Hey there - Thanks for the additional info and comments!
I have a handful of various Nakamichi decks I've been using, including a 480Z, LX-3, MR-2, BX-300. At some I will end up with problems if I'm can't find more places to keep these serviced, but I guess I'm good for a while. The only reason I bother to mention the different models, is that I've noticed that certain decks seem to favor certain decks, so I try a few decks before sticking with one for the actual transfer process. As for XLRs vs RCA, I did initially try some custom RCA > XLR cables, but I generally need those for my lathe-cutting work, and to be honest, I really wasn't hearing - or seeing - any notable difference that could be relegated to the cable. So in the end, I figured the RCAs worked just fine.
My own weird little quirk, I guess, is that I've been transferring at 24/48. To be honest, for the average recording, I think 16/44.1 would be just fine. Back when I was sharing files via bit-torrent sites, I bumped it up to 24/96, mainly due to how many people are fond of "re-mastering" or just generally re-working other folks' recordings - I figured, what the heck, might as well give 'em some extra headroom and frequencies to play with. But then, most of the time people complained about the size of the filesets, and combined with the fact that these weren't really studio-quality recordings to begin with, I made the concession to back off to 24/48. Still a bit of room to rework, and a bit more compatible for mixing with video, as I do that a bit.
But yes, I completely agree - the deck is what really does most of the heavy lifting or these transfers. Still, for *most* of these kinds of things, I personally feel that a Dragon might be overkill, not to mention they can be a bit touchy at times. Still, it is interesting to note that not every tape seems to perform best in just one deck. For instance, I've even done some A/B comparisons in the past, and the Dragon did *not* always produce the best results. It usually comes down to one or two decks in the end, and sometimes I almost wonder if our cats might be better equipped for this kind of thing than I am.
Hi there - Yep, I know I'm replying in an old thread - but, the topic seems appropriate, so why not?
I actually saw this thread a while back, but 2020 and 2021 had me scrambling enough as it were, so message boards were kind of a low priority for me at that time, and I missed a lot of conversation, I reckon. Was searching for something completely unrelated today, and this popped up, so I figured, what the heck?
Personally, I've been using this method:
1) cassette deck > Edirol R-09, via RCA
2) Edirol R-09 > PC, via USB
It sounds like this might be similar to the Monoprice or Tascam Dr-680 methods mentioned earlier.
I'm not familiar with those units, but it also seems like it would be about the same with just about any digital recorder, perhaps?
Monoprice sells cables that are mentioned in the topic, the cassette deck in the first post is a Marantz. Your approach is certainly the right way to go, and is equivalent to the DR-680 approach. The Marantz deck in the first post is a <$200 deck with a built-in A/D and a USB port to be hooked up to the computer, so there are some limitations and unknowns there. It does have an output gain control to optimize signal level to the computer, but is limited to 16-bit/48kHz. It certainly works, but a better cassette deck would be better.
Bottom line:
Use the best cassette deck you can (cleaned, demaged and azimuth adjusted) > line output > line-in input of your digital recorder of choice at your choice of bit depth/sampling freq. 16/44.1 is certainly adequate for this purpose, but 24/96 works too and is perhaps better for any mastering work that needs to happen in your DAW software. There's gong to be minimal differences in the recorder, though one could get into the fine details of A/D conversion and XLR vs. RCA vs. 1/4" vs. 1/8" connectors. The biggest delta will be the cassette deck and how well it reproduces what is on the tape.