Ok I have reached a dilemma. I have Hundreds of cassette tapes of Stones recordings - I was going to dump/garbage them, assuming that I had the best recordings of the Stones on CD transfer.
but on listening to the transfers. I have concluded that a lot of the of the the transfers are no where near the quality of my original tapes. What should I do with my original cassettes?. should I garbage them or keep them. This is a major issue for us collector's. Don't under estimate the decision to be made.If you have A stock pile of cassettes what are your intensions? interested in finding out your thoughts.

I also have Stones (plus others on Cassette) from 1970's

I intend to convert them to digital (one Day)

I would convert the tapes to digital audio, but you have to do it the right way:

- convert it to high resolution audio. Don't even think about CD format, it is 44khz/16bit which is really not great sounding. 24 bits is mandantory and sample rate should be at least 96khz, 192khz would be even better, but the step up in sound is way bigger from 44 to 96 than from 96 to 192. The resolution of 24bits/96khz is about 560 times higher than 16bits/44khz CD format!
- store and keep the converted audio in the highes possible resolution. If you need to downsample it for a certain player you can still do that in a copy of the files. Coming generations of audio players will support the higher resolutions and you don't want to convert all the tapes again
- stay away from lossy audio formats like MP3. It sucks. Especially when it comes to dynamics. the problems with dynamics doesn't matter much with todays highly compressed brickwalled productions but we are talking about tapes from the 70ies here. MP3 made sense when download bandwith was very limited and storage space was expensive but those times are gone. FLAC is a good format
- use a good audio interface to convert the tapes. No need for high end studio equipment here, i can recommend for example the Focusrite Scarlet 2i2 which is 24bits/96Khz and sounds really good. Its around $150 and of cause a little bit of an investment but very well worth it. The next generation of audio interfaces providing 24bits/192khz are just about to come out, maybe its worth waiting a few month and get one of them
- hook up your tape deck directly to the audio interface. Don't connect the tape deck to an amplifier and the interface to an output of the amplifier. Less electronics in the signal chain means better sound



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-27 00:44 by firebird.

What do you mean by "dumping"? Sell them or throw them in the garbage can?
If it is the last, DON'T!
I'm sure you will be sorry afterwards!

Chris from Belgium

Quote
firebird
I would convert the tapes to digital audio, but you have to do it the right way:

- convert it to high resolution audio. Don't even think about CD format, it is 44khz/16bit which is really not great sounding. 24 bits is mandantory and sample rate should be at least 96khz, 192khz would be even better, but the step up in sound is way bigger from 44 to 96 than from 96 to 192. The resolution of 24bits/96khz is about 560 times higher than 16bits/44khz CD format!
- store and keep the converted audio in the highes possible resolution. If you need to downsample it for a certain player you can still do that in a copy of the files. Coming generations of audio players will support the higher resolutions and you don't want to convert all the tapes again
- stay away from lossy audio formats like MP3. It sucks. Especially when it comes to dynamics. the problems with dynamics doesn't matter much with todays highly compressed brickwalled productions but we are talking about tapes from the 70ies here. MP3 made sense when download bandwith was very limited and storage space was expensive but those times are gone. FLAC is a good format
- use a good audio interface to convert the tapes. No need for high end studio equipment here, i can recommend for example the Focusrite Scarlet 2i2 which is 24bits/96Khz and sounds really good. Its around $150 and of cause a little bit of an investment but very well worth it. The next generation of audio interfaces providing 24bits/192khz are just about to come out, maybe its worth waiting a few month and get one of them
- hook up your tape deck directly to the audio interface. Don't connect the tape deck to an amplifier and the interface to an output of the amplifier. Less electronics in the signal chain means better sound

Thank you firebird.really appreciate your informative post

Quote
coowouters
What do you mean by "dumping"? Sell them or throw them in the garbage can?
If it is the last, DON'T!
I'm sure you will be sorry afterwards!

Chris, I was thinking about the garbage option as I am having a clear out of my attic, but I think I will take your advise and keep them. Now I have a project when I retire!!!

And don't forget to take care of the azimuth problems with the tape deck. Otherwise your transfers will not be optimal.

Quote
dcba
And don't forget to take care of the azimuth problems with the tape deck. Otherwise your transfers will not be optimal.

Thanks dcba - I did not realise that what looks like a small tweak. can make a big difference. great tip.

This story by a highly immoral person has a moral to it. I am the only person I know of to have owned a copy of Mobile 1972 that contained Chip's request to the audience before the Stones went onstage to remove the chairs they brought with them when they crashed the airlock between the front row and the front base of the stage. The cassette got thrown away. It is heart rending...

Quote
firebird
I would convert the tapes to digital audio, but you have to do it the right way:

- convert it to high resolution audio. Don't even think about CD format, it is 44khz/16bit which is really not great sounding. 24 bits is mandantory and sample rate should be at least 96khz, 192khz would be even better, but the step up in sound is way bigger from 44 to 96 than from 96 to 192. The resolution of 24bits/96khz is about 560 times higher than 16bits/44khz CD format!
- store and keep the converted audio in the highes possible resolution. If you need to downsample it for a certain player you can still do that in a copy of the files. Coming generations of audio players will support the higher resolutions and you don't want to convert all the tapes again
- stay away from lossy audio formats like MP3. It sucks. Especially when it comes to dynamics. the problems with dynamics doesn't matter much with todays highly compressed brickwalled productions but we are talking about tapes from the 70ies here. MP3 made sense when download bandwith was very limited and storage space was expensive but those times are gone. FLAC is a good format
- use a good audio interface to convert the tapes. No need for high end studio equipment here, i can recommend for example the Focusrite Scarlet 2i2 which is 24bits/96Khz and sounds really good. Its around $150 and of cause a little bit of an investment but very well worth it. The next generation of audio interfaces providing 24bits/192khz are just about to come out, maybe its worth waiting a few month and get one of them
- hook up your tape deck directly to the audio interface. Don't connect the tape deck to an amplifier and the interface to an output of the amplifier. Less electronics in the signal chain means better sound

Thanks for your input firebird. It inspired me to give it a try and the result is impressing.

I didn't start with my old tapes as I've already transfered about 30 shows in the last weeks and now I'm a bit worried that I'll have to start all over again.

So yesterday I took out the 12inch of Mick's "Just Another Night" and recorded side one (> 7 minutes).

With 192/32(float)-settings I ended up with a wav-file of more than 600 MBs.

For the first time I can't hear a difference between the wav-file and the vinyl which is astounding for me.

The only thing is when I convert to flac with foobar the result-file is only about 275 MB big and the sound-quality declines. So i gave it a try and converted back to wav and the result was a wav-file of about 400 MB of size. No wonder that it doesn't keep the quality.

So there's no sense in converting a high-res recording into flac, is it?

Maybe I used wrong parameters and somebody (you, firebird?) can help me out. Just curious as I don't worry to keep big wav-files on my HDs

Quote
silkcut1978_
With 192/32(float)-settings I ended up with a wav-file of more than 600 MBs.

For the first time I can't hear a difference between the wav-file and the vinyl which is astounding for me.

The only thing is when I convert to flac with foobar the result-file is only about 275 MB big and the sound-quality declines. So i gave it a try and converted back to wav and the result was a wav-file of about 400 MB of size. No wonder that it doesn't keep the quality.

So there's no sense in converting a high-res recording into flac, is it?

Maybe I used wrong parameters and somebody (you, firebird?) can help me out. Just curious as I don't worry to keep big wav-files on my HDs

FLAC won't encode at 32-bit floating, it will probably be converting to 24-bit integer, which shouldn't be a problem, I only use 32-bit float for working files.

Quote
JimmyShelter

Quote
silkcut1978_
With 192/32(float)-settings I ended up with a wav-file of more than 600 MBs.

For the first time I can't hear a difference between the wav-file and the vinyl which is astounding for me.

The only thing is when I convert to flac with foobar the result-file is only about 275 MB big and the sound-quality declines. So i gave it a try and converted back to wav and the result was a wav-file of about 400 MB of size. No wonder that it doesn't keep the quality.

So there's no sense in converting a high-res recording into flac, is it?

Maybe I used wrong parameters and somebody (you, firebird?) can help me out. Just curious as I don't worry to keep big wav-files on my HDs

FLAC won't encode at 32-bit floating, it will probably be converting to 24-bit integer, which shouldn't be a problem, I only use 32-bit float for working files.

Thanks for your answer JimmyShelter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-03-02 12:58 by silkcut1978_.

Quote
silkcut1978_

Quote
firebird
I would convert the tapes to digital audio, but you have to do it the right way:

- convert it to high resolution audio. Don't even think about CD format, it is 44khz/16bit which is really not great sounding. 24 bits is mandantory and sample rate should be at least 96khz, 192khz would be even better, but the step up in sound is way bigger from 44 to 96 than from 96 to 192. The resolution of 24bits/96khz is about 560 times higher than 16bits/44khz CD format!
- store and keep the converted audio in the highes possible resolution. If you need to downsample it for a certain player you can still do that in a copy of the files. Coming generations of audio players will support the higher resolutions and you don't want to convert all the tapes again
- stay away from lossy audio formats like MP3. It sucks. Especially when it comes to dynamics. the problems with dynamics doesn't matter much with todays highly compressed brickwalled productions but we are talking about tapes from the 70ies here. MP3 made sense when download bandwith was very limited and storage space was expensive but those times are gone. FLAC is a good format
- use a good audio interface to convert the tapes. No need for high end studio equipment here, i can recommend for example the Focusrite Scarlet 2i2 which is 24bits/96Khz and sounds really good. Its around $150 and of cause a little bit of an investment but very well worth it. The next generation of audio interfaces providing 24bits/192khz are just about to come out, maybe its worth waiting a few month and get one of them
- hook up your tape deck directly to the audio interface. Don't connect the tape deck to an amplifier and the interface to an output of the amplifier. Less electronics in the signal chain means better sound

Thanks for your input firebird. It inspired me to give it a try and the result is impressing.

I didn't start with my old tapes as I've already transfered about 30 shows in the last weeks and now I'm a bit worried that I'll have to start all over again.

So yesterday I took out the 12inch of Mick's "Just Another Night" and recorded side one (> 7 minutes).

With 192/32(float)-settings I ended up with a wav-file of more than 600 MBs.

For the first time I can't hear a difference between the wav-file and the vinyl which is astounding for me.

The only thing is when I convert to flac with foobar the result-file is only about 275 MB big and the sound-quality declines. So i gave it a try and converted back to wav and the result was a wav-file of about 400 MB of size. No wonder that it doesn't keep the quality.

So there's no sense in converting a high-res recording into flac, is it?

Maybe I used wrong parameters and somebody (you, firebird?) can help me out. Just curious as I don't worry to keep big wav-files on my HDs

Glad to hear you had great results converting the record. I have to say that i am not really surprised because i have access to high resolution audio gear for quite a while now and i know digital audio can sound great from my own experience. I keep pointing out that in forums everywhere but it seems that the reputation of digital audio is completely @#$%& up by CD and MP3 formats.
Regarding the FLAC conversion, i believe either the settings were messed up or the converter has a problem. FLAC is a lossless format, as long as you keep the sample rate and bitwidth there shouldn't be any degradation of the sound quality at all. Maybe try a different converter. I can't recommend a free one as i simply don't know them. I am using Reaper ($60) for all my conversion work but since it is a complete audio production software its maybe a bit oversized and too complicated to use for your needs.