How well does Dolby C work on cassettes?

[Clark L. Coleman]

I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.

I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
do people complain about it in general?

Thanks for the feedback.

Clark Coleman

[Robert Morein]

"Clark L. Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
> that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
> frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
>
> I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
> deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
> do people complain about it in general?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Clark Coleman

Dolby C was replaced by Dolby S.
Dolby C was extremely touchy regarding deck calibration. Dolby S is not, and
provides improved performance as well.
But can't you transition to a newer medium? The Philips cassette is over,
done, obsolete, and for good reason.

[Clark L. Coleman]

In article >,
Robert Morein > wrote:
>
>"Clark L. Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
>> that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
>> frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
>>
>> I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
>> deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
>> do people complain about it in general?
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> Clark Coleman
>
>Dolby C was replaced by Dolby S.
>Dolby C was extremely touchy regarding deck calibration. Dolby S is not, and
>provides improved performance as well.

If this is true, why is it almost impossible to find a new deck with
Dolby S, while Dolby C is common? I was aware of some Sony decks with
Dolby S a short time ago, but they are all discontinued now.

[Robert Morein]

"Clark L. Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>>
>>"Clark L. Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
>>> that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
>>> frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
>>>
>>> I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
>>> deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
>>> do people complain about it in general?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>
>>> Clark Coleman
>>
>>Dolby C was replaced by Dolby S.
>>Dolby C was extremely touchy regarding deck calibration. Dolby S is not,
>>and
>>provides improved performance as well.
>
> If this is true, why is it almost impossible to find a new deck with
> Dolby S, while Dolby C is common? I was aware of some Sony decks with
> Dolby S a short time ago, but they are all discontinued now.
>
Strange things happen when a technology is in the process of dying.
It's just a quirk.

"Clark L. Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
> that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
> frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
>
> I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
> deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
> do people complain about it in general?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Clark Coleman

When Dolby C came out it got good reviews, the only problem I am aware of is
finding other decks, such as in cars, that have it. If you play a Doby C
encoded tape using Dolby B it will sound harsh and the highs will be
accentuated.

The easiest thing to do is record something in both B and C and compare
them. The one you lie is the one you should use.

[dizzy]

Clark L. Coleman wrote:

>I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
>that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
>frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
>
>I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
>deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
>do people complain about it in general?

What's more important than what type of NR you have, is the number of
heads. If you're using cassette, get a 3-head. I've never heard a
2-head that didn't sound bad, compared to a good 3-head.

"Clark L. Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
> that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
> frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
>
> I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
> deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
> do people complain about it in general?

Dolby C works well. I used it all the time back when I was making
cassettes.

Norm Strong

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Clark L. Coleman wrote:
>
>>I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
>>that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
>>frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
>>
>>I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
>>deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
>>do people complain about it in general?
>
> What's more important than what type of NR you have, is the number of
> heads. If you're using cassette, get a 3-head. I've never heard a
> 2-head that didn't sound bad, compared to a good 3-head.
>
Agreed. There might be some Nakamchi exceptions, but then their 2 head
decks were inferior to their 3 head one as well.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> When Dolby C came out it got good reviews, the only problem I am aware of
> is finding other decks, such as in cars, that have it. If you play a Doby
> C encoded tape using Dolby B it will sound harsh and the highs will be
> accentuated.
>

If one wants to accentuate, one should
"at least" accentuate the positive.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:10:31 -0800, > wrote:


>Dolby C works well.

But not as well as minidisc. :-)

[124]

Clark L. Coleman wrote:

> I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
> that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
> frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.

Myth.

> I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
> deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
> do people complain about it in general?

Dolby C can come very close to CD. Use metal or a high-quality
high-bias tape, set the levels as high as possible without causing
objectionable distortion, and make sure you are always using a clean
deck.

http://www.mastersonaudio.com/tips/20030201.htm
http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20041001.htm

--124

[Ruud Broens]

"124" > wrote in message
ups.com...
: Clark L. Coleman wrote:
:
: > I have seen online reviews of particular cassette decks that claim
: > that Dolby C makes for bad-sounding recordings, especially on high
: > frequencies. Example is Harman Kardon DC520 cassette deck.
:
: Myth.
:
: > I have only used Dolby B in the past but need to replace an old broken
: > deck. Is Dolby C good on most modern decks, but bad only on a few? Or
: > do people complain about it in general?
:
: Dolby C can come very close to CD. Use metal or a high-quality
: high-bias tape, set the levels as high as possible without causing
: objectionable distortion, and make sure you are always using a clean
: deck.
:
: http://www.mastersonaudio.com/tips/20030201.htm
: http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20041001.htm
:
: --124
:
I don't see Masters recommending recording at levels as high as possible
which is just as well, as that would make the recommendations nonsense
- so that must be your recommendation, 124 - baaad advice, slick :-)

R.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:10:31 -0800, > wrote:
>
>
>>Dolby C works well.
>
> But not as well as minidisc. :-)

Yes.
In some kinds of use, I've found high quality cassette can fool the ear.
Seems to do well with orchestra. But I did a test using an ordinary,
speaking human voice, which happened to be mine. The odd-order harmonic
distortion was quite obvious. High bias tapes produced more noticeable
distortion than low bias.

But mindisc is better.
But why not just burn CDs? It's cheap, and very very good.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:00:04 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:10:31 -0800, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dolby C works well.
>>
>> But not as well as minidisc. :-)
>
>Yes.
>In some kinds of use, I've found high quality cassette can fool the ear.
>Seems to do well with orchestra. But I did a test using an ordinary,
>speaking human voice, which happened to be mine. The odd-order harmonic
>distortion was quite obvious. High bias tapes produced more noticeable
>distortion than low bias.
>
>But mindisc is better.
>But why not just burn CDs? It's cheap, and very very good.

Minidisc is better. More compact, less vulnerable, vastly better
editing options. Just better.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:00:04 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:10:31 -0800,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dolby C works well.
>>>
>>> But not as well as minidisc. :-)
>>
>> Yes.
>> In some kinds of use, I've found high quality cassette
>> can fool the ear. Seems to do well with orchestra. But I
>> did a test using an ordinary, speaking human voice,
>> which happened to be mine. The odd-order harmonic
>> distortion was quite obvious. High bias tapes produced
>> more noticeable distortion than low bias.
>>
>> But mindisc is better.

>> But why not just burn CDs? It's cheap, and very very
>> good.

We've got to highlight this post. For once Morein said something that makes
sense!

> Minidisc is better.

It takes a lot of eye-closing to reach that conclusion.

> More compact,

My living room is big enough to not be taxed by storing CDs. Ditto for my
car and even backpack.

Let's face it, if you want to do live recording today, you'll use a
flash-based recorder. If you're working at home, there's no problem if you
completely avoid MD.

My MD recorder is one of the worst audio investments I ever made.

> less vulnerable,

????

> vastly better editing options.

No way!

> Just better.

MDs are perceptually coded, for *approximately* good sound.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:05:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> But mindisc is better.
>
>>> But why not just burn CDs? It's cheap, and very very
>>> good.
>
>We've got to highlight this post. For once Morein said something that makes
>sense!

Wrong, Arnie. Robert's experience of minidisc is obviously as limited
as yours.

>> Minidisc is better.
>
>It takes a lot of eye-closing to reach that conclusion.

Explanation.

>> More compact,
>
>My living room is big enough to not be taxed by storing CDs. Ditto for my
>car and even backpack.

Doesn't change the fact: minidisc is approx. 1/4 the size of CD

>Let's face it, if you want to do live recording today, you'll use a
>flash-based recorder. If you're working at home, there's no problem if you
>completely avoid MD.

Who said anything about live recording? As for home recording, no one
said there's a problem if you avoid MD, only that you're depriving
yourself of a very fine and versatile product if you do.

>My MD recorder is one of the worst audio investments I ever made.

Explanation.

>> less vulnerable,
>
>????

Less vulnerable, Arnie. It means, not as vulnerable to damage--as in
the disc being enclosed in a plastic case.

>> vastly better editing options.

>No way!

Explanation. And please don't talk about computers. For the purposes
of this discussion the computer is in another room, as it is in most
homes.

>> Just better.
>
>MDs are perceptually coded, for *approximately* good sound.

The statement means nothing. This is a very poor post from you, Arnie.
I'm disappointed.

[Pooh Bear]

paul packer wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:05:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

< snip >

> >MDs are perceptually coded, for *approximately* good sound.
>
> The statement means nothing. This is a very poor post from you, Arnie.
> I'm disappointed.

The data compression used for ATRACS does indeed rely on human perception just
like mp3. Both are examples of 'sub-band codecs'.

http://www.minidisc.org/aes_atrac.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATRAC

Minidisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality. It's a convenient
medium if size is an issue though.

Graham

[124]

Pooh Bear wrote:

> MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality.

Rubbish.
http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm

--124

[124]

Pooh Bear wrote:

> MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality.

Rubbish.
http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm

--124

[Pooh Bear]

124 wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality.
>
> Rubbish.
> http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm

Well screw you too sunshine !

I guess you reckon that deleting information improves the quality of
reproduction, or are you simply too dense to understand the underlying
concepts ?

Graham

[124]

124 wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality.
[Rest deleted.] Sorry for extra post.

--124

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:05:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> But mindisc is better.
>>
>>>> But why not just burn CDs? It's cheap, and very very
>>>> good.
>>
>> We've got to highlight this post. For once Morein said
>> something that makes sense!
>
> Wrong, Arnie. Robert's experience of minidisc is
> obviously as limited as yours.
>
>>> Minidisc is better.
>>
>> It takes a lot of eye-closing to reach that conclusion.
>
> Explanation.

Minidisc does not in general pass a straight-wire bypass test.

>>> More compact,

>> My living room is big enough to not be taxed by storing
>> CDs. Ditto for my car and even backpack.

> Doesn't change the fact: minidisc is approx. 1/4 the size
> of CD

So what? It's rare that space is that constrained, and when it is we now
have flash RAM.

>> Let's face it, if you want to do live recording today,
>> you'll use a flash-based recorder. If you're working at
>> home, there's no problem if you completely avoid MD.

> Who said anything about live recording? As for home
> recording, no one said there's a problem if you avoid MD,
> only that you're depriving yourself of a very fine and
> versatile product if you do.

When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard disk-based recording.
Your computer has one, right?

>> My MD recorder is one of the worst audio investments I
>> ever made.

> Explanation.

It quickly became useless.

>>> less vulnerable,
>>
>> ????
>
> Less vulnerable, Arnie. It means, not as vulnerable to
> damage--as in the disc being enclosed in a plastic case.

No problems with damage to flash RAM.

>>> vastly better editing options.

>> No way!

> Explanation. And please don't talk about computers.

Sorry Paul but this is the 21st century. If you won't use computers, well
than how are you posting on RAO?

> For the purposes of this discussion the computer is in
> another room, as it is in most homes.

They don't have laptops in Australia?

>>> Just better.
>>
>> MDs are perceptually coded, for *approximately* good
>> sound.

> The statement means nothing. This is a very poor post
> from you, Arnie. I'm disappointed.

It's hard to talk in language that you're likely to correctly perceive,
Paul.

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
ups.com
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>> MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound
>> quality.

> Rubbish.
> http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm

Rubbish yourself. That article does not say that MD is truely CD quality. In
fact it only mentions ATRAC in passing.

In case you somehow think otherwise, no way is MP3 the same technical
quality as CD. So all the unfavorable comparisons with MP3 are irrelevant to
the question of the relative quality of ATRAC (MD) and CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> 124 wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>> MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound
>>> quality.
> [Rest deleted.] Sorry for extra post.
>

Unsupported assertions are even less convincing than a misinterpreted
reference.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:25:31 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>124 wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> > MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>> http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm
>
>Well screw you too sunshine !
>
>I guess you reckon that deleting information improves the quality of
>reproduction, or are you simply too dense to understand the underlying
>concepts ?
>
>Graham

First of all, whatever may show up in measurement, minidisc is capable
of superlative, virtually-impossible-to-pick-from-the-original results
on recording even with ATRAC. However, with Hi-MD no compression is
involved, so where's the beef? Minidisc is an utterly brilliant home
and portable medium, and only those who've had little experience of
it, or used poor (mostly non-Sony) hardware, think otherwise.

[124]

paul packer wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> >124 wrote:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>
> >> > MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality.
> >>
> >> Rubbish.
> >> http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm
> >
> >Well screw you too sunshine !
> >
> >I guess you reckon that deleting information improves the quality of
> >reproduction, or are you simply too dense to understand the underlying
> >concepts ?
> >
> >Graham
>
> First of all, whatever may show up in measurement, minidisc is capable
> of superlative, virtually-impossible-to-pick-from-the-original results
> on recording even with ATRAC. However, with Hi-MD no compression is
> involved, so where's the beef? Minidisc is an utterly brilliant home
> and portable medium, and only those who've had little experience of
> it, or used poor (mostly non-Sony) hardware, think otherwise.

"It [the MiniDisc] can make recordings sonically indistinguishable from
their sources."
http://www.mastersonaudio.com/tips/20031015.htm

--124

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> paul packer wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>> 124 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound
>>>>> quality.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish.
>>>> http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm
>>>
>>> Well screw you too sunshine !
>>>
>>> I guess you reckon that deleting information improves
>>> the quality of reproduction, or are you simply too
>>> dense to understand the underlying concepts ?
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>> First of all, whatever may show up in measurement,
>> minidisc is capable of superlative,
>> virtually-impossible-to-pick-from-the-original results
>> on recording even with ATRAC.


>> However, with Hi-MD no
>> compression is involved, so where's the beef?

No beef with that format, but its relatively new and not widely implemented.

I suspect that there are more portable flash and hard-drive based recorders
that record standard .wav. They are cerainly easy enough to find.

>> Minidisc
>> is an utterly brilliant home and portable medium, and
>> only those who've had little experience of it, or used
>> poor (mostly non-Sony) hardware, think otherwise.

My MD recorder was a Sony.

> "It [the MiniDisc] can make recordings sonically
> indistinguishable from their sources."
> http://www.mastersonaudio.com/tips/20031015.htm

Probably true. All you have to do is avoid music that is troublesome for
ATRAC to code properly.

MD recorders that record .wav files are Johnny-come-lately ringers. Hi-MD is
just another Sony format that will die on the vine.

[Pooh Bear]

124 wrote:

> paul packer wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> > >124 wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > MiniDisc can't remotely compete with CD for sound quality.
> > >>
> > >> Rubbish.
> > >> http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm
> > >
> > >Well screw you too sunshine !
> > >
> > >I guess you reckon that deleting information improves the quality of
> > >reproduction, or are you simply too dense to understand the underlying
> > >concepts ?
> > >
> > >Graham
> >
> > First of all, whatever may show up in measurement, minidisc is capable
> > of superlative, virtually-impossible-to-pick-from-the-original results
> > on recording even with ATRAC. However, with Hi-MD no compression is
> > involved, so where's the beef? Minidisc is an utterly brilliant home
> > and portable medium, and only those who've had little experience of
> > it, or used poor (mostly non-Sony) hardware, think otherwise.
>
> "It [the MiniDisc] can make recordings sonically indistinguishable from
> their sources."
> http://www.mastersonaudio.com/tips/20031015.htm

Anyone can *say* that. The truth is that ATRACS , along with mp3 etc uses
*lossy* compression. It *loses* info. I'm sure it's adequate for much
undemanding use but it is simply - from first principles- unequal to
uncompressed linear pcm such as used on CDs.

Graham

[paul packer]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > First of all, whatever may show up in measurement, minidisc is capable
> > > of superlative, virtually-impossible-to-pick-from-the-original results
> > > on recording even with ATRAC. However, with Hi-MD no compression is
> > > involved, so where's the beef? Minidisc is an utterly brilliant home
> > > and portable medium, and only those who've had little experience of
> > > it, or used poor (mostly non-Sony) hardware, think otherwise.
> >
> > "It [the MiniDisc] can make recordings sonically indistinguishable from
> > their sources."
> > http://www.mastersonaudio.com/tips/20031015.htm
>
> Anyone can *say* that. The truth is that ATRACS , along with mp3 etc uses
> *lossy* compression. It *loses* info. I'm sure it's adequate for much
> undemanding use but it is simply - from first principles- unequal to
> uncompressed linear pcm such as used on CDs.
>
> Graham

And what about Hi-MD, which uses no compression whatsoever? If most
people who used MD, including reviewers, reported amazingly little (or
no) subjective deterioration with compressed minidisc, uncompressed
would surely satisfy even you.

[paul packer]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard disk-based recording.
> Your computer has one, right?

How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system are two totally
different things in two different rooms. I have no desire that they
should co-habit nor indeed have any illicit relations whatsoever. If
you looked out of your little studio occasionally you might observe
that this is the case in most households. I don't wish to switch my
computer on just to listen to music. For one thing, the cooling fans
make a hellish noise. For another, Microsoft crashes far too often for
me to entrust precious recordings to a hard disk. I reserve the
computer mostly for arguing with you and George. My audio system is for
pleasure.

> >> My MD recorder is one of the worst audio investments I
> >> ever made.
>
> > Explanation.
>
> It quickly became useless.

You probably buggered it up. I've had numerous minidisc recorders and
had no trouble whatsoever. The only really bum model (among home
recorders) was the Sony 510. Portables I don't have much experience of.

> >>> less vulnerable,
> >>
> >> ????
> >
> > Less vulnerable, Arnie. It means, not as vulnerable to
> > damage--as in the disc being enclosed in a plastic case.
>
> No problems with damage to flash RAM.

Oh geez, computers again. Why do I get the feeling you're not an audio
enthusiast at all?

> >>> vastly better editing options.
>
> >> No way!
>
> > Explanation. And please don't talk about computers.
>
> Sorry Paul but this is the 21st century. If you won't use computers, well
> than how are you posting on RAO?

Stupid question. What has posting here to do with listening to music?

> > For the purposes of this discussion the computer is in
> > another room, as it is in most homes.
>
> They don't have laptops in Australia?

Stupid question No.2. I had a desktop computer. I have an audio system.
I don't need a laptop.

> >>> Just better.
> >>
> >> MDs are perceptually coded, for *approximately* good
> >> sound.
>
> > The statement means nothing. This is a very poor post
> > from you, Arnie. I'm disappointed.
>
> It's hard to talk in language that you're likely to correctly perceive,

English will do fine. Just stop using the words computer and audio in
the same sentence.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
>> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
>
> How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system are
> two totally different things in two different rooms.

OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set up your audio and
computer systems. It's not my fault!

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
> >> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
> >
> > How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system are
> > two totally different things in two different rooms.
>
> OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set up your audio and
> computer systems. It's not my fault!

Realistically a PC is *not* a viable hi-fi.

MS might have made a sterling effort with Windoze Media Center < sic >
Edition but I see few takers. A PC is simply too clumsy a tool compared with
a dedicated piece of *low-noise* hardware that works the instant it's
switched on.

A no-brainer really.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
in message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
>>>> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
>>>
>>> How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system are
>>> two totally different things in two different rooms.
>>
>> OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set
>> up your audio and computer systems. It's not my fault!
>
> Realistically a PC is *not* a viable hi-fi.

That's the conservative view, and one I tend to hold to. But I walk into
stores and see lots of "Media PCs" running something called "Windows XP
Media Center Edition 2005", so the believe that a PC is a viable hi-fi seems
to be some kind of trend or hype.

I also have this little PC next to my desk here that boots fast and runs
almost totally silently... The AMD Sempron chip in it runs at about 27
degrees C with the fan stopped, 25 with the fan running.

> MS might have made a sterling effort with Windoze Media
> Center < sic > Edition but I see few takers.

I find them in people's houses here in Grosse Pointe, and they tell me they
love them.

Remember that the US is about a year ahead of the UK in terms of rolling out
new computer technology.

> A PC is simply too clumsy a tool compared with a dedicated piece
> of *low-noise* hardware that works the instant it's switched on.

You're preaching to the choir, Graham. And PC's are my day job.

PC's don't make good appliances. But they can make great tools.

PC's make great DAWs and are IME wonderful multitrack recorders and editors.

All it takes to turn a modern PC into a usuable music editing station is, a
recorder with a USB or firewire interface, the right software, and a good
pair of headphones.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote
> in message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
>>>>> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
>>>>
>>>> How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system are
>>>> two totally different things in two different rooms.
>>>
>>> OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set
>>> up your audio and computer systems. It's not my fault!
>>
>> Realistically a PC is *not* a viable hi-fi.
>
> That's the conservative view, and one I tend to hold to. But I walk into
> stores and see lots of "Media PCs" running something called "Windows XP
> Media Center Edition 2005", so the believe that a PC is a viable hi-fi
> seems to be some kind of trend or hype.
>
> I also have this little PC next to my desk here that boots fast and runs
> almost totally silently... The AMD Sempron chip in it runs at about 27
> degrees C with the fan stopped, 25 with the fan running.
>
>> MS might have made a sterling effort with Windoze Media
>> Center < sic > Edition but I see few takers.
>
> I find them in people's houses here in Grosse Pointe, and they tell me
> they love them.
>

Maybe in the children's rooms.

> Remember that the US is about a year ahead of the UK in terms of rolling
> out new computer technology.
>

Bull****. In many ways the opposite is true. Unlike you, Arnii, I actually
travel to Europe. Perhaps you should ask John Atkinson to take you there.
:-)

>> A PC is simply too clumsy a tool compared with a dedicated piece
>> of *low-noise* hardware that works the instant it's switched on.
>
> You're preaching to the choir, Graham. And PC's are my day job.
>
> PC's don't make good appliances. But they can make great tools.
>
> PC's make great DAWs and are IME wonderful multitrack recorders and
> editors.
>
> All it takes to turn a modern PC into a usuable music editing station is,
> a recorder with a USB or firewire interface, the right software, and a
> good pair of headphones.
>

To begin with, it takes a laptop to be portable. And almost all of them have
****ty audio hardware that mandates external PC cards. Furthermore, laptops
have slow hard drives and if you equip them with a fast one like the
Travelstar, the battery life is drastically reduced making them all but
unusable. And they still aren't as crash proof as even the humblest of
Roland or Yamaha DAW's. There may be exceptions, but not that I know of.

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Pooh Bear" >
>> wrote in message
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
>>>>>> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system
>>>>> are two totally different things in two different
>>>>> rooms.
>>>>
>>>> OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set
>>>> up your audio and computer systems. It's not my fault!
>>>
>>> Realistically a PC is *not* a viable hi-fi.
>>
>> That's the conservative view, and one I tend to hold to.
>> But I walk into stores and see lots of "Media PCs"
>> running something called "Windows XP Media Center
>> Edition 2005", so the believe that a PC is a viable
>> hi-fi seems to be some kind of trend or hype. I also have this little PC
>> next to my desk here that
>> boots fast and runs almost totally silently... The AMD
>> Sempron chip in it runs at about 27 degrees C with the
>> fan stopped, 25 with the fan running.
>>> MS might have made a sterling effort with Windoze Media
>>> Center < sic > Edition but I see few takers.
>>
>> I find them in people's houses here in Grosse Pointe,
>> and they tell me they love them.
>>
>
> Maybe in the children's rooms.

Actually, in kitchens, offices and family rooms.

>> Remember that the US is about a year ahead of the UK in
>> terms of rolling out new computer technology.

> Bull****. In many ways the opposite is true. Unlike you,
> Arnii, I actually travel to Europe. Perhaps you should
> ask John Atkinson to take you there. :-)

Europe is not a strange place to me. I lived there for a year, visited at
other times since.

>>> A PC is simply too clumsy a tool compared with a
>>> dedicated piece of *low-noise* hardware that works the
>>> instant it's switched on.
>>
>> You're preaching to the choir, Graham. And PC's are my
>> day job. PC's don't make good appliances. But they can make great
>> tools. PC's make great DAWs and are IME wonderful multitrack
>> recorders and editors.
>>
>> All it takes to turn a modern PC into a usuable music
>> editing station is, a recorder with a USB or firewire
>> interface, the right software, and a good pair of
>> headphones.

> To begin with, it takes a laptop to be portable.

It doesn't take a computer *that* portable to make a good remote recorder.

> And almost all of them have ****ty audio hardware that
> mandates external PC cards.

If you're serious about recording you need more than just the computer,
anyway. You need mic pres, the good ones of which tend to hog power. And,
you're proabably not recording just two channels.

> Furthermore, laptops have
> slow hard drives and if you equip them with a fast one
> like the Travelstar, the battery life is drastically
> reduced making them all but unusable.

Nobody in their right mind runs a laptop on batteries for critical work if
there's an AC plug near by.

The standard laptop hard drives are now fast enough, even for multichannel
work.

> And they still
> aren't as crash proof as even the humblest of Roland or
> Yamaha DAW's. There may be exceptions, but not that I
> know of.

I haven't crashed my remote recorder PC in a year or more. In fact I can't
remember the last time it crashed in normal use, maybe two years ago?

The machine I use for editing gets booted once a month whether it needs it
or not! ;-)

[paul packer]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:04:27 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >
>> >> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
>> >> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
>> >
>> > How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system are
>> > two totally different things in two different rooms.
>>
>> OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set up your audio and
>> computer systems. It's not my fault!
>
>Realistically a PC is *not* a viable hi-fi.

Yes. I've gotten tired of saying it.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:16:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Pooh Bear" > wrote
>in message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
>>>>> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
>>>>
>>>> How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system are
>>>> two totally different things in two different rooms.
>>>
>>> OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set
>>> up your audio and computer systems. It's not my fault!
>>
>> Realistically a PC is *not* a viable hi-fi.
>
>That's the conservative view, and one I tend to hold to.

Then why will you not have an audio discussion, at least with me,
without dragging in computers? Whatever the situation re the
integration of home audio and PCs, it has not reached my--or most
people's--homes and probably won't for many years. So when I say that
MDs have the sort of performance, features and editing facilities I
require, the cry of "Computers!" is irrelevant to me, not to say
irritating.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:16:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" >
>> wrote in message
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When one it at home there is no reason to avoid hard
>>>>>> disk-based recording. Your computer has one, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> How many times, Arnie!? My computer and audio system
>>>>> are two totally different things in two different
>>>>> rooms.
>>>>
>>>> OK Paul, so you shot yourself in the foot when you set
>>>> up your audio and computer systems. It's not my fault!
>>>
>>> Realistically a PC is *not* a viable hi-fi.
>>
>> That's the conservative view, and one I tend to hold to.
>
> Then why will you not have an audio discussion, at least
> with me, without dragging in computers?

I believe Paul that you and I were discussing recording and editing.
Graham and I are discussing consumer playback.

> Whatever the
> situation re the integration of home audio and PCs, it
> has not reached my--or most people's--homes and probably
> won't for many years.

At least in Australia, I guess.

> So when I say that MDs have the
> sort of performance, features and editing facilities I
> require, the cry of "Computers!" is irrelevant to me, not
> to say irritating.

OK Paul so you have a phobia about computers. What do you post to Usenet
with? A VT-100?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:51:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>> So when I say that MDs have the
>> sort of performance, features and editing facilities I
>> require, the cry of "Computers!" is irrelevant to me, not
>> to say irritating.
>
>OK Paul so you have a phobia about computers. What do you post to Usenet
>with? A VT-100?

AAAgggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!