I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise' and
they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as 'dual
mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning on
these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried in
the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!

Here are a couple of near-identical samples to compa

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBdualmono.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBmonomono.mp3

Anyone with any thoughts?

TIA, as usual....

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them
as 'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??


Do you mean by 'dual mono' using a stereo cart and keeping things stereo
throughout? Or feeding a 'proper' mono signal to left and right legs of a
stereo signal?

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

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

"Keith G"
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as
'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning
on these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried
in the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it is
always in stereo !!

In the case of a mono LP, the music is gonna appear smack in the centre of a
pair of stereo speaker - if everything is well matched up.

This makes it possible to mentally " tune out " such surface noise as it is
not coming from the same direction as the music but rather from the far left
and far right of it.



....... Phil

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:24:36 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise' and
they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as 'dual
mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning on
these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried in
the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!

Here are a couple of near-identical samples to compa

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBdualmono.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBmonomono.mp3

Anyone with any thoughts?

TIA, as usual....






You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.

Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.

Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:24:36 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:



You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre),

Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.

The click energy can be mostly in the L, R, difference or sum channels
depending on how the damage was done. In the case of a click that is mainly
L or R then a copy & paste from the "good" channel to the "bad" can be very
effective, when the click energy is mainly difference averaging the signal
can largely eliminate it. But there are a hard core (far more than 1%) of
cases when none of those work, and we are back to removing the click the
hard way.

Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.

And will remove a lot (though nothing like 99%) of the surface crackle and
much of the distortion.

David.

Well, I prefer mono after recording so at least out of phase crackles are
removed, and nasty wear artefacts do not spread over the sound stage.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as
'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning
on these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried
in the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!

Here are a couple of near-identical samples to compa

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBdualmono.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DBmonomono.mp3

Anyone with any thoughts?

TIA, as usual....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them
as 'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??


Do you mean by 'dual mono' using a stereo cart and keeping things stereo
throughout? Or feeding a 'proper' mono signal to left and right legs of a
stereo signal?


The former: a 100% two channel 'stereo' setup all the way from the pickup to
the soundcard; then either capturing/saving as two, L+R channels - what I
call 'dual mono' when from a 'mono' source, or one channel - what I call
'mono mono' in this instance, to differentiate from a more usual mono
capture from a stereo recording!

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Keith G"
I have a number of (predominantly jazz) mono albums I want to 'digitise'
and they present me with an interesting dilmma - whether to record them as
'dual mono' or 'mono mono'..??

So, is there any convention or meaningful reason why they should not be
recorded as 'dual mono' if I choose, or indeed is there any merit in
recording them thus?? One thing I notice is the spitchy bits (no cleaning
on these samples) are nicely moved into the middle and in some way buried
in the mono transcriptions, but I do hear other interesting differences!


** The interesting thing about surface noise on a vinyl LP is that it is
always in stereo !!


Certainly is when you are playing it, but it gets nicely buried (to a point)
when transcribed to a mono recording!



In the case of a mono LP, the music is gonna appear smack in the centre of
a pair of stereo speaker - if everything is well matched up.


A 'dual mono' waveform is a good visual check for the overall channel
balance of the recording/replay sysytem!



This makes it possible to mentally " tune out " such surface noise as it
is not coming from the same direction as the music but rather from the far
left and far right of it.


And is always 'up front and in your face' when the music 'soundstage' goes
*way back over there*! The trick I suspect successful vinylistas manage to
achieve most of the time is simply to follow the music and ignore the
fireworks off to the side!

"Don Pearce" wrote


You can use the dual mono signal quite handily. Put it into your audio
software and use the facility (which most have) of centre channel or
vocal extraction. That way you will lose the spitches (which are 99%
left or right, but never centre), and keep the good stuff.


That is what I suspect happens automatically when the capture is set to
'mono' and the file is saved as such - I can't see any facilities in the
software to enable you to choose it as a process..??



Also if you need to do any real repairs to remove a pop, you can
select the option to copy and paste from one channel to the other.


Serious pops are easily removed in SoundForge; it's the continuous crackle
that can be a nuisance (if it bothers you), but I am hoping for a
breakthrough *offlist* on that a little later on.

Might be worth a mention that the 'mono' clips I posted are off the Brubeck
'Jazz Goes To College' album which dates from 1954 - my copy is an original
Columbia CL566 in stunning condition. Neither of those clips have had any
cleaning whatsoever!



Then save it as pure mono, and it will halve the file size.


Yes - another bonus of mono recordings.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..
Well, I prefer mono after recording so at least out of phase crackles are
removed, and nasty wear artefacts do not spread over the sound stage.


There are times when 'stereo' helps (large scale, orchestral) but most of
the time it's a gimmick I don't *have* to have, I find!! Done badly (20 foot
wide pianos and ping pong solo instruments) it is atrocious and has me
reaching for the 'mono button' I haven't got on any of my amps!!

Said it before - I do a lot (if not most) of my listening 'off axis'
anyway!!

But then, that's just me!! ;-)