Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread

[Mike Rivers]

Since I have all of these things that I need, I don't keep very close
tabs on what's available and how they sound. So I need some experience here.

The project - to digitize a zillion tapes. No, I'm not doing it, someone
else is (hee, hee, hee) and he's gathering equipment. He'll probably get
paid, so it's OK. He has a Nakamichi Dragon for the cassettes and an
Otari MX-5050 for the reel-to-reel tapes, so he's OK there.

He would prefer to use a Mac for his working computer, and I don't have
any Mac experience (and he doesn't have a lot of hair left) so we're
trying to find something that will work straight off without having to
wait for "the next driver" to get it to work click-free. Since his Mac
doesn't have a PCI slot, he's looking for a Firewire or USB connection
to the computer. His budget is $350 (from the organization he's doing
the job for) but that can be stretched if it makes sense.

Requirements (this is ultimately going to the LIbrary of Congress) are
for 24-bit 96 kHz - just about everything does that. Copying, once a
reel is loaded, level set, and started playing, will be pretty much
unattended. The tapes span about 40 years, recorded by several different
people on several different machines. Quality is random, but he won't be
doing anything to clean them up, just making digital archive-ready
copies. He will be learning how to deal with all the associated problems
with tape so don't waste your time telling me/him about head alignment
and sticky shed if you don't have an interface to recommend.

I'm thinking that something with better than garden variety noise
performance would be an advantage so he can be safely conservative with
record level. I was a bit surprised to find that useful specs for line
inputs were conspicuous by their absence (or nonsense) on a number of
interfaces that I looked at. It would be nice if the line inputs had
enough input headroom (or padding ahead of the first active stage) so
that he can use the full output level from the Otari tape deck, which
would allow him to get full use of its VU meters. But it also needs
enough gain on the line inputs to record from the Nakamichi Dragon which
I assume, since it's a consumer deck, has the typical -10 dBV unbalanced
outputs. Mic preamps, I guess, are unavoidable, but are of no consequence.

My first suggestion, based on the manufacturer's reputation and the fact
that it's Mac-only so it's bound to work out of the box, was the Apogee
Duet, but as far as I can tell, the not-mic inputs are high impedance
for instrument pickups, which makes me a bit suspicious. What I'm
leaning toward now is the M-Audio ProFire 610 if he can get an extra $50
to spend, or PreSonus Firebox if he can't, and in a pinch, a TASCAM
US-122L. The M-Audio, at least on paper, looks like it has nearly 10 dB
less quiescent noise. Sort of in-the-running is the Edirol FA-66, but
I've read some (not necessarily qualified) poor on-line reports about
its Mac compatibility and noise level.

Any thoughts, preferably based on personal experience? Maybe the newer
t.c. or Focusrite stuff? I'd love to see him get into an RME Fireface
400 or Metric Halo ULN-2 but they're too far off budget.






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

[Dale A. Francis]

Mike
I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2, it has a lot going for it. 96/24 and
there is a preset in the dsp eq for the riaa equalization for
phonograph and you can plug most phono cartridges right into the
analogue in's as it has the correct impedance for such interfacing.
with metric halo's resent release of the uln8 and their 2d expansion,
you can find older dsp legacy boxes at good prices.

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> I'm thinking that something with better than garden variety noise
> performance would be an advantage so he can be safely conservative with
> record level.

I would look for a used Metric Halo ULN-2, legacy model. I've seen those
go for around $500, but last I watched was a couple of years ago.
Perhaps one could now be had for closer to his budget.

That would give terrific conversion and reliability. They are Mac only.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> Mike
> I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2, it has a lot going for it. 96/24 and
> there is a preset in the dsp eq for the riaa equalization for
> phonograph and you can plug most phono cartridges right into the
> analogue in's as it has the correct impedance for such interfacing.
> with metric halo's resent release of the uln8 and their 2d expansion,
> you can find older dsp legacy boxes at good prices.

Not sure one could get a ULN-2+DSP for his budget. If so, though, I say
go for it.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Marko L. Spilberg]

I would go with the Presonus firebox, I use one in my smaller studio, and it
performs flawlessly.

Marko.


www.spielbergaudio.com





"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Since I have all of these things that I need, I don't keep very close tabs
> on what's available and how they sound. So I need some experience here.
>
> The project - to digitize a zillion tapes. No, I'm not doing it, someone
> else is (hee, hee, hee) and he's gathering equipment. He'll probably get
> paid, so it's OK. He has a Nakamichi Dragon for the cassettes and an Otari
> MX-5050 for the reel-to-reel tapes, so he's OK there.
>
> He would prefer to use a Mac for his working computer, and I don't have
> any Mac experience (and he doesn't have a lot of hair left) so we're
> trying to find something that will work straight off without having to
> wait for "the next driver" to get it to work click-free. Since his Mac
> doesn't have a PCI slot, he's looking for a Firewire or USB connection to
> the computer. His budget is $350 (from the organization he's doing the job
> for) but that can be stretched if it makes sense.
>
> Requirements (this is ultimately going to the LIbrary of Congress) are for
> 24-bit 96 kHz - just about everything does that. Copying, once a reel is
> loaded, level set, and started playing, will be pretty much unattended.
> The tapes span about 40 years, recorded by several different people on
> several different machines. Quality is random, but he won't be doing
> anything to clean them up, just making digital archive-ready copies. He
> will be learning how to deal with all the associated problems with tape so
> don't waste your time telling me/him about head alignment and sticky shed
> if you don't have an interface to recommend.
>
> I'm thinking that something with better than garden variety noise
> performance would be an advantage so he can be safely conservative with
> record level. I was a bit surprised to find that useful specs for line
> inputs were conspicuous by their absence (or nonsense) on a number of
> interfaces that I looked at. It would be nice if the line inputs had
> enough input headroom (or padding ahead of the first active stage) so that
> he can use the full output level from the Otari tape deck, which would
> allow him to get full use of its VU meters. But it also needs enough gain
> on the line inputs to record from the Nakamichi Dragon which I assume,
> since it's a consumer deck, has the typical -10 dBV unbalanced outputs.
> Mic preamps, I guess, are unavoidable, but are of no consequence.
>
> My first suggestion, based on the manufacturer's reputation and the fact
> that it's Mac-only so it's bound to work out of the box, was the Apogee
> Duet, but as far as I can tell, the not-mic inputs are high impedance for
> instrument pickups, which makes me a bit suspicious. What I'm leaning
> toward now is the M-Audio ProFire 610 if he can get an extra $50 to spend,
> or PreSonus Firebox if he can't, and in a pinch, a TASCAM US-122L. The
> M-Audio, at least on paper, looks like it has nearly 10 dB less quiescent
> noise. Sort of in-the-running is the Edirol FA-66, but I've read some (not
> necessarily qualified) poor on-line reports about its Mac compatibility
> and noise level.
>
> Any thoughts, preferably based on personal experience? Maybe the newer
> t.c. or Focusrite stuff? I'd love to see him get into an RME Fireface 400
> or Metric Halo ULN-2 but they're too far off budget.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me
> here:
> double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
> )

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> Mike, I am not a Mac user, but this is worth taking a look at:
> Echo AudioFire2

Thanks for reminding me of Echo. They've been in the business for a long
time and have always made solid products. The AudioFire 2 seems to have
a fixed input sensitivity (stated as the usual "+4dBu/-10dBV"). Is there a
software control panel switch for basic gain/attenuation?


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

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

> I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2

I guess you stopped reading my post before you got to the end. Too
expensive.


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

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message


> Since I have all of these things that I need, I don't
> keep very close tabs on what's available and how they sound. So I need
> some experience here.

Check out the eMu catalog. I just picked up a 0202 USB interface by them
from GC for about $80 (refurb). It has balanced line inputs, goes up to
24/192, has about 100 dB dynamic range, analog input level controls, and a
headphone jack with output level control. The driver disk in the box worked
(with XP). Mac use is supported by the vendor.

http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?category=610&subcategory=611&product=15186

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Check out the eMu catalog. I just picked up a 0202 USB interface by them
> from GC for about $80 (refurb). It has balanced line inputs

Since the two line inputs are physically different (one part of a
Combo-XLR,
the other a TRS jack marked "Hi-Z/Line" I'm wondering how well matched
electrically they are. Also, since the maximum input level is just under
+10 dBu,
it might need some padding to work with a real nominal +4 dBu source. Do the
input level controls come ahead of the electronics?


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

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 4, 8:06 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> Dale A. Francis wrote:
> > I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2
>
> I guess you stopped reading my post before you got to the end. Too
> expensive.
>
> --
> If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
> me here:
> double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
> )

Mike
I read it, I did say "used" legacy model!

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Check out the eMu catalog. I just picked up a 0202 USB
>> interface by them from GC for about $80 (refurb). It has
>> balanced line inputs
>
> Since the two line inputs are physically different (one
> part of a Combo-XLR,
> the other a TRS jack marked "Hi-Z/Line" I'm wondering how
> well matched electrically they are.

They are. Besides, there are separate level controls for both channels. Max
CW on both, matches levels within a small fraction of a dB.

> Also, since the maximum input level is just under +10 dBu,
> it might need some padding to work with a real nominal +4
> dBu source.

Yes, but that is true for virtually every audio interface I've ever used.
The lowest sensitivity I've ever seen on a +4 input netted out to be less
than 7 volts. I've seen other +4 inputs that clipped at about +4. The old
time +4 outputs could go up to +22, or more.


> Do the input level controls come ahead of the electronics?

So it seems. No schematics possible.

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

> I read it, I did say "used" legacy model!

But that means having to find one, and buying it from someone who will
guarantee
it, and as Hank pointed out, the current asking price is still over the
budget. But if
you have one you'd like to let go for $350 and will cheerfully take it
back and give
a refund if there's a problem, I'll be happy to pass along your contact
information
for him to consider.



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

[Steve King]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
| Dale A. Francis wrote:
|
| > I read it, I did say "used" legacy model!
|
| But that means having to find one, and buying it from someone who will
| guarantee
| it, and as Hank pointed out, the current asking price is still over the
| budget. But if
| you have one you'd like to let go for $350 and will cheerfully take it
| back and give
| a refund if there's a problem, I'll be happy to pass along your contact
| information
| for him to consider.

Why am I reminded of, "You want it good; you want it fast; you want it
cheap--- pick two."

Steve King

[Dale A. Francis]

if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the
process by buying a low-end convertors? If they are using a nak
dragon, which will be a used expensive machine with no warranty, why
browbeat a suggestion for some comparable quality?

[PStamler]

I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be available for
about the specified price. (If not, get a used one like I did.)

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
> if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the
> process by buying a low-end convertors?

Why do you think that a $300 interface has "low end" converters?
What's the problem? If there's anything "low end" it would more likely
be the analog circuitry.

I'm realistic about this. The tapes are only so good and there just isn't
all that much more than can be preserved with the greatest converters
in the world.

Honestly, the skill and care with which the transfers will be done is the
weakest link in this project. One might say "why cheat the process by
not hiring a professional tape archivist?"

> If they are using a nak
> dragon, which will be a used expensive machine with no warranty, why
> browbeat a suggestion for some comparable quality?

The Dragon has already been purchased, It's in remarkably good shape, but
it's on the way to Stephen Sank for a checkout and tuneup. I don't know
about the origin
or condition of the MX-5050 other than that it came from a known and
reputable
seller.

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

[Mike Rivers]

PStamler wrote:
> I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be available for
> about the specified price. (If not, get a used one like I did.)

He actually had a Lynx L22 on his list of possibilities figuring that he
could get $600 approved, but since his Mac doesn't have a slot for it,
he'd have to put together an Intel-based computer (or get an older
Mac) which would be an additional expense.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"PStamler" > wrote in message

> I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be
> available for about the specified price. (If not, get a
> used one like I did.)

The scary part would be that here maybe 6 years later the EMu 0202
outperforms and outfunctions it, for as little as $80 at Music123.

http://www.music123.com/E-MU-0202-USB-2-0-Audio-interface-240552-i1172061.Music123

It works on both PCs and Macs, and you don't have to open the PC case to
install it.

[Fred[_8_]]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message ...
>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, I am not a Mac user, but this is worth taking a look at:
>>> Echo AudioFire2
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me of Echo. They've been in the business for a long
>> time and have always made solid products. The AudioFire 2 seems to have
>> a fixed input sensitivity (stated as the usual "+4dBu/-10dBV"). Is there a
>> software control panel switch for basic gain/attenuation?
>>
> No, sorry, I misunderstood. For that, the Audiofire4 would be required, which has two universal inputs:
> http://echoaudio.com/Products/FireWire/AudioFire4/specs.php
>
>
> $300 at B&H:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/487657-REG/Echo_AUDIOFIRE4_AudioFire4_FireWire_Audio_Interfac e.html
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

From the
AudioFire 2 Specs on the Echo site:

a.. Nominal Input Level: +4dBu or -10dBV (software configurable)

- Fred

[Mike Rivers]

Fred wrote:

> From the
> AudioFire 2 Specs on the Echo site:
>
> a.. Nominal Input Level: +4dBu or -10dBV (software configurable)

Yes, I saw that, but I wasn't sure what it actually meant in practice. I
suppose there's
some sort of software control panel or "console" that has a switch on
it. But since it
has no input level knobs, I'd like to know if it can accept a signal at,
say, +18 dBu
without clipping, either the analog input circuitry or the A/D
converter. Easy to
measure if you have one, hard to guess from the specs on the web.


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

[Steve King]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
| I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be available for
| about the specified price. (If not, get a used one like I did.)
|
| Peace,
| Paul

I second the CardDeluxe. I've got one that is now in its third computer.
Still sounds great.

Steve King

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 4, 7:06 pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> Dale A. Francis wrote:
> > if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the
> > process by buying a low-end convertors?
>
> Why do you think that a $300 interface has "low end" converters?
> What's the problem? If there's anything "low end" it would more likely
> be the analog circuitry.
>
> I'm realistic about this. The tapes are only so good and there just isn't
> all that much more than can be preserved with the greatest converters
> in the world.
>
> The Dragon has already been purchased, It's in remarkably good shape, but
> it's on the way to Stephen Sank for a checkout and tuneup. I don't know
> about the origin
> or condition of the MX-5050 other than that it came from a known and
> reputable
> seller.

the less expensive convertors have to have compromised the quality of
the analogue and digital circuits! I was not recommending the greatest
because 10 grand is beyond the scope of your request.

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

> the less expensive convertors have to have compromised the quality of
> the analogue and digital circuits! I was not recommending the greatest
> because 10 grand is beyond the scope of your request.

You don't need to tell me that better is better. Are you using "Library
of Congress"
as being an indicator that this should be a no-compromise transfer? It's
sufficient
that it be better than the tape, and honestly I think that most any
ordinary computer
sound from the past few years card can do that. My conscience won't let
me stoop
that low, but I don't find that there's too much difference in surface
quality between
a $100 interface and a $500 one, and only a small difference between a
$1000 one.

What I was looking for was recommendations or cautions based on
compatibility,
reliability, inputs and outputs, and price. My assumption is that there
will be no
significant difference in quality of the digital recording between one
and another
in this price range unless there's a real ringer or a real dud.


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

[Dale A. Francis]

my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into
the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and
the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest
link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion!
why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work
to get the a higher quality analogue?
Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference,
there is!
They are not going to have another chance to do this digital
conversion!
I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2.
a chain is only as good as its weakest link.
Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario.

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 5, 3:06 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Dale A. Francis wrote:
> >> if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the
> >> process by buying a low-end convertors?
>
> > Why do you think that a $300 interface has "low end" converters?
> > What's the problem? If there's anything "low end" it would more likely
> > be the analog circuitry.
>
> > I'm realistic about this. The tapes are only so good and there just isn't
> > all that much more than can be preserved with the greatest converters
> > in the world.
>
> > Honestly, the skill and care with which the transfers will be done is the
> > weakest link in this project. One might say "why cheat the process by
> > not hiring a professional tape archivist?"
>
> The converters and analog circuitry in many of these cheap units are superb.
> I am sure Echo Audio is not alone in this.
>
> The world has changed!
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

yes it sure has
why digital is said to sound bad to the analogue purist
it is because of compromises on the converters used in the recording
not the playback medium.
the changes are that the newer quality products have gotten much
better.
and yet low end is still low end.

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
> my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into
> the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and
> the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest
> link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion!
> why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work
> to get the a higher quality analogue?
> Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference,
> there is!
> They are not going to have another chance to do this digital
> conversion!
> I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2.
> a chain is only as good as its weakest link.
> Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario.

I would suggest that apart from the cheapest and nastiest interfaces
(interfii ?), the weakest link is stll likely to be the analogue gear, and
the source media.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
> my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into
> the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and
> the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest
> link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion!

Nope, it's still the tape decks, the operator, and the original recordings.

> why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work
> to get the a higher quality analogue?

If it was an ATR-100 and the tapes were recorded with great care, then
it would be worth spending more money. But given the finite budget and
the point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never improve,
I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more
important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the
tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which
have very small differences from one to another.

> Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference,
> there is!

Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome?

> I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2.

How much do you want for it? If it's within the budget, I'll pass it on.

> a chain is only as good as its weakest link.
> Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario.

And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending
money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better
tape deck too.


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

[Mike Rivers]

geoff wrote:

> I would suggest that apart from the cheapest and nastiest interfaces
> (interfii ?), the weakest link is stll likely to be the analogue gear, and
> the source media.

Exactly. This is why I was asking for advice. It's more important to get
something that will work without a lot of fooling around, will interface
properly to the analog sources, and that won't die prematurely due to
poor construction or quality control.

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

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 7:31 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
he point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never
improve,
> I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more
> important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the
> tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which
> have very small differences from one to another.
>
> > Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference,
> > there is!
>
> Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome?

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


> > Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario.
>
> And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending
> money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better
> tape deck too.

Hank sold his tape deck and use Metric Halo for his I/O's

[Dale A. Francis]

> Exactly. This is why I was asking for advice. It's more important to get
> something that will work without a lot of fooling around, will interface
> properly to the analog sources, and that won't die prematurely due to
> poor construction or quality control.

Which is exactly why I recommend Metric Halo for his Mac

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into
> the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and
> the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest
> link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion!
> why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work
> to get the a higher quality analogue?
> Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference,
> there is!
> They are not going to have another chance to do this digital
> conversion!
> I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2.
> a chain is only as good as its weakest link.
> Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario.

Yet the job may not pay enough to jusitfy the cost of a ULN-2, if one
must also buy food and stuff.

It is true that every aspect of the MH box, from quality of conversion
to ruggedness of build stands above the competition at its price point,
nevemind cheaper stuff. And it satisfies the Firewire need, as it will
work with a broad range of Mac OS's. I can run my 2882+DSP in OS9 if I
want to, and since I still use the original v. of Waveburner pro for
premastering assembly, I do that regularly.

The problem is that such quality holds its resale value rather well.
Still, if one was diligent and had the luxury of some time in which to
look for a used ULN-2, one might get a hell of a deal at very close to
the specified budget.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> On Aug 6, 7:31 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> he point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never
> improve,
> > I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more
> > important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the
> > tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which
> > have very small differences from one to another.
> >
> > > Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference,
> > > there is!
> >
> > Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome?
>
> the library will not have the best digital resolution for their
> archives and post production.
>
>
> > > Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario.
> >
> > And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending
> > money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better
> > tape deck too.
>
> Hank sold his tape deck and use Metric Halo for his I/O's

If people were willing to buy tape I'd have kept it. If I didn't need to
carry a Studer-8-track-equivalent-in-a-box, I'd have kept it. Getting on
a plane in Reno and stepping off in Austin with a "studio" in a carry-on
is not doable with the A80! <g>

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Dale A. Francis wrote:
> > my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into
> > the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and
> > the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest
> > link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion!
>
> Nope, it's still the tape decks, the operator, and the original recordings.
>
> > why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work
> > to get the a higher quality analogue?
>
> If it was an ATR-100 and the tapes were recorded with great care, then
> it would be worth spending more money. But given the finite budget and
> the point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never improve,
> I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more
> important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the
> tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which
> have very small differences from one to another.
>
> > Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference,
> > there is!
>
> Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome?
>
> > I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2.
>
> How much do you want for it? If it's within the budget, I'll pass it on.
>
> > a chain is only as good as its weakest link.
> > Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario.
>
> And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending
> money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better
> tape deck too.

Oh, yeah, even if I did sell the old A80 8-track last spring for about
what a used ULN-2 costs. <g>

Still have the B-67. It's useful for many things, beyond playing back
old mixes. Slapback, yumm...

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 11:07 am, (hank alrich) wrote:

> Yet the job may not pay enough to jusitfy the cost of a ULN-2, if one
> must also buy food and stuff.

if it didn't pay enough for the uln 2, how did it pay for a nak
dragon?
will they never again use the equipment?
are they going to sell all the audio equipment off after this project?

> The problem is that such quality holds its resale value rather well.
> Still, if one was diligent and had the luxury of some time in which to
> look for a used ULN-2, one might get a hell of a deal at very close to
> the specified budget.

with the intro of the uln 8, this is very likely.

[Mike Rivers]

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.



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

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

> if it didn't pay enough for the uln 2, how did it pay for a nak
> dragon?
> will they never again use the equipment?
> are they going to sell all the audio equipment off after this project?

I'm tired of arguing with you. This is none of your business. I accept
your recommendation of a ULN-2. How much do you want for yours?


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

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> On Aug 6, 11:07 am, (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> > Yet the job may not pay enough to jusitfy the cost of a ULN-2, if one
> > must also buy food and stuff.
>
> if it didn't pay enough for the uln 2, how did it pay for a nak
> dragon?
> will they never again use the equipment?
> are they going to sell all the audio equipment off after this project?
>
> > The problem is that such quality holds its resale value rather well.
> > Still, if one was diligent and had the luxury of some time in which to
> > look for a used ULN-2, one might get a hell of a deal at very close to
> > the specified budget.
>
> with the intro of the uln 8, this is very likely.

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.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

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 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.

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



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

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 1:12 pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> I'm tired of arguing with you.
then why did you??
>This is none of your business. I accept your recommendation of a
ULN-2.
You posted and asked in a public forum!
You did not attack Hank for his suggestion,
why did you choose to go on the offensive with mine?
>How much do you want for yours?
why would I sell mine, I researched and bought just the product you
were asking for.

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 2:43 pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

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

try gearslutz

[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 here:
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 here:
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 here:
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 here:
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 here:
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 here:
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 here:
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 here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:13:14 GMT, Mike Rivers >
> wrote:
>
>>> So in what respect are the Lynx converters "best"?

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

Well, I use them for different things. The Lynx is my default Windows
stereo
sound card. I use it for playback of files transferred from my flash memory
recorders, and other stereo sources. I also use it for transfers from
analog
tapes and records. I use the Mackie for multitrack recording.

But I have played back the same file through both and they sound the same
to me. I've recorded the same source through both, played it back through
either, and they sound the same to me. It's convenient to have both, and I
don't consider that making a choice based on the application is compromising
the audio quality in any way that matters to me.


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

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 7, 9:36 am, (hank alrich) wrote:


>> 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?

yes I have

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

okay clued in, no one here discusses, they flame.

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 6, 9:31 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

>
> 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.

mine is 302 and I don't shove sticks up peoples asses like you are
doing here!

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> On Aug 6, 9:31 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> mine is 302 and I don't shove sticks up peoples asses like you are
> doing here!

One of us has been insisting that such and such an ADC isn't good enough
for the job. If the pick fits, don't sit down too fast.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 7, 10:10 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

> One of us has been insisting that such and such an ADC isn't good enough
> for the job. If the pick fits, don't sit down too fast.

I say that "good enough" was a Bush attitude, I always strive for best
that can be! Don't worry about how I sit, The gods judge you on how
you stand. Do unto others as you would have them ... you know the
rest!!

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> On Aug 7, 10:10 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> > One of us has been insisting that such and such an ADC isn't good enough
> > for the job. If the pick fits, don't sit down too fast.
>
> I say that "good enough" was a Bush attitude, I always strive for best
> that can be!

You continue to skirt the question of budgets, which for many people are
quite real. In this case the guy can afford what he can afford and Mike
is graciously trying to help a friend achieve the "best that can be" for
a specified amount of money.

You do understand that many people think there are far better convertors
available than those in the ULN-2? I may or may not agree, not having
used all those others.

I assume that tomorrow you will buy a ULN-8, since informed consensus is
that its coversion and preamp quality significantly surpasses that of
the older 2882's like mine, and the newer ULN-2's, like yours.

That puts you in the position of being able to sell Mike's friend your
ULN-2 for the budgeted price. I know you want the "best that can be",
and here you have a real opportunity to upgrade while exercising your
compassion for the monetarily less endowed.

I would buy a ULN-8 in a heartbeat, as it would simplify my "traveling
with a studio under my arm" requirements. But at the moment I cannot
afford that.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 03:45:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dale A. Francis"
> wrote:

>> One of us has been insisting that such and such an ADC isn't good enough
>> for the job. If the pick fits, don't sit down too fast.
>
>I say that "good enough" was a Bush attitude, I always strive for best
>that can be!

But haven't we got to the point with much technical gear that "good
enough" really IS good enough? It can be painful to people who paid
big money for something that maybe WAS better a few years ago. And
there'll always be someone ready to market a luxury product at a
luxury price for those who really want to pay more. But the A/B tests
must be getting rather embarrassing.

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> But haven't we got to the point with much technical gear that "good
> enough" really IS good enough?

For many of us, and for many applications, yes. What Dale seems to
be hanging on to is that "good enough" is some low cost, low quality
device. To me, "good enough" doesn't always mean "the cheapest I
can get away with." but rather, "Getting something with better
specifications, better reputation, or higher cost won't improve the
final result."

I paid $7500 for my 24 channel Soundcraft console a bit more than
15 years ago. My $1500 Mackie Onyx is quieter and cleaner. But
I continue to hang on to the Soundcraft because it's a true recording
console, it has a meter bridge, and just feels better to work on. Is
it "good enough?" Honesty, no it isn't, and I'd like to replace it. But
I just haven't found a suitable replacement for a cost that I can justify.
I'd love to have an API 1608 with a sidecar but I could never recover
the cost. The hobbyist side of me likes to eat.



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

[Arkansan Raider]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> But haven't we got to the point with much technical gear that "good
>> enough" really IS good enough?
>
> For many of us, and for many applications, yes. What Dale seems to
> be hanging on to is that "good enough" is some low cost, low quality
> device. To me, "good enough" doesn't always mean "the cheapest I
> can get away with." but rather, "Getting something with better
> specifications, better reputation, or higher cost won't improve the
> final result."
>
> I paid $7500 for my 24 channel Soundcraft console a bit more than
> 15 years ago. My $1500 Mackie Onyx is quieter and cleaner. But
> I continue to hang on to the Soundcraft because it's a true recording
> console, it has a meter bridge, and just feels better to work on. Is
> it "good enough?" Honesty, no it isn't, and I'd like to replace it. But
> I just haven't found a suitable replacement for a cost that I can justify.
> I'd love to have an API 1608 with a sidecar but I could never recover
> the cost. The hobbyist side of me likes to eat.
>
>
>

Eating is highly overrated. I'm on a diet. ;^)

FEED THE SOUND FIX! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

---Jeff

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 8, 11:07 am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Dale A. Francis > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 10:10 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> > > One of us has been insisting that such and such an ADC isn't good enough
> > > for the job. If the pick fits, don't sit down too fast.
>
> > I say that "good enough" was a Bush attitude, I always strive for best
> > that can be!
>
> You continue to skirt the question of budgets, which for many people are
> quite real. In this case the guy can afford what he can afford and Mike
> is graciously trying to help a friend achieve the "best that can be" for
> a specified amount of money.
>
> You do understand that many people think there are far better convertors
> available than those in the ULN-2? I may or may not agree, not having
> used all those others.
>
> I assume that tomorrow you will buy a ULN-8, since informed consensus is
> that its coversion and preamp quality significantly surpasses that of
> the older 2882's like mine, and the newer ULN-2's, like yours.
>
> That puts you in the position of being able to sell Mike's friend your
> ULN-2 for the budgeted price. I know you want the "best that can be",
> and here you have a real opportunity to upgrade while exercising your
> compassion for the monetarily less endowed.
>
> I would buy a ULN-8 in a heartbeat, as it would simplify my "traveling
> with a studio under my arm" requirements. But at the moment I cannot
> afford that.
>
> --
> ha
> shut up and play your guitar

I answered the question of budget restraint at least twice.
but you did not want to see that because it deprived you of your smug
retorts.
the guy said that he may be able to spend more if the gear was right.
"His budget is $350
(from the organization he's doing the job for)
_but that can be stretched if it makes sense._"
did you see that line
"_but that can be stretched if it makes sense._"
just in case you missed it
"_but that can be stretched if it makes sense._"

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> On Aug 8, 11:07 am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> > Dale A. Francis > wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 7, 10:10 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> >
> > > > One of us has been insisting that such and such an ADC isn't good enough
> > > > for the job. If the pick fits, don't sit down too fast.
> >
> > > I say that "good enough" was a Bush attitude, I always strive for best
> > > that can be!
> >
> > You continue to skirt the question of budgets, which for many people are
> > quite real. In this case the guy can afford what he can afford and Mike
> > is graciously trying to help a friend achieve the "best that can be" for
> > a specified amount of money.
> >
> > You do understand that many people think there are far better convertors
> > available than those in the ULN-2? I may or may not agree, not having
> > used all those others.
> >
> > I assume that tomorrow you will buy a ULN-8, since informed consensus is
> > that its coversion and preamp quality significantly surpasses that of
> > the older 2882's like mine, and the newer ULN-2's, like yours.
> >
> > That puts you in the position of being able to sell Mike's friend your
> > ULN-2 for the budgeted price. I know you want the "best that can be",
> > and here you have a real opportunity to upgrade while exercising your
> > compassion for the monetarily less endowed.
> >
> > I would buy a ULN-8 in a heartbeat, as it would simplify my "traveling
> > with a studio under my arm" requirements. But at the moment I cannot
> > afford that.
> >
> > --
> > ha
> > shut up and play your guitar
>
> I answered the question of budget restraint at least twice.
> but you did not want to see that because it deprived you of your smug
> retorts.
> the guy said that he may be able to spend more if the gear was right.
> "His budget is $350
> (from the organization he's doing the job for)
> _but that can be stretched if it makes sense._"
> did you see that line
> "_but that can be stretched if it makes sense._"
> just in case you missed it
> "_but that can be stretched if it makes sense._"

And given the source it probably doesn't make sense.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

> the guy said that he may be able to spend more if the gear was right.
> "His budget is $350
> (from the organization he's doing the job for)
> _but that can be stretched if it makes sense._"

You haven't demonstrated that it makes sense. You've stated your point,
that $300 doesn't buy as good an interface as $800, but you haven't
convinced me of what the advantages are.

If you can show me a technical advantage, then do so. If it's just a
feeling that "one should do better" then that isn't good enough to
stretch this budget.



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

[Dale A. Francis]

>You've stated your point,that $300 doesn't buy as good an interface as $800, but you >haven't convinced me of what the advantages are.


> And given the source it probably doesn't make sense.

thanks for not attacking me this round,
it is hard to convince someone who does not want to listen with an
open mind,
no probably about it!

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

> thanks for not attacking me this round,
> it is hard to convince someone who does not want to listen with an
> open mind,

My mind is always open. When considering a budget, one must weigh
cost against benefit. What's you analysis?

I'm only in this project as an adviser. I chose not to do the actual work,
and in fact, my initial advice was to NOT have a volunteer do the work,
but rather to simply pass the archive recordings on to the Library of
Congress and let their professionals (I've visited their archiving facility
and I know the tools and people they have, and the care that they take)
handle it whenever they get around to it. The tapes would be stored in
a safe environment and would be accessible if necessary. But he
managed to convince the board of the organization that he could get
the job done and they gave him a budget.

Yesterday he brought over the Otari MX-5050 that he bought. I had
recommended that an MX-5050 would be a decent deck to look for.
It's what the L of C uses most of, and it's a good, solid machine that
has decent tape handling. I was, of course, thinking of the 2-track
version, which, as standard equipment, has a quarter-track play head.
Some of the tapes are full track, some are half track mono, some are
quarter track mono. Few are stereo.

The MX-5050 that he found and bought was a four-track version, without
the second play head and switch, so it's not the best choice for the
half track tape playback. The heads are usable, but a little more worn
than I'd like, and worn in a way that suggests that it had spend a
lot of time with the tape path misadjusted. But he can't take it back.

I don't know how the Nakamichi Dragon is doing. But all in all it seems
to be a waste to but any more than $300 in the computer audio interface
when that will buy a perfectly reasonable one.

That's my cost/benefit analysis. Got a better one?

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

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 9, 6:55 am, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> That's my cost/benefit analysis. Got a better one?

doesn't matter what my analysis is! I do not have all your facts/
information on this project to even go into that can of worms!
My significant other is an archivist who specializes in digitization
and I am quite aware of the issues involved with such projects as your
clients.
I attempted to try and explain how improving the quality of the unit a
small step should be considered. the quality is both in the sound and
_construction/durability_. I also thought that your client might use
them for other activities and that maybe when the project was done
resell them to recoup some of the cost.

the end

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 04:57:02 -0700 (PDT), "Dale A. Francis"
> wrote:

>I attempted to try and explain how improving the quality of the unit a
>small step should be considered. the quality is both in the sound and
>_construction/durability_. I also thought that your client might use
>them for other activities and that maybe when the project was done
>resell them to recoup some of the cost.

I don't think you've established that a more expensive A/D *WILL*
sound better. As to construction/durability, how's an A/D box going
to fail, short of you stepping on it?

[Mike Rivers]

Dale A. Francis wrote:

> doesn't matter what my analysis is! I do not have all your facts/
> information on this project to even go into that can of worms!

I think that I've offered enough facts so that you could recognize that
there's no significant benefit to any quality improvement that might be
realized by a "better" interface. But I invite your technical and
practical justifications.

> My significant other is an archivist who specializes in digitization
> and I am quite aware of the issues involved with such projects as your
> clients.

Is she a volunteer? Does she work for volunteer organizations? More than
one?
Probably, if she "specializes." What is the source of the material she's
archiving?
What's the original quality? Without putting it in numbers, I think I've
given a pretty
good description over the course of this discussion of what we're
working with.

> I attempted to try and explain how improving the quality of the unit a
> small step should be considered. the quality is both in the sound and
> _construction/durability_.

And I've countered with the experienced opinion that the potential for
improved
sound will not be realized. As far as construction and durability goes,
my recommendations
have been toward devices with real metal cases, "pro" connectors and
operating level
(I'm willing to accept 1/4" TRS jacks as "pro" though you may not), and
these devices,
once installed and working properly with the associated computer, are
not noted for high
failure rates.

> I also thought that your client might use
> them for other activities and that maybe when the project was done
> resell them to recoup some of the cost.

No, he has no other use for this equipment, and I suspect that the hassle
of selling a 5-6 year old computer interface would not be worth the small
return of cash. Remember, if he were to buy a five year old ULM-2 now, it
would be ten years old by the time he was able to put it up for sale. I
suspect that the tape decks will hold their value better than any piece of
digital audio hardware.



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

[hank alrich]

Dale A. Francis > wrote:

> >You've stated your point,that $300 doesn't buy as good an interface as
> >$800, but you >haven't convinced me of what the advantages are.
>
>
> > And given the source it probably doesn't make sense.
>
> thanks for not attacking me this round,
> it is hard to convince someone who does not want to listen with an
> open mind,
> no probably about it!

You're talking to yourself.

Sometimes I suggest somebody get Schoeps. Sometimes I suggest they get a
pair of Behringers for fifty bucks.

This guy ain't gonna be archiving the Julliard Quartet for hi def
release in the next century. He wants to be able to play CD's dubbed
from old cassettes.

In any case, your ULN-2 is outdated. You are working with inferior
conversion and preamps. You can fix that today by ordering your new
ULN-8. I really don't see any rason you shouldn't do that.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Geoff]

Dale A. Francis wrote:
>> You've stated your point,that $300 doesn't buy as good an interface
>> as $800, but you >haven't convinced me of what the advantages are.
>
>
>> And given the source it probably doesn't make sense.
>
> thanks for not attacking me this round,
> it is hard to convince someone who does not want to listen with an
> open mind,
> no probably about it!

Yep - that's for sure.


geoff

[Dale A. Francis]

On Aug 9, 9:41 am, (hank alrich) wrote:

> This guy ain't gonna be archiving the Julliard Quartet for hi def
> release in the next century. He wants to be able to play CD's dubbed
> from old cassettes.

did you really read the original posting, I think not

"(this is ultimately going to the LIbrary of Congress) "

stick this someplace safe asshole