Copying Vinyl to CD is this dorky?

[KevinCorr]

Back inna day, we would clean the record very well, and just play it to a tape recorder.

These days, I have a dedicated CD Recorder (they're getting cheaper every day, now), a turntable, and a receiver.

I just got finished recording a 50 year old record that I cleaned with a Discwasher D3 system. The record was very clean to begin with, so afterwards it was really clean. I recorded it directly to a CD-RW, just in case one of the tracks needed to be redone. Afterwards, I played it back, to be sure there were no issues. After that, I put the CD-RW into my CD player, popped a CD-R in the recorder, and did a pure digital transfer using a direct TOSLINK optical link.

It was perfect! Just like I was listening to the album. Of course, that experience includes the ever present, low level surface noise that all records have. However, there were only three almost inaudible clicks on the entire album! Of course, this album was especially well preserved, pretty much in mint condition when I got it, and not all records are as clean as this one is. So, if you do record them directly to CD like this, you have to accept whatever record noise gets onto the CD. However, if you can't accept that, you can rip the CD-RW directly to your computer, and clean it up before burning your final CD!

So, why use a CD-RW? Simple, you can record botched tracks multiple times, then skip over the bad ones when transferring the recording to your final copy, or erase them once you've ripped it to your computer (I don't erase and re-record tracks, as that tends to cause the CD-RW to skip on playback!). Then once you're done, you can completely refresh (erase) the CD-RW, and reuse it! No "coasters!"

My CD recorder is the Tascam CD-RW900SL. It has an excellent ADC, and is capable of recording to data CD-RWs and data CD-Rs, which are cheaper than CD-R Audio discs. My CD player has an optical digital out that plugs directly into the CD recorder, bypassing the receiver altogether. I also have the CD recorder hooked up to one of the tape monitor ins/outs on my receiver, and the turntable is hooked up to the same receiver; it's an analog transfer into the CD recorder the first time around. However, once the first CD is recorded, every copy after that is a direct, digital transfer; no D/A or A/D conversions are done using this method. This means that all subsequent copies done in this way are literally first generation copies!

In the end, it's just like going back to simpler times, only using a CD recorder instead of a tape recorder. This way, there's no having to buy a new computer, no need to figure out what sound card to buy, no need to figure out what recording software to use, no having to figure out how to use it all. Plus, the Tascam CD recorder is relatively cheap these days on Amazon.com, and I already have the CD player, turntable, and receiver. And the best part about it for me is that, I have yet to feel a need to use my computer to clean up any CD recording I've made of any of my albums! But then again, that's just me... YMMV.

In addition, if you have to spend a lot of money, and don't have a good turntable or receiver, this would allow you to invest in those, as well as the CD recorder. If you're going to spend upwards of $1,000, you might as well get something more useful than "just another computer," and some high-end sound card you'll use sporadically.

I hope this helps. Good Luck!

I have a cheap cd recorder, Pioneer PDR 609, which works ok and have burned a few cds. It is not bad but I would like to burn to a hard disc for more permanent storage of old rare LPs and the ability to burn higher quality cd later from the hd.
I used to make a lot of tapes from lp too, starting with 8 track, then reel to reel then cassette. The CDR is not quite as simple but not bad. I could burn to CD first, then easily burn the cd to computer hard disc but that is an extra step and I am looking at thousands of LPs.

 

[AU20K]

Well, I received the Behringer UFO202 ADC and it works much better than I had hoped. I recorded 4 LPs to the external hard drive that I use only for music on my laptop. The playback quality surprised me in a very good way. I do not have my favorite turntable at my dispose right now, but hope to get it back in one piece within the next couple weeks (barring any unscheduled trips to the tuna grounds (they are getting very close to shore now)).

Also, the Behringer ADC did not arrive with the promised software, but I already had Audacity on my computer and do not feel the need for the podcast software at this time.

Until I retrieve my Yamaha turntable, I am putting this project on hold because I am convinced that the better tt can only improve upon this.

Just thought I'd share; this item is a good inexpensive way ($34.95 @ Amazon) to record our records to a computer. It is especially cool because I have quite a few LPs that were never transferred to CD.

Thanks to all of you who gave the invaluable advice, help and education in this thread. I hope I can repay the favor some day.

AU

 

[Roving Sign]

Well, I received the Behringer UFO202 ADC and it works much better than I had hoped. I recorded 4 LPs to the external hard drive that I use only for music on my laptop. The playback quality surprised me in a very good way. I do not have my favorite turntable at my dispose right now, but hope to get it back in one piece within the next couple weeks (barring any unscheduled trips to the tuna grounds (they are getting very close to shore now)).

Also, the Behringer ADC did not arrive with the promised software, but I already had Audacity on my computer and do not feel the need for the podcast software at this time.

Until I retrieve my Yamaha turntable, I am putting this project on hold because I am convinced that the better tt can only improve upon this.

Just thought I'd share; this item is a good inexpensive way ($34.95 @ Amazon) to record our records to a computer. It is especially cool because I have quite a few LPs that were never transferred to CD.

Thanks to all of you who gave the invaluable advice, help and education in this thread. I hope I can repay the favor some day.

AU

Since you're going to be limited to 16 bit recording - and unless you see yourself getting heavily into editing - I might recommend sticking with native 16/44 mastering ...skip Audacity - and just use CDWave to track (assuming your tracking per song). Thats probably the purest path to CD.

If you see yourself wanting to get into editing and NR stuff - you might want to look at something that has 24bits...sample rate isn't quite as important as bit depth when you plan on editing downstream. Using 96 will mean twice as much data and slower workflow.

EDIT: Looking at that device - looks like you might be stuck with 48...not a big deal. But you will likely be stuck using Audacity to resamlple/dither. I understand the temptation to use higher sampling rates - and I would if mastering for PC playback - but for CD - I always prefer native, un-dickerd-with samples.

 

[AU20K]

CDWave, that's a new word to me. I'll research it, but it sounds like you don't think it's the right deal for the Behringer adc anyway. But I love to read about things that are new to me.

 

[JimmyNeutron]

My transfer station is in a small little corner of my home office. I have the upgrade bug biting me at the moment and I believe I will be re-doing my system real soon :scratch2: . But in the mean time this is what I use and how I use it. I use my Denon DP-62L turntable with Denon DL-160 MC cart going thru a Cambridge Audio 640p phono pre amp. This signal then goes into a Digidesign Mbox 2 pro, which gets sampled and then sent to my PC over the USB cable. I use AudioQuest USB and audio cables throughout. I take a whole side of an LP as a complete "chunk", and then I use Audacity to perform any downsampling if I need to (for my iPod, or whatever). Normally I keep it at 24/48. I've used 24/96, and to be totally honest here I just cannot hear any improvement in 24/96 over 24/48 when recording an LP. Vinyl just doesn't have the information to warrent an improvement at anything higher than 16/44.1. But if you believe you can hear a difference, then knock yourself out. You can't take any more information out of the LP than what is already there. All you can hope to do is faithfully transcode what's on this archaic medium and transfer it over onto digital, all the while cleaning it up. But at the end of the day it's still just vinyl, and 16/44.1 has more than enough resolution to reproduce the finest LP. But hey, YMMV :yes:

The software is Audacity for the sampling, then it gets saved as a FLAC file at my preferred sample rate of 24/48. I then take that file over to iZotopes RX2 Advanced software to perform any clean up duties that I think it may need, or to add more low end, or whatever. Next it goes to WaveLab LE 7 if it needs any more touch ups. After that I tag the files' seperate passages (which is done in RX2 Advanced), attach cover art, fill in artist bios, etc. Then the file gets transferred over to my main music library. 4 - 6 hours later I have a digitized vinyl LP that, to my ears on my systems, sounds no different (albeit cleaner) than the original LP. After all, that is the main goal. I don't want it to sound digital - that defeats the purpose. You may as well listen to the CD version. I don't fiddle too much when I make my transfers - just mainly takes the clicks away, lower the noise, and maybe re-EQ it. All this for the love of the hobby.

Jimmy

 

[dlaloum]

Have you also done the manual recomplilation and such required to enable 24 bit recording in Audacity?

Last time I tried Audacity, it pretended to be recording 24bit, but was just packing a bunch of bits with zero's and actually recording in 16bit.

To enable Audacity 24bit requires a bit of work! (at which point I dumped audacity and went for Adobe Audition...)

 

[JimmyNeutron]

Yes, you're right. I read about that too. But yea, once you have everything set up properly - and the correct ASIO drivers, then you can check by nulling the positive and negative sides of the signal.

Good call.

Jimmy

 

[Rockyhill]

My transfer station is in a small little corner of my home office.

Nice 'transfer station.' When I first read your words I thought of my towns 'transfer station', aka, the dump! Your's is not!

I'm piecing together the hardware and software to copy LP's. Trying to keep this a low-budget project, so I've purchased a Rolls VP29 phono pre and Behringer UCA202. I'll be using Audacity to record.

 

[dewdude]

I peronsally keep everything as WAV till I do a final export. That's mostly because while my hardware is only recording with 24-bit integer, my software automatically converts this in to 32-bit floating point for additional processing.

I try to keep it in the higest quality till its exported. FLAC is lossless, yes; but it doesn't do true floating point that I know of (I haven't looked at specs in years). Multiple conversions between floating point and integer, even at the same bitdepth, can lead to degredation. Remember, in floating point, the decimal is literally floating. So you can wind up using something like 24 full bits with 8 decimal places, or whatever. Integer uses fixed decimal, so there's still a lot of computation involved.

...not to mention not all my audio software knows what to do with FLAC. I also do a lot more processing than it seems you guys are.

 

[JimmyNeutron]

Well I'm certainly no expert in transferring vinyl to digital - other than what is obvious to me. I'm still learning this process and I am reading everything I can with eager. But it seems to me that of all the thousands of posts, comments, and threads I've read about "how to transfer your vinyl to your PC" the responses are as sacred as any in "Which cable is better" or the like. I've read more "personal opinions" than "objective facts". For instance, to me vinyl is a godly imperfect medium. It's a mechanical medium that has limited range, response, seperation, is smeared with noise of all sorts - and that's just before we get to the actual music of trying to reproduce it by scraping a diamond tip across a surface with hundreds of pounds of force! It's amazing we get any sound out of it at all, much less the beautiful music that finally does emerge. But as beautiful as it is, it's still a fraction of the signal that was offered by the master analog tapes. So if this is the case then why do some people still choose (if not for the hobby or the love of the hobby) to use such extreme formats to capture this signal? Does capturing this "garbage" of a signal with a $1000.00 A/D converter at 24/192 or 24/96 make any improvement over how a $100.00 A/D converter captures it at 24/48 or 16/44.1? Remember, we're only capturing a fraction of what each one of these chips are capable of when it comes to capturing the vinyl signal. At this level they all will capture the same thing. And at this level the minute difference between DAC's can't possibly contribute to any sonic advantage over another DAC of another price. If I were capturing the original analog tape source then yes, I'd opt for the better DAC and the higher rate. But when trying to capture the vinyl, which is far inferior to any other format of choice (all things considered and being equal) because of it's limited signal, then why would some think to "NEVER" use anything lower than 24/96? Honestly, I don't know, and I want to know. I am not familiar enough with transferring vinyl to fully understand the process that someone else has been doing for many years. This is just me thinking.

I have made a few copies of a record on 2 different ADC's - my Mbox 2 pro which tops out at 24/48, and on my Creative X-Fi Extreme Music card (which is an exceptiopnal card, BTW) which handles 24/192 with ease. I've made copies of the same LP on 2 seperate runs, one for each ADC, and saved the files as WAV. Honestly, I can't tell the difference. My gear is very revealing and if there was such a difference I would have heard it.......but I did not. Now, apart from saving in 24/96 just to be consistant with sample formats generally used today I think that in actual practive when transferring an LP to a PC recording at anything higher than 24/48 is inaudible.

Please tell me I'm wrong. I need to understand this more. If I'm going to archaive my LP's (which really is just for fun), then I need to know the correct way to do it.

Jimmy

 

[dlaloum]

Nice 'transfer station.' When I first read your words I thought of my towns 'transfer station', aka, the dump! Your's is not!

I'm piecing together the hardware and software to copy LP's. Trying to keep this a low-budget project, so I've purchased a Rolls VP29 phono pre and Behringer UCA202. I'll be using Audacity to record.

The VP29 is interesting - has only 50pf capacitive loading on board if I recall correctly - which makes it quite versatile as you can easily raise the capacitive load with either C plugs, or simply use longer cables.

Its sound quality is primarily limited by the power supply used - feed it from a battery and it will surprise you, use the standard basic wall wart and it is a bit lackluster.

With a battery PSU (or a good regulated PSU, but that is usually more expensive!) - it is a great little phono stage, and one that can be readily adjusted via cartridge loading to get optimal results from a LOT of different cartridges...

bye for now
David

 

[dlaloum]

Well I'm certainly no expert in transferring vinyl to digital - other than what is obvious to me. I'm still learning this process and I am reading everything I can with eager. But it seems to me that of all the thousands of posts, comments, and threads I've read about "how to transfer your vinyl to your PC" the responses are as sacred as any in "Which cable is better" or the like. I've read more "personal opinions" than "objective facts". For instance, to me vinyl is a godly imperfect medium. It's a mechanical medium that has limited range, response, seperation, is smeared with noise of all sorts - and that's just before we get to the actual music of trying to reproduce it by scraping a diamond tip across a surface with hundreds of pounds of force! It's amazing we get any sound out of it at all, much less the beautiful music that finally does emerge. But as beautiful as it is, it's still a fraction of the signal that was offered by the master analog tapes. So if this is the case then why do some people still choose (if not for the hobby or the love of the hobby) to use such extreme formats to capture this signal? Does capturing this "garbage" of a signal with a $1000.00 A/D converter at 24/192 or 24/96 make any improvement over how a $100.00 A/D converter captures it at 24/48 or 16/44.1? Remember, we're only capturing a fraction of what each one of these chips are capable of when it comes to capturing the vinyl signal. At this level they all will capture the same thing. And at this level the minute difference between DAC's can't possibly contribute to any sonic advantage over another DAC of another price. If I were capturing the original analog tape source then yes, I'd opt for the better DAC and the higher rate. But when trying to capture the vinyl, which is far inferior to any other format of choice (all things considered and being equal) because of it's limited signal, then why would some think to "NEVER" use anything lower than 24/96? Honestly, I don't know, and I want to know. I am not familiar enough with transferring vinyl to fully understand the process that someone else has been doing for many years. This is just me thinking.

I have made a few copies of a record on 2 different ADC's - my Mbox 2 pro which tops out at 24/48, and on my Creative X-Fi Extreme Music card (which is an exceptiopnal card, BTW) which handles 24/192 with ease. I've made copies of the same LP on 2 seperate runs, one for each ADC, and saved the files as WAV. Honestly, I can't tell the difference. My gear is very revealing and if there was such a difference I would have heard it.......but I did not. Now, apart from saving in 24/96 just to be consistant with sample formats generally used today I think that in actual practive when transferring an LP to a PC recording at anything higher than 24/48 is inaudible.

Please tell me I'm wrong. I need to understand this more. If I'm going to archaive my LP's (which really is just for fun), then I need to know the correct way to do it.

Jimmy

Ahh the technicalities.....

First of all your actual dynamic range...
Well the noise floor on a record is around 70db down from the standard 0db 5cm/s level... BUT you can listen through the noise floor and there is at least another 10db of discernible signal below the base noise floor (also the noise floor varies with frequency... so at some frequencies you have a much lower noise floor) - so you have say a base 80db of theoretical signal range on a "good" record.

Except that unlike digital an analogue recording can go above 0db, and most do to some degree - maximum for dramatic extreme recordings tends to be circa +15db - so now we are at a total of 95db - or roughly the dynamic range of 16 bit digital.

Moving right along, pops and clicks can actually go beyond this level, and unfortunately when your ADC clips, it pollutes the whole signal, not just the bit that goes over the top - so we need to provide sufficient headroom beyond that to allow for the pops/clicks - lets say another 10db? - which takes us to 105db. This is pretty much the level of dynamic range you have with a good 24bit ADC today. (theoretical 24bit would be higher, but 105db is pretty close to what all the sub $10k ADC's achieve)

Now admittedly I am being a bit extreme, most records do not use that dynamic range, and most records do not have a noise floor that low (it requires premium grade vinyl, top notch pressing and mastering, etc...) - and most recordings get nowhere near the peaks I mentioned... which leaves us a bit of room to maneuver.... and we need it!

If you position your signal perfectly you will fit the peaks in and still get the quietest bits - full dynamic range... but if you record with too low a signal you will waste headroom at the top, and lose signal at the bottom, if you record too hot, you clip and things get seriously nasty sounding.

So having an analogue line level control before the ADC is absolutely critical - you have to get the signal level right to get the best results... and by signal I also include the noise / clicks / pops, which need to be cleanly digitised, so the software then has a chance to clean them up - if you clip.... bleh!

Once you have a good recording (which really cannot be done reliably at 16bit, due to the combination of required headroom, and dynamic range needs... so 24bit is it... 32bit would be great but there is no such ADC yet) - then you can clean up the pops and clicks - which will free up some headroom.

The cleaned recording can then be downsampled to 16bit - which with 96db of dynamic range is ample for a clean recording - you normalise, to eliminate the excess headroom, clean up the noise peaks, and now 16/44 is fine for a top notch recording.

With regards to the differing ADC's, and quality of recording, all I can say is that my previous M-Audio Audiophile2496 card provided good recordings, but comparing them (level matched) back to back with the analogue original, you could definitely tell there was a difference. You might not be able to tell which is digital and which is analogue, but they were different.
When I upgraded to the EMU 1616m, I found that recordings were indistinguishable from the originals. - It is of course possible that I have reached the resolving ability of my system (and headphones) - but it is a substantial improvement over the previous ADC, and is now providing what I call true transparency.

So yes a better ADC can make a difference - will it on your setup? - Depends on your setup, your speakers, your ears, etc...

Another minor comment - my own listening and measurement of the ADC's and the DAC's I have access to, shows them to mostly give best results at 24/96 - although the chipsets are all capable of 24/192, they just don't sound as good at that rate.
Taking an upsampled sound file to the various resolutions, it seems to me that 24/96 sounds best.
This may be the current "sweet spot" of the hardware.
Perhaps once mainstream hardware is at 24/384 we will start getting 24/192 sounding better than 24/96 - but at this stage I am not hearing it. (measurements of the ADC / DAC also seem to confirm this... with higher levels of noise/hash and distortion at 24/192)

So getting back to what is the best option - for playback I use upsampling software so everything gets played at 24/96 ... but 16/44 is ample to fully capture the nuances of an LP - as a final downsampled, mastered and processed file.
But you need to record at 24/96, process at 32/96 or 64/96 before sampling down to the final 16/44 (or 16/48) file.


Just my personal perfectionist take on digitising vinyl....YMMV

bye for now

David

 

[JimmyNeutron]

David, thank you very much. A very good read. But let me ask again, what is better to record my records in, 24/48 or 24/96? And on what ADC, the Mbox 2 pro or the Creative X-fi music extreme? The last may be more objective, I understand. I am also considering purchasing a Tascam portable that is full 24/96 capable on analog inputs.

Jimmy

 

[Roving Sign]

Ahh the technicalities.....

...but 16/44 is ample to fully capture the nuances of an LP...

So why dick around with the signal so much? - I'd prefer native 16/44 samples if that is the target playback media is CD.

You may want to check out DSD recording with some of the Korg devices - they use 1 bit A/Ds with sample rates in the gigahertz range.

 

[dlaloum]

So why dick around with the signal so much? - I'd prefer native 16/44 samples if that is the target playback media is CD.

You may want to check out DSD recording with some of the Korg devices - they use 1 bit A/Ds with sample rates in the gigahertz range.

Because in the form the signal starts off in you need 105db of dynamic range... as I explained earlier.

Once you have it recorded, the clean up process removes the peaks caused by vinyl noise - reducing the dynamic range requirement to the point where the cleaned up file will fit within a 16bit recording. - So at that stage you can downsample if desired.

If you start out at a 16bit recording dynamic range capability, you will clip, generating a wide range of distortions, which cannot be remedied by any amount of processing. (or alternatively you will record at a lower level to avoid clipping, and lose low level detail).

At the digitising stage you need an order of magnitude more dynamic range, than what is required at the final mastering/storing stage... it is the nature of the recording process.

 

[dlaloum]

David, thank you very much. A very good read. But let me ask again, what is better to record my records in, 24/48 or 24/96? And on what ADC, the Mbox 2 pro or the Creative X-fi music extreme? The last may be more objective, I understand. I am also considering purchasing a Tascam portable that is full 24/96 capable on analog inputs.

Jimmy

The 24/192 capable devices usually handle all resolutions up to 24/96 with quad oversampling, but 24/192 is only done with dual oversampling.

The advantage of increased bandwidth and of oversampling are that it pushes the rolloff frequency of the critical high frequency cut off filters further up, and the further the rolloff is from the limit of hearing (20kHz), the gentler the type of filter that can be used. - 16/44 uses "brick wall" filters, which have a relatively substantial impact on the sound (filter frequency point is 22kHz). - 16/44 with quad oversampling puts the rolloff filter frequency at 96kHz.... allowing for a gentler filter
16/96 has the filter at 48kHz, but with Quad oversampling it becomes 192kHz - which allows for a very gentle slope with benign sonic impact.

With 24/192 the chipsets only use dual oversampling, achieving the same filter frequency as with 24/96, but a steeper filter curve is used due to the need to provide bandwidth to 96kHz rather than 48kHz.

Which brings me to choosing an ADC...

1) Choose one that is 24/192 capable - even though you will never use the top rate - these chipsets will have 24/96 in their sweet spots, with quad oversampling. (I have not kept up to date, it may be that the latest chipsets now implement quad oversampling 24/192... but I don't think so)
2) Keep an eye on the standard analogue specifications (signal/noise, dynamic range, distortion) - these parameters will be driven by the analogue parts of the circuit - and if these parts of the circuit are not up to spec, the digital parts never get a decent chance!
3) You have to have an ANALOGUE line level control, to control the level of the incoming signal BEFORE the ADC. - Many soundcards do the level adjustment after digitisation, which is not going to help at all if the signal is already clipped! - or is too low level, once it is digital what is lost is lost...
4) The quality of the digitising is very very sensitive to the precision of the word clock - look into the word clock precision/timing specification, and get the best you can afford. - the word clock is what causes or reduces issues such as Jitter.

I am not familiar with the two ADC's you mention, but the above list of things to look for should help!

bye for now

David

 

[JimmyNeutron]

Bring the lp in at 24/48 or 24/96? Seems both formats will provide the sufficient amount of headroom to process and clean, while avoiding any clipping. Then, it seems to me, that 24/48 or at most 24/96 is sufficient to archaive. But then again, is 24/96 even needed when 24/48 is all that is needed to do the job with room to spare?

Jimmy

 

[dlaloum]

Bring the lp in at 24/48 or 24/96? Seems both formats will provide the sufficient amount of headroom to process and clean, while avoiding any clipping. Then, it seems to me, that 24/48 or at most 24/96 is sufficient to archaive. But then again, is 24/96 even needed when 24/48 is all that is needed to do the job with room to spare?

Jimmy

The difference between 48 and 96 is marginal - the big functional difference is the number of bits...

Variance between 48 and 96 is related solely to the filtering, and associated potential audible distortions.... By recording at 96, and doing gentle filtering you remove a lot of the HF signal, noise and hash which causes difficulty later with the digital downsampling - makes for a cleaner end result.

Is the difference substantial - no absolutely not! - but 96 is a better purists recording resolution.... even though the end result will be a 16/48 file - the difference, although very subtle, is there.

I doubt you could tell the difference between properly made and processed recordings at 48 and 96 .... unless you put them back to back, level matched, etc... and even then the difference would be very very subtle.

But my listening tests and measurements with the 4 different ADC's / DAC's I have experimented with, have shown the 96 does consistently sound marginally better than 44/48 and 192 -both for playback and for recording.

I have also found that a recording made at 96, and downsampled to 44 cannot be differentiated from the original made at 96. (both having been cleaned up and processed the same way)
BUT - I play back my 44 file through an upsampling setup which actually works the DAC at 96 (because it sounds better...)

If I run the 96 file at 96, and the 44 file at 44 through the DAC, the 96 file ends up sounding marginally better. (in other words the reason it sounds better is that the DAC is working at its optimum sound quality setting...)

bye for now

David

 

[Roving Sign]

Because in the form the signal starts off in you need 105db of dynamic range... as I explained earlier.

Once you have it recorded, the clean up process removes the peaks caused by vinyl noise - reducing the dynamic range requirement to the point where the cleaned up file will fit within a 16bit recording. - So at that stage you can downsample if desired.

If you start out at a 16bit recording dynamic range capability, you will clip, generating a wide range of distortions, which cannot be remedied by any amount of processing. (or alternatively you will record at a lower level to avoid clipping, and lose low level detail).

At the digitising stage you need an order of magnitude more dynamic range, than what is required at the final mastering/storing stage... it is the nature of the recording process.

I see - so I might end up with really hi-res reproduction of a record's scratches - but not capture as much signal as I might need for the end product.

 

[JimmyNeutron]

If I run the 96 file at 96, and the 44 file at 44 through the DAC, the 96 file ends up sounding marginally better. (in other words the reason it sounds better is that the DAC is working at its optimum sound quality setting...)

bye for now

David

David, thanks for the explanation. Your answer is exactly the same as I have read from other forums. Still, this sounds like a politicians curve ball to a straight answer - no offense. If I bought a DAC and found that it performs better at any 1 frequency over another I'd be very mad and I would return it to the manufacture. Really, a DAC works at it's comfort level the minute you push in the power button. So I cannot take that as an answer as to why recording an LP ar 24/96 would sound better than recording that same LP at 24/48.

I understand about having some lee-way, but we're not talking about the original master tapes here. We're talking about a record. We can't add any more information by recording at higher resolutions. I understand that from a cleaning, processing, de-clicking point of view you need that resolution. But how high can we go before it just becomes ones "opinion" over fact? That is the question. When you compare AC power cables, for instance, you can never prove anybody wrong because there will never be anything that can be proven over what one hears. One can just say "Hear that? That 2 guage titanium sealed hollow core cryogenically treated cable sounds inferior to that 16 guage Home Depot lamp cord!". And you know what? If that lemming thinks he hears a difference then no one will ever be able to prove him otherwise. But in the digital world there are tests. We can effectively prove if there is an audible difference by nulling the signal. But forget about that.

I don't want to offend anyone or argue with anyone. I really want to understand this LP to PC transfer business, but I want to learn it by facts and not by opinion. Still, I understand that as our hobby we love to treak and over-build our systems. Nothing wrong with that. And, quite honestly, I will be ripping my LP's in 24/96 - if only to be consistant. But I still want to "understand" the phychological opinions - why do some say that 24/96, 24/192, or even 35/386 sounds better, or should sound better, than 24/48? Is it for the investment they have made in their gear and they must justify the cost? THis is a very real fact that most, if not all of us, are subject to.

So an LP is a copy. The source is a hi-rez original analog tape. If one was to record from that studio's master deck then I would want the highest possible resolution - 24/192 or more, affordably. But that hi-rez source has now been transferred down onto a disc of plastic that because of it's defficiencies will require equalization, further mastering, processing, and still be of a quality that will no where even tax the capabilities of any modern ADC or DAC - at whatever sampleing rate. In digitizing the analog signal we need to find a rate that is just over the threshold of that LP's sonic equivalent. Of course ANY rate over 16/44.1 is well above the LP's sonic equivalent. IMO, even plain old 16/44.1 is more than an LP's sonic equivalent. Why? Because 16/44.1 is the digital equivalent to a modern CD - a DIGITAL medium. How can anyone say that this rate is inferior to the archaic analog medium that CD replaces?

Back to what is the MINIMUM sample rate that can be used in the ADC before any difference can be heard? If I rip an LP at a rate of 16/44.1 I believe it will sound no different than the LP I'm ripping. I believe it CAN'T sound any different for the simple fact that that rate is well above the LP's capability of storing the lowest and highest frequencies. But in re-processing is your game, then it only makes sense to rip at a higher rate, then down-sample (if that's what you want to do. Otherise just leve it at that high rate). And this, I believe, is why people rip at a high rate. Not because it sounds better, but because once you already have that signal inside your PC at 24/96 (for processing) it makes no sense really to sample it back down again. But to say that it sounds better? I need some facts more than "it's the DAC's comfort zone".

Now I'll give 2 pieces of hardware to talk about - mine in particular. A Digidesigns Mbox 2 pro unit that has an upper rate of 24/48, and a Creative Labs Soundblaster X-Fi Extreme music soundcard that can comfortable record at 24/192. One is an internal unit, the other an external unit. Other than the PC's interior is a terrible place to put a sound card because of stray interference, which DAC, or unit, would perform better and why? The external "quieter" one with the lower sdampling rate? Or the internal "noisier" one with the higher sampling rate? I'm not saying the Creative is a noiser card, because the fact is that it isin't. It's a very capable card that I've used for a few years and has impressed me a lot. But just for the sake of furthering this conversation, and opening a few more can of worms, which one and why.

Jimmy