Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
news:h6qdnboenPDqwfzanZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast,com ...
> "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.
But it's not predictive. If it indicates clipping you can only go back and
start again.
>
> 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!
Fine, but bearing in mind that there are large variations in maximim level
from LP to LP you will probably need to apply amplification to the digital
file on some (most?) of the recordings later.
David.
>
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
news:h6qdnboenPDqwfzanZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast,com ...
> "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.
But it's not predictive. If it indicates clipping you can only go back and
start again.
>
> 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!
Fine, but bearing in mind that there are large variations in maximim level
from LP to LP you will probably need to apply amplification to the digital
file on some (most?) of the recordings later.
David.
>
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote in
message news:5sd8neF180d8fU1@mid.individual,net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> news:h6qdnboenPDqwfzanZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>> "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.
> But it's not predictive. If it indicates clipping you can
> only go back and start again.
Strictly speaking, nothing is predictive. But here is something that is
indicative:
The loudest trackability track on a test LP.
>> 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!
> Fine, but bearing in mind that there are large variations
> in maximim level from LP to LP you will probably need to
> apply amplification to the digital file on some (most?)
> of the recordings later.
Something I happily do with 20:20 hindsight.
"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet,com > wrote in
message news:5sd8neF180d8fU1@mid.individual,net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> news:h6qdnboenPDqwfzanZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast,com ...
>> "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.
> But it's not predictive. If it indicates clipping you can
> only go back and start again.
Strictly speaking, nothing is predictive. But here is something that is
indicative:
The loudest trackability track on a test LP.
>> 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!
> Fine, but bearing in mind that there are large variations
> in maximim level from LP to LP you will probably need to
> apply amplification to the digital file on some (most?)
> of the recordings later.
Something I happily do with 20:20 hindsight.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
David Looser wrote:
> Fine, but bearing in mind that there are large variations in maximim
> level from LP to LP you will probably need to apply amplification to
> the digital file on some (most?) of the recordings later.
Of course you will, you have to record clicks that are 6 to 8 dB above the
strongest cut audio signal cleanly so that the are easy to identify for
click removal software. That too is the good practice reason for using
longer than 16 bit wordlength when recording.
> David
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
David Looser wrote:
> Fine, but bearing in mind that there are large variations in maximim
> level from LP to LP you will probably need to apply amplification to
> the digital file on some (most?) of the recordings later.
Of course you will, you have to record clicks that are 6 to 8 dB above the
strongest cut audio signal cleanly so that the are easy to identify for
click removal software. That too is the good practice reason for using
longer than 16 bit wordlength when recording.
> David
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "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.
Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
a reconstruction filter?
I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "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.
Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
a reconstruction filter?
I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
___
-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:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "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.
> Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
> a reconstruction filter?
Yes.
> I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
> http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
> Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for transcribing LPs, and
provides a scrolling real-time display.
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "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.
> Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
> a reconstruction filter?
Yes.
> I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
> http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
> Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for transcribing LPs, and
provides a scrolling real-time display.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
> > In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >> "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.
> > Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
> > a reconstruction filter?
> Yes.
> > I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
> > http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
> > Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
> Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for transcribing LPs, and
> provides a scrolling real-time display.
Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating intersample overs?
It's not enough just to offer scrolling real-time display. The display has to 'know' what
consumer DAC/output stages do to a signal with high consecutive sample peaks -- most of the
ones tested by Nielsen and Lund had no headroom for properly reconstructing ISOs between such
sample peaks. Good peak monitoring should warn you when an 'illegal' reconstruction peak will
be generated between two 'legal' sample peaks.
Not saying Audition doesn't do it...just wondering how it's been determined
that it does.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
> > In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >> "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.
> > Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
> > a reconstruction filter?
> Yes.
> > I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
> > http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
> > Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
> Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for transcribing LPs, and
> provides a scrolling real-time display.
Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating intersample overs?
It's not enough just to offer scrolling real-time display. The display has to 'know' what
consumer DAC/output stages do to a signal with high consecutive sample peaks -- most of the
ones tested by Nielsen and Lund had no headroom for properly reconstructing ISOs between such
sample peaks. Good peak monitoring should warn you when an 'illegal' reconstruction peak will
be generated between two 'legal' sample peaks.
Not saying Audition doesn't do it...just wondering how it's been determined
that it does.
___
-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:fjuh1g$3te$4@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>>>> "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.
>
>>> Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
>>> a reconstruction filter?
>
>> Yes.
>
>>> I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
>
>>> http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
>
>>> Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
>
>> Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for
>> transcribing LPs, and provides a scrolling real-time
>> display.
> Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating
> intersample overs?
Yes.
In fact I just pulled CE 2.1 up on this computer I'm typing one and made a
few instesample overs by hand, just to be zillion-times sure.
> It's not enough just to offer scrolling real-time
> display. The display has to 'know' what consumer
> DAC/output stages do to a signal with high consecutive
> sample peaks -- most of the ones tested by Nielsen and
> Lund had no headroom for properly reconstructing ISOs
> between such sample peaks. Good peak monitoring should
> warn you when an 'illegal' reconstruction peak will be
> generated between two 'legal' sample peaks.
I've been aware of intersample overs for years - based on experience with my
own work.
> Not saying Audition doesn't do it...just wondering how
> it's been determined that it does.
Real world experience. Just happened to have my eyes open while working on
some recordings that I made.
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fjuh1g$3te$4@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>>>> "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.
>
>>> Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
>>> a reconstruction filter?
>
>> Yes.
>
>>> I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
>
>>> http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
>
>>> Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
>
>> Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for
>> transcribing LPs, and provides a scrolling real-time
>> display.
> Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating
> intersample overs?
Yes.
In fact I just pulled CE 2.1 up on this computer I'm typing one and made a
few instesample overs by hand, just to be zillion-times sure.
> It's not enough just to offer scrolling real-time
> display. The display has to 'know' what consumer
> DAC/output stages do to a signal with high consecutive
> sample peaks -- most of the ones tested by Nielsen and
> Lund had no headroom for properly reconstructing ISOs
> between such sample peaks. Good peak monitoring should
> warn you when an 'illegal' reconstruction peak will be
> generated between two 'legal' sample peaks.
I've been aware of intersample overs for years - based on experience with my
own work.
> Not saying Audition doesn't do it...just wondering how
> it's been determined that it does.
Real world experience. Just happened to have my eyes open while working on
some recordings that I made.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
> news:fjuh1g$3te$4@reader1.panix,com
> > In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
> >> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
> >>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >>>> "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.
> >
> >>> Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
> >>> a reconstruction filter?
> >
> >> Yes.
> >
> >>> I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
> >
> >>> http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
> >
> >>> Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
> >
> >> Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for
> >> transcribing LPs, and provides a scrolling real-time
> >> display.
> > Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating
> > intersample overs?
> Yes.
> In fact I just pulled CE 2.1 up on this computer I'm typing one and made a
> few instesample overs by hand, just to be zillion-times sure.
How? And what did it show?
Audition Help includes this warning
"If you're planning to put normalized audio on CD, you might want to normalize the waveforms
to no more than 96% as some audio compact disc players have problems accurately reproducing bits
that have been processed to 100% (maximum) amplitude."
And when I've normalize a music track to 0dBFS, I've never seen the Audition peak meter go
into the +0 zone. So I assumed that its peak meter does not model reconstructed output.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
> news:fjuh1g$3te$4@reader1.panix,com
> > In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
> >> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
> >>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
> >>>> "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.
> >
> >>> Yes, but is it accurate real time display, modeling
> >>> a reconstruction filter?
> >
> >> Yes.
> >
> >>> I don't know that those are so common. HEre's one:
> >
> >>> http :// www .secaudio.ch/side122.html
> >
> >>> Scroll down to the 'TL Mastermeter'
> >
> >> Adobe Audition, AKA CoolEdit is widely used for
> >> transcribing LPs, and provides a scrolling real-time
> >> display.
> > Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating
> > intersample overs?
> Yes.
> In fact I just pulled CE 2.1 up on this computer I'm typing one and made a
> few instesample overs by hand, just to be zillion-times sure.
How? And what did it show?
Audition Help includes this warning
"If you're planning to put normalized audio on CD, you might want to normalize the waveforms
to no more than 96% as some audio compact disc players have problems accurately reproducing bits
that have been processed to 100% (maximum) amplitude."
And when I've normalize a music track to 0dBFS, I've never seen the Audition peak meter go
into the +0 zone. So I assumed that its peak meter does not model reconstructed output.
___
-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:fjuoth$sdt$1@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fjuh1g$3te$4@reader1.panix,com
>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>>>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
>>> Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating
>>> intersample overs?
>
>> Yes.
>
>> In fact I just pulled CE 2.1 up on this computer I'm
>> typing one and made a few instesample overs by hand,
>> just to be zillion-times sure.
> How? And what did it show?
A line going up to FS and disappearing for a while, and then a line starting
at FS and going down. Something like it for -FS.
> Audition Help includes this warning
> "If you're planning to put normalized audio on CD, you
> might want to normalize the waveforms
> to no more than 96% as some audio compact disc players
> have problems accurately reproducing bits that have been
> processed to 100% (maximum) amplitude."
I've been saying as much on RAP for years.
> And when I've normalize a music track to 0dBFS, I've
> never seen the Audition peak meter go
> into the +0 zone. So I assumed that its peak meter does
> not model reconstructed output.
It indicates it, when it exists.
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fjuoth$sdt$1@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
>> news:fjuh1g$3te$4@reader1.panix,com
>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>>>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:fjt782$kis$5@reader1.panix,com
>>> Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating
>>> intersample overs?
>
>> Yes.
>
>> In fact I just pulled CE 2.1 up on this computer I'm
>> typing one and made a few instesample overs by hand,
>> just to be zillion-times sure.
> How? And what did it show?
A line going up to FS and disappearing for a while, and then a line starting
at FS and going down. Something like it for -FS.
> Audition Help includes this warning
> "If you're planning to put normalized audio on CD, you
> might want to normalize the waveforms
> to no more than 96% as some audio compact disc players
> have problems accurately reproducing bits that have been
> processed to 100% (maximum) amplitude."
I've been saying as much on RAP for years.
> And when I've normalize a music track to 0dBFS, I've
> never seen the Audition peak meter go
> into the +0 zone. So I assumed that its peak meter does
> not model reconstructed output.
It indicates it, when it exists.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> 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?
Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too late.
Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
monitoring problem. Read more here:
http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> 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?
Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too late.
Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
monitoring problem. Read more here:
http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too
> late.
> Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
> monitoring problem. Read more here:
> http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will be two consecutive
samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio software considers such samples to be
clipped and can provide a count of probably clipped samples.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too
> late.
> Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
> monitoring problem. Read more here:
> http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will be two consecutive
samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio software considers such samples to be
clipped and can provide a count of probably clipped samples.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Dec 14, 3:17 am, "Peter Larsen" <plar...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too
> > late.
> > Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
> > monitoring problem. Read more here:
> > http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
>
> IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will be two consecutive
> samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio software considers such samples to be
> clipped and can provide a count of probably clipped samples.
Why, two adjacent full-scale sample DO NOT a priori
mean that clipping occurred. Indeed, in the realm of
PCM stream, two such samples are perfectly legal
and represent v a completely valid waveform. Now,
yyour DAC may not be able to handle them, but that's
the DAC's problem, not a sample representation
problem.
MORE than two consecutive full-scale samples may be
another issue altogether.
Secondly, it does NOT require, as you claim, that the
two samples be at 0 dB FS. You could have two of them
a mere 1 LSB lower than 0 dB FS and STILL have the
same issue, only the peak will be proportionally lower,
i.e., not much. That's the difference between 0 dB
and -0.00027 dB FS.
Thirdly, if your "quality software" automatically assumes
that two adjacent o dB FS samples unambiguous clipping,
I'd posit it is NOT "quality software."
On Dec 14, 3:17 am, "Peter Larsen" <plar...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too
> > late.
> > Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
> > monitoring problem. Read more here:
> > http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
>
> IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will be two consecutive
> samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio software considers such samples to be
> clipped and can provide a count of probably clipped samples.
Why, two adjacent full-scale sample DO NOT a priori
mean that clipping occurred. Indeed, in the realm of
PCM stream, two such samples are perfectly legal
and represent v a completely valid waveform. Now,
yyour DAC may not be able to handle them, but that's
the DAC's problem, not a sample representation
problem.
MORE than two consecutive full-scale samples may be
another issue altogether.
Secondly, it does NOT require, as you claim, that the
two samples be at 0 dB FS. You could have two of them
a mere 1 LSB lower than 0 dB FS and STILL have the
same issue, only the peak will be proportionally lower,
i.e., not much. That's the difference between 0 dB
and -0.00027 dB FS.
Thirdly, if your "quality software" automatically assumes
that two adjacent o dB FS samples unambiguous clipping,
I'd posit it is NOT "quality software."
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too
> > late.
> > Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
> > monitoring problem. Read more here:
> > http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
> IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will be two consecutive
> samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio software considers such samples to be
> clipped and can provide a count of probably clipped samples.
Did you read any of the link I posted? Here's another
0dbFS+ Signals in Digital Mastering
http :// www .tcelectronic,com /media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf
The two consec samples needn't be AT 0 dBFS, for there to be intersample overs. With
contrived signals the ISOs can be as high as +6dBFS. Anecdotally, I see reports of +1 dBFS.
So consec samples at -0.5dB can still flank an ISO.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By then it's too
> > late.
> > Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks? It's mainly a
> > monitoring problem. Read more here:
> > http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
> IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will be two consecutive
> samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio software considers such samples to be
> clipped and can provide a count of probably clipped samples.
Did you read any of the link I posted? Here's another
0dbFS+ Signals in Digital Mastering
http :// www .tcelectronic,com /media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf
The two consec samples needn't be AT 0 dBFS, for there to be intersample overs. With
contrived signals the ISOs can be as high as +6dBFS. Anecdotally, I see reports of +1 dBFS.
So consec samples at -0.5dB can still flank an ISO.
___
-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:fjuga0$3te$2@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk>
> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>> Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By
>>> then it's too late.
>
>>> Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks?
>>> It's mainly a monitoring problem. Read more here:
>
>>> http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
>
>> IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will
>> be two consecutive samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio
>> software considers such samples to be clipped and can
>> provide a count of probably clipped samples.
>
> Did you read any of the link I posted? Here's another
>
> 0dbFS+ Signals in Digital Mastering
> http :// www .tcelectronic,com /media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf
>
> The two consec samples needn't be AT 0 dBFS, for there to
> be intersample overs. With contrived signals the ISOs
> can be as high as +6dBFS. Anecdotally, I see reports of
> +1 dBFS. So consec samples at -0.5dB can still flank an
> ISO.
With 16 bit samples 1 and 4 at zero, samples 2 and 3 at about 24,000 will
just give an over between them. With samples 1 and 4 at -32767, samples at
2 and 4 need to only be about 14,400 for there to be an over between them.
There will also be unders to the left and right of samples 1 and 4.
Again, in the real world this is pretty much moot. The ear can tolerate a
few dozen microseconds of light clipping as long as it is an isolated event.
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fjuga0$3te$2@reader1.panix,com
> In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen <plarsen@mail.tele.dk>
> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>> Look at the waveform when? After it's recorded? By
>>> then it's too late.
>
>>> Are you familiar with the concept of intersample peaks?
>>> It's mainly a monitoring problem. Read more here:
>
>>> http :// www .cadenzarecording,com /papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
>
>> IF there is an inter-sample peak issue, then there will
>> be two consecutive samples at 0 dB FS. Quality audio
>> software considers such samples to be clipped and can
>> provide a count of probably clipped samples.
>
> Did you read any of the link I posted? Here's another
>
> 0dbFS+ Signals in Digital Mastering
> http :// www .tcelectronic,com /media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf
>
> The two consec samples needn't be AT 0 dBFS, for there to
> be intersample overs. With contrived signals the ISOs
> can be as high as +6dBFS. Anecdotally, I see reports of
> +1 dBFS. So consec samples at -0.5dB can still flank an
> ISO.
With 16 bit samples 1 and 4 at zero, samples 2 and 3 at about 24,000 will
just give an over between them. With samples 1 and 4 at -32767, samples at
2 and 4 need to only be about 14,400 for there to be an over between them.
There will also be unders to the left and right of samples 1 and 4.
Again, in the real world this is pretty much moot. The ear can tolerate a
few dozen microseconds of light clipping as long as it is an isolated event.
Re: Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Did you read any of the link I posted? Here's another
No.
> 0dbFS+ Signals in Digital Mastering
> http :// www .tcelectronic,com /media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf
> The two consec samples needn't be AT 0 dBFS, for there to be
> intersample overs. With contrived signals the ISOs can be as high as
> +6dBFS. Anecdotally, I see reports of +1 dBFS. So consec samples at
> -0.5dB can still flank an ISO.
This is no doubt important to remember in an equipment design context. It is
considerably less important in the real world context of digitizing vinyl at
96 kHz sample rate with the clicks defining the record level setting such
that there are two unused bits above the audio. Also btw. the file is not
clipped if the samples are correct, strictly speaking this is a DA
conversion issue.
> -S
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Did you read any of the link I posted? Here's another
No.
> 0dbFS+ Signals in Digital Mastering
> http :// www .tcelectronic,com /media/Level_paper_AES109.pdf
> The two consec samples needn't be AT 0 dBFS, for there to be
> intersample overs. With contrived signals the ISOs can be as high as
> +6dBFS. Anecdotally, I see reports of +1 dBFS. So consec samples at
> -0.5dB can still flank an ISO.
This is no doubt important to remember in an equipment design context. It is
considerably less important in the real world context of digitizing vinyl at
96 kHz sample rate with the clicks defining the record level setting such
that there are two unused bits above the audio. Also btw. the file is not
clipped if the samples are correct, strictly speaking this is a DA
conversion issue.
> -S
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
