[peel] Re: We've only just begun.

[Stuart]

I hope they accept our flacs then!

 

Stuart

 

  _____  

From: peel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:peel@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ken
Sent: 19 September 2011 18:50
To: peel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [peel] Re: We've only just begun.

 

  

i agree, and frankly very few of our ripped tapes will benefit much from
lossless instead of a high bit rate mp3. But the BBC standard is wav
lossless for everything, so they simply would not accept anything less than
that in a donation,

k

--- In peel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:peel%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stuart"
<stuartb@...> wrote:
>
> I think that once the tapes have been recorded, then providing replay
machine and tapes are in good condition, replay azimuth is by far the single
most important factor in the resulting digitisation quality. A reasonable
mp3 rate should of course be chosen, as even a ropey old AM recording will
be made worse by a very low bitrate. Poor azimuth settings can dull even a
400 Box tape.
> 
> Poor Dolby replay settings (including Dolby on when it was recorded off, C
instead of B, or at a different Dolby level) can also ruin a show with
audible pumping effects.
> 
> Source cassettes may have been recorded with poor quality decks such as
those with intrusive Automatic record Level settings but even the worst
quality recordings can be optimised by the correct azimuth, replay speed and
Noise Reduction settings. That's why some AM shows from the 400 Box, with a
natural tonal balance (though restricted at the top end) and good replay
azimuth, can sound better than some poorly replayed FM recordings.
> 
> With a top quality FM recording, then a VBR mp3 of 220-260kbps might just
sound a bit better than fixed 192kbps (and I now tend to use the former for
all my rips) but flac is only likely to be noticeably better when using .wav
or vinyl as a source.
> 
> Of course the BBC don't broadcast in lossless (FM has restricted frequency
range, DAB and DVB are lossy and studio compression has a huge impact on
sound)
> 
> Anyway all that is just "in my opinion", and I'm very rubbish at crossword
clues!
> 
> Stuart
> 
> --- In peel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:peel%40yahoogroups.com> , "Andrew"
<AndrewThezmore@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know my azimuth from my elbow either. I fully appreciate the
quality issue in listening to the shared shows now, but I really hope the
fact that the recording quality at the time was of secondary importance to
the sounds that came out of the crappy equipment some of us had (still have)
and that this is recognised at some point in the archiving process. I've got
tapes that are so poor quality-wise (both in reception and "editing") that I
can't imagine anyone else would want to hear.I know every second of them and
to me they are priceless.
> > 
> > btw Alan, the old conundrum, attic or loft? Mine's a loft. My box is
going back up there soon due to daughter's complaints of "why is it under my
bed?"
> > 
> > --- In peel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:peel%40yahoogroups.com> , Alan Ford
<ford.alan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can I just venture an observation about 'lossless' formats?
> > > Most of our shows come from FM radio broadcasts with varying reception
> > > quality, are taped onto C90's of varying quality, left in the attic
for 20
> > > years, ripped to FLAC files by people who don't their azimuth from
their
> > > elbow (ie me), then converted to MP3.
> > > I don't know how much is 'lost' between FLAC and MP3, but I'm guessing
not
> > > as much as has already been lost.
> > > Having said that - of course I have kept the FLACs for all my rips,
and the
> > > tapes are safely back in the attic.
> > > 
> > > Cheers
> > > 
> > > Alan
> >
>