I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this? Or should I just get
a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon or Onkyo, for about $160?

Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to? That is,
would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality WAV format and
burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3? That is, is the
best quality I could get from a good cassette recording going to
be no better recorded as a WAV than as a high-sampling-rate MP3?

- Tim

--

"Spammay Blockay" wrote in message
...
I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

Maybe a Nakamichi RX-202.


Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this? Or should I just get
a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon or Onkyo, for about $160?

HX-Pro is a Record-Only process, does nothing on playback.


Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to? That is,
would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality WAV format and
burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3?

Ideally, record to WAV file, of course. In practice, it's doubtful the
fidelity of any cassette would challenge a well-encoded MP3 or 128k or
better.

snip


Mark Z.

In article ,
Mark D. Zacharias wrote:

"Spammay Blockay" wrote in message
...
I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

Maybe a Nakamichi RX-202.


Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this? Or should I just get
a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon or Onkyo, for about $160?

HX-Pro is a Record-Only process, does nothing on playback.


Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to? That is,
would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality WAV format and
burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3?

Ideally, record to WAV file, of course. In practice, it's doubtful the
fidelity of any cassette would challenge a well-encoded MP3 or 128k or
better.

Thanks for your suggestions! I found a website reference on Deja
which has a ton of info: http://www.arsc-audio.org/

Everyone there recommends getting a Nak Dragon, but I don't want to
spend the vast bucks it would take to buy one and fix it up.

I'll take a look at the Nak RX-202 -- thanks!

- Tim

--

Spammay Blockay wrote:
I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

There is none. Autoreverse is a bad idea, because if you get the azimuth
set for one side of the tape, when it changes over the error will be
doubled.

Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this? Or should I just get
a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon or Onkyo, for about $160?

No, HX-Pro is a system that reduces record bias on treble peaks.
It has nothing to do with playback.

Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to? That is,
would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality WAV format and
burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3? That is, is the
best quality I could get from a good cassette recording going to
be no better recorded as a WAV than as a high-sampling-rate MP3?

Yes, it does matter. Cassette artifacts are bad enough without having
MP3 artifacts superimposed on top.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Spammay Blockay" wrote in message


I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

Tascam has at least one auto-reverse deck. I use one at church.

Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this?

Dolby HX-Pro is a record-side enhancement, only. It also does not really
bridge the immense gap between cassette and CD for demanding music.

Or should I just get a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon or Onkyo, for about
$160?

Frankly, if you've been away from cassette for a while, you might really be
disappointed at how it sounds, when compared to modern formats. I bounce
back and forth between a consumer-oriented plain vanilla Sony Dolby B/C deck
and Tascams and a HxPro Kenwood without much concern.

Think of the cassette format as a meat grinder that you put music into, but
only some of the flavor and very little of the texture will ever be heard
again.

Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to?

Even 16/44 is gross overkill for cassette or LP.

That is, would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality WAV format
and
burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3?

In your situation, I see MP3 as an unnecessary extra step that could add
confusion. In your situation all that MP3 can do of value is save disc space
and disk space is very cheap these days.

That is, is the best quality I could get from a good cassette recording
going to
be no better recorded as a WAV than as a high-sampling-rate MP3?

I'm pretty comfortable with 44/16 as a overkill media for transcribing
cassettes, but not MP3. That all said, really good MP3s blow away cassettes
in terms of sound quality if you compare cassette playback of a CD cassette
dubbing back to the original CD source.

You can count on a 44/16 wave file as being a sonically equivalent copy of
any cassette tape subject to the quality of your transcription work, but you
still can't count on a MP3 being a sonically equivalent copy of a demanding
wav file.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:09:56 GMT,
(Spammay Blockay) wrote:

I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

I wouldn't bother. Compared with the job of trimming, organising and
indexing your recordings (and there's no point doing this if you can't
FIND your material later:-), the extra trouble involved in flipping
the tapes is minimal.



What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this? Or should I just get
a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon or Onkyo, for about $160?

HX-Pro is a recording process. It's irreverent to your needs.


Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to? That is,
would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality WAV format and
burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3? That is, is the
best quality I could get from a good cassette recording going to
be no better recorded as a WAV than as a high-sampling-rate MP3?

Depends how good your source is, what type of music and how fussy you
are. I suspect hi-rate MP3 will be fine.


Assuming the tapes weren't all recorded on the same machine, you CAN
make a considerable difference in quality by adjusting the azimuth
setting for each tape. Laborious, but it will make MUCH more
difference than the choice between wav and hi-rate MP3.

On or about 10 Aug 2004 09:58:40 -0400, Scott Dorsey allegedly wrote:

What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

There is none. Autoreverse is a bad idea, because if you get the azimuth
set for one side of the tape, when it changes over the error will be
doubled.

I agree that auto reverse is bad, and he should trim azimuth for each
cassette side.

However Scott, you might want to have another think about the azimuth
geometry involved in flipping a cassette. When flipped end to end (as you
do with a cassette), a +2 degree azimuth error will still be +2 degrees
(+/- other shell alignment or head movement issues).

The azimuth error would only double if you flipped the tape over and read
through the back of it.

Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)

It's irreverent to your needs.

LOL !

Mark Z.


"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:09:56 GMT,
(Spammay Blockay) wrote:

I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

I wouldn't bother. Compared with the job of trimming, organising and
indexing your recordings (and there's no point doing this if you can't
FIND your material later:-), the extra trouble involved in flipping
the tapes is minimal.



What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this? Or should I just get
a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon or Onkyo, for about $160?

HX-Pro is a recording process. It's irreverent to your needs.


Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to? That is,
would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality WAV format and
burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3? That is, is the
best quality I could get from a good cassette recording going to
be no better recorded as a WAV than as a high-sampling-rate MP3?

Depends how good your source is, what type of music and how fussy you
are. I suspect hi-rate MP3 will be fine.


Assuming the tapes weren't all recorded on the same machine, you CAN
make a considerable difference in quality by adjusting the azimuth
setting for each tape. Laborious, but it will make MUCH more
difference than the choice between wav and hi-rate MP3.

Autoreverse is a bad idea, because if you get the azimuth set for
one side of the tape, when it changes over the error will be doubled.

The Nakamichi Dragon automatically sets the correct azimuth, regardless of the
tape's direction.

Noel Bachelor wrote:

However Scott, you might want to have another think about the azimuth
geometry involved in flipping a cassette. When flipped end to end (as you
do with a cassette), a +2 degree azimuth error will still be +2 degrees
(+/- other shell alignment or head movement issues).

The azimuth error would only double if you flipped the tape over and read
through the back of it.

Aargh. That's right, and makes sense.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Noel Bachelor wrote:

However Scott, you might want to have another think about the azimuth
geometry involved in flipping a cassette. When flipped end to end (as
you
do with a cassette), a +2 degree azimuth error will still be +2 degrees
(+/- other shell alignment or head movement issues).

The azimuth error would only double if you flipped the tape over and read
through the back of it.

Aargh. That's right, and makes sense.

Of course that assumes some sort of precision in the head-flipping
mechanism which seems optimistic at best in a mass-produced
consumer product.

The RX-202 physically turns the tape cartridge over. Azimuth is fixed.

Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Noel Bachelor wrote:

However Scott, you might want to have another think about the azimuth
geometry involved in flipping a cassette. When flipped end to end (as
you
do with a cassette), a +2 degree azimuth error will still be +2 degrees
(+/- other shell alignment or head movement issues).

The azimuth error would only double if you flipped the tape over and read
through the back of it.

Aargh. That's right, and makes sense.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mark D. Zacharias wrote:
The RX-202 physically turns the tape cartridge over. Azimuth is fixed.

Oh.... for a cassette deck whose azimuth is _really_ fixed....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

The RX-202 physically turns the tape cartridge over.

Really? That must be a sight to see. I remember a record changer that
turned the record over.

Azimuth is fixed.

No, azimuth is broken again when the tape is turned over.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Replying here since my ISP's news server lost the beginning of the thread.


It just occurred to me that the Philips DCC decks have auto-reverse.

I have one ( a bargain buy from Richer Sounds ) that I boughtt out of curiosity
sa much as anything. At the time Sony's MD was still slated for its poor ATRACS
performance and Philips equivalent ( whose name I forget now ) was considered to
be a far superior compression technique.

Trouble was - I discovered - the tapes self-erase after a few yrs !

Consolation was that the digital heads also play analogue cassettes and the
azimuth must be stunning to even remotely be able to do digital.

Best sounding cassette replay deck I've ever heard.

If you can find one, I suggest you get it.


Graham

From: Pooh Bear wrote:



Replying here since my ISP's news server lost the beginning of the thread.


It just occurred to me that the Philips DCC decks have auto-reverse.

I have one ( a bargain buy from Richer Sounds ) that I boughtt out of
curiosity
sa much as anything. At the time Sony's MD was still slated for its poor
ATRACS
performance and Philips equivalent ( whose name I forget now ) was considered
to
be a far superior compression technique.

snip

Philips equivalent: PASC (Precision Adaptive Subband Coding).

Jeff

Spammay Blockay wrote:

I want to transfer all of my old cassettes to digital form, and,
although I've got a good 3-head Rotel deck, it's not auto-reverse.
I want to save the time of having to turn the tape over, since I've
got about 200+ cassettes to transfer.

You can possibly get top quality from also at least some auto reverse
decks until the auto reverse option has been used a few times, generally
however you should not expect top quality from an autoreverse design
*because* autoreverse functionality relies on making things movable that
should generally be fixed with loctited screws.

What would be the best autoreverse deck out there these days that
would provide the best quality I could expect from a cassette when
transferring it to digital?

There isn't any. The deck you have, and presumably has recorded at least
the newer casettes on is probably the most suitable. Its head adjustment
may or may not be slightly off in absolute terms, but it is likely to be
a decent fit to the actual tapes.

Is Dolby HX-Pro important in doing this?

No, it is a record option, not a playback option.

Or should I just get a mid-range deck, Sony, Denon
or Onkyo, for about $160?

I don't want to get into commenting on this. A tape deck that is
mechanically adjusted to fit the actual tapes is probably better, and
the one you have is more likely to fit that requirement.

Finally, would it matter much which format I recorded to?
That is, would it be better to record from tape to CD-quality
WAV format

This really really depends on many considerations, one being what
sampling frequency choices that sound acceptable to you with the actual
AD converter. With a good AD converter you could get away with recording
at 32 kHz, with a "less good" you should probably record at at least 48
kHz.

and burn as a regular CD, or record from tape to MP3?
That is, is the best quality I could get from a good cassette
recording going to be no better recorded as a WAV than as a
high-sampling-rate MP3?

You can't ask it like that, different kinds of distortion sound
differently, and even with real crappy casettes it may be preferable to
record at a high sampling frequency. MP3 does seem to get acceptable
around 192 kbit, and the amount of general playback devices that will
play them is increasing, so simple storage economy may suggest that
format. You should end at 44.1 kHz in case you aim for CD's, but there
is not in my opinion any compelling need for using a full wordlength
audio format as final storage unless you want to preserve more
restoration options. I settled for 32 kHz sampling rate and 192 kbit
mp3's for computer based storage of items from my casette drawer. Mostly
I recorded at a higher sampling rate and downsampled later.

- Tim


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************