Digitizing the Old Cassettes

B

Brent Larimore

Member
I am in need of digitizing my original songs, many of which are
stuck in the analog world on cassette tapes.
I am looking for a little help:
1) Is there a way to get your tunes to record into your sound editing
software at the exact same volume level as they are on the tapes?

2) Is there a sound editing program that is known as the standard?
Being just a little bit better than the rest. Especially in terms of
AUDIO FIDELITY.

Thank you up front!

Brent
 
Getting them "at the exact same volume level" isn't really needed. Once in the digital form, you can manipulate the volume to whatever level you need. You will want to get them off the tape at an appropriate level, but -12dB for peaks is fine. The headroom change going from cassette to digital is ENORMOUS so you shouldn't introduce additional noise to the signal!

You probably won't hear any difference in terms of fidelity between the free Audacity program and a ProTools setup ($$$). Once it is converted via the Analog to Digital converter, its just ones and zeros. Nobody's "one" sounds better than the other guy's. The math has been worked out pretty well at this point. What might make the difference is the device you use to convert from A to D. I wouldn't use the sound card in a computer, but would use a decent audio interface. There are lots from Focusrite, Presonus, Tascam, Zoom etc that will do the job. Just make sure it has two line level inputs.

Audacity has some basic tools for modifying the sound, compression, noise reduction, EQ. That's where a full fledged DAW like Reaper, Studio One or ProTools will be more comprehensive, but for a basic 2 channel rip of a cassette, Audacity is fine.
 
Level references in digital are different from level references in analog, so there isn't an "exact same volume" per se. But for the most part, if you digitize it at a certain level it will come back out at the same level. Just be sure to capture it at a decent level without clipping.

All audio editing software processes audio in similar ways. The differences are more in terms of workflow and specific processing plugins. The differences in quality of the result will have more to do with the user's skill than any inherent character of the software.

The one thing I would suggest is that the initial digitization of the tapes will determine how good the results can possibly be. Playback head azimuth should exactly match the original record deck's head azimuth. If the record deck was a little off, it's better that the playback deck be off in exactly the same way. If the tape is digitized with mismatched azimuth, there is a loss of information that can't be recovered later.

Also, be sure the playback deck is in good shape otherwise; clean heads and tape path, and demagnetized. A magnetized deck can slightly erase tapes played in it with each pass.
 
+1 to getting a good quality cassette deck. That, more than anything else in the chain will determine the final sound quality.

"Same volume as on the cassette" Well there isn't a "volume" on the tape, just patterns of magnetic domains. The 'volume' or electrical voltage coming out of the deck depends upon the strength of those domains, i.e. the original recorded level and the 'gain' in the deck's replay circuits.

In principle you need an interface although for just cassette dubbing the internal soundcard of most computers is easily good enough (I am sitting in my l room listening to BBC R3 from the OBS of a desktop repro'ed through a very decent hi fi system. Sounds good to me!)

But, an external USB AI is probably easier to configure. TBH if this is a 'one off job' the Behringer UCA 202 is easily good enough. You can of course spend MUCH more but I doubt you will hear a difference.

"Demag the cassette heads" ? Not sure about that, inexperienced use of a de-gausser can make things worse (and a DG is likely to cost more than the 202!) If you have a good repair shop handy maybe spend a few $$ getting the deck spruced?

Dave.
 
Thank you very much Talisman, that is helpful info.
I am using the Roland Tri-capture into Wavepad, which seems to be
doing fine so far. Hope I haven't pushed the volume level too much, so
I may back up a bit on that.
Thanks again!
Brent
 
Thanks for your help Boulder! Helpful info: I did clean the heads before I
last ran a tape but I will double check and make sure I get it demagnetized.
I haven't noticed any issues that sound like the may be a head alignment problem
but will keep a watch on these things. Must admit, I hadn't considered that part
of these things much before. So thanks for the suggestions!
Brent
 
Thanks for your help and suggestions, Dave!
I have a Tascam 202 MK2 double cassette deck which seems to
be a good quality machine on that end. And am using a Roland TriCapture
AI to get the recordings over into Wavepad on my laptop.
Helpful tip on the Demagnetizing. I can write a song but I can't fix anything. lol
Fortunately I do know a guy who can give a look over.
Thanks again!
Brent
 
Brent Larimore said:
Thank you very much Talisman, that is helpful info.
I am using the Roland Tri-capture into Wavepad, which seems to be
doing fine so far. Hope I haven't pushed the volume level too much, so
I may back up a bit on that.
Thanks again!
Brent
Click to expand...
I would use a metering app or plugin of some sort to view the audio file you have captured and make sure you don't have any peaks over 0dB, and probably shoot for something below that, depending on what kind of processing you might want to try. You can always lower the amplitude of the audio file without real degradation if it's a bit too high for some of your post-processing, but if you save it with clipping, that's a problem.

I use the free Orban Loudness Meter literally all the time. Free Orban Loudness Meter — Orban

p.s. (edit) not sure if someone else clarified this, but you should be saving the audio files in an non-lossy format, like WAV or AIFF (Apple). Most folks work with 44.1kHz/24-bit audio files, or 48kHz/24-bit but even 16-bit is probably Ok for cassette. Still, I'd use the 24-bit mode if your interface supports that.

When I did some cassettes and LPs a while back I used Audacity, whether I was recording direct to the computer or using a Zoom H2 and copying the files. That allowed me to record the entire side and then just export individual songs (in the same, original, non-lossy format) from there.

p.p.s. If the tape deck has a speed control, make double sure it is set accurately. I think that adjustment works better on the analog side. (I digitized an entire album with my turntable off - hadn't noticed how it got moved - painful trying to fix that up.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing more info with me, Keith!
Wavepad does have a meter that I can watch.
Are you saying that may not be sufficient, and that I would
benefit from something better?
I am saving in .wav form, but they are in 16 bit, at least in Wavepad. My Roland
Tri-Capture AI is 24 bit, so it must be happening in Wavepad. There should be
a way I can adjust that.
thanks again!
brent
 
Another question in line with this project:
In keeping with trying to get the best sound quality transfer:
Is it better to go from cassette (I'm now down to the Micro-Cassettes) onto my Sound Editing Software (Wavepad)
as loud as possible (without clipping) and not have to Normalize much or at all/OR is it better to go into the
digital software softer from the cassette and need to Raise the levels more once the music has been digitized?
TY!
 
The quality level comes from two places. The audio interface you are using, but that is minor compared to the quality of the tapes, and the setup of the replay machine.

Once you have digits, then normalisation is just maths, adding or subtracting from the data in each frame. If you record too low into digital equipment, the damage is in the range from loudest to quietest - so when you get quiet, you run out of range - and of course ideally you have no noise in the recording - so maximising range is the key, so the loud bits are close to the maximum but never over it, but the quiet bits are as close to digital zero as possible. In real life you cannot remotely explore this range, so we no longer chase just below maximum like we did. Sometimes not worth the walk across the room, as we can just use the maths to turn up transparently. In your case, you already have a squashed range from hiss at the bottom to onset of distortion at the top, so normalising lets you group similar recording at the same practical loudness. Your interface and computer can cope with this, and surely you've actually been experimenting in the year since the last post?
 
rob aylestone said:
The quality level comes from two places. The audio interface you are using, but that is minor compared to the quality of the tapes, and the setup of the replay machine.

Once you have digits, then normalisation is just maths, adding or subtracting from the data in each frame. If you record too low into digital equipment, the damage is in the range from loudest to quietest - so when you get quiet, you run out of range - and of course ideally you have no noise in the recording - so maximising range is the key, so the loud bits are close to the maximum but never over it, but the quiet bits are as close to digital zero as possible. In real life you cannot remotely explore this range, so we no longer chase just below maximum like we did. Sometimes not worth the walk across the room, as we can just use the maths to turn up transparently. In your case, you already have a squashed range from hiss at the bottom to onset of distortion at the top, so normalising lets you group similar recording at the same practical loudness. Your interface and computer can cope with this, and surely you've actually been experimenting in the year since the last post?
Click to expand...
Thanks, Rob. Yes, I have done some experimenting. But I got on the digital train waaay late; and digital recording is still quite a mystery to me. Still trying to learn some of the basic elements of it all I'm afraid. Apprectiate your help!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top