Hi Sam:
No reason at all they shouldn't use Soundforge! That's why I recommend it.
It's easy to learn, easy to use and perfect for bringing in 2 channels and
now more channels at a time. Plus the latest version comes with very nice
processing and restoration tools that, again, are not hard to learn or use.
And as I alluded to, the latest version (9) finally allows for more than 2
channels at a time -- I currently have it set up for 4 channels at a time.
An academic or institutional customer should be able to find the
academic-discount price for any software, which is cheap compared to the
cost of redoing a project due to bad work.
My experience with Audacity was that it's akin to the graphic user
interfaces floating around for Linux -- it's klunky and primative and you're
fooling yourself if you think it's in the league of a real-deal,
paid-professional program. It's freeware, this is something that people with
no budget use because they have to, which is fine but non-ideal for doing
efficient and high-quality transfer work. If I were a guy wanting to get my
semi-worn-out LP collection into my iPod, I'd have no issues with plugging a
cheap preamp into my soundcard and using Adacity. If I were a professional
trying to preserve an archive of unique sound recordings, I'd scale up
substantially and do the job right so I didn't have to do it again and I
could leave a legacy of high-quality digital audio for the future.
I'm sure any of the pro-grade programs are in the same league as Soundforge,
btw, I just recommend because I use it and know it. I will say that I find
Protools overly complex for almost anything I'd do, and a
tracking/sequencing program like Acid or Cubase may or may not be
appropriate for this sort of work. Its seems like DC6/DC7 would work just as
well, too, and perhaps at a lower cost.
Finally, let me emphasize that software choice should be secondary to as
good an analog playback as possible and as good a digital interface as
possible. The hardware quality or lack thereof can ruin a transfer effort
right from the start. With any competent software used by a person who knows
how it works, you have to work at it some to ruin the audio quality. It's
more a matter of how you want to spend your time -- fussing with primative
and klunky interfaces or getting the job done efficiently.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Brylawski" <goodlistening@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Seeking recommendations for oral history
digitization equipment (fwd)
Tom,
You've made an unequivocal non-recommendation of Audacity. For someone
on a budget who is only re-formatting/migrating, presumably w/o
"processing," exactly why shouldn't they use Soundforge? Deatils would
be very useful.
Sam
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The most cost-effective way to do a large-ish transfer project is do it
once
and do it right. So, you don't want to cut too many corners. Joel has laid
out a bunch of good points before. Even for cassette-quality oral history
type stuff, it's best to do a good -resolution transfer once on a
well-maintained deck into a decent digital signal chain. Bottom-barrell
stuff will give bottom-barrell results but there is a whole range of
reasonably-priced and good quality gear out there.
As for software, I hate Audacity. I think it's worth exactly what it
costs.
It's klunky garbage, at least the last version I used, which was 2 years
ago. Much better is Sony Soundforge which can be had very reasonably if
one
is an education-related institution (see Educator Superstore website for
instance). The newest version of Soundforge comes with restoration/cleanup
tools that, when used conservatively and tastefully, can be very helpful
with this kind of audio.
Your best practice is to plan on at least three collections of files: 1)
raw
transfer PCM audio, hopefully higher resolution (I like 88.2/24 or 96/24
but
Richard Hess makes a convincing argument that 44.1/24 is perfectly OK for
spoken-word material). 2) processed PCM, this would be NR'd, normalized,
EQ'd etc and perhaps saved at CD resolution with a "safety" version burned
to archival CD media. 3) online/small-format version, MP3 or whatever
crunched format you used, saved from the CD-quality processed PCM version.
This would be for online/streaming or podcast use. These can be batch-made
by Soundforge out of the processed PCM files. My caveat would be, beware
crunching too lossy. Spoken word starts sounding really crappy when it's
surrounded by digi-swishies and other artifacts. I never go lower than
96kbps for MP3, which some might consider overkill but I sure don't. I
actually prefer 128kbps whenever possible because it preserves the upper
mouth/throat air resonances of most voices and also a decent MP3 cruncher
won't make swishies out of even heavy tape hiss.
Don't neglect the cassette end of this. Having a Tascam 122MkII is one
thing
but, how old is it and how well-maintained is it? I highly recommend
sending
it to NJ Factory Service for a refurb and have him make sure the head is
OK
too. As of a few months ago, Tascam still had heads, belts and other parts
for these machines.
Now that you see that even this kind of "pedestrian" audio is no simple
feat
to transfer and preserve correctly, have you considered out-sourcing the
transfer work? You could then concentrate your expertise on archiving,
editing, and making available your assets. There are grants out there to
pay
for outsourcing audio work to audio professionals.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "JA Eaton" <Joel.Eaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Seeking recommendations for oral history
digitization equipment (fwd)
Hi John,
Some thoughts on your situation...
1) As you are digitising for the first time, it's worth thinking about
preserving your files for future use, especially if you expand this
resource in the future. Therefore it's probably worth digitising your
material in the highest quality available in a format best suitable for
sustainability in the best possible way.
Which leads to...
2) Record your audio in the best available quality and convert down to
CD/web quality afterwards. i.e. 88.2Khz/24bit. You can back up the
'master'
files onto a hard drive or DVD's/CD's. Even though you may not need
these high quality files now, it'd save any future re-digitising issues
and
provide you with a backup if anything goes wrong. You may wish to consider
using open source file formats for future proofing such as Vorbis ogg or
FLAC, whereas WAV or AIFF are fine for CD distribution.
which leads to...
3)
One of the USB interfaces I was looking
at (the Tascam US-144) comes with a free version of Cubase, but I don't
know that it would be any better for our purposes than Audacity
A dedicated A>D converter over USB 2.0 or Firewire is going to give you
much better conversion quality than plugging into your internal soundcard.
These vary in quality and price and will generally be defined by your
budget. Quality of the pre-amps you use is also worth noting.
4. Pro Tools is a highly advanced multitracking and editing suite which
although capable is probably far too advanced for your needs. If you were
planning on digitising multiple media at once (multitracking) then
something of this ilk may be worth thinking about. (note that Pro Tools is
only compatible with it's own hardware except for Pro Tools M-Powered, a
lighter version). Audacity on the other is a freeware simple interface for
recording, simple editing, basic processing techniques and file
conversion.
One consideration is that the simpler (and cheaper) the program then the
less 'restoration' processing features it is likely to offer (should you
need them), such as de-noisers etc.
5.
Anyway, your thoughts on a good USB interface, a good and inexpensive
pair of monitors, headphones
a good pair of monitors may be worthless if your listening environment is
not designed for audio analysis(e.g. your desk is in a big open plan
office
with lots of background noise), however there are some decent reference
monitors on the market under the £400 mark. (KRK, Genelec being at the
top
end of the scale).
Again look for professional headphones with a 'flat' response (i.e. not
marketed to D.J's, live broadcast etc) but this can often be tricky
judging
between brands. Try AKG, Sennheiser.
USB interfaces. at the top end of the price scale (for your project
anyhow)MOTU make decent converters with quality preamps, alternatively
M-Audio, Edirol and Mackie do cheaper products. Look for ones which offer
higher sample rates/larger bit depth for any future needs.
hope this is of some help!
Joel Eaton
----------------------
Joel Eaton TSO - Sound Resources
TASI - A JISC Advisory Service
joel.eaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Free Helpdesk for UK Further and Higher Education: <info@xxxxxxxxxx>
Online advice documents: <http://www.tasi.ac.uk/>
Hands-on training: <http://www.tasi.ac.uk/training/>