Re: Sound card for recording
Michael Chare
news:slrnhhqi...@realh.co.uk...
> I'd like to make some recordings, maybe transferring some gems from my
> vinyl collection to digital etc. I'm wondering whether I should use a
> better sound card than the onboard sound.
>
> I know one of the regulars here occasionally posts about an almost
> universal design flaw on sound cards where the input circuitry clips
> well below the potential ability of the A/D convertor or something. I
> did try recording from vinyl via a T/T preamp to a basic onboard sound
> card a few years ago. The preamp has no gain control and ISTR the result
> did sound slightly distorted as if clipped.
>
> I've got one of those old Santa Cruz/Sonic Fury cards lying around,
> which were reckoned to be pretty good in their time. Would it be worth
> installing that for recording? I found an old review:
>
> Audio Converters: Dual AC-97 2.1 audio codecs with hardware full-duplex
> for simultaneous record and playback and up to 48 kHz sample rates.
> 18-bit A/D converters for high-resolution recording. 20-bit D/A
> converters for high-resolution playback of up to 6 independent streams.
>
> Alternatively I could probably borrow my friend's EMI external USB sound
> adapter which he bought especially for semi-professional recording a few
> years back. Significantly better still?
>
> --
> TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
Try uk.rec.audio
--
Michael Chare
Jim Lesurf
Chare
<Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote:
> "Tony Houghton" <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnhhqi...@realh.co.uk...
> > I'd like to make some recordings, maybe transferring some gems from my
> > vinyl collection to digital etc. I'm wondering whether I should use a
> > better sound card than the onboard sound.
> Try uk.rec.audio
Tony can perhaps guess what my response will be from reading already what
I've written elsewhere. However my basic preference is to use an audio
recorder that is not connected to a computer during recording.
This avoids any problems caused by the computer not being able to collect
samples correctly, interference, hum loops, etc, etc.
I've tended to use CD Audio recorders like the Pioneer PDR-509. But am
currently looking at buying a Tascam HD P2. Something like the 509 is quite
cheap, but limited to CDDA (16bit / 44.1ksamples/sec). Whereas the Tascam
goes up to 192ksample sec and 24 bit. But is more expensive. :-) But
there are a number of other audio recorders around.
This means I use the recorder just as you might have used an older cassette
or reel-to-reel as part of the hifi system with no computer attached. Then
carry the recordings on CD to the computer for editing and final writing to
CDDA, or use from a server as you prefer.
For the modern 'solid state' recorders, you'd obvious use either a USB
(or firewire) link or carry the memory card instead of a CD for the
transfer. Treat that as a separate operation to the actual recording
process.
I'm personally wary of using a 'soundcard' as it means a risk of the
computer disturbing making best-quality recordings for various reasons.
However despite this I'd agree that with the better soundcards and a
carefully setup system that approach works well. But I would not use any of
the internal 'soundcards' on any of the computers I have for recording
analogue sources as the results would be poorer than a stand-alone CD Audio
recorder.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Arny Krueger
message news:tcydnQPDw4VH1L3W...@pipex.net
> "Tony Houghton" <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnhhqi...@realh.co.uk...
>> I'd like to make some recordings, maybe transferring
>> some gems from my vinyl collection to digital etc. I'm
>> wondering whether I should use a better sound card than
>> the onboard sound.
>> I know one of the regulars here occasionally posts about
>> an almost universal design flaw on sound cards where the
>> input circuitry clips well below the potential ability
>> of the A/D converter or something. I did try recording
>> from vinyl via a T/T preamp to a basic onboard sound
>> card a few years ago. The preamp has no gain control and
>> ISTR the result did sound slightly distorted as if
>> clipped.
That's a stupid problem that was created by badly engineered products. It is
a situation that is easy enough to address with a simple attenuator.
>> I've got one of those old Santa Cruz/Sonic Fury cards
>> lying around, which were reckoned to be pretty good in
>> their time. Would it be worth installing that for
>> recording? I found an old review:
If it still works and if you can find appropriate drivers for it, yes.
>> Audio Converters: Dual AC-97 2.1 audio codecs with
>> hardware full-duplex for simultaneous record and
>> playback and up to 48 kHz sample rates. 18-bit A/D
>> converters for high-resolution recording. 20-bit D/A
>> converters for high-resolution playback of up to 6
>> independent streams.
>> Alternatively I could probably borrow my friend's EMI
>> external USB sound adapter which he bought especially
>> for semi-professional recording a few years back.
>> Significantly better still?
Whatever works.
Because of the LP format's inherent technical failings, digitizing LPs is
not all that challenging of a task for even an one of those on-board audio
interfaces that comes with most motherboards.
Jim Lesurf
Krueger
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Because of the LP format's inherent technical failings, digitizing LPs
> is not all that challenging of a task for even an one of those on-board
> audio interfaces that comes with most motherboards.
In principle it is slightly complicated because of the possibility of
unpredictably high peaks. But in practice this doesn't seem a problem in my
experience and 16bit samples should be fine if you allow for enough
headroom when setting the gain.
Don Pearce
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <BtOdnf1Sy__Ib73W...@giganews.com>, Arny
>Krueger
><ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Because of the LP format's inherent technical failings, digitizing LPs
>> is not all that challenging of a task for even an one of those on-board
>> audio interfaces that comes with most motherboards.
>
>In principle it is slightly complicated because of the possibility of
>unpredictably high peaks. But in practice this doesn't seem a problem in my
>experience and 16bit samples should be fine if you allow for enough
>headroom when setting the gain.
>
The unexpectedly high peaks are invariably ticks and scratches, and it
really doesn't matter if they overload - they need removing anyway.
d
Arny Krueger
news:4b20f7f9....@news.eternal-september.org
That agrees with my experience. The LP format has a serious problem with
dynamic range, if you define dynamic range as the difference between the
noise floor and the largest relatively undistorted signal related to music
or speech.
If you define dynamic range as the difference between the noise floor and
the largest instantaneous value, no matter how irrelevant to the music or
distorted, then the LP format might have less deficient dynamic range.
We've been in a similar place around here just lately. People have lately
gone on record as demanding sufficient headroom to play back fairly
improbable but rarely observed signals whose samples are all less than FS
but in combination can trick a reconstruction filter into creating an analog
signal that significantly exceeds FS.
I'm not buying either situation as being one that needs to be pandered to.
Dave Plowman (News)
But if you overload the analogue section with a tick etc isn't there a
chance it will effect the prog material immediately afterwards?
--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Arny Krueger
message news:50c7868...@davenoise.co.uk
> In article
> <4b20f7f9....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don
> Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:24:53 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In article
>>> <BtOdnf1Sy__Ib73W...@giganews.com>, Arny
>>> Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Because of the LP format's inherent technical
>>>> failings, digitizing LPs is not all that challenging
>>>> of a task for even an one of those on-board audio
>>>> interfaces that comes with most motherboards.
>>>
>>> In principle it is slightly complicated because of the
>>> possibility of unpredictably high peaks. But in
>>> practice this doesn't seem a problem in my experience
>>> and 16bit samples should be fine if you allow for
>>> enough headroom when setting the gain.
>>>
>
>> The unexpectedly high peaks are invariably ticks and
>> scratches, and it really doesn't matter if they overload
>> - they need removing anyway.
>
> But if you overload the analogue section with a tick etc
> isn't there a chance it will effect the prog material
> immediately afterwards?
There's a chance the sky will fall. How many sky supports do you keep on
hand? ;-)
In general, modern gear recovers from overloads pretty fast.
If you've got an exceptional case, you can determine that pretty quickly by
looking at the digitized file.
Jim Lesurf
Krueger
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> We've been in a similar place around here just lately. People have
> lately gone on record as demanding sufficient headroom to play back
> fairly improbable but rarely observed signals whose samples are all
> less than FS but in combination can trick a reconstruction filter into
> creating an analog signal that significantly exceeds FS.
The distinction between that and clicks on an LP is that there is no need
to 'trick' the reconstruction filter and nor does it require the disc to be
physically damaged as in the case of 'clicks' from an LP. The excursions
above 0dBFS arise because the recorded waveforms include them. They are
part of the recorded waveform, not a 'trick' or the result of physical
damage.
So the word 'trick' in this context is misleading and inappropriate, and
the LP and CD cases are not similar in cause. One behaviour arises due to
physical damage and makes the required waveform unrecoverable. The other
can be a result of the required waveform defined by the series of samples
recorded on a correctly produced and physically undamaged disc. The
required waveform may still be defined by the series of samples even if a
given DAC can't cope with reproducing that.
The behaviour (requirements for some peaks above 0dBFS) arises as a
consequence of the Sampling Theorem and basic Information Theory. The
series of samples correctly define the waveform to be reconstructed, as per
the Sampling Theorem. Although some test waveforms show extreme examples
of this, required excursions above 0dBFS can occur for commercial
recordings of music. This is not due to any damage equivalent to an LP
being scratched, but a part of the data on the CD. if you check some
pop/rock CDs you can probably find examples without trying very hard.
> I'm not buying either situation as being one that needs to be pandered
> to.
The main way I "don't buy it" is to avoid buying rock/pop CDs that have
been affected. :-) Alas, you may not know until you have one of the CDs.
So I (and I assume many others) do have CDs where the provided samples
require the reconstructed waveform to exceed 0dBFS between some samples.
What is then unclear is what individual CD players make of this when they
try to reconstruct the waveforms from the data.
Since this is being xposted to a group I don't normally read it may be
helpful for readers there if I give a couple of URLs that examine these
matters in case they haven't encountered this issue previously.
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/ClippingOnCD/clipping.html
Shows some examples of one way this can occur with real commercial CDs
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/OverTheTop/OTT.html
Examines the effect in detail. Examples show around +2dBFS for commercial
CD, and then an extreme case test waveform.
The important points here are:
1) That the effect examined on CD arises a consequence of using sampled
data. So is an aspect of digital information methods for purposes like
recording audio waveforms.
2) That it can arise as a result of what was recorded, not because of a
situation like an LP being scratched.
3) If the DAC and reconstruction filter are correctly designed they would
reproduce the defined waveform correctly, including the parts above 0dBFS,
whereas a scratched LP would be reproducing the effects of damage.
Note also that this has been discussed in AES papers, etc. And I know that
the BBC (sound radio) people tend to keep down the max sample levels on R3,
etc for similar reasons.
FWIW I'd agree that this *should* be a non-issue in practice, *if* CD
makers ensured they kept down the recorded sample levels to avoid
intersample peaks above 0dBFS and/or if DAC makers ensured they played
waveforms above 0dBFS without distortion. However I'm far from sure that
both these provisos are universal. Certainly I know of both CDs and DACs
that fail to meet these conditions.
Given the large dynamic range of 16bit CD it would be easy for pop/rock to
avoid peaks above 0dBFS. But alas the pop industry obsession with
'loudness' seems to drive them to the maximum they can manage.
Don Pearce
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4b20f7f9....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:24:53 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >In article <BtOdnf1Sy__Ib73W...@giganews.com>, Arny
>> >Krueger
>> ><ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Because of the LP format's inherent technical failings, digitizing
>> >> LPs is not all that challenging of a task for even an one of those
>> >> on-board audio interfaces that comes with most motherboards.
>> >
>> >In principle it is slightly complicated because of the possibility of
>> >unpredictably high peaks. But in practice this doesn't seem a problem
>> >in my experience and 16bit samples should be fine if you allow for
>> >enough headroom when setting the gain.
>> >
>
>> The unexpectedly high peaks are invariably ticks and scratches, and it
>> really doesn't matter if they overload - they need removing anyway.
>
>But if you overload the analogue section with a tick etc isn't there a
>chance it will effect the prog material immediately afterwards?
A very small one I would have thought. I can't remember the last time
I saw a circuit that didn't simply follow the waveform out of
limiting.
d
Jim Lesurf
<sp...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:44:21 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <4b20f7f9....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
> >> The unexpectedly high peaks are invariably ticks and scratches, and
> >> it really doesn't matter if they overload - they need removing anyway.
> >
> >But if you overload the analogue section with a tick etc isn't there a
> >chance it will effect the prog material immediately afterwards?
> A very small one I would have thought. I can't remember the last time I
> saw a circuit that didn't simply follow the waveform out of limiting.
The stylus may take more time to recover and settle down in bad cases. But
there isn't much you can do about that further along the chain!
El Gringo
I've had good results with a Delta 66 card. It is an internal card,
but the inputs and outputs are on a breakout box.
Iain Churches
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50c7ebb...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <4b2183e7....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
> <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:44:21 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
>> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >In article <4b20f7f9....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
>
>> >> The unexpectedly high peaks are invariably ticks and scratches, and
>> >> it really doesn't matter if they overload - they need removing anyway.
>> >
>> >But if you overload the analogue section with a tick etc isn't there a
>> >chance it will effect the prog material immediately afterwards?
>
>> A very small one I would have thought. I can't remember the last time I
>> saw a circuit that didn't simply follow the waveform out of limiting.
>
> The stylus may take more time to recover and settle down in bad cases. But
> there isn't much you can do about that further along the chain!
>
Careful cleaning gets rid of most of the clicks caused
by dirt and foreign particles. Both the Keith Monk and Moth are
UK built systems
http://www.keithmonks-rcm.co.uk/
http://www.coolgales.com/store/cart.php?target=category&category_id=53
and transcribing wet cures most of the more minor noises.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/fluids.html
Anything left can be removed by the audiophile with the declicking
software, such as the modules contained in CEP, Audition.
Even the surface of shellac records (far worse than vinyl) can be tamed.
Compare this:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/Chloe01.mp3
with this
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/Chloe02.mp3
Iain
Iain Churches
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
> "Tony Houghton" <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnhhqi...@realh.co.uk...
>> I'd like to make some recordings, maybe transferring some gems from my
>> vinyl collection to digital etc. I'm wondering whether I should use a
>> better sound card than the onboard sound.
Take a look at E-MU
http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?product=9872