From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:23:42 GMT

In article <C15ozr.C3F@news2.cis.umn.edu> ritc0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Kent Ritchie) writes:
>I can't believe what Sony and Phillips are trying to do with MD and DCC.
>I am offended that both of these companies think that I will be willing
>to pay top dollar for a music system that is inferior to what is already 
>available, CD and DAT.  I am even more upset by those who are seriously 
>considering purchasing one of the new formats.  

Well, they do have their applications, and let me explain why.  DAT is
a great format.  I use it every day in professional applications.  But it
really will never make it as a consumer format and here's why.

	- DAT cannot be used in a walkman design (not very
	  well, anyway).  Its helical-scan system is too delicate,
	- DAT is not very robust.
	- DAT has no consumer pizzaz.

wrt the last....MD is recordable optical, and that is generally considered
"cool" by the public.  DCC has semi-backward-compatibility, which is also
a plus.  DAT is neither "cool" nor compatible, which makes it strike out
from a consumer point of view.

>What makes me sick is that they are trying to make these formats standard.
>I believe, as consumers, we control the manufacturers, or at least we should.

That's quite a belief.  Would that it were the case.

>So why are we letting some slick ad agencies get us in bed with something
>inferior to what we could have at the same price - DAT.  DAT has proven to 
>be superior in audio quality to both DCC and MD.  Granted it does not access
>tracks as fast as MD, but it kicks DCC'c ass....  The optimal format would
>be a re-recordable non-lossy optical disc.

That's still a while off.  As for DCC/MD, the idea is to replace the 
analog cassette, not CD.  Neither company is marketing it as an alternative
to CD, and that's good to know.

> But in the lack of presence of
>such a format the consumer should pick the next best format, DAT.  DAT has
>proven its quality and reliablity in pro-audio applications.  If the pros
>use it I am convinced it is good enough for the average Joe.  C'mon people!

Kent, you forget.  The average joe doesn't really care about sound
quality.  When CD came out, most of the public decried "It won't play
any of my old records!"  When laser disc came out, they said "But you
can't record on them!" (as if they bought CD players and turntables
because you could).  When CD finally caught on, it didn't catch on
because it sounded good.  It caught on because it looked neat.  It
looked different, it had new features, it was cost-effective.  That it
soudned good was an added bonus.

>Get out there and demand DAT on your next big purchase, not MD or DCC...
>Let's not dig our own grave here.  MD and DCC are a step in the wrong 
>direction.

Well, DCC's stationary head design is great for cars and walkmans, as is
the memory buffer approach of MD.  Both of them are superior to both CD
and DAT when it comes to portability's sake.  I'd never use them in my
home, and I'd *certainly* never use them at work, but I'd certainly use
one of them in my car or my walkman.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Xref: sparky rec.audio:19042 rec.video:16196