Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Analog transfering question...
| Message Board > Music Chitchat - Heavy > Analog transfering question... |
| _Griphin_ User Info... | Whilst on the subject of VDRP, a question... I'm confused. I've done 5-6 demos over the last few days. Some of the copies I've transfered (MoC/HoC) required me to run Steinberg Clean on them to brighten up the recording (too muggy in some cases), whereas some demos (eg. Micky Christ-Micky Dead and Gravel (Self Titled)) required no cleaning and actually came out half decent. So what exactly is the difference with copies and master demos in regards to frequencies? - Tue, 11 May 2004 7:10pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | Define VDRP for me. I must have missed a previous segment of this discussion. There is an infinite amount of variability possible in older analog tape recordings and their duplicated siblings. It starts with how well they were recorded in the first place, on to the technologies used to attempt to enhance the sound quailty, the quality/number of duplicates (add the unknown of what methods were used to do so), age, previous exposure to interference, mismatched bias/alignment of the playback unit, etc. Is it only the transfers which sound 'muggy', or do the sources you are using also have the same quality before transfering? I can't say it is the answer, but even a mismatch of the Dolby version used (recorded -vs- playback) will result in many odd sounding results. Usually a sinister compression pumping (and heavy dynamic reducion) effect will be the result. Some cassette sources (even original copies) fail to mention what Dolby method was used. (In DIY duplicates that information is almost never provided except by people who are anal about such things, and God bless them to bits) In any case, there is a shit-load of unknowns. I am curious; Let me know what it sounds like at various stages. Does Steinberg Clean show you what its doing, or is it a hands-off kind of thing? (I have a Warez copy of it somewhere, but I don't know that program well) - Tue, 11 May 2004 7:35pm | ||
| _Griphin_ User Info... | VDRP = Victoria Demo Restoration Project It's the transfer that sounds muggy, not the playback. Though the better the source the easier it is to copy. Hey you know, that's a good point about the Dolby stuff, the Fisher dual-deck I use to play tapes on/sample from automatically selects a Dolby setting with the playback deck. The second deck you can use non-dolby, or else select Dolby NR, I really need to find a single deck Denon tapedeck and start using that. This would explain why the Micky Christ demo I copied sound better without using Clean on it (the other 2 demos were copied to Type I/Type 2 tape). House of Commons I think was copied from the vinyl source, which sounded odd to begin with anyways. Steinberg Clean is awesome cause you can hear the results in realtime, so if a level sounds off, or it needs to be brightened up, you can set those filters as your listening to the playback. Then once your happy with the results, you click the Process This Track button and it does it thing using those levels you set. It's great for cleaning up pops and scratchies you commonly find with most vinyl. - Tue, 11 May 2004 8:04pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | Ahhhhhh. Ya Sorry, I recall that acronym from a previous discussion between us. Perhaps someone like Zippgun can help keep me from talkin' shite... A copy made between the various types of audio tape is unlikely to lead to serious problems, although some decks prefer certain tape types, especially if they do not have the ability to detect the different varieites. (Check the manual or internet sources for your unit) My deck (a single-well Denon) recognizes the cassette type determined by a series of holes in the cassette shell itself. (Some decks are not automatic and instead have a switch to specify it- Prolly Type I, Type II and CrO2) Dolby encoding is something distinct from tape types. Does your machine provide you the ability to enable/disable Dolby playback modes? The machine I use allows manual specification of: Dolby B, Dolby C or Off. Many consumer decks only provide Dolby ON/Off as options. If your deck only says 'Dolby', I assume it means Dolby B which was sort of the default consumer variety of the regime. Material recorded with Dolby B enabled, but played back with it off will result in a 10db reduction of sound level starting at 10,000Hz and up. If your transfer was mismatched for any reason, it might lead to a sound which is lacking in all the top frequencies. (muggy?) Cymbals and other mid to high range stuff would sound pretty shitty for sure. Were my theory to be correct you should be hearing a similar thing while simply playing the tape. Without something wrong in the signal path between your tape machine and the computer, there aught not be much difference between the original and computer copy. The setup I'm using allows me to quickly switch between the source and the recorded sound. Are you able to simulate something like that? If you can hear the difference only while recording, then something else is introducing the oddities. The only thing which immediately comes to mind is some computer sound cards have fucked up EQ parameters which the manufacturer thinks is 'cool'. Avoid all uses of manufacturer-preferred sound enhancing techniques. (The ones built onto the soundcard especially) It may not be related to the above at all, but you will need to eliminate the possibilities from the source to every point along the signal path in order to find the culprit. Remove all unnecessary connections and see if the difference exists. Due to the nature of what you are doing, it is a shame to have to fix things after the fact if the original material is good. If you can locate the issue, my recommendation is that you re-transfer some of the stuff which required tweaking. From an archival point of view, you're better off capturing an accurate representation of the material you have to work with. - Tue, 11 May 2004 9:10pm | ||
| _Griphin_ User Info... | Heh... I completely fergot about a cassette deck recognizing the Type of tape due to the holes in the cassette shell. The Fisher deck I use I bought like 20 years ago, at the time it was an awesome deck for the price, and to this day it still is an awesome deck. Where exactly did you purchase your Denon single deck, and can you still find them locally? Yeah having to re-tweak the source sucks, but I'm amazed what the audio application software can do these days (WaveLab v4 is probably the best software I've ever used, better then using Goldwave IMO). You are correct, the cleaner the source the better. Having to work with a bad source makes you wanna pull your hair out at times. I dunno if I'm getting an accurate representation of the source, everyone mixed differently depending on the demo. I'd be able to do more if I had thousands of dollars worth of equipment like Garry Brainless or Scott Henderson have, I just try to get as close to the original sound of the tape as possible without shredding the high/low ends. Perhaps I should hook up with you in person and trade information about this, or at least swing ya a few examples and get your opinion. - Wed, 12 May 2004 5:07am | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | It can be frustrating as hell, I know. I actually despise cassette for those reasons (inconsistent quality over time and all the different methods and technologies) What may have originally been an awesome sounding cassette isn't always so after being on someones' dashboard for the last 12 years. I got my tape machine used at Sound Hounds. Been happy with it, except like I said above I try to use as little tape as possible. I mostly bought it to do similar things, mostly to preserve all the old music I have kicking around. Like you said, its best to get an accurate representation of the source. Sometimes its best to do so by leaving in whatever ails it; Depends what it is I guess. I love preserving old Vinyl to CD and most times I don't even attempt to remove the pops and clicks. An old 70's '45 fom Kingston Jamaica sounds more authentic with them left in. Its a context thing. Also, some of those records were stamped out so poorly and in such a hurry that no amount of software would improve it without ruining some other aspect of it. Henderson often quips that 'Ya just can't Polish a Turd.'- So true. Contrary to my intense interest in the topic, I don't actually have the best ears around; However, perhaps we should trade examples sometime. My only hesitation is that I've been almost sick from workload recently (day-job and otherwise). Not sure when a good opporunity will present itself. Keep it in mind anyway; It sounds as though we are often doing similar things. BTW: I thought Goldwave was a hunk of shit. Wavelab is pretty good, but I've never seen V4. - Wed, 12 May 2004 7:03am | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
