1/4" master to CD

[Golden]

You’ll notice some loss in sound quality when going from open-reel half-track to digital. How big a difference depends largely on your converters and recording methods. You will lose something regardless. The goal is to minimize the impact.

What Beck says here is what I'm talking about, really... I want to learn how to "minimize the impact".

 

[Tim Gillett]

Sure, we all do. But it helps if you can put into words what is lacking in the transfer. Is it in the bass, the treble, the midrange? Noises, distortion? Especially if we cant hear it ourselves, your words are all we have to guide us in helping you.


cheers Tim.

 

[Farview]

Did you calibrate the inputs like I outlined earlier?

 

[Golden]

Did you calibrate the inputs like I outlined earlier?

Farview, I'm going to give that a shot right now... Thanks!

 

[Golden]

I was in a hurry when I posted before.

0dbVU on your 22 = -18dbfs in the computer. If you can get some test tones at 0dbvu on your tape deck and play them into the computer, you can calibrate the output of the tape deck. Then, just put on the tape you wish to transfer and hit record on the computer. Everything will work out fine.

Not sure how to hit 0dbvu on the tape deck... There's an output knob on the 22-2, but the numbers on it go from 1-9, min to max??? Maybe I'll run the 22-2 into my mixer and hit 0 there? Then hook the deck back up to the 24/96?

 

[Farview]

You need to make a calibration tape with test tones recorded at 0dbvu. You could use the same on you calibrate the deck with.

 

[Beck]

Not sure how to hit 0dbvu on the tape deck... There's an output knob on the 22-2, but the numbers on it go from 1-9, min to max??? Maybe I'll run the 22-2 into my mixer and hit 0 there? Then hook the deck back up to the 24/96?

Don't worry too much about the numbers on the knobs. (You could even have them relabeled to go up to 11 if you wanted ).

If your 22-2 is still at factory spec, 457 may come back a bit hot. That is, if you record a 1 kHz tone at 0 VU on the meters it will playback a little above 0 VU.

It’s best to calibrate your machine for the particular tape you’re using. Then you can do what Farview is talking about.

Ideally a -10 dB 1kHz test tone should read 0 VU on the meters with the input level set at 7 on the 22-2. You record that tone to tape and then play it back. Upon playback of the tone the VU meters should show 0 VU. At the same time the digital side should read -18dBfs.

The output knobs on the 22-2 will have no affect on the VU meters during playback. So, just ignore them at this stage and use the graphs in your software for reference. All you need from the VU meters is to see that what you record comes back at approximately the same reading on playback (as outlined above).

You do however use the output knobs on the 22-2 to adjust the level going into your soundcard. Set the output knobs to 7 and adjust levels on the PC side to read –18 dBfs (Or use –16 or –20 dBfs if it works for you). Anyway that’s just a starting point. You don’t want your nominal levels too low, nor do you want your peak levels to exceed 0 (Full scale) on the digital side.

You’ll notice while recording music that the mechanical VU meters on the 22-2 will seem low compared to the level you’re seeing on the digital side. The meters don’t respond the same for dynamic content as they do a steady tone. So just keep an eye on the digital side during the transfer.

This is only one facet of “minimizing the impact” of A/D/A conversion. The rub right now is that by working with analog you’re experiencing that fat sound we talk about so much around here. So, you miss it when you convert to digital. Even your best efforts won’t capture it all, but you can get it as good as it gets for CD. You should be able to improve quite a bit on the results you’re getting now.

Analog consumer formats still sound better to me than CD, whether my own creations or commercial releases. That includes vinyl, quarter-track reel-to-reel, and even (gasp)… a high quality cassette.

But CD is what we’ve got. I make the best of it and I get good results.

~Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

Golden,

Analog tape is just another analog sound source. The digital recorder sees it as just another waveform to be converted into code.

A "fat" tape sound will become a different set of numbers from a non "fat" tape sound's set of numbers. That's it.

All assuming of course, good gear and good technique.

It's not that hard to understand.

Cheers, Tim.

 

[Golden]

Beck, I think I'll relable my 22-2 to turn up to 13 . I honestly believe that the devil has much to do with this craft.

Beck, you deserve some positive rep for your help... However, I've already repped-ya sometime in the past and the little window tells me to spread it around... I've gotta do what the little window says...

Thanks!

 

[Golden]

Mr. Gillett! Believe it or not, I tried to rep you too for your efforts, but it seems as though I got you in the past as well... Even though it seems like you want to wrestle me, at this point .

 

[Tim Gillett]

Golden, I wasnt trying to wrestle you in the slightest. But I was trying to avoid overcomplicating for you what seems to me a simple exercise.

Beck seemed to be telling you there is some quality about analog tape's fat sound that digitising and CD's have problems reproducing.
I responded that as far as the recorder is concerned it's just another waveform to be crunched into numbers. I stand by that, though it should hardly even need to be said.

I have been using an M Audio 2496 card for about 4 years, mainly transferring all sorts of analog audio tapes to PC and then usually to CD, and have never had anything like the problems you seem to be having.

What else can I say? All the best with your transfers.

Cheers, Tim

 

[Golden]

Golden, I wasnt trying to wrestle you in the slightest. But I was trying to avoid overcomplicating for you what seems to me a simple exercise.

Beck seemed to be telling you there is some quality about analog tape's fat sound that digitising and CD's have problems reproducing.
I responded that as far as the recorder is concerned it's just another waveform to be crunched into numbers. I stand by that, though it should hardly even need to be said.

I have been using an M Audio 2496 card for about 4 years, mainly transferring all sorts of analog audio tapes to PC and then usually to CD, and have never had anything like the problems you seem to be having.

What else can I say? All the best with your transfers.

Cheers, Tim

... Tim, I have only one question for you... Have you A/B'd a 1/4" master tape to a digitalized transfer (CD/WAVE) of that same tape @ 16/44 done on your m-audio 24/96? If so, did you hear a difference? My only "problem" is that "difference"... That shoudn't be too complicated...

My problem is what happens to the sound when it's tranferred to digits... I'm chuckling to myself, cause that's all I've been saying...

I was fine with the 24/96 until I A/B'd the 1/4" master and the CD master on my main entertainment stereo system in my house... To be honest, the difference isn't too huge... It was "reasonably" close... But it was a "big" enough diff to wrestle my feathers... I just want to get it as close as I possibly can to the original tape, I guess...

If there's a better way to realize the best possible transfer, why should I settle for "less"? Right now, I believe that better way to be an AD converter of quality.

Here's a link that may be helpful to anyone who's reading this and is considering a route to go to get that better transfer...CLICK

Thanks everyone!

 

[Golden]

However, if you're happy with what you got... you can all tell me to fuck off! That's fine too... cause when it comes down to it, if people like your song, that's it, the song!... not the converters, so, yeah!

 

[cjacek]

Beck seemed to be telling you there is some quality about analog tape's fat sound that digitising and CD's have problems reproducing.

....because there is a problem and Beck is not the only person to think that. The sampling rate of Analog is infinite and when you cut & slice, for the lack of a better term, the way digital samples, you are going to end up with a ghost or shadow of the former original analog master with no "body". To suggest otherwise, as you are doing, is misleading.

As the result of the above, you get a thinner, rather anorexic sound, greater ear fatigue with the addition to all sorts of phasing and a horrible frequency responce that even the worst Analog unit would never allow. There is no air in digital, no depth, nor soul.

We've been through this before, in another thread or two but I think it begs repeating, especially when faced with a rather misleading piece of information.

Until digital will sample Godzillion times 100 to the Billionth power, you will never have a faithful reproduction of an analog master.

To end I will echo Beck's previous post that you can get good, acceptable results transferring to CD but no matter how good your hardware, you are indeed going to lose going in.

 

[Farview]

The sampling rate of Analog is infinite

It really isn't. It's resolution of tape is limited by the size of the oxide particles.

 

[evm1024]

math attack

It really isn't. It's resolution of tape is limited by the size of the oxide particles.

Actually not. The oxide particles do not line up in neat little rows. They overlap which effectively removes the diameter as a limit.

At 15 ips (381 mm/sec) and a particle length of 150 nm there would be 57.15 billion samples per second (assuming that the particles were in line).

However given a overlap factor of at least 1000000:1 we end up with 57,150 tera samples per second. Of course this is not infinite however due to the rate of change of an audio signal the sampeling rate is so much greater that it is effectively infinite....

 

[Farview]

Actually not. The oxide particles do not line up in neat little rows. They overlap which effectively removes the diameter as a limit.

At 15 ips (381 mm/sec) and a particle length of 150 nm there would be 57.15 billion samples per second (assuming that the particles were in line).

However given a overlap factor of at least 1000000:1 we end up with 57,150 tera samples per second. Of course this is not infinite however due to the rate of change of an audio signal the sampeling rate is so much greater that it is effectively infinite....

I reject your reality and substitute my own. (hangs head in shame)

 

[evm1024]

I reject your reality and substitute my own. (hangs head in shame)

Thanks for the good laugh! I'm sure that our universe is a multiple solipsism universe. Therefore your reality is real as is mine! We are figments of each others dreams.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Yo Ethan!!!

"Effectively infinite".

Your joke was MUCH funnier than Farview's, and his wasnt bad...

Tim

 

[cjacek]

Yo Ethan!!!

"Effectively infinite".

Your joke was MUCH funnier than Farview's, and his wasnt bad...

Tim

....but not nearly as funny as your assumption of a faithful transfer to 16 bit / 44.1 khz. Whatever it is for analog, it's light years ahead of any current sampling technology. Why go elsewhere when analog is as good as it gets or will get ? Why reinvent the wheel ?? Oh yeah, I know, profits ...