this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
273 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60393 readers
4225 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i was a recording engineer during the time analog recording was just starting to get surpassed by digital, and of course there are still people who will die on the "analog is always best forever and ever" hill
but it's to the point where if you're not a completely-obsessed-to-the-point-no-one-can-stand-being-around-you audiophile, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between an analog source and a digital one pretending to be analog
the pros of digital just simply can't be outweighed by the pros of analog anymore
photography might be an area where digital hasn't caught up, since film's resolution is down to the molecular level, but that won't be the case forever (if it even is the case, i'm not a photographer)
Film resolution is limited by the size of the silver halide crystals that make up the light sensitive layer of the film. Crystals can come in different sizes, but their sensitivity to light depends on their size - generally you need pretty large crystals for usable photographic film, somewhere between 0.1 and 10 microns (depending on the film ISO rating) - about 3-5 orders of magnitude larger than what you would consider molecular scale.
When the film is developed the crystals are visible as film grain limiting the resolution in some ways similar to pixel size of a digital camera (although there are differences, since the crystal size is not completely uniform but rather has a specific distribution, creating a more random effect than the regular pixel grid of digital cameras)
The pixel sizes on modern high resolution digital camera sensors are actually similar, down to 0.5 micron. It's hard to make an exact comparison, but I have seen estimates that you need a full frame digital sensor of somewhere between 10 to 50 megapixels to equal the resolution of 35mm ISO 100 film.
And modern sensors are much more light sensitive than film, which allows you to shoot more optimally and give you more flexibility (less exposure time, potentially higher f-stop with better lens resolution, lower ISO, less light, etc.) and therefore achieve potentially better results in more conditions. Add to that the hassle and costs of working with film, and most professional photo work is now done in digital as well. Film is generally only used for stylistic purposes, by purists who are not satisfied with digital simulation.
I've got a cassette of some parody songs made by a local radio station that's basically going to become lost media if I don't digitize it myself. The only cassette players I currently own are a Walkman and one of those retro-style-but-not-old CD/cassette/record combo players. Do you have any advice on what I should do to get the best quality transfer that I can?
That's actually very easy to do and you don't need any special equipment. Simply use a male-male 3.5mm cable and connect one end from the stereo output of the cassette player and the other end into the microphone jack of any computer you own. Play the cassette - you can test the audio quality by running
arecord -f cd - | aplay -- you will have to tune the volume output of the cassette player and the input sensitivity of the microphone.From there, if you're paranoid, you could use
arecordto save the output to a.wavfile and encode it once the recording is done, but I had no problem just usingoggencdirectly on the piped audio. The final command looked like this:arecord -f cd - | oggenc -q 5 -o file.ogg -(change to-q 10if you want lossless encoding).I'm not sure if this is the best quality per se, but I would definitely recommend it over using specialized equipment like cassette-mp3 converters. The problem with those devices is that if they use underpowered hardware, you might experience buffering issues where the encoding hardware can't keep up with the audio stream or something like that. But doing it on a computer ensures that you will have all the processing power you need to make sure that this doesn't happen.
Good luck! I found it very easy to do - it took 5-10 minutes of setup.
1st thing i would do would be call the radio station--they might have a digital copy already, since it's a performance. or they might have the equipment you'd need to get it digitized. just don't leave the tape with them, unless you make a copy.
failing that, the public library might also have tape to digital conversion gear, depending on how big/well funded the library is.
last resort would be a recording studio, which might cost lots of money per hour, and it'll have to be converted in real time--play the tape from start to finish, while the computer 'records' it. if the studio don't have a top of the line gourmet tape deck, then they can take just take the output of your own player and plug it into protools, just ask for the highest resolution/bitrate in a lossless format
edit: i forgot another option, if you're in the states. you might try your state archives, just google the name of your state along with "archive", it should be a .gov address. they might actually be interested in the recording for their own digital collection, and would definitely have the necessary gear to get it digitized. the tricky part is they would need the permission of the radio station and/or whoever owns the copyright to post it publicly
It hasn't existed since 2003 (there's still a station on that frequency, but it's changed ownership and programming a couple of times). Maybe they still have the old master copies anyway? Or I suppose I could try to track down the DJs who produced it...
The library and state archives ideas are good suggestions; I'll look into them.
I mean, if using my own player might be considered "good enough," couldn't I just hook my Walkman's headphone output to the line in or mic input on my computer and do it myself? In addition to the audio built into the motherboard, I also have a relatively-cheap USB audio interface, which I guess isn't as good as it could be (it's 48KHz, not 192KHz) but would still be better than nothing.
The main thing is I'm not sure how I need to set the volume on the Walkman (it also apparently has a feature called "AVLS" that might or might not be relevant) or if I need an amplifier or something. I also don't know if I need to do anything special with ALSA/JACK/PulseAudio and know basically nothing about how to use Ardour or XMMS (I'm aware they exist and are the right type of software, but that's about it).
absolutely, i was responding to your question
other users have mentioned you can get a converter online, but the "you get what you pay for" maxim applies to electronics maybe more than anything else. the difference in quality between "consumer" and "professional" audio gear is getting narrower, but it's still there-- everything just depends on how much you want to spend
if the walkman has a "line out" port, you'd use that to plug into your "line in" on your recording device. you can use the headphone jack, but that signal is already amplified, so you'll have to adjust the output volume to where the input meter is the highest it can be without ever clipping (going 'red'). older consumer gear will have more noise (hiss) than anything professional. especially an amplified signal, as in a headphone jack. and that's where the money for pro stuff goes--lower noise floor. more information
edit: on a whim i did some looking and found this lol
you could just buy that, dump the recording down to a SD card, and then return the device the next day. done.
i had no idea they made such things, but i haven't really kept up with the music/audio industry since i left
While the quality won't be particularly good, a cheap cassette-to-MP3 converter off Amazon can ensure that the material at least isn't lost forever. Run the tape through 2-3 times to make sure you get at least one decent copy of everything. Once you've got that done, escalate as suggested by solsangraal to get a better transfer.
i do analog photography for a hobby, in the grand scheme professional analog photographers only account for like less than 1 percent and current film manufacturers are only able to exist because some high profile film directors insist on shooting film (think nolan) and film students. when theyre no longer around film will die soon.
there is almost no new film camera produced and the price of film keeps increasing to unreasonable prices.
it's the same with analog audio. reel to reel tape actually disappeared for a bit because no one manufactured it anymore, but some company (forget who) finally started making it again for the audiophiles. one reel of tape ~~is~~ was, 10 years ago, ~$300 and gives you 15 minutes of recording time, if you're running it at high speed for the best quality. no idea what the state of the business is in now, i was never a gear head and never kept up with any of it
I still enjoy looking through my albums and the process (and sound) of playing a record.