Yup, me again with my interest in those "strange digital niché formats". So I've been doing some "homework" regarding DAT records and stumbled across statements that do cover up with what I've read in manuals of my devices: DDS aren't quite recommended for use in DAT recorders, players and walkmans, though strictly seen they can be used in the same fashion. According to some pages (one of them being wikipedia) a DDS-5 tapes can contain 11.5h of music in LP mode. Of course, as you might have figured, that sounds tempting. I do have some first generation DDS with music on them (got them prerecorded when I purchased my devices), and I can't spot any obvious downside so far, so that made me wonder what exactly the reasons are. All I could think of would be that the tape for DDS is fairly thin (to house more tape length in the same cassette) in comparison with the DAT intended to be used in recorders so that it could mean it might tear and jam the device. Especially in portable devices this sounds like it could get troublesome. Did anyone make any experiences with this or have some links for further information? And did anyone have a DAT tear and jam a recorder so far? What was the consequence of this? Was the audio output a loud static, did the device stop, did it break the mechanism or was it just a tape mess?
Sometimes questions are more interesting than the answers . A 120 min. DAT cassette has 60 meters tape length , a DDS-5 cassette has 170 meters tape length so a DDS-5 can contain a little less than 6 hrs if you roughly double that for LP mode you have the claimed 11.5 hrs so you are right to think DDS-5 has a thinner tape , which brings us to your next question : So far I hadn't such experience but my chances will be raised if I use a DDS-5 tape ! Thinner tape is more prone to jam , probably the reason there isn't much enthusiasm to use them for audio. I guess the consequences will be similar to any mini DV video camera etc , ranging from just a broken tape (usually) to dirty head drum from tape residue (occasionally) and rarely ( but not impossible ) the tape is forced into the drum heads and brakes them or the very thin wiring around them.
I take it the DDS-1 types of 60 and 90 should be an ok alternative considering the smaller size (60) is pretty much identical to a regular DAT. I better view DDS of the 90 type as borderline to dangerous though. Honestly, if I had a semi-broken throw-away device I'd likely give it a shot just to see how durable that is and where the reasonable limits are. It wouldn't surprise me if loading or rewinding would be the primary reason for them tearing. I haven't even thought of comparing it to video cameras, you got a good point.
Lacking knowledge if there is any other reason not to use them I'm using several DDS 60's I have with no problems so far. On the bright side , if something goes wrong , these devices are full of safety sensors , for example if a reel stops or the drum speed slow down etc everything stops immediately hopefully before any serious damage is done.
I believe some of those I got are DDS 90, though I'd have to get through them once more. Didn't have any problems myself yet and apparently they didn't tear from use either and the previous owner was passionate about DAT. I guess it would be safe to assume that 90 is the proven limit there, though obviously it makes the tape much thinner already. The fifth gen DDS are surely not something I'd like to try on my TCD-D8 though, considering the loading and opening is automatic and not manual as (for example) in the WMD-DT1 I got. So if during recording on it something would go wrong, it would be a pain to get the tape out. With the manual opening mechanism of the WMD-DT1 that would be easier I guess. I guess I would be more daring if I could have a device of which I know that it wouldn't have the risk of breaking when tape tears.
Sound considerations indeed , to be honest I think a DSS 90 and above cassette use should be limited in two situations : a) Not having a DAT tape alternative and have to record . b) Finding (eg at flea market) a DSS tape with audio recording and have to listen to it. Certainly with as less as possible usage of Fast Forward and Rewind. An exception would be to have prerecorded DSS tapes with music you really like in them , we are only human after all. Two interesting links if not already aware of them : https://www.liveabout.com/all-about-dat-1817874 https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-lpg50457
WoW! Did they use "LP mode" as a substitute for "Perfect Sound Forever"? or the opposite, as something below 16-44.1???
I used to have fun with those back in my informative years and I wish my memory was a little better. I might have to disagree a little bit but I'm going by experience from a long time ago. The 4mm and 8mm DDS tapes were used extensively for data back-up, there just wasn't another cost effective medium that worked as well, up into the early to mid-00's. These little tapes had one purpose, to back up extremely important data, reliablility was key. I think most companies only used the tapes for one back up and didn't erase-re-record. Since the nature of the recording was far more important than music, I feel like the quality of the tapes might actually be pretty good, but I don't know for sure. We also worked with VHS decks, making the cleaning cartridges since it was the same technology. Living in Minnesota, most of our tapes were 3M Scotch but we were making cleaning cartridges for the players, so the blank tapes were just to soil the machines. I used to have to play tapes in the machines for a long time and then we'd take photos of the dirty heads. The more dirty, the more likelyhood the tape would wrap around everything (and get even dirtier). When I say dirty, I mean very small black pieces of tape that stick to the transport or head, sometimes only visible with a microscope. From my memory, I never destroyed anything, there might have been a head or two that needed replacing but it was just a few screws and some wires, we used to run them pretty hard. Since the audio players go for a premium these days, I'd find a data drive and mess around with that, did anyone ever record music using one of these drives? That might be kind of fun to see what you can come up with, we only had a first generation DAT Player that was never used so I didn't get to see the music side. I know, but there was so many cool technologies coming out with MP3 being a huge game changer.
@Jorge LP stands for Long Play, it's used for (more) lossy/compressed recordings to extend playtime, in DAT case to the double. This can be compared to the case of the minidisc. After around the late 90's to 2000 first MDLP recorders showed up which enabled LP2 and LP4 records, LP2 being twice and LP4 four time the given duration of an MD. Admittedly and to be brutally honest, LP4 sounds pretty sh*tty and digital, but provided you have a good recorder, LP2 can still sound quite acceptable and better than most would think. It was still ATRAC, but within that gray area where only audiophiles can tell the difference. I would compare MDLP2 to DAT LP records. About the same level of sound degradation compared to their full-time recording. @Mister X You got a good point with the quality of the tapes, though it could also be the opposite too. Since they are a means of backup, one could draw a comparison with modern LTO backup tapes. I guess it all depends on how often DDS were and had to be used compared to how things are now. For example LTO (like HP's Ultrium tapes, which are still in use for server backups due to their cheap price) became so thin and fragile that they're meant to be used for backup and restoration purposes and basically never again after a couple of reuses, whereas with music you expose the tape to constant use, far more than backup tapes. Dropping such an LTO cartridge can even render it useless as the physical marker-stick might shift, granted, not a worry you will have with DAT as there is no such thing inside of them. However, looking at it from that point of view it could also mean DDS could be less durable than DAT. While LTO might not be the best comparison as they are an extreme case of throwaway, I figure the producers of DDS came to realize that new tapes were rather used for fairly few backups and data restoration in their lifetime in total and in comparison to DAT extremely rarely, or that entirely fresh tapes might have been (or should have been) preferred (which is also safer after all). Considering the fact that at least early gen DDS are closer to their DAT brethren (unlike the last two generations with the 8mm width), they might share enough similarities to make any differences (if there are any, really) irrelevant. At least so I would think... Perhaps I'm even answering my own question with this post now that I think about it - well, at least regarding later DDS generations. I've never dealt with DDS for backup purposes, so it would be interesting to hear from a first hand experience report how often a tape was reused or scanned. That could give some insight that might point to the truth.
I recall using MD LP2 in the 00's to record my favorite dance radio station knowing the sound quality will step down but the main goal was to achieve as much as possible recording time. Then listened the recordings at my convenience and if there was something I liked I was ordering the CD album. That habit started in 1999 , today I have a collection of more than 200 cd's mostly bought from Psyshop Germany , the radio station is not anymore but the minidisc recordings are here with all the talking and the ads between the music reminding me that era with much nostalgia I admit.
So I checked on what DAT is currently in my WMD-DT1. It's a DDS 90, precisely of the DDS-1 MRS type. Given how often I've used it and even used title skipping, it seems fairly reliable.
I have read somewhere, that DDS tapes are better quality than DAT tapes, because some dropouts in music don't matter as much as unrecoverable errors in a backup. We were using DDS1 and DDS2 tapes for backups and CD-Rs for archiving, so the DDS tapes were reused regularly. Now we are using LTO-5 for backups and reusing them depending on the tape pool - weekly, monthly, yearly. From time to time I have to discard a tape because it's worn out, in general they last years. For DAT I use DDS tapes because they are cheaper and supposedly better - I had more problems with DAT tapes than DDS tapes. For longer tapes you need a good transport -> avoid SONY DATs I don't use DDS tapes longer than 120meters (DDS2) (4hours 17minutes SP) but mostly 90 meters and some 60 meters. Good tapes are 3M (Imation), Verbatim are a little bit worse. DAT tapes I had problems with were SONY (90 minutes and 120 minutes) and TDK (120 minutes) I have some (DDS) tapes with my favourite music which are heavily used and they are still fine. But I mostly play them from start to end and then rewind to the beginning. I think the tapes don't like searching for a specific track with a lot of FF and Rew and such. I had a SONY DAT (bad) a JVC (good), now I have two Onkyos (very good).
When I found & bought a Sony DTS-1000ES from a local second-hand store, the only tapes I could find for testing DDS 90 at my local office supply store. Sadly, the machine shown reading errors, even with a blank tape. Plus the ribbon got hung-up so badly it couldn't eject, requiring forcible removal that caused further damage to the tape. I figured whatever the issue was, it was beyond the visually ascertain in relation to the mechanical aspects of it, then searched & bought another of the same model... from eBay. Which, sadly, I've yet to even try-out. And the 8mm tapes? I bought a bulk of blanks intended for use in my camcorder, thinking the small extension of run time could act as a safety net while capturing events. But, like with the replacement DAT deck, I've yet to make use of them... and hope they don't result in the same issues as I had with the DDS 90 tapes. Hopefully, that won't ring true with my replacement deck.
