IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Mono with a stereo stylus
AndyH-ha
post Jul 13 2011, 23:17
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 2204
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



Also, from the fairly large number of mono LPs I done, only a couple have not done better summing the two channels rather than choosing one channel. I believe both exceptions required choosing parts from each channel to make one best.

The summing does need to be done as the proper step, after declicking and (when needed) after decrackling.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Jul 13 2011, 23:18
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 2204
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



If you don't know about the best way to decrackly (possibly barring some very expensive software), you need to find out about the "younglove script."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tinpanalley
post Jul 29 2011, 00:26
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 7-May 07
Member No.: 43262



Sorry to keep beating a dead horse over here but what exactly did those "mono" buttons do on old receivers? I remember growing up in the 80s, there was always a mono button that could be clicked on during playback.

This post has been edited by tinpanalley: Jul 29 2011, 00:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post Jul 29 2011, 01:27
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 2534
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



There was always a mono-FM switch, which would reduce noise on distant stations. If there was another mono button, I would assume it blends the channels.

I have a couple of older receivers at home. I'll have to check to see if either of them have an overall mono switch. (I don't have the owner's manual for either one.)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Jul 29 2011, 05:51
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 2204
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



Mono, usually adding the channels together, making right and left identical, were common in the preamp stage, and in stand alone preamps. Internally they might have just selected one channel and put it out on both channels, but mixing was simple to achieve and usually the desired result.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Jul 29 2011, 07:51
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



If it is an old mono recording, you do not want to use a stereo stylus, it will ride the bottom of the groove, and make the whole thing a lot more noisy than it would be if it were traced by a real mono stylus.

Ellipticals and such are even worse than conical stylii in this regard.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Jul 29 2011, 09:23
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 2204
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



While that may be true, few recent cartridges have a mono stylus option. Should one be available, one needs to consider whether that cost, and the probably necessary readjustment of tracking parameters in order to switch back and forth between styli, is worth the cost for a few old LPs. Once on the computer, much noise can be significantly reduced. That is probably a different consideration for a professional doing conversions for hire.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jul 29 2011, 14:38
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 3368
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I was buying LPs in the mid 60's when they sold both mono and stereo versions of the same record. You had to buy the version that matched your hardware or else you could cause some damage.

My recollection is that by the late 60's they no longer sold the mono versions and all LPs were stereo, even if their content was mono.

Thankfully, by the early 80's I was able to dispose of my entire LP collection and replace it with CDs. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tinpanalley
post Jul 29 2011, 22:47
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 7-May 07
Member No.: 43262



Hey guys,

Ok, so I ran some tests. Very elementary, but still. The thing is that I'm in the process of transferring music for a short film I've made and I'm using two records I have to get the songs. (Yes, I've acquired all the necessary licences wink.gif )

I'll call the two samples A and B. Before starting, I should say that the only "processing" done was using a little noise reduction and click removal before proceeding with the steps below...

In A, I took the 32-bit float Stereo transfer I got using Audacity and then switched it to Mono using Sound Forge. It became 1-channel. I then saved it as a 16-bit PCM WAV in stereo.

In B, I took the same 32-bit float Stereo transfer, copied the right channel, deleted the left, pasted the right channel in its place and saved, again, as a 16-bit PCM WAV in stereo.

I've listened to both thoroughly with three different headphones of varying quality. All have good frequency range. I personally couldn't hear a difference. Does this make you say, "Ok, well, sounds like you finally did it!" or "No, man, you did it wrong."?? Don't be shy. I gotta learn. And it's for my film so I have to do it right even if nobody but me will notice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Jul 30 2011, 07:43
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 2204
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



If the LP is good enough condition, and your cartridge and following circuitry are adequately balanced, both channels are likely to sound the same. Summing the two channels to mono can have two advantages.
[] It will remove, or significantly reduce, many clicks. If you intend to do all declicking manually, this may be less of an advantage. If you do auto declicking, summing to mono is done only after the auto declicking. It is like another step of auto declicking. Especially if there are a large number of clicks, this can make things significantly easier.
[] It will usually reduce the background noise by about 3dB, requiring less NR processing. How significant this is depends on the material. If there is much in the way of low level passages, the noise difference from converting to mono may be easily noticeable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tinpanalley
post Aug 1 2011, 22:21
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 7-May 07
Member No.: 43262



I'm dealing with dithering now and realised something...

Why is it that I'm allowed to save a WAV as a 16-bit file but I'm also allowed to control the bit depth via the bit depth converter tool? Why are there two options? It seems that even when I saved as a 16-bit WAV, the file properties still said 32-bit float.??? So the function in the Save File options aren't doing anything? Is it me or is this weird?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Juha
post Aug 14 2011, 18:05
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 442
Joined: 14-February 07
From: EU-FIN
Member No.: 40610



QUOTE (tinpanalley @ Jul 13 2011, 22:47) *
Ok, I'm going to use Audacity to record my mono record in stereo at 32-bit float point.
Then I'm going to listen to both channels to see if the right really is cleaner and whichever is cleaner I'm going to dupe to be on both channels.
Then I'm going to do a click clean up and then I'll finish by saving as 24-bit wav but in stereo instead of converting to mono.

Does that sound ok?



If you're going to record in Windows system with Audacity, to get >16-bit resolution recorded from your soundcard, you need to compile ASIO compatible version of Audacity by yourself.

http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.ph...53&p=152019

http://wiki.audacityteam.org/index.php?tit...Audio_Interface

Juha

This post has been edited by Juha: Aug 14 2011, 18:06
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 22nd July 2014 - 13:03