[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 5, 8:11 pm, "Me" wrote:
Ok, say I use a software like Audition, and say I want to play my audio out
from my computer, record it to a casette tape

Ok, so one of my concerns is that the tape speed will probably be off,
probably slower, and I might want to stretch/resample it to get it back to
the proper length.

If you record and play on the same tape deck, the tape deck isn't
broken, and you don't do the playback years later than the recording,
there's no reason why it should play back slower than what you
recorded. What makes you think it will?

You'll want to record the playback of the tape at the same sample rate
as the rest of your project. 96 kHz would be a waste for recording
something that will go to a cassette or come from a cassette, but if
that's your sample rate of choice for your project on the computer
(for whatever reason) then that's what you should stick to.

You're making this much too complicated. Play the track, record it on
tape, play the tape, record it on the computer. You'll need to pay
attention to setting the record level properly both on tape and on the
computer. Your most difficult job will be to synchronize the track
that you record from the tape with the rest of the project.

It might be a good idea to record a single click on the computer
before transferring to tape, and make sure to record that click on the
tape. That way you can visually align the click with the original
version of the track and the timing should come out right. If there's
a little speed drift with the tape and it gets too far off, then you
can apply time stretching, but you probably won't need to do that.

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
You're making this much too complicated. Play the track, record it on
tape, play the tape, record it on the computer. You'll need to pay
attention to setting the record level properly both on tape and on the
computer. Your most difficult job will be to synchronize the track
that you record from the tape with the rest of the project.

Indeed. Sometimes its better to just try it than to type paragraphs
of prose into the Usenet.

It might be a good idea to record a single click on the computer
before transferring to tape, and make sure to record that click on the
tape. That way you can visually align the click with the original
version of the track and the timing should come out right. If there's
a little speed drift with the tape and it gets too far off, then you
can apply time stretching, but you probably won't need to do that.

And if you are worried about speed, but a reference "click" on
*each end*. Then you will see 1) if there was any change, and
2) help adjust the track to fit back into the mix.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 5, 5:30 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

And if you are worried about speed, but a reference "click" on
*each end*. Then you will see 1) if there was any change, and
2) help adjust the track to fit back into the mix.

Clever!

[Me]

Ok, say I use a software like Audition, and say I want to play my audio out
from my computer, record it to a casette tape (I think its a type 4) and
then play the tape and record it back onto my computer. I have the
Audiophile 24/96 sound card so thats what will be doing the play/record job.
I don't believe I would need anything else in the 'signal chain' other than
the sound card and the stereo. I'll probably be using the headphone out of
the stereo and a converter to go back into the card. I'm sure right away
this might give some people cringes or something, but I just want to try
this as an effect, on a single track in a multi-track mix I'm working on.
The sound in question has some high, sharp peaks in the high frequency
range, nothing too drastic, but I thought the tape might help smooth those
out instead of using some sharp digital eq. Of course I've thought about
generating some white noise, recording that to tape and back first and
comparing a freq analysis to see what kind of high end emphasis shelving eq
I might want to apply to the track in question before I put it to tape, so I
don't have to worry about pulling the noise floor up if I try to boost the
highs with a shelf afterwards. I don't want to lower all of the highs in
general, just try to smooth out the sharp peaks.

Ok, so one of my concerns is that the tape speed will probably be off,
probably slower, and I might want to stretch/resample it to get it back to
the proper length. It doesn't have to be exact as far as pitch, and the
slight detuning might provide a nice effect anyway. If synch is still off in
places I can always chop the track in places and shift it around etc to get
it right. My main concern is this: the audio is currently in 44.1khz sample
rate, but im wondering if when I record from tape back onto the computer, if
I should record it in 96khz, THEN resample, THEN convert down to 44.1khz. OR
should I just record in 44.1khz then resample. Would there be any advantage
to recording/performing the resample in 96khz then converting down? In my
head it seems like there could be, like more resolution would help the
resample. But I'm not sure if there would actually be a difference here. I
know some people will say to just try it both ways but I've already done a
few experiments here with other ideas, and its pretty time consuming. So if
anyone has any knowledge on this topic (of recording/resampling at higher
sample rates then going down, or just resampling at 44.1, and differences
between) I would be interested to hear thoughts on it. Also, if anyone has
anything to say about any of the other stuff, anything that might be better
to try or whatever. The sound in question is a layered sound, and the two
different layers are very close but slightly different in sound, so I was
thinking about just running one of them out to tape and not the other.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Tim

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 6, 12:15 am, "Me" wrote:

anyone had any comments on the emphasis idea i mentioned.

I'd e careful with boosting the high end of something that you're
sending to a cassette. You're likely to end up with high frequency
distortion since there isn't very much high frequency headroom on a
cassette due to the low speed.

In concept, your idea isn't totally off base. Sometimes when bouncing
tracks an enginneer will add a little high end boost to compensate for
an anticipated high end loss in the transfer, but that's on wide tape
at high speed where high frequency overload isn't likely to be a
problem.

You will have to do some experimenting in order to figure out if
you're getting the effect you're after. Just try it.

[Me]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 5, 5:30 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

And if you are worried about speed, but a reference "click" on
*each end*. Then you will see 1) if there was any change, and
2) help adjust the track to fit back into the mix.

Clever!

yeah really. that's why i asked. i mean, i could always find a couple notes
to use as reference points but the click(s) idea would help to get it a lot
more accurate and would be faster. another reason i posted was to see if
anyone had any comments on the emphasis idea i mentioned. i'm not a studio
engineer or anything and don't really have much experience with anything
tape. so is my idea for a pre-emphasis high shelf boost on the mark? i mean
is that a typical thing you'd want to do?
thanks for all the ideas guys!

[Norbert Hahn]

"Me" wrote:

Ok, say I use a software like Audition, and say I want to play my audio out
from my computer, record it to a casette tape (I think its a type 4) and
[snip]
The sound in question has some high, sharp peaks in the high frequency
range, nothing too drastic, but I thought the tape might help smooth those
out instead of using some sharp digital eq.

You could use some dynamic compression limited to the upper octave.
That would do the same job as a tape without adding hiss and hum.

As the recording is one track of a multitrack recording, the phase should
be preserved. So using record/playback of some tape will cause strange
effects due to flutter and wow of the tape.

Norbert