tape transferring

[Audioarchivist]

If its too bright, eq it down yourself, or wrap a quilt around your ears...

I try and make things sound similar to regular cd's these days - overblown peices of brickwalled putred crap! haha

[tilomagnet]

Well, at least I do actually listen to the shows I download and gave an honest feedback instead of the usual ungrateful leecher bitching.

[Audioarchivist]

There's a difference listening to a tape without applying any post processing (and I don't mean just EQ) and working some light touch remastering.

There's also a difference between a tape of some cd's or a live tape made without the best recording conditions and less than perfect mics.

Like I said before, I play stuff in very bright to minimize (or to overpower) line noise, etc. and work it back in the computer. I'm not just playing a tape and releasing it just like it sounds without fixing its flaws.

I release things like I'd like to listen to them. I remaster them for myself first and release those versions. I try and make a show sound like it did when I heard it for the first time - live. Live sound isn't the best, and these are not audiophile experiences we're talking about, they're bootlegs.

You should have heard how that Queen tape sounded off the master. Blah. I put out my 1gen tape to tape copy. I was not the original taper. I did make the copy myself. That's a bad example to use as what my method for my masters sounds like. That one's double noisy. Sorry. If you don't like it feel free to delete your copy.

I think if anyone has some infinite wisdom they should be sharing it here, not PMing each other with secret information on "how to really play a tape in" or whatever. I'd like to hear your tricks of the (tape) trade. Maybe you'll change MY mind!

The multi-band compressor is my best friend. I rarely do any eq besides some select mid cuts and low boosts. I don't really go for digi-nr. The mic I used for years had crap low frequency response, so almost none of my masters sound good flat.

These have been my results, and like I think I've said, your results may (and obviously do) vary. None of this stuff is foolproof rules. You can't say you can't ever listen to a tape without bias and dolby set "right" because you've never heard my tapes flat, and you're not taking into account what I do to them in the computer that fixes them more than dolby and chrome will do alone.

[tilomagnet]

>>I'm not just playing a tape and releasing it just like it sounds without fixing its flaws.


I think that's exactly the reason why we disagree. You're processing your transfers to make them sound as good as possible TO YOU.

When I do transfers I try to preserve the quality of the recording as good as possible. That invloves high-quality gear, azimuth adjustment and Dolby decoding if necessary. I don't try to turn a bad tape into a Millard-like recording. If it sounds bad, well that's how it is. I don't even try to apply any EQ or digital NR to any of my transfers, because it's far too subjective anyway. What sounds good to me today, may sound terrible to someone else or may sound ugly on a different payback set-up.


>>You can't say you can't ever listen to a tape without bias and dolby set "right" because you've never heard my tapes flat, and you're not taking into account what I do to them in the computer that fixes them more than dolby and chrome will do alone.


I've heard too many transfers ruined by mis-use of Dolby (i.e. not decoded). I've several different decks and done plenty of comparisons what a Dolby tape made on deck A sounds like when played back on deck B etc. I've come to the conclusion that I always prefer the decoded over the not-decoded version, no matter what decks are involved.

If a recording got Dolby encoded, the encoding needs to be reversed. Period. What I can see being up for discussion is if it's better to decode on the deck on playback or to reverse the encoding in post production. Since the Dolby encoding is dynamic, it is very hard to reverse the encoding in post production on a DAW. So it's not just cutting back a bit of high-end to compensate for the encoding.

[desiderus]

Been a while since I started this thread and I wanted to post a little update on the progress. I've got the steinberg soundcad installed in my pc, tape deck in connected to my card, and now I should be ready to start some transferring.

I've got adobe audition available and I'm tryinh to figure out the best settings in audition. Any general settings I should use? Should I use different settings in cause of a audience master recording or a studio demo? What would you guys recommend?

[Karst]

Generally use the default settings. You can always process afterwards. It'll be trail and error and be prepared to do it a number of times.

[paddington]

if you plan for it to be burned to CD, transfer at 2ch, 16bit, 44.1kHz, as that is what it will need to be before torrenting, etc..

unless you aim for an archival-grade transfer.. in which case you' aim for something higher. but then you'll need to downsample for anyone to want it... and the quality of the dithering can adversley affect your audio, making it less-natural than if you;d tranferred at 44.1k/16b/2ch to begin with.

[desiderus]

I was thinking about transferring to with a bitrate of 48kHz and then down sample it thought. I want to keep the transfers as 48kHz in my archive and use the 44.1kHz files for torrenting etc. Would the downsampeling really dither the quality that much? I see a lot of people first transferring to 48kHz and then downsampling it.

So, the recording bit depth is set by default on 32. The best option is to put it on 16 then? Same for 'bounce and mixdown bit dept'? Stereo panning mode is preferred on -3dB center I guess?

[Five]

the 48kHz>44.1kHz downsamples are not desirable, they normally are due to source DAT tapes recorded at that sample rates or Edirol R-09 recordings (this unit cannot do 44.1kHz), and it is only done to make it audio cd-comatable.

if you want higher than cd quality for your personal archives first thing to consider doing is capturing at 24bit rather than 16bit before considering upping sample rate. 24bit is the limit of the FLAC codec, so if you capture at 32bit you cannot archive as flac without truncating to 24bit along the way or keeping them as MASSIVE wav files. fwiw wavpack has support for 32bit but only when using Adobe Audition (and I have not tested this filter personally).

If you cannot set wavlab exactly to 24bit for capture use audacity. if you do decide to capture at a higher sample rate, use the highest quality setting to resample (preserving pitch). For taking it down to 16bit from 24/32bit consider this: dither is for weenies. The advantage of dither is stopping stuttering during fadeouts to silence at the cost of dulling the entire audio content. I defy anybody to post a 24bit sample plus a 16bit dithered version that sounds better than undithered 16bit version. yes, this might seem radical but try it out, if I am wrong I will eat my words.

similarly, resampling from 48kHz to 44.1kHz will produce a dulling effect, so the question is does it sound more clear recording at 44.1kHz than recording it at 48kHz then resampling to 44.1kHz. conventional wisdom dictates that the shortest path is the best, but try it out.

try it all out, take this advice as a starting point but test everything here to confirm. record at 16bit, 24bit, 32bit, 44.1kHz, 48kHz resampled to 44.1, 96kHz, consider the 24bit FLAC limitation etc etc and draw your own educated conclusions, not just following blindly some things that you read. Then post back with what you find to give us new ideas of things to try, better ways to do things.

[dorrcoq]

Originally Posted by Five

...or Edirol R-09 recordings (this unit cannot do 44.1kHz)...

UHHHHHHH Sure it can

[Five]

I stand corrected!

fwiw some dats can only do 32/48kHz (no 44.1kHz setting), I've got one like that...

[zeek]

If you do a conversion without dithering, you run a slight risk of hearing quantization (math) errors. When the division of bits isn't clean, you end up with what are called LSB's (least signifigant bits) or "extra" bits. Dithering allows the LSB's to be dealt with so we don't hear them(honestly, you may not without dithering but if done right, the pro's outweigh the cons, for me).

If you use the right dithering software, it is almost transparent. The amount of "noise" added in to offset quantization errors is at a volume thats basically inaudable by the human ear. I would always dither when changing from a 24 to a 16. I would rather not take a chance. Dithering, for what we do, should only happen once in the whole process. If you use a crappy program, yes, you will hear it.

http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brain/

r8brain free is probably the best free utility to do sample rate conversion and dithering. There are better programs but they get into some serious dough.
You may never have a problem or you may always have a problem depending on which way you go and what hardwaree software yu use. I like to play it safe myself. This is totally different for different editors though so make sure you do your homework.

[cicada]

Did your soundcard from Steinberg come with any software (if so, then sweet)? I got Cuebase, which is owned by Steinberg, with my Firebox (Presonus).

I transfer each side of my original tape(s) in 1 file... that is done in 24/96. I keep that in my archives for later. I then can take those files and cut into separate tracks and "mixdown" to 16/44.1 with no issues at all. The nice thing is that the master transfer done in 24/96 is in my archives for future projects and I can still share 16/44. Do the transfer in the highest settings assuming you have a clean way to downsample.

[zeek]

thats it. If any mastering is to be done, I would go bare minimum of 24/48, 24/96 is great, but I wonder why we don't do 24/88.2 since it's a clean division when dithering/src. Sorry, I some how got stuck on the whole dithering thing and forgot that part in my post

Cicada hit the nail on the head though. You really should go for a higher bit/ sample rate for transfering and mastering and a proper dither down will be transparent.

[Five]

Originally Posted by zeek

You really should go for a higher bit/ sample rate for transfering and mastering and a proper dither down will be transparent.

can you demonstrate this? I've read all the stuff that you're saying as well, but in practice no dither is better. if you could post 20 seconds before and after dithering down that sound better than truncating I would greatly appreciate it.

the dither really dulls the sound, and everying but the most vacuum-tight studio recording has adequate noise within to prevent problems.