At 2:11 AM 1/31/96, Davey N wrote:
quoted 5 lines O.K. i'm going to make myself look really stupid now, but....
>O.K. i'm going to make myself look really stupid now, but....
>Philips have just bought out a range of DCC machines, and i assume that
>DCC stands for Digital Compact Cassette. I was under the impression
>that it was a system that was similar to DAT, but like it's alot cheaper,
>so what's the difference?
the main difference is that DAT is a "pure" digital signal path: ie, what
you put in is exactly what you get out.
DCC uses a form of compression that "throws away" pieces of the sound
spectrum that your ears are unlikely to notice. This way they can use
stationary heads instead of rotating heads (as in DAT), which simplifies
design and manufacture.
there has been much heated debate over whether or not people really CAN
notice the bits that have been taken out, with some saying "oh it's
terrible" and others saying "you'll never notice." apparently it's more
noticeable on quiet, solo passages (like in classical music) and less
noticeable on dense, loud parts (like rock music).
the other main difference is that DCC (and the Minidisc, which is similar
in that it uses lossy compression to get away with lower bandwidth) never
took off.
if you are planning on getting into the recording biz, DAT is industry
standard. everybody uses them for master distribution. most places won't
even touch DCC or minidisc. don't save a few hundred bucks (or pounds) now
cos you'll regret it later.
also, blank DATs are way cheaper (and more readily available) than blank DCCs.
avoid DCC and minidisc.
--
Name: Jon
Email: jsd@cyborganic.com
Web:
http://www.cyborganic.com/bass-kittens/