Hi!

I'm digitalizing - after a thorough restoring of the records - some of my
old, rare LPs. I record them to WaveLab via my M-Audio Delta 1010 soundcard.
The record player (Hitachi, direct drive) is amplified thru a consumer class
amplifier (Technics), the amp is set to PHONO. The tape out (rec) of the amp
is connected to one stereo pair of the inputs of Delta 1010.
It works fine except that the signal is too low. I get about -25 dB when
recording. The Volume of the amp doesn't affect the outgoing signal.
What's wrong? Or is it normal? Were LPs cut with such a low level signal?
Thanks for helping me!

bence

Locsmándi Bence wrote:

I'm digitalizing - after a thorough restoring of the records - some
of my old, rare LPs. I record them to WaveLab via my M-Audio Delta
1010 soundcard. The record player (Hitachi, direct drive) is
amplified thru a consumer class amplifier (Technics), the amp is set
to PHONO. The tape out (rec) of the amp is connected to one stereo
pair of the inputs of Delta 1010. It works fine except that the
signal is too low. I get about -25 dB when recording. The Volume of
the amp doesn't affect the outgoing signal. What's wrong? Or is it
normal? Were LPs cut with such a low level signal?

Are the input level selector switches on the Delta 1010 set for -10 or +4?

The tape output of a consumer integrated amp or preamp usually peaks
someplace around 200 mv. -10 dBV is more like 300 mv, but its about as close
as you are going to get without additional amplification.

Locsmándi Bence wrote:
I'm digitalizing - after a thorough restoring of the records - some of my
old, rare LPs. I record them to WaveLab via my M-Audio Delta 1010 soundcard.
The record player (Hitachi, direct drive) is amplified thru a consumer class
amplifier (Technics), the amp is set to PHONO. The tape out (rec) of the amp
is connected to one stereo pair of the inputs of Delta 1010.
It works fine except that the signal is too low. I get about -25 dB when
recording.

Are the inputs of the 1010 set to -10dBV? The M-Audio web site
says they're that -10dBV versus +4dBu is "individually switched
on rack-mount unit". Presumably, the consumer phono pre-amp is
operating at -10dBV levels.

However, if my guess (and it is a guess...) is right, that'll only
bring you up about half of the way to 0 dB, so you might need
to plug the consumer equipment into a mixer or other preamp before
it goes into A/D so you can increase the gain.

Or if that gets you to (say) -12 dB, you could just live with it.
If you're sampling in 24 bit, losing 12 dB is only going to cause
you to sacrifice around 4 bits, so you'll still be sampling at
about 20 bits effectively.

What's wrong? Or is it normal? Were LPs cut with such a low level signal?

Well, of course LPs are cut mechanically and the low level is
just what your turntable and electronics happen to be doing
afterwards. By the way, have you used this particular Hitachi
turntable with the Technics receiver before? If this is something
you have just put together for this process, is it possible
that your cartridge and your phono preamp aren't a good match?
(Just a thought.)

- Logan

Logan Shaw wrote:

However, if my guess (and it is a guess...) is right, that'll only
bring you up about half of the way to 0 dB,

I seem to recall that rated input sensitivity on a 1010 is about 10 dB below
FS. So a consumer tape monitor output peaking at 200 mv will give peak
recorded levels on the order of -12 dB when driving an input set for -10.

so you might need
to plug the consumer equipment into a mixer or other preamp before
it goes into A/D so you can increase the gain.

The hot tip for digitizing is a hifi preamp. Just plug the main outputs of
the preamp into your audio interface, and you get all the level you need but
just turning up the volume control. Most consumer hifi preamps will put out
5-10 volts RMS.


Or if that gets you to (say) -12 dB, you could just live with it.
If you're sampling in 24 bit, losing 12 dB is only going to cause
you to sacrifice around 4 bits, so you'll still be sampling at
about 20 bits effectively.

Well, that's a little optimistic. But you're right about it working out.
Here's more like what really happens.

A 1010 has about 100 dB dynamic range, in round numbers. If you come in
peaking at -12, you still have 88 dB dynamic range, more or less. Your vinyl
is going to top out at no more than 70 dB or dynamic range, so there's still
plenty of wiggle room.

I set peak recording levels for vinyl with a trackability test record. I set
the loudest track for about -3 dbfs. I like the High Fidelity News test
record for this purpose.

Dunno in witch positionit is, but it is set to the louder one. That's for
sure, checked this morning.

b.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Locsmándi Bence wrote:

I'm digitalizing - after a thorough restoring of the records - some
of my old, rare LPs. I record them to WaveLab via my M-Audio Delta
1010 soundcard. The record player (Hitachi, direct drive) is
amplified thru a consumer class amplifier (Technics), the amp is set
to PHONO. The tape out (rec) of the amp is connected to one stereo
pair of the inputs of Delta 1010. It works fine except that the
signal is too low. I get about -25 dB when recording. The Volume of
the amp doesn't affect the outgoing signal. What's wrong? Or is it
normal? Were LPs cut with such a low level signal?

Are the input level selector switches on the Delta 1010 set for -10 or
+4?

The tape output of a consumer integrated amp or preamp usually peaks
someplace around 200 mv. -10 dBV is more like 300 mv, but its about as
close
as you are going to get without additional amplification.

Thanks for answering!
This setup is borrowed only for this session.
I'm sampling at 48 kHz and 24 bits. I found that after completing an album
(A & B sides merged) normalizing gives a good result.

b.

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message
...
Locsmándi Bence wrote:
I'm digitalizing - after a thorough restoring of the records - some of
my
old, rare LPs. I record them to WaveLab via my M-Audio Delta 1010
soundcard.
The record player (Hitachi, direct drive) is amplified thru a consumer
class
amplifier (Technics), the amp is set to PHONO. The tape out (rec) of the
amp
is connected to one stereo pair of the inputs of Delta 1010.
It works fine except that the signal is too low. I get about -25 dB when
recording.

Are the inputs of the 1010 set to -10dBV? The M-Audio web site
says they're that -10dBV versus +4dBu is "individually switched
on rack-mount unit". Presumably, the consumer phono pre-amp is
operating at -10dBV levels.

However, if my guess (and it is a guess...) is right, that'll only
bring you up about half of the way to 0 dB, so you might need
to plug the consumer equipment into a mixer or other preamp before
it goes into A/D so you can increase the gain.

Or if that gets you to (say) -12 dB, you could just live with it.
If you're sampling in 24 bit, losing 12 dB is only going to cause
you to sacrifice around 4 bits, so you'll still be sampling at
about 20 bits effectively.

What's wrong? Or is it normal? Were LPs cut with such a low level
signal?

Well, of course LPs are cut mechanically and the low level is
just what your turntable and electronics happen to be doing
afterwards. By the way, have you used this particular Hitachi
turntable with the Technics receiver before? If this is something
you have just put together for this process, is it possible
that your cartridge and your phono preamp aren't a good match?
(Just a thought.)

- Logan

Locsmándi Bence wrote:
Dunno in witch positionit is, but it is set to the louder one. That's
for sure, checked this morning.

Please see my other post!

Locsmándi Bence wrote:

I'm digitalizing - after a thorough restoring of the records - some of my
old, rare LPs. I record them to WaveLab via my M-Audio Delta 1010 soundcard.
The record player (Hitachi, direct drive) is amplified thru a consumer class
amplifier (Technics), the amp is set to PHONO. The tape out (rec) of the amp
is connected to one stereo pair of the inputs of Delta 1010.
It works fine except that the signal is too low. I get about -25 dB when
recording. The Volume of the amp doesn't affect the outgoing signal.
What's wrong? Or is it normal? Were LPs cut with such a low level signal?

You're probably taking consumer level outputs from the tape loop and plugging
them into a high-level input on the card.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

I'm digitalizing - after a thorough restoring of the records - some of my
old, rare LPs. I record them to WaveLab via my M-Audio Delta 1010 soundcard.
The record player (Hitachi, direct drive) is amplified thru a consumer class
amplifier (Technics),

The Volume of the amp doesn't affect the outgoing signal.
What's wrong? Or is it normal?

That's normal. The tape output of a standard consumer receiver is
taken before the volume control so you can adjust the listening volume
while making a recording without changing the recorded volume. You're
supposed to adjust the record level with the recorder.

Were LPs cut with such a low level signal?

It's not that the LPs were cut with a low level, it's that the voltage
at the tape output of your amplifier is designed to match the input
gain of a consumer tape recorder of about the same vintage. If the
Delta 1010 has an input level selection switch (probably in its
software application) to select between +4 and -10, set it to -10 and
you'll get a higher record level. However, I'm quite sure that it's
impossible for you to get the record level to peak much higher than
about -15 in your DAW unless you go through another stage of
amplification that's capable of putting out a peak level of +24 dBu.
That takes it out of the "consumer" range.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:26:51 GMT, "Locsmándi Bence"
wrote:

Thanks for answering!
This setup is borrowed only for this session.
I'm sampling at 48 kHz and 24 bits. I found that after completing an album
(A & B sides merged) normalizing gives a good result.

If you're planning to eventually write these transfers to audio CDs,
sample at 44.1kHz, not 48kHz. Using 48 only means you'll have to do a
SRC at some later stage, which is likely to end up with poorer quality
than had you sampled at 44.1 from the start. (Converting down from 24
to 16 isn't a problem, although one might question if there's any
point in recording LPs at higher than 16 bit resolution).
--
Clive Backham

Note: As a spam avoidance measure, the email address in the header
is just a free one and doesn't get checked very often. If you want to email
me, my real address can be found at: www [dot] delback [dot] co [dot] uk

Thanks for your opinion.
Of course I plan to archive these records as audio CDs. I use higher
frequency and higher bitrate because I have to do some noise reduction on
the material and it's obviouslty better with higher resolution. Then the
final material have to be downsampled with some dithering.
These are LPs from the '70s so they must have been recorded on analogue
gear.

bence

"Clive Backham" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:26:51 GMT, "Locsmándi Bence"
wrote:

Thanks for answering!
This setup is borrowed only for this session.
I'm sampling at 48 kHz and 24 bits. I found that after completing an
album
(A & B sides merged) normalizing gives a good result.

If you're planning to eventually write these transfers to audio CDs,
sample at 44.1kHz, not 48kHz. Using 48 only means you'll have to do a
SRC at some later stage, which is likely to end up with poorer quality
than had you sampled at 44.1 from the start. (Converting down from 24
to 16 isn't a problem, although one might question if there's any
point in recording LPs at higher than 16 bit resolution).
--
Clive Backham

Note: As a spam avoidance measure, the email address in the header
is just a free one and doesn't get checked very often. If you want to
email
me, my real address can be found at: www [dot] delback [dot] co [dot] uk

Locsmándi Bence wrote:

Of course I plan to archive these records as audio CDs. I use higher
frequency and higher bitrate because I have to do some noise reduction on
the material and it's obviouslty better with higher resolution. Then the
final material have to be downsampled with some dithering.

It's not "obvious" that noise reduction at 48kHz followed by downsampling
is better than noise reduction at 44.1kHz.

I'd *guess* you'll get a better result without the downsampling. I agree
that it is better with higher resolution (24 instead of 16-bit), but that's
not what the previous poster was discussing. I would also expect the
difference between 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 to be negligible on properly
recorded old vinyl.

--
Mark.

Mike Rivers wrote:

It's not that the LPs were cut with a low level, it's that the voltage
at the tape output of your amplifier is designed to match the input
gain of a consumer tape recorder of about the same vintage. If the
Delta 1010 has an input level selection switch (probably in its
software application) to select between +4 and -10, set it to -10 and
you'll get a higher record level. However, I'm quite sure that it's
impossible for you to get the record level to peak much higher than
about -15 in your DAW unless you go through another stage of
amplification that's capable of putting out a peak level of +24 dBu.
That takes it out of the "consumer" range.

I'm going to get shouted at here, but you (OP) could try using the Technics
amp's headphone outputs...

Start with the volume turned right down. The quality may well be
disappointing, but it's a way to get a higher level.

--
Mark.

Mark Tranchant wrote:
Locsmándi Bence wrote:

Of course I plan to archive these records as audio CDs. I use higher
frequency and higher bitrate because I have to do some noise
reduction on the material and it's obviouslty better with higher
resolution. Then the final material have to be downsampled with some
dithering.

It's not "obvious" that noise reduction at 48kHz followed by
downsampling is better than noise reduction at 44.1kHz.

Agreed. 48/44 is only about 1.1. Usually people are looking for something
like twice the bandwidth, to improve the quality of noise reduction.

I'd *guess* you'll get a better result without the downsampling.

Also agreed. Downsamping by 10% is way more trouble than it could possibly
be worth. The only reason I can see to do it is when it is demanded by
established formats.

I agree that it is better with higher resolution (24 instead of
16-bit), but that's not what the previous poster was discussing. I
would also expect the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 to be
negligible on properly recorded old vinyl.

Again agreed, even though I usually rip vinyl at 24/44. There is really at
least 20 dB of *footroom* between the noise floor of vinyl and the noise
floor of 16 bit digital. It seems like just 10 dB would be enough, but we
have another 10 dB or more, in actual practice. I guess that I've been
affected by the grotesque technical misapprehensions of Professor Felgett
circa 1983.

Mark Tranchant wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

It's not that the LPs were cut with a low level, it's that the
voltage at the tape output of your amplifier is designed to match
the input gain of a consumer tape recorder of about the same
vintage. If the Delta 1010 has an input level selection switch
(probably in its software application) to select between +4 and -10,
set it to -10 and you'll get a higher record level. However, I'm
quite sure that it's impossible for you to get the record level to
peak much higher than about -15 in your DAW unless you go through
another stage of amplification that's capable of putting out a peak
level of +24 dBu. That takes it out of the "consumer" range.

I'm going to get shouted at here, but you (OP) could try using the
Technics amp's headphone outputs...

Actually not a bad idea. Headphone outputs are often really pretty good
sources of moderate-impedance signals in the 1-6 volt range, especially if
you don't also load them with a pair of headphones.

Start with the volume turned right down. The quality may well be
disappointing, but it's a way to get a higher level.

IME 12 o'clock might be a good starting point.

"Locsmándi Bence" wrote:

Thanks for your opinion.
Of course I plan to archive these records as audio CDs. I use higher
frequency and higher bitrate because I have to do some noise reduction on
the material and it's obviouslty better with higher resolution. Then the
final material have to be downsampled with some dithering.
These are LPs from the '70s so they must have been recorded on analogue
gear.

bence

The difference between 48kHz and 44.1kHz isn't really worth bothering
about. If you were talking about sampling at 88.2 or 96kHz then that
would be a different matter but you'll probably lose more in the
downsampling than you will gain with the extra 3.9kHz sampling rate.

Cheers.

James.

So, finally, what do you recommend: what resolution to record the LPs?
I do the noise reduction with Waves plugs.

b.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
Mark Tranchant wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

It's not that the LPs were cut with a low level, it's that the
voltage at the tape output of your amplifier is designed to match
the input gain of a consumer tape recorder of about the same
vintage. If the Delta 1010 has an input level selection switch
(probably in its software application) to select between +4 and -10,
set it to -10 and you'll get a higher record level. However, I'm
quite sure that it's impossible for you to get the record level to
peak much higher than about -15 in your DAW unless you go through
another stage of amplification that's capable of putting out a peak
level of +24 dBu. That takes it out of the "consumer" range.

I'm going to get shouted at here, but you (OP) could try using the
Technics amp's headphone outputs...

Actually not a bad idea. Headphone outputs are often really pretty good
sources of moderate-impedance signals in the 1-6 volt range, especially if
you don't also load them with a pair of headphones.

Start with the volume turned right down. The quality may well be
disappointing, but it's a way to get a higher level.

IME 12 o'clock might be a good starting point.

Locsmándi Bence wrote:

So, finally, what do you recommend: what resolution to record the LPs?
I do the noise reduction with Waves plugs.

If they're going onto CD, record at 24-bit/44.1kHz. The only disadvantages
to using 24 vs 16 bit are increased disk space and processing power
requirements.

--
Mark.

Mark Tranchant wrote:
Locsmándi Bence wrote:

Of course I plan to archive these records as audio CDs. I use higher
frequency and higher bitrate because I have to do some noise reduction on
the material and it's obviouslty better with higher resolution. Then the
final material have to be downsampled with some dithering.

It's not "obvious" that noise reduction at 48kHz followed by downsampling
is better than noise reduction at 44.1kHz.

With some systems it might actually be worse, since you're requiring that
much more CPU time.

The click and pop removal algorithms and some decrackle algorithms will
work appreciably better at 88.2 ksamp/sec than at 44.1, IF you have a preamp
that can pass the ultrasonic information, and a cartridge that can reproduce
it. The ultrasonic stuff is mostly noise, and it more clearly delineates the
edges of noise transients.

But going from 44.1 to 48 is just a waste of space and isn't really going to
buy you anything other than more SRC artifacts.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Scott Dorsey) writes:
The click and pop removal algorithms and some decrackle algorithms will
work appreciably better at 88.2 ksamp/sec than at 44.1, IF you have a preamp
that can pass the ultrasonic information, and a cartridge that can reproduce
it. The ultrasonic stuff is mostly noise, and it more clearly delineates the
edges of noise transients.

This is interesting--do such preamps and cartridges actually exist,
especially non-super-exotic ones? If you mean MC cartridges, will a
typical transformer or pre-preamp also pass the ultrasonic stuff
through? Thanks.

In article writes:

So, finally, what do you recommend: what resolution to record the LPs?
I do the noise reduction with Waves plugs.

If they'll ultimately be CDs, then 44.1 kHz, 24-bit. There's no reason
to use a higher sample rate because you won't get any higher
frequencies off the disk other than ticks that you want to eliminate.
The 24-bit resolution will give your plug-ins plenty of working room
as long as you leave some headroom when recording.

There are many options for applying dither and reducing the word
length to 16-bit which you'll want to do as the final step before
burning the CD.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Thanks a lot for all the useful stuff mentioned here in the past few days!!!

b.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080832828k@trad...

In article
writes:

So, finally, what do you recommend: what resolution to record the LPs?
I do the noise reduction with Waves plugs.

If they'll ultimately be CDs, then 44.1 kHz, 24-bit. There's no reason
to use a higher sample rate because you won't get any higher
frequencies off the disk other than ticks that you want to eliminate.
The 24-bit resolution will give your plug-ins plenty of working room
as long as you leave some headroom when recording.

There are many options for applying dither and reducing the word
length to 16-bit which you'll want to do as the final step before
burning the CD.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Locsmándi Bence" wrote in message
...
So, finally, what do you recommend: what resolution to record the LPs?
I do the noise reduction with Waves plugs.

24 bits, 88.1kHz sampling rate. 48kHz isn't enough of a change to be worth
messing with, given the loss from rate conversion. Or go with 44.1kHz and
forget the conversion entirely except for dithering down to 16 bits.

To answer someone else's question, Grado cartridges have spec'd response out
to 50kHz, but I didn't see a figure on how many dB they are down. Most
moving magnets give up around 25 or 30kHz.

Peace,
Paul

Paul Rubin wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
The click and pop removal algorithms and some decrackle algorithms will
work appreciably better at 88.2 ksamp/sec than at 44.1, IF you have a preamp
that can pass the ultrasonic information, and a cartridge that can reproduce
it. The ultrasonic stuff is mostly noise, and it more clearly delineates the
edges of noise transients.

This is interesting--do such preamps and cartridges actually exist,
especially non-super-exotic ones? If you mean MC cartridges, will a
typical transformer or pre-preamp also pass the ultrasonic stuff
through? Thanks.

Some MC stuff will actually go very high... and no, typical step-up
transformers have too much interwinding capacitance to pass the wide
bandwidth. But there are even some MM cartridges which have substantial
high frequency performance, including the cheap AT440. I think a lot of
this is due to research that came out of the whole CD-4 quad format.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."