high end soundcard for high speed A/D

i know this is a rare application but...I've been searching for a high end card for high speed (8x) analog tape to wav conversion, using a professional high speed (8x) tape duplicator as analog source. Special requirement is an analog bandwidth of maybe 80 to 100khz. The Lynx 22 card is the only one I have uncovered so far and it looks good. Does anyone know of other brands that would match or exceed this?
Any help appreciated.

cheers Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
i know this is a rare application but...I've been searching for a high end card for high speed (8x) analog tape to wav conversion, using a professional high speed (8x) tape duplicator as analog source. Special requirement is an analog bandwidth of maybe 80 to 100khz. The Lynx 22 card is the only one I have uncovered so far and it looks good. Does anyone know of other brands that would match or exceed this?
Any help appreciated.

cheers Tim
It seems (to me) that any multiple input card capable of capturing 8 channels simultaneously should be fast enough to grab audio from one channel 8x faster.

Does the tape duplicator have the capability to play back at normal speed?

Also, what is the native tape speed for playback at full transfer rate?
 
Apparently you dont understand analog bandwidth. A soundcard could have 100 input channels each of 20khz bandwidth but that only adds up to a useable bandwidth of 20khz! The signal is integral analog, not digital. You cant "parallel" data channels for more speed!
Please read what I said. The important criterion is the analog to digital frequency response/bandwidth. It needs to be much better than 20khz.
If the card can record at 176.4khz and 16bit, with the bandwidth specified, that's enough.
There is already on the market such a card, a Lynx 22. I'm wanting to know if there are other comparable cards. Complicated? I dont think so.

Tim
 
No data to provide on the tape speed you are using for 8x playback?

Or is this not important information?

I guess it isn't if you don't mind your recordings sounding like 911 tapes.
 
It sounds like neither of you has any experience of professional analog tape high speed duplication. That's cool. You probably dont need to. I need to because it's my area. People pay me to get it right. OK?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NL5
Tim Gillett said:
It sounds like neither of you has any experience of professional analog tape high speed duplication. That's cool. You probably dont need to. I need to because it's my area. People pay me to get it right. OK?
So you should already know then, right? Why would you come to a home recording forum asking about pro analog equipment? It's like going to McDonalds and asking for a Whopper. Sure, there are some pros here, but why the hell should they help you if you're going to be rude?
 
Tim Gillett said:
It sounds like neither of you has any experience of professional analog tape high speed duplication. That's cool. You probably dont need to. I need to because it's my area. People pay me to get it right. OK?

Apparently you dont really know you are being a dick! If people pay you to get it right...uh...yeah.... I guess a home recording site is where you should go to get the info you need for the people that are paying you to get it right..uh yeah....that makes sense! "Its my area" what area would that be, the one just below your back ?
 
From your attitude and lack of basic knowledge, I would guess that you do not know what you are doing. Fair enough. Your attitude will certainly keep you there.

Now if you do actually want some help you can answer my question from above which is definately a valid question. If you wanna go 8 speed, thats your perogative. Now, if you would care to explain why you need the capability of recording all the way out to 200 khz, I would say my question is very fair.
 
I said nothing about 200khz. I did mention 176.4khz in a later post.

If you dont understand the need for a significantly higher sample rate when transferring an analog tape source at 8x normal speed to wav, or even just analog duplicating, then I'm sorry that's not my problem.

Who is supposed to be helping who? I though it was me seeking help.

First I get told I dont know what I'm doing, then I get told I know too much and shouldnt even ask the question on this forum. Work it out amongst yourselves. Dont mind me.
 
Tim Gillett said:
First I get told I dont know what I'm doing, then I get told I know too much and shouldnt even ask the question on this forum. Work it out amongst yourselves. Dont mind me.

Read over the thread again
 
I only got involved because I was curious about how one could take a 16 bit/176KHz .wav file of an audio signal recorded at 8x real time speed and digitally restore the original 8x slower recording with better than a 22KHz sample rate.

16 bit/22KHz is pretty shabby audio.
 
drstawl said:
I only got involved because I was curious about how one could take a 16 bit/176KHz .wav file of an audio signal recorded at 8x real time speed and digitally restore the original 8x slower recording with better than a 22KHz sample rate.

16 bit/22KHz is pretty shabby audio.

1. Can you take a 176khz file of an audio signal recorded at 8x real time speed and digitally restore it to real time speed at better than 22khz resolution?

Of course you cant. I didnt say you could.


2. Is 22khz "pretty shabby audio"?

You didnt ask what the original master tapes contain. They are all speech only recordings, deliberately bandwidth limited to less than 10khz. For these recordings, 44.1 is probably overkill. BTW these files will end up as mp3's for the end users. There are about 3000 audio recordings, averaging 10 to 15 hours each.


If only you'd revealed your multiple wrong assumptions in your first post, things might have gone a lot smoother. Give people credit where it's due and maybe dont so quickly assume the technical high ground.

Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
1. Can you take a 176khz file of an audio signal recorded at 8x real time speed and digitally restore it to real time speed at better than 22khz resolution?
Of course you cant. I didnt say you could.
2. Is 22khz "pretty shabby audio"?
Why yes it IS Shabby Audio!

Looks like I made NO funky assumptions.

And you didn't even appreciate my academic interest in your Pet Project.

That leaves you with your telephonic recordings.

I hope it's steamy! :D
 
There are harmonics in speech that go over 10kHz. If you want to limit them, that's your decision. I was trying to figure out why you only needed 176kHz when the minimum standard sampling frequency is 44.1kHz. Multiply it by 8 to get all those frequencies in and you end up with 352.8kHz.

The point is that your original question didn't include enough detail for anyone to be able to recommend anything. How were we supposed to know you recorded at 22kHz? We didn't know you had so much tape to convert, so we didn't even know why you needed it to be done at 8x speed.

And yes, I know of several cards that can handle that sampling rate. In fact, a quick search just found me several more.
 
drstawl said:
Why yes it IS Shabby Audio!

Looks like I made NO funky assumptions.

And you didn't even appreciate my academic interest in your Pet Project.

That leaves you with your telephonic recordings.

I hope it's steamy! :D

I hope you never go blind and need to listen to full length Talking Books all day long. Because I'm sorry but you probably wont get anything like even 44.1/16 uncompressed, no matter which country you live in. "Shabby audio" it will have to be.

Telephonic? Standard phone bandwidth is about 300 to 3000hz.

I suppose if you had your way you would up all speech logging to 44.1khz minimum sampling rate. Good for you. And will you personally pay for the massive extra data storage requirements too?

You said it when you said "academic". Get real.
 
Back
Top