Apparently some double-blind tests done a year or two ago in Europe on the
latest version of the MD compression scheme indicated that there was not a
substantial perceptual difference.
We'll all need to get used to perceptual audio coding where "inaudible"
information is thrown away to save bandwidth when the new digital TV system
comes into use (starting this fall). The Dolby AC-3 system puts 5.1
channels into 384kb/s.
CD-R (and I suspect DVD-R) is not a user-friendly field recording medium
with the need to write tables of contents and have a fair amount of laser
power to burn the disk which means large battery drain. I do have a CD-R
burner on my new computer and while stand-alone CD-R's are easier to use
(but not as flexible overall) they still don't strike me as live recording
devices.
The new ADAT machines are 20bit recording (8 channels on a VHS tape) it
will be interesting to see what happens with the new audio DVD's with 24
bit 96kHz. I wonder where the master material will come from.
My perception is that DAT/CD is about equal in bandwidth and noise to 15ips
DolbyA 2 track and superior in dropouts and speed issues (both short and
long term). Many of the master tapes that CDs are made from are not first
or even second generation DolbyA 2 tracks--although that is improving now
that more projects are digitally mastered.
I think the current crop of D8 portable DATs are more reliable than the D3
and D7, but that is only based on anecdotal evidence. My D8 does not see
that much use as I generally only tape with advanced permission...my
exception was a festival venue that specifically said no video cameras so I
walked in with my DAT and my Nikon 35mm <smile>.
Mics and headphones and such are a challenge. For serious venue recording
of things like pipe organs, I use AKG C451's. There are better and worse
mics, but I've had these for 27 years and love them to death. I've also
have Sennheiser 416 short shotguns for more annoying venues.
Remember with DAT: fast forward and rewind the tape just prior to use in
the machine that you're going to record it on.
I have several friends who are TV professionals who LOVE MD. MD has seen
some use as a replacement for the NAB audio cartridge which is now,
thankfully, in its last gasp, and as Tom indicated, radio journalists are
using MD now as much for its editing capabilities as anything else. DAT
editing is a pain without a real editor (just like video)...but then again,
computers edit well!
So...what am I saying. Each format has its place. I would not go against MD
for certain applications. BUT ONLY CDR is archival by any sense of the
imagination. I would not count on DAT or MD to be archival. DAT because of
the media and MD because you won't find machines easily to play it in 15-20
years.
archival (i.e. will last as long as I hope to last): LPs and CDs. Analog
tape _may_ but the equipment will start to become the problem. DAT _may_
but I wouldn't want my life to be tied to the demise of my DATs. The data
world is saying that DDS (data-DAT) is probably good for less than five
years...but audio DAT can tolerate slightly higher error rates.
Enough rambling...I'll carry on a short email conversation with anyone who
has any questions.
Cheers!
Richard
Richard L. Hess rlhess@mindspring.com
Glendale, CA USA http://rlhess.home.mindspring.com/
Web page for folk and church music, photography, and satellite navigation