Recording Blues

[dark]

I love the feel of this forum...great stuff lots of knowledge.

Excuse the newbish (though we all start somewhere right?)...but i have a question that I have not been able to figure out yet even after much toiling to decide what to do (and even more searching on the net).

I am converting old media, LP's, 8-track, Cassette etc, from their nasty old sounds to new wonderful sounds and burning them to disc.

Im running it through my X-Fi card (because im doing recording, but I also love music and I love games, so I figured I'd get the mix-bag card) and I have a range of different pieces of equipment to read the media, but the kicker is what do I record at? I mean, does it really matter what I record it at aside from the default 44k/16bit? I see sometimes that it does make a difference to record hi like 96k/16 (or 24) and then convert down to 44/16 to burn it and then others say its only for editing and the like if your going to do that. I can record as high as 196/24...but that seems outlandish.

I'm looking to clean the sound if theres pops and crinkles like anyone would going from old analoge to new digital, but nothing more. Perhaps the odd EQ bumping...

your thoughts?

[Reegs]

Hey dark,

Record at 44.1, 24-bit. Dither down to 16-bit after you've done all your editing.

The editing to clean up those old records can be done with EQ and some noise reduction. There's an entire industry devoted to old vinyl restoration. For starters, I recommend you check out SoundSoap 2 (http://xserve1.bias-inc.com:16080/products/soundSoap2/).

[AndyH]

Overall, there are many aspects to consider and many software products to help. Part of it depends on what you want to accomplish vs how much effort you are willing to put into it. Here is a useful beginner’s guide
http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm

This shareware will give you the best possible results on clicks and pops, which are the major problem with most LP transfers. Many other programs provide a more automated approach, meaning they make the task easier, but they don't do as good a job, overall. This program is freeware for recording and a few minor tasks.
http://www.delback.co.uk/wavrep/

Since you have a Creative card, you will get the best results by recording at 48kHz. You will have to resample to 44.1kHz if you want to write to CD-R but (good) software resampling will give better quality than letting the soundcard do it.

[AndyH]

I see your basic question involves sample rate and bit depth rather than techniques and programs. This question has been discussed uncountable times. Why don’t you read through this recent thread.
http://www.audioforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20222

There probably isn’t any aspect not already discussed there, but if you are left with questions, at least they should be some different questions.

[ecc83]

Morning Dark.

None of the media you are trying to process has a dynamic range anwhere near even 16bit recording, clue?

I have downloaded the demo of Sony Soundforge and it has some really good vinyl and tape cleanup prog's. Try it for 30days, you might even buy it.

Dave.

[dark]

Ive cycled through a few programs, none listed here...so I'm fairly green at this process.

The link/guide you fired off Andy looks like a healthy amount of information I shalt digest and get back on here about...thanks for the great replies. Lots of stuff to think about. I havent tried SoundForge yet, I should have thought to try that out, I used to have Sound Forge long ago.

As for the resampling. The best bet, is to record the initial file, the give it a once through to resample to the CD level 44/16. I will read through all this new matieral (that seemed to blow past in my weeks of googling) and come back again.

Thanks!

[tech1]

iZoptope's RX (http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/) is also really, really good at noise reduction. You will be best off recording at 24 bits. The best sample rate is a bit of a raging debate (in which most people now agree), but for your purposes, since it will end up on an audio CD, stick to 44.1.

[ecc83]

Hi Matt,

I really don't want cause a problem but why 24bits for stuff that would struggle to reach a 60dB dynamic range? I recently "improved " and burned 50 45rpm sides for my daughter (using S.SFg) although I did not do an A/B test I cannot see how a 140dB range would have helped.

I think recent information has laid the "resolution" argument to rest, a bit is a bit, 24 just has more and goes "down" further. I DO use 24/44.1 for live stuff.

My 2496 cards process at 32bit as I think is common in "pro" cards, not so sure about Creatives.

Dave.

[AndyH]

The soundcard does not process anything relevant to the topic at 32 bit.

With vinyl or cassette, the reason for using 24 bit (or better, 32 bit floating point) is for quantization noise and distortion from processing, not dynamic range. Recording at 16 bit, then resampling to 32 bit as the first post recording processing step, should give the same results.

Vinyl has such high background noise that the above considerations may be more theoretical than practical as far as audibility goes, but they are real. Quantization errors are commutative, so their effect on your recording is very dependent on how many processes you do.

Record; write to CD; there is nothing to be gained by a greater bit depth. Run enough transforms between the record and write steps, quantization errors will make a difference. Just where that line is crossed is difficult to say, it is subtle and gradual. If you don’t give a hoot about probably minor differences, don’t fret yourself. If you are working with very clean live recordings, the problems with 16 bit processing will be easier to notice.

[dark]

Not a reply to the material I'm reading given by Andy but another and different question.

Now, I don't exactly have the greatest computer speakers which is something I over looked before entering this project, though I have -very- nice home system its a nuisance to have to burn a product and move it to the other room instead of being able to monitor my results and editing on the fly.

Question being, I love to game as well. So is there a balance between two that a company like Klipsch or someone like that makes a balance or perhaps I would look to buy a set of very nice "gaming noise cancelling headphones" where I would have monitor grade speakers. Or perhaps vice-versa having Monitor headphones and gaming speakers.

[Bops2000]

I think you should record the vinyls as they are with age comes beauty, as well as the mix as it was in those days. Better off investing in a good phono cartridge as opposed to fancy software.
I use a Technics 1600MK2 from a garage sale that needed a belt and a new cartridge- Turntable $10, Belt-$8, Cartridge-$80. I run it through a normal computer with a delta 2496 using EMAGIX audio cleaning lab-$30.
you may get better results with Sony CD Architect, which I use occasionally for that stuff.

[AndyH]

I've done hundreds of LP transfers, and a fair number of cassette to computer projects, using headphones to monitor the results of clean up. This works quite well for everything except declicking, and well enough for that with probably more than 90% of material. Cleaning up transfers is very different than mixing new material. All the balancing, compression, EQ, effects, etc. have already been taken care of, and it isn't my aim to change the recording, only to try to return it to what was originally intended. Therefore, monitoring requirements are not nearly so severe.

However, while headphone listening can be enjoyable, it is definitely not the same as with speakers. Declicking is the main problem from this viewpoint. Many sharp transients don't come through sounding "right". On headphones, in too many cases, I can't tell if percussive sounds, especially small instruments and plucked guitar strings, are music or clicks, even after careful and repeated listening (of course, if a sound is far enough off the music's timing, one can often make a reasonable call on that basis). Putting the track on speakers makes a major difference, the instruments can immediately be clearly heard for what they are.

This has not been too great a problem with the majority of more than 500 LPs; perhaps it also depends somewhat upon something about the music itself. From what I've read, however, it is the result of well understood acoustical properties, not just some weirdness with me. I use a good soundcard, good headphone amplifier and good headphones.

Because of the reasons mentioned above, I suspect decent computer speakers would work well enough for this task. One need not be concerned with how accurate the sound is, only whether or not one can hear the various kinds of noise one is fighting. Note, this is my guess, not based on experimentation. Also, this won't be true if you have a yen to "remaster" the material.

It probably depends on just how throughly one wishes to remove the various kinds of LP noise, but headphones can be a definite plus dealing with the quieter stuff.

[dark]

well that makes sense.

For an idea, im using a new Grado Prestigue Green cartridge on a Philips GA-312 turntable with a NAD PP-2 preamp. My cassettes are running through a Nakamichi BX-300 and the computer is more then 'sturdy'. So, my aquisition hardware isnt bad off.

I'm not so much re-mastering since these aren't my own personal collection but more so a backup/cleanup and then drop to disc. If under special request, I would do deep cleaning and special touches but otherwise its more or less generic'esque type of work.

Depending on the demand or flow of people coming in, I will add a 2496 (if it would be a big difference in my conversion needs) but for now I'll record in the native standard of the card and dither it down using nice software.

I'll keep it in mind about the headphones...perhaps I'll just keep an eye out for a swell set of headphones without something too specific (but certainly 'good' ones).

[ecc83]

Good morning Dark,

I cannot say that my two 2496's have made a big improvement to my pc sound because I have not directly compared them with anything else ( I had a Trust £20 and Terratec 'bout the same, but so long ago and pre Tannoy 5a's).

What I can so tho' is that they have never given any cause for concern in at least 20months running time. No need to re-install drivers or anything else.

I would like to have gone for the slightly better spec'd 192 but money was not there. I would advise you to got for it tho', they have balanced i/o and a spare out that you could run into the "room with the good speakers"!

I am sorry Andy H I only know as much digital gen as I pick up from here and books. As an old analogue 'tronics tech I see 90dB v 140dB and a stack of punk 45's that have been frisbie'd about for 10 years... no brainer! I would in a similar way not waste Ampex 406 at 15"ps on my Teac, TDK SA and Dolby B, MORE than good enough.

I know the restoration task is a very skilled one having read of the old tape days when millimetres of clicks were cut out and best match sounds spliced in to fit, or the guy would actually PLAY the missing note or get someone else to!

Rock on guys,
Dave.

[AndyH]

As I wrote above, dynamic range has nothing to do with the considerations of 16 bit vs 24 or 32 bit processing. Quantization errors are real. They are unavoidable. AT 16 bit these errors can be audible (they are easily audible with simple audio, but harder to actually identify with complex audio). At 24 bit they are much less likely to be audible. When processing is done in floating point, they will never be audible.