I've got the ol' studio box here with the ADAT PCR card, and the
motherboard has given up the ghost.

When we got this machine, I actually went through three other
mainboards, both Intel and AMD types, before I found one within the same
price range that the PCR card worked properly on (an MSI K7T Turbo with
Duron 800, later upgraded to an Athlon 1200); with the others, the card
wouldn't communicate properly with the decks (ADAT Connect wouldn't
recognize there were even decks present most of the time).

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.

Yeah, yeah, I know ADATs are stone-age... we've still got two of them in
good working order and a LOT of older projects still on the tapes (if
nothing else it would be nice to dump them all off to a now-dirt-cheap
200GB drive or a bunch of DVDs).

Matt Ion wrote:

I've got the ol' studio box here with the ADAT PCR card, and the
motherboard has given up the ghost.

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.

It's not the motherboard that's your problem, it's the PCR card.
These were never well supported by Alesis, and had driver
issues.

If you want to continue using the lightpipe interface, highly
recommended would be to replace the PCR with a Frontier
or RME card. I have the RME HDSP9652 and it's great.

rd

Matt Ion wrote:
I've got the ol' studio box here with the ADAT PCR card, and the
motherboard has given up the ghost.

When we got this machine, I actually went through three other
mainboards, both Intel and AMD types, before I found one within the same
price range that the PCR card worked properly on (an MSI K7T Turbo with
Duron 800, later upgraded to an Athlon 1200); with the others, the card
wouldn't communicate properly with the decks (ADAT Connect wouldn't
recognize there were even decks present most of the time).

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.

Yeah, yeah, I know ADATs are stone-age... we've still got two of them in
good working order and a LOT of older projects still on the tapes (if
nothing else it would be nice to dump them all off to a now-dirt-cheap
200GB drive or a bunch of DVDs).

You may be better off just getting another card - Frontier Design
Dakota, RME 9636 and MOTU 2408 all do 16 ADAT I/O + ADAT sync (24 in
MOTU's case). MOTU's drivers have a reputation for being shaky on PC
though (IME too), be warned. You can easily get anyone of those for
under $300 on ebay, maybe even better. Then you could transfer 16
tracks at once.

--Vas

Matt Ion wrote:

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.

Why do you really want to keep the PCR? There are a bunch of currently
made and currently supported sound cards with ADAT lightpipe inputs,
pretty much ALL of which work better than the PCR (which was pretty flaky
even when new).

Yeah, yeah, I know ADATs are stone-age... we've still got two of them in
good working order and a LOT of older projects still on the tapes (if
nothing else it would be nice to dump them all off to a now-dirt-cheap
200GB drive or a bunch of DVDs).

The ADAT is pretty dead as a format, but the ADAT lightpipe cabling system
has long outlived the recorders. RME makes a bunch of stuff that will take
lightpipe, for instance.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

RD Jones wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:


I've got the ol' studio box here with the ADAT PCR card, and the
motherboard has given up the ghost.

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.


It's not the motherboard that's your problem, it's the PCR card.
These were never well supported by Alesis, and had driver
issues.

Actually, it's the way the card interacts with the board. As I said, I
tried it in three different motherboards before finding the fourth that
it worked in. As cheesy as this is, it's not uncommon - I've dealt with
a number of professional video-capture boards that are very
motherboard-specific.

I tried contacting Alesis about the issue at the time (several years
ago), and after much useless feedback from their "support" people, my
query of whether it was just that the card didn't like certain boards
was met with, "Yeah, that's always possible..."

Useless gits.

If you want to continue using the lightpipe interface, highly
recommended would be to replace the PCR with a Frontier
or RME card. I have the RME HDSP9652 and it's great.

Ah, but do those have the serial deck control as well?

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.


Why do you really want to keep the PCR? There are a bunch of currently
made and currently supported sound cards with ADAT lightpipe inputs,
pretty much ALL of which work better than the PCR (which was pretty flaky
even when new).

Well I don't think the owner of all this stuff really wants to spend
that much more on keeping the format alive... as I noted, it's mostly
just for legacy's sake within this studio. As it is, the studio
operation has become secondary to rehearsal-space use, and is really
just being maintained as a "writing" studio, and to a degree, as storage
for the gear the owner has accumulated over the years (a Mackie 24*8,
some 4311s and NS-10m monitors, a few outboard units, and oh yeah, those
trusty ol' ADAT-XTs).

The current situation with one band leaving and another splitting up
means the income from the rehearsal-space rental is thin and doesn't
leave any extra for gear upgrades... if it wasn't for the owner's desire
to use it for his own band's writing efforts, he probably wouldn't even
worry that much about getting the computer running again... so like I
said, cost is a major factor.

Flaky as they may be, this PCR card has worked reasonably well for years
(motherboard pickiness notwithstanding - put it in a board it likes, and
it works just fine) so there's not really a need to replace it... just
to find a new motherboard it will like.

Worst case, I'll just have to go get three or four different boards and
start testing them all until I find one that the card likes...

Well I don't think the owner of all this stuff really wants to spend that
much more on keeping the format alive... as I noted, it's mostly just for
legacy's sake within this studio. As it is, the studio operation has
become secondary to rehearsal-space use, and is really just being
maintained as a "writing" studio, and to a degree, as storage for the gear
the owner has accumulated over the years (a Mackie 24*8, some 4311s and
NS-10m monitors, a few outboard units, and oh yeah, those trusty ol'
ADAT-XTs).

The format (ADAT lightpipe) is more than alive and well. As of right now it
is the #1 method of communication between digital devices, it's not going
anywhere soon.

Why can't you just get another MSI K7T Turbo? I just put together a computer
with the MSI K7T Turbo ver 3.0 / Athlon 950 / 512MB ram. I am using it to
produce test signals for a speaker measuring system that I wrote years ago.

Someone said that ADAT was dead... Well... I have 2 of the old black face
version 1s. There are uses for them beside audio, you know. I modified one
of mine to be DC coupled in and out so that I can record laser signals. That
was what gave me the idea of using a multi channel sound card to generate
the signals.

http://www.akrobiz.com/laserboy/

James. )


"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:Advhg.253570$WI1.109186@pd7tw2no...
I've got the ol' studio box here with the ADAT PCR card, and the
motherboard has given up the ghost.

When we got this machine, I actually went through three other
mainboards, both Intel and AMD types, before I found one within the same
price range that the PCR card worked properly on (an MSI K7T Turbo with
Duron 800, later upgraded to an Athlon 1200); with the others, the card
wouldn't communicate properly with the decks (ADAT Connect wouldn't
recognize there were even decks present most of the time).

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.

Yeah, yeah, I know ADATs are stone-age... we've still got two of them in
good working order and a LOT of older projects still on the tapes (if
nothing else it would be nice to dump them all off to a now-dirt-cheap
200GB drive or a bunch of DVDs).

Matt Ion wrote:

Well I don't think the owner of all this stuff really wants to spend
that much more on keeping the format alive...

just being maintained as a "writing" studio, and to a degree, as storage
for the gear the owner has accumulated over the years (a Mackie 24*8,
some 4311s and NS-10m monitors, a few outboard units, and oh yeah, those
trusty ol' ADAT-XTs).

So what do you need the ADAT PCR card for? why not just hook an ADAT up
to the Mackie mixer and you'll have your writing setup. No computers
necessary. Or use the computer for stereo mixdown, editing, and CD
burning. It'll save you some money and help you to keep your hair.

Someone said that ADAT was dead... Well... I have 2 of the old black face
version 1s. There are uses for them beside audio, you know. I modified one
of mine to be DC coupled in and out so that I can record laser signals.
That
was what gave me the idea of using a multi channel sound card to generate
the signals.

It amazes me that someone can say the format is dead. If the recorder still
works and you still have tapes to record on, it's not dead. If you can
record on it and it sounds good, use it.

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

It amazes me that someone can say the format is dead. If the recorder still
works and you still have tapes to record on, it's not dead. If you can
record on it and it sounds good, use it.

It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead. It can be made to
sound good at considerable expense of outboard converters... but then you
might as well not use it anyway....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

It amazes me that someone can say the format is dead. If the recorder
still
works and you still have tapes to record on, it's not dead. If you can
record on it and it sounds good, use it.

It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead. It can be made to
sound good at considerable expense of outboard converters... but then you
might as well not use it anyway....

Depending on what you use them for, they will do just fine... Just about
everybody has outboard converters these days, though. Hell, we use outboard
pres and converters on our live sound rig... and if you've got them laying
around...

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 07:27:28 GMT, Matt Ion
wrote:

I've got the ol' studio box here with the ADAT PCR card, and the
motherboard has given up the ghost.


Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.


Get any old board but a different ADAT card. One that isn't so fussy.
ADAT may be dead, but ADAT-format is alive and well. There's plenty
of choice.

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:08:55 GMT, "Romeo Rondeau"
wrote:

The format (ADAT lightpipe) is more than alive and well. As of right now it
is the #1 method of communication between digital devices,

More than spdif or AES/EBU? Surely not?

Since we are on the subject... Does anyone know of a sound card that
actually has REAL analog ins and outs that can also read and write
LightPipe? I don't really care about the number of ins, but I need 8
discrete analog outs - with LightPipe in and out.

Tnx.

James. )




"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:Advhg.253570$WI1.109186@pd7tw2no...
I've got the ol' studio box here with the ADAT PCR card, and the
motherboard has given up the ghost.

When we got this machine, I actually went through three other
mainboards, both Intel and AMD types, before I found one within the same
price range that the PCR card worked properly on (an MSI K7T Turbo with
Duron 800, later upgraded to an Athlon 1200); with the others, the card
wouldn't communicate properly with the decks (ADAT Connect wouldn't
recognize there were even decks present most of the time).

Well, finding a direct replacement for this board isn't very likely...
so I'm wondering if anyone can recommend a "currently available" board
that WILL get along with the PCR. Preferably something low-cost, as we
really don't need a heavy-duty server board or anything.

Yeah, yeah, I know ADATs are stone-age... we've still got two of them in
good working order and a LOT of older projects still on the tapes (if
nothing else it would be nice to dump them all off to a now-dirt-cheap
200GB drive or a bunch of DVDs).

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:08:55 GMT, "Romeo Rondeau"
wrote:

The format (ADAT lightpipe) is more than alive and well. As of right now
it
is the #1 method of communication between digital devices,

More than spdif or AES/EBU? Surely not?

OK, multitrack digital devices... you know what I meant...

Scott Dorsey wrote:


It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

That's debatable. The real reason it probably died was the same as for
other tape-based formats. It involves mechanics (Alignment and wear
issues. Yeah, I know, harddrives have mechanics, too, but not as prone
to wear or failure.) and it is slower than harddisk-based systems. I
or my clients never had a problem with the sound and many of them are
pretty picky.

Matt Ion wrote:

Flaky as they may be, this PCR card has worked reasonably well for years
(motherboard pickiness notwithstanding - put it in a board it likes, and
it works just fine) so there's not really a need to replace it... just
to find a new motherboard it will like.

Worst case, I'll just have to go get three or four different boards and
start testing them all until I find one that the card likes...

If you've got more than one ADAT machine (or any lightpipe
based I/O) then the PCR card is a limitation - 1x8 in/out max.
Wouldn't you rather run all tracks in at the same time ?

Surely a used RME Digi9636 (2 pipes in/2 pipes out) would
be less expensive than the several mobos and certainly
much less aggrivating. \
The drivers (etc) from RME have been flawless on my K7VTA
and AM75 boards (yes, AMD/VIA)

rd

James Lehman wrote:

Since we are on the subject... Does anyone know of a sound card that
actually has REAL analog ins and outs that can also read and write
LightPipe? I don't really care about the number of ins, but I need 8
discrete analog outs - with LightPipe in and out.

RME 9652 (or 9636) plus AEB-8O or 2x AEB-4O
Technically it's not one card but a PCI card plus an expansion
card, but the AEB doesn't use a slot. It does operate in place of
one of the lightpipe ports though.

rd

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 01:04:09 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Since we are on the subject... Does anyone know of a sound card that
actually has REAL analog ins and outs that can also read and write
LightPipe? I don't really care about the number of ins, but I need 8
discrete analog outs - with LightPipe in and out.

Look at the RME range.
I've been playing with a FireFace 800 this week. Nice.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

It amazes me that someone can say the format is dead. If the recorder
still
works and you still have tapes to record on, it's not dead. If you can
record on it and it sounds good, use it.

It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead. It can be made to
sound good at considerable expense of outboard converters... but then you
might as well not use it anyway....
--scott
--

This makes no sense to me at all. I went from years of experience with an
open reel quarter inch 15ips 8 track (Fostex A8) to a pair of ADATs. The
first thing I noticed was that it was impossible to tell the difference
between live and tape. This was never an issue with the A8. With the A8 I
had a 10 band EQ on every track. With the ADAT that was absurd. What can you
do to a signal AFTER it has been recorded that will, in any way, improve the
quality of the recording? You can add noise and distortion and mess with the
EQ. You can smear it around in time. But you can't make it any better.

James. )

"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead. It can be made to
sound good at considerable expense of outboard converters... but then you
might as well not use it anyway....
--scott
--

This makes no sense to me at all. I went from years of experience with an
open reel quarter inch 15ips 8 track (Fostex A8) to a pair of ADATs. The
first thing I noticed was that it was impossible to tell the difference
between live and tape. This was never an issue with the A8. With the A8 I
had a 10 band EQ on every track. With the ADAT that was absurd. What can
you
do to a signal AFTER it has been recorded that will, in any way, improve
the
quality of the recording? You can add noise and distortion and mess with
the
EQ. You can smear it around in time. But you can't make it any better.

Yeah, I agree totally... Now that we have better converters and more bits,
now CD quality doesn't sound good anymore? The ADATs sounded fine, not as
good as some stuff today, but they sounded fine and if you have a couple, by
all means use them. Yeah, I know they are only 16-bit, but hey... on most
things they will do just fine. I'm sure I will have some orchestral guy pipe
in and tell me that my ears don't work right... but on most recordings
16-bits are plenty (at least at the multitrack stage)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Yeah, I agree totally... Now that we have better converters and more bits,
now CD quality doesn't sound good anymore? The ADATs sounded fine, not as
good as some stuff today, but they sounded fine and if you have a couple, by
all means use them. Yeah, I know they are only 16-bit, but hey... on most
things they will do just fine. I'm sure I will have some orchestral guy pipe
in and tell me that my ears don't work right... but on most recordings
16-bits are plenty (at least at the multitrack stage)

16 bits are fine, if they are 16 bits that sound good. The ADAT just
always sounded very screechy and grainy to me, using the internal
converters. If you use external conversion, sure, they can sound great,
but people back then were spending five or ten times as much money on
conversion as on the recorder sometimes.

Even the DA-88 converters sounded better, and I would not characterize
the DA-88 converters as anything I'd want my music going through if I
could avoid it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

16 bits are fine, if they are 16 bits that sound good. The ADAT just
always sounded very screechy and grainy to me, using the internal
converters. If you use external conversion, sure, they can sound great,
but people back then were spending five or ten times as much money on
conversion as on the recorder sometimes.

They sounded better than a Sony PCM2500, and that was the standard when the
ADAT's first came out. I agree to a certain extent, but it sounded a lot
better than what it replaced, which was the Fostex R-8's and Tascam MSR's...


Even the DA-88 converters sounded better, and I would not characterize
the DA-88 converters as anything I'd want my music going through if I
could avoid it.

They weren't as bad as you make them out to be, back in the day people loved
them... I used 6 of them for years (4 in use for 32 tracks, 1 was always in
the shop and 1 was dedicated to live / rental / emergency), and I made great
sounding CD's. Would I use them now? No, not unless I had to. But then
again, my tastes have changed, and keep in mind what the recorders were
designed to do and for that did it well. No flutter, no tape hiss, rock
solid sync and the converters didn't sound too bad. Of course, you are one
picky ******* :-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
16 bits are fine, if they are 16 bits that sound good. The ADAT just
always sounded very screechy and grainy to me, using the internal
converters. If you use external conversion, sure, they can sound great,
but people back then were spending five or ten times as much money on
conversion as on the recorder sometimes.

They sounded better than a Sony PCM2500, and that was the standard when the
ADAT's first came out. I agree to a certain extent, but it sounded a lot
better than what it replaced, which was the Fostex R-8's and Tascam MSR's...

The problem is that it didn't just replace the R-8s... a lot of people
who were previously doing higher end production wound up using the ADAT
machines instead because they were so cheap and ubiquitous and digital.

I'll agree that they are a step up from the PCM2500 and the R-8, but that
isn't saying a whole lot.

Even the DA-88 converters sounded better, and I would not characterize
the DA-88 converters as anything I'd want my music going through if I
could avoid it.

They weren't as bad as you make them out to be, back in the day people loved
them... I used 6 of them for years (4 in use for 32 tracks, 1 was always in
the shop and 1 was dedicated to live / rental / emergency), and I made great
sounding CD's. Would I use them now? No, not unless I had to. But then
again, my tastes have changed, and keep in mind what the recorders were
designed to do and for that did it well. No flutter, no tape hiss, rock
solid sync and the converters didn't sound too bad. Of course, you are one
picky ******* :-)

I hated the things, and I thought they gave digital a bad reputation, but
you can probably see stuff I posted here in the early nineties which goes
into a lot more detail about what I disliked. But then, I will take better
linearity over low noise most of the time, too, and a lot of folks will
disagree about that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The problem is that it didn't just replace the R-8s... a lot of people
who were previously doing higher end production wound up using the ADAT
machines instead because they were so cheap and ubiquitous and digital.

So true. A friend of mine who was using an Otari MX-80 2" 24 track (and
still has it and uses it occasionally though he has a ProTools HD
system now) bought 24 tracks worth of ADATs because his clients were
asking for the format to save money. He would occasionally record a
song early on on both the Otari and ADATs and play both back to the
client. Everyone agreed that the analog recording sounded better, but
that the budget would only allow for ADAT tape.

So true. A friend of mine who was using an Otari MX-80 2" 24 track (and
still has it and uses it occasionally though he has a ProTools HD
system now) bought 24 tracks worth of ADATs because his clients were
asking for the format to save money. He would occasionally record a
song early on on both the Otari and ADATs and play both back to the
client. Everyone agreed that the analog recording sounded better, but
that the budget would only allow for ADAT tape.

You make a good point! Now, if I could just convince my clients who's budget
calls for a studio with a Mackie board that they should spring for a studio
with an SSL, ALL of my productions will sound better :-)

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:45:25 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead. It can be made to
sound good at considerable expense of outboard converters... but then you
might as well not use it anyway....
--scott
--

This makes no sense to me at all. I went from years of experience with an
open reel quarter inch 15ips 8 track (Fostex A8) to a pair of ADATs. The
first thing I noticed was that it was impossible to tell the difference
between live and tape. This was never an issue with the A8. With the A8 I
had a 10 band EQ on every track. With the ADAT that was absurd. What can you
do to a signal AFTER it has been recorded that will, in any way, improve the
quality of the recording? You can add noise and distortion and mess with the
EQ. You can smear it around in time. But you can't make it any better.

You can send it out through a worse DAC or a better one.

James Lehman wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

It amazes me that someone can say the format is dead. If the recorder

still

works and you still have tapes to record on, it's not dead. If you can
record on it and it sounds good, use it.

It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead. It can be made to
sound good at considerable expense of outboard converters... but then you
might as well not use it anyway....
--scott
--


This makes no sense to me at all. I went from years of experience with an
open reel quarter inch 15ips 8 track (Fostex A8) to a pair of ADATs. The
first thing I noticed was that it was impossible to tell the difference
between live and tape. This was never an issue with the A8. With the A8 I
had a 10 band EQ on every track. With the ADAT that was absurd. What can you
do to a signal AFTER it has been recorded that will, in any way, improve the
quality of the recording? You can add noise and distortion and mess with the
EQ. You can smear it around in time. But you can't make it any better.

ADAT never sold because it sounded good - it sold because it made
digital multitracking cheap and accessible for the home and small
studios... not just 8 tracks, but 16, 24 or more, without need for
complex syncing systems.

ADAT is hardly "dead" - thus my need for starting this thread. It's not
a "current" product, and it's not a particularly sellable item anymore,
considering you can get a 24-track hard-disk recorder for less than a
single ADAT deck originally cost, but I wouldn't call it "dead".

Matt Ion wrote:

I recorded a complete album on them as well - in fact, on the same setup
I'm trying to get a working computer for now. Tracked to a pair of
XTs and an XT20

The album has done pretty well for an indie release - the band sold out
their first pressing of 500 copies, got a record deal out of it, and the
CD earned a 9-out-of-10 review rating in Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles
magazine as well. Not too shabby for a "dead" format.

Congrats on your success. What you record on doesn't make or break a
record, it's what you record. Nobody says "I'd love this record if
only it didn't sound like it was recorded on an ADAT." They say "I hate
this record because the music sucks and the instruments and the players
didn't bother to tune." It's nice to make a recording sound good - it's
a matter of personal pride, and, when you get up into the big leagues,
it justifies, at least in part, the budget. But it's more important to
make good music and record it as best you can within your means.

Matt Ion wrote:

ADAT is hardly "dead" - thus my need for starting this thread. It's not
a "current" product, and it's not a particularly sellable item anymore,
considering you can get a 24-track hard-disk recorder for less than a
single ADAT deck originally cost, but I wouldn't call it "dead".

I'll agree with the consensus that the tape-based ADAT recorders
have become a long past milepost in the rapidly evolving hardware
environment of recording SOTA. I really liked the cost effective and
easily available media but was plagued by the all too common
mechanical reliability issues.

The lightpipe protocol for multichannel audio connectivity is still
very much alive. It's just that Alesis' implementation in the PCR
card left a lot to be desired, and was much improved upon by
various other's cards such as RME and Frontier.

rd

Matt Ion wrote:
James Lehman wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

It amazes me that someone can say the format is dead. If the recorder

still

works and you still have tapes to record on, it's not dead. If you can
record on it and it sounds good, use it.

It never sounded good, though. That's why it's dead. It can be made to
sound good at considerable expense of outboard converters... but then
you
might as well not use it anyway....
--scott
--


This makes no sense to me at all. I went from years of experience with an
open reel quarter inch 15ips 8 track (Fostex A8) to a pair of ADATs. The
first thing I noticed was that it was impossible to tell the difference
between live and tape. This was never an issue with the A8. With the A8 I
had a 10 band EQ on every track. With the ADAT that was absurd. What
can you
do to a signal AFTER it has been recorded that will, in any way,
improve the
quality of the recording? You can add noise and distortion and mess
with the
EQ. You can smear it around in time. But you can't make it any better.

ADAT never sold because it sounded good - it sold because it made
digital multitracking cheap and accessible for the home and small
studios... not just 8 tracks, but 16, 24 or more, without need for
complex syncing systems.

ADAT is hardly "dead" - thus my need for starting this thread. It's not
a "current" product, and it's not a particularly sellable item anymore,
considering you can get a 24-track hard-disk recorder for less than a
single ADAT deck originally cost, but I wouldn't call it "dead".

I hope it isn't dead either. I just bought 3 M20's, the remote meter
bridge and the CADI remote. These were the mack daddies of the time.
They have 24bit A/D converters and 20 bit out digital. I remember when
they came out, i could have bought them new for cost and they were just
under $4500 each. I know the format isn't the latest but they are
pretty sweet. I would rather have 2inch 24 track but its kinda out of
my budget. I am thinking about the new tascam 48 track when it comes
out(easier to do mobile recording. But that is just my opinion, but
most people on here and on the alt.audio.pro.live-sound group don't seem
to think i have no idea what i am doing. But I've been doing sound
since i was 15. I have also gone to recording school, in which i was in
the top 10 out of 65 other students. So i do know a little about recording.


Jon
JB Productions
Audio Alchemy

Matt Ion wrote:

Aye, that's the key - "within your means". ADAT's biggest success was
in how many it provided with those means, period. (Arguably it also
provided the means for a much higher proliferation of crap as well, but
that's another matter).

The problem is that ADAT gave digital recording a bad name at the time.
For a while I was advertising saying that I did analogue recording, because
there was a huge backlash going on about the whole ADAT sound. The problem
is that I _also_ did digital recording with gear that sounded a lot better
than the ADAT, but a large number of folks didn't want to listen to it,
because they knew what digital sounded like because they'd heard the ADAT.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The problem is that ADAT gave digital recording a bad name at the time.

It aided in digital recording having a worse name, it already had a bad name
:-) The biggest hurdle for digital recording was big studios that **** on
digital because they were still analog and had to pay for their gear before
they could move to digital. Lack of good cheap converters helped this along
and so did a lack of knowledge of digital recording techniques as well as
lack of descent tools for mastering.

For a while I was advertising saying that I did analogue recording,
because
there was a huge backlash going on about the whole ADAT sound. The
problem
is that I _also_ did digital recording with gear that sounded a lot better
than the ADAT, but a large number of folks didn't want to listen to it,
because they knew what digital sounded like because they'd heard the ADAT.

They also heard recordings that were attempted with little or no experience
in digital, they always sound bad. In the early days of digital recording,
most of my clients loved the sound of the new gear. Some of them **** on
digital... until they heard it. I agree that the ADATs put digital in the
hands of some people who had no business recording other folks for money.
That's where the bad name for ADATs, came about. It wasn't the sound of them
as much as bad recording techniques in general.

Digital did a lot to screw up some really nice cushy jobs like having to
tune and tweak the analog recorders all the time. I heard ALL KINDS of BS
before I bought my ADATs. Anyone with a serious investment in analog tape
experience and equipment hated ADAT. I have to admit there were some things
I missed from my open real machine. But not much.

James. )



"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
. com...
The problem is that ADAT gave digital recording a bad name at the time.

It aided in digital recording having a worse name, it already had a bad
name
:-) The biggest hurdle for digital recording was big studios that **** on
digital because they were still analog and had to pay for their gear
before
they could move to digital. Lack of good cheap converters helped this
along
and so did a lack of knowledge of digital recording techniques as well as
lack of descent tools for mastering.

For a while I was advertising saying that I did analogue recording,
because
there was a huge backlash going on about the whole ADAT sound. The
problem
is that I _also_ did digital recording with gear that sounded a lot
better
than the ADAT, but a large number of folks didn't want to listen to it,
because they knew what digital sounded like because they'd heard the
ADAT.

They also heard recordings that were attempted with little or no
experience
in digital, they always sound bad. In the early days of digital recording,
most of my clients loved the sound of the new gear. Some of them **** on
digital... until they heard it. I agree that the ADATs put digital in the
hands of some people who had no business recording other folks for money.
That's where the bad name for ADATs, came about. It wasn't the sound of
them
as much as bad recording techniques in general.

James Lehman wrote:
Digital did a lot to screw up some really nice cushy jobs like having to
tune and tweak the analog recorders all the time. I heard ALL KINDS of BS
before I bought my ADATs. Anyone with a serious investment in analog tape
experience and equipment hated ADAT. I have to admit there were some things
I missed from my open real machine. But not much.

Ever done the annual alignment job on an ADAT?

The total time per year aligning the Ampex and the ADAT is about the same.
It's just with the Ampex you spend five minutes every morning doing the
alignment, and with the ADAT it's all freaking day once a year.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Or you just throw it away and buy the next generation.


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
James Lehman wrote:
Digital did a lot to screw up some really nice cushy jobs like having to
tune and tweak the analog recorders all the time. I heard ALL KINDS of BS
before I bought my ADATs. Anyone with a serious investment in analog tape
experience and equipment hated ADAT. I have to admit there were some
things
I missed from my open real machine. But not much.

Ever done the annual alignment job on an ADAT?

The total time per year aligning the Ampex and the ADAT is about the same.
It's just with the Ampex you spend five minutes every morning doing the
alignment, and with the ADAT it's all freaking day once a year.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"James Lehman" wrote in message
...
Or you just throw it away and buy the next generation.

By the time they got cheap, that's exactly what everybody did :-) Keep in
mind, though... Scott never throws anything away :-)