Media collection organization, digitize plans?

[Haunted_TBC]

I understand this is a bit off-topic, but with frequency response curves on my mind, I have to ask the dreaded question; which headphones are "ideal?"

Now, some might say that none are really up to the task, as only with a proper speaker setup (IE the Monsoon setup) can one accurately see how sound exists and reacts in a real setting, and with headphones, sound does not travel or react as it would normally. However, I am looking for a good set I can use anyways, and it I find it easier to hear certain details with headphones on.

I have heard good things about the Sennheiser headphones like the HD 490 Pro, but also Beyerdynamic and HiFiMan seem to have headphones with good curves. Since it’s a bit difficult for me to tell which is the “flattest” I’ll leave these here (HD 490 Pro 87, HD 800 S 90, Arya 93, DT1990 Pro 94, HD 660S2 95);

[lordsmurf]

Correct, the answer is "none". But when you must, $300+ for Sennheiser/etc. So you've done your research!

Audio from headphones is a bit more dull, as it lacks the acoustics. Really no way to avoid it with headphones. Pumping treble/whatever to fake it is not a good answer, but it's what many people/companies choose. Yuck. Don't do it. Just ralize it's flat and dull, don't further mess up the audio.

Pros mostly use headphones for isolation ("did I do that right?"), not for the audio quality.

[timtape]

I've used headphones for decades, especially for critical listening situations. Wouldnt be without them.

The headphones you cited appear to be standard 'over the ear' types.
They have their advantages but one of them isnt usually flat response unless they're something special.

If you are wanting a flatter, truer response, are you aware of In Ear Monitors (IEM)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-ear_monitor

[Haunted_TBC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Yuck. Don't do it. Just ralize it's flat and dull, don't further mess up the audio.

Pros mostly use headphones for isolation ("did I do that right?"), not for the audio quality.

This is what I meant, I plan to use these largely as a final step/check in the chain in addition to other listening. The wonderful Monsoon set will always come first/be used during the actual capturing/restoration processes, since I don’t believe any headphone can recreate that sort of soundstage or acoustics.

My main question was more of “which curve looks the flattest?,” but just to be clear, I will not be using headphones to replace or substitute the monitors in any way, simply as a supplement that I was already considering anyways for other reasons.

As for IEMs, I have tried a few really nice sets in the past. If we are talking abilities to resolve details or truly energized listening/isolated listening, then yes, it’s hard to find a good alternative at the high-quality level. But my understanding is that the soundstages and frequencies responses are superior on a similarly high-quality set of specifically open back headphones. If this was a question of closed-back headphones then yes, I would very much say that IEMs are superior.

[timtape]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

This is what I meant, I plan to use these largely as a final step/check in the chain in addition to other listening. The wonderful Monsoon set will always come first/be used during the actual capturing/restoration processes, since I don’t believe any headphone can recreate that sort of soundstage or acoustics.

My main question was more of “which curve looks the flattest?,” but just to be clear, I will not be using headphones to replace or substitute the monitors in any way, simply as a supplement that I was already considering anyways for other reasons.

As for IEMs, I have tried a few really nice sets in the past. If we are talking abilities to resolve details or truly energized listening/isolated listening, then yes, it’s hard to find a good alternative at the high-quality level. But my understanding is that the soundstages and frequencies responses are superior on a similarly high-quality set of specifically open back headphones...

'Soundstage' is a term often used by audiophiles...but the big contrast here is between all headphones/earbuds/IEM's, and speakers. With the former, the stereo image will be basically the same, for now the left ear cannot hear the right driver, and the right cannot hear the left driver. Thanks to head shadow there is virtually no crosstalk. This is unlike real life (including speakers) where there is always some cross talk. So in that sense all headphone types will sound unnatural until we understand what is going on and modify our expectation. Some people never do make the adjustment because they cant explain even to themselves what sounds different and why.

Open backed headphones work on the "infinite baffle" principle which if there is a good seal between the driver and ear can provide good extended bass with no associated constriction and resonance hump. Also of course open backed allows one to still hear some of the outside world. Whereas closed back, while sealing out the outside world, can have problems in the LF area.

Also stereo soundstage issues only apply in cases of true stereo recordings. Regardless of whether open or closed back, headphones, buds or IEM's, a mono recording will appear to emanate from the centre of our head.

I'm not trying to point you to a brand or model number, just pointing out some of the similarities and differences for listening based on design.

[Haunted_TBC]

The Aiwa should be coming back in the mail tomorrow, managed to get it fixed up with that establishment I mentioned earlier. All I’m missing now is a good shielded cable (so many online it’s hard to tell which are the better ones, any suggestions?) and perhaps a microcassette test tape to make sure the two speeds are exact (will likely have to have one custom made).

I’m likely going to ship out some of the film soon as well, but I’m still assessing the condition of some reels.

[timtape]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

perhaps a microcassette test tape to make sure the two speeds are exact (will likely have to have one custom made).

Microcassette tape speeds are an exact half or quarter of standard cassette speeds, or in musical terms one or two octaves down. So a cassette speed test tape can be used if transplanted into a microcassette shell, if that's something you or someone else is capable of doing.

Also, the real speed issue relates to playing back the tapes (or correcting digitally) at the speed of the actual recording. It may have been recorded significantly faster or slower than reference. The trick then is to work out what that recorded speed was, if possible. That's a subject in itself.

[Haunted_TBC]

Right, alignments can be off anywhere in the chain, but I just want to make sure both speeds on the player are at reference, regardless of what the tape source is, since I can fix that later/using digital means or testing with another microcassette player I don’t mind skewing the alignment of.

-- merged --

I finally managed to listen to some of my captured recordings on a different sound system (and a couple pairs of headphones) only to find that I was not able to eliminate a quiet but present buzzing sound. I had noticed it in early testing, as it would flare up very loudly whenever my finger was close to the head/play button and quiet down when I pulled it away. I even made sure that it was not a cable issue by doing the test with a properly shielded and unshielded cable. However, what I did not realize is that despite moving the player around, turning off lights and keeping it away from any sort of interference sources, I could not eliminate the buzzing sound.

To be clear, this is a very different sound to the usual tape hiss, which I am perfectly fine with. I suspect a cap or two may have gone bad in the Aiwa, but considering how much I have spent getting it in shape again, i wonder if at some point I should just figure out how best to borrow a properly restored high-end deck for a week or two for better results.

[captainvic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

I have started to use 2.5" HDD for OS boot, and SSD for capture storage. The SSDs are fine if under 2tb, and formatted on a Win7/8/10/11 system. Also use large blocks, not small default 4096 bytes (slows down SSD massively).

lordsmurf, what block size do you recommend for SSD's for capture storage? Many thanks!

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainvic

lordsmurf, what block size do you recommend for SSD's for capture storage? Many thanks!

NTSC 64k is the limits, so ... that one.

We're talking giant files here, cluster can be as big as allowed. And all that does is make access/seek faster.

- For highest quality (and most expensive) Samsung and Micron/Crucial drives, it doesn't make much difference, drive usually performs well either way. But still, I err on larger side.
- For average-quality drives, it makes a huge difference.
- For low-quality garbage drives, no difference, performance is still terrible regardless of cluster.

This means you can get a cheap Leven/TeamGroup/Lexar, and 64k cluster allows decent performance. At least for a while. And it's not a given, as those cheaper drive are highly variable quality from batch to batch (and understanding a "batch" is like 100,000 drives).

FYI, I've tried using cheaper drives with mixed success. Numbers dictate fail/pass ratio is 50/50, meaning useful drives are in actuality 200% more costly, so just splurge on the Samsung EVO if building a new setup. Either that, or feel free to piss off Amazon, abuse the return policy. I would just use the failed (for capturing) drives for other cheap storage. It wasn't a wise use of money.

[latreche34]

For long term storage nothing beats spinning platters, 8TB, 16TB or more, But for capturing and quick turnarounds (capture-edit-delete or migrate) SSD's are great, I got this Crucial 2TB SSD for little over $100 from Best Buy for my lossless recorder and it works like a charm.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

For long term storage nothing beats spinning platters, 8TB, 16TB or more, But for capturing and quick turnarounds (capture-edit-delete or migrate) SSD's are great, I got this Crucial 2TB SSD for little over $100 from Best Buy for my lossless recorder and it works like a charm.

The BX are very variable. MX is the good drive, BX is budget. It either works great, or it works like ass. BX is a drive I now avoid.

Leven seems to be the better cheap drive with 64k clusters, but still variable.

I just buy EVOs now. They're now cheap enough for SATA.

[latreche34]

I don't buy hard drives online, I buy them from the local store so if they don't perform as I hoped I'll just return them, So I wasn't into checking the technical details.

[Haunted_TBC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

I just buy EVOs now. They're now cheap enough for SATA.

Fascinating, I initially took you as an Exos or Fantom user.

What drives is Samsung rebranding these days? Seagate, Toshiba, or Western Digital?

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted_TBC

Fascinating, I initially took you as an Exos or Fantom user.
What drives is Samsung rebranding these days? Seagate, Toshiba, or Western Digital?

In terms of Samsung, I refer only to SSDs, and SATA EVO SSDs at that. For non-capture, QVO can be fine. I never use non-SATA SSDs for captures video files. (I use Thunderbolt 4 WD Black drives on my Mac, for 4K/HD editing.)

- I don't like Samsung or TSST hard drives.
- I used many Fantoms in the 2000s and 2010s, but all were using random drives inside. Usually good drives, but still random. Lots of Seagates in there.
- And I do have some Seagate 16tb Exos now, for backups and long-term storage. Also 22tb WD Elements.
- But the best HDD for capture have always been Seagate 2tb. Why? Cool, quiet, quick. Anything larger than means non-XP systems, and I'd rather use 4tb SATA Samsung EVO SSDs there. 4tb is a lot of captures, so larger is not really warranted.

[Haunted_TBC]

Unrelated question for anyone knowledgeable in ScenalyzerLive, I recently captured a tape but got about five errors with zero dropped frames. I checked the footage, and there appeared to be no issues, audio or otherwise. Is this normal?

[Haunted_TBC]

In my quest to get as close to error-free MiniDV data copies as possible, I have made the (mistaken?) effort of deciding to try out DVRescue using MacOS. I thankfully had some of the cables already, but I will see if this is able to surmount the issues I had with ScenalyzerLive.

[Haunted_TBC]

Having given DVRescue a try, I find it hard to work with, but ultimately very manageable, even if it does encode the files as .dv and not .avi like ScenalyzerLive 4.0.

However, when copying a tape I had previously done in ScenalyzerLive, I noticed there was an error where there had not been before. Feeling as if the tape may have degraded or failed further, I checked my old file from ScenalyzerLive, and i found that the error was present there as well! It was just small enough (one of the sections of the screen lagging for maybe one or two frames) that ScenalyzerLive must not have detected it. As it turns out, when tested across mutliple cameras and tapes, DVRescue is able to pick up several errors that ScenalyzerLive doesn't detect, so I'm inclined to just keep using it for archiving and error detection, although I am not sure which application I should use to get the .dv files rendered as new and properly deinterlaced, full resolution files (although the second part would still need to be done with the ScenalyzerLive .avi files).

[aramkolt]

Probably overkill, but certain Professional DV decks do have dynamic tracking/error correction and will play some tapes better than regular consumer products. They can even play some tapes that no other deck will in terms of LP if you don't have the original camera that recorded the tape.

Not sure what kind of errors you have, but if they are not visible and don't cause audio sync issues, Does it matter in the end?

[Haunted_TBC]

Some of the errors I have involve physical edge tearing on an isolated 2 cm section of the tape that causes audio and video errors. While I have not experienced any dropouts on any tapes, I have encountered several corrupted frames. And every MiniDV tape that I have was recorded in SP, so no need for LP. I have the original cameras for many of the MiniDV and all of the HDV tapes. My post was mainly about how DVRescue is able to detect even very small errors in addition to the obvious large ones I have encountered. If anything, my biggest conclusion is that the original DCR-TRV8 (which was stolen decades ago) used for many of the tape was not a very good MiniDV camera.

One thing DVRescue doesn't do so well is when it comes to parts of the tape between clips that have no timecode/are unrecorded. It sort of just stops recording and is hard to sync to the lead in. Similarly, there was apparently a severe glitch caused (potentially) by the addition of an on-camera fade-in that I had to partly cut off (thankfully not losing any audio or non-black frames) to copy properly.