chris combest wrote:Im interested in recording, and determining what method maintains a high quality and can be manipulted through editing software on a computer. Ive had difficulty in the past with MiniDisc recorders and converting them for use on a PC. Would a DAT be better? Something else maybe? Suggestions? Thanks.
I think the best is a good analog (multitrack?) tape system for recording, and a high quality A/D to digitize for editing.
And direct-to-digital format it totally dependant on the A/D. So you can have a good DAT, or a bad DAT machine. And you still have to get the digital data from the tape to the computer.
Does anyone make a direct to disk/CD system with a good 24bit, 96kHz A/D ?
I think that DAT is quickly becoming obsolete. You should be happier with a digital recorder (hard drive or possibly memory card). Especially if you want to interface with editing software. And, multi-track digital recirders are very affordable these days (many a lot cheaper than DAT recorders).
CD recorders are okay, but you are are limited to two tracks.
DAT is dead. Go to a local high end Guitar Center and look into multitrack hard drive personal recording studios. Skip the ones which use flash memory cause they also use compression like Mini Disc and the results are not nearly as good as the hard drive based models.
A friend has an inexpensive digital recorder (to flash, I believe). Can anyone tell me why it takes so long to rewind? I'd think that positioning functions would be near instantaneous, at least in human terms.
Chuck(G) wrote:A friend has an inexpensive digital recorder (to flash, I believe). Can anyone tell me why it takes so long to rewind? I'd think that positioning functions would be near instantaneous, at least in human terms.
Just a total guess, but it could be that it has to fill the buffer before it starts to play.
Chuck(G) wrote:A friend has an inexpensive digital recorder (to flash, I believe). Can anyone tell me why it takes so long to rewind? I'd think that positioning functions would be near instantaneous, at least in human terms.
Just a total guess, but it could be that it has to fill the buffer before it starts to play.
Thought of that, but in fact, any positioning (forward/reverse etc.) that should be done in any buffer also takes time. I'm guessing that it stores compressed audio and has to decode it for play or relative positioning.
Skip the ones which use flash memory cause they also use compression like Mini Disc and the results are not nearly as good as the hard drive based models.
The Edirol R1 can record using compression, but it can record .wav, uncompressed, up to 24bit.
"The unit records and plays back at crystal-clear, 24-bit audio resolution without compression."
It also has a built in Stereo mic that's easily good enough for most applications, but will accept others (I use my AT822 with it).
Andy Cattanach, UK
Fodens Band, Intrada Brass Ensemble.
Yamaha Neo BBb x 2 (2011 and 2016), B+H 3v Imperial BBb.
Yamaha YBL613H Bass Trombone.
Mercer and Barker MB5 Cattanach, Yeo Signature Mouthpieces.
chris combest wrote:Instead of dropping more money on a Digital recorder. Is there any way that I can get my recordings on MiniDisc to PC without any hassle or diminishing quality? I really dont like to use the analog to digital transfer that Im currently using, it creates a lot of strange effects. Thanks.
Unless your MiniDisc has a digital output, the only thing you could do is buy anither MiniDisc recorder that does. But, for that amount of money you could get a hard-drive recorder...
