|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:24 pm Post subject: Tinkering with PCM Audio on Betamax - Sony PCM-701ES Needed |
|
|
Just discovered that my Sony SL-HF870D betamax can be used for PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) digital audio recording. So reading through the manual I found that I need a Digital Audio processor specifically made by sony for this.
The model is a Sony PCM-701ES PCM Digital Audio Processor... I just thought I would ask around here to see if anyone might happen to have one of these stuffed away somewhere? theres a pic below to show what it looks like.
If you DO have one and would be interested in getting rid of it, let me know.
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link to that 2nd one nash, thats one hell of a PCM processor I threw it in the watch list so I can see if it does anything, hopefully not,
I wonder how beta would compare to DAT & R2R tape since I've never used any video tape for an audio only purpose. Seems like a neat task. I have enough tape here to record years of music too
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnalogRocks Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 26706 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
DID SOMEBODY SAY BETAMAX!?! Cool!
While you're at it record on the HiFi tracks too and do an A/B comparison.
_________________ Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | DID SOMEBODY SAY BETAMAX!?! Cool!
While you're at it record on the HiFi tracks too and do an A/B comparison. |
That was my thought exactly AR, I think it should be interesting. Afterall its half inch tape, and its a lot newer than some of the R2R tape that is still used today, so I'm very interested to see what it sounds like with both the PCM & analog.
Don't get me wrong about the video quality of beta, its very nice. But lets be honest, HDTV kind of killed that aspect of beta! Luckily my ears aren't as easily fooled as my eyes
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnalogRocks Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 26706 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HD may look better but did you know much of the HD was shot on Betamax Digital HDCAM SR? 440 Mbit/s mode SQ, and 880 Mbit/s HQ
_________________ Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | HD may look better but did you know much of the HD was shot on Betamax Digital HDCAM SR? 440 Mbit/s mode SQ, and 880 Mbit/s HQ |
Oh I keep my eye on the Beta DV players, one of those is in my home theaters future, I can assure you of that
I have quite a few formats of audio & video already, not trying to do every one of them since I have no need for that anyway. Just doing the ones I like. And I always had a soft spot for Beta since the SL-HF600 my dad bought new and I stuck a squirt gun into the tape drive shortly thereafter
Kids can be so wonderful can't they?
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnalogRocks Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 26706 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Curt Palme CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 24396 Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Back in the day I pulled more than a few marbles and crayons out of VCRs...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Curt Palme CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 24396 Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BTW there was more than one PCM processor:
http://www.richmondfilmservices.co.uk/equipment/digital-recorders/PDR043.html
The above one was used with their 1/2 size Beta machine that was designed originally for use with the large camera. I owned one of those back in 1983. Got 2 of those small decks in last year from the recycler, but both had massive issues, so I took them back..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm that PCM-10 that Nashou linked looks pretty tempting, and professional It was apparently relisted once already so hopefully it sticks around on ebay for a bit longer so I can make a decent offer to the guy. He doesnt know anything about it, or what it even is, or if it works, but he thinks its super rare since he couldn't find any information out on it, probably why he wants $400
I figure if I hold out for the better one I'll be that much happier with it in the end. Once I get it I could convert my entire FLAC collection to beta, that'll take a few months
I don't blame you for taking those units back curt, tape mechanisms are pretty complex to most, even the more seasoned vets I've worked with. I've been fortunate that none of the tape based machines I've come across have had any major issues. In fact, I'm quite surprised at how well the tape mechanisms themselves in all these old units have held up against usage and the test of time. For something as mechanical as a Beta or anything similar, one would expect there to be a higher failure rate.
Fortunately for my SL-HF870D it seems to be impervious to time. The original owner loved the hell out of it though, the tape heads were HORRIBLE when I cleaned them yesterday. The PQ on "The Wizard of Oz" 50th Anniversary Beta improved so much it looked BETTER than SDTV
Not bad for a 30 year old tape and 30 year old betamax
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | HD may look better but did you know much of the HD was shot on Betamax Digital HDCAM SR? 440 Mbit/s mode SQ, and 880 Mbit/s HQ |
That was BetaCAM, not Betamax, Jeremy... Same tape, but not really anything else in common, just like D-VHS didn't have much in common with VHS other than the tape.
But, yes - a lot of broadcast HD is still shot on HDCAM SR. Not much cinema, but definitely video/broadcast for sure.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy112 wrote: | Don't get me wrong about the video quality of beta, its very nice. But lets be honest, HDTV kind of killed that aspect of beta! Luckily my ears aren't as easily fooled as my eyes  |
I think the same issue you have with the HD video is in play with audio... Yeah, it's fun to play with this old gear - hell, I bought some pro S-VHS gear last fall (mostly 'cause it was so cheap). But, A/D & D/A conversion has come a LONG way since the late-80's and early-90's. Any decent $300 USB or FireWire audio interface is going to be far superior sound-wise to this ancient (by digital audio standards) gear. Plus, it ends up on tape. Professional audio production moved away from tape because non-linear access is so much more convenient, stable, reliable, etc.
Again, fun to play with - no disagreement - but, there isn't really any practical application other than entertainment.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd have to say you are right that there may be little practical use for some of the older formats as you say SC, but I would disagree that newer tech is better for audio, and by far at that. People aren't paying thousands of dollars for old audio equipment no matter what category it is, because its fun. Albeit that may be part of the reasoning behind the purchase, but I am sure that when people spend serious cash on 30-40 year old audio gear are buying it more because of the sound reproduction.
Take the JBL paragon speaker. Its a very cool speaker indeed, just having it would be cool, yes. I doub't it sells for $25,000 - $50,000 just because it's cool; more for the fact that its sound reproduction properties are very saught after by many.
Video equipment yes, I will agree that the newer is getting better. Digital has made serious advancements in the last few years, and I am sure 10 years from now it will be acceptable for most, if not all hardcore critics.
The only reason I can see CRT being saught after in the far future is for vintage gaming systems. And even that may not be true. The world of electronics is a complex one, and value of an item, whether its monetary or sentimental, is really based on the person seeking the item, and the ones who have what is being saught after. Some people buy sony because they have it dead set in their head that it is the absolute best you can get, of which most know isn't the truth.
So like I said, I agree, but disagree respectfully. To each his own I say
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnalogRocks Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 26706 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | AnalogRocks wrote: | | HD may look better but did you know much of the HD was shot on Betamax Digital HDCAM SR? 440 Mbit/s mode SQ, and 880 Mbit/s HQ |
That was BetaCAM, not Betamax, Jeremy... Same tape, but not really anything else in common, just like D-VHS didn't have much in common with VHS other than the tape.
But, yes - a lot of broadcast HD is still shot on HDCAM SR. Not much cinema, but definitely video/broadcast for sure.
SC |
You've got a wabit and a meat cleaver there SC.
_________________ Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy112 wrote: | | I'd have to say you are right that there may be little practical use for some of the older formats as you say SC, but I would disagree that newer tech is better for audio, and by far at that. People aren't paying thousands of dollars for old audio equipment no matter what category it is, because its fun. Albeit that may be part of the reasoning behind the purchase, but I am sure that when people spend serious cash on 30-40 year old audio gear are buying it more because of the sound reproduction. |
You totally missed my point. I wasn't opening the analog vs. digital can of worms at all. My point was that newer digital gear is far, far superior to the digital gear of a couple of decades ago. That's not even remotely open for debate.
And speakers? Totally different discussion.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Jeremy112 wrote: | | I'd have to say you are right that there may be little practical use for some of the older formats as you say SC, but I would disagree that newer tech is better for audio, and by far at that. People aren't paying thousands of dollars for old audio equipment no matter what category it is, because its fun. Albeit that may be part of the reasoning behind the purchase, but I am sure that when people spend serious cash on 30-40 year old audio gear are buying it more because of the sound reproduction. |
You totally missed my point. I wasn't opening the analog vs. digital can of worms at all. My point was that newer digital gear is far, far superior to the digital gear of a couple of decades ago. That's not even remotely open for debate.
And speakers? Totally different discussion.
SC |
Sounds about the same, newer = better basically, which simply is just not true, new digital may be"Better" by specification, but its how it sounds to ones ear that really matters.
Specifications mean jack if the person listening to it can't stand it
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | Foo Fighters last album was all done on Analog Tape in Dave's garage. Love that sound!!!!
Nashou |
Excellent band! They have a great sound I think, quite a few good songs that I enjoy too!
_________________ When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy112 wrote: | | Sounds about the same, newer = better basically, which simply is just not true, new digital may be"Better" by specification, but its how it sounds to ones ear that really matters. |
Sigh. Of course newer isn't always better. But, in this case, it most certainly is. Again, the DACs of today are simply far superior to the DACs of the 80's. Again, this isn't just 'specs' or 'opinion'... It's simply a fact. By all accounts, they sound better.
| Jeremy112 wrote: | Specifications mean jack if the person listening to it can't stand it  |
Yeah, that's my point. One of the most common criticisms of 'digital' by analog zealots is 'digital harshness', an opinion expressed by even people here on this forum. Most of that criticism is based on experience with old or cheap gear, not new or higher-end gear.
In the 30+ years of consumer digital audio, ADC's and DAC's have gotten much, much better, and the sound of the gear along with it. Again, that's basically universally accepted, by both working audio production professionals, and by audiophiles.
Now, the analog/digital discussion is a completely separate discussion. The new/old discussion is a completely separate discussion. But, a new piece of high-end gear with a Wolfson DAC in it WILL sound better than a 25-year old piece of gear with an old Analog Devices DAC in it.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|