Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

is DAT gone?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:21:06 PM

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

I don't see DAT machines advertised in any of the music magazines
anymore, so what do people mix to nowadays?
Jeez, you take a break for a few years and everything has changed...

Thanks,
Gerard

More about : dat

Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:21:07 PM

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

gerry...@indigo.ie wrote:
> I don't see DAT machines advertised in any of the music magazines
> anymore, so what do people mix to nowadays?

Computers, mostly. Sometimes dedicated recorders like the Alesis
Masterlink or the new TASCAM DVD recorder. Also, with the exception of
a TASCAM DAT that never went over very well, nobody wants to mix to
16-bit resolution any more, and that was the limit for the standard
DAT.

There are no longer any manufacturers of DAT transports so you won't
find any new DAT products.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:21:07 PM

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

In article <XQfTe.12954$R5.824@news.indigo.ie>, <gerrymcc@indigo.ie> wrote:
>I don't see DAT machines advertised in any of the music magazines
>anymore, so what do people mix to nowadays?

Lots of folks are mixing to high resolution formats with gadgets like
the Masterdisk recorder.

Lots of folks are still mixing to 1/4" and 1/2" analogue.

Lots of folks are mixing entirely within their workstation and delivering
..wav files to the mastering house, on CD-R or DVD-R.

Some people are still using DAT. Hell, I know someone still using DASH.
But DAT isn't really a very popular format any more.

>Jeez, you take a break for a few years and everything has changed...

Nahh, nothing has really changed. The Ampex still sounds really good,
just like it always did. Except now you can pick one up for dirt cheap.
--scott
(who is using DAT today)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:21:07 PM

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

Tim Martin wrote:

> Digital multi-track recorders are now affordable.

With removable tape? Does TASCAM still make a DTRS machine?
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:21:08 PM

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

In article <1126021730.084560.85940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> Tim Martin wrote:
>
> > Digital multi-track recorders are now affordable.
>
> With removable tape? Does TASCAM still make a DTRS machine?
>

DA-98HR is the last. It won't be long now...

-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
September 6, 2005 4:21:09 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:52:31 -0700, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
wrote:

>In article <1126021730.084560.85940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Martin wrote:
>>
>> > Digital multi-track recorders are now affordable.
>>
>> With removable tape? Does TASCAM still make a DTRS machine?
>>
>
>DA-98HR is the last. It won't be long now...
>
>-Jay


How long do you suspect the media to be available?


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:21:10 PM

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

In article <qiirh119nfnfn33aatnaedsfalrtanopbr@4ax.com>,
Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:52:31 -0700, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1126021730.084560.85940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Martin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Digital multi-track recorders are now affordable.
> >>
> >> With removable tape? Does TASCAM still make a DTRS machine?
> >>
> >
> >DA-98HR is the last. It won't be long now...
> >
> >-Jay
>
>
> How long do you suspect the media to be available?
>
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com


That's also an issue. We've been using the Fuji DPD series Hi-8 tapes, which I
stocked up on last year. They are still apparently making these. The digital8
camcorders might have extended the availability of "generic" Hi-8 tapes a bit
longer. The move to ProTools and Logic is probably making this all moot for us
anyway. This will probably be the last year we rely on our DTRS machines.

-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
September 6, 2005 5:38:41 PM

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

Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:52:31 -0700, Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu>
>wrote:
>>In article <1126021730.084560.85940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>> Tim Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> > Digital multi-track recorders are now affordable.
>>>
>>> With removable tape? Does TASCAM still make a DTRS machine?
>>
>>DA-98HR is the last. It won't be long now...
>
>How long do you suspect the media to be available?

I don't know, but since it's a standard video format, it might still
be around for a while. Eckerd's Drugstore still has the tapes, although
Costco has stopped carrying them.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 6:55:19 PM

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

<gerrymcc@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:XQfTe.12954$R5.824@news.indigo.ie...
> I don't see DAT machines advertised in any of the music magazines
> anymore, so what do people mix to nowadays?
> Jeez, you take a break for a few years and everything has changed...
>
> Thanks,
> Gerard


A few years is a long time as far as pro audio technology is concerned.

More and more people do everything in-the-box, using computer-based DAWs and
bouncing the mix files back to hard disk. Even those that use external
mixers, both analog or digital, use DAWs to record 2-bus output from the
mixer.

Outside of the computer it's mostly Alesis Masterlink or analog tape.

Predrag
September 6, 2005 7:23:19 PM

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

philicorda wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:21:06 +0000, gerrymcc wrote:
>
> > I don't see DAT machines advertised in any of the music magazines
> > anymore, so what do people mix to nowadays?
> > Jeez, you take a break for a few years and everything has changed...
>
> It's nearly gone, thank Flying Spaghetti Monster.
> I find people in radio and telly still want them occasionally, but they
> will normally accept an audio or data CDR.
> My preference is wav files on a data CDR. I've never had one not
> read, or had anyone not be able to read one of mine.
> DATs were a very different story, especially those recorded on portable
> DAT machines.


Does DAT prove there is no such thing as intelligent design?

Steve

> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gerard
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:24:22 PM

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

<gerrymcc@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:XQfTe.12954$R5.824@news.indigo.ie...
> I don't see DAT machines advertised in any of the music magazines
> anymore, so what do people mix to nowadays?

Digital multi-track recorders are now affordable.

See www.gak.co.uk for examples.

There's the Zoom MRS802 plus CD writer for £300, the Yamaha AW16G for £600,
and so on.

Tim
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:39:10 PM

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

Tim Martin wrote:

> It simply never occurred to me to consider tape as a medium.

Well, that's what the "T" in DAT stands for.

> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the recording, transfer
> the data to a computer for mixing.

And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever? Transfer it to
some other removable medium? Delete it? It's so much easier to just
take a tape out of the recorder and put it on the shelf. And as long as
you have plenty of tape stock, you never get a "disk full" message.

But people have argued that disks are big enough and cheap enough and
labor for trasnferring to another medium is free and digital file
transfers are perfect, so they're comfortable dismissing tape from
their lives.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 9:06:49 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:21:06 +0000, gerrymcc wrote:

> I don't see DAT machines advertised in any of the music magazines
> anymore, so what do people mix to nowadays?
> Jeez, you take a break for a few years and everything has changed...

It's nearly gone, thank Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I find people in radio and telly still want them occasionally, but they
will normally accept an audio or data CDR.
My preference is wav files on a data CDR. I've never had one not
read, or had anyone not be able to read one of mine.
DATs were a very different story, especially those recorded on portable
DAT machines.

>
> Thanks,
> Gerard
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:39:32 AM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1126021730.084560.85940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> With removable tape? Does TASCAM still make a DTRS machine?

It simply never occurred to me to consider tape as a medium. We kind of
stopped using tape (except for backup and data interchange), back in the
70s, when disks came down in price to about £15.000 for 100Mb ...

Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the recording, transfer
the data to a computer for mixing.

Tim
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 3:05:35 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?

Given current price per megabyte of hard disk, some folks are doing
exactly that.

> Transfer it to some other removable medium?

Recordable DVDs are a nice dense offline-storage medium, and take up far
less shelf (*) space than tapes.

(* Note that "a shelf" is a not a great place to keep stuff you Really
Want to protect. Even an ordinary fire safe won't adequately protect
magnetic or optical media if the worst happens; it doesn't keep
temperatures or humidity low enough. A proper media chest *will* provide
decent protection, but those ain't cheap. Offsite backups are a good
low-budget solution -- and it's a lot easier to make a perfect backup
from digital media than from analog.)

Tape was a great technology for its time... but I honestly think the
time of "stringy disks" is ending, and I'm not convinced I'll miss it.



Delete it? It's so much easier to just
> take a tape out of the recorder and put it on the shelf. And as long as
> you have plenty of tape stock, you never get a "disk full" message.
>
> But people have argued that disks are big enough and cheap enough and
> labor for trasnferring to another medium is free and digital file
> transfers are perfect, so they're comfortable dismissing tape from
> their lives.
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:03:06 AM

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

> Tape was a great technology for its time... but I honestly think the
> time of "stringy disks" is ending, and I'm not convinced I'll miss it.

Actually, I will miss tape as an experimental music medium. There's an
immediacy and physicality to manipulating splices and loops and such
that may help students learn to think about music as "organized sound",
no matter what organizing principles are being used. Somehow, even
though you can do it all with a good DAW, it just doesn't feel the same.

Then again, I feel the same way about modular synths. And I'm sure there
are DJs out there who feel the same way about vinyl. It isn't that the
old way is *better* -- just that it's different, and its oddities are
sometimes amusing and sometimes a source of new ideas. Art often comes
from working within a set of constraints as much as from leaping out of
them.

None of which has anything to do with DAT, I must admit. Unless someone
out there has found something intersting to do with odd loops of DAT tape...
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:37:42 AM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:05:35 -0400, Joe Kesselman
<keshlam-nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

>> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?

>Tape was a great technology for its time... but I honestly think the
>time of "stringy disks" is ending, and I'm not convinced I'll miss it.

Gillian Welch: "Time is a Revelator"
Great stuff; don't miss any of it,

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:37:43 AM

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

DAT is still the accepted format for film sound especialy in short form
projects like spots. File formats from the various nlhd portable
recorders are causing some post problems.

Eric
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 10:12:59 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> labor for trasnferring to another medium is free and digital file
> transfers are perfect, so they're comfortable dismissing tape from
> their lives.

Well - as long as there are archives of DAT tapes in studio
libaries, they're gonna need to have a DAT player around. And the guys
doing recordist work for small features and documentary films still
consider a DAT recorder as a standard for the location sound "kit".
Cheaper than a Deva too.

Will Miho
NY Music and TV/Audio Post Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:38:12 PM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:23:19 -0700, Steve wrote:
>
> Does DAT prove there is no such thing as intelligent design?

SCMS alone should be enough proof that there is no such thing as
intelligent design.

>
> Steve
>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Gerard
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 2:01:58 PM

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

Eric Toline wrote:
> DAT is still the accepted format for film sound especialy in short form
> projects like spots. File formats from the various nlhd portable
> recorders are causing some post problems.
>
> Eric
>
>
and you will probably still need a machine for transfers and
compatibility... you still get the odd stuff on DAT for remix or
remastering ..
September 7, 2005 8:51:54 PM

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

Paul van der Heu wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote :
>
> >> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the recording,
> >> transfer the data to a computer for mixing.
> >
> > And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?
>
> For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just leave it on a disc
> and store it away.. Hell you could even stick each disk in it's own
> Firewire case while you're at it. no way tape is gonna beat that..

I have seen horrible things happen to ext FW drives.
Is USB2 more reliable?

Steve

> I have a number of 80GB externals laying around with 24track live stuff I
> did.. after I'm done I just leave em and get a new external..
>
> And then you can always backup to (DL)DVD which holds 9GB/disc.. the
> average pro DAT tape is what? 60 minutes? Guess a DVD will hold quite a bit
> more for much less..
>
> --
> Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
> how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
>
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:18:35 PM

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

Paul van der Heu wrote:

> > And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?
>
> For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just leave it on a disc
> and store it away.. Hell you could even stick each disk in it's own
> Firewire case while you're at it. no way tape is gonna beat that..

In fact, I sort of do that for projects recorded on the Mackie
HDR24/96. I put the bare drive in its anti-static baggie, put it in a
49 cent Office Depot pencil box, and put it on the shelf. But somehow I
have more confidence in being able to find a working DAT deck in 25
years than finding a computer that can take an IDE drive and read
broadcast wave files. But like you say, disk drives are cheap enough
these days, so keeping a drive in hopes that it can be played when
someone wants it in the future is better than deleting the original
master recordings.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:24:16 PM

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

Steve wrote:

> I have seen horrible things happen to ext FW drives.
> Is USB2 more reliable?

No reason for anything horrible to happen to either interface format.
There's no reason why one should be more or less reliable than the
other. The drives are IDE, it's just a chip or two that does the
interface conversion.

I suppose it's easier to drop a drive in an external case than it is to
drop a whole computer, but I doubt that's what you're talking about.
Have you seen horrible things happen to DRIVES, or do you know a friend
who has a cousin who plugged a Firewire drive into his computer and it
instantly became unreadable?

I acutally came up with a system that would do that reliably when I was
trying to find a Firewire drive case that would work with the PCMCIA
Firewire adapter in my Dell Inspiron 2650 laptop computer. I could
connect a drive, see the files, and, as soon as I tried to access one,
the whole computer would freeze up. After rebooting, no files were
visible on the drive. But there was a problem (unsolvable, but
discovered) and so I just stopped doing that. Been using a USB2 case
with a USB1 port since and haven't had any problems.

So I suppose if you want, you can put this in your data base of
"horrible things happening to Firewire external drives" but it isn't a
valid scientific experiment since there's a known flaw.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:24:08 AM

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

> somehow I
> have more confidence in being able to find a working DAT deck in 25
> years than finding a computer that can take an IDE drive and read
> broadcast wave files.

The professional solution is to archive a spare machine along with the
media. (Remember, it doesn't have to be fast for this purpose; you just
need something that can transfer the data to a newer medium if/when that
becomes necessary. An old klunker will do just fine.)



But like you say, disk drives are cheap enough
> these days, so keeping a drive in hopes that it can be played when
> someone wants it in the future is better than deleting the original
> master recordings.
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 1:00:03 AM

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

Joe Kesselman wrote:
>> somehow I
>> have more confidence in being able to find a working DAT deck in 25
>> years than finding a computer that can take an IDE drive and read
>> broadcast wave files.
>
>
> The professional solution is to archive a spare machine along with the
> media. (Remember, it doesn't have to be fast for this purpose; you just
> need something that can transfer the data to a newer medium if/when that
> becomes necessary. An old klunker will do just fine.)

That's a good idea, but you need to give some thought to how you will
perform the transfer. It is not a given that anything made 25 years from
now will be able to communicate with today's old klunker.

I have some computers that are less than ten years old, and I have yet
to find a way to transfer files from them to my current computer. They
have *NO* media in common, and can't even use the same network connections.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 1:50:28 AM

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

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

>> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the recording,
>> transfer the data to a computer for mixing.
>
> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?

For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just leave it on a disc
and store it away.. Hell you could even stick each disk in it's own
Firewire case while you're at it. no way tape is gonna beat that..

I have a number of 80GB externals laying around with 24track live stuff I
did.. after I'm done I just leave em and get a new external..

And then you can always backup to (DL)DVD which holds 9GB/disc.. the
average pro DAT tape is what? 60 minutes? Guess a DVD will hold quite a bit
more for much less..

--
Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 1:50:29 AM

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

"Paul van der Heu" <pvdh@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns96CAF283F1050pvdhNL@194.134.69.69
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote :
>
>>> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the
>>> recording, transfer the data to a computer for mixing.
>>
>> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?
>
> For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just
> leave it on a disc and store it away..

Warning: Hard drives and optical drives have this nasty
habit of going sour on the shelf. Causes include drive
components made out of materials that experience creep
(spontaneous shape and/or dimension changes in storage as
stresses relieve themselves over time) and contamination.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 2:43:03 AM

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

Steve wrote:
> Does DAT prove there is no such thing as intelligent design?

Maybe it proves the theory of "Devolution". Because given how
typical it is these days for people to receive voiceovers as MP3 files,
FTP'ed over the internet, DAT is still in some ways "the good old
days".

Will Miho
NY Music and TV/Audio Post Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:12:23 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:

> No reason for anything horrible to happen to either interface format.
> There's no reason why one should be more or less reliable than the
> other. The drives are IDE, it's just a chip or two that does the
> interface conversion.
>
> I suppose it's easier to drop a drive in an external case than it is to
> drop a whole computer, but I doubt that's what you're talking about.
> Have you seen horrible things happen to DRIVES, or do you know a friend
> who has a cousin who plugged a Firewire drive into his computer and it
> instantly became unreadable?

Apparently some of the external FW cases lack sufficient ventilation to
maintain temperatures suitable for long useful life.

--
ha
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:41:00 AM

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

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> At least DAT recordings can easily be transferred to WAV files, which should
> be playable for the next couple of millenia.

Not that easily, at least not that directly. If you have a DAT deck,
you can make a transfer either analog or digital (depending on what
computer interface you have available) in real time - just like any
other playable media.

"Easily" usually suggests faster than real time and requiring little or
no attention. There are a very limited number of DAT tape drives for
computer that can acutally read and transfer the recordings as data. I
only know people who have attemted to mess with this, nobody who is
actively doing it.

> The Elcassette and DCC are, in practice, dead because you can't find
> hardware or blank tape.

The point I was trying to make is that they never really caught on, so
the media and hardware had a very short production life. It was always
in short supply. Analog recording tape is still in fairly limited
supply, yet that format is hardly dead.

> Quad LPs are a different matter. You can still play phonograph records. And
> quad LPs and decoders are available.

Newly manufactured? Let's not count stuff that you can find on eBay.
That pretty much means that it's dead.

> When the SACD of DSotM was released
> over two years ago, I pulled out the Harvest SQ LP and played it through a
> Tate II decoder for comparison.

And?
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:35:02 PM

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

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> One of the first file transfer options: kermit, will work between almost
> any machine that has at least one serial interface.

> It is hard to find a system without at least one serial line or a system
> that does not support a kermit version.

The closest thing to a serial interface that my laptop has is a USB1.1
port. Got a Kermit program that can talk to a USB port?
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:43:45 PM

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

In article <cMqdnViDw5uOEILeRVn-2A@comcast.com>, EdAnson@comcast.net says...
>
>Joe Kesselman wrote:
>>> somehow I
>>> have more confidence in being able to find a working DAT deck in 25
>>> years than finding a computer that can take an IDE drive and read
>>> broadcast wave files.
>>
>>
>> The professional solution is to archive a spare machine along with the
>> media. (Remember, it doesn't have to be fast for this purpose; you just
>> need something that can transfer the data to a newer medium if/when that
>> becomes necessary. An old klunker will do just fine.)
>
>That's a good idea, but you need to give some thought to how you will
>perform the transfer. It is not a given that anything made 25 years from
>now will be able to communicate with today's old klunker.
>
>I have some computers that are less than ten years old, and I have yet
>to find a way to transfer files from them to my current computer. They
>have *NO* media in common, and can't even use the same network connections.

I don't know what machines were so incompatible 10 years ago, maybe you meant
20. I think one would be much more likely to find a means of getting stuff off
an IDE hard drive than a DAT drive 25 years from now. For one thing, a DAT
machine has moving parts, while a motherboard with IDE headers doesn't. Also
there will always be a market for legacy compatibility now, not like there
wasn't when people wanted to transfer files from their Timex Sinclair or TI/99
or C64, etc, etc, to their new IBM PCs or Macintoshes. Even so, people
developed transfering solutions for most of those old platforms, we just don't
see them around anymore just like we don't see 8-track->cassette adaptors
anymore. And look at the emulation scene, every old 8-bit computer has been
emulated on x86 boxes by now. Whatever is around 25 years from now will easily
be able to emulate x86 machines of today, and there is so much legacy data on
x86 platform that there will be plenty of media compatibility solutions. DAT
is totally obscure in comparison. Almost everyone who had to use it ditched it
for CD-R at the first opportunity, because DAT is such a poor medium.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:48:16 PM

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

In article <LJOdnV8iZKMhE4LeRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, arnyk@hotpop.com says...
>
>"Paul van der Heu" <pvdh@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:Xns96CAF283F1050pvdhNL@194.134.69.69
>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote :
>>
>>>> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the
>>>> recording, transfer the data to a computer for mixing.
>>>
>>> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?
>>
>> For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just
>> leave it on a disc and store it away..
>
>Warning: Hard drives and optical drives have this nasty
>habit of going sour on the shelf. Causes include drive
>components made out of materials that experience creep
>(spontaneous shape and/or dimension changes in storage as
>stresses relieve themselves over time) and contamination.
>
>

yeah, like DAT tape is more robust? I don't think so. And you come down
on hard drives for 'contamination'? Hard drives are completely sealed, DAT
tapes have a little plastic door hanging loose on a hinge!

DAT's dead and I can't see why anyone wouldn't be celebrating that fact.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 1:01:27 PM

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
> IME the most reliable means of backup involve redundant
> media, dissimilar media if possible.
>
> Media with built-in moving parts and high tolerances seems
> the most suspect.
>
> Well-stored optical media seems to have a lot going for it.
>
> Poorly-stored media is always suspect.

While redundant backup and proper storage has always been a good idea,
it seems that this is far more important for digital media than for
analog media.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 2:22:21 PM

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

"Chevdo" <chev@do.com> wrote in message
news:kVSTe.228934$HI.203216@edtnps84
> In article <LJOdnV8iZKMhE4LeRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
> arnyk@hotpop.com says...
>>
>> "Paul van der Heu" <pvdh@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96CAF283F1050pvdhNL@194.134.69.69
>>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote :
>>>
>>>>> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the
>>>>> recording, transfer the data to a computer for mixing.
>>>>
>>>> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?
>>>
>>> For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just
>>> leave it on a disc and store it away..
>>
>> Warning: Hard drives and optical drives have this nasty
>> habit of going sour on the shelf. Causes include drive
>> components made out of materials that experience creep
>> (spontaneous shape and/or dimension changes in storage as
>> stresses relieve themselves over time) and contamination.

> yeah, like DAT tape is more robust? I don't think so.

Agreed.

> And you come down on hard drives for 'contamination'?
> Hard drives are completely sealed, DAT tapes have a
> little plastic door hanging loose on a hinge!

In a perfect world hard drives stay sealed. Some are sealed
with tape, others are sealed with a gasket, both have failed
in my personal experience.

> DAT's dead and I can't see why anyone wouldn't be
> celebrating that fact.

Agreed.

IME the most reliable means of backup involve redundant
media, dissimilar media if possible.

Media with built-in moving parts and high tolerances seems
the most suspect.

Well-stored optical media seems to have a lot going for it.

Poorly-stored media is always suspect.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 2:41:17 PM

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

"Paul van der Heu" <pvdh@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns96CAF283F1050pvdhNL@194.134.69.69...
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote :
>
>>> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the recording,
>>> transfer the data to a computer for mixing.
>>
>> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?
>
> For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just leave it on a
> disc
> and store it away.. Hell you could even stick each disk in it's own
> Firewire case while you're at it. no way tape is gonna beat that..
>
> I have a number of 80GB externals laying around with 24track live stuff I
> did.. after I'm done I just leave em and get a new external..
>
> And then you can always backup to (DL)DVD which holds 9GB/disc.. the
> average pro DAT tape is what? 60 minutes? Guess a DVD will hold quite a
> bit
> more for much less..

I've been using DVD-RAM discs for storage. They hold 9GB/disc also, and are
much cheaper. Somehow, I'm a bit leery of DL discs. Nothing I can put my
finger on, but I just don't trust them.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:08:42 PM

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

In article <1126178516.522377.272790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mrivers@d-and-d.com says...
>
>The only ones that made an
>honest try but didn't catch on that come to mind at the moment are
>quadraphonic phonograph records, Elcasette, and DCC. There are probably
>others about which we could reminisce.
>

I don't consider minidisc to have ever been a raging success, and just when it
looked like it might be able to catch on, after nearly a decade on the market,
along came CD-R and then mp3 players to push minidisc even further into
obscurity and obsolescence. It's entire lifetime has been nothing but a Sunk
Cost Fallacy perpetuated by Sony (and gee, in hindsight does it really seem
like an accident that their DAT machines are notorious for failing?)
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:30:39 PM

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

In article <1126178516.522377.272790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mrivers@d-and-d.com says...
>
>What we really need to do is make intelligent decisions as to what's
>really worth preserving rather than assume that everything will be
>valuable to the future generations. It's nice to think that somoene
>will discover and appreciate your music 50 years from now, but given
>the huge volume of music produced today, I wouldn't count on a string
>of healthy royalty checks to support your great-great grandchildren.
>

Unless I'm being paid to do so, I wouldn't even bother recording anything that
I didn't think people would want to hear 50 years from now. Thus far, however,
I haven't even recorded anything I want to hear 50 days later. But if I didn't
think that what I was doing was important while doing it, I wouldn't do it.
Besides, few albums make it to the market that aren't professional, quality
recordings. Even if they go out of style they stick around, if only
for the sake of irony or a car commercial.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 5:44:51 PM

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

Chevdo wrote:

> And if you do decide to archive on
> DAT, you'd still be better off archiving .wav's to a computer DAT, because
> they actually have to reproduce perfect copies unlike audio DAT players which
> rely on lossy error correction like CD players do.

We don't "decide to archive on DAT." We make the original recording on
DAT because it was the best choice at the time, and we leave it there,
for better or worse. If I haven't touched a DAT in 10 years, only my
conscience keeps me from throwing it away. If, in 25 years, someone
asks if I still have that tape I made of their concert, I'll dig it up
and hopefully I'll still have a DAT deck that works. I never throw
anything away. Maybe the tape will play, maybe it won't, but in the
meantime, I won't have been worrying about whether it's a dead format
or not.

These days, if my portable DAT still worked, I'd probably use it, dump
the recording to the computer, and put it on CDs, probably audio CDs so
they'll play in the car or the living room or for whoever I give them
to. That's what I do with the Jukebox 3 now. The advantage over DAT is
that transfer to the computer is faster. Disasvantage is that if I
don't get the recordings off the hard drive before I need the disk
space, I'm in trouble.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 5:47:42 PM

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

Paul van der Heu wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote :
>
> > The closest thing to a serial interface that my laptop has is a USB1.1
> > port. Got a Kermit program that can talk to a USB port?
>
> If you stick an USB -> serial converter into one, sure..

It seems that to use what you have, you always have to get something
else. Sheesh! And in case you've lost track, I didn't propose Kermit,
someone else did. I'm not sure why. I'm a Zmodem person myself, but
Ethernet or Sneakernet make more sense.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 5:50:57 PM

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

Paul van der Heu wrote:

> You buy 50GB 2.5" drives in a decent USB2 case for <$75 nowadays. No need
> for external power or anything, just plug and play.. Works fine for me..

The last 120 GB 3.5" drive I bought was $29 after rebates. I don't swap
drives often enough so that I need an active case for each one.
Besides, I don't have a computer currently that has a USB2 port.

You people must think that buying something is the solution to
everything. I make do with what I have or what I can buy for a price
commensurate with its value to me, and that works fine for me. It
doesn't have to get any easier than this.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:08:53 PM

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

Paul van der Heu <pvdh@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:Xns96CAF283F1050pvdhNL@194.134.69.69:

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote :
>
>>> Disks seem much simpler; and when you've done all the recording,
>>> transfer the data to a computer for mixing.
>>
>> And then what? Leave it on the computer disk forever?

My solution requires both time and effort, but I believe it's permanent.

Periodically review your older digital recordings and copy them to a newer
format.

I bought a Sony PCM 601 a few months ago and am in the process of copying
all my old PCM F1 tapes via S/PDIF to hard disk. I'll store that disk plus
copies on DVD-ROM. With two redundant backups, I should have access for
another decade or two until I transfer them again.

That means I have to keep an operational reel to reel, F1, ADAT, DAT, ...
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:24:34 PM

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:00:03 -0400, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> I have some computers that are less than ten years old, and I have yet
> to find a way to transfer files from them to my current computer. They
> have *NO* media in common, and can't even use the same network
> connections.

Maybe those twisted pair to AUI convertors sitting in a box in the corner
of my office will come in useful one day then.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:38:48 PM

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

"Chevdo" <chev@do.com> wrote in message
news:kVSTe.228934$HI.203216@edtnps84...

> Hard drives are completely sealed, DAT
> tapes have a little plastic door hanging loose on a hinge!

Also, no medium will safeguard against fire, theft etc.

If you want to keep the pre-mixed files, then make at least two copies on
convenient media and store them in different geographical locations -
preferably in different cities.

(Trivial thought: I wonder how many original music recordings have been
irretrievably lost in New Orleans?)

What media are "convenient" depends on what equipment you have. But if
you're buying equipment for recording music, DVD writers are now so cheap
it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to be without one ... you can get
about 250 uncompressed 96k/24-bit track-minutes of a single DVD-R.

Tim
September 8, 2005 7:06:31 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
> > I have seen horrible things happen to ext FW drives.
> > Is USB2 more reliable?
>
> No reason for anything horrible to happen to either interface format.
> There's no reason why one should be more or less reliable than the
> other. The drives are IDE, it's just a chip or two that does the
> interface conversion.
>
> I suppose it's easier to drop a drive in an external case than it is to
> drop a whole computer, but I doubt that's what you're talking about.
> Have you seen horrible things happen to DRIVES, or do you know a friend
> who has a cousin who plugged a Firewire drive into his computer and it
> instantly became unreadable?

It happened to me plugging a FW drive into a BW G4Mac.
The drive mounted as blank. It lost 50gigs of data.
Most was eventualy recovered but as it was not my drive or data it was
a very nasty experience.
Its never happened to me before and I now use USB2 so far without
probs.
The FW still works fine with an iCam but I would never trust putting a
FW Drive
on it again.
I would like to know if anyone has had any similar probs with USB2.

> I acutally came up with a system that would do that reliably when I was
> trying to find a Firewire drive case that would work with the PCMCIA
> Firewire adapter in my Dell Inspiron 2650 laptop computer. I could
> connect a drive, see the files, and, as soon as I tried to access one,
> the whole computer would freeze up. After rebooting, no files were
> visible on the drive. But there was a problem (unsolvable, but
> discovered) and so I just stopped doing that. Been using a USB2 case
> with a USB1 port since and haven't had any problems.
>
> So I suppose if you want, you can put this in your data base of
> "horrible things happening to Firewire external drives" but it isn't a
> valid scientific experiment since there's a known flaw.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 8:00:00 PM

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

In article <1126193702.171330.9450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mrivers@d-and-d.com says...
>
>
>Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
>> One of the first file transfer options: kermit, will work between almost
>> any machine that has at least one serial interface.
>
>> It is hard to find a system without at least one serial line or a system
>> that does not support a kermit version.
>
>The closest thing to a serial interface that my laptop has is a USB1.1
>port. Got a Kermit program that can talk to a USB port?
>

if it doesn't already exist, it would be easy to impliment. But why bother,
either ethernet is built into your laptop or you can buy a card for $10. The
only thing that might stop you from getting your hands on an RJ-45 cable 25
years from now is if that Peak Oil stuff turns out to be a big deal. A working
system like your laptop will be worthless and easily available, but a working
DAT machine 25 years from now will fetch a good price just like my
top-of-the-line Akai quad 8-track cartridge recording deck does on ebay today.
You'd have much better luck if most DAT data tape drives were capable of
extracting digital audio, which most aren't. Because the computing world is a
lot bigger than the audio production world. And if you do decide to archive on
DAT, you'd still be better off archiving .wav's to a computer DAT, because
they actually have to reproduce perfect copies unlike audio DAT players which
rely on lossy error correction like CD players do.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 8:00:01 PM

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

Mike Rivers says...
>The closest thing to a serial interface that my laptop has is a USB1.1
>port. Got a Kermit program that can talk to a USB port?

Who needs Kermit when you can get something that plugs
directly into the USB port, like...
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=BLU-USB-DIRECT&...
"USB to USB Direct Link Cable" $ 7.99
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 8:15:42 PM

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

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:00:03 +0200, Ed Anson wrote:

> That's a good idea, but you need to give some thought to how you will
> perform the transfer. It is not a given that anything made 25 years from
> now will be able to communicate with today's old klunker.
>
> I have some computers that are less than ten years old, and I have yet
> to find a way to transfer files from them to my current computer. They
> have *NO* media in common, and can't even use the same network
> connections.

One of the first file transfer options: kermit, will work between almost
any machine that has at least one serial interface.

It is hard to find a system without at least one serial line or a system
that does not support a kermit version.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:47:08 PM

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

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

>> For big projects, why not?! With HD prices as it is just leave it on
>> a disc and store it away.. Hell you could even stick each disk in
>> it's own Firewire case while you're at it. no way tape is gonna beat
>> that..
>
> In fact, I sort of do that for projects recorded on the Mackie
> HDR24/96. I put the bare drive in its anti-static baggie, put it in a
> 49 cent Office Depot pencil box, and put it on the shelf.

You buy 50GB 2.5" drives in a decent USB2 case for <$75 nowadays. No need
for external power or anything, just plug and play.. Works fine for me..

--
Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot
!