Digital transfers are ALWAYS better. If a certain digital format
doesn't work for you (the DIO2448 to MDS-PC2 for example) find another
way to do it.
As for these points:
> The advantages of analog are:
> 1) it *always* works
> 2) easy level adjustments
I would say, that analog *always* works, except when it doesn't. Like
when levels aren't properly set, which leads to the second point:
Digital transfers don't have to worry about levels. Except when they
do. Like when there is a volume control on the digital signal. I
understand why someone would put a level adjustment on a digital signal,
but it is the wrong thing to do. The whole point of digital transfers
is a bit-for-bit exact copy of the source. The only volume control
should be at the analog playback section. All other sections before
that should have no level controls AT ALL. (I'm talking about signal
transfers, not signal processing like eq.) Do you remember the days of
analog gear? Every single piece of equipment had to be calibrated to a
test signal, in order to get a good recording. With digital transfers,
those headaches are no more, except now when some insane person decides
that a digital transfer should have some sort of level control. NO NO
NO!
> Digital transfer has the disadvantages:
> 1) Possible incompatibility problems. For example, the S/PDIF from the
> DIO2448 is not accepted properly by the MDS-PC2.
> 2) Bad connections or ground problems may cause intermittent dropouts or
> pops.
> 3) Due to lack of "flow control" on S/PDIF, high CPU activity may cause
> dropouts or pops.
>
> For me, the advantages of digital make it worth the hassle.
I've been doing digital transfers of various types for going on 15 years
now, and I've only recently ever had problems. Is this progress? Ah
well. enough raving for now.
-steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
