IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?
matt_a
post Mar 26 2013, 16:11
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-March 13
Member No.: 107398



Hi All,

I wonder if you can help.
I have recently registered with HA but have been reading the forums for months.
Very interesting and informative.

Being a recovering so called 'audiophile (fool)' I think I have at last found some sense in the real world!
But thats a whole other story for a different thread!

I have a collection of some 2000 LPs that I want to archive to digital.
Now I release that the topics of 44/16 v 96/24 has been widely discussed but just to be clear and please
correct me if Im wrong on any of these points;

- Set the phono amp output to produce a max peak volume just below ADC clipping to maximise ADC coverage?

- 16 bits is more than enough, 24 bits does not produce a more detailed rip?

- Would 24 bits needed if I want to use declicking functions and rumble filters?

- If I always set the ADC input correctly normalisation should not be necessary?

- If tracks do need normalising to say -3db what does 24 bit over 16 bit prodivde?

- The noise floor is not lower with 24 v 16 bits, I dont think I understand the concept properly yet?

- 96K rather than 44K is worth doing for capture as it pushes any anti aliasing well out of the audio band.?

- There is no point in having a final cleaned corrected file greater than 44/16 as there is no audio benefit?

(BTW Im using a great software package called Vinyl Studio!)

Thanks for any comments,
Matthew
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
AndyH-ha
post Mar 26 2013, 20:23
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2207
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



If you are by some means certain of what the peak value will be, then setting the level to get the maximum non-clipping signal into the ADC is generally fine (with some reservations mentioned below) but it seems to me the only way to accomplish that is to record first at a significantly lower level just to find that peak. Using a reasonable mid-level setting to just record and be done would thus save a lot of time and stylus wear and will produce a recording that is of no lower quality.

24 bits will not capture more detail, but there is an advantage to recording at a higher bit depth. It is unlikely to ever be audible, but it makes a real difference in the data if you do any post-recording processing -- unless the software you are using doesn't work above 16 bit. The quantization errors at 24 bit are smaller by a factor of 256 over 16 bit. Some editors may automatically convert to a higher bit depth when loading, or may convert the data for each operation if the file is 16 bit. In the former case there is still an advantage in having the greater bit depth to begin with if you end up saving and reloading the file a number of times before being finished and in the later there is some additional quantization noise added with every operation.

24 bits is not "needed" but the technical advantage is as stated above.

Normalization is never needed but is a matter of taste. If you capture the maximum value possible for your ADC, producing some peaks at or near 0dBfs, and then process, some operations will raise the level above 0dBfs, thus clipping integer sample values. If you are working in floating point, you can recover by amplifying a negative amount afterwards, but 24 bit integer will not help you there. It is easier to capture at a lower level and normalize to what you want at the end of processing. Being afraid of normalizing is irrational.

Any post-recording processing at a higher, vs a lower, bit depth makes for smaller quantization errors.

The ADC noise at 24 bit is generally lower than at 16 bit, but if you are using any decent ADC, the LP surface noise is so much higher that the ADC noise is totally irrelevant.

Recording at a higher sample rate will move the inevitable aliasing to higher frequencies but "well worth doing" is technically incorrect as you will never be able to hear the difference unless perchance the ADC is quite poor. In that case you can't depend on a higher sample rate giving you even that much. Test with RMAA to see what you have.

No one has been able to demonstrate a benefit to listening to a higher sample rate recording. There have been a few isolated incidents of someone claiming to be able to detect a difference with one or two sample tracks but these seem to have been equipment deficiencies as they have not been verified as being generally audible. Also, if such differences are ever audible, they are only audible during very close A/B comparisons. This cannot be done while actually listening to music.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- matt_a   Archiving vinyl once only 96/24?   Mar 26 2013, 16:11
- - DonP   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 10:11) - If ...   Mar 26 2013, 19:18
- - matt_a   Btw I didn't want to prejudice any answers but...   Mar 26 2013, 19:54
- - AndyH-ha   If you are by some means certain of what the peak ...   Mar 26 2013, 20:23
- - Dynamic   On clicking preview, I see AndyH has replied. We v...   Mar 26 2013, 20:37
- - saratoga   I would record at 48k/24 bit, then after processin...   Mar 26 2013, 20:44
- - DVDdoug   My 1st advice is always... Buy the CD, if it...   Mar 26 2013, 21:47
- - matt_a   Thanks for the answers. Im curious though as to w...   Mar 26 2013, 22:01
|- - db1989   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 21:01) Im cu...   Mar 26 2013, 22:14
|- - mjb2006   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 14:01) I ass...   Mar 27 2013, 04:42
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 17:01) I...   Mar 29 2013, 18:54
- - matt_a   Sorry DVDdoug your reply beat my next question whi...   Mar 26 2013, 22:12
- - matt_a   Ive just realised something fundamental! Why ...   Mar 26 2013, 22:23
|- - DonP   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 16:23) Why a...   Mar 27 2013, 01:36
- - db1989   Either placebo effect and marketers exploiting it,...   Mar 26 2013, 22:31
- - Porcus   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 16:11) - 16 ...   Mar 27 2013, 00:10
- - Apesbrain   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 17:23) Why a...   Mar 27 2013, 01:29
- - cliveb   You've had lots of good answers. I have just a...   Mar 27 2013, 10:12
|- - mjb2006   QUOTE (cliveb @ Mar 27 2013, 02:12) These...   Mar 27 2013, 12:04
- - Engelsstaub   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 26 2013, 09:11) ...BT...   Mar 27 2013, 10:53
- - 2Bdecided   16/44.1 is more than good enough, and has maximum ...   Mar 27 2013, 12:33
- - matt_a   Great Advice!! Ive learnt more from this ...   Mar 27 2013, 15:39
|- - pdq   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 27 2013, 10:39) Anoth...   Mar 27 2013, 15:55
|- - db1989   Whilst I agree that another discussion on jitter i...   Mar 27 2013, 16:14
|- - matt_a   Thats a bit rude isnt it? Especially after all the...   Mar 27 2013, 16:51
|- - db1989   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 27 2013, 15:51) Thats...   Mar 27 2013, 16:57
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (matt_a @ Mar 27 2013, 15:51) Thats...   Mar 27 2013, 17:53
- - greynol   In the context of this discussion, any amount of j...   Mar 27 2013, 16:24
- - greynol   Please don't top-post.   Mar 27 2013, 16:53
- - Mach-X   Indeed perhaps being naive about jitter, and not r...   Mar 27 2013, 16:57
- - matt_a   Quite right, I was too hasty on the keyboard, sorr...   Mar 27 2013, 17:16
- - matt_a   I forgot to mention that its interesting listening...   Mar 27 2013, 17:40
- - matt_a   I have had a really good read through all the FAQ ...   Mar 27 2013, 19:02
- - krabapple   If you're going to sample at higher than Redbo...   Mar 29 2013, 20:42
- - greynol   Sampling and playback at higher rates is (was?) us...   Mar 29 2013, 20:48
|- - DonP   QUOTE (greynol @ Mar 29 2013, 14:48) Samp...   Mar 29 2013, 22:01
- - greynol   Oversampling; sure. I didn't mean to suggest ...   Mar 29 2013, 22:05


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th September 2014 - 13:05