John,
You are of course entitled to have your own opinion. Good luck trying to migrate your mp3 files.
Best regards,
-Bruce
Bruce J. Gordon
Audio Engineer
Audio Preservation Services
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
U.S.A
tel. +1(617) 495-1241
fax +1(617) 496-4636
On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:43 PM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi, Bruce,
>
> I'm always glad to read the great advice on this list, but I think you are
> getting overkilled. I would just use consumer conversion stuff to run the
> cassettes straight to .mp3, since it is all cassette copies of speech, and
> not get caught up in high quality transferring and fancy restoration
> programs. Keep it as simple and compact as possible, so you can stay
> focused on the bigger issue of just getting it all done. Most likely the
> original cassettes are not going to have great audio quality anyway, and
> .mp3 format should be fine for your purposes to capture radio-broadcast
> speech.
>
> I am no fan of any lossy formats generally, but my advice is keep things as
> easy as possible given the huge size of this project. Of course if you can
> dub multiple cassettes at the same time with a multi-channel recorder,
> that's a very good suggestion. But don't spend a fortune on hard-drives to
> preserve this material in a state of the art big-data format. If there is
> music included, consider whether it is music that is already available
> otherwise in good sounding formats, so you won't need to do that. If it is
> rare live musical material, that's a different thing entirely, where you
> will want the best format for preservation.
>
> My experience with restoration projects of musical things is that often the
> oldest or worst sounding sources need the best sound quality for digital
> dubbing, since any small loss in sound quality in the copying is often
> audible. I don't think this concept is so important for mere speech that
> is reasonably well recorded.
>
> Good luck!
> John Haley
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Richard L. Hess
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Hi, Bruce,
>>
>> I'm not advocating 44.1 for data saving reasons. The only reason I
>> mentioned it was that the one, affordable high-speed ingest system that I
>> am aware of only does 44.1 (or 22.05 if you want to go 8 X). I think a
>> system like this is the only way a single person will be able to address
>> 10,000 tapes in a reasonable time.
>>
>> There is a 25,000 tape project that has to be done by the end of the
>> summer and it appears that you have to run over 30 recorders two shifts for
>> four months to do it real time. That is the right way if you have the
>> resources.
>>
>> We're in 100% agreement that storage space saving between 44.1 and 48 ks/s
>> is a non-issue.
>>
>> Where I disagree with some people is insisting that this type of project
>> be done at 96 ks/s. I'm glad to see you discussing 48 ks/s...we're both on
>> the same page here. My comment about the spectorgrams was relating to 48 vs
>> 96.
>>
>> The thing which drives the sample rate down to 44.1 on some consumer
>> projects is the need to deliver in CD format. Also, some small archives
>> still prefer CD format and cannot reliably handle data (they lose their
>> databases, but that's another painful story).
>>
>> Have a wonderful weekend!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On 2013-02-22 4:44 PM, Gordon, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> I'll come along for that ride.
>>>
>>> If my math is not faulty...
>>>
>>> The difference between 10,000 hour-long cassettes (for example) captured
>>> in 48 kHz / 16-bit files and the same cassettes captured in 48 kHz / 24-bit
>>> files is 3,218.75 GB.
>>>
>>> The difference in data between 10,000 hour-long cassettes captured in
>>> 44.1 kHz / 24-bit files and the same cassettes captured in 48 kHz / 24-bit
>>> files is 785.15625 GB. That's one hard drive's worth of difference in the
>>> amount of data.
>>>
>>> So do we throw away 785 GB of potentially valuable data forever (because
>>> it is apparently only marginally valuable) or do we save the price of
>>> storage costs that continue to drop?
>>>
>>> Have a nice weekend!
>>>
>>> -Bruce
>>>
>>> Bruce J. Gordon
>>> Audio Engineer
>>> Audio Preservation Services
>>> Harvard University
>>> Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
>>> U.S.A
>>> tel. +1(617) 495-1241
>>> fax +1(617) 496-4636
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]<**
>>> mailto:tflists@BEVERAGE-**DIGEST.COM <[log in to unmask]>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Totally agree about 48k! For talk radio shows? Come on, even that's
>>> overkill.
>>>
>>> 24-bit is important, however. The reason, better DSP performance if you
>>> have to go in and do severe cleanup.
>>>
>>> I'm thankful I've never even SEEN 10,000 cassettes, much less had to deal
>>> with them. As I said, good luck to ya! The upside -- it could be 10,000
>>> Exabyte cartridges or 10,000 DATs.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" <
>>> [log in to unmask]<**mailto:[log in to unmask]**COM<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]<**mailto:[log in to unmask]**GOV<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>
>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:35 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] [GRAYMAIL] Re: [ARSCLIST] Digitizing 10,000+
>>> audio cassettes
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013-02-22 10:59 AM, Joel Alperson wrote in part:
>>> I have to confess, I'm caught off guard a bit by the recommendation for
>>> 24/96 files for voice recordings, although given the cost of storage,
>>> it's probably not that big of a deal to go with that bit and sample
>>> rate.
>>> I have become more of a proponent of 48 ks/s for speech recordings from
>>> cassettes since I have a spectrogram shoved in my face on a more regular
>>> basis in iZotope (which I have moved to for cleaning). There's no audio
>>> above 20 kHz coming off these cassettes. It rarely happened back in the day
>>> and that was only within the Nakamichi line (pretty much). I've given you
>>> links of reading at my blog -- there is one article near the top about the
>>> 4 dB ambiguity at 16 kHz...and that was cooked into the non-standard back
>>> in the day. Post-recording HF loss makes that even a larger ambiguity.
>>>
>>> Also, may cassette decks had 19 kHz multiplex filters in them so the
>>> Dolby wouldn't get confused (among other things), but some were not
>>> defeatable.
>>>
>>> IASA TC-04 states: ( http://www.iasa-web.org/tc04/**
>>> key-digital-principles<http://www.iasa-web.org/tc04/key-digital-principles>)
>>>
>>> 2.2 *Sampling Rate*: The sampling rate fixes the maximum limit on
>>> frequency response.When producing digital copies of analogue material IASA
>>> recommends a minimum sampling rate of 48 kHz for any material. However,
>>> higher sampling rates are readily available and may be advantageous for
>>> many content types. Although the higher sampling rates encode audio outside
>>> of the human hearing range, the net effect of higher sampling rate and
>>> conversion technology improves the audio quality within the ideal range of
>>> human hearing. The unintended and undesirable artefacts in a recording are
>>> also part of the sound document, whether they were inherent in the
>>> manufacture of the recording or have been subsequently added to the
>>> original signal by wear, mishandling or poor storage. Both must be
>>> preserved with utmost accuracy. For certain signals and some types of
>>> noise, sampling rates in excess of 48 kHz may be advantageous. IASA
>>> recommends 96 kHz as a higher sampling rate, though this is intended only
>>> as a guide, not an upper limit; however, for most general audio materials
>>> the sampling rates described should be adequate. For audio digital-original
>>> items, the sampling rate of the storage technology should equal that of the
>>> original item.
>>> I mentioned other sampling rates as they are, in my opinion, acceptable
>>> unless these cassettes are the very highest quality AND they are the
>>> inherent built-in sampling rates of reasonable affordable tools that will
>>> get the job done in an acceptable manner. Only the Otari high-speed
>>> digitizer is likely to handle sample rates not related to CD quality.
>>>
>>> The 10 kHz upper limit imposed by the 22.05 ks/s of the relatively
>>> inexpensive 8 X British system is a function of the 8 X record option. It
>>> does produce 44.1 ks/s files at 4 X as I pointed out. The question is
>>> whether you want to spend the time considering that the likelihood of a
>>> substantial amount of program material being reliably recoverable much
>>> above 10 kHz from 10,000 cassettes is problematic.
>>>
>>> I just looked at the spectrogram of the RE-10 mic demo with a male voice
>>> at http://www.coutant.org/evre10/**index.html<http://www.coutant.org/evre10/index.html>and the only significant energy above 5 kHz is in the "S" sibilant sounds
>>> "thiS iS..." and that goes out strong to the upper limit of the file around
>>> 15 kHz.
>>>
>>> The British ingesting system is targeted towards churches that have a
>>> large sermon ministry on cassettes and want to make this back catalogue
>>> available digitally. I first learned about them through Technologies for
>>> Worship Magazine.
>>>
>>> I agree with Bruce Gordon that for Harvard, I would ingest everything at
>>> 48 ks/s minimum and most items at 96 ks/s (all at 24 bits) and I'm trying
>>> to move many of my clients to 48 ks/s ingest rather than 44.1 ks/s, but
>>> many factors are involved, notably how the client will store the files. I
>>> assume that anyone moving forward with 10,000 cassettes will develop a way
>>> of managing multiple TB of data which is now easy to do considering the
>>> availability of multiple multi-slot NAS units. My current thinking is that
>>> my next NAS disk purchase will be WD Reds which are optimized for this use
>>> on a non-enterprise basis. Attempting to do this on optical media would be
>>> semi-suicidal in my opinion. Remember, three copies in three different
>>> locations if possible.
>>>
>>> I just do not see the need if using equipment that performs well at 48
>>> ks/s to ingest at 96 ks/s for spoken word cassettes. Any music deserves 96
>>> ks/s as do grooved media if for no other reason as it helps separate clicks
>>> from program.
>>>
>>> My big question is, what is the easiest way for me to learn to use a
>>> software package like Samplitude (recommended by Richard Hess)? I've
>>> seen an instruction manual or two for these types of programs and
>>> they're massive and seem very complex. Given that for now I'm just
>>> interested in recording (not editing) material, I'd hope there's an
>>> easier way for me to get familiar with these products.
>>> You can download a 30 day demo.
>>>
>>> For just recording, it is very easy...sort of. Samplitude treats odd/even
>>> pairs as stereo pairs as a default and since the best available cassette
>>> machines are stereo, I strongly suggest ingesting in that mode and making a
>>> decision in post as to which channel you are going to preserve. You'll find
>>> that it may vary through a cassette.
>>>
>>> You open a new virtual project (VIP) and select sample rate and number of
>>> tracks.
>>>
>>> In the record option menu (red light surrounded by a gear) you select the
>>> formatting of the file name which will be the VIP and the track name (at
>>> least that is my suggestion) AND make sure you're on 24 bits.
>>>
>>> In the VIP layout double click the track name and put the file ID in that.
>>>
>>> Make certain that the input routing is correct and each track is record
>>> enabled.
>>>
>>> Press record and then start the cassette machines.
>>>
>>> At the end, save the VIP...the WAVs are already saved.
>>>
>>> I probably left a few things out, but this month's tutorial on the
>>> Samplitude site goes into more details.
>>> http://ow.ly/hXF8S
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
>>> http://www.richardhess.com/**tape/contact.htm<http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm>
>>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
>> http://www.richardhess.com/**tape/contact.htm<http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm>
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>
|