[[email protected]]

This thread has become lugubrious. I convert mono
and stereo vinyl to digital as regularly as dropping
toast! In 24bit I just make sure I don't peak above
-6dBfs, high-pass above 30Hz, and peak limit
no more than1-2dB to get the level up a little. I
don't over-analyze it or turn it into Russia V ISIS
in Syria! gosh...!

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Randy Yates wrote:
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!


Not a problem! I was not pointed at anything specific because I
wanted to see where you'd take it.

A "law of physics" standard would be one of those "quietest rooms in
the world" things, which is well above 16 bit. The silence drives
people - literally - crazy. They can't take it for long.

It's funny; on another forum where the capacitance per foot of
cables used for hi-Z interconnects was being ... optimized, I mentioned
that I'd low-passed an example of that instrument at a horrifying 3500Hz
- AM radio frequencies - and it sounded like silverware being dropped on
concrete.

Hell, I dunno - maybe the sound of silverware is where all the dinner is
on that instrument. They airbrush ice cubes, don't they?

Well, you know what I mean, don't you? OK let's say CD standard audio.

Which isn't standard any more CD standard was
set before the paint on digital was dry. The silicon
people standardized on 24 bit whether we liked it or not.

You know the rest of the joke.

--
Les Cargill

[Edi Zubovic]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 20:10:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

This thread has become lugubrious. I convert mono
and stereo vinyl to digital as regularly as dropping
toast! In 24bit I just make sure I don't peak above
-6dBfs, high-pass above 30Hz, and peak limit
no more than1-2dB to get the level up a little. I
don't over-analyze it or turn it into Russia V ISIS
in Syria! gosh...!


......and I use 64-bit decimal ie. float - the coprocessor's
business... A tremendeous headroom. It's a part of my algorithm, it
simply has to be 64-bit... mathematics knows more than physics.
Processing time? --It's OK, my I/O is system speed, 13 GB "Ram Drive".
But, if the system fails for whatever reason and reboots, then you
haven't spent some time with your current work, you were in the nearby
coffe bar looking at girls passing by... no backups whatever, that is.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[geoff]

On 10/10/2015 6:25 a.m., 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



Were there any that bad ?

geoff

[Trevor]

On 9/10/2015 11:23 PM, wrote:
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.

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.


I wouldn't bother digitising LP's that badly scratched myself, and such
clicks are FAR better removed by hand anyway. In fact I rarely use any
declicking software, I prefer to do it by hand or not at all.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/10/2015 4:24 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 6:25 a.m., 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....


Were there any that bad ?

Of course there were, still are. *Many* new motherboards for example can
do 24 bit audio at less than 96dB DNR. Many of the cheap PCI audio cards
too.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 10/10/2015 7:32 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 10/10/2015 4:24 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 6:25 a.m., 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....


Were there any that bad ?

Of course there were, still are. *Many* new motherboards for example can
do 24 bit audio at less than 96dB DNR. Many of the cheap PCI audio cards
too.

Trevor.

Didn't mean 'better than theoretical 16-bits. Meant 24 bit converters
better than 16-bit converters in real-life (ie more like 12-13 bits worth).

geoff

[Trevor]

On 10/10/2015 5:52 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 7:32 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 10/10/2015 4:24 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 6:25 a.m., 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....


Were there any that bad ?

Of course there were, still are. *Many* new motherboards for example can
do 24 bit audio at less than 96dB DNR. Many of the cheap PCI audio cards
too.


Didn't mean 'better than theoretical 16-bits. Meant 24 bit converters
better than 16-bit converters in real-life (ie more like 12-13 bits worth).

Wrong on both counts then. Many good audio cards and external converters
can do 16 bit audio at a genuine 93dB or better (15.5 bits+) in easily
measurable loop back tests. (One way i.e A-D OR D-A only, even better.)
Which is a lot better than some hardware running at 24 bits as I said.
And the better converters can get close to 20 bits of real data when
running at 24bits now. None will ever get 24 bits in the real world,
although you can simply combine converters and pads to achieve greater
range if necessary. But i can't think why off hand :-)

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 10/10/2015 10:11 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 10/10/2015 5:52 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 7:32 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 10/10/2015 4:24 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 6:25 a.m., 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....


Were there any that bad ?

Of course there were, still are. *Many* new motherboards for example can
do 24 bit audio at less than 96dB DNR. Many of the cheap PCI audio cards
too.


Didn't mean 'better than theoretical 16-bits. Meant 24 bit converters
better than 16-bit converters in real-life (ie more like 12-13 bits
worth).

Wrong on both counts then. Many good audio cards and external converters
can do 16 bit audio at a genuine 93dB or better (15.5 bits+) in easily
measurable loop back tests. (One way i.e A-D OR D-A only, even better.)
Which is a lot better than some hardware running at 24 bits as I said.
And the better converters can get close to 20 bits of real data when
running at 24bits now. None will ever get 24 bits in the real world,
although you can simply combine converters and pads to achieve greater
range if necessary. But i can't think why off hand :-)

Again, many (any) 24-bit converters in real-life that are worse than 16
bit converters in real-life ?

Not talking motherboard type ones, talking dedicated converters for
musical purposes.

Maybe the best ever 16 bit converters could have approached theoretical
16 bits performance....(?)

geoff

[Trevor]

On 10/10/2015 9:43 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 10:11 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 10/10/2015 5:52 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 7:32 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 10/10/2015 4:24 PM, geoff wrote:
On 10/10/2015 6:25 a.m., 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....


Were there any that bad ?

Of course there were, still are. *Many* new motherboards for example
can do 24 bit audio at less than 96dB DNR. Many of the cheap PCI audio
cards too.


Didn't mean 'better than theoretical 16-bits. Meant 24 bit converters
better than 16-bit converters in real-life (ie more like 12-13 bits
worth).

Wrong on both counts then. Many good audio cards and external converters
can do 16 bit audio at a genuine 93dB or better (15.5 bits+) in easily
measurable loop back tests. (One way i.e A-D OR D-A only, even better.)
Which is a lot better than some hardware running at 24 bits as I said.
And the better converters can get close to 20 bits of real data when
running at 24bits now. None will ever get 24 bits in the real world,
although you can simply combine converters and pads to achieve greater
range if necessary. But i can't think why off hand :-)

Again, many (any) 24-bit converters in real-life that are worse than 16
bit converters in real-life ?

Not Sure how much clearer I can make it for you... *YES* quite a few!!!!!

Not talking motherboard type ones, talking dedicated converters for
musical purposes.

Well that depends on YOUR definition of "dedicated converters for
musical purposes" doesn't it? I'm sure you can make up a definition to
prove my statement wrong if you want! Not playing THAT game! I answered
what was originally written.

Maybe the best ever 16 bit converters could have approached theoretical
16 bits performance....(?)

And not all that uncommon these days in fact!!!!
Cheap IC converter chips do it easily now, but the analog interfacing
needs a little more care than the $5 cards can afford. You don't need to
spend a lot of money to get a real 15+ bits any more however.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 10:03:24 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:

I want to digitalize a mono LP.

The first thing to do is a really thorough cleaning of the record which can make a major difference in surface noise. As a first layer, look into cleaning with glue. No, not kidding. Look on Youtube for demonstrations. Make sure you use TiteBond II, not regular Titebond which isn't pliable enough. The idea is it cures on the record and when peeled away takes dirt with it.

Second step is to use vacuum irrigation which involves special surfactant and distilled water and purpose-made brushes. I use Disc Doctor brushes and fluid. You can buy a pricey machine to turn the record for scrubbing ad vacuuming or make your own.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:

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.

A combination of high tracking force and low vertical compliance wrecks
the groove at high slew rates because of the pinch effect.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Nil[_2_]]

On 18 Oct 2015, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

The first thing to do is a really thorough cleaning of the record
which can make a major difference in surface noise. As a first
layer, look into cleaning with glue. No, not kidding. Look on
Youtube for demonstrations. Make sure you use TiteBond II, not
regular Titebond which isn't pliable enough. The idea is it cures
on the record and when peeled away takes dirt with it.

Yikes! It would never have occurred to me to clean a record with glue.
I did find several videos on Youtube, and I guess the idea is plausible
- instead of wiping or scraping debris out of the grooves, the dirt
would be lifted straight out with potentially less damage to the
plastic. I'm still a little skeptical, but I may try it on an
expendable record one of these days.

Second step is to use vacuum irrigation which involves special
surfactant and distilled water and purpose-made brushes. I use
Disc Doctor brushes and fluid. You can buy a pricey machine to
turn the record for scrubbing ad vacuuming or make your own.

This isn't something I do very often, and it's not for commercial
purposes, so I wouldn't spend a lot of money on the process. But I
would like to do the best job I can with the tools I have.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil wrote:

Yikes! It would never have occurred to me to clean a record with glue.
I did find several videos on Youtube, and I guess the idea is plausible
- instead of wiping or scraping debris out of the grooves, the dirt
would be lifted straight out with potentially less damage to the
plastic. I'm still a little skeptical, but I may try it on an
expendable record one of these days.

It works well. You can get a higher grade PVA material that is specifically
designed for the application and stays flexible longer, but the glue will
work.

This is a thing, though, that you would want to do filthy records that you
got at a yard sale. It's something you do when you are worried about the
record possibly contaminating the cleaning machine.

You can also just do a soap and water cleaning before putting it in the
machine as well; it's not as effective as an ultrasonic machine or the glue
peel, but it's okay and it will prevent your vacuum machine from getting
gunked up.

Second step is to use vacuum irrigation which involves special
surfactant and distilled water and purpose-made brushes. I use
Disc Doctor brushes and fluid. You can buy a pricey machine to
turn the record for scrubbing ad vacuuming or make your own.

This isn't something I do very often, and it's not for commercial
purposes, so I wouldn't spend a lot of money on the process. But I
would like to do the best job I can with the tools I have.

If you play records, you need a vacuum machine. It is the greatest sound
improvement you can get for the investment. The difference is stunning,
and you can buy an old Nitty Gritty Record Doctor for $100 or so.

The fancy machines are faster and easier to use than the Record Doctor,
but if you only have a few records now and then, the Record Doctor will
clean as well as the fancy machines.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Hank[_4_]]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nil wrote:

Yikes! It would never have occurred to me to clean a record with glue.
I did find several videos on Youtube, and I guess the idea is plausible
- instead of wiping or scraping debris out of the grooves, the dirt
would be lifted straight out with potentially less damage to the
plastic. I'm still a little skeptical, but I may try it on an
expendable record one of these days.

It works well. You can get a higher grade PVA material that is specifically
designed for the application and stays flexible longer, but the glue will
work.

This is a thing, though, that you would want to do filthy records that you
got at a yard sale. It's something you do when you are worried about the
record possibly contaminating the cleaning machine.

You can also just do a soap and water cleaning before putting it in the
machine as well; it's not as effective as an ultrasonic machine or the glue
peel, but it's okay and it will prevent your vacuum machine from getting
gunked up.

I've cleaned up some pretty grungy LP's with a soap, water, and ammonia
solution. After the surface has soaked for a few minutes, I flush the
solution off with warm tap water and swabbing in the direction of the
grooves with a clean kitchen sponge. Once the surface looks relatively
clean (I've had to repeat the process on occasion), it's time to use the
vacuum washer on the disc. On a few occasions, I've had adhesive crap
on the disc surface which needed a solvent like 3M Adhesive Remover.
ALWAYS test the disk surface in something like the runout area with the
solvent on a Q-tip before using it on the recorded groove areas.

If doing 78's (shellac disks) DON'T use ammonia, as ammonia dissolves
shellac. It's OK with vinyl and styrene.

If you play records, you need a vacuum machine. It is the greatest sound
improvement you can get for the investment. The difference is stunning,
and you can buy an old Nitty Gritty Record Doctor for $100 or so.

At your suggestion, Scott (actually, insistence), I bought a Nitty
Gritty vacuum machine a few years ago. I'm astounded at the results.
Almost all the LP's I've done with the Nitty Gritty play incredibly
well, considering the abuse some of them have had.

The fancy machines are faster and easier to use than the Record Doctor,
but if you only have a few records now and then, the Record Doctor will
clean as well as the fancy machines.

Actually, I've felt that the base level Nitty Gritty, which you have to
rotate manually, to be superior to the fancier motor-driven ones. Some
of the LP's I've used it on have had more problems on one area than on
others, and a bit of back-and-forth attention ultimately did clean them
up pretty well.

For playback, I have a Yamaha P751 direct drive turntable, equipped with
a Stanton 681 EEE Mk III cartridge and an elliptical stylus. The
cartridge replaces a Bang & Olufsen cartridge that had a conical stylus,
and gives a much cleaner audio stream. Nothing particularly "high-end"
about this setup.

Hank