NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/audio/17487

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 5.3 KB | 107 lines

Newsgroups: rec.audio
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!gatech!concert!decwrl!adobe!caro
From: [e-mail] (Perry A. Caro)
Subject: Re: questions on new digital formats
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:47:44 GMT
Lines: 94


[I hope all attributions are correct.  I'm working at 2400 baud which
makes cross verification pretty painful.]

Here's what Audio Magazine (1/92, pp 42-46) has to say on the subject of
analog recording on DCC decks:

    The DCC standard, as formulated by its co-developers, does not
    specifically exclude the possibility of some manufacturer
    offering a DCC recorder/player that will also be able to record
    analog cassettes.  At the moment, however, it appears that all
    first-generation DCC recorders/players will offer digital record
    and play capability but only play capability for analog.

On the other hand . . .

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>At the recent New York City SPARS meeting, the presentation was by
>BASF and was about DCC manufacture, and the word I heard that the
>lack of record ability for analog is part of the Philips license
>agreement.  They obviously want to push the old analog cassettes
>into the grave as fast as possible.

This sounds pretty authoritative to me.  It also sounds like Philips is
pretty rabid about their DCC format, to it's detriment. I wonder if the
truth is that Philips requires a HIGHER license fee for analog recording,
one which no manufacturer is willing to pay.  In any case, the lack of
analog recording seems like a mistake to me.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Curt
Welch) writes:
>Don't the DCC decks uses the same heads for reading both type of
>tapes? I was wondering if the reason they don't record is because
>these new thin-film (or whatever they are) heads (which are designed
>to read and write the 8 (or 10 or 11 or whatever) track DCC tapes
>can't do a a very good job of recording in the ACC format.

From the same article, either a single head that flips (uses one end
for 2 track analog, the other for 9 track digital), or twin heads on
one auto-reversing mount, can be used.  Physically, the analog head
elements are separate from the digital head elements.  The digital head
elements are much smaller, and are meant to write at 185 microns, read
at 70 microns(!).  Compare with 600 microns for standard analog tracks.

>Why would anyone buy DCC?  The decks are currently on sale for $999 at
>my local Circuit City.  For that much money, you can buy a DAT deck, A
>CD player, a cassette deck, and a Sony walkman.   Or, you could buy the
>MD player/recorder and a $300 cassette deck.  What does DCC give you
>that you can't get with these other units for the same price?
>Nothing.

I agree that DCC doesn't make sense at the current price.  It only
makes sense if it gets down to below CD prices, and rapidly.  I mean
both devices and media here.  It may never get down to ACC prices, and
ACC may live forever as the bottom rung technology, for dictation and
answering machines too.  Everything I've read (excluding advertising
hype) indicates that Philips understands this and intends to make DCC
the low-end consumer digital recordable/portable medium.  HOWEVER, when
a new technology comes out, there are always people with deep pockets
who are willing to pay ridiculous prices just to have the first unit on
the block.  The question is, how long will Philips try to milk this
effect?  With Sony breathing down its neck, I can't see this price
lasting long.  As noted in a previous post, the price of blank DCC and
MD media have reached parity at $14 (DCC initially came out HIGHER!!)

Truthfully, I had the same reaction to DCC that most people here had.
The only thing I heard was that it was a digital tape format that, by
making compromises, was backwards compatible with ACC.  Bleah!  How
offensive to the technical purist's advance-or-die attitude!

Then I remembered MS-DOS.  DCC is to ACC as Windows is to MS-DOS.
Backwards compatability sells, even at the cost of technical elegance.
Advanced, incompatable technology, generally, does not.  Indeed, there
seems to be an inverse correlation to technical merit and market
acceptance, witness DAT and the NeXT machine. :-)

I grant, however, that Sony MiniDisc might just be the Apple of the
audio world, and carve out a large enough piece of the pie to survive.
MD has several technical advantages, which gains it the gee-whiz factor,
but as I've said, technical merit has proved difficult to turn into
market success, as Sony well knows (Beta).  I still think Sony's
marketing strength is MD's biggest asset in the battle.

Against all this is the common sense guess that the recording industry
will tolerate only *one* consumer recordable medium for new releases, as
we have seen with the film industry.  To my surprise, there seems to be
just as much support for MD as there is for DCC at the moment, but I
wonder how long that will last?  Is this Beta all over again?

Perry

--
[e-mail]  ...!{sun}!adobe!caro   Contents: my opinions, no others