Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Convert mono LP to digital
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Convert mono LP to digital
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
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. 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. The quantization noise (if the quantization is done "right") should be way below the input noise. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Convert mono LP to digital
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. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Convert mono LP to digital
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 |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Export Mono tracks to Mono tracks with Cubase Channel Batch Export?? | Pro Audio | |||
Stereo or Mono audio track when digitizing a mono record in PT? | Pro Audio | |||
Best way to convert mono to stereo - and other tips to improve thismix. | Pro Audio | |||
VST plugin to convert to mono | Pro Audio |