From: maurices@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Maurice Shihadi)
Newsgroups: comp.periphs
Subject: Re: EIGHT TRACK DIGITAL RECORDING
Keywords: n
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:24:39 GMT
Organization: Coast Community College District, Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Aug13.035741.24393@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>In article <BswAM8.3LK@spock.dis.cccd.edu>, maurices@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Maurice Shihadi) writes:
>
>>I wish someone like TEAC would put together an eight track digital
>>DAT machine with eight inputs, eight outputs, two SCSI 
>>interfaces, an RS423/422 interface, a proprietary interface for 
>>additional eight track machines and an AES/EBU digital output
>>so that information can be ported to and from a direct to disc 
>>mastering computer (such as a NeXTstation) via SCSI interface or 
>>AES/EBU format (another DAT machine off site).  The ability to 
>>read and generate SMPTE and VITC time code withou killing a track 
>>would also be nice.  
>>
>
>I don't know if Teac makes them, but there are machines that answer most
>of your requirements, up to 16 tracks.  They are made for scientific
>data recording, but will handle music quite well, too.  We are looking
>into them in our lab here.
>
>I don't remember the manufacturers, and I am at home right now, but if
>you are interested, write me and I will mail them to you.
>
>
>-- 
>John Martin                                        johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
>Institute of Neuroscience,   University of Oregon,    Eugene, OR,    97402

Newsgroups: comp.periphs
Subject: Re: EIGHT TRACK DIGITAL RECORDING
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Coast Community College District, Costa Mesa, CA
Keywords: n

In article <1992Aug13.035741.24393@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>In article <BswAM8.3LK@spock.dis.cccd.edu>, maurices@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Maurice Shihadi) writes:
>
>>I wish someone like TEAC would put together an eight track digital
>>DAT machine with eight inputs, eight outputs, two SCSI 
>>interfaces, an RS423/422 interface, a proprietary interface for 
>>additional eight track machines and an AES/EBU digital output
>>so that information can be ported to and from a direct to disc 
>>mastering computer (such as a NeXTstation) via SCSI interface or 
>>AES/EBU format (another DAT machine off site).  The ability to 
>>read and generate SMPTE and VITC time code withou killing a track 
>>would also be nice.  
>>
>
>I don't know if Teac makes them, but there are machines that answer most
>of your requirements, up to 16 tracks.  They are made for scientific
>data recording, but will handle music quite well, too.  We are looking
>into them in our lab here.
>
>I don't remember the manufacturers, and I am at home right now, but if
>you are interested, write me and I will mail them to you.
>
>
>-- 
>John Martin                                        johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
>Institute of Neuroscience,   University of Oregon,    Eugene, OR,    97402




Your kinda right John, however:

The devices you describe all or should subscribe to the I-EEE standard which
means that for me (on a NeXTstation) I need an I-EEE adapter type thing
(close to $1k) then I have to get an analog to digital converter 
(around $2k) to go into the I-EEE adapter thing into the NeXT.  But since
I'm dealing with direct to disc mastering in stereo I may need two
A/D converters because the more tracks one uses, the lower the sampling 
rate gets.  But then again, that may be a software issue.  

And then I've got only one dsp56001 chip inside my NeXT which can realistically handle four music tracks maximum (according to techs I've talked to).
Furthermore (to make things even more complicated), I can't leave my data
on disc when I'm done with it because all discs crash (eventually) and stereo 
music stuff takes up 10 meg a minute (35 total per minute when Quicktime 
gets happening) so I'll then need to archive it out (SCSI)
to a 512 3.5 optical (next years new toy hopefully) ($1.5k) or to a
DAT ($2k) or something via AES/EBU interface ($1k).  Then there is the
software issue which I won't get into today.

The point of my original posting was to address what I thought the idea of 
"open architecture" was--to help us all produce quality cost effective 
product that can be continually upgraded--instead of using terms as  
catch phrases for marketting purposes.

It used to be that you "get what you pay for" but since technology is so 
fast and hardware is so cheap to produce I see businesses creating 
their own "industry standards" to win and keep customers comming back 
for more instead of adopting one global standard including all electronic 
fields to promote having killer products that work exactly as they imply 
in copy on all systems and charging a small license fee on a yearly  
basis (whew, sorry for the run on).  Sure, business would not make high 
short term profit but customer base would increase instead of decrease 
(anybody buy a MIDI keyboard or sound module like in the 80's lately) 
from being financially burned by an industry with a six month product 
life cycle.  If we had global industry standards maybe we would'nt be
as dissapointed when a product gets dropped from a line and no third
party decides to pick up the ball because licensing fees associated 
with a new proprietary format.

Well thats it for me for today.  What do you all think?

Hey John, I'm not flaming you I'm just on a roll with this cost effectiveness
trip.  If you need info, I've got alot myself and will be happy to refer you.


maurices 








i