Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

3M had a big multi track digital recorder years ago... I don't know of
any problem with multi track digital, in fact it may be 'easier' in a
sense, because crosstalk is not really a problem.

One problem with 'purist' live recordings (simple spaced omni's for example)
is that the large out of phase low frequencies cause excessive vertical
modulation on normal LP's.  Blending the low end to control this is
really a compromise. For example, I personally find that a single subwoofer
is not as good as two good low frequency speakers - even though the low
frequencies are not directional, it still sounds better to have two sources
of bass.  (I've owned some large speakers at times, a 24 inch Hartly once,
and a pair of AR-9's...)

- Jim

I just got the latest Quarterflash disk, which is advertised as all digital.
It's DEFINITELY multi-tracked (as well as quite good, if you're into QF).

RE .0

I READ SOMEWHERE IN ONE OF THE STEREO MAGAZINES THAT THE PROMARY REASON FOR
STAYING WITH ANALOG ON MULTITRACK IS EDITTING. TO SOMEWHAT PARAPHRASE A QUOTE
FROM THE MAGAZINE. "THE RAZOR BLADE IS THE EDITORS (TAPE) MOST USEFUL TOOL.
HOW DOES ONE CUT A BYTE EXACTLY AND IF ONE IS USING ROTARY HEADS, HOW ARE
YOU SURE THAT YOU ARE CUTTING AT PRECISELY THE SAME ANGLE? IF THE CUT IS
DONE INCORRECTLY, THEN THE REST OF THE DIGITAL RECORDING IS THEN OUT OF PHASE."

GRAHAME

With digital recordings, you obviously use digital storage techniques to
electronically "edit" the information.  It's like when we edit files on
the computer, we don't take scissors and tape to the disks!
				Steve

There is probably more resistance due to ignorance than fact. Digital editing
is certainly more precise and probably much faster than analog, but it is
a new technique (something about old dogs...new tricks seems appropriate)
with all that that implies.

Walt

   Also take into consideration the amount of storage needed to hold a song?
   That means a lot of memory and/or disk space for immediate access.
   
   44,000*2*60= 5,280,000 bytes per minute of storage.  thats over 5 Mb
   
   				.dave.

44100 * 2 * 60 * 2 = 10584000 bytes per minute.

you mean it's not MONO?

well I was thinking of just 2 channels... replace the second '2' with N.

The Soundstream sample rate is much higher than the typical PCM/CD stuff,
around 100KHz I think, but I do not know if this is on a per channel basis
or what.    There are some data compression techniques (like RLL code) which
can reduce actual disk or tape storage up to 50% depending on material and
technique.   Soundstream makes use of tape quite heavily, with large disk
and medium memory buffers during editing (you cannot edit all the tune at
once - so you dont need it all available within milliseconds).

The figures shown in .6 and .7 illustrate why up to now digital home 
reproduction was not very practical... Untill read only laser technology
and the ability to get >1G byte on one disk. That would take 10 good
cartridge tapes, or 12-15 RD53's to store the same info.

Walt

During the editing process, it is not neccesary to have fast access
to the entire piece of music.  You could have an input tape,
an output tape, and a certain "window" inside the editor.

   but don't forget that you'd like to be able to listen to the track as
   you are editing, and that you most likely have several tracks at the same
   time running in parallel - lots of storage is needed in all cases...
   
   hey, memory is getting cheaper right?? get a 8650 with 68Mb!!!!
   
   				.dave.

   .13 
   
   >Re .4	We do too take scissors to the disk when we edit files.  

   - you are saying that when you edit your files, you walk up to your
   disk drive, remove the disk, break open the casing, take out a knife and
   cut the metal where you think your file is?...
   
   I'd hate to be your system manager...