Digital recording, mixing Need professional help.

By "digital audio tapes" are you strictly referring to the DAT format, or do you mean digital recording in general?

All digital formats use 1's and 0's, but the red-book CD technology is basically something that was developed in the early 80's (late 70's?). Things have changed a lot since then, but unfortunately, the general market is still extremely committed to that old format. I don't know how to describe the differences in an effective way, but try to think of the musical event as a book. The book is written using a 26 letter alphabet. 24 bit/192khz digital recording is limited to 24 letters, so it captures 90-some percent of the book. The final printing (Red-book CD technology) is limited to 16 letters, so you're taking a book written with a 26 letter alphabet, re-writing it with 24 letters, and then trying to publish it on a printing press that is limited to a 16 letter alphabet. That's a very general (and maybe lame) analogy, but I think it does the trick. Good analog equipment is able to capture all 26 letters used in the original book (though it does fatten a few of them up). :-)

I don't know the technical specifications of the DAT format. I think they were 20 or 24 bit and capable of various sampling rates (depending on the unit), so that would mean that they are capable of better resolution than red-book CDs. As far as professional recording eqipment goes...there are tape-based (and hard-disk based) systems that range from 16/44.1 to 24/192. Any newer digital recorder should be able to capture more information than a red-book CD is capable of holding. Current digital technology is finally getting to the point where it can capture the same amount of information as analog tape (many 24/192 units, and especially things recorded using Sony's SACD process and the DVD-A process). A good analog process is technically capable of holding more information than red-book CDs...vinyl included (assuming all the equipment in the recording / mastering / playback chain is up to the task). A well done digital recording could sound better on vinyl than red-book CD because the vinyl could, theoretically, capture more of the information from the master tape. Red-book mastering technology has come a long way...CDs do sound better than ever before...it's just that the format is ultimately hampered by the old 16/44.1 technology.

The "digital vinyl" is recorded exactly the same way that any vinyl is recorded, but it's source is a digital one (playing through analog outputs) instead of an analog tape...that's the only difference.

I hope I managed to answer a question or two in my rambling. Are you trying to figure out which is better?? I'd say that depends on who is doing the recording and mastering. A recording made on a professional 16/44.1 system by talented people (with great mics, preamps, and circuitry) could sound better than a recording made on a cheap 24/192 DAT...it all depends. A well done digital recording could sound amazing on a well made LP. It could also sound amazing on a well made CD too, but the LP should *technically* be a more representative copy of the music. On the other hand, a poor digital recording will probably sound like crap on both formats.

There was a trend that started in the late 80s and it continues today...especially on LP reissues. The labels have been cutting their LPs from the digital master tapes that were made for the CD release. That's okay (and unavoidable) if it was originally a digital recording, but it's a little lame when they do it to analog-recorded material. Why convert the signal from analog to digital, and then back to analog? I know it's a financial decision on the labels' part, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think there's any way that a digital re-master could sound as good as all-analog LP mastering...not if it's done right.

Okay...I'm done.

To continue with Phil's discussion... a DAT is a 16 bit word just the same as CD redbook. However, DAT has the ability to record sample frequencies of 32 kHZ, 44.1 kHZ (CD standard), and 48 kHZ ( original consumer DAT standard). A DAT can make a direct digital duplication of a CD. However, a DAT recorded with a different sampling frequency from 44.1 doesn't work with CD. A DAT at 48 kHZ has a higher maximum frequency response of 24 kHZ as compared with CD's maximum of 22.05 kHz.

If a DAT is recorded at 48 kHZ and it is to be pressed onto a CD-R, it will require a sample rate convertor. Quality external sample rate convertors are expensive and typically diminish sound quality. Sample rate conversion can also be accomplished using a computer editor but there are still sound quality issues. Most people recording on DAT use them at 44.1 kHZ sampling frequency.

The process which Phil mentioned where a 24 bit word is crammed into a 16 bit word is called dithering. It is basically a fancy way of rounding down. Sometimes instead of dithering, the word is simply truncated from the higher bit rate to 16 bits but this is a practice that should be avoided. As far as dithering higher bit rates to a 16 bit CD standard, there are numerous mechanisms available such as Apogee's UV22, Pacific Microsonics HDCD, Meridian, etc...

There are also newer multi-track and high-bit technologies available to record with. These are things such as units by Tascam or Nagra. These typically record multi-track 16 bit /44.1 kHZ signals but some can record at 24 bit with a 96 kHz sampling frequency (such as the Nagra). These can be dithered down to a 16 bit CD.

Now for the history of digital recording for vinyl, there are two predominant recorders out there. The first was a proprietary mechanism used by the Decca record company. The other was the Soundstream and was the most common. Neither of these formats is a supported standard today. They were used as the master source and the lacquer to cut the LP was made from the digital source converted to analog rather than an analog tape master. A high quality analog recorder of the day (such as an Ampex ATR) is superior to either the Decca or Soundstream and goes head to head with the finest digital recorders made today.

Excellent and accurate responses!

Thanks to both of you for staying on topic and giving an unbiased and through answer.

I realy enjoyed reading these responces and I figured another sub-question in my own thread:

Why DATs arn't used in consumer media meaning why for instance there are no car DAT players or portable ones. Why there is no brand records sold on DATs such as on CDs or portable audio cassettes?