[Adrian]

Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is a Denon DP-35F Turntable with a Denon DL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USB Phono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono turned to the max. But, the
meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
at least 3dB more.

Do you have any thoughts on what is "wrong"? And, what can I do about
it? You guys have given me great advice in the past.
Many thanks

Adrian

[Todd H.]

Adrian writes:

Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is a Denon DP-35F Turntable with a Denon DL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USB Phono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

That's a moving coil cartridge. They're generally lower output that
moving magnet cartridges.

If I had to guess, without doing too much research for you, I'd wager
that the USB PHono Plus was designed with MMC's in mind, and not the
small output MCC that you have.


--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | http://myspace.com/bmiawmb

[Geoff]

Adrian wrote:
Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is a Denon DP-35F Turntable with a Denon DL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USB Phono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono turned to the max. But, the
meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
at least 3dB more.

Do you have any thoughts on what is "wrong"? And, what can I do about
it? You guys have given me great advice in the past.
Many thanks

You need the transformer that (maybe) comes with your cartridge, or a phono
preamp with a specialised MC (Moving Coil) input. Your MC cartridge has a
very low output compared the the more usual MM (Moving Magnet) cartridges -
I doubt a USB phono interface would sport this.


geoff.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:47:33 -0800 (PST), Adrian
wrote:

Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is a Denon DP-35F Turntable with a Denon DL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USB Phono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono turned to the max. But, the
meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
at least 3dB more.


Do you still have the amplifier you used to use when you played vinyl
all the time? It will have an input stage better suited to your
low-output cartridge. Use that as a preamp, feeding Tape Out into
Line In on the ART, switching out the RIAA stage.

[Dave W.]

On 10 Dec, 20:47, Adrian wrote:
Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is a Denon DP-35F Turntable with a Denon DL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USB Phono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono turned to the max. But, the
meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
at least 3dB more.

Do you have any thoughts on what is "wrong"? And, what can I do about
it? You guys have given me great advice in the past.
Many thanks

Adrian

If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have it
digitised there is no problem. Before saving it to any 'lossy'
compression method, simply amplify it in Audacity. This is a
mathematical operation, and the 'clean signal' will be end up being as
loud as you want it to be.

Jack.

[Geoff]

Dave W. wrote:

If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have it
digitised there is no problem. Before saving it to any 'lossy'
compression method, simply amplify it in Audacity. This is a
mathematical operation, and the 'clean signal' will be end up being as
loud as you want it to be.


However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise. It
is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.

geoff

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise. It
is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.

Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.

[David Looser]

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise.
It
is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.

Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.

I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal just
failing to hit 0dBFS, in practice even with a 16 bit ADC when digitising
vinyl anything up to around 12dB of gain could be retrospectively applied to
the digital signal without audible quantisation noise becoming apparent.

David.

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message


Dave W. wrote:

If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you
have it digitised there is no problem.

But what is digitized? Is it really a pure signal, or is there a noise floor
that can intrude on the faint signal coming into the RIAA preamp? A MC
preamp or transformer raises the signal above the noise floor of the MM
preamp. Since there is currently no MC preamp or transformer, the noise
floor of the MM preamp is probably the weakest link.

Before saving it
to any 'lossy' compression method, simply amplify it in
Audacity. This is a mathematical operation, and the
'clean signal' will be end up being as loud as you want
it to be.

Problem here is that there's always an analog domain noise floor, if only in
the existing analog-to-digital converter. In this case I expect that the MM
RIAA preamp is the weakest link. I base this on many experiences with them.
Even with 16 bit converters, a MM RIAA preamp is the weakest link.

Let me give a real world numerical example. If I adjust a good MM RIAA
preamp so that the preamp clips at a slightly higher level than a
high-trackability cartridge mistracks on a test record, the needle-up noise
floor will be 70+/- dB down. Since the noise floor of a good 16 bit
converter is more like 96 dB down, the weakest link is the MM RIAA preamp.

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the
quantisation noise. It is best to optimise your recording
level first.

Agreed. And that's why there are such things as MC pre-preamps and
transformers.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording
at 24 bits resolution.

A 24 bit converter does no more good - it just gives a higher resolution
rendition of the noise in the MM RIAA preamp.

[Richard Crowley]

"Dave W." wrote ...
Adrian wrote:
This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is
clean but not strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono
turned to the max.

If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have
it digitised there is no problem.

Lets review the bidding....

* Low-output MC cartridge feeding an inexpensive RIAA
phono preamp designed for MC.
* Gain on the preamp "turned to the max".
* Signal is "clean but not strong"

Therefore, by definition, the captured signal is NOT
"clean" after amplifying it (plus the noise) to the
nominal level.

Of course, Adrian could decide that it is good enough
for his purposes, and that is fine. But conventional
wisdom would suggest that the solution might be...
1) Use a conventional MM cartridge
2) Use a step-up transformer or pre-pre-amp for MC
3) Use a preamp designed for MC.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

"Dave W." wrote ...
Adrian wrote:
This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is
clean but not strong. I have the gain on the USB Phono
turned to the max.

If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you
have it digitised there is no problem.

Lets review the bidding....

* Low-output MC cartridge feeding an inexpensive RIAA
phono preamp designed for MC.
* Gain on the preamp "turned to the max".
* Signal is "clean but not strong"

Therefore, by definition, the captured signal is NOT
"clean" after amplifying it (plus the noise) to the
nominal level.

Agreed.

Of course, Adrian could decide that it is good enough
for his purposes, and that is fine. But conventional
wisdom would suggest that the solution might be...
1) Use a conventional MM cartridge
2) Use a step-up transformer or pre-pre-amp for MC
3) Use a preamp designed for MC.

I'd vote for solution number 1, more specificially this cartridge:

http://www.amazon.com/Shure-M97xE-Hi...983 46&sr=8-1

Cheapest way out and solves more problems.

[Adrian]

On Dec 10, 1:01 pm, (Todd H.) wrote:
Adrian writes:
Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is aDenonDP-35F Turntable with aDenonDL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USBPhono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

That's a moving coil cartridge. They're generally lower output that
moving magnet cartridges.

If I had to guess, without doing too much research for you, I'd wager
that theUSBPHono Plus was designed with MMC's in mind, and not the
small output MCC that you have.

--
That seems to be the consensus. Does anyone have a recomentation for
a more appropriate cartridge.

Thanks

Adrian

[Adrian]

On Dec 10, 1:21 pm, "geoff" wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is aDenonDP-35F Turntable with aDenonDL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USBPhono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
strong. I have the gain on theUSBPhono turned to the max. But, the
meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
at least 3dB more.

Do you have any thoughts on what is "wrong"? And, what can I do about
it? You guys have given me great advice in the past.
Many thanks

You need the transformer that (maybe) comes with your cartridge, or a phono
preamp with a specialised MC (Moving Coil) input. Your MC cartridge has a
very low output compared the the more usual MM (Moving Magnet) cartridges -
I doubt aUSBphono interface would sport this.

geoff.

So, time to find a Moving Magnet cartridge.

Thanks for helping.

[Adrian]

On Dec 10, 2:05 pm, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:47:33 -0800 (PST), Adrian

wrote:
Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!

My equipment is aDenonDP-35F Turntable with aDenonDL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USBPhono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.

This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
strong. I have the gain on theUSBPhono turned to the max. But, the
meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
at least 3dB more.

Do you still have the amplifier you used to use when you played vinyl
all the time? It will have an input stage better suited to your
low-output cartridge. Use that as a preamp, feeding Tape Out into
Line In on the ART, switching out the RIAA stage.

Yes I do have the receiver. However, it will awkward to set it up
just now. Since I see this as a project that will go on for some time
I amthinking about a new cartridge.

Adrian

[Adrian]

On Dec 11, 9:06 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message



Dave W. wrote:
If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you
have it digitised there is no problem.

But what is digitized? Is it really a pure signal, or is there a noise floor
that can intrude on the faint signal coming into the RIAA preamp? A MC
preamp or transformer raises the signal above the noise floor of the MM
preamp. Since there is currently no MC preamp or transformer, the noise
floor of the MM preamp is probably the weakest link.

Before saving it
to any 'lossy' compression method, simply amplify it in
Audacity. This is a mathematical operation, and the
'clean signal' will be end up being as loud as you want
it to be.

Problem here is that there's always an analog domain noise floor, if only in
the existing analog-to-digital converter. In this case I expect that the MM
RIAA preamp is the weakest link. I base this on many experiences with them.
Even with 16 bit converters, a MM RIAA preamp is the weakest link.

Let me give a real world numerical example. If I adjust a good MM RIAA
preamp so that the preamp clips at a slightly higher level than a
high-trackability cartridge mistracks on a test record, the needle-up noise
floor will be 70+/- dB down. Since the noise floor of a good 16 bit
converter is more like 96 dB down, the weakest link is the MM RIAA preamp.

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the
quantisation noise. It is best to optimise your recording
level first.

Agreed. And that's why there are such things as MC pre-preamps and
transformers.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording
at 24 bits resolution.

A 24 bit converter does no more good - it just gives a higher resolution
rendition of the noise in the MM RIAA preamp.

Excellent help. Thanks Arny. I am going to look for an appropriate
cartridge.

Any suggestions? :-)

Thanks

Adrian

[Adrian]

On Dec 11, 10:36 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Dave W." wrote ...

Adrian wrote:
This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is
clean but not strong. I have the gain on theUSBPhono
turned to the max.
If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have
it digitised there is no problem.

Lets review the bidding....

* Low-output MC cartridge feeding an inexpensive RIAA
phono preamp designed for MC.
* Gain on the preamp "turned to the max".
* Signal is "clean but not strong"

Therefore, by definition, the captured signal is NOT
"clean" after amplifying it (plus the noise) to the
nominal level.

Of course, Adrian could decide that it is good enough
for his purposes, and that is fine. But conventional
wisdom would suggest that the solution might be...
1) Use a conventional MM cartridge
2) Use a step-up transformer or pre-pre-amp for MC
3) Use a preamp designed for MC.

Points well taken. I want to do this right. Option one is my currect
preference. I believe in KISS, keep it simple, stupid!

Adrian

[Adrian]

On Dec 11, 10:37 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message







"Dave W." wrote ...
Adrian wrote:
This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is
clean but not strong. I have the gain on theUSBPhono
turned to the max.

If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you
have it digitised there is no problem.

Lets review the bidding....

* Low-output MC cartridge feeding an inexpensive RIAA
phono preamp designed for MC.
* Gain on the preamp "turned to the max".
* Signal is "clean but not strong"
Therefore, by definition, the captured signal is NOT
"clean" after amplifying it (plus the noise) to the
nominal level.

Agreed.

Of course, Adrian could decide that it is good enough
for his purposes, and that is fine. But conventional
wisdom would suggest that the solution might be...
1) Use a conventional MM cartridge
2) Use a step-up transformer or pre-pre-amp for MC
3) Use a preamp designed for MC.

I'd vote for solution number 1, more specificially this cartridge:

http://www.amazon.com/Shure-M97xE-Hi...etic-Cartridge...

Cheapest way out and solves more problems

Thanks. Under serious consideration.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:
"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation noise.
It
is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.

Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.

I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal just
failing to hit 0dBFS,

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.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Geoff]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation
noise. It is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.

Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.

If he is recording at a lower than optimum level then it is well worth using
the extra bits, to reduce the detrimental effect of bringing up the level
once digitised.

It is a long time since amounts of data like that have been significant.
And once on CD he can delete the computer data anyway. Sheesh.

geoff

[Geoff]

Adrian wrote:

So, time to find a Moving Magnet cartridge.

Thanks for helping.

MC cartridges often offer benefits over MC. Why not buy a phono preamp with
a MC/MM switch ? Probably a cheaper option.

geoff

[jakdedert]

Adrian wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:05 pm, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:47:33 -0800 (PST), Adrian

wrote:
Time has come to digitize my Vinyl collection. Having successfully
copied tape material to CD, I thought this would be easy!
My equipment is aDenonDP-35F Turntable with aDenonDL-300
Cartridge, a New ART "USBPhono Plus" interface and a Dell Latitude
D810 Notebook equipped with RIP Vinyl.
This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is clean but not
strong. I have the gain on theUSBPhono turned to the max. But, the
meter in RIP barely rises about the quarter way mark. If I look at
the signal in Audacity it is pretty "thin". I could comfortably use
at least 3dB more.
Do you still have the amplifier you used to use when you played vinyl
all the time? It will have an input stage better suited to your
low-output cartridge. Use that as a preamp, feeding Tape Out into
Line In on the ART, switching out the RIAA stage.

Yes I do have the receiver. However, it will awkward to set it up
just now. Since I see this as a project that will go on for some time
I amthinking about a new cartridge.

Adrian
You don't have to 'set it up' per se...just plug it in, in the vicinity
of the turntable and computer...ie you don't need speakers, antenna or
anything else. Put it under your monitor....

Space might be an issue, but you're just setting it up as a preamp for
your computer...one cord for power, one double RCA to the preamp, and
start ripping while you're figuring out your cartridge issues.

jak

[jakdedert]

Adrian wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:37 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message







"Dave W." wrote ...
Adrian wrote:
This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal is
clean but not strong. I have the gain on theUSBPhono
turned to the max.
If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you
have it digitised there is no problem.
Lets review the bidding....
* Low-output MC cartridge feeding an inexpensive RIAA
phono preamp designed for MC.
* Gain on the preamp "turned to the max".
* Signal is "clean but not strong"
Therefore, by definition, the captured signal is NOT
"clean" after amplifying it (plus the noise) to the
nominal level.
Agreed.

Of course, Adrian could decide that it is good enough
for his purposes, and that is fine. But conventional
wisdom would suggest that the solution might be...
1) Use a conventional MM cartridge
2) Use a step-up transformer or pre-pre-amp for MC
3) Use a preamp designed for MC.
I'd vote for solution number 1, more specificially this cartridge:

http://www.amazon.com/Shure-M97xE-Hi...etic-Cartridge...

Cheapest way out and solves more problems

Nope, cheapest is to simply use your receiver for a preamp...nothing
else to buy.

jak

Thanks. Under serious consideration.

[David Looser]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:
"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation
noise.
It
is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.

Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.

I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the quantisation
quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with the peak signal
just
failing to hit 0dBFS,

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.

David.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[David Looser]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the quantisation
noise. It is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are recording at 24 bits
resolution.

Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other real-world source
where levels are under control.

If he is recording at a lower than optimum level then it is well worth
using the extra bits, to reduce the detrimental effect of bringing up the
level once digitised.

It's very unlikely that there will be any audible difference using 24-bit
unless the level is increased significantly (20dB or more) because the
background noise from the vinyl will dither the quantisation. What matters
far more is to use a high-quality RIAA amp and a low-distortion ADC.

It is a long time since amounts of data like that have been significant.
And once on CD he can delete the computer data anyway. Sheesh.

But many audio recording programs only work in 16 bit. There is no advantage
to using 24-bit for this purpose so it's not worth the extra hassle.

David.

[Geoff]

David Looser wrote:

It's very unlikely that there will be any audible difference using
24-bit unless the level is increased significantly (20dB or more)

That's exactly what the sceanrio was, I think. Whatever the 'quarter way
mark' on his meter or waveform display is.

geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"jakdedert" wrote in message

Adrian wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:37 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message







"Dave W." wrote ...
Adrian wrote:
This past weekend I copied three albums. The signal
is clean but not strong. I have the gain on
theUSBPhono turned to the max.
If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as
you have it digitised there is no problem.
Lets review the bidding....
* Low-output MC cartridge feeding an inexpensive RIAA
phono preamp designed for MC.
* Gain on the preamp "turned to the max".
* Signal is "clean but not strong"
Therefore, by definition, the captured signal is NOT
"clean" after amplifying it (plus the noise) to the
nominal level.
Agreed.

Of course, Adrian could decide that it is good enough
for his purposes, and that is fine. But conventional
wisdom would suggest that the solution might be...
1) Use a conventional MM cartridge
2) Use a step-up transformer or pre-pre-amp for MC
3) Use a preamp designed for MC.
I'd vote for solution number 1, more specificially this
cartridge:
http://www.amazon.com/Shure-M97xE-Hi...etic-Cartridge...

Cheapest way out and solves more problems

Nope, cheapest is to simply use your receiver for a
preamp...nothing else to buy.

His receiver has a MC input?

That would be pretty rare!

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech David Looser
wrote:
"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in
message
...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:30:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

However as you amplify it, yo will also bring up the
quantisation noise. It
is best to optimise your recording level first.

The effect can be reduced by ensuring you are
recording at 24 bits resolution.

Waste of space really, off vinyl. Or off any other
real-world source where levels are under control.

I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither
the quantisation quite effectively. Whilst ideally one
would record with the peak signal just failing to hit
0dBFS,

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.

The simple solution is to set levels by recording something with your
recording software. Most recording software gives a quasi-real time display
for coarse level setting. Record the loudest passage and double check the
sample recording once made.

3-10 dB are good numbers for setting headroom. 3 dB is more appropriate for
static events like transcriptions, while 10 dB is more appropriate for level
setting during a rehearsal for a live event that you wish to record.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:13:11 -0800 (PST), Adrian
wrote:

Do you still have the amplifier you used to use when you played vinyl
all the time? It will have an input stage better suited to your
low-output cartridge. Use that as a preamp, feeding Tape Out into
Line In on the ART, switching out the RIAA stage.

Yes I do have the receiver. However, it will awkward to set it up
just now. Since I see this as a project that will go on for some time
I amthinking about a new cartridge.

What's to set up? Just put it somewhere near the turntable and
computer. It dousn't need speakers or anything.

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message

Adrian wrote:

So, time to find a Moving Magnet cartridge.

Thanks for helping.

MC cartridges often offer benefits over MC. Why not buy a
phono preamp with a MC/MM switch ? Probably a cheaper
option.


Whether MC cartriges have any inherent benefits over MM cartridges has
always been controversial.

One of the finest MM cartridges ever made still costs less than $100. It's
hard to get a good MM preamp for $100, and MC preamps are generally far more
expensive.

[tony sayer]

In article , Arny Krueger
scribeth thus
"geoff" wrote in message
m
Adrian wrote:

So, time to find a Moving Magnet cartridge.

Thanks for helping.

MC cartridges often offer benefits over MC. Why not buy a
phono preamp with a MC/MM switch ? Probably a cheaper
option.


Whether MC cartriges have any inherent benefits over MM cartridges has
always been controversial.

One of the finest MM cartridges ever made still costs less than $100.

Which is please?...


--
Tony Sayer

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

I agree. The background noise on the vinyl will dither the
quantisation quite effectively. Whilst ideally one would record with
the peak signal just failing to hit 0dBFS,

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.

The peak signal when recording vinyl comes frm the clicks, usually 6 dB
higher than the signal for the large ones. Grammophone records and quality
playback of them can provide a very high quality sound IF and only IF all
links are good.

I have found it most useful to sample them at 96 kHz 16 bit so as to save
disks space, I don't see any logical reason in wasting it for writting 16
binary ones for each sample, but I want a good sharp and undistorted clicks
in case automated click removal is relevant. Mostly I just take the big ones
out with fix single click functionality, but there may be zones - outmost 3
millimetres come to mind and certainly the bands between tracks - where
automated removal _is_ relevant. Some of the time I also go for modest
overall noise reduction, but it is a case by case decision. What I always do
is to convert to 96-32 first, I then downsample to 44.1-32 prior to other
processing, such as compensating for combined cartridge and riaa frequency
response error.

IDEA!
I am fortunate to have received a B&K rest record at some event may years
ago, but there ought to be a market for playback calibration disks, a 45
might do fine and be reasonably shippable.
/IDEA!

My main reasons for not staying at 96 kHz sample rate for the eq is
processing speed, an additional reason is that the relevant display window
in my preferred software is easier to use with a lower sampling rate because
it needs to display less. I usually end up with fixing overall channel
balance issues - mostly both sides of an album has the same error, some of
the time it is different on per side basis, I hardly ever fix balance on pr.
track basis, assuming that single track oddities are artistic intent but
that overall oddities are caused by alignent errors.

Then and first then I convert to 44.1-16 with my preferred dither. I have
been a great fan of high output MC cartridges since the first one hit the
market. There is a slight detail loss compared to the low output ones, but
the high output Ortofon I have fits my tonearm and my real world record
collection very well and it is nice to be able to skip the transformer or
the extra amplification stage. I found a 1980-ties preamp with MC stage a
couple of year ago, I couldn't buy the matching poweramp without also bying
the preamp, and the preamp was a very pleasant surprise ... hmmm ....


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

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?

David.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[David Looser]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

It's very unlikely that there will be any audible difference using
24-bit unless the level is increased significantly (20dB or more)

That's exactly what the sceanrio was, I think. Whatever the 'quarter way
mark' on his meter or waveform display is.

geoff


He also said he could use "at least 3dB more", so I've no idea what levels
he was actually getting. In any case as has been pointed out before if the
problem is that a pre-amp intended for MM cartridges is being used with an
MC one then the noise generated in the pre-amp will be the real problem, not
the quantisation noise from the ADC.

David.

[David Looser]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
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.

David.

[Silk]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:11:02 -0800, Adrian wrote:

That seems to be the consensus. Does anyone have a recomentation for a
more appropriate cartridge.

Audio Technica AT95. If you can still get them.

[David Looser]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


I have found it most useful to sample them at 96 kHz 16 bit so as to save
disks space, I don't see any logical reason in wasting it for writting 16
binary ones for each sample, but I want a good sharp and undistorted
clicks in case automated click removal is relevant. Mostly I just take the
big ones out with fix single click functionality,

Does anyone remember the Garrad "Music Recovery Module"? It was designed to
remove the big clicks in real time by briefly shunting the audio with a
light-dependent resistor when a click was detected. Click detection was
based on the idea that clicks were of large amplitude, had a fast rise-time
and had a significant out-of-phase component. It actually worked quite well,
but no match for a software solution.

David.

[Eiron]

David Looser wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

I have found it most useful to sample them at 96 kHz 16 bit so as to save
disks space, I don't see any logical reason in wasting it for writting 16
binary ones for each sample, but I want a good sharp and undistorted
clicks in case automated click removal is relevant. Mostly I just take the
big ones out with fix single click functionality,

Does anyone remember the Garrad "Music Recovery Module"? It was designed to
remove the big clicks in real time by briefly shunting the audio with a
light-dependent resistor when a click was detected. Click detection was
based on the idea that clicks were of large amplitude, had a fast rise-time
and had a significant out-of-phase component. It actually worked quite well,
but no match for a software solution.

Scratch filters such as that in Goldwave are excellent; there is no reason
not to use them on a whole album. I tried subtracting the 'cleaned'
version from the 'raw' one and was left with just the clicks and
scratches on a background of perfect silence, thus showing that the
filter didn't remove any music.

--
Eiron.

[Dave Platt]

In article ,
Eiron wrote:

Does anyone remember the Garrad "Music Recovery Module"? It was designed to
remove the big clicks in real time by briefly shunting the audio with a
light-dependent resistor when a click was detected. Click detection was
based on the idea that clicks were of large amplitude, had a fast rise-time
and had a significant out-of-phase component. It actually worked quite well,
but no match for a software solution.

Scratch filters such as that in Goldwave are excellent; there is no reason
not to use them on a whole album. I tried subtracting the 'cleaned'
version from the 'raw' one and was left with just the clicks and
scratches on a background of perfect silence, thus showing that the
filter didn't remove any music.

Interesting. I had somewhat different results with the
pop-and-scratch filter in Diamond Cut's DC-ART.

Although the subtract-and-compare test I did seemed, at first, to
indicate similarly good results, comparison with the original
suggested otherwise. A lot of the "scratches" removed turned out to
be the leading edges of musical transients - e.g. from snare drums,
cymbals, and other instruments whose output has a very fast rise-time.

The subtraction test alone wasn't enough to notice this... the clicks
and pops would still appear against a background of silence, since the
filter would not alter the signal at all except when it was actually
removing a transient. It was necessary to (visually) compare the
original musical waveform, with the waveform of the subtracted result,
to notice the correlation and realize what was happening.

If I turned down the sensitivity far enough to keep this from
happening, I found that some *real* pops and scratches were missed.

It's quite possible that Goldwave's algorithms are more sophisticated,
and make better distinctions between scratches and real musical
transients. It might be worthwhile to double-check the results, for
any given piece of music, to make sure that only unwanted glitches are
being removed.

I ended up using a hybrid approach... on records with a significant
amount of popping and crackling, I'd use the automatic filter only on
the quieter parts, and identify the pops and ticks in the louder
sections by ear and select the damaged part of the waveform manually
(and then use the "fix a scratch" reconstruction command on just this
part of the waveform).

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


The peak signal when recording vinyl comes frm the clicks, usually 6
dB higher than the signal for the large ones. Grammophone records and
quality playback of them can provide a very high quality sound IF and
only IF all links are good.

I have found it most useful to sample them at 96 kHz 16 bit so as to
save disks space, I don't see any logical reason in wasting it for
writting 16 binary ones for each sample, but I want a good sharp and
undistorted clicks in case automated click removal is relevant.
Mostly I just take the big ones out with fix single click

Record at 24 bits, then once you've got rid of your clicks, then you can
raise the overall level with less degradation.

Why 96/16 rather than 44k1/24 ? I don't follow that logic. The highest freq
recorded on most LPs was around 15KHz, apart from clicks of course...

geoff

[Geoff]

David Looser wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


I have found it most useful to sample them at 96 kHz 16 bit so as to
save disks space, I don't see any logical reason in wasting it for
writting 16 binary ones for each sample, but I want a good sharp and
undistorted clicks in case automated click removal is relevant.
Mostly I just take the big ones out with fix single click
functionality,

Does anyone remember the Garrad "Music Recovery Module"? It was
designed to remove the big clicks in real time by briefly shunting
the audio with a light-dependent resistor when a click was detected.
Click detection was based on the idea that clicks were of large
amplitude, had a fast rise-time and had a significant out-of-phase
component. It actually worked quite well, but no match for a software
solution.

That would freak out on modern hip-hop stuff that has surface noise/clicks
as part of the 'music' !

FWIW I'm looking at my old 301/SME/SME spinning away, right now .

geoff