I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
I need to archive a couple hundred sermon tapes (voice) to PC. I would like to get started ASAP, but I want to be smart about it.
If I get a cassette deck with high-speed dub, it sounds like I can use Goldwave to re-sample (correct term?) back to the normal speech, correct?
I can get my hands on perhaps 3 PCs and maybe 3 cassette decks (but not all high-speed), so how would *you* approach this task? Should I forget the high-speed approach and focus on multiple decks? It might be easier for me not to do high-speed recording so I could be off doing other things and just return to reload the decks occasionally.
If I wanted to make an extra effort to reduce noise, improve voice quality, what are my options?
When the recording finishes (without me present) can GoldWave stop recording if it doesn't "hear" anything? There will be many cases where there is just over 30 minutes on a tape, leaving the b-side mostly empty. I'm putting my son to work, so optimizing the labor part of it isn't as important as simplifying the task.
Thanks for your input!
-rob
If I get a cassette deck with high-speed dub, it sounds like I can use Goldwave to re-sample (correct term?) back to the normal speech, correct?
I can get my hands on perhaps 3 PCs and maybe 3 cassette decks (but not all high-speed), so how would *you* approach this task? Should I forget the high-speed approach and focus on multiple decks? It might be easier for me not to do high-speed recording so I could be off doing other things and just return to reload the decks occasionally.
If I wanted to make an extra effort to reduce noise, improve voice quality, what are my options?
When the recording finishes (without me present) can GoldWave stop recording if it doesn't "hear" anything? There will be many cases where there is just over 30 minutes on a tape, leaving the b-side mostly empty. I'm putting my son to work, so optimizing the labor part of it isn't as important as simplifying the task.
Thanks for your input!
-rob
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
200 tapes is a lot!!!! It's not a lot of "work", since you only have to start & stop the process, but it's still going to take time.
Goldwave can slow the speed back to normal, but I have a couple of concerns with the high-speed approach - First, you need to make sure that the output is not muted during high-speed dubbing. How fast is it? You will loose some high frequencies.* (The highest frequencies will be shifted above the normal audio range, and will be filtered-out by the soundcard. These lost sounds won't come back when the speed/pitch is shifted back down.) If it's only the sermon, this might not be a problem. The first thing you'd notice with spoken parts is dulling of "T" & "S" sounds. But if there is music, the quality loss might be more noticeable (depending on the kind of music/instruments and the actual speed increase).
Also with high-speed duplication, you are not (effectively) monitoring the process. If there is a defect in the original tape or the digital copy, you might not be aware of it.
You can use the Equalizer to adjust the "tone" of the voice.
There is a Noise Reduction filter. The noise reduction filter can work sometimes well to filter-out tape hiss, if the background noise isn't too bad (if you have a strong signal-to-noise ratio). It usually works best if you copy a "noise fingerprint" into the clipboard and choose the Use Clipboard option. But you can get artifacts (especially if the noise is bad), so you have to experiment to make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.
There's also an Auto Gain effect to level-out the volume if necessary. (You'd probably only want to apply that to spoken-word, because it can mess-up the dynamics of music.)
It wouldn't hurt to read-through the GoldWave help file to get an idea of what it can do.
* With tape-to-tape this isn't such a big problem, because at faster tape-speeds you can play & record higher frequencies. And, the electronics can be designed to pass the supersonic frequencies. But when you digitize a sound, the digitized audio is limited to half the sample-rate. On some sound cards, you can increase the sample rate, but you'd have to check the specs, because (I think) most soundcards will filter-out ultrasonics at any sample rate.
Goldwave can slow the speed back to normal, but I have a couple of concerns with the high-speed approach - First, you need to make sure that the output is not muted during high-speed dubbing. How fast is it? You will loose some high frequencies.* (The highest frequencies will be shifted above the normal audio range, and will be filtered-out by the soundcard. These lost sounds won't come back when the speed/pitch is shifted back down.) If it's only the sermon, this might not be a problem. The first thing you'd notice with spoken parts is dulling of "T" & "S" sounds. But if there is music, the quality loss might be more noticeable (depending on the kind of music/instruments and the actual speed increase).
Also with high-speed duplication, you are not (effectively) monitoring the process. If there is a defect in the original tape or the digital copy, you might not be aware of it.
Yes. There is "Level Activated" recording option. (I've never used it... I'll usually record unbounded and stop manually, or bounded into an empty 2-hour file, and then delete the silence later.)When the recording finishes (without me present) can GoldWave stop recording if it doesn't "hear" anything? There will be many cases where there is just over 30 minutes on a tape, leaving the b-side mostly empty.
This is where things can really take time! You have to listen-to what you are doing... You might not have to listen to the whole tape, but you should. And generally with audio editing, you end-up listening to the whole thing more than once, in little bits, and to the entire "final product"...If I wanted to make an extra effort to reduce noise, improve voice quality, what are my options?
You can use the Equalizer to adjust the "tone" of the voice.
There is a Noise Reduction filter. The noise reduction filter can work sometimes well to filter-out tape hiss, if the background noise isn't too bad (if you have a strong signal-to-noise ratio). It usually works best if you copy a "noise fingerprint" into the clipboard and choose the Use Clipboard option. But you can get artifacts (especially if the noise is bad), so you have to experiment to make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.
There's also an Auto Gain effect to level-out the volume if necessary. (You'd probably only want to apply that to spoken-word, because it can mess-up the dynamics of music.)
It wouldn't hurt to read-through the GoldWave help file to get an idea of what it can do.
* With tape-to-tape this isn't such a big problem, because at faster tape-speeds you can play & record higher frequencies. And, the electronics can be designed to pass the supersonic frequencies. But when you digitize a sound, the digitized audio is limited to half the sample-rate. On some sound cards, you can increase the sample rate, but you'd have to check the specs, because (I think) most soundcards will filter-out ultrasonics at any sample rate.
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
I did the high-speed-dub-and-halved-the-sample-rate thing for an audiobook that my sister wanted on CD. It was good enough as far as I was concerned (i.e., for the non-audiophile masses.) As DougDbug said, when doing it at high-speed, you can't effectively monitor it. In my case, I wasn't trying to make a pristine copy; just something that could be listened to while driving. I couldn't be bothered to devote my time to it. So I recorded it at high-speed while I did other things that were more important to me.
---
If it's only dialogue/speech and the digital copies are merely for convenient listening, I say go the high-speed-dubbing route. Even if there is music (hymns or what have you) but the digital copies will still be for mere convenience, I still say go the high-speed-dubbing route.
OTOH, if you are digitizing for the sole purpose of archiving, I say do it the "old-fashioned" way, in real time, able to be properly monitored.
Good luck!
---
If it's only dialogue/speech and the digital copies are merely for convenient listening, I say go the high-speed-dubbing route. Even if there is music (hymns or what have you) but the digital copies will still be for mere convenience, I still say go the high-speed-dubbing route.
OTOH, if you are digitizing for the sole purpose of archiving, I say do it the "old-fashioned" way, in real time, able to be properly monitored.
Good luck!
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4375
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
- Location: St. John's, NL
- Contact:
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
You can record at 88200Hz, then after recording use Effect | Playback rate to set the rate to 44100Hz for normal playback. That will preserve most of the high-end quality when high-speed dubbing at twice the normal playback rate (using anything faster is not recommended). Make sure your sound hardware supports recording at 88200Hz. There is no way to do that in Windows Vista/7 with older versions of GoldWave. You'd have to use the v5.60 beta. Windows Vista/7 pretends to support every sampling rate, regardless of what the hardware really supports, and usually records at 44100Hz all the time.
Chris
Chris
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
Thanks guys. Turns out it's more like 600 tapes ( 52 * 12 years )
I don't think I'll be attempting the high-speed dub.
Are the "Cassette-to-USB" decks from ION and Grace pretty much just marketing hype or is there some added value in converting to USB first?
Also, If I loaded up a PC with multiple sounds cards, would a likely see a loss of quality at some point?
I don't think I'll be attempting the high-speed dub.
Are the "Cassette-to-USB" decks from ION and Grace pretty much just marketing hype or is there some added value in converting to USB first?
Also, If I loaded up a PC with multiple sounds cards, would a likely see a loss of quality at some point?
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
I don't see any advantage unless you're using a laptop with no line-input. (With USB turntables, the USB connection can be an advantage for people who have modern stereo equipment with no phono input.)Are the "Cassette-to-USB" decks from ION and Grace pretty much just marketing hype or is there some added value in converting to USB first?
And this is just my impression, 'cause I've never had my hands on one, but I get the impression that these things are cheaply made. If you've got a "good old" cassette deck and it still works, I'd use it.
Wow! I guess you'd better get started! Maybe you can get some members of your congregation to pitch-in, especially if anyone has some equipment and experience with this kind of thing.Thanks guys. Turns out it's more like 600 tapes ( 52 * 12 years )
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
Now I'm thinking about the bit rate... Should I use variable bit rate? I recently learned that the oldest of the tapes have the entire service, which includes music. The band and vocals have always been well miked and mixed, so I would want to attempt to retain the quality while perhaps not allocating the same bit-rate to voice-only.
Another thought... Could Goldwave automate the process of saving both a highly compressed and a loss-less (or nearly so) copy of each recording? Sorry, just thinking out loud, and if documentation is available please point me to it (I'll look for it sometime soon).
Another thought... Could Goldwave automate the process of saving both a highly compressed and a loss-less (or nearly so) copy of each recording? Sorry, just thinking out loud, and if documentation is available please point me to it (I'll look for it sometime soon).
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
Let's back-up a bit...
You know... This isn't a decision you need to make right-away... You can start recording in WAV format and think about compression/format later.
Why do you want to compress? How much do you need to compress? I assume we are talking about MP3? You didn't mention what format you plan to use. Do you need a particular format?
The main reason for using compression is to save (digital) space. And, the only reason to sacrifice quality is if you need to save space. You might also choose a compressed format for compatibility or because most compressed formats can be easily tagged. (Tagging is not as standardized for WAV files.)
MP3 will play on any computer and any iPod/portable player. MP3 is lossy, but it can be transparent. (It can sound like the original, even though the bits & bytes have changed). Good quality MP3s will be about 1/5th the size of uncompressed files, depending on the bitrate, and depending on the uncompressed format.
FLAC is lossless compression, something like zip* "tuned" for audio. When you play-back or decompress a FLAC file, you get back the exact byte-for-byte original data. FLACs will be about 60% the size of the uncompressed original. Not everybody can play a FLAC, but a lot of people like to archive their music in tagged FLAC files, and then it's easy to make an MP3, AAC, or CD if a different format is desired in the future.
WAV files are uncompressed. (You can put compressed data in a WAV wrapper, but that's a different issue.) A 44k.1Hz, 16-bit, stereo file contains the same data as an audio CD in a slightly different file-format.
CD is another high-quality, accessable, universal format.
With lossy compression, variable bitrate is better** at any given average bitrate. The only way to make constant bitrate better than VBR is to use a very-high CBR. For example, 320kbps is the maximum MP3 bitrate, which you can get with CBR, but you'll never get an average bitrate that high with VBR.
For music MP3s, I simply use the LAME setting 'VBR 0' which is the highest quality (least compressed) variable rate setting. I've never done any proper blind ABX tests, but the people who do this kind of thing say that LAME 'V-zero' sounds identical to the original with most music. (Trained listeners can hear a "pre echo", even at 320kbps CBR with some music, such as castanets.)
I've also converted a couple of CD audio books to MP3, and I used the same settings. The whole MP3 audio book fit onto a single CD, so I didn't bother trying a lower bitrate.
And, I think this is the first mention of bitrate, and I want to make sure you're not confusing Sample rate (i.e. 44.1kHz) with bit rate (i.e. 256 kbps). We were only concerned about sample rate for high-speed recording...
Sample rate is the rate at which sound is digitized. With audio CDs, the sample rate is 44.1kHz. In order to reconstruct a waveform, you need at least 2 samples per cycle (one for the top-half of the wave and another for the bottom-half). This means that an audio CD cannot contain any frequencies higher than 22,050 Hz. (And, the Nyquist theory says you only need two samples per cycle.)
Bit rate is the number of bits per second used to store the audio. You can compute the bitrate if you know the file size and playing time. You can calculate the bitrate for a CD (1411 kbps), but bitrate is normally discussed in relation to lossy formats (lower bitrate = smaller file = more compression = lower quality).
* I've never tried "zipping" an audio file, but from what I've read it doesn't work well because the compressed file is about the same size as the uncompressed original.
** We have to be careful about saying "better" or "best". Modern compression is very good, and if 128kbps or 192kbps sounds exactly like the original, we can't claim that 320kbps is 'better".
You know... This isn't a decision you need to make right-away... You can start recording in WAV format and think about compression/format later.
Why do you want to compress? How much do you need to compress? I assume we are talking about MP3? You didn't mention what format you plan to use. Do you need a particular format?
The main reason for using compression is to save (digital) space. And, the only reason to sacrifice quality is if you need to save space. You might also choose a compressed format for compatibility or because most compressed formats can be easily tagged. (Tagging is not as standardized for WAV files.)
MP3 will play on any computer and any iPod/portable player. MP3 is lossy, but it can be transparent. (It can sound like the original, even though the bits & bytes have changed). Good quality MP3s will be about 1/5th the size of uncompressed files, depending on the bitrate, and depending on the uncompressed format.
FLAC is lossless compression, something like zip* "tuned" for audio. When you play-back or decompress a FLAC file, you get back the exact byte-for-byte original data. FLACs will be about 60% the size of the uncompressed original. Not everybody can play a FLAC, but a lot of people like to archive their music in tagged FLAC files, and then it's easy to make an MP3, AAC, or CD if a different format is desired in the future.
WAV files are uncompressed. (You can put compressed data in a WAV wrapper, but that's a different issue.) A 44k.1Hz, 16-bit, stereo file contains the same data as an audio CD in a slightly different file-format.
CD is another high-quality, accessable, universal format.
With lossy compression, variable bitrate is better** at any given average bitrate. The only way to make constant bitrate better than VBR is to use a very-high CBR. For example, 320kbps is the maximum MP3 bitrate, which you can get with CBR, but you'll never get an average bitrate that high with VBR.
For music MP3s, I simply use the LAME setting 'VBR 0' which is the highest quality (least compressed) variable rate setting. I've never done any proper blind ABX tests, but the people who do this kind of thing say that LAME 'V-zero' sounds identical to the original with most music. (Trained listeners can hear a "pre echo", even at 320kbps CBR with some music, such as castanets.)
I've also converted a couple of CD audio books to MP3, and I used the same settings. The whole MP3 audio book fit onto a single CD, so I didn't bother trying a lower bitrate.
And, I think this is the first mention of bitrate, and I want to make sure you're not confusing Sample rate (i.e. 44.1kHz) with bit rate (i.e. 256 kbps). We were only concerned about sample rate for high-speed recording...
Sample rate is the rate at which sound is digitized. With audio CDs, the sample rate is 44.1kHz. In order to reconstruct a waveform, you need at least 2 samples per cycle (one for the top-half of the wave and another for the bottom-half). This means that an audio CD cannot contain any frequencies higher than 22,050 Hz. (And, the Nyquist theory says you only need two samples per cycle.)
Bit rate is the number of bits per second used to store the audio. You can compute the bitrate if you know the file size and playing time. You can calculate the bitrate for a CD (1411 kbps), but bitrate is normally discussed in relation to lossy formats (lower bitrate = smaller file = more compression = lower quality).
* I've never tried "zipping" an audio file, but from what I've read it doesn't work well because the compressed file is about the same size as the uncompressed original.
** We have to be careful about saying "better" or "best". Modern compression is very good, and if 128kbps or 192kbps sounds exactly like the original, we can't claim that 320kbps is 'better".
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
Thanks Dougdbug; excellent stuff!
I had recently realized that compressing after getting the tapes onto disk (in lossless format) would be a relatively simple task. The web guy definitely wants MP3 format, so my mind was stuck in that gear.
I was thinking last night that WMA-Lossless was the way to go since it's made by someone I recognize. FLAC seems to have a strong following based on my googling. Any thoughts on FLAC vs WMA-Lossless? I'm leaning towards FLAC now.
I had recently realized that compressing after getting the tapes onto disk (in lossless format) would be a relatively simple task. The web guy definitely wants MP3 format, so my mind was stuck in that gear.
I was thinking last night that WMA-Lossless was the way to go since it's made by someone I recognize. FLAC seems to have a strong following based on my googling. Any thoughts on FLAC vs WMA-Lossless? I'm leaning towards FLAC now.
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
FWIW, I use FLAC for archiving because it is an open-source standard and therefore more likely to be supported on a wide range of platforms.
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
For the Internet you're going to need small files, so that means MP3 or lossy WMA. I'd go with whatever your Web guy recommends. We have to consider convenience & usability more than audio quality.
I didn't think about lossless WMA, but I think anyone with Windows Media Player can play lossless or lossy WMA. (FLAC requires an add-on CODEC.) I don't know if people with Macs need to install special software or a special CODEC to play WMA... Your Web guy should know. (WMA won't play on an iPod.) You could have more than one format, or one format if the user wants to click-and-listen and another format for download.
For permanent "archival" purposes, it wouldn't hurt to go lossless if you've got the disk space.* For your "master" digital file, any lossless format has the advantage of being quickly & easily convertible to another lossless format (losslessly) or to any lossy format. This makes any lossless format fairly future-roof. If you choose FLAC, and it goes "out of style" in 5 or 10, or 50 years, it can be converted to something else without loosing a single byte of audio data! (When you convert between two lossy formats, there's some data-loss every time you encode.)
But like I said, you're not likely to hear a difference with a high-quality lossy format either... So, as long as you don't choose very low quality "voice" compression setting, you're safe... Don't sweat it! And, were' not talking about archiving studio-quality symphony recordings...
* You also need a 2nd disk/computer for an offsite backup... You'll have the original tapes as backup, but this is a lot of work and you'll want to backup the work as well as the "data".
I didn't think about lossless WMA, but I think anyone with Windows Media Player can play lossless or lossy WMA. (FLAC requires an add-on CODEC.) I don't know if people with Macs need to install special software or a special CODEC to play WMA... Your Web guy should know. (WMA won't play on an iPod.) You could have more than one format, or one format if the user wants to click-and-listen and another format for download.
For permanent "archival" purposes, it wouldn't hurt to go lossless if you've got the disk space.* For your "master" digital file, any lossless format has the advantage of being quickly & easily convertible to another lossless format (losslessly) or to any lossy format. This makes any lossless format fairly future-roof. If you choose FLAC, and it goes "out of style" in 5 or 10, or 50 years, it can be converted to something else without loosing a single byte of audio data! (When you convert between two lossy formats, there's some data-loss every time you encode.)
But like I said, you're not likely to hear a difference with a high-quality lossy format either... So, as long as you don't choose very low quality "voice" compression setting, you're safe... Don't sweat it! And, were' not talking about archiving studio-quality symphony recordings...
* You also need a 2nd disk/computer for an offsite backup... You'll have the original tapes as backup, but this is a lot of work and you'll want to backup the work as well as the "data".
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
I really appreciated every one's help. If you're still tuned in, I have a question about MP3 LAME settings.
I've read that something like "LAME -V 8 --vbr-new -mm" works well for speech, but then when I look at the Mp3 options in GoldWave I'm confused about how to achieve that.
On the "MPEQ Audio" options after hitting "attributes", Is "VBR Quality" essentially the -V option? I get the -mm for mono part. --vbr for variable bit rate; not sure what -new is. What I'm really confused about is the bitrate range in GoldWave. I thought that the -V 8 part was telling LAME what I was targeting without also specifying a range. Perhaps there's just not a 1-1 mapping between GoldWave and LAME on these MP3 attributes?
I've read that something like "LAME -V 8 --vbr-new -mm" works well for speech, but then when I look at the Mp3 options in GoldWave I'm confused about how to achieve that.
On the "MPEQ Audio" options after hitting "attributes", Is "VBR Quality" essentially the -V option? I get the -mm for mono part. --vbr for variable bit rate; not sure what -new is. What I'm really confused about is the bitrate range in GoldWave. I thought that the -V 8 part was telling LAME what I was targeting without also specifying a range. Perhaps there's just not a 1-1 mapping between GoldWave and LAME on these MP3 attributes?
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
If you haven't seen it already, check out the following page. It explains the various LAME bitrate settings.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME
.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME
.
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
Thanks. I was looking for that page yesterday (having seen but then lost it).Gord wrote:If you haven't seen it already, check out the following page.
Those "V" settings are what I'm wondering about. How does GoldWave translate the "MPEQ Audio" attribute options into command line options? And if I set a -V 8, do I also need to set a bitrate range? I was thinking that the -V 8 implied a bitrate range.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:19 pm
Re: I need to archive 200 cassettes... HELP!
Really, I am impressed from this forum. Thanks for sharing some useful information with us. I found this informative and interesting blog so I think its very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have in this forum.