Wavosaur home Wavosaur
Wavosaur free audio editor support forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

best sampling rate for recording vinyl?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wavosaur Forum Index -> General
 
Author Message
poivre



Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: best sampling rate for recording vinyl? Reply with quote

i want to record my old 45rpm in wav and then burn on CD
What are the best settings for recording ? 16 bits ? 24 bits ? if i increase the samplerate will it sounds really better ?
thank you
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wavosaur Main Developer
Site Admin


Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 473
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have 3 essential parameters for recording:
- sample rate
- bit depth
- channel number

For channel number, use stereo (2 channels). The majority of vinyl are stereo.

For the sample rate, you can use 44100Hz (or 44,1kHz, it is the same thing). The bandwidth of vinyl 33 or 45 is not very important. 96000 Hz (96kHz) is not very necessary and essential.

For the bit depth, 16 bits is the most common parameter used. It allows up to 90 dB of dynamics: it is 20 or 30 dB more than vinyl.

With these parameters (STEREO, 16 bits, 44100Hz), you should have a very good numerical reproduction of your analog record. It is the precision of a classic audio CD.

->Be careful with your sound card: it is essential to control your recording chain. If not, you could have noise by your electric cables.

->Try to control and monitoring your analog input level to avoid saturation and then distorsion. You could record a part of your record, when you think there is the most important dynamic, and control with Wavosaur if there is no saturation.

->You must have a good ground to plug your turntable. If not, you could have 50 or 60 hertz (it depends where you live), on your recording.
_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wavosaur Main Developer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.wavosaur.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
poivre



Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for this informative post
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
edeneweth



Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:06 am    Post subject: Removing cracks and pops from vinyl record recordings Reply with quote

While we're on the topic of recording from vinyl records, is there any good way to filter out the cracks and pops from vinyl records that have gotten a little scratched up over the years?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rex
Site Admin


Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 780

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there are some VST plugins FX for restoration, that can do a good job for removing pops and crakles.
Maybe we'll add some in-built tools in Wavosaur for this purpose.
For the moment, you can use the interpolate tool to remove some very short clicks but it's a bit fastidious. We will work to automate this king of task!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonty



Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 11:01 pm    Post subject: Although I haven't used it... Reply with quote

The latest version of Audacity has a click removal tool with various settings.

Audacity is freeware..

I hate to promote another software but there it is.. :)
_________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jonty



Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 4:09 am    Post subject: After thinking about it for a while.. Reply with quote

It occurs to me that a high sampling rate might be better because it will allow the discrimination of pops and clicks to be more accurate.

Perhaps 96 kHz might be the better way to go.. Assuming of course that you have a sound card that will do that.
_________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Wavosaur Main Developer
Site Admin


Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 473
Location: France

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes in absolute you are right jonty ! With a sampling frequency of 96kHz (or more), signal processing could be more efficient.
My own experience in vinyl recording gives good results at 44100 Hz 16 bits and clic/pops cancellation is sufficient (from 3 to 20 sample/clics).

Note that 96kHz takes twice more disk space (on hard drive). After the treatment Ó 96kHz, I think it's interesting to change sampling frequency at 44100 or save the sound in mp3 (128k is a minimum, 256 is very correct) if you have lot's of recordings.

Another thing: it's important to have good knowledge of your SC (sound card) to have correct recording. The linearity for example of the input ADC (analog digital converter), the frequency jitter of the sampling rate and the more important: simply the noise added. But before that, take care of your external RIAA conpensation, your turntable and cables. There are lot's of different behaviors between preamp.

I worked with WamiRack (Ego sys), Motu, Sound blaster (from 16 to 128), integrated sc, etc. and the results are differents but in general good (with same sources or calibrated sinus).
For preamp and turntables, the differences are very important. But I conserve my references for me...

In summary, I'm afraid that high sampling frequency were often used as marketing argument from SC manufacturers. Before buying "high level" SC, try to study the first element of the chain: turntable and preamp. It's the same problem to record voices or instruments: bad microphone and preamp generate bad recordings, and post treatments are not efficient.
_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wavosaur Main Developer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.wavosaur.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
tebasuna51



Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wavosaur Main Developer wrote:
In summary, I'm afraid that high sampling frequency were often used as marketing argument from SC manufacturers. Before buying "high level" SC, try to study the first element of the chain: turntable and preamp. It's the same problem to record voices or instruments: bad microphone and preamp generate bad recordings, and post treatments are not efficient.

I agree.
Unless you have professional turntable and preamp, the use of 96 KHz samplerate instead 44.1 is unnoticeable
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonty



Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In recording from old 45 rpm records, I suspect that sampling rate is going to have little to no effect on the final quality of the sound. The quality of the sound is going to be dependent almost entirely on the record/stylus/turntable/preamp/soundcard combination.

The only reason I was suggesting 96 kHz as a sampling rate was to better discriminate the very fast rise time pops and clicks. The higher sampling rate would give the software more of a signal to work with in detecting these very fast transient events.

I actually wrote a click and pop detector/eliminator back in the old DOS days, it was very simple and a command line driven program but I was quite surprised at how good a job it did in detecting and eliminating those transient signals. Certainly it was nowhere as good as today's sophisticated software but for the day it worked quite well for me.

I also wrote an assembly language successive approximation analog to digital converter for the 6809 processor in the Radio Shack Color Computer I had before I got my first DOS box. The successive approximation A/D converter I wrote ran about six to seven times faster than the A/D software that came with the box.

I haven't done any programming in about fifteen years though, my last project was a software to predict the flight characteristics of electric powered model airplanes and I wrote that in Visual Basic for DOS.

I have containers full of old jazz and rock 33 1/3 rpm records down in the basement and I even have a decent turntable and preamp. What I lack is the time and motivation to transfer all those old records to digital form.

As for the bit rate of MP3s, I'm old and have listened to far too much loud music in my life, so my hearing above 10 kHz is just about gone. Given that, I can't tell much of a difference between 128 kbps and 64 kbps. Confused

Thanks for the replies though, I mostly agree with both of you.
_________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
poivre



Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks guys for your posts, it's very informative ! i have a low quality system, but i achieve some good results , i also love the good old crakles sounds of the vinyl sometimes Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wavosaur Main Developer
Site Admin


Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 473
Location: France

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes jonty it takes lot's of time to record vinyl: each song must be listen completely during recording.
It seems to me that it exists laser turntable, but the price seems to me very high. I don't know if these sort of systems could accelerate this time.

In spite of this little desagreament, what a beautifull support! I have hundreds and hundreds vinyls, and I love having it in my hands: it's not exactly the same sensation with CD or mp3, even if quality is better.

Yes poivre, crakles sounds of the vinyl too could be very pleasant.
_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wavosaur Main Developer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.wavosaur.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jonty



Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I forgot to mention, I even have an original crank wound Victrola down in the basement along with 78 rpm shellac records and replacement styli (they came in a box of a dozen and had to be replaced at regular intervals).

My Victrola has a medium sized cabinet with the horn and record storage built in, you open two doors in the front to expose the horn outlet when you are going to play it. The last time I tried it , it still worked fine. Shocked
_________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
edeneweth



Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for all the replies folks! I do have a decent turntable and preamp, so vinyl records that I did not listen to much come out pretty decent. On the other hand, Queen "A Night At The Opera" is really bad. Bohemian Rhapsody was big, even before Wayne's World reincarnated it.

As for the pops/cracks, I guess they do add some character to the song. I noticed that some VST plugins actually allow you to ADD pops/cracks to the recordings.

So, who listens to each song during the recording?? I put the album on, start the recording, and then leave it alone. I come back later, and using Wavosaur's awesome editing capability, split and trim recordings where I want them.

I do remember playing some 78 rpms, but I am unfortunate to not have had a Victrola. Ahhh, when life was easy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonty



Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One more point about soundcards.

You don't have to spend big money to get a high quality soundcard, I see older Turtle Beach soundcards on ebay quite regularly at very reasonable prices. The specs, even on the older models of TB soundcards are very good, more than enough for amateur recording of vinyl records.

The older soundcards go for such a cheap price because they do not have the latest bells and whistles such as 7.1 sourround and the the like built in. But we do not need such doodads for recording, what we need is a quality a/d converter, low noise, low jitter etc, things that even the older TB soundcards have.
_________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wavosaur Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Other topics :





Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group