I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound Forge. I was
thinking of playing the tape back on a 4-track deck into my computer's
sound card one track at a time. However the timing would likely be off.
Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and save
them to separate tracks in Sound Forge? Is there such a thing as a
multi-track sound card?

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound Forge. I was
thinking of playing the tape back on a 4-track deck into my computer's
sound card one track at a time. However the timing would likely be off.
Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and save
them to separate tracks in Sound Forge? Is there such a thing as a
multi-track sound card?


http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Delta66-main.html

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u...10LT-main.html

I don't own the above, but they do seem to indicate that you can buy
multi-track sound cards.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Jeff Findley wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound Forge. I was
thinking of playing the tape back on a 4-track deck into my computer's
sound card one track at a time. However the timing would likely be off.
Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and save
them to separate tracks in Sound Forge? Is there such a thing as a
multi-track sound card?



http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Delta66-main.html

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u...10LT-main.html

I don't own the above, but they do seem to indicate that you can buy
multi-track sound cards.

Even with a standard sound card, you wouldn't have to do it one track at
a time... you could do it in two passes, two tape tracks to two stereo
input channels at a time. It shouldn't be too hard to line up two
stereo tracks, although it might require different software - last time
I used SoundForge it only did a single stereo track.

"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:bwgmg.75224$IK3.43332@pd7tw1no...
Even with a standard sound card, you wouldn't have to do it one track at
a time... you could do it in two passes, two tape tracks to two stereo
input channels at a time. It shouldn't be too hard to line up two
stereo tracks, although it might require different software - last time
I used SoundForge it only did a single stereo track.

Yes, still does. Vegas is Sony's multi-track editor.
I line up audio tracks all the time for video work, and by simply
introducing a click at the start, it is easy to get within a couple of
samples.
The bigger problem is that there will be speed variations (or wow and
flutter variations if you like) between two playing's of an analog tape
which are far greater than that.

However there are plenty of multi-track sound cards available for a
reasonable price anyway.

MrT.

On 21 Jun 2006 09:39:24 -0700, "
wrote:

I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound Forge. I was
thinking of playing the tape back on a 4-track deck into my computer's
sound card one track at a time. However the timing would likely be off.
Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and save
them to separate tracks in Sound Forge? Is there such a thing as a
multi-track sound card?

Yes, there are multi-port soundcards.
http://www.m-audio.com/
is one place to look.

You have a few issues.

Check that your 4-track machine WILL output 4 separate tracks. Many
of them have only two in/out channels. You can export a stereo mix
but not all 4 separate tracks.

Sound Forge, last time I looked, was a stereo wave editor, not a
multitrack recorder. WILL it record 4 tracks at once?

If you import the tracks two at a time, you have synch issues. It's
easy enough to line up the tracks at the start. But, unless the tape
speed is absolutely stable, they'll drift apart. They MAY stay
acceptably close over a short song. But it's a matter of luck.

You might get away with two passes of the tape to two stereo recordings,
but, you'll have to deal with the fact that your tape machine might not play
the tape at exactly the same speed each time. If your tracks are totally
separated signals, that wont matter so much, but if you have signals that
are common to more than one track, you may hear a flanging or phase shifting
effect caused by the slight differences in the speeds at which the audio was
captured. Cool Edit will allow you to bring both stereo recordings together
for the nearest possible time alignment.

James. )


"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:bwgmg.75224$IK3.43332@pd7tw1no...
Jeff Findley wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound Forge. I was
thinking of playing the tape back on a 4-track deck into my computer's
sound card one track at a time. However the timing would likely be off.
Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and save
them to separate tracks in Sound Forge? Is there such a thing as a
multi-track sound card?



http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Delta66-main.html

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u...10LT-main.html

I don't own the above, but they do seem to indicate that you can buy
multi-track sound cards.

Even with a standard sound card, you wouldn't have to do it one track at
a time... you could do it in two passes, two tape tracks to two stereo
input channels at a time. It shouldn't be too hard to line up two
stereo tracks, although it might require different software - last time
I used SoundForge it only did a single stereo track.

wrote:
I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound Forge. I was
thinking of playing the tape back on a 4-track deck into my computer's
sound card one track at a time. However the timing would likely be
off. Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and
save them to separate tracks in Sound Forge? Is there such a thing as
a multi-track sound card?

Having read your post and several replies, I'm thinking you'll be better off
mixing down to stereo prior to importing into the computer. Borrow equipment
if necessary. You can keep the 4-track master or import the channels
separately for future needs.

Mark Z.

wrote in message
ups.com

I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound
Forge. I was thinking of playing the tape back on a
4-track deck into my computer's sound card one track at a
time. However the timing would likely be off.

You can manually synch them with good multitrack editing/mixing software.

Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and
save them to separate tracks in Sound Forge?

I guess. I'm not a Sound Forge expert - what you want to do would be easy in
Audition.

Is there such a thing as a multi-track sound card?

Tons of them.

"James Lehman" wrote in message


You might get away with two passes of the tape to two
stereo recordings, but, you'll have to deal with the fact
that your tape machine might not play the tape at exactly
the same speed each time. If your tracks are totally
separated signals, that wont matter so much, but if you
have signals that are common to more than one track, you
may hear a flanging or phase shifting effect caused by
the slight differences in the speeds at which the audio
was captured.

The way you handle that is you split the tracks every once in a while and
then resynch them.

Cool Edit will allow you to bring both
stereo recordings together for the nearest possible time
alignment.

Yes, I've done this many times wtih CEP/Audition.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound
Forge. I was thinking of playing the tape back on a
4-track deck into my computer's sound card one track at a
time. However the timing would likely be off.

You can manually synch them with good multitrack editing/mixing
software.
Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and
save them to separate tracks in Sound Forge?

I guess. I'm not a Sound Forge expert - what you want to do would be
easy in Audition.

SoundForge is a stereo audio editor and can only record mono or stereo. It
does not attempt to do all things.

There are many 4, 8, or more channel audio interfaces available, but you
would probably need to go to a more sophisticated computer or music store to
find one. Zillions available online.

geoff

In article ,
"Geoff@home" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound
Forge. I was thinking of playing the tape back on a
4-track deck into my computer's sound card one track at a
time. However the timing would likely be off.

You can manually synch them with good multitrack editing/mixing
software.
Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and
save them to separate tracks in Sound Forge?

I guess. I'm not a Sound Forge expert - what you want to do would be
easy in Audition.

SoundForge is a stereo audio editor and can only record mono or stereo. It
does not attempt to do all things.

There are many 4, 8, or more channel audio interfaces available, but you
would probably need to go to a more sophisticated computer or music store to
find one. Zillions available online.

geoff


In my crossing over from 4trk days, a click was recorded to each track
before each song. Dumped into a multitrack editor and the clicks lined
back up, as best as possible that is. IMO It was never the same.

The easiest would be to have a 4trk that has 4 simultaneous outs with a
hardware interface that has at least 4 simultaneous ins.

--
-Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I have a 4-track tape that I want to digitize using Sound
Forge. I was thinking of playing the tape back on a
4-track deck into my computer's sound card one track at a
time. However the timing would likely be off.

You can manually synch them with good multitrack editing/mixing software.

But since it's an analog deck with speed fluctuations, wow and flutter etc.
not easy to do for two or more passes.
(Unless you like the timing/phasing problems that would be introduced of
course :-)

Is there any way I can input 4 separate tracks at one time and
save them to separate tracks in Sound Forge?

I guess. I'm not a Sound Forge expert - what you want to do would be easy
in
Audition.

Possible in Audition, *not easy* to get good results though, if you want to
get rid of the speed variation problem.
You would have to use Vegas rather than Sound Forge for a Sony alternative.

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The way you handle that is you split the tracks every once in a while and
then resynch them.

Which takes care of long term speed errors, but not wow & flutter variations
between passes, when using an analog tape deck.
Mucho extra work, and still a poor result. If it's worth doing at all, use a
muti-track soundcard instead.

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The way you handle that is you split the tracks every
once in a while and then resynch them.

Which takes care of long term speed errors, but not wow &
flutter variations between passes, when using an analog
tape deck.

Wow and flutter are completely different issues. They are there whether you
digitize one track at a time, or all of them. Furhtermore, half or more of
the wow and flutter is in the original recording. They are often
correctable, but only with considerable expense and trouble.

Mucho extra work, and still a poor result.

Hopefully, not too much work to do this way.

If it's worth doing at all, use a muti-track soundcard instead.

That only solves the easiest of the problems to cure, and does not really do
that much for flutter and wow.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:43:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Wow and flutter are completely different issues. They are there whether you
digitize one track at a time, or all of them. Furhtermore, half or more of
the wow and flutter is in the original recording. They are often
correctable, but only with considerable expense and trouble.

But on a single pass, wow and flutter are the same for each track.
Don't you feel this makes a difference?

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:43:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Wow and flutter are completely different issues. They
are there whether you digitize one track at a time, or
all of them. Furhtermore, half or more of the wow and
flutter is in the original recording. They are often
correctable, but only with considerable expense and
trouble.

But on a single pass, wow and flutter are the same for
each track. Don't you feel this makes a difference?

Usually its a minor difference.

Like I said earlier... The problem is obvious and irreconcilable if you try
to match two different tracks that have time and phase related signals. A
recording made with a stereo mic would be an example. There is no way to
capture the left in one pass of the tape and the right in another and then
line them up in time, with proper phase alignment. That is the very reason
that wide tape, analog multitrack formats exist.

It is also worth noting that both of the effects of flanging and phase
shifting were first implemented with analog tape machines. Phase shifting
can be accomplished by drifting the azimuth alignment on the head, either
while recording or playing back a signal. And flanging actually got its name
from the practice of running two tape machines side by side with exactly the
same signal recorded on both of them. Putting a finger on the "flange" of
the supply reel of one machine would slow it down a bit to make it lag
behind the other machine, "flanging" the second machine would cause it to
slow down, meet up with and lag behind the first, and so on.

James. )


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:43:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Wow and flutter are completely different issues. They
are there whether you digitize one track at a time, or
all of them. Furhtermore, half or more of the wow and
flutter is in the original recording. They are often
correctable, but only with considerable expense and
trouble.

But on a single pass, wow and flutter are the same for
each track. Don't you feel this makes a difference?

Usually its a minor difference.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The way you handle that is you split the tracks every
once in a while and then resynch them.

Which takes care of long term speed errors, but not wow &
flutter variations between passes, when using an analog
tape deck.

Wow and flutter are completely different issues. They are there whether
you
digitize one track at a time, or all of them. Furhtermore, half or more of
the wow and flutter is in the original recording. They are often
correctable, but only with considerable expense and trouble.

But only becomes a *sync* issue when you try to realign tracks that were
recorded in seperate passes.
It's not about getting rid of the wow & flutter itself. I'm surprised you
didn't get that.

Mucho extra work, and still a poor result.

Hopefully, not too much work to do this way.

If a poor result is acceptable to you, then probably not.

If it's worth doing at all, use a muti-track soundcard instead.

That only solves the easiest of the problems to cure, and does not really
do
that much for flutter and wow.

The wow and flutter only causes wow & flutter when recorded in one pass. It
will be no worse than the original.
When done in two or more passes it will cause echoes and/or phasing
problems, as well as the wow & flutter.

MrT.

"James Lehman" wrote in message


Like I said earlier... The problem is obvious and
irreconcilable if you try to match two different tracks
that have time and phase related signals. A recording
made with a stereo mic would be an example. There is no
way to capture the left in one pass of the tape and the
right in another and then line them up in time, with
proper phase alignment. That is the very reason that wide
tape, analog multitrack formats exist.

Just saying something, even more than once, doesn't make it true.

I've struggled with the problem of time-aligning tracks from time to time,
and have the following to report:

If two signals are very similar, then they are quite easy to time-align. If
they are quite different, then the need to time-align them precisely is
vastly reduced.

I'm not saying that people should go out of their way to introduce problems
like these, but once they are there, they can be managed with fairly
satisfactory results.

For example, the outputs of stereo mics aren't perfectly time-aligned in the
first place, for a number of pretty obvious technical reasons, the most
obvious being that two microphones can't share the identical same space.

It is also worth noting that both of the effects of
flanging and phase shifting were first implemented with
analog tape machines.

However, creating audible effects requires that fairly large differences be
introduced.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:52:06 GMT, "James Lehman"
wrote:

Like I said earlier... The problem is obvious and irreconcilable if you try
to match two different tracks that have time and phase related signals. A
recording made with a stereo mic would be an example. There is no way to
capture the left in one pass of the tape and the right in another and then
line them up in time, with proper phase alignment.

Well, yes there is. But it's maybe beyond the scope of this particular
discussion.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"James Lehman" wrote in message


Like I said earlier... The problem is obvious and
irreconcilable if you try to match two different tracks
that have time and phase related signals. A recording
made with a stereo mic would be an example. There is no
way to capture the left in one pass of the tape and the
right in another and then line them up in time, with
proper phase alignment. That is the very reason that wide
tape, analog multitrack formats exist.

Just saying something, even more than once, doesn't make it true.

I've struggled with the problem of time-aligning tracks from time to time,
and have the following to report:

If two signals are very similar, then they are quite easy to time-align.
If
they are quite different, then the need to time-align them precisely is
vastly reduced.

I'm not saying that people should go out of their way to introduce
problems
like these, but once they are there, they can be managed with fairly
satisfactory results.

For example, the outputs of stereo mics aren't perfectly time-aligned in
the
first place, for a number of pretty obvious technical reasons, the most
obvious being that two microphones can't share the identical same space.


Yes, the stereo tracks from a stereo mic ARE perfectly time aligned to
create whatever stereo image is there. That's the whole point. The phase
relationship between these two tracks is critical down to a tiny fraction of
the shortest wavelengths in the recorded signal. That is why you have two
ears. As a matter of fact, in a digital recording it is exactly critical to
the sample.





It is also worth noting that both of the effects of
flanging and phase shifting were first implemented with
analog tape machines.

However, creating audible effects requires that fairly large differences
be
introduced.

Absolutely NOT. 3D spatial perception of sound requires only the tiniest
differences between the stereo signals. Consider how far apart your ears
are.

If you think you can run a tape twice, get the left in one pass and the
right in another pass and time align that to accurately recreate a stereo
mic recording, you are mistaken.


James. )

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I've struggled with the problem of time-aligning tracks from time to time,
and have the following to report:

If two signals are very similar, then they are quite easy to time-align.

Yep, with digitally recorded signals it is trivial to time align, even if
the clocks are not synced. I do it all the time too for video.

For analog recordings, which is what we are discussing, it is altogether
more difficult.

If they are quite different, then the need to time-align them precisely is
vastly reduced.

"Quite different" being important, which they probably aren't in this case.

I'm not saying that people should go out of their way to introduce
problems
like these, but once they are there, they can be managed with fairly
satisfactory results.

In some cases yes, but you still fail to acknowledge that the problems for
analog recordings are different than digitally derived recordings.

For example, the outputs of stereo mics aren't perfectly time-aligned in
the
first place, for a number of pretty obvious technical reasons, the most
obvious being that two microphones can't share the identical same space.

Of course, but the phase doesn't vary all over the place unless the mics are
being constantly moved.
If the playback tape deck comes from another universe and is absolutely
*perfect*, then there will be no added problems there either.

However, creating audible effects requires that fairly large differences
be
introduced.

"Large" being a relative term. Do you mean *you can't* actually pick the
phase problems caused by differing wow & flutter, speed errors etc, using
multiple passes??

MrT.

"James Lehman" wrote in message
...
If you think you can run a tape twice, get the left in one pass and the
right in another pass and time align that to accurately recreate a stereo
mic recording, you are mistaken.

Sure you can, *IF* the tape recording is digital. I sure agree it can't be
done with analog tape.

MrT.

"James Lehman" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

For example, the outputs of stereo mics aren't perfectly
time-aligned in the first place, for a number of pretty
obvious technical reasons, the most obvious being that
two microphones can't share the identical same space.

Yes, the stereo tracks from a stereo mic ARE perfectly
time aligned to create whatever stereo image is there.

No the outputs of a stereo mic are *never* perfectly aligned because a
stereo mic must have two mic elements and they can't occupy the same space.

That's the whole point.

No, what we call stereo mics are only approximations of ideal stereo
microphones.

The phase relationship between
these two tracks is critical down to a tiny fraction of
the shortest wavelengths in the recorded signal.

Wrong again. See former comments about the impossibility of the mic elements
being coincident.

That is why you have two ears.

Human ears aren't coincidient, either. At least mine aren't, I guess I don't
know about yours! ;-)

As a matter of fact, in a digital
recording it is exactly critical to the sample.

Not at all. All recording with microphones is only a rough approximation of
the ideal.

It is also worth noting that both of the effects of
flanging and phase shifting were first implemented with
analog tape machines.

However, creating audible effects requires that fairly
large differences be introduced.

Absolutely NOT.

Absolutely so. I do tons of live recording with so-called coincident mics.
I've done real-world experiments and analyzed the signals quite thoroughly.

3D spatial perception of sound requires
only the tiniest differences between the stereo signals.

Actually, 3D spatial perception of sound is based on differences that are
quite large compared to the tolerances with which we can create and analyze
signals.

Consider how far apart your ears are.

It's what 8 wavelengths at 10 KHz?

Got any idea about the amplitude differences that are caused by HRTFs? They
are several to many dB.

If you think you can run a tape twice, get the left in
one pass and the right in another pass and time align
that to accurately recreate a stereo mic recording, you
are mistaken.

Been there, done that many times.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
No the outputs of a stereo mic are *never* perfectly aligned because a
stereo mic must have two mic elements and they can't occupy the same
space.

That's the whole point.

No, what we call stereo mics are only approximations of ideal stereo
microphones.

If two identical mics *did* occupy the same space, you would simply get
mono. Surely not what is wanted.
OTOH, a M/S pair occupying the same space may be an improvement.

The phase relationship between
these two tracks is critical down to a tiny fraction of
the shortest wavelengths in the recorded signal.

Wrong again. See former comments about the impossibility of the mic
elements
being coincident.

Which is not required. Even a "coincident" pair requires the mic pickup
pattern to be differening angles, so not exactly the same space. And of
course they also suffer from having both mics off axis to the main source.

It is also worth noting that both of the effects of
flanging and phase shifting were first implemented with
analog tape machines.

However, creating audible effects requires that fairly
large differences be introduced.

Absolutely NOT.

Absolutely so. I do tons of live recording with so-called coincident
mics.
I've done real-world experiments and analyzed the signals quite
thoroughly.

Hardly what was being originally discussed though.
Agreed stationary coincident mics do not present the same problem as anolog
tape wow & flutter on multiple pass recording.
Is this just a red herring, or deliberate straw man?

3D spatial perception of sound requires
only the tiniest differences between the stereo signals.

Actually, 3D spatial perception of sound is based on differences that are
quite large compared to the tolerances with which we can create and
analyze
signals.

So is analog tape wow & flutter.

If you think you can run a tape twice, get the left in
one pass and the right in another pass and time align
that to accurately recreate a stereo mic recording, you
are mistaken.

Been there, done that many times.

It would seem you haven't with *analog* tape recordings though.

MrT.

If you think you can run a tape twice, get the left in
one pass and the right in another pass and time align
that to accurately recreate a stereo mic recording, you
are mistaken.

Been there, done that many times.

It would seem you haven't with *analog* tape recordings though.

MrT.



At least one other pserson gets it.

James. )

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

No the outputs of a stereo mic are *never* perfectly
aligned because a stereo mic must have two mic elements
and they can't occupy the same space.

That's the whole point.

No, what we call stereo mics are only approximations of
ideal stereo microphones.

If two identical mics *did* occupy the same space, you
would simply get mono. Surely not what is wanted.
OTOH, a M/S pair occupying the same space may be an
improvement.

Later on in your post talk your way out of this conundrum, so there's no
need for me to correct you.

Stereo mics are composed of two elements, and of course the elements may be
different kinds of mics or mics oriented at different angles. As a practical
matter they cannot occupy the same space either totally or partially. The
fact that they are always displaced from each other in one or more planes
means that they are never perfectly time-aligned in all planes. Since sound
is picked up in a wide variety of planes, the mics response is never
perfectly time-aligned.

It would seem you haven't with *analog* tape recordings
though.

Wrong again. Ironically, the tracks of analog tape recordings are never
*exactly* time aligned due to the fact that analog tape azimuth is rarely if
ever perfect, or perfectly stable.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Stereo mics are composed of two elements, and of course the elements may
be
different kinds of mics or mics oriented at different angles. As a
practical
matter they cannot occupy the same space either totally or partially. The
fact that they are always displaced from each other in one or more planes
means that they are never perfectly time-aligned in all planes. Since
sound
is picked up in a wide variety of planes, the mics response is never
perfectly time-aligned.

Agreed, and does not contradict what I said. Two perfectly identical mics
occupying identical space would give you mono. Not much point that I can
see.
But what exactly has that to do with the discussion of analog tape wow and
flutter / multipass phase errors anyway?

Wrong again. Ironically, the tracks of analog tape recordings are never
*exactly* time aligned due to the fact that analog tape azimuth is rarely
if
ever perfect, or perfectly stable.

Agreed. So what you need is an analog tape recorder with less time/phase
errors due to wow and flutter than azimuth modulation.
Let me know if you ever find one!
In the meantime it's far easier, as you well know, to use a multi-channel
sound card.

MrT.