Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On 10 Dec, 20:47, Adrian <adrian h hud...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
> copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!
>
> My equipment is a Denon DP-35F Turntable with a Denon DL-300
> Cartridge, a New ART "USB Phono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
> D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.
>
> This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
> strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono turned to the max. But, the
> meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
> the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
> at least 3dB more.
>
> Do you have any thoughts on what is "wrong"? And, what can I do about
> it? You guys have given me great advice in the past.
> Many thanks
>
> Adrian
If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have it
digitised there is no problem. Before saving it to any 'lossy'
compression method, simply amplify it in Audacity. This is a
mathematical operation, and the 'clean signal' will be end up being as
loud as you want it to be.
Jack.
On 10 Dec, 20:47, Adrian <adrian h hud...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
> copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!
>
> My equipment is a Denon DP-35F Turntable with a Denon DL-300
> Cartridge, a New ART "USB Phono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
> D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.
>
> This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
> strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono turned to the max. But, the
> meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
> the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
> at least 3dB more.
>
> Do you have any thoughts on what is "wrong"? And, what can I do about
> it? You guys have given me great advice in the past.
> Many thanks
>
> Adrian
If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have it
digitised there is no problem. Before saving it to any 'lossy'
compression method, simply amplify it in Audacity. This is a
mathematical operation, and the 'clean signal' will be end up being as
loud as you want it to be.
Jack.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Dave W. wrote:
>
> If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have it
> digitised there is no problem. Before saving it to any 'lossy'
> compression method, simply amplify it in Audacity. This is a
> mathematical operation, and the 'clean signal' will be end up being as
> loud as you want it to be.
However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise. It
is best to optimise your recording level first.
The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.
geoff
Dave W. wrote:
>
> If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have it
> digitised there is no problem. Before saving it to any 'lossy'
> compression method, simply amplify it in Audacity. This is a
> mathematical operation, and the 'clean signal' will be end up being as
> loud as you want it to be.
However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise. It
is best to optimise your recording level first.
The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.
geoff
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
wrote:
>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise. It
>is best to optimise your recording level first.
>
>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
>resolution.
Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
wrote:
>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise. It
>is best to optimise your recording level first.
>
>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
>resolution.
Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex,com > wrote in message
news:rajrl3pl37b132ld4q4814lqf5b79780q1@4ax,com ...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise.
>>It
>>is best to optimise your recording level first.
>>
>>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
>>resolution.
>
> Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
> where levels are under control.
I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal just
failing to hit 0dBFS, in practice even with a 16 bit ADC when digitising
vinyl anything up to around 12dB of gain could be retrospectively applied to
the digital signal without audible quantisation noise becoming apparent.
David.
"Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex,com > wrote in message
news:rajrl3pl37b132ld4q4814lqf5b79780q1@4ax,com ...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise.
>>It
>>is best to optimise your recording level first.
>>
>>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
>>resolution.
>
> Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
> where levels are under control.
I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal just
failing to hit 0dBFS, in practice even with a 16 bit ADC when digitising
vinyl anything up to around 12dB of gain could be retrospectively applied to
the digital signal without audible quantisation noise becoming apparent.
David.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In rec.audio.tech David Looser <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex,com > wrote in message
> news:rajrl3pl37b132ld4q4814lqf5b79780q1@4ax,com ...
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise.
> >>It
> >>is best to optimise your recording level first.
> >>
> >>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
> >>resolution.
> >
> > Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
> > where levels are under control.
> I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
> quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal just
> failing to hit 0dBFS,
Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's advisable to
record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have accurate peak monitors
that show you what the *output* level is.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
In rec.audio.tech David Looser <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex,com > wrote in message
> news:rajrl3pl37b132ld4q4814lqf5b79780q1@4ax,com ...
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise.
> >>It
> >>is best to optimise your recording level first.
> >>
> >>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
> >>resolution.
> >
> > Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
> > where levels are under control.
> I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
> quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal just
> failing to hit 0dBFS,
Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's advisable to
record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have accurate peak monitors
that show you what the *output* level is.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fjn039$f1g$2@reader1.panix,com ...
> In rec.audio.tech David Looser <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote:
>> "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex,com > wrote in message
>> news:rajrl3pl37b132ld4q4814lqf5b79780q1@4ax,com ...
>> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation
>> >>noise.
>> >>It
>> >>is best to optimise your recording level first.
>> >>
>> >>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
>> >>resolution.
>> >
>> > Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
>> > where levels are under control.
>
>> I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
>> quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal
>> just
>> failing to hit 0dBFS,
>
> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's
> advisable to
> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have
> accurate peak monitors
> that show you what the *output* level is.
>
That's really a measurement problem. If you actually know exactly what the
"peak of peaks" is, that can be just shy of 0dBFS. I agree in practice a 3dB
or so margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is advisable.
David.
> ___
> -S
> "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
> metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fjn039$f1g$2@reader1.panix,com ...
> In rec.audio.tech David Looser <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote:
>> "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex,com > wrote in message
>> news:rajrl3pl37b132ld4q4814lqf5b79780q1@4ax,com ...
>> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation
>> >>noise.
>> >>It
>> >>is best to optimise your recording level first.
>> >>
>> >>The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
>> >>resolution.
>> >
>> > Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
>> > where levels are under control.
>
>> I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
>> quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal
>> just
>> failing to hit 0dBFS,
>
> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's
> advisable to
> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have
> accurate peak monitors
> that show you what the *output* level is.
>
That's really a measurement problem. If you actually know exactly what the
"peak of peaks" is, that can be just shy of 0dBFS. I agree in practice a 3dB
or so margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is advisable.
David.
> ___
> -S
> "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
> metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
David Looser wrote:
>> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's
>> advisable to
>> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have
>> accurate peak monitors
>> that show you what the *output* level is.
> That's really a measurement problem. If you actually know exactly
> what the "peak of peaks" is, that can be just shy of 0dBFS. I agree
> in practice a 3dB or so margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is
> advisable.
What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it hit 0
dB FS?
> David.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
David Looser wrote:
>> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's
>> advisable to
>> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have
>> accurate peak monitors
>> that show you what the *output* level is.
> That's really a measurement problem. If you actually know exactly
> what the "peak of peaks" is, that can be just shy of 0dBFS. I agree
> in practice a 3dB or so margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is
> advisable.
What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it hit 0
dB FS?
> David.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:475fb615$0$12974$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> David Looser wrote:
>
>>> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's
>>> advisable to
>>> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have
>>> accurate peak monitors
>>> that show you what the *output* level is.
>
>> That's really a measurement problem. If you actually know exactly
>> what the "peak of peaks" is, that can be just shy of 0dBFS. I agree
>> in practice a 3dB or so margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is
>> advisable.
>
> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it hit 0
> dB FS?
>
How do you look at an analogue waveform?, we are talking about setting the
analogue level into the ADC.
You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting digital waveform,
and then re-do it if the levels are way off, but generally it's easier to
get it more or less correct the first time.
David.
"Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:475fb615$0$12974$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> David Looser wrote:
>
>>> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of intersample peaks. It's
>>> advisable to
>>> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS, unless you have
>>> accurate peak monitors
>>> that show you what the *output* level is.
>
>> That's really a measurement problem. If you actually know exactly
>> what the "peak of peaks" is, that can be just shy of 0dBFS. I agree
>> in practice a 3dB or so margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is
>> advisable.
>
> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it hit 0
> dB FS?
>
How do you look at an analogue waveform?, we are talking about setting the
analogue level into the ADC.
You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting digital waveform,
and then re-do it if the levels are way off, but generally it's easier to
get it more or less correct the first time.
David.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
David Looser wrote:
>> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it
>> hit 0 dB FS?
> How do you look at an analogue waveform?,
Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
> we are talking about
> setting the analogue level into the ADC.
And?
> You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting digital
> waveform, and then re-do it if the levels are way off, but generally
> it's easier to get it more or less correct the first time.
Correct transfer means that the loudest click is not clipped, you only need
to make that adjustment once.
> David.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
David Looser wrote:
>> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it
>> hit 0 dB FS?
> How do you look at an analogue waveform?,
Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
> we are talking about
> setting the analogue level into the ADC.
And?
> You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting digital
> waveform, and then re-do it if the levels are way off, but generally
> it's easier to get it more or less correct the first time.
Correct transfer means that the loudest click is not clipped, you only need
to make that adjustment once.
> David.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:00b8a7ba$0$23796$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> David Looser wrote:
>
>>> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it
>>> hit 0 dB FS?
>
>> How do you look at an analogue waveform?,
>
> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
>
But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the recording!!!
>> we are talking about
>> setting the analogue level into the ADC.
>
> And?
>
BEFORE you make the recording (so you haven't got a screen image from the
audio editing package to look at yet!)
>> You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting digital
>> waveform, and then re-do it if the levels are way off, but generally
>> it's easier to get it more or less correct the first time.
>
> Correct transfer means that the loudest click is not clipped, you only
> need to make that adjustment once.
>
Yes of course, did I say anything different?
David.
"Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:00b8a7ba$0$23796$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> David Looser wrote:
>
>>> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the waveform, does it
>>> hit 0 dB FS?
>
>> How do you look at an analogue waveform?,
>
> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
>
But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the recording!!!
>> we are talking about
>> setting the analogue level into the ADC.
>
> And?
>
BEFORE you make the recording (so you haven't got a screen image from the
audio editing package to look at yet!)
>> You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting digital
>> waveform, and then re-do it if the levels are way off, but generally
>> it's easier to get it more or less correct the first time.
>
> Correct transfer means that the loudest click is not clipped, you only
> need to make that adjustment once.
>
Yes of course, did I say anything different?
David.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
David Looser wrote:
>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
> recording!!!
Bad choice of software then. But it doesn't matter much. Take a record you
don't like and lower the cartridge on it with the lift while recording. When
that records cleanly the level adjustment is done.
>> Correct transfer means that the loudest click is not clipped, you
>> only need to make that adjustment once.
> Yes of course, did I say anything different?
You do seem to consider it to be "an issue".
> David
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
David Looser wrote:
>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
> recording!!!
Bad choice of software then. But it doesn't matter much. Take a record you
don't like and lower the cartridge on it with the lift while recording. When
that records cleanly the level adjustment is done.
>> Correct transfer means that the loudest click is not clipped, you
>> only need to make that adjustment once.
> Yes of course, did I say anything different?
You do seem to consider it to be "an issue".
> David
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:01b65a4c$0$1806$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> David Looser wrote:
>
>>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
>
>> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
>> recording!!!
>
> Bad choice of software then.
You have *predictive* software? Just like the lifts in "Hitch-Hiker" it
knows what's going to happen *before* it happens? I'm amazed, does this
software also predict the numbers for next weeks lottery?
David.
"Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:01b65a4c$0$1806$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> David Looser wrote:
>
>>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
>
>> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
>> recording!!!
>
> Bad choice of software then.
You have *predictive* software? Just like the lifts in "Hitch-Hiker" it
knows what's going to happen *before* it happens? I'm amazed, does this
software also predict the numbers for next weeks lottery?
David.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
David Looser wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> news:01b65a4c$0$1806$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
>>> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
>>> recording!!!
>> Bad choice of software then.
> You have *predictive* software? Just like the lifts in "Hitch-Hiker"
> it knows what's going to happen *before* it happens? I'm amazed, does
> this software also predict the numbers for next weeks lottery?
You DO realize that you are quabling about the possibility of inter-sample
overs in DA conversion of a file that is recorded at 96 kHz sample rate with
2 full bits of headroom above the audio signal to make room for the clicks.
Those large clicks are later removed. The file is eventually as previously
suggested by me normalized to -2.5 dB ref. full scale.
The issue you worry about no doubt is real, but there is no data loss as
long as the sample values are correct. What this is about is that the analog
stage in front of the AD converter needs to have headroom above 0 dB FS and
that the analog stage after the AD converter needs to have headroom above 0
dB FS. The digital file can not be considered clipped if the sample values
are correct no matter how high the intersample peak happens to be.
If you have commercial pop cd's with a large number of consecutive samples
at 0 dB FS, then you have something to worry about and someting to rant away
about.
If you have such productions mp3's without a preceding gain reduction of
some 2 dB, then you will have even more overs ....
> David
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
David Looser wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> news:01b65a4c$0$1806$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
>>> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
>>> recording!!!
>> Bad choice of software then.
> You have *predictive* software? Just like the lifts in "Hitch-Hiker"
> it knows what's going to happen *before* it happens? I'm amazed, does
> this software also predict the numbers for next weeks lottery?
You DO realize that you are quabling about the possibility of inter-sample
overs in DA conversion of a file that is recorded at 96 kHz sample rate with
2 full bits of headroom above the audio signal to make room for the clicks.
Those large clicks are later removed. The file is eventually as previously
suggested by me normalized to -2.5 dB ref. full scale.
The issue you worry about no doubt is real, but there is no data loss as
long as the sample values are correct. What this is about is that the analog
stage in front of the AD converter needs to have headroom above 0 dB FS and
that the analog stage after the AD converter needs to have headroom above 0
dB FS. The digital file can not be considered clipped if the sample values
are correct no matter how high the intersample peak happens to be.
If you have commercial pop cd's with a large number of consecutive samples
at 0 dB FS, then you have something to worry about and someting to rant away
about.
If you have such productions mp3's without a preceding gain reduction of
some 2 dB, then you will have even more overs ....
> David
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> David Looser wrote:
> > "Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> > news:01b65a4c$0$1806$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> >> David Looser wrote:
> >>>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
> >>> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
> >>> recording!!!
> >> Bad choice of software then.
> > You have *predictive* software? Just like the lifts in "Hitch-Hiker"
> > it knows what's going to happen *before* it happens? I'm amazed, does
> > this software also predict the numbers for next weeks lottery?
> You DO realize that you are quabling about the possibility of inter-sample
> overs in DA conversion of a file that is recorded at 96 kHz sample rate with
> 2 full bits of headroom above the audio signal to make room for the clicks.
> Those large clicks are later removed. The file is eventually as previously
> suggested by me normalized to -2.5 dB ref. full scale.
You don't need to record at 96 to capture the clicks sufficiently for them to be located later
by software. 44.1 is quite sufficient.
In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> David Looser wrote:
> > "Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> > news:01b65a4c$0$1806$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
> >> David Looser wrote:
> >>>> Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.
> >>> But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
> >>> recording!!!
> >> Bad choice of software then.
> > You have *predictive* software? Just like the lifts in "Hitch-Hiker"
> > it knows what's going to happen *before* it happens? I'm amazed, does
> > this software also predict the numbers for next weeks lottery?
> You DO realize that you are quabling about the possibility of inter-sample
> overs in DA conversion of a file that is recorded at 96 kHz sample rate with
> 2 full bits of headroom above the audio signal to make room for the clicks.
> Those large clicks are later removed. The file is eventually as previously
> suggested by me normalized to -2.5 dB ref. full scale.
You don't need to record at 96 to capture the clicks sufficiently for them to be located later
by software. 44.1 is quite sufficient.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote in
message news:5s9vlnF182kgcU1@mid.individual,net
> "Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> news:475fb615$0$12974$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>
>>>> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of
>>>> intersample peaks. It's advisable to
>>>> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS,
>>>> unless you have accurate peak monitors
>>>> that show you what the *output* level is.
>>
>>> That's really a measurement problem. If you actually
>>> know exactly what the "peak of peaks" is, that can be
>>> just shy of 0dBFS. I agree in practice a 3dB or so
>>> margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is advisable.
>>
>> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the
>> waveform, does it hit 0 dB FS?
>>
>
> How do you look at an analogue waveform?, we are talking
> about setting the analogue level into the ADC.
>
> You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting
> digital waveform, and then re-do it if the levels are way
> off, but generally it's easier to get it more or less
> correct the first time.
Most audio capture software has a real time display.
I set levels using a trackability test track. If the cartridge is
mistracking, tain't no need for that much more headroom in the preamp!
"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote in
message news:5s9vlnF182kgcU1@mid.individual,net
> "Peter Larsen" <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> news:475fb615$0$12974$c3e8da3@news.astraweb,com ...
>> David Looser wrote:
>>
>>>> Not necessarily ideal, due to the possibility of
>>>> intersample peaks. It's advisable to
>>>> record with peak samples a dB or three shy of 0 dBFS,
>>>> unless you have accurate peak monitors
>>>> that show you what the *output* level is.
>>
>>> That's really a measurement problem. If you actually
>>> know exactly what the "peak of peaks" is, that can be
>>> just shy of 0dBFS. I agree in practice a 3dB or so
>>> margin between *apparent* peak and 0dBFS is advisable.
>>
>> What millenium are you living in guys, look at the
>> waveform, does it hit 0 dB FS?
>>
>
> How do you look at an analogue waveform?, we are talking
> about setting the analogue level into the ADC.
>
> You can, of course, do a transfer, look at the resulting
> digital waveform, and then re-do it if the levels are way
> off, but generally it's easier to get it more or less
> correct the first time.
Most audio capture software has a real time display.
I set levels using a trackability test track. If the cartridge is
mistracking, tain't no need for that much more headroom in the preamp!
