Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nil[_2_] Nil[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Convert mono LP to digital

This was discussed here some time ago, I believe, and I thought I saved
the instructions, but I can't find them, so I hope for some advice...

I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 5/10/2015 3:03 p.m., Nil wrote:
This was discussed here some time ago, I believe, and I thought I saved
the instructions, but I can't find them, so I hope for some advice...

I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?


Do that and you will also cancel out the music.

I suggest try summing them and compare the result with each separate
channel, and choose whichever gives the best result.

Results may differ slightly for each different project , due the the
potentially random nature of the noise per channel.

geoff
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nil[_2_] Nil[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 04 Oct 2015, geoff wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

I suggest try summing them and compare the result with each
separate channel, and choose whichever gives the best result.


OK.

Results may differ slightly for each different project , due the
the potentially random nature of the noise per channel.


It has a lot to do with the condition of the LP. If it's in bad shape,
it's likely that one channel is a lot more worn and noisy than the
other, especially toward the inner grooves. One channel often sounds
significantly better than the other. The one I'm working on right now
is in pretty good shape, so summing them might work well. But I know
there was an invert/summing trick that was mentioned here, and I tried
it and it seemed to work well for the source I tried it on. If I could
only remember what it was...
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 5/10/2015 2:33 PM, geoff wrote:
On 5/10/2015 3:03 p.m., Nil wrote:
This was discussed here some time ago, I believe, and I thought I saved
the instructions, but I can't find them, so I hope for some advice...

I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?


Do that and you will also cancel out the music.


And should leave some noise/distortion not equal in both channels.
What you'd have to do then is sum the channels again in phase, then
invert polarity, and finally sum those two results to cancel the
noise/distortion of step one, from the 2 channel sum.
I've never tried it, but it might help. Of course any noise/distortion
equal in both channels will not be removed, and any noise/distortion in
phase but not equal will only be partially removed, along with some
music not in phase or not equal level in both channels. If the cartridge
is not perfectly aligned you are likely to remove more actual HF music
content than you would want IMO.

Trevor.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 05-10-2015 03:03, Nil wrote:

This was discussed here some time ago, I believe, and I thought I saved
the instructions, but I can't find them, so I hope for some advice...


I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file?


Sum the channels and be happy, but declick large clicks first, leave the
crackle and the small ones, they are proof of authenticity and great for
testing AD conversion and loudspeakers and their time domain behavior.
If one is dramatically better sounding than the other because of
previous playback with misaligned crap cartridge - a lot of cheap
grammophones offered that as a design feature - then select the best
sounding channel.

My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.


If you are really in trouble with the sound - applies also to 78 rpm -
try a different tip size, I had one problem lp that needed a poorer
cartridge, otherwise it was unbearably noisy.

If all else fails, you could use something akin to the center channel
extract function of Audition, but beware, it does add artifacts similar
to noise reduction artifacts.

The analog version is to convert to sum and difference and keep only the
sum track. That too focuses on what is common and discards what is
different.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?


You are on the track already by making a stereo transfer! - try the MS
stereo conversion first, probably the best idea, but only the actual
transfer will tell you which of the above works best.

The record should be clean. If you wash it with dishwasher, then rinse
with slightly acetic water, it will make the water pearl off of the
vinyl and easy to dab off with a cloth and it will remove calcium
deposits if there are some from previous incorrect washing. You can then
washs remaining water off with a record cleaning implement with pure
isopropylic alcohol.

Do if avaliable spray a quality antistatic record cosmetic antistatic
spray on or you will go mad from small noises. QED made some way long
time that are in fact very good.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Nil wrote:



I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.


** Stereo LPs are cut using a 45 /45 degree system that puts Left and Right channel signals on opposite sides of the grove. Also, the phase of one is reversed so that a mono signal results in purely lateral excursions of the cutter. This ensures mono compatibility and is put right by internally reverse wiring one channel of stereo pickups.

The problem with mono cut LPs is that they have mostly *stereo* noise on them because contamination & damage to each side of the groove is not identical.

Summing reverse phase, L and R signals from a mono LP removes the sound and what remains is an out of phase mix of the previous two noises. Summing this with a L + R signal may cancel one of them, but boost the other.

Worth a try maybe.


..... Phil





Simply summing L and R signals will cancel low frequency rumble from the turntable.












  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 10/4/2015 10:03 PM, Nil wrote:

I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file?


Unless you're trying to make the smallest file, you're probably better
off ending up with a stereo file with both channels identical. It's less
confusing. I take it that your goal is to clean up the sound of the
original record in the process of digitizing it.

My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.


No, you don't want to do that. It'll leave only what's different between
the channels, essentially only the errors with your phono cartridge and
the crackles on one channel that aren't simultaneously on the other
channel. But there are a number of different "restoration" programs and
plug-ins, some even free, that you can try. No doubt this thread will
grow a collection of recommendations.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Nil wrote:
I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?


Well, if you do it right, you'll play it back with a mono cartridge, then you
only have to eliminate one channel in your DAW.

If you do it with a stereo cartridge, you can sum the two channels to mono
and get a result that is pretty mono. How good this is depends a lot on
how well the channels of your preamp match.

If you are doing decrackling, you may want to do it before summing to mono.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Edi Zubovic Edi Zubovic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:03:17 -0400, Nil
wrote:

This was discussed here some time ago, I believe, and I thought I saved
the instructions, but I can't find them, so I hope for some advice...

I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?


-- I'm doing it in two ways: either record in the mono LP with a
stereo cartridge or use mono cartridge (internally wired but with
maintained vertical compliance). The third way would be using a
dedicated mono cartridge like old EMT (ie. Ortofon) OFS(aphire) or
OFD(iamond) cartridges. Today, Ortofon SPU fall in this category, I
think.

The last ones are dangerous to all stereo records as they have no
vertical impedance and usually require a hefty tracking force, so they
might damage a stereo record . With mono records, a greater tracking
force is no bad thing at all, though.

The EMT and Ortofons have a L-shaped cantilever, the foot holds the
stylus, vertical part holds a single coil and ends up in a kind of
partially elastic bearing which is held by a strip of Tesa cellophane
band.


In all cases, I'm using a dynamic - moving coil - cartridge. Older
LPs play well with a 1 mil stylus or somewhat less.

More recent microgroove records, say mid-60s onwards, would require
that less-than-one-mil styli.

A simple setup is the cartridge output into step-up transformers and
then directly to the sound card inputs, recording istr best made with
a dedicatred program such as Diamond Cut, which has already many
equalization curves etc. suitable for many records.

I am using stereo information to do a total cancelling out and I never
do it other ways. All music is horizontal here, get out all vertical.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Edi Zubovic Edi Zubovic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:13:47 +0200, Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem
wrote:



The last ones are dangerous to all stereo records as they have no

vertical impedance ---------compliance-------
and usually require a hefty tracking force, so they
might damage a stereo record . With mono records, a greater tracking
force is no bad thing at all, though.

The EMT and Ortofons have a L-shaped cantilever, the foot holds the
stylus, vertical part holds a single coil and ends up in a kind of
partially elastic bearing which is held by a strip of Tesa cellophane
band.

Sorry, swift fingers.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:

Simply summing L and R signals will cancel low frequency rumble from the turntable.


And from the cutting lathe.

If the stereo recording has equal level in the two channels, simply summing them will do the job. You'll probably need to filter out infrasonic noise; a 3rd-order filter at 16Hz will do that. The scientific filters in Audition will do the job. Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done everything you want to do to the signal, convert to a6 bits for burning a CD.

What's the content on the record you want to convert?

Peace,
Paul

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:

-- I'm doing it in two ways: either record in the mono LP with a
stereo cartridge or use mono cartridge (internally wired but with
maintained vertical compliance). The third way would be using a
dedicated mono cartridge like old EMT (ie. Ortofon) OFS(aphire) or
OFD(iamond) cartridges. Today, Ortofon SPU fall in this category, I
think.


The problem with the new Ortofon mono cartridges is that they are only
available with spherical styli, so you have all the tracking issues that
are inherent with that. But the extreme vertical stiffness is a big win
for mono records.

In all cases, I'm using a dynamic - moving coil - cartridge. Older
LPs play well with a 1 mil stylus or somewhat less.

More recent microgroove records, say mid-60s onwards, would require
that less-than-one-mil styli.


I'm not sure I buy that in part because it depends on how you measure it.
The original standard for mono recordings was 1.0 mil spherical, but if you
use an elliptical stylus you'll find a slightly smaller stylus will ride at
the same point in the groove.

Which is part of why I think the fineline stylus is such a win when it is
possible to use them; they can ride evenly in a wide range of groove widths.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Edi Zubovic Edi Zubovic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default Convert mono LP to digital

-----------8--------------------
I'm not sure I buy that in part because it depends on how you measure it.
The original standard for mono recordings was 1.0 mil spherical, but if you
use an elliptical stylus you'll find a slightly smaller stylus will ride at
the same point in the groove.

Which is part of why I think the fineline stylus is such a win when it is
possible to use them; they can ride evenly in a wide range of groove widths.
--scott


Yes, fineline styli have a profile resembling a chisel with long
contact areas and I find them superior for most of LPs especially
those thin ones, after oil crisis in the 70s . That was also the time
when improved cutting allowed more densely packed grooves ie. more
time without too much sacrifice in dynamics. You need something extra
light and a really big compliance for those. Yet I have some
mirror-like LPs with really unsatisfactorily dynamics (eg. Probe
Records, Three Dog Night - Seven Separate Fools). I'd be the 8th one
if I wouldn't treat this record with special care. It seems to me that
merely a fingerprint is a big issue there. What a difference compared
to older 180 g LPs cut to be loud enough.

I had a strange thing with a Shure 15 VXMR some ten or more years ago
when I found burnt vinyl at the stylus tip and had to carefully scrape
it off with a razor blade. I suspect a tracking issue with my Dual
1218 tonearm. I haven't seen that later.

Hovewer, for standard mono LPs, those with M in an inverted triangle,
you can use a 1 mil stylus and set the tracking force quite lavishly -
they were made for that. If there's mistracking, you'll not only hear
it, you'll actually see it. Heh.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Babiak Paul Babiak is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 10/05/2015 03:14 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:

-- I'm doing it in two ways: either record in the mono LP with a
stereo cartridge or use mono cartridge (internally wired but with
maintained vertical compliance). The third way would be using a
dedicated mono cartridge like old EMT (ie. Ortofon) OFS(aphire) or
OFD(iamond) cartridges. Today, Ortofon SPU fall in this category, I
think.


The problem with the new Ortofon mono cartridges is that they are only
available with spherical styli, so you have all the tracking issues that
are inherent with that. But the extreme vertical stiffness is a big win
for mono records.

In all cases, I'm using a dynamic - moving coil - cartridge. Older
LPs play well with a 1 mil stylus or somewhat less.

More recent microgroove records, say mid-60s onwards, would require
that less-than-one-mil styli.


I'm not sure I buy that in part because it depends on how you measure it.
The original standard for mono recordings was 1.0 mil spherical, but if you
use an elliptical stylus you'll find a slightly smaller stylus will ride at
the same point in the groove.

Which is part of why I think the fineline stylus is such a win when it is
possible to use them; they can ride evenly in a wide range of groove widths.
--scott


I have no direct experience with the Denon DL-102 mono cartridge, but it
looks good on paper, or at least on glass...

http://www3.sympatico.ca/murraya/DenonMonoPage.htm

Quote:

Basically, the DL-102 is a high output MONO moving coil cartridge which
has incorporated both vertical compliance and a 0.7 mil radius stylus,
making it compatible with stereo LP playback and is intended for
playback of both Mono and Stereo Records.

The DL-102 is NOT a stereo cartridge strapped internally for mono, but
is specially designed to output a mono signal from a stereo LP, so there
is no danger of damaging a modern LP by its use. Denon's own
instruction sheet states "The DL-102 is a monophonic output moving coil
cartridge designed for monophonic replay as well as the monophonic
playback of stereo recordings."

Paul
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Convert mono LP to digital

"Nil" wrote in message
...
This was discussed here some time ago, I believe, and I thought I
saved
the instructions, but I can't find them, so I hope for some
advice...

I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a
stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order
to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?


If you make sure the two tracks have the proper polarity and
time-alignment, and you sum them, you get essentially the same signal,
6 dB hotter. Noise that's not correlated between the two tracks will
typically yield an average of 3 dB hotter when summed. So by summing
the tracks, you typically get a 3 dB improvement in S/N, for those
types of noise. Noise that's the same in both tracks, such as noise
from a mono master recording, will not be improved, it will increase
by the same 6 dB as the signal. For noise that is is in one track
only, you get 6 dB improvement in S/N by summing, but if you take only
the track without the noise, even better.

It pays to do some investigation on the kinds of noise that exist, and
how they do or do not correlate between channels.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Edi Zubovic Edi Zubovic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:33:11 -0400, "None" wrote:

"Nil" wrote in message
.. .
This was discussed here some time ago, I believe, and I thought I
saved
the instructions, but I can't find them, so I hope for some
advice...

I want to digitalize a mono LP. I record it to the computer as a
stereo
WAV file. What's the best way to make it a mono WAV file? My usual
practice has been to pick the best-sounding/least-noisy channel and
eliminate the other. But I recall someone here recommending doing
something like inverting one channel and then summing them in order
to
cancel out more noise. That's not it, but something like that.

Can someone please steer me in a good direction?


If you make sure the two tracks have the proper polarity and
time-alignment, and you sum them, you get essentially the same signal,
6 dB hotter. Noise that's not correlated between the two tracks will
typically yield an average of 3 dB hotter when summed. So by summing
the tracks, you typically get a 3 dB improvement in S/N, for those
types of noise. Noise that's the same in both tracks, such as noise
from a mono master recording, will not be improved, it will increase
by the same 6 dB as the signal. For noise that is is in one track
only, you get 6 dB improvement in S/N by summing, but if you take only
the track without the noise, even better.

It pays to do some investigation on the kinds of noise that exist, and
how they do or do not correlate between channels.


It's about differences, some are correlated and some not. A simple
summing up is not sufficient enough for me, that's why I prefer stereo
cartridges for mono records. Even for 78RPM, Shure has its M78S, I use
its green stylus in the body of a V15. It's a 0,75 mil stylus I think,
a good all-rounder for 78s
Record stereo, do the m/s matrix and then sum it up. There's an old
Waves tool, I think "S1 - No Shuffler", a part of their DirectX
bundle. There is also a m/s matrix tool. You can do all kinds of
summing up with it, usually with "Width" = 0 and "Asymmetry" either
center or -90, you can invert with "Input Mode" etc. Very handy for
experimienting with.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:
Yes, fineline styli have a profile resembling a chisel with long
contact areas and I find them superior for most of LPs especially
those thin ones, after oil crisis in the 70s . That was also the time
when improved cutting allowed more densely packed grooves ie. more
time without too much sacrifice in dynamics. You need something extra
light and a really big compliance for those. Yet I have some
mirror-like LPs with really unsatisfactorily dynamics (eg. Probe
Records, Three Dog Night - Seven Separate Fools). I'd be the 8th one
if I wouldn't treat this record with special care. It seems to me that
merely a fingerprint is a big issue there. What a difference compared
to older 180 g LPs cut to be loud enough.


People want to put a whole symphony on one record, and they have to
sacrifice something, and level is the first thing to go. The more time,
the less excursion.

I had a strange thing with a Shure 15 VXMR some ten or more years ago
when I found burnt vinyl at the stylus tip and had to carefully scrape
it off with a razor blade. I suspect a tracking issue with my Dual
1218 tonearm. I haven't seen that later.


I would be very very suspicious of those Dual things. As autochangers
went they were some of the best but you sacrifice a lot with your arm
design in order to make that mechanism work. They always seemed very
resonant to me.

Hovewer, for standard mono LPs, those with M in an inverted triangle,
you can use a 1 mil stylus and set the tracking force quite lavishly -
they were made for that. If there's mistracking, you'll not only hear
it, you'll actually see it. Heh.


We call this "Gradoing" as in "since I bought those cheap tires, I can't
keep my car from gradoing all over the road."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Paul Babiak wrote:

I have no direct experience with the Denon DL-102 mono cartridge, but it
looks good on paper, or at least on glass...

http://www3.sympatico.ca/murraya/DenonMonoPage.htm

Quote:

Basically, the DL-102 is a high output MONO moving coil cartridge which
has incorporated both vertical compliance and a 0.7 mil radius stylus,
making it compatible with stereo LP playback and is intended for
playback of both Mono and Stereo Records.


I don't want high vertical compliance! I want to to be hard as a rock in
the vertical plane!
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,481
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 6/10/2015 10:44 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul Babiak wrote:
I have no direct experience with the Denon DL-102 mono cartridge, but it
looks good on paper, or at least on glass...

http://www3.sympatico.ca/murraya/DenonMonoPage.htm

Quote:

Basically, the DL-102 is a high output MONO moving coil cartridge which
has incorporated both vertical compliance and a 0.7 mil radius stylus,
making it compatible with stereo LP playback and is intended for
playback of both Mono and Stereo Records.

I don't want high vertical compliance! I want to to be hard as a rock in
the vertical plane!
--scott



Not horizontal plane then 8=====o

There is a "brand new pill" for that these days, if required (courtesy
Ry Cooder 'Look At Granny Run Run' - before it's time ! )

geoff


geoff
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done everything you want to do to the
signal, convert to 16 bits for burning a CD.


Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to record
old vinyl :-)
(Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating, or better now anyway)
Still, won't hurt at least.

Trevor.



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done everything you want to do to the
signal, convert to 16 bits for burning a CD.


Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to record
old vinyl :-)
(Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating, or better now anyway)
Still, won't hurt at least.


That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for while the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every declicking algorithm I've ever used works more effectively, with fewer artifacts, on 24-bit files (or the 32-bit version of them) than on 16. Worth using just on that basis.

Peace,
Paul
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 6/10/2015 1:03 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done
everything you want to do to the signal, convert to 16 bits for
burning a CD.


Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to
record old vinyl :-) (Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating,
or better now anyway) Still, won't hurt at least.


That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for
while the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every
declicking algorithm I've ever used works more effectively, with
fewer artifacts, on 24-bit files (or the 32-bit version of them) than
on 16. Worth using just on that basis.


OK, I'll take your word for that, but would only be because the
declicking algorithm is badly written. As I said, most DAW's and plug
ins work in 32 bit float or better now. Just because the original file
starts out with 12 bits of extra noise instead of 4 shouldn't make any
difference.

Trevor.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Trevor writes:

On 6/10/2015 1:03 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done
everything you want to do to the signal, convert to 16 bits for
burning a CD.

Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to
record old vinyl :-) (Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating,
or better now anyway) Still, won't hurt at least.


That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for
while the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every
declicking algorithm I've ever used works more effectively, with
fewer artifacts, on 24-bit files (or the 32-bit version of them) than
on 16. Worth using just on that basis.


OK, I'll take your word for that, but would only be because the
declicking algorithm is badly written.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that. More bandwidth means more information,
especially for a high-frequency event like a click.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Randy Yates writes:

Trevor writes:

On 6/10/2015 1:03 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done
everything you want to do to the signal, convert to 16 bits for
burning a CD.

Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to
record old vinyl :-) (Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating,
or better now anyway) Still, won't hurt at least.

That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for
while the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every
declicking algorithm I've ever used works more effectively, with
fewer artifacts, on 24-bit files (or the 32-bit version of them) than
on 16. Worth using just on that basis.


OK, I'll take your word for that, but would only be because the
declicking algorithm is badly written.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that. More bandwidth means more information,
especially for a high-frequency event like a click.


Whoa. Serious brain fart. (Who said anything about more bandwidth.) Excuse me.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Convert mono LP to digital

PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done everything y=

ou want to do to the
signal, convert to 16 bits for burning a CD.

=20
Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to record=20
old vinyl :-)
(Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating, or better now anyway)
Still, won't hurt at least.


That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for while=
the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every declicking algorith=
m I've ever used works more effectively, with fewer artifacts, on 24-bit fi=
les (or the 32-bit version of them) than on 16. Worth using just on that ba=
sis.


That's weird. I have noticed dramatic improvements in declicking from using
higher sampling rates and wideband preamps; even though there isn't much signal
at 30 KHz there is enough to make for a better-defined edge detection.

But I have not noticed improvements from the longer sample size.

Now... I would most definitely believe that the longer sample size would be
a huge win if you're doing the RIAA de-emphasis in software, since the needed
dynamic range in that case is pretty huge. Even with the de-emphasis, if
your preamp is very wideband you may see that half of your dynamic range is
being eaten up by rumble that you're just going to filter anyway, so there is
a need to have considerably more dynamic range than the record itself may
have usable.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 7/10/2015 4:09 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
Trevor writes:

On 6/10/2015 1:03 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done
everything you want to do to the signal, convert to 16 bits for
burning a CD.

Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to
record old vinyl :-) (Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating,
or better now anyway) Still, won't hurt at least.

That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for
while the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every
declicking algorithm I've ever used works more effectively, with
fewer artifacts, on 24-bit files (or the 32-bit version of them) than
on 16. Worth using just on that basis.


OK, I'll take your word for that, but would only be because the
declicking algorithm is badly written.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that. More bandwidth means more information,
especially for a high-frequency event like a click.


More *bandwidth* perhaps, but NOT storing 12 extra bits of *noise*.
(you do realise the two are not the same right?)
That just doesn't buy you anything with modern software processing.

Trevor.


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On 7/10/2015 4:10 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
Randy Yates writes:

Trevor writes:

On 6/10/2015 1:03 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done
everything you want to do to the signal, convert to 16 bits for
burning a CD.

Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to
record old vinyl :-) (Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating,
or better now anyway) Still, won't hurt at least.

That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for
while the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every
declicking algorithm I've ever used works more effectively, with
fewer artifacts, on 24-bit files (or the 32-bit version of them) than
on 16. Worth using just on that basis.

OK, I'll take your word for that, but would only be because the
declicking algorithm is badly written.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that. More bandwidth means more information,
especially for a high-frequency event like a click.


Whoa. Serious brain fart. (Who said anything about more bandwidth.) Excuse me.


Right, ignore my previous reply then!

Trevor.


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Convert mono LP to digital

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done everything y=

ou want to do to the
signal, convert to 16 bits for burning a CD.
=20
Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to record=20
old vinyl :-)
(Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating, or better now anyway)
Still, won't hurt at least.


That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for while=
the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every declicking algorith=
m I've ever used works more effectively, with fewer artifacts, on 24-bit fi=
les (or the 32-bit version of them) than on 16. Worth using just on that ba=
sis.


That's weird. I have noticed dramatic improvements in declicking from using
higher sampling rates and wideband preamps; even though there isn't much signal
at 30 KHz there is enough to make for a better-defined edge detection.

But I have not noticed improvements from the longer sample size.

Now... I would most definitely believe that the longer sample size would be
a huge win if you're doing the RIAA de-emphasis in software, since the needed
dynamic range in that case is pretty huge. Even with the de-emphasis, if
your preamp is very wideband you may see that half of your dynamic range is
being eaten up by rumble that you're just going to filter anyway, so there is
a need to have considerably more dynamic range than the record itself may
have usable.


With software, you can always resample internally to a higher resolution,
perform the algorithm, then (if desired) requantize back to 16 bits at
the end.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Convert mono LP to digital

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:50:35 PM UTC-5, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done everything y=
ou want to do to the
signal, convert to 16 bits for burning a CD.
=20
Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to record=20
old vinyl :-)
(Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating, or better now anyway)
Still, won't hurt at least.

That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for while=
the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every declicking algorith=
m I've ever used works more effectively, with fewer artifacts, on 24-bit fi=
les (or the 32-bit version of them) than on 16. Worth using just on that ba=
sis.


That's weird. I have noticed dramatic improvements in declicking from using
higher sampling rates and wideband preamps; even though there isn't much signal
at 30 KHz there is enough to make for a better-defined edge detection.

But I have not noticed improvements from the longer sample size.

Now... I would most definitely believe that the longer sample size would be
a huge win if you're doing the RIAA de-emphasis in software, since the needed
dynamic range in that case is pretty huge. Even with the de-emphasis, if
your preamp is very wideband you may see that half of your dynamic range is
being eaten up by rumble that you're just going to filter anyway, so there is
a need to have considerably more dynamic range than the record itself may
have usable.


With software, you can always resample internally to a higher resolution,
perform the algorithm, then (if desired) requantize back to 16 bits at
the end.


But there's no reason not to digitize it at 24 bits in the first place, with storage so cheap now.

Peace,
Paul
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Convert mono LP to digital

PStamler writes:

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:50:35 PM UTC-5, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

PStamler wrote:
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:20:00 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 6/10/2015 5:29 AM, PStamler wrote:
Record in 24 bits (or 32 bits floating); after you've done everything y=
ou want to do to the
signal, convert to 16 bits for burning a CD.
=20
Had to smile that you think you will need more than 96dB DNR to record=20
old vinyl :-)
(Most DAWS work internally at 32bit floating, or better now anyway)
Still, won't hurt at least.

That's a long and complicated discussion, which I don't have time for while=
the rice is on the stove. Suffice it to say that every declicking algorith=
m I've ever used works more effectively, with fewer artifacts, on 24-bit fi=
les (or the 32-bit version of them) than on 16. Worth using just on that ba=
sis.

That's weird. I have noticed dramatic improvements in declicking from using
higher sampling rates and wideband preamps; even though there isn't much signal
at 30 KHz there is enough to make for a better-defined edge detection.

But I have not noticed improvements from the longer sample size.

Now... I would most definitely believe that the longer sample size would be
a huge win if you're doing the RIAA de-emphasis in software, since the needed
dynamic range in that case is pretty huge. Even with the de-emphasis, if
your preamp is very wideband you may see that half of your dynamic range is
being eaten up by rumble that you're just going to filter anyway, so there is
a need to have considerably more dynamic range than the record itself may
have usable.


With software, you can always resample internally to a higher resolution,
perform the algorithm, then (if desired) requantize back to 16 bits at
the end.


But there's no reason not to digitize it at 24 bits in the first
place, with storage so cheap now.


No argument there. I'm just saying that if you did, that shouldn't cause
a problem for deemphasis software. I mean, I would hope the (plugin?)
implementer(s) would know the dynamic range requirements of the
algorithm and resample/requantize if necessary.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Randy Yates wrote:

But there's no reason not to digitize it at 24 bits in the first
place, with storage so cheap now.


No argument there. I'm just saying that if you did, that shouldn't cause
a problem for deemphasis software. I mean, I would hope the (plugin?)
implementer(s) would know the dynamic range requirements of the
algorithm and resample/requantize if necessary.


I was suggesting that there may be benefit to digitizing at 24 bits when
in fact you have far more noise than signal going into the converter. Do
a sharp FIR high-pass at 18 Hz and you still have plenty of bits of signal
left if you are lucky.
--scott

--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com



--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Convert mono LP to digital

writes:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:37 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
I was suggesting that there may be benefit to digitizing at 24 bits when
in fact you have far more noise than signal going into the converter. Do
a sharp FIR high-pass at 18 Hz and you still have plenty of bits of signal
left if you are lucky.

So the situation you're describing is something like this: the analog
signal being input to the ADC has a relatively low analog SNR. Correct?

In that case I really don't see why digitizing at a higher depth buys
you anything.


It doesn't with any modern DAW software. Nothing does internal
processing at 16 bits any more, and haven't for many years. But if
recording 12 bits of data at a 24bit sample size makes people happy,
then as they say, it won't hurt at least.

Trevor.


I think the point that needs to be made explicit here is this....

when digitizing records with clicks that are going to pass through a
de-click algorithm, having a wide enough dynamic range and frequency
response to fully capture ____the clicks___ (not just the music) can
be helpful to the de-click algorithm to recognize the clicks to remove
them.


Mark,

I agree; that makes sense. And if you have to drop the average music
level down 20 dB (or more) in order to prevent the clicks from
saturating, it's good to have a few more bits in the ADC.

Basically we're talking about a wider dynamic range signal that standard
audio.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:37 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
I was suggesting that there may be benefit to digitizing at 24 bits when
in fact you have far more noise than signal going into the converter. Do
a sharp FIR high-pass at 18 Hz and you still have plenty of bits of signal
left if you are lucky.

So the situation you're describing is something like this: the analog
signal being input to the ADC has a relatively low analog SNR. Correct?

In that case I really don't see why digitizing at a higher depth buys
you anything.

It doesn't with any modern DAW software. Nothing does internal
processing at 16 bits any more, and haven't for many years. But if
recording 12 bits of data at a 24bit sample size makes people happy,
then as they say, it won't hurt at least.

Trevor.


I think the point that needs to be made explicit here is this....

when digitizing records with clicks that are going to pass through a
de-click algorithm, having a wide enough dynamic range and frequency
response to fully capture ____the clicks___ (not just the music) can
be helpful to the de-click algorithm to recognize the clicks to remove
them.


Mark,

I agree; that makes sense. And if you have to drop the average music
level down 20 dB (or more) in order to prevent the clicks from
saturating, it's good to have a few more bits in the ADC.

Basically we're talking about a wider dynamic range signal that standard
audio.



Which standard? A/D-D/A are pretty much all 24 bit now anyway, except
for legacy gear. Even then...

For example. my old Fostex VF16 would track @24 bit. I don't recall if
it was true 24 bit or not when connected via Lightpipe - I used
16 bit until fairly recently ( when it died ) .

That's turn-of-the-century - 2000ish - technology.

--
Les Cargill
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Les Cargill writes:

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:37 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
I was suggesting that there may be benefit to digitizing at 24 bits when
in fact you have far more noise than signal going into the converter. Do
a sharp FIR high-pass at 18 Hz and you still have plenty of bits of signal
left if you are lucky.

So the situation you're describing is something like this: the analog
signal being input to the ADC has a relatively low analog SNR. Correct?

In that case I really don't see why digitizing at a higher depth buys
you anything.

It doesn't with any modern DAW software. Nothing does internal
processing at 16 bits any more, and haven't for many years. But if
recording 12 bits of data at a 24bit sample size makes people happy,
then as they say, it won't hurt at least.

Trevor.

I think the point that needs to be made explicit here is this....

when digitizing records with clicks that are going to pass through a
de-click algorithm, having a wide enough dynamic range and frequency
response to fully capture ____the clicks___ (not just the music) can
be helpful to the de-click algorithm to recognize the clicks to remove
them.


Mark,

I agree; that makes sense. And if you have to drop the average music
level down 20 dB (or more) in order to prevent the clicks from
saturating, it's good to have a few more bits in the ADC.

Basically we're talking about a wider dynamic range signal that standard
audio.



Which standard?


The "law of physics" standard...

I was not referring to any particular piece of equipment or standard,
but rather was viewing things from an analytical perspective.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Randy Yates[_2_] Randy Yates[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 221
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Randy Yates writes:

Les Cargill writes:

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:37 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
I was suggesting that there may be benefit to digitizing at 24 bits when
in fact you have far more noise than signal going into the converter. Do
a sharp FIR high-pass at 18 Hz and you still have plenty of bits of signal
left if you are lucky.

So the situation you're describing is something like this: the analog
signal being input to the ADC has a relatively low analog SNR. Correct?

In that case I really don't see why digitizing at a higher depth buys
you anything.

It doesn't with any modern DAW software. Nothing does internal
processing at 16 bits any more, and haven't for many years. But if
recording 12 bits of data at a 24bit sample size makes people happy,
then as they say, it won't hurt at least.

Trevor.

I think the point that needs to be made explicit here is this....

when digitizing records with clicks that are going to pass through a
de-click algorithm, having a wide enough dynamic range and frequency
response to fully capture ____the clicks___ (not just the music) can
be helpful to the de-click algorithm to recognize the clicks to remove
them.

Mark,

I agree; that makes sense. And if you have to drop the average music
level down 20 dB (or more) in order to prevent the clicks from
saturating, it's good to have a few more bits in the ADC.

Basically we're talking about a wider dynamic range signal that standard
audio.



Which standard?


The "law of physics" standard...

I was not referring to any particular piece of equipment or standard,
but rather was viewing things from an analytical perspective.


Ahem.. OK, now I see my statement "...standard audio" MIGHT have had
something to do with your question, Les. Sorry!

Well, you know what I mean, don't you? OK let's say CD standard audio.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Which standard? A/D-D/A are pretty much all 24 bit now anyway, except
for legacy gear. Even then...


Except that many of those 24 bit converters are sufficiently noisy that
fewer than 16 bits are actually of any use....
--scott


If the converters are not that noisy, the sources are.

--
Les Cargill
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Convert mono LP to digital

Randy Yates wrote:
Les Cargill writes:

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:37 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
I was suggesting that there may be benefit to digitizing at 24 bits when
in fact you have far more noise than signal going into the converter. Do
a sharp FIR high-pass at 18 Hz and you still have plenty of bits of signal
left if you are lucky.

So the situation you're describing is something like this: the analog
signal being input to the ADC has a relatively low analog SNR. Correct?

In that case I really don't see why digitizing at a higher depth buys
you anything.

It doesn't with any modern DAW software. Nothing does internal
processing at 16 bits any more, and haven't for many years. But if
recording 12 bits of data at a 24bit sample size makes people happy,
then as they say, it won't hurt at least.

Trevor.

I think the point that needs to be made explicit here is this....

when digitizing records with clicks that are going to pass through a
de-click algorithm, having a wide enough dynamic range and frequency
response to fully capture ____the clicks___ (not just the music) can
be helpful to the de-click algorithm to recognize the clicks to remove
them.

Mark,

I agree; that makes sense. And if you have to drop the average music
level down 20 dB (or more) in order to prevent the clicks from
saturating, it's good to have a few more bits in the ADC.

Basically we're talking about a wider dynamic range signal that standard
audio.



Which standard?


The "law of physics" standard...

I was not referring to any particular piece of equipment or standard,
but rather was viewing things from an analytical perspective.


The laws of physics are only as good as the people who measure the
experiments which verify them. You cannot get away from the
technology.

--
Les Cargill
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Export Mono tracks to Mono tracks with Cubase Channel Batch Export?? Paul[_13_] Pro Audio 6 May 21st 14 07:35 PM
Stereo or Mono audio track when digitizing a mono record in PT? Julie Abel Pro Audio 3 December 19th 09 01:14 PM
Best way to convert mono to stereo - and other tips to improve thismix. muzician21 Pro Audio 29 July 26th 09 01:00 PM
VST plugin to convert to mono Johann Burkard Pro Audio 4 February 26th 05 02:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:20 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"