On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:27:21 -0000, "Triffid"
wrote:

Don Pearce wiffled:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:15:46 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:35:41 GMT, "Fleetie"
wrote:

A whole pile of things to listen too! Never bought any singles, but
lots of
LPs, now converted to CD. Before I get shot down;
done for 3 reasons, to remove the worst clicks & pops, convenience,
and car compatibility.

You recorded your LPs to CD, and used software to process the files to
remove clicks and pops?

Rather you than me.

I'll take the clicks and pops and have the unadulterated, otherwise-
hi-fi sound. By filtering out the clicks and pops, you are removing
information, and with it, fidelity.

Apologies if I have misunderstood you.



Martin

It can be worth the small quality loss. Here is something I recently
did for a friend, from a really horrible old 45. I used the Waves
noise reduction plugins in Adobe Audition in essentially automatic
mode. I just selected thresholds and reduction levels manually. She
was VERY happy with the result. Sorry about the 128k MP3s, but the
WAVs were too big.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/angelinanoisy.mp3
http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/angelinaclean.mp3


Quite impressive that..

Absolutely - well worth a little time and trouble. Well, actually
about ten minutes of time.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

It's does highlight the (my) biggest problem with recording vinyl -
recording level. Setting it to cope with high-level clicks and scratches
must reduce the resolution of the wanted music, or alternatively introduce
digital distortion into the mix. This processing technology is superb for
putting new life into old cassette tapes though.

As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

On the version I gave my friend, I re-normalised back to full level,
but I thought that here a comparison would be more helpful with levels
unchanged.

Actually, the amount of level change, coupled with the vinyl source
meant that there was essentially no added noise as a result.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of work!

--
We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Pang,
and Ni-wom!

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:31:18 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of work!

Absolutely no point when working from vinyl, you can accommodate even
the biggest spikes and lose no SNR whatever 1t 16/44.1. And of course,
working from cassette you don't get the spikes, so no point there
either. 16/44.1 is just fine.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:39:27 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:31:18 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of work!

Absolutely no point when working from vinyl, you can accommodate even
the biggest spikes and lose no SNR whatever 1t 16/44.1. And of course,
working from cassette you don't get the spikes, so no point there
either. 16/44.1 is just fine.

Good point. Who *are* these idiots who think that you need more than
13/44 for vinyl?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:31:18 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of work!

Absolutely no point when working from vinyl, you can accommodate even
the biggest spikes and lose no SNR whatever 1t 16/44.1. And of course,
working from cassette you don't get the spikes, so no point there
either. 16/44.1 is just fine.

My experience is similar to the above. FWIW I've just done a consideration
of the dynamic ranges, etc, of LP and CD-A for HFN[1], and this also seems
to support what Don says wrt 16bit being adequate for this purpose.

[1] Details in next month's issue... ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article ,
Tim S Kemp wrote:
As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of work!

For a vinyl source? Wot u on. ;-)

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:21:21 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:39:27 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:31:18 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of work!

Absolutely no point when working from vinyl, you can accommodate even
the biggest spikes and lose no SNR whatever 1t 16/44.1. And of course,
working from cassette you don't get the spikes, so no point there
either. 16/44.1 is just fine.

Good point. Who *are* these idiots who think that you need more than
13/44 for vinyl?

Even the example I posted was only 3.5dB short of full scale once
de-clicked, so I was losing only half a bit of potential from my 16. I
bet that recording engineers would like to be able to work that close.
:-)

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim S Kemp wrote:
As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks
can be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them
within the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to
compromise.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of
work!

For a vinyl source? Wot u on. ;-)

Gotta get the best possible record of that click and pop....

--
We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Pang,
and Ni-wom!

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Even the example I posted was only 3.5dB short of full scale once
de-clicked, so I was losing only half a bit of potential from my 16. I
bet that recording engineers would like to be able to work that close.
:-)

What makes you think we don't?
We call it PP (post production)
:-)

Iain

"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message


Don Pearce wrote:

As you say, there is a compromise. If you clip heavily, the ticks can
be hard to get rid of cleanly, alternatively, if you keep them within
the DAC, you end up with very little music. I tend to compromise.

Must be a pretty crappy DAC if maintaining enough headroom for transcribing
vinyl causes it any problems.

Yet another reason for moving to 24/96 or higher for this kind of
work!

I know of no reason to use 24/96 for vinyl transcriptions other than a
desire to waste space and time.