I had a Sony DAT machine in the 1990s. Then I was a home recording enthusiast with a cassette 4 track and later a cassette 8 track machine. I bought the DAT machine to record 2 track masters and it was fantastic. The sound quality and clarity was superb, so much better than the previous medium I was using - cassette metal tapes.
i also agree i remenber in late 80´s not having a cassette deck working properly and there it was a Sony DAT deck on top of our dinning table, i even compared it to a reel recorder
I got my DAT machine in 1996. I got home and was up pretty late recording with it from the cd recorder I bought with it. It was amazing hearing that sound from a thin tape medium. I do wish they had chosen 8mm instead of 4mm.
Since a few months use in my DAT recorder again. I like to listen to high resolution streaming services, but I find myself listening in a hurry, many playlists and I don't enjoy it. When I record an album from a streaming service on DAT, I really sit down and enjoy the music much more. I think the sound quality is great, the recording sounds exactly like the original, no noise and you don't have to flip the DAT tape. It is a pity that DAT did not end up in the living room at the time.
If you want digital audio on a tape these days, there is an inexpensive option: MiniDV! Obviously a digital video format, but it has uncompressed, stereo, 16 bit 48 KHz audio (like DAT).
Yes that's correct. And it go me thinking: there are also the old PCM recorders used by studio's in the 80s mainly where the digital sound was converted to a black-and-white analog tv signal (as one and zero can be transferred to black and white) which could then be recorded on regular VHS recorders, although may Sony Umatic broadcast tapes were used. It would be possible to go full meta where one would use such a convertor and record the black and white signal to DV - keeping it digtal but now in optical form whilst also recording sound as a back up directly in 16 bit digital PCM on the same DV tape. You'd have a digital sound recording to go along with your... digital sound recording. I don't have the equipment but if I did I would do exactly that just because I could.
I do a lot of archive transfer work, and I’ve noticed that the occasional DATs that come through are getting worse. The tape is deteriorating to the point where I have to tell clients not to expect perfection. I’ve got 2 DAT transports. Occasionally I can get a clean pass from one which didn’t do so well on the other and stitch the best transfer sections together, but from an archival point of view they can only get worse.
It's amazing they've lasted so long. It's about ten years or so since I archived my DATs to WAV but they all played fine. Whether they would now, I don't know.
I was considering getting this equipment just because the tactile advantages of having physical devices is a huge advantage over everything being on a little screen in my opinion. I like having "stuff," I get much better results. The DAW software is so packed with features it's often difficult for me to even figure out how the hell to record anything. I can do it, obviously, but I'd much rather do everything with equipment I can pick up and smack, then put it in the computer at the end. A decent DAT machine is about $500? Why?! Stupid, in my opinion. I would actually use the damned thing. Sigh. Oh well.
@@VanishedPNW I had a hit or a miss deal because the guy couldn’t test the device. I had a spare tape to test it and worked without any issues. I recorded a few projects and they play just fine but since they are masters I don’t use them that often at all, I use the digital files instead. I offered the guy the most that I could afford at the time and he accepted the offer. I don’t know why they are so expensive but if you look for long enough you could find a good deal. I paid more for the 10 boxes of tapes than the machine itself.
I was working in a record label in in 1990s. International Federation of Phonographic Industry (IFPI) made a big pressure on DAT manufacturers to implement SCMS to DAT recorders, and as I heard, Ahmet Ertegün who was the founder of Atlantic Records and also very prominant in the global record industry was also very effective on postponing the public release of DAT recorders untill SCMS was implemented. On the other hand, there were a few DAT recorders on the market without SCMS. I remember that we had a Technics DAT recorder in the office without SCMS. It was a good enough technology before CDs, but it was little bit late because it was also the dawn of cheaply re-recordable digital music in computers and on CDs.
I don't think it was SCMS that killed DAT, more the fear, uncertainty and doubt around it. If DAT had prospered with SCMS, people would have copied via analogue. But then there was Copycode that would have prevented even that. I don't remember that Copycode was ever implemented but it's all more FUD. DAT was a lovely thing in its day. Times have moved on. DM
i still have my first dat deck bought in 87 working perfect, but in the 90´s digital recording was still far from cassette recording but in the second half of the 90´s the minidisc and the DCC were already fine and then apeared the CD-r decks that i had one from pioneer given to me and it recorded at real speed but today even missing bits or totally yellow they play perfect and sound as a original cd the cd-rom only got aceptable quality in early 2000´s
I stream lossless to VHS HiFi tape just for fun. I have HiFi decks that I got second hand and blank tape is still plentiful on ebay. I don't depend on it or treat it as an archival format. I know that, one day, all of those and all the rest will go bye-bye, as no one is going to make new mechanisms for VHS ever again. Just for fun. Why not?
@@joelcarson4602 I do the same, but with cassette and MiniDisc. But I also still have my HiFi VHS recorder. Like you, just for fun. I like recording and getting it as close to the original without it being a bit perfect copy necessarily. Sometimes a slightly different recording can even appear to sound better, I've certainly heard that on some of my cassette recordings. It's also the reason why some people love vinyl or tube amps. They distort the sound technically - but that's exactly why people love them. I'm totally fine with that, kudos to them.
Nice video. Back in the 90's I ran a lab in acoustics and psychoacoustics and had a new special microphone to test in the real world, I therefore wanted the most quality with the less noise at the time and it had to be battery powered. I ended up with a portable unit (an Aiwa HD-S1 if I recall). for field recording tests (Airplanes, elevators, live concerts, etc) and for playback at the lab I used a Tascam DA-30 DAT deck (it was not cheap). And to listen to my experimental recordings at home, I had a Sony DAT unit (Cheaper than the other units, but still not free for sure). Now, practically 30 years later, I looked at my DAT cassettes and wanted to transfer them to my computer... but for various reasons, long gone were the Aiwa, the Tascam and the Sony units. I asked a friend in the Pro-Audio market if he had access to an old DAT unit for me to "rent or buy" so that I may do my transfers. He found one that was buried under dust in a forgotten section of the Pro-shop warehouse and he said fo 50$, this would be mine (althoough no guarantee as to the state of the unitt as he had not DAT tapes to check the unit. We had a rendez-vous at a hotel where he was setting up a conference system for a corporate event and there and then, when I arrived, he decided to simply Give me the DAT unit! (Wow!). I got it home, cleaned it, started it, tested it... It all works! So I now have use the Keenwood DX7030 unit with optical link to feed my trusty old i7 2010 iMac (since this computer has input 1/8 jack that is capable of taking optical digital link!) and voilà! I now can listen to my test recordings and save a part of my past in R&D. And you know what? The recordings are still pretty good sounding, bit for bit. Cheers! :)
Thank you. I did use an Aiwa once probably on review loan, can't remember whether S1 or X1, to record opera arias in someone's very posh living room. Funny I remember the machine and not what was sung. Regarding the longevity of DAT, all my DAT machines expired, one through wear and tear, the other two just age I guess. But I bought another from eBay a few years ago to transfer my old tapes and both machine and tapes worked just fine. DAT wasn't without its faults, but it was very useful in its day. DM
i still use DAT when recording digitally from radio. I set the timer, and later check out if the recordings are interesting enough to keep and make a copy to HD. I found that listening back a radio program from the radio's website is of a lower quality.
A company that I worked for had a large collection of DAT. Realizing that the material could not be easily re-recorded, I took it upon myself to convert every tape to FLAC. The company was since bought out by a competitor who thought little of said company's creations, so the recordings may not have survived anyway.
Well, there is one reason, not to revive DAT’s, but to keep them alive, and that is the great amount of albums which were mastered to that medium. Who knows what kind of lost recording we will end up digging in the future, and having at least one DAT player in working condition is essential. I confess, I will absolutely buy one of them if I end up finding someone selling it at a decent price. Make my own playlists with absolutely no generational loss and keeping them physical is an idea that sounds quite exciting! 😅
If the album was mastered on DAT it would also have been released on CD - what would otherwise have been the point of the DAT master? You might as well use the CD then, it sounds the same and will probably last much longer than finicky tape. There's also way more working CD players than DAT players. A better reason to keep working DAT player around is something the video didn't mention: Data DAT. It was used to make computer back ups. I still have DAT backups from my own companies wich go back 20 years. For my companhy it's unimportant now and if I were to toss them out it won't ever be a problem, but it might be for very large archives from certain large companies, government agencies, institutions etc.
It will happen! Vinyl came back, you said it would not happen! Tape cassette came back, you said it would not happened. Second hand Mini disk players are still being bought today including DAT players! Most things always come back round, but it will cost a lot more! Mind you I cannot see DCC coming back.
@@zockblattshickleblender7758Hello!!! Dat lover here…They’re prerecorded dat tapes out there(EBay)but it’s getting rare…I have about twelve prerecorded Dat Tapes that I purchased from the late 80’s to early 90’s bought them all new at the time (Long Boxed) like Cds 😊
I developed a DAT based system to make CD production masters where the PQ information was prerecorded using a BBC computer was on the tap prior to the audio. This meant you didn't have to have a very expensive Sony recorder. In those days we had our CDs pressed at Nimbus who also had some very innovative engineers building a home brew class mastering setup.
Sounds good. I remember paying around £250 for mastering from DAT to a Sony 1610 tape, then it became possible just to send in a DAT with track markers. I found, by costly trial and error, that the markers had to be inserted manually a little ahead of the start of each track, otherwise the start could be clipped when the subsequent CD was played. Making my own masters on CD-R was a great leap forward. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Was this at all related to how CDs never had accuracy higher than frame-level anyway? That is, IIUC, the CD spec never defined the relationship between the sector markers and the beginning of an audio frame, so a CD player might begin playing back a frame anywhere within that 1/74th of a second window. This became vitally important to all the home audio archivists trying to rip their CD collections, when it was discovered that different drive firmwares would have a consistent, but different, offset. It was then a bit of a scandal when we had all been using offsets relative to some agreed-upon reference point that was elevated to "THE ONE RIGHT ANSWER" by the entire Internet, and then somebody realized the reference was probably "wrong," and everyone had been dropping samples from one end of the program area, and reading into the margin at the other end. This was only somewhat abated by the fact that not even pressing plants could agree on where the reference point _should_ be, so even different pressings of the same album might be skewed a hundred samples one way or another. It's the kind of thing you would've expected would be set in stone in the CD audio specification, before you considered that, before CD, nothing was even remotely as accurate, and being _up to_ 1/74th of a second was such an absolutely absurd nit to pick that nobody could possibly care. (Obviously, this conclusion was pre-Internet, where we realized that, if the nit exists, someone will pick it.)
In the 1990ies, I used DAT in a research environment and basically several projects shared around 5 DAT machines for their work. Most of the time, the machines were unusable due to some mechanical issues. Even if a machines was available, the risk of some hiccup was significant. In hindsight I would say that moving the DAT machines from one lab to another didn't exactly do them any good. Near the end of this work, pleople started using Revox open-reel tapes which were also better at editing. The whole experience made me turn to DCC for home audio and that never let me down.
Recently brought a Victor XD-Z700 brought back to my youth and best thing I ever did having so much fun making up tapes again and going through my CD collection and sound quality is top notch
I am glad to have a Sony DTC-59ES (bought used). It makes copying records to CD super easy, although the process takes real time and then some, twice over. The worst thing about it is that finding new blank tapes is now a big problem.
8 Track Tapes were going out by around 1976. By 1980 people were not using 8 Tracks but the record labels produced them for a few years later but they weren't popular by them.
There was a reason for the incompatibility issues between DAT machines, especially between machines of different manufacturers like Sony or Panasonic. The quality of a DAT recording depends upon a) the proper tape path alignment on both machines and b) the proper switch pulse timing (SWP or DPG with Sony) on the recording deck. While small differences in tracking can be compensated by the playback deck's auto-tracking (ATF) circuitry (and even the most basic DATs had this) through variation of drum and capstan rotation, an off-spec SWP would make the recorder write parts of the data literally besides the tape, therefore losing the data forever. Now add the unavoidable tape wear and maybe some dirty heads, coupled with other off-spec parameters like back-tension or take-up torque and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster, resulting in gltching. Although I have to admit that DAT error correction algorithms were pretty solid for the most part. But the fact that the machines were maintenance-heavy and needed a good cleaning every 100-150 hours of operation (which required the unit to be opened up and in some cases partially disassembled to get the job done properly) really didn't help DAT's reputation - especially in the consumer market. Adding insult to injury, most manufacturers weren't really transparent about the shortcomings of the format. And there will be a point in the near future where all remaining DAT machunes in existence will cease to work. The head drums are wearing out and there are no more spares available. And then it's bye-bye for a format that I really love and use to this day. There's just something about creating a mixtape that I can then take into my car and play back on the portable DAT on the passenger seat 😂
I had a mobile DAT recorder I used to use for recording gigs but got fed up of it eating tapes. It produced great recordings. Then I went to a HDD recorder, which produced inferior results to the DAT. Then a HiMD recorder. Eventually, SD card recorders became available and they are so much better than any of the old formats.
Used DAT for concert recordings from 1992 onwards. Had to switch to a Flash recorder in 2009 as my trusted tape brand was no longer available. Lost a couple of concerts due to magnetically weak tape.
Fascinating, as always. I was particularly interested to hear you talking about editing tracks on your Revox PR99, because I used to do exactly the same thing, except I used a B77 plus Dolby SR noise reduction for editing, prior to transfer back to DAT for the mastering plant.
Thanks for another very interesting revival series video. I wonder what you think about a revival of magnetic wire recording, if it was upgraded using some of todays technology.
I think you'd have to find someone older and wiser than me to cover this properly. The same with optical sound on film, which was a very useful technology in its day. Then there's the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonautograph - I'll pass. DM
I bought the same Sony machine with the 44.1 mod. I used to compile albums by bouncing digitally from one machine to another borrowed from a friend. It was a very hit and miss technique. I think it was 1500 pounds when I bought it. I finally put it out in the garbage a few years ago. I do still have a later machine that I’m holding onto to transfer my old master tapes to the computer but have been thwarted by glitches on the now very old tapes. Constant cleaning of the head helps but I’m lucky if I can get all the way through a song. Usually having to edit a couple of tries together.
Tape glitching, I hated that. Some manufacturers were worse than others. Can't tell you how many music cassette tapes I bought and popped them in only to get sound distortion, especially the ones where they were recorded from zero, without allowing that first minute to roll by. It got to the point where I convinced my local record store to pop in the tape on one of their decks before I purchased it, just to make sure it worked before I went home with it.
I also have to wonder if Sony got extra scrutiny because they had created the Walkman in ‘79, which record companies probably blamed for a lot of cassette copying.
Thanks for another great video from the perspective of an audio pro. I remember when DAT (and later DCC) first became 'widely' available in high school, but it was horribly expensive. We all skipped directly to CD (see what I did?), and kept using tapes to share music. I have never even used a DAT deck! I'm highly doubtful there will be a comeback except by format geeks like Techmoan who like it as a novelty. I imagine getting a functioning deck is an order of magnitude or two harder than a good cassette deck.
I must have been really lucky, because I do not recall every suffering glitching when recording at the beginning of tapes. I had a Fostex D5 and only used HHB tapes.
@@AudioMasterclass I was aware of the need to begin recording further in, mainly a throwback to reel to reel days. So I might have started mine 30secs to 1min into the tape perhaps. Long time ago now, so I forget.
I have used DAT, Sharp RX-100, to record my live mixes. Why a revival in times of mobile recorders and memory stick/SSD with capacity for dozens of high res recordings?
Had a Tascam DA-30 for recording mixes/masters. Was a wonderful machine. I now have lots of DAT masters from the late 80s and 90s I can't play. The really important stuff I transferred to hard disk, but there were far too many to do all of them. Wish I still had a working DAT. It wasn't perfect (trading tapes between my DA-30 and my employer's Fostex was problematic), but it was a great format and at the time felt like a huge step forward.
I have a Sony DAT and Sony Minidisc recorder paired together in my system... They record and playback perfectly and are used often. It will be a sad day when my Sony DTC 700 starts to "glitch"... But until then I love it... Guess I've been lucky...lol...
I still have a sony Dat recorder .I use it to record my music I make in the studio. but use my minidisk more the ja50es .then I listen my mix in the living room
I remember it as rotary, too. In Germany the problem with DAT was it came to late (of cause the reason was the discussion about copy protection) and more relevant: it was to expensive. It starts at 3.500 DM (with tax). For this amount you get up to 175 CDs. The price was the best „copy protection“ I think. Even when MD hit the market in Germany the prices for DAT were to high. I bought one of the first Sony MD recorders. It was the MDS-JE 500. It was much cheaper than any DAT, less complicated and more flexible.
A combination of factors added up to sink DAT. Professionally though it did have a heyday in that it was affordable CD-quality digital recording. Prior to DAT costs were somewhere around 20k. DM
Still have a Tascam DA 20, still working. It was/is a pretty reliable workhorse. I keep it for the masters for CD's that I made in the 90's. I keep it around for the masters and safety copy masters that I still have. I too edited on open reel back then.
I have a Tascam also but can't remember the model. The thing with old DAT recorders though is 'will it work when you need it?'. I've discovered that to my cost in years gone by. Maybe my Tascam will, maybe it won't. I'll find out when one of my old DAT tapes emerges from all of my stored junk. DM
I once owned a DAT deck: a small beautiful machine that sounded wonderful. I taped some friend's CDs and digitize some cassette tapes too. DAT tapes were expensive and hard to find. Ultimately I used some DDS cartridges. My DAT machine started to produce tons of distortion and funny noises so I left it and went into recordable CDs. Trying to solve those items were too difficult and the pieces required were scarce and expensive. Finally somebody stole it.
DAT actually enjoyed some success, as a computer data backup device. That how I have used them for years. Talking about computer storage.. When are we getting a "CD-ROM revival is wrong on so many levels"? That's the digital writable format that the music industry failed to kill.
I was eyeballing a unit for old time sake but after seeing your video I decided to buy a press papier instead. Thanks for saving me of a costly mistake 😊
So how long do DAT tapes magnetic fields last? What happened to all the old master tapes? Are they sitting in boxes in some warehouse for each the labels or something :)
S-DAT and R-DAT stands for Stationary HEAD Digital Audio Tape and Rotary HEAD Digital Audio Tape. S-DAT applied to pro formats like the Mitsubishi 32 track on quarter inch and R-DAT was applied to pre-DAT format machines which were essentially re-purposed video transports, like the Sony portable Betamax F1. DASH, Digital Audio Stationary Head was the original term for S-DAT I think. Miniaturising helical scan mechanism to work on a tiny, barely moving tape was little short of a miracle and, while 'consumer' DAT machines were not exactly mainstream or the cheapest of kit, they and their insanely small portable brethren put 'better than NAGRA' quality recording within reach of many. Its 'launch' was delayed because of SCMS arguments which meant it only had a short time before recordable CDs (another miracle) and the ubiquitous recordable CD drive in a PC arrived. You're right that SCMS killed it, but it was never likely to have been the digital equivilant of the Musicassette because it was so fragile. I made many live recordings using DAT and was always amazed at how finally with modest equipment I could get a recording a NAGRA owner would envy. Once into a PC, editing was simple and recordable CDs made for distribution. This was (in every sense) revolutionary!
16bit and 24 could have been hard but it depends on sound translation device or Headphones and speakers. Otherwhise 0 db was Digital more precise way for monitoring while Analogue signal coud easily make CD's to clip and it's really bad bad , with Analogue recorders then output was process that was determining final results and i remember early 2000 amd Discs with destroyed Music because it's touched 0db and till this day Masters are making problems because they are in range between -1 and 0db pick but if they lowered to -2 to -3 db pick it will make difference on mostly used speakers and headphones. Even when I'm working with Labels i do make compromise letting them destroy my sound but i notice it and my friends and other Artists doesn't have focus on errors and they are listening tonal intervals and some accept error as a part of Music and what is sad they precive it as Quality, Analogue sound and it's a hit and miss.
It's a shame because the demise of DAT led to the extreme downturn in physical music. Easiest way to track and master then burn to disc for production.
For a while in the late 80s there was a proposed system that implemented copy protection by putting a hole in the audio spectrum at 4Khz. The idea was to put this on every prerecorded CD to prevent digital copying by mandating that every DAT recorder sold had to have the capability of detecting this copy protection signature. It was said to be imperceptible to the listener since people apparently had that frequency missing from their hearing ( known as '4K dip' ). Of course this was nonsense and it was audible so it was never used but was a big thing around the early days of digital audio tape. DAT did have another life outside audio as a computer data backup medium called DDS. For a while it was the only practical choice for many people if you had 10s of gigabytes of data to backup. I remember using this until the late 1990s (and maybe beyond) but it was really terrible - it was very slow and the backups were unreliable. This too has long since passed into history but as far as I remember the tapes were compatible for audio and data so it did mean that DAT tape was in production for much longer than it would otherwise have been.
Introducing DAT as Digital recording was biggest mistake of Sony. If they introduced that as analog system they will win the market a specially when recording industry bloc the sale. This standard work exacle as HiFi VCR, with dynamic aproching 90 dB.
I don’t think it’s entirely pointless from a pirate/home hi-fi POV. Subscribe to a lossless streaming service -> record all you want via optical at 16/44.1 directly to DAT with no compression or loss. Unsubscribe! We live in a time when enthusiasts are still paying big money for hi end CC decks and making home recordings on metal tapes, and here is a way to make a physical media copy, in higher lossless quality, and all the gear and tapes cost FAR less than hi end CC.
Recently I had such a recorder to repair. After solving mechanical and electronic puzzles from the developers of Sony, it was successfully repaired and pleases its owner.
@BATMAN DESTROYS Interesting....I woulda thought everyone gave up on DATs 15-20 years ago. I haven't used a DAT machine in a studio since no later than 2006 and possibly as long ago as 2001, but I can't be certain about the 2001 date. Definitely not since 06. Crazy.
I would have independently made an MD suggestion but as you can see, someone beat me to it. Fabulous portable format that you could edit on the fly. At the time I thought that that was what killed DAT, the fact that MD had direct access. I think MD limited the sound quality but not to my human ear.
Corrections: 1) DAT was not the same as CD quality but a bit better (48kHz sample rate vs 44.1) and 2) recording off the radio is/was NOT illegal (personal use is fair use - it's just if you gave it to someone else or otherwise "broadcasted" it - that was illegal). Also legal to make yourself a tape (backup or for use in your car's cassette deck) of a CD/LP you legitimately owned. Again, giving this tape to someone else was illegal. The music industry did not make any distinction and vilified it all.
Recording CD to DAT will not sound "better" - if the sampe rate is upsampled from 44,1 to 48kHz that won't change the sound. And many DAT recorders could record in 44,1 regardless.
@@BlaBla-jj6sh Who said anything about upsampling or copying CDs? Digitally copying a CD to DAT would be no better in that regard yes, BUT, on playback the electronics sound a bit better (marginal and a matter of taste, I suppose). Anyway, the point was recording literally anything else (ie analog source like a Mic or line out from live mixer) will sound better than CD because 48 vs 44.1 (as well as because I think the electronics, especially the front end, sound better in general).
Well there is a reason to own a dat nowdays . I have a sony dtc 77es wich i use as a dac with my cd transport via the coaxial input . The sound quality is way better than any dac i have tested up to 1000€ and i bought it for 250 due to it's defected tape mechanism . Wich is useless to me . 9:35 n
I wish you would end your uploads with shots of commonly used examples of what you are not recommending. I don't remember what a DAT machine looks like and maybe by showing twenty examples you might jog a few memories. And at the end it's the only occasion when you sounded sad that the format you are not recommending is dead.
ChatGPT is your friend - "I'm sorry, but as a text-based AI model, I cannot provide direct links to images. However, I can describe how you can find images of DAT (Digital Audio Tape) recorders using an internet search engine. Here's what you can do: Open your preferred search engine (e.g., Google, Bing, Yahoo). Enter the search query "DAT recorder images" or "Digital Audio Tape recorder images" in the search bar and press Enter. The search engine will display a list of image results related to DAT recorders. Click on the search results or image thumbnails to view the images in more detail. You can repeat the process and refine your search query if needed by adding specific brand names or models of DAT recorders. By following these steps, you should be able to find a variety of images of DAT recorders to meet your requirements." DM
I never had an 8-track but professionally I used NAB carts which work on a similar principle. Loved them for their operational convenience, hated their sound. DM
Home taping off radio is illegal? That has to be the most moronic law. Who hadn't grown up recording songs on the radio? Also, DAT was folly from the start. Who wants a pricier cassette that can get tangled and destroyed easily?
The DAT transports were garbage. Professional use means that the machine has to withstand constant loading and ejecting, scrubbing, cuing, etc. Those tiny transports couldn't take that kind of abuse. The biggest issue were machines eating tapes. If that audio only existed in one place... you were hosed. Sony did make the 7000 series of DAT recorders. They were a lot nicer and could also read/write timecode from the metadata track. But the cost of a brand new machine was well over $10,000US in 1994 which would be well over $20,000 TODAY. You can see why CD burners and players won.
"R-DAT", strictly. they had no idea, as usual, that what was intended as a recordable digital format to run alongside the CD (hence the dreaded SCMS) would be widely adopted by professionals to replace nagras (in the field) & the various high-end mastering formats in recording studios. there is a bottomless pit somewhere where I would put the things I like the least in life, & these wretched shitty little cassettes would be in there, along with the high-maintenance decks they go in. if only sony (or someone else) had come up with a more robust version, maybe something that used the stationary head principles of their DASH machines, but in a 1/4" cassette format for robustness & convenience. instead we have something the size of a small matchbox, that may or may not work in someone else's machine & will probably get lost down the back of the studio couch right after the first playback. they also aren't long-term reliable- I've had so many DATs go bad just sitting in storage, let alone moved about or (heaven forbid) posted. the only thing close to them on my personal recorded-media shit-list is ampex/quantegy 1/4" stock, specifically 90s 478, but also any 456. awful things. I only mention the 'they had no idea' because it appears from the early marketing that this *wasn't* meant to replace the PCM/video recorder as a mastering format.
th-cam.com/video/aVSYF-yS6vc/w-d-xo.html remember, these things were miniature video recorders in the sense that they used helical scan.... machines with varispeed would therefore need either a mechanical or a digital mechanism for translating the 0s & 1s off the tape at a different rate, & the additional error correction was a 'bonus' side-effect of this. in a similar twist, we discovered that digibeta VTRs were better at playing old analogue betacam cassettes because they had to convert a different scanned track length (the tape path was different & the drum larger) using buffers, & while they were at it, they chucked in some dropout compensation.
Like all magnetic recording media and the rotary head versions even more so, DAT had three major problems: 1. droputs, 2. dropouts and 3. dropouts. U-matic, VHS, DAT... Thanks heavens they're all gone.
The real reason the DAT will never make a comeback, is because it is too complicated for some shitty go fund me to grab off the shelf parts and make some Chinese piece of garbage.
I had a Sony DAT machine in the 1990s. Then I was a home recording enthusiast with a cassette 4 track and later a cassette 8 track machine. I bought the DAT machine to record 2 track masters and it was fantastic. The sound quality and clarity was superb, so much better than the previous medium I was using - cassette metal tapes.
That first experience of hearing a DAT playback you never forget. Crystal clear, indistinguishable from the input. Amazing.
i also agree i remenber in late 80´s not having a cassette deck working properly and there it was a Sony DAT deck on top of our dinning table, i even compared it to a reel recorder
I got my DAT machine in 1996. I got home and was up pretty late recording with it from the cd recorder I bought with it. It was amazing hearing that sound from a thin tape medium. I do wish they had chosen 8mm instead of 4mm.
Since a few months use in my DAT recorder again. I like to listen to high resolution streaming services, but I find myself listening in a hurry, many playlists and I don't enjoy it. When I record an album from a streaming service on DAT, I really sit down and enjoy the music much more. I think the sound quality is great, the recording sounds exactly like the original, no noise and you don't have to flip the DAT tape. It is a pity that DAT did not end up in the living room at the time.
If you want digital audio on a tape these days, there is an inexpensive option:
MiniDV! Obviously a digital video format, but it has uncompressed, stereo, 16 bit 48 KHz audio (like DAT).
Yes that's correct. And it go me thinking: there are also the old PCM recorders used by studio's in the 80s mainly where the digital sound was converted to a black-and-white analog tv signal (as one and zero can be transferred to black and white) which could then be recorded on regular VHS recorders, although may Sony Umatic broadcast tapes were used. It would be possible to go full meta where one would use such a convertor and record the black and white signal to DV - keeping it digtal but now in optical form whilst also recording sound as a back up directly in 16 bit digital PCM on the same DV tape. You'd have a digital sound recording to go along with your... digital sound recording. I don't have the equipment but if I did I would do exactly that just because I could.
I do a lot of archive transfer work, and I’ve noticed that the occasional DATs that come through are getting worse. The tape is deteriorating to the point where I have to tell clients not to expect perfection. I’ve got 2 DAT transports. Occasionally I can get a clean pass from one which didn’t do so well on the other and stitch the best transfer sections together, but from an archival point of view they can only get worse.
It's amazing they've lasted so long. It's about ten years or so since I archived my DATs to WAV but they all played fine. Whether they would now, I don't know.
In the 90s, I recorded CDs onto DATs. Still have them and they still sound fresh.
I still have a DAT player and i use it quite often to record my projects onto it. The cost of the equipment today is outrageous.
I was considering getting this equipment just because the tactile advantages of having physical devices is a huge advantage over everything being on a little screen in my opinion. I like having "stuff," I get much better results. The DAW software is so packed with features it's often difficult for me to even figure out how the hell to record anything. I can do it, obviously, but I'd much rather do everything with equipment I can pick up and smack, then put it in the computer at the end.
A decent DAT machine is about $500? Why?! Stupid, in my opinion. I would actually use the damned thing. Sigh. Oh well.
@@VanishedPNW I had a hit or a miss deal because the guy couldn’t test the device. I had a spare tape to test it and worked without any issues. I recorded a few projects and they play just fine but since they are masters I don’t use them that often at all, I use the digital files instead. I offered the guy the most that I could afford at the time and he accepted the offer. I don’t know why they are so expensive but if you look for long enough you could find a good deal. I paid more for the 10 boxes of tapes than the machine itself.
I was working in a record label in in 1990s. International Federation of Phonographic Industry (IFPI) made a big pressure on DAT manufacturers to implement SCMS to DAT recorders, and as I heard, Ahmet Ertegün who was the founder of Atlantic Records and also very prominant in the global record industry was also very effective on postponing the public release of DAT recorders untill SCMS was implemented. On the other hand, there were a few DAT recorders on the market without SCMS. I remember that we had a Technics DAT recorder in the office without SCMS. It was a good enough technology before CDs, but it was little bit late because it was also the dawn of cheaply re-recordable digital music in computers and on CDs.
I don't think it was SCMS that killed DAT, more the fear, uncertainty and doubt around it. If DAT had prospered with SCMS, people would have copied via analogue. But then there was Copycode that would have prevented even that. I don't remember that Copycode was ever implemented but it's all more FUD. DAT was a lovely thing in its day. Times have moved on. DM
i still have my first dat deck bought in 87 working perfect, but in the 90´s digital recording was still far from cassette recording but in the second half of the 90´s the minidisc and the DCC were already fine and then apeared the CD-r decks that i had one from pioneer given to me and it recorded at real speed but today even missing bits or totally yellow they play perfect and sound as a original cd the cd-rom only got aceptable quality in early 2000´s
I stream lossless to VHS HiFi tape just for fun. I have HiFi decks that I got second hand and blank tape is still plentiful on ebay. I don't depend on it or treat it as an archival format. I know that, one day, all of those and all the rest will go bye-bye, as no one is going to make new mechanisms for VHS ever again. Just for fun. Why not?
@@joelcarson4602 I do the same, but with cassette and MiniDisc. But I also still have my HiFi VHS recorder. Like you, just for fun. I like recording and getting it as close to the original without it being a bit perfect copy necessarily. Sometimes a slightly different recording can even appear to sound better, I've certainly heard that on some of my cassette recordings. It's also the reason why some people love vinyl or tube amps. They distort the sound technically - but that's exactly why people love them. I'm totally fine with that, kudos to them.
Nice video. Back in the 90's I ran a lab in acoustics and psychoacoustics and had a new special microphone to test in the real world, I therefore wanted the most quality with the less noise at the time and it had to be battery powered. I ended up with a portable unit (an Aiwa HD-S1 if I recall). for field recording tests (Airplanes, elevators, live concerts, etc) and for playback at the lab I used a Tascam DA-30 DAT deck (it was not cheap). And to listen to my experimental recordings at home, I had a Sony DAT unit (Cheaper than the other units, but still not free for sure).
Now, practically 30 years later, I looked at my DAT cassettes and wanted to transfer them to my computer... but for various reasons, long gone were the Aiwa, the Tascam and the Sony units. I asked a friend in the Pro-Audio market if he had access to an old DAT unit for me to "rent or buy" so that I may do my transfers. He found one that was buried under dust in a forgotten section of the Pro-shop warehouse and he said fo 50$, this would be mine (althoough no guarantee as to the state of the unitt as he had not DAT tapes to check the unit.
We had a rendez-vous at a hotel where he was setting up a conference system for a corporate event and there and then, when I arrived, he decided to simply Give me the DAT unit! (Wow!). I got it home, cleaned it, started it, tested it... It all works!
So I now have use the Keenwood DX7030 unit with optical link to feed my trusty old i7 2010 iMac (since this computer has input 1/8 jack that is capable of taking optical digital link!) and voilà! I now can listen to my test recordings and save a part of my past in R&D.
And you know what? The recordings are still pretty good sounding, bit for bit.
Cheers! :)
Thank you. I did use an Aiwa once probably on review loan, can't remember whether S1 or X1, to record opera arias in someone's very posh living room. Funny I remember the machine and not what was sung. Regarding the longevity of DAT, all my DAT machines expired, one through wear and tear, the other two just age I guess. But I bought another from eBay a few years ago to transfer my old tapes and both machine and tapes worked just fine. DAT wasn't without its faults, but it was very useful in its day. DM
i still use DAT when recording digitally from radio. I set the timer, and later check out if the recordings are interesting enough to keep and make a copy to HD. I found that listening back a radio program from the radio's website is of a lower quality.
A company that I worked for had a large collection of DAT. Realizing that the material could not be easily re-recorded, I took it upon myself to convert every tape to FLAC. The company was since bought out by a competitor who thought little of said company's creations, so the recordings may not have survived anyway.
and that's how i remember DAT story from my youth - thank U 🙂
Well, there is one reason, not to revive DAT’s, but to keep them alive, and that is the great amount of albums which were mastered to that medium. Who knows what kind of lost recording we will end up digging in the future, and having at least one DAT player in working condition is essential.
I confess, I will absolutely buy one of them if I end up finding someone selling it at a decent price. Make my own playlists with absolutely no generational loss and keeping them physical is an idea that sounds quite exciting! 😅
If the album was mastered on DAT it would also have been released on CD - what would otherwise have been the point of the DAT master? You might as well use the CD then, it sounds the same and will probably last much longer than finicky tape. There's also way more working CD players than DAT players.
A better reason to keep working DAT player around is something the video didn't mention: Data DAT. It was used to make computer back ups. I still have DAT backups from my own companies wich go back 20 years. For my companhy it's unimportant now and if I were to toss them out it won't ever be a problem, but it might be for very large archives from certain large companies, government agencies, institutions etc.
It will happen! Vinyl came back, you said it would not happen! Tape cassette came back, you said it would not happened. Second hand Mini disk players are still being bought today including DAT players! Most things always come back round, but it will cost a lot more! Mind you I cannot see DCC coming back.
I don't see how a format can make a comeback if it was never popular in the first place, unlike compact cassettes or vinyl records.
@@zockblattshickleblender7758Hello!!! Dat lover here…They’re prerecorded dat tapes out there(EBay)but it’s getting rare…I have about twelve prerecorded Dat Tapes that I purchased from the late 80’s to early 90’s bought them all new at the time (Long Boxed) like Cds 😊
I developed a DAT based system to make CD production masters where the PQ information was prerecorded using a BBC computer was on the tap prior to the audio. This meant you didn't have to have a very expensive Sony recorder. In those days we had our CDs pressed at Nimbus who also had some very innovative engineers building a home brew class mastering setup.
Sounds good. I remember paying around £250 for mastering from DAT to a Sony 1610 tape, then it became possible just to send in a DAT with track markers. I found, by costly trial and error, that the markers had to be inserted manually a little ahead of the start of each track, otherwise the start could be clipped when the subsequent CD was played. Making my own masters on CD-R was a great leap forward. DM
@@AudioMasterclass we worked with a company called SADiE to include PQ editing in their software, must be forty years ago, memory a bit hazy now.
@@AudioMasterclass Was this at all related to how CDs never had accuracy higher than frame-level anyway? That is, IIUC, the CD spec never defined the relationship between the sector markers and the beginning of an audio frame, so a CD player might begin playing back a frame anywhere within that 1/74th of a second window.
This became vitally important to all the home audio archivists trying to rip their CD collections, when it was discovered that different drive firmwares would have a consistent, but different, offset. It was then a bit of a scandal when we had all been using offsets relative to some agreed-upon reference point that was elevated to "THE ONE RIGHT ANSWER" by the entire Internet, and then somebody realized the reference was probably "wrong," and everyone had been dropping samples from one end of the program area, and reading into the margin at the other end. This was only somewhat abated by the fact that not even pressing plants could agree on where the reference point _should_ be, so even different pressings of the same album might be skewed a hundred samples one way or another.
It's the kind of thing you would've expected would be set in stone in the CD audio specification, before you considered that, before CD, nothing was even remotely as accurate, and being _up to_ 1/74th of a second was such an absolutely absurd nit to pick that nobody could possibly care. (Obviously, this conclusion was pre-Internet, where we realized that, if the nit exists, someone will pick it.)
In the 1990ies, I used DAT in a research environment and basically several projects shared around 5 DAT machines for their work. Most of the time, the machines were unusable due to some mechanical issues. Even if a machines was available, the risk of some hiccup was significant. In hindsight I would say that moving the DAT machines from one lab to another didn't exactly do them any good. Near the end of this work, pleople started using Revox open-reel tapes which were also better at editing.
The whole experience made me turn to DCC for home audio and that never let me down.
Recently brought a Victor XD-Z700 brought back to my youth and best thing I ever did having so much fun making up tapes again and going through my CD collection and sound quality is top notch
Love your videos!! One question, would it work if the boom mike is placed out of frame?
Sometimes it's in frame, sometimes I hide it. Depends how I feel on the day. DM
I am glad to have a Sony DTC-59ES (bought used).
It makes copying records to CD super easy, although the process takes real time and then some, twice over.
The worst thing about it is that finding new blank tapes is now a big problem.
8 Track Tapes were going out by around 1976. By 1980 people were not using 8 Tracks but the record labels produced them for a few years later but they weren't popular by them.
There was a reason for the incompatibility issues between DAT machines, especially between machines of different manufacturers like Sony or Panasonic.
The quality of a DAT recording depends upon a) the proper tape path alignment on both machines and b) the proper switch pulse timing (SWP or DPG with Sony) on the recording deck.
While small differences in tracking can be compensated by the playback deck's auto-tracking (ATF) circuitry (and even the most basic DATs had this) through variation of drum and capstan rotation, an off-spec SWP would make the recorder write parts of the data literally besides the tape, therefore losing the data forever.
Now add the unavoidable tape wear and maybe some dirty heads, coupled with other off-spec parameters like back-tension or take-up torque and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster, resulting in gltching.
Although I have to admit that DAT error correction algorithms were pretty solid for the most part.
But the fact that the machines were maintenance-heavy and needed a good cleaning every 100-150 hours of operation (which required the unit to be opened up and in some cases partially disassembled to get the job done properly) really didn't help DAT's reputation - especially in the consumer market. Adding insult to injury, most manufacturers weren't really transparent about the shortcomings of the format.
And there will be a point in the near future where all remaining DAT machunes in existence will cease to work. The head drums are wearing out and there are no more spares available. And then it's bye-bye for a format that I really love and use to this day. There's just something about creating a mixtape that I can then take into my car and play back on the portable DAT on the passenger seat 😂
I had a mobile DAT recorder I used to use for recording gigs but got fed up of it eating tapes. It produced great recordings. Then I went to a HDD recorder, which produced inferior results to the DAT. Then a HiMD recorder. Eventually, SD card recorders became available and they are so much better than any of the old formats.
What mike do you use for recording?
Used DAT for concert recordings from 1992 onwards. Had to switch to a Flash recorder in 2009 as my trusted tape brand was no longer available. Lost a couple of concerts due to magnetically weak tape.
Fascinating, as always. I was particularly interested to hear you talking about editing tracks on your Revox PR99, because I used to do exactly the same thing, except I used a B77 plus Dolby SR noise reduction for editing, prior to transfer back to DAT for the mastering plant.
I'd have done the same if budget had allowed. Or maybe I'd have invested in a DATStation. Fortunately Sound Tools was just around the corner.
Thanks for another very interesting revival series video. I wonder what you think about a revival of magnetic wire recording, if it was upgraded using some of todays technology.
I think you'd have to find someone older and wiser than me to cover this properly. The same with optical sound on film, which was a very useful technology in its day. Then there's the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonautograph - I'll pass. DM
I bought the same Sony machine with the 44.1 mod. I used to compile albums by bouncing digitally from one machine to another borrowed from a friend. It was a very hit and miss technique.
I think it was 1500 pounds when I bought it. I finally put it out in the garbage a few years ago.
I do still have a later machine that I’m holding onto to transfer my old master tapes to the computer but have been thwarted by glitches on the now very old tapes. Constant cleaning of the head helps but I’m lucky if I can get all the way through a song. Usually having to edit a couple of tries together.
Tape glitching, I hated that. Some manufacturers were worse than others. Can't tell you how many music cassette tapes I bought and popped them in only to get sound distortion, especially the ones where they were recorded from zero, without allowing that first minute to roll by. It got to the point where I convinced my local record store to pop in the tape on one of their decks before I purchased it, just to make sure it worked before I went home with it.
The credits listing in the description box seem wonderfully random
I also have to wonder if Sony got extra scrutiny because they had created the Walkman in ‘79, which record companies probably blamed for a lot of cassette copying.
Thanks for another great video from the perspective of an audio pro. I remember when DAT (and later DCC) first became 'widely' available in high school, but it was horribly expensive. We all skipped directly to CD (see what I did?), and kept using tapes to share music. I have never even used a DAT deck! I'm highly doubtful there will be a comeback except by format geeks like Techmoan who like it as a novelty. I imagine getting a functioning deck is an order of magnitude or two harder than a good cassette deck.
Myself and 12voltvids have fixed a number of DAT machines on our channels. I'm staring now at five good DAT decks. Oh and a good DCC.
@@video99couk Keeping them alive! I have 5 cassette decks I rescued, but still have never seen a DAT deck.
I must have been really lucky, because I do not recall every suffering glitching when recording at the beginning of tapes. I had a Fostex D5 and only used HHB tapes.
Yes I remember HHB tapes being good (their ADAT tapes and blank CDs too). DM
@@AudioMasterclass I was aware of the need to begin recording further in, mainly a throwback to reel to reel days. So I might have started mine 30secs to 1min into the tape perhaps. Long time ago now, so I forget.
I have used DAT, Sharp RX-100, to record my live mixes. Why a revival in times of mobile recorders and memory stick/SSD with capacity for dozens of high res recordings?
Had a Tascam DA-30 for recording mixes/masters. Was a wonderful machine. I now have lots of DAT masters from the late 80s and 90s I can't play. The really important stuff I transferred to hard disk, but there were far too many to do all of them. Wish I still had a working DAT. It wasn't perfect (trading tapes between my DA-30 and my employer's Fostex was problematic), but it was a great format and at the time felt like a huge step forward.
I have a Sony DAT and Sony Minidisc recorder paired together in my system... They record and playback perfectly and are used often. It will be a sad day when my Sony DTC 700 starts to "glitch"... But until then I love it... Guess I've been lucky...lol...
Hello DM,
I'll never forget the first time I heard the proverbial 'head crash' on my TEAC DAT machine.
A truly life altering experience !
BP
i have a sony dat walkman with the optical block accessories to. I also have one pre recorded dat audio tape as well to.
And part of this is also why the music industry is pushing vinyl over the sales of CDs.
I still have a sony Dat recorder .I use it to record my music I make in the studio. but use my minidisk more the ja50es .then I listen my mix in the living room
I remember it as rotary, too. In Germany the problem with DAT was it came to late (of cause the reason was the discussion about copy protection) and more relevant: it was to expensive. It starts at 3.500 DM (with tax). For this amount you get up to 175 CDs. The price was the best „copy protection“ I think. Even when MD hit the market in Germany the prices for DAT were to high. I bought one of the first Sony MD recorders. It was the MDS-JE 500. It was much cheaper than any DAT, less complicated and more flexible.
A combination of factors added up to sink DAT. Professionally though it did have a heyday in that it was affordable CD-quality digital recording. Prior to DAT costs were somewhere around 20k. DM
Still have a Tascam DA 20, still working. It was/is a pretty reliable workhorse. I keep it for the masters for CD's that I made in the 90's. I keep it around for the masters and safety copy masters that I still have. I too edited on open reel back then.
I have a Tascam also but can't remember the model. The thing with old DAT recorders though is 'will it work when you need it?'. I've discovered that to my cost in years gone by. Maybe my Tascam will, maybe it won't. I'll find out when one of my old DAT tapes emerges from all of my stored junk. DM
@@AudioMasterclassI have a sony dat portable and the optical cable to I also have a sony pre recorded dat demo
i used it a lot in the 90ties .... i've used it in my homestudio and made going to the studio less frequent ....
Remember ADAT recorders and how they had to sync up when you used more of them at once 😖
I had three ADAT XT20's. I actually enjoyed that time in history.
I once owned a DAT deck: a small beautiful machine that sounded wonderful. I taped some friend's CDs and digitize some cassette tapes too. DAT tapes were expensive and hard to find. Ultimately I used some DDS cartridges. My DAT machine started to produce tons of distortion and funny noises so I left it and went into recordable CDs. Trying to solve those items were too difficult and the pieces required were scarce and expensive. Finally somebody stole it.
DAT actually enjoyed some success, as a computer data backup device. That how I have used them for years.
Talking about computer storage.. When are we getting a "CD-ROM revival is wrong on so many levels"? That's the digital writable format that the music industry failed to kill.
I was eyeballing a unit for old time sake but after seeing your video I decided to buy a press papier instead. Thanks for saving me of a costly mistake 😊
So how long do DAT tapes magnetic fields last? What happened to all the old master tapes? Are they sitting in boxes in some warehouse for each the labels or something :)
This is what happened to many old master tapes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire
S-DAT and R-DAT stands for Stationary HEAD Digital Audio Tape and Rotary HEAD Digital Audio Tape. S-DAT applied to pro formats like the Mitsubishi 32 track on quarter inch and R-DAT was applied to pre-DAT format machines which were essentially re-purposed video transports, like the Sony portable Betamax F1. DASH, Digital Audio Stationary Head was the original term for S-DAT I think.
Miniaturising helical scan mechanism to work on a tiny, barely moving tape was little short of a miracle and, while 'consumer' DAT machines were not exactly mainstream or the cheapest of kit, they and their insanely small portable brethren put 'better than NAGRA' quality recording within reach of many.
Its 'launch' was delayed because of SCMS arguments which meant it only had a short time before recordable CDs (another miracle) and the ubiquitous recordable CD drive in a PC arrived.
You're right that SCMS killed it, but it was never likely to have been the digital equivilant of the Musicassette because it was so fragile.
I made many live recordings using DAT and was always amazed at how finally with modest equipment I could get a recording a NAGRA owner would envy. Once into a PC, editing was simple and recordable CDs made for distribution. This was (in every sense) revolutionary!
I don't disagree. DAT was wonderful in its day and I considered the £1000 GBP I spent on my Sony DTC-1000ES (with the 44.1 mod) a bargain. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Ah yes, I'd forgotten that. The launch delay argument included whether 44.1 could be recorded as well as 48.
Love your videos btw!
Oh, this is all so true, the parts about pro DATs having issues playing tapes from other machines.
16bit and 24 could have been hard but it depends on sound translation device or Headphones and speakers. Otherwhise 0 db was Digital more precise way for monitoring while Analogue signal coud easily make CD's to clip and it's really bad bad , with Analogue recorders then output was process that was determining final results and i remember early 2000 amd Discs with destroyed Music because it's touched 0db and till this day Masters are making problems because they are in range between -1 and 0db pick but if they lowered to -2 to -3 db pick it will make difference on mostly used speakers and headphones. Even when I'm working with Labels i do make compromise letting them destroy my sound but i notice it and my friends and other Artists doesn't have focus on errors and they are listening tonal intervals and some accept error as a part of Music and what is sad they precive it as Quality, Analogue sound and it's a hit and miss.
Excellent as usual...very well explained.
It's a shame because the demise of DAT led to the extreme downturn in physical music. Easiest way to track and master then burn to disc for production.
For a while in the late 80s there was a proposed system that implemented copy protection by putting a hole in the audio spectrum at 4Khz. The idea was to put this on every prerecorded CD to prevent digital copying by mandating that every DAT recorder sold had to have the capability of detecting this copy protection signature. It was said to be imperceptible to the listener since people apparently had that frequency missing from their hearing ( known as '4K dip' ). Of course this was nonsense and it was audible so it was never used but was a big thing around the early days of digital audio tape.
DAT did have another life outside audio as a computer data backup medium called DDS. For a while it was the only practical choice for many people if you had 10s of gigabytes of data to backup. I remember using this until the late 1990s (and maybe beyond) but it was really terrible - it was very slow and the backups were unreliable. This too has long since passed into history but as far as I remember the tapes were compatible for audio and data so it did mean that DAT tape was in production for much longer than it would otherwise have been.
Yes George Martin was a great champion of the 4k Dip!
another excellent and interesting presentation
EXCELLENT video
Introducing DAT as Digital recording was biggest mistake of Sony. If they introduced that as analog system they will win the market a specially when recording industry bloc the sale. This standard work exacle as HiFi VCR, with dynamic aproching 90 dB.
How test different format
I use one to capture my master mixes sounds awesome 👍
I had both DAT and DCC decks. I should've held onto them.
I don’t think it’s entirely pointless from a pirate/home hi-fi POV. Subscribe to a lossless streaming service -> record all you want via optical at 16/44.1 directly to DAT with no compression or loss. Unsubscribe!
We live in a time when enthusiasts are still paying big money for hi end CC decks and making home recordings on metal tapes, and here is a way to make a physical media copy, in higher lossless quality, and all the gear and tapes cost FAR less than hi end CC.
l never saw a purpose in DAT because CDs were available. And you had to FF and rewind to get to songs.
Christine Keeler, right?
You forgot "Audio Galaxy"
I'm looking forward to the Elcassette revival!😁
It was a format with potential but just never caught on with the market. Not anyone's fault - the market is very hard to predict. DM
Isn't being a thing in the first place a prerequisite for a revival?
It was definitely a thing in pro audio but not for consumers. I never met anyone who used DAT like they would use cassette. DM
@@AudioMasterclass , you didn't meet me, then. ^^
Recently I had such a recorder to repair. After solving mechanical and electronic puzzles from the developers of Sony, it was successfully repaired and pleases its owner.
dat recorder was always too expensive
We NEED the DAT revival... those 80's hipsters will eat it up...
Sadly, I think you're right. DM
Let em have it. I've got working Sony and Tascam DAT machines that I'll sell to em for $2k a pop!
@BATMAN DESTROYS Interesting....I woulda thought everyone gave up on DATs 15-20 years ago. I haven't used a DAT machine in a studio since no later than 2006 and possibly as long ago as 2001, but I can't be certain about the 2001 date. Definitely not since 06. Crazy.
WHAT ABOUT MD?
When I've received a hundred comments (from different people) asking about MiniDisc, I'll cover it. We'll see how that goes... DM
I would have independently made an MD suggestion but as you can see, someone beat me to it. Fabulous portable format that you could edit on the fly. At the time I thought that that was what killed DAT, the fact that MD had direct access. I think MD limited the sound quality but not to my human ear.
Corrections: 1) DAT was not the same as CD quality but a bit better (48kHz sample rate vs 44.1) and 2) recording off the radio is/was NOT illegal (personal use is fair use - it's just if you gave it to someone else or otherwise "broadcasted" it - that was illegal). Also legal to make yourself a tape (backup or for use in your car's cassette deck) of a CD/LP you legitimately owned. Again, giving this tape to someone else was illegal. The music industry did not make any distinction and vilified it all.
Recording CD to DAT will not sound "better" - if the sampe rate is upsampled from 44,1 to 48kHz that won't change the sound. And many DAT recorders could record in 44,1 regardless.
@@BlaBla-jj6sh Who said anything about upsampling or copying CDs? Digitally copying a CD to DAT would be no better in that regard yes, BUT, on playback the electronics sound a bit better (marginal and a matter of taste, I suppose). Anyway, the point was recording literally anything else (ie analog source like a Mic or line out from live mixer) will sound better than CD because 48 vs 44.1 (as well as because I think the electronics, especially the front end, sound better in general).
Well there is a reason to own a dat nowdays . I have a sony dtc 77es wich i use as a dac with my cd transport via the coaxial input . The sound quality is way better than any dac i have tested up to 1000€ and i bought it for 250 due to it's defected tape mechanism . Wich is useless to me . 9:35 n
I wish you would end your uploads with shots of commonly used examples of what you are not recommending.
I don't remember what a DAT machine looks like and maybe by showing twenty examples you might jog a few memories.
And at the end it's the only occasion when you sounded sad that the format you are not recommending is dead.
ChatGPT is your friend - "I'm sorry, but as a text-based AI model, I cannot provide direct links to images. However, I can describe how you can find images of DAT (Digital Audio Tape) recorders using an internet search engine. Here's what you can do:
Open your preferred search engine (e.g., Google, Bing, Yahoo).
Enter the search query "DAT recorder images" or "Digital Audio Tape recorder images" in the search bar and press Enter.
The search engine will display a list of image results related to DAT recorders.
Click on the search results or image thumbnails to view the images in more detail.
You can repeat the process and refine your search query if needed by adding specific brand names or models of DAT recorders.
By following these steps, you should be able to find a variety of images of DAT recorders to meet your requirements." DM
Dat’s a very good video you made.
Oh and you talk about dreadful tapes, that was 8 Tracks! They had a lot of issues.
I never had an 8-track but professionally I used NAB carts which work on a similar principle. Loved them for their operational convenience, hated their sound. DM
In other words DAT was just too good.
And DATs the end!
For me DAT never happened in the first place. Complicated machines and expensive tapes...... RIP!
Tape same noise it's is on lp
Home taping off radio is illegal? That has to be the most moronic law. Who hadn't grown up recording songs on the radio? Also, DAT was folly from the start. Who wants a pricier cassette that can get tangled and destroyed easily?
DCC > DAT
Its back Paul McCartney!
The DAT transports were garbage. Professional use means that the machine has to withstand constant loading and ejecting, scrubbing, cuing, etc. Those tiny transports couldn't take that kind of abuse. The biggest issue were machines eating tapes. If that audio only existed in one place... you were hosed. Sony did make the 7000 series of DAT recorders. They were a lot nicer and could also read/write timecode from the metadata track. But the cost of a brand new machine was well over $10,000US in 1994 which would be well over $20,000 TODAY. You can see why CD burners and players won.
Yea right that’s what they sead about LPs
"R-DAT", strictly.
they had no idea, as usual, that what was intended as a recordable digital format to run alongside the CD (hence the dreaded SCMS) would be widely adopted by professionals to replace nagras (in the field) & the various high-end mastering formats in recording studios.
there is a bottomless pit somewhere where I would put the things I like the least in life, & these wretched shitty little cassettes would be in there, along with the high-maintenance decks they go in. if only sony (or someone else) had come up with a more robust version, maybe something that used the stationary head principles of their DASH machines, but in a 1/4" cassette format for robustness & convenience. instead we have something the size of a small matchbox, that may or may not work in someone else's machine & will probably get lost down the back of the studio couch right after the first playback. they also aren't long-term reliable- I've had so many DATs go bad just sitting in storage, let alone moved about or (heaven forbid) posted.
the only thing close to them on my personal recorded-media shit-list is ampex/quantegy 1/4" stock, specifically 90s 478, but also any 456.
awful things. I only mention the 'they had no idea' because it appears from the early marketing that this *wasn't* meant to replace the PCM/video recorder as a mastering format.
th-cam.com/video/aVSYF-yS6vc/w-d-xo.html
remember, these things were miniature video recorders in the sense that they used helical scan.... machines with varispeed would therefore need either a mechanical or a digital mechanism for translating the 0s & 1s off the tape at a different rate, & the additional error correction was a 'bonus' side-effect of this.
in a similar twist, we discovered that digibeta VTRs were better at playing old analogue betacam cassettes because they had to convert a different scanned track length (the tape path was different & the drum larger) using buffers, & while they were at it, they chucked in some dropout compensation.
Now, AI starts a whole new thing. Now you’ll be able to make a whole new original recording without the record companies or the artist
Like all magnetic recording media and the rotary head versions even more so, DAT had three major problems: 1. droputs, 2. dropouts and 3. dropouts. U-matic, VHS, DAT... Thanks heavens they're all gone.
Bizarre celeb pic for '65 and '66.
Celebrity birth years. DM
The real reason the DAT will never make a comeback, is because it is too complicated for some shitty go fund me to grab off the shelf parts and make some Chinese piece of garbage.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Only fillers fill out nosie low it
a DCC revival is more likely than a DAT revival lmao
It would probably be more useful but I don't see it happening.
You have Probably been a troll your whole life.. please keep on
A wise man said that if you think you're trolling and you're presenting facts, then you're not trolling. DM
I hated DATs. Way too finicky.