Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... The problem with the higher end cassette decks was always that while they were able to make slight improvements on the performance of the cassette format, they could not make improvements that in any way compared, either technically or from a listening standpoint, with those that became available at a far lower cost with even the now-endemic and cheap 16/44 digital. The spec sheet for the ION Tape2PC shows the bitter truth quite well: Frequency response (-20 dB recorded level) 40-15,000 Hz +/- 3 dB (Chrome tape) 40-14,000 Hz +/- 3 dB (Normal tape) (0 dB recorded level) 40-8,000 Hz +/- 3 dB (Chrome tape) 40-8,000 Hz +/- 3 dB (Normal tape) The +/- 3 dB often manifested itself as maybe a 0.5 to 1 dB rise followed by a -5 or more dB roll off at the indicated frequency. The above is for a modern, basic cheap dual-well cassette deck costing about $100. What did the Nakamichi Dragon do to improve this situation? (-20 dB recorded level) 20-21,000 Hz +/- 3 dB (Chrome tape) 20-22,000 Hz +/- 3 dB (Normal tape) I cannot find any documented bench tests that show how the Dragon works at 0 dB recorded level, but it is probably appreciably better than the $100 cheapie. Thing is, when we are transcribing tapes, we are limited by the machine the tape was made on, and its pretty well guaranteed that any tape we have to work with was not made on a Dragon or something like it. And often the main benefit of a Dragon for playback (azimuth tracking) is just guilding an already dead lily. As a rule, commercially duplicated cassette tapes sounded worse than tapes made at home, even tapes made on average home machines. Compare that to the CD format: (-20 dB recorded level) 1-20,000 Hz +/- 0.1 dB (using any media that records and plays reliably) (0 dB recorded level) 1-20,000 Hz +/- 0.1 dB (using any media that records and plays reliably) Not to mention distortion, wow & flutter and a dozen other parameters infinitely improved over cassette. Trevor. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Absolutely true. But that doesn't change the point I was making... The Dragon is a marvelous piece of technology. More correctly, WAS a marvelous piece of technology (in it's day, long since past) Trevor. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"mcp6453" wrote in message ... For the record, and I should have mentioned this, I am only interested in playback. I cannot ever imagine recording to a cassette again. At this point, I have two plus days invested in transferring FOUR cassette tapes to digital. If the Dragon speeds up the process and obtains the best quality that is available from the tape, then it's worth the price. If I have to fight the squealing tape problem on the Dragon as much as I do on the Teac, my productivity will not be enhanced as much as I hope it will. $1500 for four tapes! You better hope you can sell it without much effort or THAT will have FAR more effect on your productivity! Trevor. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Dec 23, 12:49*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan "With Capstan there is now for the first time a program capable of removing wow and flutter from musical recordings - whether on tape, compact cassette, wax, shellac or vinyl. Capstan detects wow and flutter by analyzing the musical material itself, so the medium is of no relevance. In this, Capstan is clearly superior to solutions such as bias tracking, because Capstan still works even if the tape has already been copied several times or digitized only in low resolution. " And they sell it for about the price of two clean Dragons. Pity -- I could use it on some recordings I have. Peace, Paul |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"PStamler" wrote in message
... On Dec 23, 12:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan "With Capstan there is now for the first time a program capable of removing wow and flutter from musical recordings - whether on tape, compact cassette, wax, shellac or vinyl. Capstan detects wow and flutter by analyzing the musical material itself, so the medium is of no relevance. In this, Capstan is clearly superior to solutions such as bias tracking, because Capstan still works even if the tape has already been copied several times or digitized only in low resolution." I'm curious as to how Capstan distinguishes between flutter and vibrato -- or simply the fact that even a note played without intentional vibrato might not have a steady pitch. And here's an example of why I'm so insistent on defining "science" as the process of asking the right questions. These are my "right questions" about Capstan -- Has anyone ever applied it to a purely digital recording? If so, what happened? |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:06:10 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "PStamler" wrote in message ... On Dec 23, 12:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan "With Capstan there is now for the first time a program capable of removing wow and flutter from musical recordings - whether on tape, compact cassette, wax, shellac or vinyl. Capstan detects wow and flutter by analyzing the musical material itself, so the medium is of no relevance. In this, Capstan is clearly superior to solutions such as bias tracking, because Capstan still works even if the tape has already been copied several times or digitized only in low resolution." I'm curious as to how Capstan distinguishes between flutter and vibrato -- or simply the fact that even a note played without intentional vibrato might not have a steady pitch. With vibrato it will be one component of the sound only (the voice) that has the wobble. Flutter moves everything simultaneously and equally. And here's an example of why I'm so insistent on defining "science" as the process of asking the right questions. These are my "right questions" about Capstan -- Has anyone ever applied it to a purely digital recording? If so, what happened? In a purely digital recording, why would you need to? None of the mechanisms that it is trying to correct exist in a purely digital recording. d |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:06:10 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'm curious as to how Capstan distinguishes between flutter and vibrato -- or simply the fact that even a note played without intentional vibrato might not have a steady pitch. With vibrato it will be one component of the sound only (the voice) that has the wobble. Flutter moves everything simultaneously and equally. Aren't you aware of how violins (for example) are played? So... How does Capstan "know" what it's listening to (analyzing)? And here's an example of why I'm so insistent on defining "science" as the process of asking the right questions. These are my "right questions" about Capstan -- Has anyone ever applied it to a purely digital recording? If so, what happened? In a purely digital recording, why would you need to? None of the mechanisms that it is trying to correct exist in a purely digital recording. Do you see, people? Do you see why trying to get people to think critically is a losing battle? My two "right questions" stand. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:33:53 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:06:10 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'm curious as to how Capstan distinguishes between flutter and vibrato -- or simply the fact that even a note played without intentional vibrato might not have a steady pitch. With vibrato it will be one component of the sound only (the voice) that has the wobble. Flutter moves everything simultaneously and equally. Aren't you aware of how violins (for example) are played? So... How does Capstan "know" what it's listening to (analyzing)? Have you ever tried Melodyne? And perhaps more importantly, do you think that all of the violins synchronize their vibrato? They don't, specifically to make the sound "fatter". When you have many sounds, all with slightly different vibrato patterns, then you do not have any flutter to correct. It is only when EVERY sound moves in synchronism that a correction is required. And here's an example of why I'm so insistent on defining "science" as the process of asking the right questions. These are my "right questions" about Capstan -- Has anyone ever applied it to a purely digital recording? If so, what happened? In a purely digital recording, why would you need to? None of the mechanisms that it is trying to correct exist in a purely digital recording. Do you see, people? Do you see why trying to get people to think critically is a losing battle? No idea what you are talking about. Is it wow or flutter in an entirely digital system that you are seeking to correct? My two "right questions" stand. Your first question is good, and I hope I have answered it. Your second question is, I'm afraid, meaningless. d |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:33:53 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:06:10 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'm curious as to how Capstan distinguishes between flutter and vibrato -- or simply the fact that even a note played without intentional vibrato might not have a steady pitch. With vibrato it will be one component of the sound only (the voice) that has the wobble. Flutter moves everything simultaneously and equally. Aren't you aware of how violins (for example) are played? So... How does Capstan "know" what it's listening to (analyzing)? Have you ever tried Melodyne? And perhaps more importantly, do you think that all of the violins synchronize their vibrato? They don't, specifically to make the sound "fatter". When you have many sounds, all with slightly different vibrato patterns, then you do not have any flutter to correct. It is only when EVERY sound moves in synchronism that a correction is required. So flutter doesn't audibly affect the sound quality of instruments played with vibrato, and therefore doesn't need correction? Hmmm... And here's an example of why I'm so insistent on defining "science" as the process of asking the right questions. These are my "right questions" about Capstan -- Has anyone ever applied it to a purely digital recording? If so, what happened? In a purely digital recording, why would you need to? None of the mechanisms that it is trying to correct exist in a purely digital recording. Do you see, people? Do you see why trying to get people to think critically is a losing battle? No idea what you are talking about. Is it wow or flutter in an entirely digital system that you are seeking to correct? No. I'm asking how Capstan behaves when the source DOES NOT contain flutter. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 05:44:40 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:33:53 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 04:06:10 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I'm curious as to how Capstan distinguishes between flutter and vibrato -- or simply the fact that even a note played without intentional vibrato might not have a steady pitch. With vibrato it will be one component of the sound only (the voice) that has the wobble. Flutter moves everything simultaneously and equally. Aren't you aware of how violins (for example) are played? So... How does Capstan "know" what it's listening to (analyzing)? Have you ever tried Melodyne? And perhaps more importantly, do you think that all of the violins synchronize their vibrato? They don't, specifically to make the sound "fatter". When you have many sounds, all with slightly different vibrato patterns, then you do not have any flutter to correct. It is only when EVERY sound moves in synchronism that a correction is required. So flutter doesn't audibly affect the sound quality of instruments played with vibrato, and therefore doesn't need correction? Hmmm... Are you reading another post? Yes, flutter does affect instruments played with vibrato, and yes flutter will be corrected. The instrument's own vibrato won't be "corrected" as it is present only on that instrument, and not on all of the others on the recording. Of course if the recording is of just the one instrument, it won't work. But that isn 't what we are talking about, is it? And here's an example of why I'm so insistent on defining "science" as the process of asking the right questions. These are my "right questions" about Capstan -- Has anyone ever applied it to a purely digital recording? If so, what happened? In a purely digital recording, why would you need to? None of the mechanisms that it is trying to correct exist in a purely digital recording. Do you see, people? Do you see why trying to get people to think critically is a losing battle? No idea what you are talking about. Is it wow or flutter in an entirely digital system that you are seeking to correct? No. I'm asking how Capstan behaves when the source DOES NOT contain flutter. I'm willing to bet that it does nothing, as it will find nothing to correct. d |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"PStamler" wrote in message ... On Dec 23, 12:49 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan "With Capstan there is now for the first time a program capable of removing wow and flutter from musical recordings - whether on tape, compact cassette, wax, shellac or vinyl. Capstan detects wow and flutter by analyzing the musical material itself, so the medium is of no relevance. In this, Capstan is clearly superior to solutions such as bias tracking, because Capstan still works even if the tape has already been copied several times or digitized only in low resolution." I'm curious as to how Capstan distinguishes between flutter and vibrato -- or simply the fact that even a note played without intentional vibrato might not have a steady pitch. The user does it. There are a bunch of settings that have to be adjusted on the fly, and even so it is a fine line between sucking the life out of music and cleaning it. The overall effect is useful for severely damaged recordings but even so it's still a slow and painstaking process. Think of it sort of like Autotune... you can do it judiciously and you can do it well, or you can do it without thought and make things sound awful. and here's an example of why I'm so insistent on defining "science" as the process of asking the right questions. These are my "right questions" about Capstan -- Has anyone ever applied it to a purely digital recording? If so, what happened? I did not, but you can adjust it to that it does nothing. Likewise you can adjust it so everything sounds like the Academy of Ancient Music. It's a sword with two edges. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 05:44:40 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: So flutter doesn't audibly affect the sound quality of instruments played with vibrato, and therefore doesn't need correction? Hmmm... Are you reading another post? No, I'm asking a logical question. Yes, flutter does affect instruments played with vibrato, and yes flutter will be corrected. The instrument's own vibrato won't be "corrected" as it is present only on that instrument, and not on all of the others on the recording. Of course if the recording is of just the one instrument, it won't work. But that isn 't what we are talking about, is it? I thought it was. The question remains open -- how does Capstan distinguish between flutter and vibrato? No. I'm asking how Capstan behaves when the source DOES NOT contain flutter. I'm willing to bet that it does nothing, as it will find nothing to correct. Okay. Has anyone done the experiment? |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
Thanks for clarifying things, Scott.
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
wrote in message
... SNIP knowing when it's advisable to go forward using them, or, in the case of others, when nothing else will do but re-track the session g. Or, in this case, it might enable you to resurrect old tapes which you couldn't otherwise with the equipment you've got to hand. Richard's got it. You can talk about how the Dragon is old technology, or you had a Nakamichi that wasn't what you wanted it to be, or Capstan is a cruch with the potential to do more harm than good, but the fact remains that there are some cassettes that have recorded material that someone believes worth preserving/polishing at whatever cost. I've had clients willing to pay whatever it took to retrieve material from old 8 track cassettes, from the audio track on 1/2 inch video tape, from wire recordings, from almost every other medium used to store audio. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has found a powdered or liquid lubricant that can overcome some of the tape squeal problems I've encountered with cassettes and some older 1/4 inch tapes. I've baked a few, but it would be cool to have a micro-spritzer with some magic juice that could take care of squeal of the non-sticky shed variety. Steve |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Thanks for clarifying things, Scott. Now, if you want real flutter removal in an unattended way, using the Plangent system to recover residual bias and lock speed to it gives really a night and day change in the sound. It's like everything is tightened up and much of the sense of blending of instruments goes away. The effect is dramatic enough that I sometimes wonder if it's a good idea or if it's eliminating something the producer originally compensated for in the mixing. Mind you it's probably not practical for a 1 7/8 ips cassette. --scott Incidentally this morning I was going through old issues of Audio Amateur looking for the original Jung modification to the Magnavox CD players, and found your letter on VHS vs. Beta.... -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:29:40 -0500, mcp6453 wrote:
Hello everybody. The last time I posted here has been a couple of years ago. First I'd like to greet all RAP regulars (Hi Scott, hi Arny and the others) here and I'm glad that you all are doing well. I'm still fine , too. Now, speaking of that old darn compact cassettes, I'd only say what I'm doing while transferring them as well as reel-to-reel tapes: I do a check by recording some bits at beginning, middle and the end of the tape and in computer, sum it up to mono. If there is a varied azimuth shift such at cassettes, I'm mostly helpless as I don't have some tools by eg. Cedar and Cube-Tech claiming that they can fix it. I'd like to know whether the resuls were flawless without any artifacts etc. Reel to reel tapes tend to have a more or less fixed azimuth angle error and I do not need to adjust the azimuth screw anymore (Allen Hex metric #8 I think, at Revox PR99 and B77 and I think at 1/4" Studers). Instead I do this: I downloaded a DirectX plug-in called "Sample Slide" from he http://www.analogx.com/contents/down...e/Freeware.htm This plug-in is capable of shifting all the track in both directions with a 1-sample precision. Now in eg. Sound Forge, samples are shown as dots when the envelope display is stretched to maximum. At mono recordings, one picks the sharpest possible event, a click or similar. Display count mode should be selected to show number of samples and not time at the lower right information window. Now selecting the difference between the peaks of such sharp event in left and right track, one sees how much samples this difference is couting. In the Sample Slide plugin, one disengages the Connect button, sets the upper value to eg. 10 and lower value to 10 plus or minus number of samples aready counted. After activating the plug-in, upper track jumps 10 samples forward and lower track for number of samples stated. If done properly, the whole recording should be sample accurate (in the case the azimuth isn't changing over the time) and this should give the same result as if the azimuth has previously been set traditionally, by reproduce head screw. Also, By summing up monitors and inverting the right track, one can hear the difference only and, upon setting both values in the Sample Slide plugin to eg. 10, he can "wander" to and fro to achieve the best cancellation. False positives are of course possible, so here a 2-3 samples headroom will do the best in most cases. Higher values would be nesessary for only for recording being desperatedly out of track. Of course, don't forger to invert the second track to its normal and set the monitors back to stereo. This is for mono. For stereo this second method is also applicable with good results, but now you are watchinhg for best cancellation of middle signals such bass, vocal etc. Similary to various "vocal remover" tools fo karaoke. I also pay attention to the correct pitch. Nobody warrants that an old recording is recorded at exactly 50 or 60 Hz and with dubs, things get worse. Usually, there is a residual 50/100 o6 60/120 Hz hum. This should be sufficient for estimating the pitch as you can select a silent ie. empty piece of recording and check it with a FFT analyser (Sound Forge has it built-in). For the final check, again in Sound Forge, you have a midi keyboard option, by which you can use your ears and make a final check. It is astonishing how things get better after correctingh the pitch. Not only the piece can be accompanied without actually de-tuning your instrument but (what is more important) the sound gets more open, precise and natural. This is because by retuning the recording to the normal pitch (assumed A440, but caveat, this is not always the case especially with shellac records), you are bringing the harmonic structure back to normal. Well no more honky Micky Mouse or Donald Duck voices. Its of course not because singers or speakers were quite young then (that is true allright) but by detuning, human voice formants are messed up as well. So, this is my opinion about the two issues , about the effect of flutter and scrape flutter on harmonics I'd beter not discuss now... Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all, Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia Since I'm off until the end of the year, I decided to finally archive a large quantity of audio cassettes. Unfortunately, when I cranked up my cassette deck for the first time in a while, it was toast. The logic is screwed up on the left well such that the door will not open. The pressure roller on the right side is coated and hard to clean. There turned out to be a couple of cold solder joints in the power supply, which I fixed, and that allowed me to get the right deck going, but I don't have any confidence in the deck. It already ate one tape. Are the new cassette decks ($300 range) any good? I hate to spend that much money to buy a deck just to archive, but if I don't, I'm going to end up finding tapes that I can't play. Alternatively, does anyone here have a semi-pro deck in great shape to sell? |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
If done properly, the whole recording should be sample accurate (in the case the azimuth isn't changing over the time) and this should give the same result as if the azimuth has previously been set traditionally, by reproduce head screw. Shifting the two tarcks in time will be able to align the two tracks (L and R) to each other BUT head azimuth error also impacts the frequency response in severe cases causing severe nulling in the frequency resopose of each track. This CANNOT be corrected by simply re-timing the tracks. You could correct it with EQ but the large amount of boost needed to flatten out the response would certainly add noise. As far as I know the only and the best way to correct for head azimuth errors (both timing and frequency response) is to physically re-adjust the azimuth of the playback head to match the tape. This cannot be done with signal processing after the fact without adding noise. It is astonishing how things get better after correctingh the pitch. Not only the piece can be accompanied without actually de-tuning your instrument but (what is more important) the sound gets more open, precise and natural. This is because by retuning the recording to the normal pitch (assumed A440, but caveat, this is not always the case especially with shellac records), you are bringing the harmonic structure back to normal. Well no more honky Micky Mouse or Donald Duck voices. Its of course not because singers or speakers were quite young then (that is true allright) but by detuning, human voice formants are messed up as well. I also disagree with this. Speed errors do not hurt the "harmonic structure". Played back correctly 440 and 880 and 1320 are harmonically related. If the speed is a little high the signals would be 441 and 882 and 1323. These are STILL harmonically related. Happy Holidays.... Mark |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:
If there is a varied azimuth shift such at cassettes, I'm mostly helpless as I don't have some tools by eg. Cedar and Cube-Tech claiming that they can fix it. I'd like to know whether the resuls were flawless without any artifacts etc. They don't fix it. They shift one track in time so that the stereo image centers again. The Cedar one can apply a compensating eq that boosts the highs (and the noise in the highs), making the response roughly flat. There is really no substitute for proper playback with correct azimuth. Reel to reel tapes tend to have a more or less fixed azimuth angle error and I do not need to adjust the azimuth screw anymore (Allen Hex metric #8 I think, at Revox PR99 and B77 and I think at 1/4" Studers). Instead I do this: If your tapes have tones on them, adjust the azimuth according to the tones and leave it. If the tapes weren't recorded with tones, the shift is probably a reasonable enough thing, but really open reel machines, if they are aligned properly and kept aligned, don't have too serious drift issues. Mind you with a 350, keeping it aligned is a full-time job, but it's not like the cassette where the azimuth is always disasterously off. If done properly, the whole recording should be sample accurate (in the case the azimuth isn't changing over the time) and this should give the same result as if the azimuth has previously been set traditionally, by reproduce head screw. It doesn't deal with the comb filtering. However, at 15 ips, the comb filtering isn't so bad. It's not like with a cassette. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On 12/24/2011 7:33 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
So... How does Capstan "know" what it's listening to (analyzing)? If they told you, they'd have to kill you. It makes some guesses, but they're based on things that it knows about music. I'm certain that it can be tripped up. I got a pretty good run through with one of the developers at the AES show and he said that it really works best on ensemble music. A single instrument doesn't give it enough information to apply what it knows. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Yes, flutter does affect instruments played with vibrato, and yes flutter will be corrected. The instrument's own vibrato won't be "corrected" as it is present only on that instrument, and not on all of the others on the recording. You are simply assuming it works perfectly, William is right to be more sceptical. Of course if the recording is of just the one instrument, it won't work. But that isn 't what we are talking about, is it? There were plenty of solo instrument recordings done on tape, and lot's more that contain a solo passage somewhere. No. I'm asking how Capstan behaves when the source DOES NOT contain flutter. I'm willing to bet that it does nothing, as it will find nothing to correct. You are a gambler, William is simply asking for some proof. I'm with him, I'd always test it on something known not to need it, and see if it screws up. Then I'd repeat that test on a number of other tracks that don't need it before trying it some that do. If the price mentioned is correct, I won't be trying it though. Trevor. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:47:57 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Yes, flutter does affect instruments played with vibrato, and yes flutter will be corrected. The instrument's own vibrato won't be "corrected" as it is present only on that instrument, and not on all of the others on the recording. You are simply assuming it works perfectly, William is right to be more sceptical. Of course if the recording is of just the one instrument, it won't work. But that isn 't what we are talking about, is it? There were plenty of solo instrument recordings done on tape, and lot's more that contain a solo passage somewhere. No. I'm asking how Capstan behaves when the source DOES NOT contain flutter. I'm willing to bet that it does nothing, as it will find nothing to correct. You are a gambler, William is simply asking for some proof. I'm with him, I'd always test it on something known not to need it, and see if it screws up. Then I'd repeat that test on a number of other tracks that don't need it before trying it some that do. If the price mentioned is correct, I won't be trying it though. Trevor. It is really simple. If you don't hear anything to correct, don't correct it. d |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... It is really simple. If you don't hear anything to correct, don't correct it. Of course, but the usual test is to more easily hear what might go wrong when there *is* something to correct. As Scott has pointed out though, it's not a hands off process, but one that definitely requires listening and tuning, so you are right in that testing on known good material is probably pointless in this case. Trevor. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:41:34 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ): The question remains open -- how does Capstan distinguish between flutter and vibrato? ------------------------------snip------------------------------ There is another process, the Plangent Technology "Clarity" set-up, which claims to eliminate wow & flutter in analog recordings by analyzing the bias signal and fixing that. This assumes that the recording isn't a dub made from bad source material. Since it's really just dealing with the sound per se, but rather with the bias, it's a pretty effective process. The explanation here is pretty interesting: http://www.triggertone.com/term/Clar...ngent_Processe s I know of at least one company in LA using this to do restoration work on old motion pictures. To me, the theory behind this makes more sense than the Capstan process. --MFW |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message .com... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:41:34 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote (in article ): The question remains open -- how does Capstan distinguish between flutter and vibrato? ------------------------------snip------------------------------ There is another process, the Plangent Technology "Clarity" set-up, which claims to eliminate wow & flutter in analog recordings by analyzing the bias signal and fixing that. This assumes that the recording isn't a dub made from bad source material. Since it's really just dealing with the sound per se, but rather with the bias, it's a pretty effective process. The explanation here is pretty interesting: http://www.triggertone.com/term/Clar...ngent_Processe s I know of at least one company in LA using this to do restoration work on old motion pictures. To me, the theory behind this makes more sense than the Capstan process. Agreed with a caveat: I suspect that people who are serious enough about restoration to invest in Palngent will also have Capstan around. Certainly, if you can pay the piper for Plangent process, Capstan is chump change for you. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:28:30 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ) : "Marc Wielage" wrote in message .com... On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 08:41:34 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote (in article ): The question remains open -- how does Capstan distinguish between flutter and vibrato? ------------------------------snip------------------------------ There is another process, the Plangent Technology "Clarity" set-up, which claims to eliminate wow & flutter in analog recordings by analyzing the bias signal and fixing that. This assumes that the recording isn't a dub made from bad source material. Since it's really just dealing with the sound per se, but rather with the bias, it's a pretty effective process. The explanation here is pretty interesting: http://www.triggertone.com/term/Clar...langent_Proces se s I know of at least one company in LA using this to do restoration work on old motion pictures. To me, the theory behind this makes more sense than the Capstan process. Agreed with a caveat: I suspect that people who are serious enough about restoration to invest in Palngent will also have Capstan around. Certainly, if you can pay the piper for Plangent process, Capstan is chump change for you. Isn't there a Pro Tools plug in that is supposed to reduce wow and flutter Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:37:38 -0800, Ty Ford wrote
(in article ET): Isn't there a Pro Tools plug in that is supposed to reduce wow and flutter ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Man, if you find out the name, let me know! There are a couple that allow you to adjust stereo phase (adjusting for bad azimuth, to a point), but they're pretty rudimentary. --MFW |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message .com... On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:37:38 -0800, Ty Ford wrote (in article ET): Isn't there a Pro Tools plug in that is supposed to reduce wow and flutter ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Man, if you find out the name, let me know! There are a couple that allow you to adjust stereo phase (adjusting for bad azimuth, to a point), but they're pretty rudimentary. Not only that but the kind of phase adjustments they provide can't possibly fully address the treble losses in each track due to poor azimuth adjustment. That all said, heroic attempts to recover audio from cassette tapes are similar in concept to teaching pigs to fly. It was only the desperation of the time that made anybody consider the cassette format as commonly implemented to be a true high fidelity medium. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On 12/27/2011 8:09 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message .com... On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:37:38 -0800, Ty Ford wrote (in article ET): Isn't there a Pro Tools plug in that is supposed to reduce wow and flutter ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Man, if you find out the name, let me know! There are a couple that allow you to adjust stereo phase (adjusting for bad azimuth, to a point), but they're pretty rudimentary. Not only that but the kind of phase adjustments they provide can't possibly fully address the treble losses in each track due to poor azimuth adjustment. That all said, heroic attempts to recover audio from cassette tapes are similar in concept to teaching pigs to fly. It was only the desperation of the time that made anybody consider the cassette format as commonly implemented to be a true high fidelity medium. Or there are those of us who archived things on cassette in years gone by not thinking that the content would be personally valuable in years to come. Time changes things. I'm not one of the class who tried to use cassette for high fidelity recordings, but I do have a lot of content for which I am willing to spend more money than I should to retrieve the content in its best possible form. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
It is possible to make very good recordings on Compact Cassette, especially
with metal-particle tape on well-engineered three-head decks. (I know, because I've done it.) The real problem with cassettes is that they're not archival. Not only is the tape itself mechanically fragile, but the wavelengths are so short that the recording gradually self-erases at high frequencies, even with Type IV materials. (Again, I can verify this from experience.) |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:08:34 -0500, Marc Wielage wrote
(in article ): On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:37:38 -0800, Ty Ford wrote (in article ET): Isn't there a Pro Tools plug in that is supposed to reduce wow and flutter ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Man, if you find out the name, let me know! There are a couple that allow you to adjust stereo phase (adjusting for bad azimuth, to a point), but they're pretty rudimentary. --MFW Hey Marc, Here ya go! http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan&L=0 Season's Best, Ty Fordf --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... That all said, heroic attempts to recover audio from cassette tapes are similar in concept to teaching pigs to fly. It was only the desperation of the time that made anybody consider the cassette format as commonly implemented to be a true high fidelity medium. Most people were quite happy to consider it a convenient music format in the car, boom boxes etc. (just as MP3 does now) Only morons ever considered it "HiFi". Even bigger ones are paying over $1k for a used Dragon nowadays! :-) Trevor. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Trevor" wrote in message
... Only morons ever considered it "HiFi". A good cassette deck could copy fairly demanding material with little or no audible change. Isn't that a good definition of "high fidelity"? |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
Trevor wrote:
: Only morons ever considered it "HiFi". Even bigger ones are paying over $1k : for a used Dragon nowadays! :-) : Trevor. I disagree. It depends on how valuable the material on the cassette is. If I had a cassette tape that contained the only known recording of Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong performing together, recorded by some guy who snuck a cassette recorder into the hall, it would be well-worth extracting the very best transfer of it possible. $1K would be peanuts in such a case, compared to the value of the recording. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Dec 27, 9:01*pm, wrote:
Trevor wrote: : Only morons ever considered it "HiFi". Even bigger ones are paying over $1k : for a used Dragon nowadays! :-) : Trevor. I disagree. *It depends on how valuable the material on the cassette is.. If I had a cassette tape that contained the only known recording of Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong performing together, recorded by some guy who snuck a cassette recorder into the hall, it would be well-worth extracting the very best transfer of it possible. *$1K would be peanuts in such a case, compared to the value of the recording. An actual case: I have a cassette of what may have been the last concert that folksinger Peter Bellamy gave before his tragic death. That's more than worth the hassle it took to transfer it, at least to those of us who revered his music. Similarly, my former wife made a field recording of a shape-note singing held by an Alabama group which I believe is no longer active. Fidelity? Atrocious (she used a handheld cassette recorder, all she had available). Musical and folkloristic importance? Priceless. (This group had an unusual repertoire which didn't match that of most Sacred Harp singing groups). Again, worth all the work to extract the most from the recording. I transferred both of them using a Nakamichi CR-3A, not quite up to the Dragon standard but very good sound, In the case of the Bellamy recording, that was the machine it was made on, which always helps. And it had been tweaked up beforehand, so the azimuth was spot on. Peace, Paul |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:33:48 -0800, Ty Ford wrote
(in article ET): Here ya go! http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=capstan&L=0 ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Oh, that's a standalone program. I was asking about an actual Pro Tools plug-in, which sounded too good to be true! --MFW |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Trevor" wrote in message ... Only morons ever considered it "HiFi". A good cassette deck could copy fairly demanding material with little or no audible change. Isn't that a good definition of "high fidelity"? Depends what one calls "little or no audible change". Running ABX tests on cassette machines is cruel and unusual punishment for the machine and the media, and an easy walk in the garden for the listener. Been there, done that many times. Even the best studio machines can't pass this test: http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm IME there was never a analog tape machine that could record and playback LPs without some clearly audible change, and that includes high end studio machines in an excellent state of adjustment. A cassette machine whose sound was in the same league? Mission impossible! |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Trevor" wrote in message ... Only morons ever considered it "HiFi". A good cassette deck could copy fairly demanding material with little or no audible change. Isn't that a good definition of "high fidelity"? Depends what one calls "little or no audible change". Running ABX tests on cassette machines is cruel and unusual punishment for the machine and the media, and an easy walk in the garden for the listener. Been there, done that many times. Even the best studio machines can't pass this test: http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm IME there was never a analog tape machine that could record and play back LPs without some clearly audible change, and that includes high end studio machines in an excellent state of adjustment. A cassette machine whose sound was in the same league? Mission impossible! I won't gainsay your testing experience. I might be biased because the first really good-sounding tape deck I owned was a Nakamichi 700 II. And -- under admittedly casual comparisons -- it did not introduce obvious errors. My previous machines had been a Sony 350 (a popular 3-head deck that sold for $200 in the '60s), a Pioneer RT-2000 semi-pro deck with interchangeable heads and recording amps, and a TEAC 450 cassette deck. All audibly degraded the input. The TEAC's sound was typical TEAC -- flat and grainy. (This was also true of TASCAM open-reel machines.) The Nakamichi easily beat them all -- it was clean and transparent. Needless to say, when digital came in, I switched and never looked back. Important Point... Running listening tests on tape decks has a problem you can't get around -- you always know which signal is the source, and which the playback. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... Important Point... Running listening tests on tape decks has a problem you can't get around -- you always know which signal is the source, and which the playback. If your source is digital, you simply play the digital source and the output of the tape machine level matched, time synched, and double blind. It is true that one can reliably tell the difference, but just by means of listening. AFAIK, that was what was done he http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm These tests were done by my friend (for decades) David Carlstrom, who was in the day arguably the best or among the very best analog tape technicians in Michigan. He clearly knows how to set this kind of test up, and he owns an ABX Comparator. The analog tape machine he used was one of the best Otaris of the day. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cassette Decks
PStamler wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:01 pm, wrote: An actual case: I have a cassette of what may have been the last concert that folksinger Peter Bellamy gave before his tragic death. That's more than worth the hassle it took to transfer it, at least to those of us who revered his music. Similarly, my former wife made a field recording of a shape-note singing held by an Alabama group which I believe is no longer active. Fidelity? Atrocious (she used a handheld cassette recorder, all she had available). Musical and folkloristic importance? Priceless. (This group had an unusual repertoire which didn't match that of most Sacred Harp singing groups). Again, worth all the work to extract the most from the recording. I transferred both of them using a Nakamichi CR-3A, not quite up to the Dragon standard but very good sound, In the case of the Bellamy recording, that was the machine it was made on, which always helps. And it had been tweaked up beforehand, so the azimuth was spot on. On one hand we have fideilty and on the other, content. The fidelity of most of field recordings I have is horrible, while the content has been captivating and deeply informative. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|