Digital audio used to be stored on videotape — it was the only way we knew how

[Punter]

DAT was a flop because the tapes were so fragile and the mech in the machine was basically a scaled down Beta video transport (extra head wrap noticeable). In professional settings, it was OK for archiving but once again, the Japanese obsession with miniaturization meant that the tapes wouldn't stand constant use. MiniDisc was worse. Lossy compression and the re-writable discs would eventually fail as the TOC got written over and over again as you changed the contents of the disc. Eventually the photo reactive ink broke down and then everything on the disc was GONE! I remember an ashen faced production manager telling me that his main disc wouldn't read and it was filled with all this irreplaceable material! We managed to find a single, almost unused Tascam machine in a utility studio which could read the almost non-existent TOC. We dubbed off all the material onto a hard drive and after the prod manager got through all his precious discs we dispensed with MiniDisc altogether.

 

[Doodski]

DAT was a flop because the tapes were so fragile and the mech in the machine was basically a scaled down Beta video transport (extra head wrap noticeable). In professional settings, it was OK for archiving but once again, the Japanese obsession with miniaturization meant that the tapes wouldn't stand constant use.

I had customers that used DAT portables for recording wildlife for documentary films and such. One guy had ~six of them when out filming live animal stuff. For backups and live use. Each year he would bring some over. I would apply MODs, service bulletins and service the mechanism and align it and then test each one for a couple of hours to check for smooth operation and proper lubrication. The lubricants used are critical. I had some lube that cost me $270 for a little canister of the stuff but it sure worked super good. All the lubricants stated in the Sony service manuals was what I stocked at my workbench. The stuff saved my and others bacon on multiple dates. A DAT mechanism can be reliable, smooth operating and sound good but they are high maintenance if one wants to be in calibration.

 

[Rja4000]

DAT was a flop

Well, it got some success with machines like the Sony DTC-670, the first affordable DAT recorder/player.
I bought one in 1992.

It costed the equivalent of 500€, back then, which, of course, was quite some money for the time.
A British amp, like a Naim Nait 3, was costing double that by then, to give a comparison.

It was not the same technology we discuss on this thread, but we had at least one thing in common :
DAT were using a (miniaturized) rotative head in front of a slow moving tape, to increase bandwidth, like wide-spread video recorders.

The DAT technology and tapes became quite common for professional data storage and computer backup by then (under the DDS designation).
It was one of the few systems able to backup several Gigabytes on a single tape.
(At the time -1993-, an HP-UX workstation with 1.3GB hard disk was costing over 30k€ in Europe)
It was improved to become reliable enough for that purpose.

It was not possible to use backup DDS/DAT recorders for audio or vice versa.
But one could use the data tapes in audio recorders to record audio. They were longer (it worked up to 90m) and more reliable.
(Later on, the DDS2, DDS3 and later DDS tape formats became incompatible with audio recorders.)

I still have a (working) Sony PCM-R300 and 60 tapes or so.

 

[khensu]

Helical scan! Heads spin fast, tape moves slow. I always thought it was a brilliant concept (it’s also how Beta and VHS transports work, too, of course). It’s the only way to get reasonable bandwidth without using a butt-ton of tape.

 

[Prana Ferox]