Klarinet Archive - Posting 000372.txt from 1997/11

From: "Benjamin A. Maas" <bmaas@-----.net>
Subj: Re: DAT vs Mini-CD
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:50:36 -0500

> From: Daniel A. Paprocki <dap@-----.net>
> To: klarinet@-----.us
> Subject: DAT vs Mini-CD
> Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 7:51 AM
>
> Does anyone have experience with DAT vs Mini-CD for recording clarinet?
> How is the playback quality? Opinions?
>
> Dan

As a recording engineer as well as a clarinetist, I must ask a couple of
questions. The first and most important is: What is the rest of your
setup?

Generally, I prefer DAT over Mini-Disc (there is no such thing as mini-CD).
DAT is a studio standard format and Minidisc is a basically failed format.
The big problem with MD is it uses heavy data compression in its
recording. This WILL affect the sound.

The difference between a cheapo DAT and any MD won't be tremendous. The
biggest influence in your recording will be the microphone you use. If you
use a $90 Sony stereo mic, you won't have a great sounding recording. If
you use a $1300 pair of Neumann mics (and position them well), you can make
a darn good recording.

I would also suggest DAT because if you bring your recording into any
studio, you will (guaranteed) find a DAT machine. I know of almost no
studios outfitted with MD. The only advantage of MD is you can program it
to some basic, rough splicing. A computer can do a much better job
though.....

Anyways, I could go on forever, but I won't. If you want more specific
information you can e-mail me off of the list. (there is no use wasting
bandwidth)

-Ben

----------
Benjamin Maas
Clarinetist and Digital Recording Engineer
Student, University of Southern California
Executive Director, Digital Renaissance Consort
bmaas@-----.net
bmaas@-----.edu