Enhancing audio from VHS capture

[lordsmurf]

I don't see how the amateur nature of a tape changes the need for bitrate. Noise is noise.

[Ghitulescu]

Noise masks sometimes good information. Future algorithms may help removing the real noise while keeping the info. This is why the following is recommended, for archival purposes: - always make a 1:1 copy of the original source (one can also keep the "corrected" version thereof, but the original should be copied 1:1), both for analog and digital, while for analog audio todays' consensus is 96/24 (that includes not only movies, but also studio master tapes). One can find those info in the Library of Congress guidelines.

[2Bdecided]

I don't see how the amateur nature of a tape changes the need for bitrate. Noise is noise.I think (hope!) you are confusing samplerate and bitrate. 384kbps (bitrate) would be low-ish for audio restoration - you'd normally use lossless. 384kHz (sample rate) is beyond overkill!

48kHz 16-bit already completely captures everything that's on a VHS mono tape, and then some.

There is no more information to capture!

Cheers,
David.

[2Bdecided]

2B, you state that you disagree with what I wrote...

... then said the same thing I did with different words as your rebuttle. Seriously?You claim there's something, other than setting the level, that needs to be done (or is better done) in hardware. I disagree. That's all.

e.g.But you can also further take advantage of a good EQ in a mixer, to pre-process audio. It DOES helps, and will often exceed software-only work. There is a reason massive audio boards are still in use -- this is it.by all means twiddle the real hardware controls at your disposal - if you're trying to make real-time dynamic adjustments (not sure why - we're talking about copying VHS, not mixing a live band, but anyway...!), this can be more convenient than most software. But you could do all the same, and more, in software. And modern software can be near-enough as responsive.

Cheers,
David.

[markanini]

There's no major advantage to using hardware units except a certain intuitive hand-on feel of them, which while nice aren't essential. Further more most higher quality outboard units are DSP based anyway so unless you do restoration for a living there's no reason not to be a cheapskate...;)

[Ghitulescu]

I'm the hardware guy, I would always favour a hardware solution to a software one, within certain limits. Of course, hardware devices are more expensive, and sometimes not that flexible, and in some points inferior to some software solutions. But they work in real-time and I never experienced a BSOD, nor I need a workaround (at the instigation of multimedia concerns Bill Gates decided together with Intel not to allow bit-perfect signal-paths in consumer PCs).

Generally, this sort of discussion is held between partisans of one side that never used the alternative, wrongly used or more-or-less failed using it. I used both and, maybe it's a placebo, maybe it's the feeling, but I like more the hardware way.

Have any of the software guys tried to command a medium complexity mixer with a mouse? It's like writing in MS Word with Insert Character instead of using the 10 fingers on the keyboard.

[pandy]

Modern hardware it is usually software with hardware acceleration... those fancy DSP's runs only algorithms - turning knob just load new coefficients to registers etc
there is nothing wrong to use a software with fast universal CPU that can run algorithm fast and in real time from signal point of view - issue is latency and jitter - usually much higher in such poor multimedia operating systems as MS Windows xxx are.

[2Bdecided]

I agree with the last three posts. These days, with hi-end processing, you're just talking about different input devices and slightly different architectures. Underneath, the algorithms could be identical.

Of course this isn't true if you have analogue processing - but in audio, all that analogue processing can be done digitally (with obvious caveats about noise, level, and the complexity of modelling some types of distortion).

Cheers,
David.