[Cavendish#2]

Hello everyone,
this is my first post here so thanks for having me!

My question concerns the digitalization of old tapes (sure, not a very original
question).
I did accomplish that task a year ago by recording the tapes (all audio-plays,
no self recorded stuff) with a tapedeck (taken and disconnected from a technics-compact hifi-system), which was connected to a external Sound-
blaster Mp3+ USB-Box. I used no pre-amp (since i heard that a pre-amp is mandatory only with turntables and record-players...). The recording para-
meters where 16-bit with 44.1khz. The quality was o.k., but I'm wondering now if i should redo the whole thing with a new and better setup. Would it make sense to use a more improved soundcard (no Creative-Labs, theirs seems to have some technical flaws) with a 24-bit resolution and higher sampling-rates like 96khz or even 192khz. Do tapes really take advantage of higher settings than 16bit/44.1khz? Should I have used a pre-amp in the
first place?

You see, many, many questions from a mere amateur (who hopes, that his first post was not placed in the wrong forum-category...), and your answers are much appreciated!

Greetings
Cavendish

 

[jefemeister]

You have an interesting dilema because you are going to capture the soundquality of the tapedeck itself on top of the tape. Increasing the rate/depth to 96/24 etc from 44.1/16 is normally a good way to get improved sonics in a recording. However, all you're going to accomplish is a better recording of how your tape deck/tape quality messes up the sound in the first place. If you're really concerned with the best copy possible you need a different tape deck or get it professionally done. So, in short, no. 44.1/16 is fine.

And the peramp part was probably refering to a Phono Preamp which would definitely be necessary for recording vinyl. Tape decks have line level outs so a preamp is not necessary, and actually should be avoided. The levels are more appropriately trimmed in the recording software.

 

[egraaf]

In my opinion sample rate won't make a difference, but a better sound card certainly will. Also make sure the recording volume is low enough that the sound won't clip. -3dB for the loudest passages would be my recommendation, that way you have a little room for error.

In a sound editor like Audacity you can adjust volume and maybe do some more editing later on.

 

[jefemeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by egraaf In my opinion sample rate won't make a difference, but a better sound card certainly will.

You're probably right about using a better soundcard, but the point to stress is that the tape deck and the tape itself is by far the limiting factor in the recording setup.

 

[Cavendish#2]

Thanks for your replies!

jefemeister, you suggested a better tape-deck. What kind of tape-deck did
you have in mind? A ordinary one like the Sony TC-WE475 from my local hifi-
shop or a more sophisticated (hence more expensive) deck for to "mess up"
the sound of my tapes as less as possible? By the way, makes it a difference to buy a single-or dual-tapedeck when it comes to the replay-quality of the
source?

As far as i understand, recording cassettes with 24/192 would carry the urge
for high-fidelity a bit to far, right? So, if i would store my tapes with 24/96
(and in a wave on insanity, even with 24/192, just to feel better...

settings from a improved source (maybe a tape-deck suggested by the community...), which sound-card would fit those demands best. I have
sever-al options in mind:

external:
Terratec Phase 24fw (i think it can record up to 24/192)

Creative Audigy 2 ZS Notebook (maybe I'll use my notebook
for the whole process, and this little sweetheart seems to be
not to bad, although it can only record with 24/96)

internal:
M-Audio Audiophile 192

Emu 0404 (can't record 24/192, i understand)

And which way of connecting the deck to the soundcard would be best?
RCA, SPDIF or anything else. What's the difference? I'm sorry to bother
you with the basics, but i'm really a complete "noob"...(you must certain-
ly realized without my help...)!

So, my whole talk melts down to the question: which setup (new tapedeck,
new sound-device) would give me best results with 24-bit/96-khz and
24-bit/192-khz?

Thanks in advance

cavendish

 

[Cavendish#2]

Why is the appearance of my posts a bit weired? The lines are jumping
around like they please and create such a "cuddlemuddle".... I'm doing
something wrong, right?

 

[jefemeister]

I guess my point is that the dynamic range, THD, etc are much better in a digital 44.1/16 system than they are for a tape deck. regardless of the deck, interconnect, soundcard, recording software, etc. you can't make something that is inheriently "bad" into something "good" just by using a better recording chain. You can only make it "not worse."

As far as specifics on a setup, I don't know wnough about it to comment really.

 

[Cavendish#2]

Hello jefemaster,

you think that the rather aged and outdated cassette-technology with all
it's clumsy mechanics and so on is under no circumstance able to fully use
the specs of a 16-bit/44.1khz setup? So even with a high class stereo-
system a cassette with it "inherent" flaws couldn't take advantage of the
aditional "headroom" of a 24-bit recording?

 

[swiego]

This is a fascinating discussion. I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes

I'm embarking on the same project, with similar high ambitions for no good reason. It's just a different kind of insanity than the sort we usually see around here, but we're all still nuts.

What I'm trying to do is accumulate a few different source decks. I have a Sony KA3ES in tip-top shape (heads aligned by Sony ES tech, clean, demagged, etc.) as a baseline. I'm keeping my eyes peeled locally for a cheap modern Pioneer Elite deck; they have horrible transports and don't hold their value at all, but they have this cool little thing called FLEX (Frequency Level Expander) which is basically "refreshes" old and faded cassettes in the digital domain. From everything I hear, it's far more sophisticated than the typical DSP-based frequency equalizer that you usually see, and works incredibly well for old decks. (It's something when you read Nakamichi Dragon enthusiasts talking about how they get far better sound out of a $50 late 90s used Pioneer deck than they ever could out of their Naks when playing faded tapes!) Lastly I'd ideally like to get my hands on a Nakamichi again, but hopefully something relatively modern with playback azimuth adjustment. This last part is kind of tough.

And therein lie the choices for the original poster. The Sony decks don't get appreciably better until you get into some of the upper end ES decks from a while ago but if you find one, you'll get good overall performance and reliability, combined with a relatively stable playback platform. Nakamichi decks will provide the best possible playback quality (given the source) but price and age work badly against you. Pioneer decks, the relatively modern ones, are cheap with lots of wow and flutter and no "built like a tank" build quality. However, FLEX and their other digital tricks can bring tapes to life that no other deck would have much hope with.

Alternatives are various higher-end Yamaha and Teac decks over the years but they tend to be harder to find. Of course you can never go wrong with a Sony WM-D6C portable.

Then, I'd get a good recording card (1212m comes to mind since I could use it for some other projects anyway, but recs are appreciated!), try all three out, then analyze them on the computer and see what exactly I was able to extract from each deck.

There is that whole "you're throwing money away" thing but I thought that's the point of this site, so who cares?

 

[Cavendish#2]

Hello swiego,

nice to be with you in the same boat (no irony, really, there is at least
some fun when it comes to record your old tapes...)!

The Pioneer Elite-deck you mentioned sounds pretty interesting, but is
it possible to switch off the "Flex"-feature, just in case i want to
record my tapes the "plain-vanilla"-style as well?

You said you where thinking about purchasing the Emu-1212M. Which parameters would you use for recording? Do you think that external
sounddevices don't have an edge over comparable internal solutions
because of less electronic-interferences outside the computer-case?

And my final question to you, swiego, how do you prepare your tapes
before recording them? Silicon-spray, any special adjustments? I (unfortunately) stuck them right into my tape-deck, without further ado
(of course, the individual condition of the tapes are varying from case to case), but there a sure some basic, sacrosanct steps to follow everytime
one wants to do some recording?

By the way, you are absolutley right about the splash of "insanity" in the
whole thing. The preserving of analog-sources is a real Sysyphean task.
You are just thinking you've done it, but then there is that voice in your
head whispering something like "improve the quality, spend more money,
more time, more mental health....

!

Greetings

 

[swiego]

Looks like insanity loves company, too. (At least, when we're sane enough to recognize it.)

The "FLEX" feature can be turned off. I'm just starting down this path, as well, so I am merely sharing what I have heard or intend to try. FLEX is the latter (for me) - I haven't gotten a chance to give it a whirl yet. Maybe we can split things up and compare notes.

The 1212m entered the equation because to my knowledge it has great AD converters and while there seems to be "better", better costs quite a bit more. Honestly this is a gray area for me as well. I want 24/192, best possible fidelity and for a $200 budget. From everything I can tell, the 1212m seems to be best choice given those parameters.

I haven't really thought about tape preparation yet... that's going to be one of my final steps. You see, once I have the whole setup complete, I want to be able to digitize, demag the head or clean the tape or whatever, digitize again and see the difference.

So why don't you tell me about silicon spray???

 

[Cavendish#2]

Hi swiego,

yeah, the infamous "silicon"-method, sounds rather nasty... I think
it's supposed to make the replay of the tape more smooth by decreasing
noises caused by the mechanics of the tape-deck (or the tape itself?).


I made some research about the Emu-1212m myself and heard only good
things about it (in the eyes of the audio-enthusiasts, the Emu-line seems
to somewhat restore the reputation of Creative Labs, a reputation damaged by the recent Audigy-models). Maybe the M-Audio Audiophile 192 is a pretty
good alternative for less money.

The Pioneer-Elite deck is not a particularly cheap one (the Pioneer-home-
page shows for the CT-05D a price-target of 400 bucks) and it seems to
be discontinued anyway, just like the Nakamichi-series. Why do they stop making all the good tape-decks? It really annoys me!

Swiego, you talked about "analyzing" the outcome of your recording in
order to compare different sources. How do you accomplish that, which
software or analyzing-tool are you using. Not that i wouldn't trust
my beloved ears, but to "err is human", isn't it, and in case of doubt
i worship the cold physical measurements rather than my own mis-
guided "taste"

!

Of course, I'll share the further "ripening" with all of you (especially with
my "comrade in pain", swiego), and i hope for further comments and advice.

cheers!

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefemeister I guess my point is that the dynamic range, THD, etc are much better in a digital 44.1/16 system than they are for a tape deck. regardless of the deck, interconnect, soundcard, recording software, etc. .

Actually a humble cassette is capable of superior frequency response to CD but obviously only if recorded on the top decks. The B&O 9000 was capable of a maximum bandwidth of 22KHz for example.

The results you are going to get depend largely on what your original tapes where recorded on? I assume you are talking about tapes you have made yourself? Live recordings?

If it's just prerecorded tapes then I wouldn't waste time on it unless it's something really rare which isn't available on CD.

The replay quality of your original recordings on a different deck is going to depend on how closely the respective manufacturers followed IEC standards. These standards were implemented to very differing degrees by deck and stock manufacturers.
For instance B&O followed them very closely Nakamichi hardly at all so it's maybe best to get the same deck you originally had and get it set up to factory specs or similar specs to your original recorder by an engineer. Http://www.nakamichi.us are a company in New England which specialises in this on a variety of the best known marques.
If you are not using the deck to record then the quality of the mech is going to be more important for speed stability so look for an older high end deck with high build quality like a Tandberg, Revox, B&O, Nakamichi or highend machine from the bigger japanese manufactuers like Sony, Akai, Aiwa, or Pionner who all made fine decks well into the 80's.
Alternatively get a deck which allows you to do a lot of calibration yourself. The Naks especially the ones which allow "playback azimuth" which companies like NAD and Yamaha called "Trim" allow you to move the heads laterally to allow optimised alignment to recordings made on other machines.

Once you have a good transport optimised to your needs you can either capture straigh to a soundcard or via various filters like the Aphex aural exciter or BBE sonic maxi which can be used to restore some of the oomph to your recordings. These are being thrown away as studios move to pro-tools systems so can often be found cheaply on ebay as can analogue recording desks which can be used to re-eq your recordings.

Go for a soundcard which is external to the machine like the M-Audio audiophile or at the high end the Apogee. The basic Protools set-ups are also quite resonably priced these days and these give you accress to industry standard remastering like sonic solutions plugins, although these are expensive. Beyond this you have full-on CEDAR restoration systems but these are very very expensive.

Always capture at the highest possible resolution which your system can manage and do any edits you need at this resolution before you downsample to your chosen format.

 

[Cavendish#2]

No, all my tapes are commercially made, so there isn't a "mother"-
tapedeck I could re-use. Therefore no foolish things where made by
myself, and the Azimuth of the tape should already be alignend properly by the higher-quality procedures of a professional manufacturer. Same thing with Dolby-calibration of the Cassette, right?

But nevertheless, if i understand you right, memepool, the replay-
deck should be capable of an "optimised alignment to recordings made
on other machines". Are you referring to the "home-recording"-machine
or the machine of the professional company which originally made and
sold the tapes?

By the description (and praising) of the tape-decks of the past,
i can't help getting the impression that nowadays sold tapedecks
(like the mentioned Sony TC-WE475 for 200 bucks) are simply crap
compared to the high-philosophy of cassette-deck creation twenty-years
ago? I'know, the CD gave the tape-and vinyl-lovers a pretty tough
time and cassettes more and more sink into oblivion, but are there
really no "contemporary" alternatives to the Nakamichi-prodigies of
the past, for example the deck swiego mentioned in his post, the Pioneer
Elite CT-05D?

memepool, you would advise against the usage of an internal soundcard
like the Emu-1212m? Is that because of the inner electronic "noise" of
the Computer? And my final question,would it make sense to use 96khz
or even 192khz samplingrates for recording commercially produced stuff?

Greetings

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavendish#2 No, all my tapes are commercially made, so there isn't a "mother"-tapedeck I could re-use. Therefore no foolish things where made by myself, and the Azimuth of the tape should already be alignend properly by the higher-quality procedures of a professional manufacturer. Same thing with Dolby-calibration of the Cassette, right?

It's more a question of how well the playback deck is set up to match the azimuth and dolby of the duplication machine that was used at the plant, which despite IEC standards can vary a lot even within the same model of a particular range of decks. Tapedecks are very complicated to set up properly and what you pay for with a higher end machine is that more care and attention has been taken by the manufacturer to set up their decks properly.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavendish#2 By the description (and praising) of the tape-decks of the past, i can't help getting the impression that nowadays sold tapedecks (like the mentioned Sony TC-WE475 for 200 bucks) are simply crap compared to the high-philosophy of cassette-deck creation twenty-years ago? I'know, the CD gave the tape-and vinyl-lovers a pretty tough time and cassettes more and more sink into oblivion, but are there really no "contemporary" alternatives to the Nakamichi-prodigies of the past, for example the deck swiego mentioned in his post, the Pioneer Elite CT-05D?

Correct. In terms of performance and R&D spend companies had got everything they could out of compact cassette by the mid 80's which is pretty much the situation we are in with CD now. So the best decks are generally the ones designed before then. Even the nakamichi's of the 90's aren't as good as those of earlier vintage. I think the Pioneer machine you mention is 90's deck and have seen them in the past but never owned one.
I would go for a deck from Revox, Nakamichi, Tandberg or B&O. You should be able to find one for around 100USD 2nd hand and then budget another 100 or so to get it recalibrated by a specialist company. If done right, for a few hundred bucks you will have one of the best analogue recording devices ever made which can outperform a CD recorder in terms of resolution.
You could get lucky, I recently bought a Nakamichi 582 for 50UKP and found it was still almost perfectly calibrated even after all these years (1982) !.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavendish#2 memepool, you would advise against the usage of an internal soundcard like the Emu-1212m? Is that because of the inner electronic "noise" of the Computer? And my final question,would it make sense to use 96khz or even 192khz samplingrates for recording commercially produced stuff? Greetings

External is better as you say because it effectly isolates it from the computers noisy power supply / hard drives etc. Use the highest sampling rates you can if you intend any editing of the material. If you just want to make CD's then 44.1 is fine but remember you could also make DVD-A's if you have a DVD burner