|
|
The Gadget Show
Caught the end of it where they were comparing MP3 CD and LP. Same piece
of music. Comment about vinyl was analogue must sound better than digital as it contains all the information rather than just samples. Wonder what their sound recordist thought about that. ;-) Missed the beginning of the piece so don't know what they made the MP3 from. If they even said. They did say it was at the highest sampling rate. They both sort of agreed the MP3 sounded best.. -- *OK, so what's the speed of dark? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Gadget Show
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... Caught the end of it where they were comparing MP3 CD and LP. Same piece of music. Comment about vinyl was analogue must sound better than digital as it contains all the information rather than just samples. Wonder what their sound recordist thought about that. ;-) Missed the beginning of the piece so don't know what they made the MP3 from. If they even said. They did say it was at the highest sampling rate. They both sort of agreed the MP3 sounded best.. -- As ever is the case with such programmes - and especially the Gadget Show - the didn't do a realistic test. The amp and speakers they used are not designed to fill an audtitorium with sound but rather a domestic listening room albeit maybe a large one. If they had listened under those conditions, where the environment is not intended to reinforce the sound, where they would have been listening at sounds levels that the ear can better handle, and above all, where they are closer to the speakers I suspect their findings would have been somewhat different. But that's 'red-top' TV for you. -- Woody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com |
The Gadget Show
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote: Caught the end of it where they were comparing MP3 CD and LP. Same piece of music. Comment about vinyl was analogue must sound better than digital as it contains all the information rather than just samples. Wonder what their sound recordist thought about that. ;-) Do sound recordists normally know about and understand the Sampling Theorem, etc? Clearly it isn't part of the education for programme presenters. :-) They both sort of agreed the MP3 sounded best.. Less is more, eh? :-) Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
The Gadget Show
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Caught the end of it where they were comparing MP3 CD and LP. Same piece of music. Comment about vinyl was analogue must sound better than digital as it contains all the information rather than just samples. Wonder what their sound recordist thought about that. ;-) Do sound recordists normally know about and understand the Sampling Theorem, etc? Clearly it isn't part of the education for programme presenters. :-) I was more referring to the improvment in sound as recorded by the average pro VTR when things went digital. They both sort of agreed the MP3 sounded best.. Less is more, eh? :-) I missed the whole piece but it seems likely that MP3 originated from a CD anyway. I doubt a low budget prog like this would have had access to master recordings. Slainte, Jim -- *No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Gadget Show
I was listening to a bit of a naff sounding mp 3 of some guitar music the
other day when a friend said how realistic it sounded. I said he must have some strange guitars round his place as the phase problems of mp3 were all too obvious in the rythmic swizzling and change in tone etc. I think it was 48kbits or something like that. I really cannot listen to internet stations like Wave as these effects are so headache inducing. Some of the win media 64kbit streams are passable, but not great. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Caught the end of it where they were comparing MP3 CD and LP. Same piece of music. Comment about vinyl was analogue must sound better than digital as it contains all the information rather than just samples. Wonder what their sound recordist thought about that. ;-) Do sound recordists normally know about and understand the Sampling Theorem, etc? Clearly it isn't part of the education for programme presenters. :-) They both sort of agreed the MP3 sounded best.. Less is more, eh? :-) Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
The Gadget Show
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... There is an interesting thing here of course, that as people get more adept at removing bits of information and yet making it sound better, could we be seeing the digital equivelent of why some say vinyl is better. What I mean is, if you can identify the distortion or missing info in vinyl that makes it sound better than what is perfect, then this could be added to an mp3 to make it sound more like vinyl! Its all very subjective, after all. Some people claim they like the ound of Real Audio streams, but then maybe they are just deaf! Brian -- It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". They don't know why but think they are expected to say it is better. I would love to see vinyl recorded with low bitrates and compression/limiting. Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. DABradio is equivalent to a good quality MW mono signal with restricted audio frequencies. |
The Gadget Show
"Clive" wrote in message
... -- It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". Or those who think vinyl is better because it's analogue. They don't know why but think they are expected to say it is better. As you said. I would love to see vinyl recorded with low bitrates and compression/limiting. Vinyl is analogue, so any reference to "bitrates" is meaningless. But of course all records have always used compression and limiting. It's only a matter of how and how much. Pop 45s have always had masses of compression. Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? DABradio is equivalent to a good quality MW mono signal No such thing. MW radio is universally crap these days. with restricted audio frequencies. DAB has about 3 times the bandwidth of MW. David. |
The Gadget Show
David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message -- It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". Or those who think vinyl is better because it's analogue. Some people just don't 'get it'. The inherent problems with vinyl pressing and playback make any deficiencies with CD look minute. Graham |
The Gadget Show
David Looser wrote:
"Clive" wrote in message ... -- It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". Or those who think vinyl is better because it's analogue. They don't know why but think they are expected to say it is better. As you said. I would love to see vinyl recorded with low bitrates and compression/limiting. Vinyl is analogue, so any reference to "bitrates" is meaningless. But of course all records have always used compression and limiting. It's only a matter of how and how much. Pop 45s have always had masses of compression. Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl to a digital file. It then becomes digital. As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed IMO. HTH Rob |
The Gadget Show
"Rob" wrote in message
... David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl to a digital file. It then becomes digital. Well indeed, but that is a very different thing from recording "a MP3 track to vinyl". I haven't got a clue what Clive thinks that means, he probably doesn't either. As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed IMO. I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as being more convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid of a lot of the clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no discernable difference to the sound quality between the LP direct, and the CD copy. David. |
The Gadget Show
In article ,
Clive wrote: It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". They don't know why but think they are expected to say it is better. I've heard plenty say there are people like that but I've yet to meet one. I would love to see vinyl recorded with low bitrates and compression/limiting. Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Could you explain more fully? Vinyl adds distortion. It's inherent in the system. So any signal recorded on it will always sound different from the original. DABradio is equivalent to a good quality MW mono signal with restricted audio frequencies. MW cuts off at 4.5kHz. DAB at least 15kHz. You're perfectly entitled not to like DAB but get the facts straight. -- *Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Gadget Show
In article ,
Rob wrote: Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl to a digital file. It then becomes digital. Any analogue signal can be digitised. Early CDs often started out as analogue. As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed IMO. You don't need Audacity to digitise an LP. Just about every computer with an audio input can do it. Of course you do need an RIAA preamp. -- *Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Gadget Show
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
You don't need Audacity to digitise an LP. Just about every computer with an audio input can do it. The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Recorder_(Windows) -- Adrian C |
The Gadget Show
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:13:56 +0000, Adrian C
wrote: The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of course? |
The Gadget Show
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:13:56 +0000, Adrian C wrote: The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of course? What's the point?, you still need an audio editor if you are going to do anything useful with the recording. David. |
The Gadget Show
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Rob wrote: Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl to a digital file. It then becomes digital. Any analogue signal can be digitised. Early CDs often started out as analogue. As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed IMO. You don't need Audacity to digitise an LP. Just about every computer with an audio input can do it. Of course you do need an RIAA preamp. How does that work then? I'd have thought you need *some* software. Do you mean just about any computer and software? I just mention Audacity because, on a Mac at least, it has come on a lot - very quick to load/edit/tag/export, and while I'm wary of using such things, the effects (esp noise reduction) seem to work well. Rob |
The Gadget Show
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message ... David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl to a digital file. It then becomes digital. Well indeed, but that is a very different thing from recording "a MP3 track to vinyl". I haven't got a clue what Clive thinks that means, he probably doesn't either. As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed IMO. I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as being more convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid of a lot of the clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no discernable difference to the sound quality between the LP direct, and the CD copy. I'd probably agree, although add to the mix the timeless charm of vinyl spinning and musty record sleeves, and the aural experience goes up a notch ;-) I've just started using the noise reduction on Audacity - I've no real idea what I'm doing, but it seems to work very well. Settings are noise reduction (dB - I use 24), frequency smoothing (150Hz) and attack/delay (0.15s), with data generated from 5s or so between track mush. Rob |
The Gadget Show
In article ,
David Looser wrote: "Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:13:56 +0000, Adrian C wrote: The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of course? What's the point?, you still need an audio editor if you are going to do anything useful with the recording. Audacity is an expensive way of getting a simple editor, though. -- *Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Gadget Show
In article ,
Adrian C wrote: You don't need Audacity to digitise an LP. Just about every computer with an audio input can do it. The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. But if you have a CD burner you'll likely have Nero? -- *I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Gadget Show
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , David Looser wrote: "Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:13:56 +0000, Adrian C wrote: The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of course? What's the point?, you still need an audio editor if you are going to do anything useful with the recording. Audacity is an expensive way of getting a simple editor, though. Pardon? Do you mean cost of learning to use, bandwidth, environment, social or political costs? It doesn't cost money, at least directly. Rob |
The Gadget Show
In article , David Looser
wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... -- It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". Or those who think vinyl is better because it's analogue. They don't know why but think they are expected to say it is better. As you said. I would love to see vinyl recorded with low bitrates and compression/limiting. Vinyl is analogue, so any reference to "bitrates" is meaningless. Not necessarily. As an information channel, Vinyl LP should have a Shannon bandwidth expressible in bits per second. The difficulty is that the channel behaviour in such a case is limited by distortion in quite a complex manner, so determining the practical value is difficult. Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
The Gadget Show
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Adrian C wrote: You don't need Audacity to digitise an LP. Just about every computer with an audio input can do it. The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. But if you have a CD burner you'll likely have Nero? And if you have an internet connection, you can have Audacity. I'd be interested to know which you find best. I've just tried the 'free' audio editor (CD Spin Doctor) that comes with some CD authoring software I have - won't open anything - just crashes. I'd hope the Nero software is better than that. Rob |
The Gadget Show
"Rob" wrote in message
... I'd probably agree, although add to the mix the timeless charm of vinyl spinning and musty record sleeves, and the aural experience goes up a notch ;-) Well OK, if you like that sort of thing, though IMO the clicks and pops of vinyl completely wipe out any improvement in the "aural experience" created by spinning vinyl or musty record sleeves. David. |
The Gadget Show
"Rob" wrote in message
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Adrian C wrote: You don't need Audacity to digitise an LP. Just about every computer with an audio input can do it. The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. But if you have a CD burner you'll likely have Nero? And if you have an internet connection, you can have Audacity. I'd be interested to know which you find best. I've just tried the 'free' audio editor (CD Spin Doctor) that comes with some CD authoring software I have - won't open anything - just crashes. I'd hope the Nero software is better than that. You can burn either audio or data CDs with out-of-the box XP and nothing else. But I use Nero anyway. ;-) |
The Gadget Show
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Adrian C wrote: You don't need Audacity to digitise an LP. Just about every computer with an audio input can do it. The MS standard WAV recording utility, called "sound recorder", in all versions of windows previous to Vista is unuseable for long length recordings. You basically had to find another program. But if you have a CD burner you'll likely have Nero? And if you have an internet connection, you can have Audacity. I'd be interested to know which you find best. I've just tried the 'free' audio editor (CD Spin Doctor) that comes with some CD authoring software I have - won't open anything - just crashes. I'd hope the Nero software is better than that. You can burn either audio or data CDs with out-of-the box XP and nothing else. Indeed - as you can with OS X But I use Nero anyway. ;-) I'd guess most people use some sort of non-OS software. There probably isn't much need. Rob |
The Gadget Show
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... In article , David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... I would love to see vinyl recorded with low bitrates and compression/limiting. Vinyl is analogue, so any reference to "bitrates" is meaningless. Not necessarily. *In the context* it is meaningless. Clive talked about "vinyl recorded with low bitrates", now what does *that* mean? Since vinyl is analogue we can record with a reduced bandwidth, or with inferior signal-to-noise, but we can't do digital compression, which seems to be what Clive was trying to imply. David. |
The Gadget Show
David Looser wrote:
which seems to be what Clive was trying to imply. Be as well to mention that "Clive" is the "Tiscali Idiot" coward troll causing mischief. I wouldn't bother trying to work out what the hell he was implying, here or anywhere else he posts. -- Adrian C |
The Gadget Show
In article , David Looser
wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... I would love to see vinyl recorded with low bitrates and compression/limiting. Vinyl is analogue, so any reference to "bitrates" is meaningless. Not necessarily. *In the context* it is meaningless. Clive talked about "vinyl recorded with low bitrates", now what does *that* mean? No idea. :-) I'm just commenting on your comment as quoted above. It isn't correct to say that "any reference to bitrates is meaningless" for the asserted reason that "Vinyl is analogue". :-) Hence my use of the phrase "not necessarily" which I thought an appropriately Private-Eye style phrasing. ;- Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
The Gadget Show
In article , Adrian C
wrote: David Looser wrote: which seems to be what Clive was trying to imply. Be as well to mention that "Clive" is the "Tiscali Idiot" coward troll causing mischief. I wouldn't bother trying to work out what the hell he was implying, here or anywhere else he posts. Ah! So his *posts* are information-reduced... :-) Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
The Gadget Show
Laurence Payne wrote:
You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of course? It's in the wikipedia link I posted? -- Adrian C |
The Gadget Show
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:16:01 +0000, Adrian C
wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of course? It's in the wikipedia link I posted? I see it is. Which makes it doubly strange that you stated it couldn't be done :-) |
The Gadget Show
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message -- It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". Or those who think vinyl is better because it's analogue. Some people just don't 'get it'. The inherent problems with vinyl pressing and playback make any deficiencies with CD look minute. Agreed. But it is the way that the potential of CD is abused that leads people to the false impression that vinyl is better. There are countless examples, many of which have been discussed on this and other groups. Buy both a vinyl pressing and a CD of the Ray Charles/Count Basie recording "Ray Sings, Basie Swings" (issued 2006) Compare them carefully, on good equipment, and then come back here and tell us which you prefer and why. Regards Iain |
The Gadget Show
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl to a digital file. It then becomes digital. Well indeed, but that is a very different thing from recording "a MP3 track to vinyl". I haven't got a clue what Clive thinks that means, he probably doesn't either. As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed IMO. I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as being more convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid of a lot of the clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no discernable difference to the sound quality between the LP direct, and the CD copy. That's because you have mastered it as it should be mastered - direct, with no "post production improvemements" :-) Iain |
The Gadget Show
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as being more convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid of a lot of the clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no discernable difference to the sound quality between the LP direct, and the CD copy. That's because you have mastered it as it should be mastered - direct, with no "post production improvemements" :-) I doubt there are many commercial CDs which are a copy of the vinyl - apart from rare stuff. But it does sort of prove how good the medium is - a properly done copy of vinyl to CD will sound identical to the vinyl. The other way round not so. -- *I don't work here. I'm a consultant Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
The Gadget Show
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:16:01 +0000, Adrian C wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of course? It's in the wikipedia link I posted? I see it is. Which makes it doubly strange that you stated it couldn't be done :-) I'm doubly strange, and you have caught me ;-) Though those workarounds are hardly convenient. It would test the patience of a saint, who would quickly pronounce it unuseable in practical ability. However, if ye were stuck in the middle of a mysterious island about to be fed to cannibals if ye didn't transfer some vinyl records washed up on the shore to the leader's iPod, then MS Sound Recorder would soon look useable I suppose ... -- Adrian C |
The Gadget Show
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message -- It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is "digital". Or those who think vinyl is better because it's analogue. Some people just don't 'get it'. The inherent problems with vinyl pressing and playback make any deficiencies with CD look minute. Agreed. But it is the way that the potential of CD is abused that leads people to the false impression that vinyl is better. There are countless examples, many of which have been discussed on this and other groups. Buy both a vinyl pressing and a CD of the Ray Charles/Count Basie recording "Ray Sings, Basie Swings" (issued 2006) Compare them carefully, on good equipment, and then come back here and tell us which you prefer and why. Regards Iain It is not just the CD but the SACD. When you have a digitally remastered and produced album and then make the LP sound better there is a problem here somewhere and it is not a format one ;-) BTW Iain have you had the chance to discuss this with any of your peers in the industry? I would be very interested on what their opinions are. Cheers TT |
The Gadget Show
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... David Looser wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the difference. Eh? what are you talking about? What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl to a digital file. It then becomes digital. Well indeed, but that is a very different thing from recording "a MP3 track to vinyl". I haven't got a clue what Clive thinks that means, he probably doesn't either. As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed IMO. I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as being more convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid of a lot of the clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no discernable difference to the sound quality between the LP direct, and the CD copy. That's because you have mastered it as it should be mastered - direct, with no "post production improvemements" :-) Iain Have you noticed once you have removed the clicks and pops (I do it physically by cutting them out) and then convert them to high bitrate MP3 it then removes all the surface noise? It really is marvellous way to clean up an LP. Cheers TT |
The Gadget Show
"TT" wrote in message
. au... Have you noticed once you have removed the clicks and pops (I do it physically by cutting them out) Do you mean you edit them out? ("physically" cutting them out implies taking a razor blade to analogue tape, and I guess you don't actually mean that!) The trouble with that is that it can produce a discontinuity in the waveform which, itself, produces a click, and it slightly changes the timing. CoolEdit has a "click/pop eliminator" which works brilliantly on some clicks and pops, but fails miserably on others. So I use a mixture of techniques including CoolEdit's software click remover and editing out clicks the way you do. But most commonly (assuming the software remover fails) I reduce the signal level to zero for the duration of the click. By going for the nearest zero-crossing I can avoid the discontinuity click, and it preserves the timing. It can still leave an audible "hole" in the audio, depending on the sort of programme material behind the click, but generally I find it the least-worst option for the really difficult clicks. and then convert them to high bitrate MP3 it then removes all the surface noise? I can't say I'd noticed that converting to mp3 removes surface noise (generally I don't convert to mp3), I'll give it a go. David. |
The Gadget Show
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:45:07 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote: "TT" wrote in message .au... Have you noticed once you have removed the clicks and pops (I do it physically by cutting them out) Do you mean you edit them out? ("physically" cutting them out implies taking a razor blade to analogue tape, and I guess you don't actually mean that!) The trouble with that is that it can produce a discontinuity in the waveform which, itself, produces a click, and it slightly changes the timing. CoolEdit has a "click/pop eliminator" which works brilliantly on some clicks and pops, but fails miserably on others. So I use a mixture of techniques including CoolEdit's software click remover and editing out clicks the way you do. But most commonly (assuming the software remover fails) I reduce the signal level to zero for the duration of the click. By going for the nearest zero-crossing I can avoid the discontinuity click, and it preserves the timing. It can still leave an audible "hole" in the audio, depending on the sort of programme material behind the click, but generally I find it the least-worst option for the really difficult clicks. and then convert them to high bitrate MP3 it then removes all the surface noise? I can't say I'd noticed that converting to mp3 removes surface noise (generally I don't convert to mp3), I'll give it a go. David. I would have thought that reducing the level to zero would produce almost as bad a click as letting it hit peak level. I find that using the manual click removal in Audition (Cooledit as was) is mainly a matter of getting the size of the chunk dead right. It appears to use an averaging function based on what precedes and follows the selection, followed by some sort of smooth window to make the transitions good. If the click is only on one channel, the option to copy from the other channel seems to work well. If you are doing restoration on an audio file, never ever save to MP3. It pretty much wrecks your chances of making significant improvements later. WAV is the only way to go - disk space can hardly be an issue any more. d |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk