| Author |
Topic: Reel to reel to computer |
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 2 Nov 2007 8:50 pm |
|
I have a bunch of reel to reel tapes that are 30 to 40 years old, of my old bands.
I've been thinking of converting them to computer. From the tape out to the Presonus firebox to Cakewalk. The few I've done sound sorta OK, but I'm wondering if they would sound better going through an amplifier first.
Any thoughts? |
|
|
 |
Randy Phelps
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 2 Nov 2007 9:17 pm
|
|
I would run them through a good tube pre amp.
when you say they 'sound okay' does that mean they don't sound as good as the tape through your stereo? if yes, I'd take a look at how you are 'capturing' the input signal... my suggestion would be to start completely dry and flat and try to get as accurate a 'snapshot' of the extant tape as I could. make sure not to capture 'too hot' as digital recording does not like to see levels that approach redline. Digital distortion is one of the ugliest sounds I've heard.
Once you have an accurate portrait of the sound, there are some things that can be done to sweeten it... but first... get at least as good a sound as is on the tape. |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 3 Nov 2007 4:43 am
|
|
Sometimes I take these old things and send them thru the Digital Workstation and add EQ to them to HELP them along...
whatever it takes !
TP |
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 3 Nov 2007 7:11 am
|
|
I would say that the sound I get is as good as the tape. Therein lays the problem. It would be nice to be able to "sweeten" the sound before it reached the computer. I'm sure you know the sound of non-pro recording and whatever mic we happened to use, especially from 40 years ago.
I don't have a tube type preamp but would be willing to buy one if req'd. Any suggestions for one of those? |
|
|
|
Randy Phelps
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 3 Nov 2007 10:07 am
|
|
Ken,
If you are getting a good 'snapshot' of the sound on the tape I would NOT use a preamp. I'd capture it on my workstation and go to work.
A couple of tricks I've found that are cheap, easy and fast.
Assuming that your recording is stereo, capture left and right on separate tracks.
copy and duplicate your left and right channel.
copy them to new tracks...
okay on the copied tracks (and depending on what software you are using you may to tinker with this a bit.) Crank the daylights out of the compression.
So you should have a left and right unaltered track and a left and right compressed... play it back... it should make the track pop just a little bit.
The next thing I've found is adding just a teence of echo on the compressed track.
OKAY a totally different option that is simple and fairly cheap. Go buy a BBE 882 and put that between your reel to reel and your computer. This will brighten up the recording... it sounds pretty good and you'll most likely like the result.
just a couple of ideas... one free, the other costs a bit but sounds really nice. |
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 3 Nov 2007 6:45 pm
|
|
| Thanks Randy. I believe I'll try your free way first. |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 4 Nov 2007 7:51 am
|
|
| Ken Lang wrote: |
| I would say that the sound I get is as good as the tape. |
Ok this is the crux.
You have essentially reproduced your original tape sound.
Of course there is flaking and media degradation after all this time.
My thought is get it into the computer direct and dry,
in as few passes as possible. At that point it's captured.
Erasing and trying again, may likely cause greatly increased tape degradation and the loss of tracks.
Randy's idea is curious, it's a question of getting the compressed levels right in the playback.
But it also could add phaseiness from mixing
different compression transient slew rates etc.
It will also bring your noise floor up significantly.
Try some light compression and light eq.
and light short time reverb if it seems very dry.
but with little or no early reflections.
Be subtle.
And listen to it out of the house.
There are plug-ins called Shufflers
and other stereo image modifiers,
these might or might not be helpful
to make the track have e better sound stage
or pop out more.
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Randy Phelps
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 4 Nov 2007 2:08 pm
|
|
Also, I have an older BBE unit that I'd happily lend you if you'd like to try it out.
The 'curious' compression trick is a pretty standard one used typically to 'thicken' vocals... but, I've taken a few friends old tapes and done the trick and with a little tinkering you can improve the overall sound some.
As far as increasing noise, if you get to where you've got that issued depending on the software you are using I can recommend a couple of simple things to mostly mitigate that as well.. my guess is you are looking for this to be better not perfect.
Anyway, pm me if you'd like to use my bbe for a spell.
rp |
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 4 Nov 2007 5:58 pm
|
|
I took a short instrumental from about 1963 and brought it into Sonar. I copied the track and added compression. It was louder of course, but hard to tell if it was improved. I guess I need to play with the method and do it for a variety of songs. That may take some time, but it will probably be worth it.
Like a dummy I got on 2nd life. That's a waster of time, but interesting. |
|
|
|
Randy Phelps
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 4 Nov 2007 6:52 pm
|
|
Ken, yup... you'll definitely get some volume... some playing with it will get you part of the way there...
The BBE stuff is also available as a plugin for sonar
http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/BBESonicMaximizer/default.asp
I think it runs about 100.00 but you can just assign it to your tracks and tweak with it just for a few moments... it will definitely make your recording sound better. |
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 4 Nov 2007 9:32 pm
|
|
| That seems pretty cool. I guess I'll have to give it a try. Good for old songs and new ones as well. |
|
|
|
Bill Bassett
From:
Papamoa New Zealand
|
Posted 8 Nov 2007 1:15 pm Reply
|
|
Where the heck did you get a reel to reel machine to play those old tapes? I know they are out there but every one that I have seen or tried (and one I even bought) had slipping belts, noisy pre-amps or otherwise did not work. I reely (speeling intended) need an old TEAC that will play 10 inch or 7 inch reels at 15 or 7 1/2 IPS. If it's not to much to ask, I need it to be able to play 1/4 track or 1/2 track tapes with dbx NR too.
BDBassett |
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 8 Nov 2007 6:05 pm
|
|
The reek to reel I have now, a Sony, I bought sometime in the late 60's. It still works, tho I only use it now for playback.
My first machine, a Webcor, I bought about 1957. Some of the tapes are from this machine as well as some others. One of the problems is getting the playback head in line with the track made on another machine.
I don't know about machines with a 1/2" tape capacity, but I would guess somebody has an old Ampex machine, if you can only find them. A used electronics store uses a part of one of our buildings for storage. I have seen old machines in there, some that may have been used at radio stations, but who knows if they work anymore. |
|
|
|
