Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (
More info?)
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<2u-dnWn7i9prtI_cRVn-ow@comcast.com>...
> > I could simply acquire a quadraphonic playback unit such as an amp or a
> > receiver and just enjoy them as-is; and I may do so at some point.
> > But as a challenge, and because I think it *can* be done, I would like
> > to bring these four channels into the digital domain.
> Not a bad idea. Could be fun.
I'm hoping it will be - I'm invested partway in.
> This can work - I have a Delta66 which is the same card as a Delta 44 with
> added digital I/O. The M-Audio cards are easy to match up with consumer gear
> because they support three different signal levels, -10, *consumer*, and +4.
> In the case of the Delta 44, 66, and 1010LT, this is just a software
> setting.
Sounds good to me. I presume that there is some widget that lets me
convert RCA jacks to 1/4" jacks for the input/output. Do you know
where I might find them? Radio Shack?
> If I were going to get at all serious about multichannel, I wouldn't stop
> with just 4 channel analog hardware. 7.1 is the current *maximum* consumer
> multichannel format, and that would be nicely handled by an 8 channel card
> like the 1010LT. The 1010LT has the additional advantage of having mostly
> RCA jack I/O. If you get one on sale, it isn't really that much more than a
> Delta 44 at regular retail. A good transparent digital output port like the
> one on the 66 or 1010LT would also be helpful, for experiments with
> outboard decoders.
Hmmm, sounds interesting (the Delta 1010LT). A quick Google seems to
show no support for Linux, but I'm pretty easy with doing this in XP
if that turns out to be significantly easier.
> If you want to go cheap (which seems to contradict the effort you are
> putting into the analog playback side of the project), you can skip by using
> something as inexpensive as a Turtle Beach SantaCruz. For your $40 or so you
> get 4 really pretty clean independent analog ins and outs (actually stereo
> pairs, but you know what I mean). Personally, I'd rather see you pick either
> a TBSC or a 1010LT and skip the 44 or 66, because the 1010LT is the better
> total solution. The low cost of the TBSC makes it a great introductory
> option that can leave plenty of money for future upgrades.
I see your point! Well, believe it or not, I'm not really heavily
invested yet. It seems that older quadraphonic equipment is not that
expensive. I've purchased a well-used but seemingly not abused Sony
quad unit at a local flea market, and identified (with the able
assistance of a great repair guy) the problems it has. I've shipped
it to him, and we currently estimate a fairly low cost of restoration.
Barring the unit turning out to be absolute dirt, I think I've got a
4-channel playback deck for cheap. I may end up shelling out about
$250 or so on the hardware + restoration work.
> > I plan to use Linux if I can - however, if I find myself struggling
> > with it too much, I may revert to Windows XP and purchased commercial
> > software if it is within the realm of a mere mortal to afford. I am
> > hoping that I can find software for Linux or Windows that will:
> I don't get this Linux thing for consumers, but that's just me. I very much
> get Linux for projects like Google, but maybe its my basic lack of ambition,
> I like mainstream software. I like to run as few experiments at one time, as
> possible.
That's a good point too. I like Linux, but it does frustrate me at
times because I don't know enough about it to be really masterful with
it. I can pound on it until things start to work, after a fashion,
sometimes. But you're right - sometimes it pays to just go with what
works out of the box.
> Sure, lots of it. Possible candidates include Audacity (freeware) and I
> think it supports Linux, N-Track (way under $100) AFAIK Windows-only , and
> the Windows-only Audition (ca. $300) software once known as CoolEdit.
I managed to get Audacity running on my Mandrake tonight (yay me). I
will take a look at the other apps you mentioned - thank you for the
information!
> > Is this only available in the realm of the professional audio engineer /
> sound
> > studio, or can an enthusiastic amateur/dabbler manage such a thing
> > (and within a several-hundred-dollar budget)?
>
> As they say, do the math. ;-) At the low end try the TBSC and Audacity and
> get change from $50. At the higher end, run a 1010LT, Audition, and the
> Minnetonka DVA-A converter with a DVD burner, and you will burn a pretty
> clean hole in and throughout $500.
Well, I have the DVD burner already - I don't know if it can burn
DVD-A, but I can find out pretty quickly. $550 is a lot to me, but
it's not OHMIGOD bad. Just kinda OUCH bad. If it turns out to be the
best way to do it, then there ya go.
> Here is a discussion of some relevant options you may find interesting:
>
http
/www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t16282.html
I will check that out, thanks. My googling had not turned that one
up.
> > My goal, as you can see, is to find and resurrect old quadraphonic
> > music and move it into a more accessible format for my own enjoyment.
> Seems like a worth goal. I'd love to take a bunch of raw tracks from old
> quad tapes and dump them into Audition for the remix. I had a lot of
> reservations about the old 4-channel format. I never liked it, spectacular
> as it could be. There were lots of negative comments about the philosophy of
> the old 4-channel recordings, and it would be fun to see what could be done
> to reformat them into something more natural.
Well, of the available vintage quad formats, I think I'll have the
most luck with R2R recordings - since they will tend to have degraded
a bit less over time (I think so, anyway) and they don't get subjected
to the same problems as the various formats of quad LP. And since the
4-channels are discrete, no decoding required, which is helpful.
I realize that many 'quad' recordings were anything but - some were
just hastily remixed stereo recordings - not 'real' quad at all.
Hardly worth the effort to preserve, when a clean copy of the original
stereo would sound much better. But there are SOME quad recordings
out there that were recorded as such originally. They have been mixed
down to stereo over the years, and now either they won't be remastered
or they just won't be released into the newer surround-sound formats.
I've a quad Julian Bream and a Sonny James - what are the chances that
THEY will ever be released again as 'audiophile' CD/DVD/SACD
pressings?
> > I am reasonably sure that it would be fairly trivial to do this if I
> > were converting old LPs to CD - there are lots of FAQ's on that.
> You might want to warm up your new toys and tools by means of the
> time-honored "walk before you run" technique. Do some LP or analog 2-channel
> tape transcriptions to get your feet wet.
A very good point - and I'll do that first to get a feel for it.
Thanks!
> > Same
> > thing if I wanted to mix down the quadraphonic sound to two channels.
> > But since there ARE four channels available, it seems a shame to throw
> > away that surround information when it might be translated into a more
> > modern format and enjoyed as surround sound again.
>
> Agreed.
Well, I'm off and running, thanks to the information I've received in
this thread. I can't thank you folks enough, I really appreciate it!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Facebook
Twitter