This remnant will be replaced soon. The FAQ is back, with a new design! What's the difference between DCC and DAT? Note: This page is somewhat outdated. For a short time, some fans thought DCC would survive over DAT. But like Beta against VHS, it did not. For more information on DATs, see the dat-heads mailing list pages at http://www2.netdoor.com/~kensorce/index.htm. From Jens Rodenburg 11 Oct 1993: "Both DCC (Digital Compact Cassette by Philips) and MD (Mini Disc by Sony) use a lossy compression method. Not all of the original signal will be retained when making copies onto DCC or MD. Whether or not it is audibly noticeable may depend on many things, such as the compression and decompression algorithms, the audio equipment, or the listener. The music is also likely to deteriorate as it goes through multiple generations. For a digital format, I believe that this is totally unacceptable. Quality of good music should not be sacrificed when not necessary. At the moment, DAT is the only format (besides PCM which is somewhat obsolete now) that allows accurate digital reproduction at a reasonable price, and I recommend DAT over DCC or MD. The prices of DAT decks and tapes are generally comparable or cheaper than DCC or MD, and either (or both) DCC or MD will probably die out soon. As Philips has recently said in a DCC ad: "Your music will never be the same!" I couldn't have said that better myself! Go DAT!!!" 7/19/98 update from Joseph Krakowski <barbarak@total.net>: Hey There, I was reading this article and it is completely out of date and inaccurate. I own an MD recorder and have recorded Phish shows with it. My friend has a DAT recorder and he did the same show, in the same place, with the same mic as me. The results: 1. There was NO audible difference between the two copies, despite the compression. MD has come a long way since its introduction in 1992. They have fourth generation compression, which refines the process. 2. My copy was more user friendly. I could make track marks, name the songs, etc. with ease. no annoying fast forward/rewind, just push the button for the next song. No side A/B interruptions either. 3. Mine cost WAY less. MD recorders are almost half the price of DAT recorders. Portable MD recorders are smaller than a walkman and can have all of the recording and editing capabilities of a home deck. Also, the blank MD's are much cheaper than blank DAT's. If you have a digital output, you can copy from MD to MD with ZERO LOSS in sound quality. Well that's my two cents. Do your research and update this info. There's a lot of good stuff (ie. articles, web pages, scientific studies, prices etc.) at www.minidisc.org. Check it out. E-mail me with any problems you have with my input at joekrak@hotmail.com Thank You Very Much Joseph Krakowski (fellow Phish fan) BTW, there's an email group for folks into DAT taping and trading. To subsccribe, send a message to dat-heads-request@fedney.near.net with "subscribe" in the body on a line by itself. Also btw, there's a contingent of us passing on actually going DAT ourselves, waiting on CDR (compact disc recordables) to come down in price and up in capabilities. (The price has dropped from $10K to $500 in a few years, but the speed still holds at 4x, while 6x is needed for CD-quality music. Moreover, CD technology on the whole is technologically archaic -- the light spectrum used is inefficient, and the algorhythm used is decades old. With further improvements in the technology, however, CDR should, IMNSHO, surpass DATs easily. "Cosmologists will have to cope with a universe that seems increasingly filled with mysterious stuff that scientists cannot see and do not fully understand."" -- James Glanz in the New York Times, 4/3/01" This page last updated January 24, 2007. All contents © 1992-2007 Ellis Godard. All rights reserved.