@@dean6816 if exact 83 they started selling them mainly because like always Sony wanted to change the Philips system, but developed in the 70´s so 70´s technology and by the way the first cds were indestructable, i have some, as i could buy two Lp´s with the money of one cd and ended up buying most of the times two lp´s instead of one cd and also they only sounded a litle louder which wasn´t a problem to me, but in early 90´s they started to built them of a cheap material to make them afordable for everyone they said, so 80´s developed impossible search for the cd creation here on youtube, but they also created to gether the DAT cassette that today sound doble the cd or sacd sound but never that sold to the public ,mainly it´s price but so good to a level that was even compared with open reel decks, they didn´t want the public ,or us to have access to a so good digital sound that´s why records will be better always, and cds do sound perfect today but if so imagine the quality of those cds in record, and those P1 and 3 or 5 or Pro-Ject debut IIi or `till 2.000€ sound worst than technics turntables sold by what today is 100€ or more 10 or 20€ are so much better thjat are not comparable and we can change speed without using our hands in the belt that becopmes greasy and specifications are a lie as they after a month of use are far from that specifications and a technics of 100€ bought today with a heavy use when tested have the same specifications measured by technicians also better sound at all levels, so cd players and new turntables is stealing from the people, and i have nothing against digital or analog just know somethings i learn by working in the music business for more than 50 years
@@MrVinylista and live rock albums with much higher quality than the best cd player in the world so digital isn´t bad only the cd format is absurd we are still using it today, the 70´s were long ago we shouldn´t perpectuate this horrible format, the cd, the main reason i still buy records today but have 5.000 cds and recorded one , 3.000 ,in vinyl 15.000 ,that i started to buy in 66/67 and those still sound perfect as i always took care of my records and never left my home as when that wasn´t a rule i got destroyd three doble albums and a record only, so after that "if you want it i can record it to you in open reel , cassette and DAT "and some years after in minidisc also
'90/'91 I attended a HiFi show in Bolton of all places. Kenwood had an in car DAT installation and it was absolutely fantastic. I was enamoured muchly at such a technological marvel.
I had a Sony DAT deck back in the day which I used for off-air concert recordings from Radio 3, with a Tim de Paravinci modded Leak Troughline tuner/valve decoder as the source, and with excellent results. In the end I switched to hard disc recording which became far easier to edit and index, and then burn to CD. In the end I was using a Sony portable recorder and would transfer the files to my PC for editing and burning. Are blank DAT tapes still available, and at what cost?
Guys, R does stand from "Rotary (head)" to differentiate from S as "Stationary (head)". Since S hasn't launched - Sony skipped "R-" in most communication.
The "problems", so to say, with DAT recordings (not copies) were, that on a non-professional level you will almost always lose some of the dynamic resolution because of the necessary headroom you would need to prevent the all-nasty digital limiting distortion when the signal level gets out of range. So, even if the maximum dynamic range runs over 96db, which seems much, but you normally had to let around 10db headroom (-6db/half amplitude means one bit of resolution less). And considering that the lowest resolution bits (the quietest and weakest signals) in digital audio are by far almost a joke with more than 20dB (!) distortion, 16bit dynamic resolution seems to be definitely too low. Professional 16bit recording in those days were like any other studio production done with equalizers, compressors and limiters to overcome this. I even did a lot of mastering in those days with analog tape machines as dithering (low bit noise masking for distortion prevention) and limiting devices before transferring the music to the CD master. CDs then, which have the same resolution with DAT dynamically, were the already properly mastered (or they should have been...) and the dynamic resolution did not suffer from that dilemma. That is why we still use CDs or 16bit/44.1kHz music up until today.
DAT is ar superior to cds and i have a good cd player or several said to be good cd players and all working from CEC , Linn , Pioneer, Philips , Yamaha, Technics and Rega, the cec is the better one
when cd-r appeared i got a big one cheap in Andorra, tax free region near the Alpes from Spain to France, it appeared a message of can not copy as each original cd was only able to record at full quality much above modern cd-rw on computers and even with a yellow face missing bit´s it plays perfect while the already good recorded cds on a computer don´t play any music as it got darker but cd-r was and is perfect, but after three copy´s in digital it got equal to the original one had to ask a friend for another cd of the same title to make again three more copies and because we were a big group of friends more or less we had the same cds so several time possible of doing copy´s, but DAT was the better digital format and still is ,mine that is the second i have bought it for 15€ with 20 blank dat tapes, tdk and fuji(means i runaway, in portuguese), if you say fuji other asks "from who or where"
Any current even semi-pro digital mastering process includes the equivalent of Super Bit Mapping (i.e. using noise shaping techniques like dithering) when downsampling to 16/44.1 for producing CDs. SBM (and similar trademarked techniques used by other companies) was only relevant when earlier recordings were made at 16/44.1 or indeed at 16/48 while that used an 20/44.1or 48 process properly (which means with added dithering) downsampled to 16/44.1 No digital recordings today are made at 16/anything. A to D conversion is not lossy within the bounds of the frequency response dictated by the sampling rate. You will have to decide between you which is the more appropriate way to copy a high quality analogue source, the cassette deck or some digital AD process. It seems you are in disagreement here. Personally I know what I would choose any time and it is not DAT nor of course the analogue tape.
if you have money to buy all original, good for you but recording cassettes or DAT´s is a way of saving thousands, as even cassettes when recorded from a cd sound even better than the cd is a total copy without convertions if with a better deck it even reaches higher quality in what concerns to frequency response and DSD only is better than PCM if very expensive, if cheap makes no diference using one or other, direct stream DAC type
I note there is an A6 recently serviced on ebay right now for £295 if anyone is interested. That seems like a good price. I would be tempted but have bought way too much gear recently and it would tempt divorce.
@@MrVinylista An example of the usage comes from Lord Braxfield, an 18th century judge, who on one occasion adjourned proceedings when both counsels turned up at court the worse for drink: "Gentlemen, ye may just pack up your papers and gang hame; the ane o' ye's rifting port, and the ither's farting claret-and there'll be nae guid got out o' ye the day".
Another good rif, I love how you bounce off each other.
❤
R-DAT and I seem to have passed each other by, but as the TR7 got a name-check I'll raise a toast to the blessed memory of Harris Mann (1938-2023).
Don't get him started!
I've always been curious about DAT but never owned a machine.
is digital close to open reel decks and we are stucked with cds from the 70´s and this in late 80´s is better than any more recent digital format
@@RUfromthe40s CDs are from the 80s 1982 to be exact.
@@dean6816 if exact 83 they started selling them mainly because like always Sony wanted to change the Philips system, but developed in the 70´s so 70´s technology and by the way the first cds were indestructable, i have some, as i could buy two Lp´s with the money of one cd and ended up buying most of the times two lp´s instead of one cd and also they only sounded a litle louder which wasn´t a problem to me, but in early 90´s they started to built them of a cheap material to make them afordable for everyone they said, so 80´s developed impossible search for the cd creation here on youtube, but they also created to gether the DAT cassette that today sound doble the cd or sacd sound but never that sold to the public ,mainly it´s price but so good to a level that was even compared with open reel decks, they didn´t want the public ,or us to have access to a so good digital sound that´s why records will be better always, and cds do sound perfect today but if so imagine the quality of those cds in record, and those P1 and 3 or 5 or Pro-Ject debut IIi or `till 2.000€ sound worst than technics turntables sold by what today is 100€ or more 10 or 20€ are so much better thjat are not comparable and we can change speed without using our hands in the belt that becopmes greasy and specifications are a lie as they after a month of use are far from that specifications and a technics of 100€ bought today with a heavy use when tested have the same specifications measured by technicians also better sound at all levels, so cd players and new turntables is stealing from the people, and i have nothing against digital or analog just know somethings i learn by working in the music business for more than 50 years
Sad this format didn't take off in the public. However, it acheived status in recording studios.
Indeed. So many of 1990s dance and/or electronic records were mastered on DAT.
@@MrVinylista and live rock albums with much higher quality than the best cd player in the world so digital isn´t bad only the cd format is absurd we are still using it today, the 70´s were long ago we shouldn´t perpectuate this horrible format, the cd, the main reason i still buy records today but have 5.000 cds and recorded one , 3.000 ,in vinyl 15.000 ,that i started to buy in 66/67 and those still sound perfect as i always took care of my records and never left my home as when that wasn´t a rule i got destroyd three doble albums and a record only, so after that "if you want it i can record it to you in open reel , cassette and DAT "and some years after in minidisc also
'90/'91 I attended a HiFi show in Bolton of all places. Kenwood had an in car DAT installation and it was absolutely fantastic. I was enamoured muchly at such a technological marvel.
I remember that. Who needs Apple CarPlay when you have a DAT player in your car!
I want one
I had a Sony DAT deck back in the day which I used for off-air concert recordings from Radio 3, with a Tim de Paravinci modded Leak Troughline tuner/valve decoder as the source, and with excellent results. In the end I switched to hard disc recording which became far easier to edit and index, and then burn to CD. In the end I was using a Sony portable recorder and would transfer the files to my PC for editing and burning.
Are blank DAT tapes still available, and at what cost?
Guys, R does stand from "Rotary (head)" to differentiate from S as "Stationary (head)".
Since S hasn't launched - Sony skipped "R-" in most communication.
Mike, have you had any more thoughts about selling me your Exposure V111 super. I'm still interested.
I love your persistence!
... and it's a super 8 😁
Yes I know, is it a super price?@@mikeyevs
Is the BX-125 pretty similar to the BX-150?
Yes, very.
@@MrVinylista Thanks, I’m gonna buy one that supposedly works well and was serviced.
@@korling99 Good choice. Just make sure the record/replay head has no obvious signs of wear.
The "problems", so to say, with DAT recordings (not copies) were, that on a non-professional level you will almost always lose some of the dynamic resolution because of the necessary headroom you would need to prevent the all-nasty digital limiting distortion when the signal level gets out of range. So, even if the maximum dynamic range runs over 96db, which seems much, but you normally had to let around 10db headroom (-6db/half amplitude means one bit of resolution less). And considering that the lowest resolution bits (the quietest and weakest signals) in digital audio are by far almost a joke with more than 20dB (!) distortion, 16bit dynamic resolution seems to be definitely too low. Professional 16bit recording in those days were like any other studio production done with equalizers, compressors and limiters to overcome this. I even did a lot of mastering in those days with analog tape machines as dithering (low bit noise masking for distortion prevention) and limiting devices before transferring the music to the CD master. CDs then, which have the same resolution with DAT dynamically, were the already properly mastered (or they should have been...) and the dynamic resolution did not suffer from that dilemma. That is why we still use CDs or 16bit/44.1kHz music up until today.
DAT is ar superior to cds and i have a good cd player or several said to be good cd players and all working from CEC , Linn , Pioneer, Philips , Yamaha, Technics and Rega, the cec is the better one
You're like the new Eric and Ernie
Who's who?
DAT tape is the same width as CC (cassettes)
when cd-r appeared i got a big one cheap in Andorra, tax free region near the Alpes from Spain to France, it appeared a message of can not copy as each original cd was only able to record at full quality much above modern cd-rw on computers and even with a yellow face missing bit´s it plays perfect while the already good recorded cds on a computer don´t play any music as it got darker but cd-r was and is perfect, but after three copy´s in digital it got equal to the original one had to ask a friend for another cd of the same title to make again three more copies and because we were a big group of friends more or less we had the same cds so several time possible of doing copy´s, but DAT was the better digital format and still is ,mine that is the second i have bought it for 15€ with 20 blank dat tapes, tdk and fuji(means i runaway, in portuguese), if you say fuji other asks "from who or where"
Nice machine
Any current even semi-pro digital mastering process includes the equivalent of Super Bit Mapping (i.e. using noise shaping techniques like dithering) when downsampling to 16/44.1 for producing CDs. SBM (and similar trademarked techniques used by other companies) was only relevant when earlier recordings were made at 16/44.1 or indeed at 16/48 while that used an 20/44.1or 48 process properly (which means with added dithering) downsampled to 16/44.1 No digital recordings today are made at 16/anything. A to D conversion is not lossy within the bounds of the frequency response dictated by the sampling rate. You will have to decide between you which is the more appropriate way to copy a high quality analogue source, the cassette deck or some digital AD process. It seems you are in disagreement here. Personally I know what I would choose any time and it is not DAT nor of course the analogue tape.
if you have money to buy all original, good for you but recording cassettes or DAT´s is a way of saving thousands, as even cassettes when recorded from a cd sound even better than the cd is a total copy without convertions if with a better deck it even reaches higher quality in what concerns to frequency response and DSD only is better than PCM if very expensive, if cheap makes no diference using one or other, direct stream DAC type
no no no( a beirut song not the city being destroyd everyday but the band)
I note there is an A6 recently serviced on ebay right now for £295 if anyone is interested. That seems like a good price. I would be tempted but have bought way too much gear recently and it would tempt divorce.
idon´t know why but you makem mke remenber the two old guys on muppet show , no ofense as they were the crtics to the show
how many ideas can mike have in a rift episode 😂 dave Sony is pronounced SO KNEE
"Rift"? That's a great name for the sequel... "Hi-Fi Rift"
@@MrVinylista 'Rift' in Scottish dialect means, to belch, to eructate. Was this what you had in mind?
@@robertleitch2016 No, I mean rift as in crack, or fissure, split or disagree - but the Scottish usage opens up all sorts of possibilities!
@@MrVinylista An example of the usage comes from Lord Braxfield, an 18th century judge, who on one occasion adjourned proceedings when both counsels turned up at court the worse for drink: "Gentlemen, ye may just pack up your papers and gang hame; the ane o' ye's rifting port, and the ither's farting claret-and there'll be nae guid got out o' ye the day".
👍
No!!!! R stands for ROTARY!!!