naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MD v. DAT

Subject: Re: MD v. DAT
From: "Raimund Specht" <>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:53:18 -0000
Hi Klas,

I will reply via private mail in order to prevent any further
misinterpretation ;-)

Raimund


> Thanks Raimund, just one more question:
>
> For how long back in time would you say the below judgements go?
>
> I mean, it is quite inadequate to judge the specs of the single
chip. As a
> user, I have to judge about the whole assembly. Example: When your
D3 worked
> fine in 1991, I know for sure how badly my own pc-soundcard
converter
> worked, regardless of poor shielding or not.
>
> Klas.
>
>
>
> Would At 12:21 2003-08-17 -0000, you wrote:
> >Klas Strandberg <> wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks Raimund. What I would like to understand a bit is how
good
> >the simple
> >>AD, DA converters in modern walkman type DAT's and MD's are.
When
> >using a
> >>Portadisc compared to a cheap Sharp MD, what role does the AD,
DA
> >converters
> >>play?
> >
> >I would say, that there are only minor differences between the AD
> >and DA converters chips between the various devices. Today, these
> >chips are very cheap (5 ... 20 $) and are generally of a high
> >quality. However, the overall quality of a recorder depends also
on
> >other parts that will make the difference. Among these things are
> >the pre-amplifier and the specific design of the recorder (e.g.
> >shielding against internal digital noise). I still have not
compared
> >the Portadisk to the cheaper MD's. Besides my mini-laptop
equipped
> >with an external 24 bit audio interface, I'm still using a
consumer
> >DAT recorder SONY TCD-D3 recorder (purchased at about $600 in
1991).
> >This old device still works satisfying for my purposes and I can
not
> >find any artifacts that could be attributed to its AD converter.
> >
> >>And the converters on cheap sound cards?
> >
> >The converter chips on cheap sound cards might be the same models
> >than those in consumer MD recorders. Therefore, here applies the
> >same I mentioned above. More important than the A/D converter
itself
> >is the shielding against digital noise and the noise performance
of
> >the pre-amplifier (even that of LINE-IN if you want to have the
> >maximum possible dynamic range).  Especially the microphone
inputs
> >of cheap internal soundcards are often of a poor quality
(certainly
> >in laptop computers).
> >
> >>Will a typical cheap converter on a standard sound card make
> >visible changes
> >>on a sonogram?=A0
> >
> >No. However, it depends on the dynamic range that you wish to
> >display on the spectrogram. Usually (e.g. for species
identification
> >or other sound parameter measurements), it is not required to
> >display any signals below -60 dBFS. This level is far above the
> >higher inherent noise levels of cheaper soundcards. Additionally,
> >the potentially lower dynamic range of cheap soundcards will be
> >masked by the environmental noise and the inherent noise of the
> >microphone that is already present in a recording. If you want to
> >display the full dynamic range of the recording (including the
> >softest background noise) on a spectrogram, the higher inherent
> >noise of cheap soundcards will become visible (but only if that
> >noise is stronger than that of the original recording).
> >
> >>Would you say that cheap AD, DA converters cause more trouble
than
> >ATRAC and
> >>MP3??
> >
> >No! Cheaper AD converters may add a very small amount of
additional
> >noise only (leading to a dynamic range of e.g. 85 dB instead of
92
> >dB). There are no other significant distortions. The artifacts
that
> >occur in ATRAC or MP3 may lead to extremely degraded dynamic
ranges
> >of less than 20 dB at worst cases (which will of course never
occur
> >so extremely in common nature recordings).
> >
> >To my mind, the problem in ATRAC is, that the potential artifacts
> >are highly unpredictable. Sometimes, the sounds will be recorded
> >properly, but in some special cases you will get unreliable
results.
> >This is the reason why I always prefer DAT or other recording
> >techniques without compression. I'm considering to buy the new
> >PMD670, even if it has only a resolution of 16 bits. As we have
> >discussed earlier, the limited dynamic range of a 16 bit system
> >would be sufficient for most nature recordings...=20=20
> >
> >Regards,
> >Raimund
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> email: 
>        



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU