[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

hank alrich wrote:

The ULN-8 is sufficiently more costly and requires enough more computer
horsepower that in spite of a relative flood of "legacy" MIO's on the
market, prices have held up rather well.

From a sample of one ULN-2 currently on eBay:
Starting bid - $800
Shipping - $12
Returns - No returns accepted

I wonder what part of "Budget around $300" the MH fans don't understand.

I don't think that erstwhile seller will get his price, unless it's also
a +DSP model, and then maybe so. The DSP stuff is pretty amazing, quite
the arsenal of production goodies, and I'm only familiar with the
original v. of that.

One slick attribute of the MH kit is the ability to use the Record Panel
portion of the Console app to stream digital audio directly to disk
without an intervening DAW app.

I think you'll agree with me, though, that had he bought a MH interface
first, even a used one, blew the budget on that, and had to settle for
thrift store TEAC or Sony tape decks, the end result wouldn't have been as
good as with a $300 interface and a Nakamichi Dragon.

I concur completely that the quality of the _source_ rules in almost
everything to do with recording. In this case, that's a tape deck, and a
crappy one will offer a lot more than just a little tape noise. Higher
quality ADC will not mitigate wow and flutter. I'd take higher-end decks
into a pretty inexpensive ADC before I'd accept lousy decks into my MIO.

Maybe "It will be transferred before the end of this century" isn't such
a bad deal after all.

Used MIO's will be cheap in another ten years!

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:12 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

I'm tired of arguing with you.
then why did you??

Because it was fun for a while. I thought you have something useful to add.

why would I sell mine, I researched and bought just the product you
were asking for.

You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to
sell me one.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 5:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to
sell me one.

naw, your too cheap to own a mac
let alone any high end convertors G

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:


the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
archives and post production.

Like looking at a cloud through the clearest window-glass in the world.

Mind you, if you can get some pretty near clearest glass for not many $,
whynot !

geoff

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to
sell me one.

naw, your too cheap to own a mac
let alone any high end convertors G

Those MacSnob TV ads really worked , eh ? ;-)

geoff

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

The ULN-8 is sufficiently more costly and requires enough more
computer horsepower that in spite of a relative flood of "legacy"
MIO's on the market, prices have held up rather well.

From a sample of one ULN-2 currently on eBay:
Starting bid - $800
Shipping - $12
Returns - No returns accepted

This bloody thread just cost me $79. I couldn't go past the opportunity to
pick up an E-MU 0202 !

geoff

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 6:36 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:

the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
archives and post production.

Like looking at a cloud through the clearest window-glass in the world.

Mind you, if you can get some pretty near clearest glass for not many $,
whynot !

geoff

better then the old wavy cast glass panes of olde

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 6:37 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to
sell me one.

naw, your too cheap to own a mac
let alone any high end convertors G

Those MacSnob TV ads really worked , eh ? ;-)

geoff

ha ha, don't own a tv, don't shop at wal mart!
are you still watching the "idiot box?"

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:37 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to
sell me one.

naw, your too cheap to own a mac
let alone any high end convertors G

Those MacSnob TV ads really worked , eh ? ;-)

geoff

ha ha, don't own a tv, don't shop at wal mart!
are you still watching the "idiot box?"

Selectively yes. And I resent the tacit implication that because I watch TV
occasionally that I am an idiot.

Gosh a MacSnob and TV-Denier wrapped up in one !


geoff

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:36 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:

the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
archives and post production.

Like looking at a cloud through the clearest window-glass in the
world.

Mind you, if you can get some pretty near clearest glass for not
many $, whynot !

geoff

better then the old wavy cast glass panes of olde

Wow, and flutter.

geoff

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 7:37 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:37 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to
sell me one.

naw, your too cheap to own a mac
let alone any high end convertors G

Those MacSnob TV ads really worked , eh ? ;-)

geoff

ha ha, don't own a tv, don't shop at wal mart!
are you still watching the "idiot box?"

Selectively yes. And I resent the tacit implication that because I watch TV
occasionally that I am an idiot.

Gosh a MacSnob and TV-Denier wrapped up in one !

geoff

what do I hear, some some head scatter and scape from that tape.
you can insult a man but take offense when he counters you on it.
what cliff do your lemmings leap from?

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 1:10 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
archives and post production.

The Library will have 24-bit 96 kHz files. That's their standard.

so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio quality
whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

naw, your too cheap to own a mac
let alone any high end convertors G

Right on both counts. My best converters are in a Lynx L22, but
I really can't tell any difference between that and the Mackie 1200F.
And, I'm definitely too cheap to own a Mac.

But why are we talking about me? I didn't set the budget
for this project, I'm just the technical adviser. My advice was
to get decent tape decks and that a mid-range audio interface
would be as good as it needed to be, given the source.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

geoff wrote:

This bloody thread just cost me $79. I couldn't go past the opportunity to
pick up an E-MU 0202 !

Let us know how it compares with Dale's ULM-2. I'm sure he'll lend it to
you
for the sake of a rec.audio.pro experiment.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio quality
whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

No, but they all have 24 marketing bits of resolution, and you were
talking
about resolution.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 6, 1:10 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
archives and post production.

The Library will have 24-bit 96 kHz files. That's their standard.

so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio quality
whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

What is your deal? The library's standards are such and such. The budget
is such and such. If you are a professional who must work to a budget,
you understand these things. If you are a hobbyist supporting your audio
"work" with a day job, you may not understand these things.

But again, give me a very good tape deck and a cheap ADC if that's what
the budget can handle. I'll give you a ****ty tape deck and a ULN-2. My
results will kick the crap out of yours.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 8:28 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

But why are we talking about me? I didn't set the budget
for this project, I'm just the technical adviser. My advice was
to get decent tape decks and that a mid-range audio interface
would be as good as it needed to be, given the source.

How much do you want for yours?
You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to sell me one.

you are to OP and I was just responding to your statements.

the nak is not a decent tape deck, it is a premium one!
$300 interface is not mid range, it is cheap!
Macs are not more expensive, you just don't get the window's discount
because you don't have to deal with the window's crap G

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 8:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio quality
whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

No, but they all have 24 marketing bits of resolution, and you were
talking
about resolution.

what do you think the odds are that those cheap convertors actual
deliver true 24 bits?

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 6, 7:37 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:37 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 5:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You were talking about it so much I thought you might be trying to
sell me one.

naw, your too cheap to own a mac
let alone any high end convertors G

Those MacSnob TV ads really worked , eh ? ;-)

geoff

ha ha, don't own a tv, don't shop at wal mart!
are you still watching the "idiot box?"

Selectively yes. And I resent the tacit implication that because I watch TV
occasionally that I am an idiot.

Gosh a MacSnob and TV-Denier wrapped up in one !

geoff

what do I hear, some some head scatter and scape from that tape.
you can insult a man but take offense when he counters you on it.
what cliff do your lemmings leap from?

I leap from the cliff of professional reality, and practicality. I often
work to budgets. I don't tell my clients or myself that I can't get the
job done because there isn't enough money for this or that. I figure out
how to get the job done.

My MIO is #459. I appreciate it very much. But if the budget isn't there
I'm not going to walk around with a stick up my ass and a ruler in my
hand admonishing the class to spend more money than is available.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 6, 8:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio quality
whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

No, but they all have 24 marketing bits of resolution, and you were
talking
about resolution.

what do you think the odds are that those cheap convertors actual
deliver true 24 bits?

About the same as the odds that my MIO delviers 24 bits. Open your copy
of Spectra Foo Complete and take a look.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 6, 8:28 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

But why are we talking about me? I didn't set the budget
for this project, I'm just the technical adviser. My advice was
to get decent tape decks and that a mid-range audio interface
would be as good as it needed to be, given the source.

How much do you want for yours? You were talking about it so much I
thought you might be trying to sell me one.

you are to OP and I was just responding to your statements.

?? Mike is not the subject of the original post. Try reading for
content. Your literary convertors are apparently ****ed up.

the nak is not a decent tape deck, it is a premium one!

Compared to the wow and flutter of a $300 interface, the cassette deck
in an almost decent source, and comparatively mediocre in many respects
vis a vis the digital interface.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 9:26 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

What is your deal?
can anyone have an opinion that the archival transcription of analogue
material to digital should not be done with the wal mart ideology of
cheap convertors?
what do you know about archival issues?

why did you choose the metric halo products?
why not something cheaper/more expensive.
those studers were not a compromise.

do you want everyone around you to say yes sir and kiss ass?

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 9:26 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 6, 1:10 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
archives and post production.

The Library will have 24-bit 96 kHz files. That's their standard.

so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio quality
whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

What is your deal? The library's standards are such and such. The budget
is such and such. If you are a professional who must work to a budget,
you understand these things. If you are a hobbyist supporting your audio
"work" with a day job, you may not understand these things.

But again, give me a very good tape deck and a cheap ADC if that's what
the budget can handle. I'll give you a ****ty tape deck and a ULN-2. My
results will kick the crap out of yours.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

will my ****ty deck be mechanically sound
can I give you mikes laptop and one of his cheap firewire interfaces.

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:31 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio
quality whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

No, but they all have 24 marketing bits of resolution, and you were
talking
about resolution.

what do you think the odds are that those cheap convertors actual
deliver true 24 bits?

Reminds me of a thread here years ago when Dan was saying something to the
effect that all suppliers claiming 24 bits of resolution were aresholes for
it . Then went on to extol the virtues of his "24-bit" interfaces.

geoff

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:10 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
archives and post production.

The Library will have 24-bit 96 kHz files. That's their standard.

so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same audio quality
whether it is a Lavry or a m audio convertor?

96/24 is a filetype spec.

geoff

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 6, 9:26 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

What is your deal?
can anyone have an opinion that the archival transcription of analogue
material to digital should not be done with the wal mart ideology of
cheap convertors?

Sure. But a professional will be working to a budget, most often, or
will not be a professional for very long.

what do you know about archival issues?

Oh, I dunno, I have stuff here I recorded in the 1960's. It's holding up
well.

why did you choose the metric halo products?

It was the best bang for my buck. I didn't buy it to a budget for a
specific job.

why not something cheaper/more expensive.

At the time I bought it, late 2002, it was the best I could afford.

those studers were not a compromise.

Oh, sure they were. They cost a fortune at the time, were not as
portable as I'd have liked, even though the A80 was a VUT model. One of
the compromises I made was to settle for 8 tracks, partly because we
aimed to serve a market that wasn't going to be able to afford the other
studios in Austin at the time, all three of them, and tape cost was
going to be a factor. I probbly could not have afforded a 16 track A80
at the time, and still had enough money for us to build the console.

do you want everyone around you to say yes sir and kiss ass?

No. But I expect people who want to talk pro to have some understanding
of bugetary constraints.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:28:02 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

My best converters are in a Lynx L22, but
I really can't tell any difference between that and the Mackie 1200F.

So in what respect are the Lynx converters "best"?

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 10:30 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
what do you know about archival issues?
Oh, I dunno, I have stuff here I recorded in the 1960's. It's holding up well.

so should I disregard people like George Blood and his contemporaries?


those studers were not a compromise.

Oh, sure they were. They cost a fortune at the time, were not as
portable as I'd have liked, even though the A80 was a VUT model. One of
the compromises I made was to settle for 8 tracks, partly because we
aimed to serve a market that wasn't going to be able to afford the other
studios in Austin at the time, all three of them, and tape cost was
going to be a factor. I probbly could not have afforded a 16 track A80
at the time, and still had enough money for us to build the console.

so the compromise was on your expectations and not on the quality of
the recorder.
if you compromised on the quality, you would have bought a lesser
quality tape deck.


do you want everyone around you to say yes sir and kiss ass?

No. But I expect people who want to talk pro to have some understanding
of bugetary constraints.

when I want to talk pro, I sure don't do it here!!! too much
flaming!!!!

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

what do you think the odds are that those cheap convertors actual
deliver true 24 bits?

You'll notice that I used the term "marketing bits." The industry defines
a 24-bit converter as one that puts out a 24-bit word. That's all. The
more honest ones offer measured (however they do it, rarely specified)
signal-to-noise ratio, quiescent noise level, and linearity data.

Typical S/N numbers for a 24-bit converter run in the range of 100
to 110 dB, far less than the 138 dB that "true" 24-bit resolution would
predict, but far better than the original source (analog tape) which
might be 65 dB on a good day.

Dale, I admire your dedication to quality, and for your applications, it
may be important (or just make you feel confident) to use the interface
that you have chosen. But my application, and budget, is different.

You'd probably be appalled to hear that when I'm recording a concert
off the PA mixer for documentary purposes, I nearly always record
using16-bit 44.1 kHz. Why not 24/96? Because the source doesn't
justify higher resolution recording. If I'm setting up a real recording
session where I have as much control as I want (or can afford), I will
usually use higher resolution. However, for tapes recorded 40 years
ago, the source is what it is and it will be adequately preserved by
any reasonable interface.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

so should I disregard people like George Blood and his contemporaries?

You needn't disregard anyone, but you should understand what they're saying
and how that relates to what you need. He's working with his own projects,
most of which have been recorded during the "digital period." Classical
music concerts. Totally different application.

It's fine to write about what an archive "should be" but if you wait
until you
can make it so, it may never happen. Our project does not have a university
sponsor, and the Library of Congress is only the depository. Someone finally
decided that it was time to put the old recording into digital format,
and that's
where we're coming from.


when I want to talk pro, I sure don't do it here!!! too much
flaming!!!!

Who started flaming? You were the one insisting that $300 converters weren't
of sufficient quality and that we were wrong to accept that
"compromise." Perhaps
you should preach to a more appreciative audience over at rec.audio.opinion.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

So in what respect are the Lynx converters "best"?

It sounds good. It doesn't stutter. It doesn't buzz. It interfaces nicely
with the rest of my system. It's lasted a long time and the company
keeps up with support. And got a better deal on it than most people.

My "workbench" interface is a Behringer UCA-200. It's fine for
running RightMark Analyzer when I'm checking out a piece of
analog gear. It cost $29.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 7, 8:05 am, Mike Rivers wrote:

Who started flaming? You were the one insisting that $300 converters weren't
of sufficient quality and that we were wrong to accept that
"compromise." Perhaps
you should preach to a more appreciative audience over at rec.audio.opinion.

I offered an opinion and attempted to explain my position in doing
this.
you and others seem to think that my opinion was not right for the
project, I fully understand this and agree with your conclusions but
do not feel that gives you right to assault my opinion because you
did not want to fully understand why I was proposing a small upgrade
in the convertors.
I did not enter this discussion to trade barbs which you keep
throwing.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:13:14 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

So in what respect are the Lynx converters "best"?

It sounds good. It doesn't stutter. It doesn't buzz. It interfaces nicely
with the rest of my system. It's lasted a long time and the company
keeps up with support. And got a better deal on it than most people.

"...but I really can't tell any difference between that and the Mackie
1200F"

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 7, 8:05 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
so should I disregard people like George Blood and his contemporaries?

You needn't disregard anyone, but you should understand what they're saying
and how that relates to what you need. He's working with his own projects,
most of which have been recorded during the "digital period." Classical
music concerts. Totally different application.

quite wrong,
http://www.archivists.org/prof-education/instructor-bios/blood.asp
and his archive enterprise
http://www.safesoundarchive.com/

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

blah balh balh snipped

when I want to talk pro, I sure don't do it here!!! too much
flaming!!!!

Too many people who don't do audio for a living and have little regard
for the contraints of those who must meet budgets?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 7, 8:05 am, Mike Rivers wrote:

Who started flaming? You were the one insisting that $300 converters weren't
of sufficient quality and that we were wrong to accept that
"compromise." Perhaps
you should preach to a more appreciative audience over at rec.audio.opinion.

I offered an opinion and attempted to explain my position in doing
this.

And that was clearly understood from your first or second post.

you and others seem to think that my opinion was not right for the
project, I fully understand this and agree with your conclusions but
do not feel that gives you right to assault my opinion because you
did not want to fully understand why I was proposing a small upgrade
in the convertors.
I did not enter this discussion to trade barbs which you keep
throwing.

You kept pushing your position. Do you think we do not understand the
benfits of higher quality conversion? Do you understand the limitations
of the source? Have you ever had to work to a budget? Did you meet it?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

On Aug 7, 8:05 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote:
so should I disregard people like George Blood and his contemporaries?

You needn't disregard anyone, but you should understand what they're saying
and how that relates to what you need. He's working with his own projects,
most of which have been recorded during the "digital period." Classical
music concerts. Totally different application.

quite wrong,
http://www.archivists.org/prof-education/instructor-bios/blood.asp
and his archive enterprise
http://www.safesoundarchive.com/

There you go again. Get a ****ing clue.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Arny Krueger]

"Dale A. Francis" wrote in
message


On Aug 6, 8:31 pm, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Dale A. Francis wrote:

so that means that all 96/24 recordings are of the same
audio quality whether it is a Lavry or a m audio
convertor?

Within a wide range yes, because in none of those recordings is the quality
of a good 100 dB dynamic range ADC an audible issue.

M-Audio generally picks from AKM converters, and AKM can be highly
competitive.

However, if price/performance is your thing, also look at eMu.

No, but they all have 24 marketing bits of resolution,
and you were talking
about resolution.

what do you think the odds are that those cheap
convertors actual deliver true 24 bits?

Absolutely zero.

The current SOTA in ADCs, especially chips, is still a bit or three shy of
24 bits.

Now for extra credit, answer me how many analog tape recorders would require
a 24 bit ADC to digitize their full dynamic range. ;-)


Or, do you think that you've found a way to break the rule of the weakest
link?

[Arny Krueger]

"Dale A. Francis" wrote in
message


can anyone have an opinion that the archival
transcription of analogue material to digital should not
be done with the wal mart ideology of cheap convertors?

Dale, it is clear that your panties are in an infinitely tight bunch (AKA a
Black Hole) because nobody, not anybody is recommending wal-mart cheap
converters.

Besides, what factual do you know about the converters that Wal Mart *is*
selling? Got some part numbers, specs or just more childish name-calling?

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

I offered an opinion and attempted to explain my position in doing
this.
you and others seem to think that my opinion was not right for the
project, I fully understand this and agree with your conclusions

That's where you should have stopped rather than go on and on about
low quality converters.

I do not feel that gives you right to assault my opinion because you
did not want to fully understand why I was proposing a small upgrade
in the convertors.

True, you were proposing a small upgrade, but it was a rather expensive
one, or what you recommended could be found used, from a reliable source,
at a price close to that of a better quality "mid-grade" interface.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)