be causing overs?
>
>Rgds:
>Eric
>
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:41:10 PM

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

In article <nqds819urn0d03il5l3ge8jjsfs7b617h6@4ax.com>,
playon <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>Yeah the tapes are pretty hot. However there seems to be no way to
>pad down the digital signal going into the coax input... that might be
>why I'm preferring the analog transfers, when doing the digital
>transfers I had some peaks going into the red in Samplitude.

If the digital signal hits full scale, it hits full scale and there is
nothing much you can do about it.

Once you load it into Samplitude, you can pull the level down a little
bit before you do the SRC. That will prevent any _more_ overs being
created in the SRC process.

But original overs on the original recording, you can't do anything about.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:41:11 PM

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

On 20 May 2005 15:41:10 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <nqds819urn0d03il5l3ge8jjsfs7b617h6@4ax.com>,
>playon <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Yeah the tapes are pretty hot. However there seems to be no way to
>>pad down the digital signal going into the coax input... that might be
>>why I'm preferring the analog transfers, when doing the digital
>>transfers I had some peaks going into the red in Samplitude.
>
>If the digital signal hits full scale, it hits full scale and there is
>nothing much you can do about it.
>
>Once you load it into Samplitude, you can pull the level down a little
>bit before you do the SRC. That will prevent any _more_ overs being
>created in the SRC process.

Right. the R8brain SRC is better but it does not allow me to adjust
the level.

>
>But original overs on the original recording, you can't do anything about.

Yep... the meters on the DAT will hit -3 but come into Samplitude they
are up to and occasionally over 0. I think the software meters are
more accurate than the DAT.

Al
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:02:46 PM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> But original overs on the original recording, you can't do anything about.

Depending on the severity. If they are occasional enough
then clip correction algorithms do pretty darned well and
are getting better.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:08:33 PM

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

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q2ms81dm583cjbg3r1dm4a5vlmius90g8c@4ax.com...
> On 20 May 2005 15:41:10 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >In article <nqds819urn0d03il5l3ge8jjsfs7b617h6@4ax.com>,
> >playon <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>Yeah the tapes are pretty hot. However there seems to
be no way to
> >>pad down the digital signal going into the coax input...
that might be
> >>why I'm preferring the analog transfers, when doing the
digital
> >>transfers I had some peaks going into the red in
Samplitude.
> >
> >If the digital signal hits full scale, it hits full scale

IOW the DAT tapes are clipped.

>> and there is nothing much you can do about it.

Not quite. There is software such as Audition/CoolEdit that
will attempt to reconstruct data lost due to clipping.

> >Once you load it into Samplitude, you can pull the level
down a little
> >bit before you do the SRC. That will prevent any _more_
overs being
> >created in the SRC process.


As a rule, SRC downsampling decreases peak levels because it
throws away data.

> Right. the R8brain SRC is better but it does not allow me
to adjust
> the level.

R8brain SRC is better on what grounds?

> >But original overs on the original recording, you can't
do anything about.

See above.

> Yep... the meters on the DAT will hit -3 but come into
Samplitude they
> are up to and occasionally over 0. I think the software
meters are
> more accurate than the DAT.

What DAT is this piss-poor?
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:25:30 PM

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

Bob Cain wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:

> >>It takes a pretty sorry SRC to degrade things as much as
> >>even a fairly good converter pair. A software SRC has many
> >>potential practical advantages over back-to-back converters.
> >>In this day and age it takes pretty sorry software not to
> >>deliver them.

> > Potential = theoretical; practical = reality. In theory a lot of this
> > works better than it does in practice.

> None that correctly implement the theory. :-)

You assume a theoretically perfect implementation. This is not presently
practical.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:25:31 PM

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

hank alrich wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
>>hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>>>It takes a pretty sorry SRC to degrade things as much as
>>>>even a fairly good converter pair. A software SRC has many
>>>>potential practical advantages over back-to-back converters.
>>>>In this day and age it takes pretty sorry software not to
>>>>deliver them.
>
>
>>>Potential = theoretical; practical = reality. In theory a lot of this
>>>works better than it does in practice.
>
>
>>None that correctly implement the theory. :-)
>
>
> You assume a theoretically perfect implementation.

Why do you think that? Nothing is a Platonic form.

In this case, sampling theory also allows for
characterization of the error due to the approximations that
are (always) necessary.

There hasn't been anything new in the theory surrounding SRC
in my technical lifetime. All that has happened is that
computing technology, density and speed, has allowed for
ever closer approximations.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 5:48:20 AM

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

Bob Cain wrote:

> There hasn't been anything new in the theory surrounding SRC
> in my technical lifetime. All that has happened is that
> computing technology, density and speed, has allowed for
> ever closer approximations.

So gradually practice almost catches up with theory, and gets
approximately closer. Still, I find differences in the SRC capabilities
I have at hand, and I choose on the basis of what I hear. The best SRC
here is hidden in digital hardware, the MIO. And it's good enough that I
can get on with converting and deal with the music.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 4:22:41 AM

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

On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:48:20 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> There hasn't been anything new in the theory surrounding SRC
>> in my technical lifetime. All that has happened is that
>> computing technology, density and speed, has allowed for
>> ever closer approximations.
>
>So gradually practice almost catches up with theory, and gets
>approximately closer. Still, I find differences in the SRC capabilities
>I have at hand, and I choose on the basis of what I hear. The best SRC
>here is hidden in digital hardware, the MIO. And it's good enough that I
>can get on with converting and deal with the music.

Which model of the MIO do you have? Are you saying it does on-the-fly
SRC?

Al
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 4:24:45 AM

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

On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:08:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>R8brain SRC is better on what grounds?

To my ears... but you are welcome to purchase Samplitude and R8 Brain
and do your numbers thing.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:19:38 AM

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

On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:08:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>> Yep... the meters on the DAT will hit -3 but come into
>Samplitude they
>> are up to and occasionally over 0. I think the software
>meters are
>> more accurate than the DAT.
>
>What DAT is this piss-poor?

I'm using a Tascam DA-30 & I have long suspected the meters on it were
not that accurate. Just in case you thought you knew everything,
Arnie -- I got this response in another forum:

-----------------------------------------------

Several DAT machines are known for their not so accurate
indication/metering of overs.

I have seen this behavior with my Panasonic 3700 DAT as well as some
Tascams and Sonys.

Just a thought.

Tom Jancauskas
Imedia

-----------
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 9:13:40 AM

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

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bsc091dr24m96rco6spuenss71qbod088u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:08:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
<arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >R8brain SRC is better on what grounds?
>
> To my ears... but you are welcome to purchase Samplitude
and R8 Brain
> and do your numbers thing.

No purchases required to obtain a form of R8Brain that was
capable of being tested.

The RMA55 test signal is only 25 seconds long, so the
R8Brain demo's 1 minute time limit sufficed.

The testing with RMAA55 worked out as follows:

With a 16/48 test signal, the residual distortion of the
RMA55 analysis of its own test signal tested as being almost
perfectly ideal, +/-0.00 dB frequency response, -98 dB noise
and dynamic range.

RMAA55 was able to more-or-less properly test the
downsampled test file, once I set its sample rate to the
actual sample rate of the downsampled file. So, no
round-tripping was required.

The R8Brain 44/16 downsampled version of the RMAA55 test
signal was only slightly degraded: +/-0.00 dB frequency
response, -96 dB noise and dynamic range.

Just for grins I ran a test of CEP2.1. It's 44/16
downsampled version of the RMA55 test signal was only
slightly more degraded: +/-0.00 dB frequency response, -93
dB noise and dynamic range. This was with quality set to
maximum and pre and post filtering.

I conclude that either R8Brain or CEP do a
sonically-transparent job of resampling, but that R8Brain
was did a faster and better job.

I found that RMAA55 complained about the format of its test
file after resampling with either program, but that adding 1
second of silence, silenced the complaint. The RMAA55
program seems IMO unduly sensitive to the length of the file
being analyzed.

I found that RMAA55 complained about clipping in the test
file after resampling with either program, but detailed
analysis of the test showed that there was indeed no
clipping. Instead RMAA55 was misinterpreting the fact that
the test file's swept IM signal was lacking the one of the
two IM test tones when the upper test tone naturally went
above the Nyquist frequency of the downsampled file.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:10:25 AM

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

playon wrote:

> Which model of the MIO do you have?

MIO2882+DSP

> Are you saying it does on-the-fly SRC?

I am.

--
ha
!