Need advice quick...112mkII or 112B

[RFsoundguy]

I asked the guy I bought the 112mkII from if he had a balanced I/O kit. He did not, but said he did have a Tascam 112B that has it built in.

So, do I continue with the 112mkII or get him to ship the 112B instead plus a $25 refund.

Not really enough time to research this on my part.....

 

[Beck]

Can’t say for sure because we don’t know the condition of either. If they were both new and I wanted to interface with balanced equipment I would go for the 112B. The standard 112 MKII can be fitted with the LA-112, but it will cost you.

Be careful of frantic last-minute buying. No deal is so good that I wouldn’t pass unless I had sufficient information about the item as a species and the particular item for sale.

 

[RFsoundguy]

Thanks Beck, I passed. Just not enough time.

 

[Dr ZEE]

not as an advice, really.. just what I think about your situation
I would get 112mkII and would not even bother my dead-brain with balanced kit/option.
Are you sure that you MUST have balanced line to be able to record with your tascam fire-board? I'd imagine you simply can use RCA-to-TR cables .... but I don't really know the details, never had that thing. And what exactly "dedicated A/D converter you are looking into getting"? or is it just a general wish with no real plans

/respectws

 

[RFsoundguy]

Zee,

Well, the balanced I/O option would allow easier level matching on my fw-1884. +4db outputs to +4 db inputs. Raises the signal above the noisefloor, better S/N ratio, etc. You know this stuff.

Sure, I can take the -10db unbalanced RCA output and use an RCA to TS to TRS cable. I need 2 though (stereo, you know).

Back of FW-1884
http://www.tascam.com/Products/FW-1884/fw1884_rear.jpg

See the TRS inputs? They are balanced. When I plug an unbalanced source into them, my signal into the board is about -6db down and I have to crank the fader WAY up, crank the input gain on the board WAY up, to get it to level out. I like clean signals, which is why I want a balance output on the 112mkII.

As for the dedicated A/D converter, I was thinking something like this:
http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=5

My question about the converter was specifically geared towards cassette tape to CD conversion. Is it really necessary to convert the analog audio to 24bit/192kHz digital audio then dither down to 16bit/44.1kHz (the CD standard) or would the 24bit/96kHz converters built into my board be sufficient. The concensus seems to be that they are, it's not worth the extra expense of an outboard A-D converter for this project If I was arciving to DVD-audio or something, then maybe the answer would be yes, but for CDs my builtin seems to be fine.

OK, enough digital talk......

 

[Beck]

dither down to 16bit/44.1kHz

I would go straight from analog to CD and resist this evil.

 

[Dr ZEE]

When I plug an unbalanced source into them, my signal into the board is about -6db down and I have to crank the fader WAY up, crank the input gain on the board WAY up, to get it to level out. ...

"Cranking" the fader/pot "up" means (or, say: actually is) not attenuating the level of the signal. Cranking a pot up actually means "leaving the signal be, as opposite to giving it a "hard time".
With "balanced kit option" you generally increase the level of the signal at your output plus "split it to the left/right shoulder in relation to "center"" - then at some point after the input of your fire-board the "reverse action" will be taken ... more attenuation by the trim-pot and/or the channel fader will have to be applied to get the same (desired) signal level.

I like clean signals, which is why I want a balance output on the 112mkII.

...

with the balanced kit/option and connection you will get as much 'cleaner signal' (comparatively to the signal you get with unbalanced connection) as much the connecting cable you are using is 'capable' of adding (picking up) the "dirt" (noise that is). A short unbalanced cable (6-10 feet) isn't capable of adding much dirt that can not be ignored.

...but, that's all arguable , of course

/respects

 

[Tim Gillett]

Re bit rates, with the gear you seem to have, the weak link will probably be the analog side. Hence the need for care with the tape, the machine, its condition, correcting any azimuth errors and getting the right NR switched in (if applicable), all of which has been discussed in the forum.
The name of the quality game is improving the weak links in the chain. Further improving the strongest links does nothing except add cost.
As I remember, 24 bit translates to seriously good S/N and even 16 bit for us old analog guys can seem pretty damned good.
Who knows? The tapes may not have a dynamic range even approaching 16 bit, as so many analog recordings didnt. It's so easy to choose 24 bit/192khz thinking you're guaranteeing unbelieveable sound quality and then stuff it up by clipping or by unneccessary introduction of noise.
When transferring analog to digital you make a new recording, with all the potential for a new stuff up on top of the analog ones maybe already permanently etched onto the tape.
People who grew up on analog tape recording were used to occasionally running the meters mildly into the red and being rewarded with "that warm, fat analog sound" . Sure, but with digital it's not like that. WYSIWYG.
0db really is 0db and after that it all goes downhill very sharply. And all so unnecessary when you've got a potential dynamic range of maybe 100db and the analog tape has maybe only 70 db on it anyway. Far better to aim for maybe -10db as your maximum, giving you a safety margin at one end and your analog noise is still 20 db above the digital noise floor at the other end. Luxury. We older analog guys would have killed for that sort of safety margin and yet too often you hear digital transfers which blow it with that horrible sound of clipping. The beauty of modern digital gear is you dont have to run such high recording levels because it's so quiet to begin with.
I understand that with a lot of material to transfer, digitally boosting levels later on can take up a lot of rendering time but you can always batch process it overnight while you're sleeping.
And if the material is worthy of this sort of effort it's probably worth the time going back and sweetening it anyway.
It helps to understand how say 16 or 24 bit in digital terms actually translates into real life. Then we can fit the digital file's quality to the quality of the analog source material.

Cheers, Tim

 

[Tim Gillett]

dbx?

It just occured to me I dont remember RF soundguy saying what or if NR was used on all these tapes. It could be dbx. If so, 1. The Tascam cant decode them and they'll sound horribly compressed. Either another machine or maybe an ouboard decoder will be needed. 2.(the lesser of the problems) dbx even on cassette, when decoded has potentially a dynamic range approaching audio CD so you would need to pay particular attention to recording levels and it MAY be even worth going to 24bit although I suspect that with care you could fit it on 16 bit OK.

Tim

 

[arjoll]

Well, the balanced I/O option would allow easier level matching on my fw-1884. +4db outputs to +4 db inputs. Raises the signal above the noisefloor, better S/N ratio, etc. You know this stuff.

If you can't find the balancing kit there are other options to convert unbalanced to balanced - if you're handy with electronics you can do it with two op-amps, I have just pulled two domestic Teac decks out of a transmitter site today and one of them had been modified this way. (the other has a burned out capstan motor on deck I but that's another story) There are also interfaces available, both vintage Tascam and newer stuff from other suppliers, which can do this.

I wouldn't really think that the noise floor would be a problem.

Is it really necessary to convert the analog audio to 24bit/192kHz digital audio then dither down to 16bit/44.1kHz (the CD standard) or would the 24bit/96kHz converters built into my board be sufficient.

For cassette conversion to CD I'd sample at 24/44.1 or 16/44.1 - the former gives you headroom to screw up your levels a bit (!) and the latter saves any kind of dithering. Both of these options mean you're not having to do sample rate conversion, so cutting out one extra layer of digital manipulation.

 

[RFsoundguy]

It just occured to me I dont remember RF soundguy saying what or if NR was used on all these tapes. It could be dbx.

OK, great point. I really have no way of knowing if any/what kind of noise reduction was used during the record process. Is there a technical way to tell? Or do I just switch in/switch out the different shcemes until it sounds best? Seeing as most were done with a portable recorder, they are probably Dolby b/c if anything.

 

[Dr ZEE]

... do I just switch in/switch out the different shcemes until it sounds best? .

Yes.
... and chances are that after doing this for a while at some point you'll stop and just keep those switches OFF with a thought in your mind: "What a waste of technology and switches" . It may not happen to you, but did to me ... so just sharing
/respects

 

[Tim Gillett]

Yeah, just try the different NR buttons and see how it affects the playback. I dont know of any other way. Dolby B, C and dbx are all level sensitive codes so there's no other information there on the tapes apart from that squishy sound. I suppose you could say B is moderately squishy and tinny in the highs and sounds tolerable without decoding, just a bit of treble cut. C is more strident, extending a bit lower and dbx is quite squishy all over. Making perfect sense am I? Words sometimes arent the best way to describe sounds!
But all things being well, it'll only sound normal and pleasant with the right NR.
Re what Dr Zee says, I know a lot of people, including myself, who years ago got really sick of any NR, on cassettes at least, because of decoding problems, and just switched it off altogether.
Then later on I learned that NR was really sensitive to machine misalignment, at either the record or the play side, or both, and found that after setting up the aligment the thing actually worked, and brilliantly. For many years after I always recorded in some sort of NR. But it could be hard if you didnt know how to align it or didnt have access to a deck which did it for you.
But may be there's no NR on the tapes in which case it's easy for you.
I'm new to this forum. Maybe there's a place where you can upload a small sample of undecoded tape (assuming it has some kind of NR on it). So long as it wasnt too mp3'ed out of existence I'd be happy to have a play around with it and try and decode it. Any comments from more seasoned members? But all this may be unneccessary. There may be no NR.
Cheers Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

One thing for sure is that I don't have any cassette deck that suffers of misalignment. Also I have not got sick of dolby NR, I just found it practically useless. Not to say that someone else may NOT find it brilliant. Really.
Also 'learning' about dolby NR system(s) have not improved a shred about what I hear.

This tape is mastered to Dolby "B" standards for noise reduction. Decrease treble response when playing on non-Dolbyized equipment.

heh heh heh!
Now I have to add, that it's also waste of ink as well (MASSIVE amount of it, I must add ) ... imho, of course
No one shall escape Total Dolbyization. Ray is coming to your town too.
Ring that bell, Ray, you really have "made it", so ring it: Ding-Ding Ding!.
********
here's Ray:

 

[Beck]

Dolby NR on many consumer decks arrived out of alignment. As a result constrained high frequency was the real world experience of many end users, giving Dolby a bad rep. Properly aligned Dolby shouldn’t cut the highs. It’s just something that needs to be calibrated.

Still there are those that just don’t like any NR regardless. IMO if it’s already encoded it should normally be decoded for best results. Playing an old tape back without decoding can sound brighter, but I would leave high frequency restoration to something made for that purpose -- the BBE Sonic Maximizer or Alesis Micro Enhancer both work well for audiotape and muffled audio on videotape transfers.

Depending on the type of music you can almost get away with playing Dolby B tapes without decoding. With C, S or SR its not a good idea, and dbx – no way.

Back in my young cruising days that little Dolby B button was a great high-end booster in the out position, and it worked like a charm. I couldn’t hear the tape hiss above the rumble of my duel Cherry Bomb glasspack mufflers anyway. The listening environment is everything.

Mine was emerald green, but you get the idea.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Back in my young cruising days that little Dolby B button was a great high-end booster in the out position...

HUH HUH HU! Good one!
**********
btw, I personally must THANK Ray big time for one thing for sure: I will never run out of great ! spare multi-switches parts that were removed from defunct cassette decks from 70s/80s

 

[Tim Gillett]

Beck said "still there are many who just dont like NR regardless". True. But I think those who just dont like it have not heard it as it should, or if they have, dont know when they're hearing it.
Some sort of analog NR was entrenched in the recording and movie industry for many years. People who think they hate Dolby NR almost certainly have vinyl and CD's whose sound they probably love and which were initially recorded with Dolby NR. So start hating much of your own music collection if you really want to.. Its probably been through Dolby encode and decode - but properly.

It's easy to pick it when Dolby's not aligned but almost impossible to pick when it's working as it should. And that's how it was designed: inaudible -except for the reduced background noise.

Get a good 3 head cassette deck and have it properly aligned to a good quality blank tape. Make a music or speech recording, monitoring off tape, with recording levels low enough that the tape hiss is prominent. Now switch dolby B in. The ONLY difference you should notice is reduced tape hiss. The music or speech should remain the same. If it doesnt the machine/tape combination is not aligned properly. This isnt a "matter of opinion" but can be demonstrated, as was demonstrated to the hardest people to convince in the industry, many moons ago.
It worked then. It works now-so long as it's aligned at ever point in the chain.

Tim.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I think those who just dont like it have not heard it as it should, or if they have, dont know when they're hearing it.

Another words, if I don't like Mozart then there must be something wrong with me: I don't hear Mozart as I should hear Him, while those who KNOW HOW to hear Him right and DO hear him right - Love Him, as every one should. OK, then. So be it so. I am not good enough to like Mozart, but it's still the way it is... So I don't like what I hear... and so I don't listen to what I don't like. And so I don't like Mozart... or did I say it already?
*********

The comment was made about Dolby NR on cassette decks in very practical sense - when playing back various cassettes (commerecial included), the cassettes that were recorded hell knows where and how (regardless of pointless "official notes" and bunch of ugly looking logos printed all over them and tray-inserts). It has absolutely nothing to do with how albums were produced and what equipment was used and how the equipment was used during recording, production, duplication or manufacturing.
And as for Mrs. Industry and all her 'hardest boyfriends' - they can be (or get) convinced of what ever they wish - it's their party.
At MY party - if the button does not do any good - I don't press it. Simple as that.
Of course, there will be always somebody around with prefix "Pro" to tell me: "The reason why The button does not do any good is becuse you don't press it right"... That's life.

/respects

 

[Beck]

I think Tim’s point is that Dolby is/was used in production stages, so we’ve heard most of our favorite classic hits through an NR system even if our end-product doesn’t use it.

He is correct. Dolby-A is nearly 40 years old and was used in tracking and mastering. By the 70’s Dolby-A was a standard, though dbx later had a share of the pro market.

By the late 80’s a typical commercial studio had a 2” 24-track and Dolby SR, though Dolby-A remained popular as well.

As far as the end-product (cassette, open reel, etc) Dolby B/C have mixed reviews mainly because of calibration issues. The problem with “The button” is that the system must be calibrated properly for it to work. So, if your Dolby button cuts the highs it’s time for a tune-up.

~Tim

 

[Dr ZEE]

Tim, what do you mean "I think Tim's point was..." ... That WAS his point

His point was: People who say that they hate to have black top on their drive way and prefer gravel, or red-brick or cement do say so, because they never really had it done right, while all their favorite car-ride passages would not be so lovely, smooth and enjoyable without asphalt.
Crippled analogy, as always.

Now, Tim, are you saying that "your button" does not cut? Heh heh.
I never had a "button" that did not cut. (including numerous decks pulled straight out of the box... you know that brand-new gear smell ... and no, I'm not talking about those $99 products that made for people who don't know a thing about the ways of those who do know how to it right). I guess I'm just not lucky. Or maybe there's some sort of conspiracy going on against Sir Ray ... to discredit his reputation and his name. Speaking of which,( getting bad reputation , that is) - that's the price you pay for having your name printed out on every soap-box on the planet, because you've invented the soap.

There must be a reason for why the inventor of toilet paper roll never claimed the world's recognition. Imagin, having your name printed out on every 12' or so ...

I wonder if Ray himself keeps "the button" pressed down on his cassette deck... and then, if there's a "cut heard" ... he pulls out his "every day tool box" and starts tweaking....

ahhhh, anyways...
it's all fun talk

/respects