Recording LP's to Harddrive Questions

[LowRideDuh]

Hello and Thank You...

OK... first off I am wondering what is the best way to record my lp's to my hard drive...that is..as far as bit rate and sample speed to be used ?
Would recording at 24/96 be better than 16/96... considering the fact that I'll be cleaning up the recording after it's recorded ,but before I save it to my hard drive?
Or...would sampling down to 16/44.1 after the clean up be better...hmmmmm ...I have the ability to record it from 8 bit, 16 bit or 24 bit and from 22.05 hz ,32 hz , 44.1hz , 48 hz , 96 hz. . . this gets so confusing lol.
Basically . . . I want to spend the time recording and massaging { if you will } the wav file , so that when I place the wav file on my hard drive { 200 gb } it's the best I can get it.
This confusing as I stated, yet... still I love the learning process and and I just want the best possible
step by step process , hence . . . I come to You all for
my input.
It's funny , there are so many different forums out there, and believe me...I lurk about alot ... yet this the
One I chose to sign up in ... mainly do the quality of the people posting ... that is" Your Respect fullness " . . . I Thank You All . . . for being the diverse group You are !!


Thank You in Advance , Stephen

[reidc]

Hi Ste[hen, and welcome!

This is one of things that I started to do, but just never SEEM to have the time, energy, or peace and quiet to accomplish.

I started using Wavlab, which is a fairly high end product. As much as I THOUGHT I knew what I was doing- I realy didn't. I also go me Steinberg Clean, and don't really know my way around that yet either. I just don't get much quiet in my "office" at home, as my wife usally has the TV blaring. My headphones are open type, so I hear it all.

One of the things I was told here- way back, was to record in as high a bit as possible, then do your processing(hopefully ticks and pops only) and then down convert to 16 bit to make your CD-R.

There should be plenty of past threads in which to search, as usually this comes up from time to time.

Good Luck
Chris

[Tony Plachy]

Stephen, This is from an earlier post of mine.

Folks, I have been reluctant to mention this here because I do not want to get some PC folks upset. I have a Masterlink 9600 HD recorder. Using a really good LP (like one of Steve's DCC's) and going through my tube phono stage with Kimber Select interconnects I record to the HD at 24 / 88.2KHz. (The ML 9600 allows me to burn and play CD24's at these settings and while they are not as good as SACD's they are really good and I use them to archive. It takes about two CD24's to hold an album at these settings.) I use the 88.2 because the ML converts to redbook quicker than if I record at 96KHz. Because the phono stage only has 53dB of gain I sometimes have to add a little digital gain (NOT compression just gain) so that when I go to 16 bits I am throwing out zero's and not music. The redbook CDR's that I have burned this way my friends say sound better than any of the CD's they buy (but they are not into audiophile quality CD's, just my free CDR's of really good albums).

[Grant]

Hi Stephen,

Lately, I have been using Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition to record my vinyl to the HD using 32-bits/88.2kHz. My PC is fast enough to handle it with no noticable difference in processing speed.

The results I get after processing is very clean, transparent! The midrange is even smoother than with using 44.1kHz/32-bit!

I prefer 88.2 as opposed to 96 because 88.2 divides evenly into 44.1, so it is very fast, and has no side effects. I keep my pre-post filtering on very high quality.

I also prefer the computer method because I have more control over every aspect of my sound and CD mastering. You can't do that with a standalone burner! I also believe in cleaning up the noise on LPs. It takes skill.

[ascot]

My goodness, Grant. How big are those .wav files using 32bit and 88.2kHz?

[JoelDF]

Going from 16 bit to 32 bit exactly doubles the wave file size, so I assume 44.1 to 88.2 doubles yet again.

So, an LP that would be about 400Mb at CD rate of 44.1/16 would end up at 1.6Gb?

hmmm.

Joel

[Grant]

Originally posted by ascot
My goodness, Grant. How big are those .wav files using 32bit and 88.2kHz?

Never paid attention, but I have plenty of HD space for processing them.

[Grant]

Originally posted by JoelDF
Going from 16 bit to 32 bit exactly doubles the wave file size, so I assume 44.1 to 88.2 doubles yet again.

So, an LP that would be about 400Mb at CD rate of 44.1/16 would end up at 1.6Gb?

hmmm.

Joel

Close. A 45-minute LP takes about 1.2 GB, if I recall...
Processing takes double of that. Then if I make copies...

I have 512MB RAM, and a 2.4GHz 800MHz HT processor.

[Clay]

I am interested in trying this also.
Can I do it with a older Sound Blaster Platinum with the original Live drive and Creative, MS XP, or Adobe Premiere software?
I also have some free software that came with burners over the years like original ACID and one other one. I don't want to spend any money on it at this time.

[Grant]

Originally posted by Clay
I am interested in trying this also.
Can I do it with a older Sound Blaster Platinum with the original Live drive and Creative, MS XP, or Adobe Premiere software?
I also have some free software that came with burners over the years like original ACID and one other one. I don't want to spend any money on it at this time.

Sure, you can do this with Creative cards, but just don't be surprised if your music comes out sounding a bit cold or glassy...and you may not be able to record high-bit.

I'm sure you could record the audio well enough with the programs you listed, but you won't be able to do high-bit/sampling rates. The reason Adobe bought Syntrillium's Cool Edit is because they have the audio capabilities that none of their other software line had. I doubt you'll have any ability to to any real quality declicking or whatever.

Acid creates music from recorded loops. It does not do what you want. There are some free apps on the internet, but they may not record hi-bit or high sampling rates. And, I doubt you'll have any ability to to any real quality declicking or whatever.

Bottom line, you're probably gonna have to spend some bucks.

[-=Rudy=-]

For the time being to make quickie CDs for the car, I'm using music CD-RWs to record onto my CD deck, then lifting the tracks off as WAV files at the computer. Back at the deck, erase disc, and record another couple of albums. I have some presets that I can run the discs through for a mild quick cleanup, and burn 'em. I go through a lot more for my "serious" transfers, but this quickie method works fine for what I need right now. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on good work until I can make my own DVD-Audio discs.

[LowRideDuh]

Thank You all for Your responses, I guess , I will just try all of your methods, using the same source material, I really do appreciate the input ! Thanks Again:-)

[metalbob]

Originally posted by -=Rudy=-
For the time being to make quickie CDs for the car, I'm using music CD-RWs to record onto my CD deck, then lifting the tracks off as WAV files at the computer. Back at the deck, erase disc, and record another couple of albums. I have some presets that I can run the discs through for a mild quick cleanup, and burn 'em. I go through a lot more for my "serious" transfers, but this quickie method works fine for what I need right now. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on good work until I can make my own DVD-Audio discs.


Consider this a shameless plug for a piece of software that I really enjoy using -- ClickFix. It is a plug-in for Cool Edit (recently updated for Audition) and a few other programs. It actually lets you listen to it first -- as you test it -- to hear what it is removing before it happens. This is lightyears faster and more efficient than the regular declicker in Cool Edit. With Cool Edit's declicker, you just try some settings and hope that they work. If they don't, back to the drawing board again....

ClickFix (http://www.jdklein.com/clickfix/)

[Grant]

I've been using ClickFix ever since Cool Edit 2000 first came out, and I agree the preview is very valuble! BUT, To get rid of difficult noise, it will still dull the treble and remove a bit of impact on forceful settings.

The Cool Edit Declicker is still the best I have ever used. It just takes a very powerful PC to realize it. For some reason, it works better under WinXP than it ever did in Windows 98.

[metalbob]

Originally posted by Grant
I've been using ClickFix ever since Cool Edit 2000 first came out, and I agree the preview is very valuble! BUT, To get rid of difficult noise, it will still dull the treble and remove a bit of impact on forceful settings.

The Cool Edit Declicker is still the best I have ever used. It just takes a very powerful PC to realize it. For some reason, it works better under WinXP than it ever did in Windows 98.

I have never used ClickFix for any aggressive declicking, just removing a few ticks etc. Nice and quick and easy. I never noticed any dulling of treble. Considering you can leave the clicks as a test, I never noticed all that much being removed. For single click fixes, I still use the regular Cool Edit declicker. CEP's declicker wouldn't be so bad if you could actually test it in real time instead of reconfiguring it 100 times and hope you get it right.