Re: [ARSCLIST] Podcasting--explained a bit...

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike is saying in a more complete and definitely less snarky way what I was saying. I totally agree 
with him, 100%. It's really a wrong move and bad engineering to record anything in a lossy format 
from the get-go. This includes oral histories, by the way. Penny wise and pound foolish procedure.

-- Tom Fine

PS -- also, if I were going to the trouble of transferring 78's, even though most of them sound 
lousy, I would use a low-level cartridge and a preamp with EQ options. An old Heath tube preamp can 
be had for near nothing on ebay. It has all the useful cutoff and turnover EQ options to make almost 
any 78 sound the way it was intended, bad as that may be.

PPS -- most 78's with what is considered by today's standards historic significance or any sliver of 
modern commercial appeal have been expertly remastered and reissued on CD. Folks like Doug Pomeroy 
take those metal parts and end up with better sound than was possible on a pressed 78 played on a 78 
player back in the day. You find out that some of that stuff (late 30s onward, mostly, mainly swing 
and classical, made by major labels in modern-for-the-time studios) actually sounds pretty good (no 
top end or low bass but fairly accurate reproduction of the tone and "sound" of individual 
instruments). Doug did particularly good work on the Benny Goodman material released on Bluebird/BMG 
a few years ago. Some people turned an instant nose-up after some of the early CEDAR efforts, and 
especially on badly-processed stuff like the Radio Spirits OTR CD's. But when used properly, tools 
like CEDAR and Sadie can work miracles on those old grooves and those CD's -- often budget priced --  
offer a far better listening experience than is possible with a worn out pile of old pressed 
records.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Podcasting--explained a bit...


> steven c wrote:
> > Okeh...let me explain further. I currently have RealAudio v10, which can
> > record anything I can feed into my sound card...but as its own *.ra files
> > (the older version recorded them as slighly different *.ram files).
> > Audacity, which I also own, seems to comprehend *.ra format...which it
> > can thus save as .wav or .mp3 (there may be other options).
> >
> > As I understand it, this means that once I get my "78 deck" (a seventies
> > "record player" with a stereo ceramic cartridge, which I'll be able to
> > plug  into the "Line In" jack of my sound card) properly soldered and
> > running, I should be able to create individual mp3 files of my 78's...
> > but one record at a time!
> >
> > So, what I want to do is assemble these into larger, multi-78 .mp3 files...
> > possibly with spoken commentary (I need the adapter to fit my mikes with
> > 1/4" plugs into the mimi-jack)...which I can then figure out how to make
> > available to the outside world (or at least the digitally-capable portion
> > thereof). Can this be done? If so, how and/or using what?
> >
> > Finally, I've noticed that MP3 files vary in size (bytes) even though
> > they may contain music of the same length. Are there different forms/
> > styles/degrees/wothaveya of MP3's, and thus settings one can enter
> > or change (presumably) to adjust the sound quality? And...if so,
> > what would be best for 78's intended for everyday listening?
>
> AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
>
> RealAudio and MP3 are lossy formats. They have different specific losses but of the same general 
> type. Going through RA to MP3 ensures that they will be compounded.
>
> Each has 'settings' for the amount of compression relative to WAV. The greater the compression 
> (this will be news to no one), the greater the loss. An excellent MP3 compressor, such as that 
> from the FII, set for the usual compression (11:1) costs half an octave of high-end response 
> (relative to half the sample rate), but little more. RA loses less on the high end but produces 
> lovely artifacts - spurious sounds and sound effects.
>
> Even for 78s - a phrase I thought I'd never use on this list - compounding of such losses will 
> hurt.
>
> While editing can be done with MP3 or RA, I strongly recommend you edit your audio - including 
> combining multiple files - in uncompressed form: PCM WAV. In fact, almost all audio editing is 
> done in uncompressed form although the input and output may be compressed. In other words, you get 
> to repeat and to compound the losses each time you pick up the file to fiddle with it.
>
> Bottom line: However you capture your audio, output it as PCM WAV at your chosen sample rate, 
> usually 44.1 or 22.05 ksps. Keep it WAV as you clean up the sound, combine chunks to make the 
> program, adjust levels and balances and do all the other good stuff you want. Finally, output your 
> longer file in whatever format with whatever compression you choose.
>
> I still think you'd be better off with individual elements (perhaps each combining music and 
> commentary) assembled via a playlist, but that's your option.
>
> Mike
> --
> mrichter@xxxxxxx
> http://www.mrichter.com/