LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  February 2013

ARSCLIST February 2013

Subject:

Re: [GRAYMAIL] Re: [ARSCLIST] Digitizing 10,000+ audio cassettes

From:

John Haley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:56:52 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (367 lines)

Sorry Bruce.  I meant to direct that to the original poster, Joel.  Not
directed at you.  It just seems like the listers are turning his task into
something that isn't warranted.

Thanks,
John



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Gordon, Bruce <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> 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.
> >>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager