[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's not entirely true. The problem with recordings like that generally is that the RIAA curve wasn't completely standardised at that time varying from one company to the next.

You're probably thinking of the mono era. In the stereo era, RIAA curve was a precise standard, applied the same at every label. Very early mono LPs and 78s all have their own equalization curve.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif Afterall, I reckon I probably expend something like 10 - 15 hours per LP because I am a near-perfectionist and by choice (for sonic reasons) do all the noise reduction manually via interpolation. So I want the best source files that I can possibly get.

Click repair is MUCH better using a high end VST plugin. It can make repairs that are much less intrusive and more effective than manual selection and filtering or redrawing the waveform.

Compare http://www.vintageip.com/records/VIP...7-Trk08raw.mp3 to http://www.vintageip.com/records/VIP-CL-1007-Trk08.mp3

There is a slight high end pre-emphasis to the raw track, and the mp3 compression is creating a little phasiness, but you'll get the idea. By the way, that isn't groove wear. It's thousands of tiny instantaneous clicks caused by the material the record was pressed on.

See ya
Steve

 

[Tarkovsky]

Bigshot. I came across way too sarcastic in that last post and I apologise. I don't deny that what I hear could be placebo, or even just bad mastering on my part, or the dac im using. Despite all this I would still argue that considering the ever diminishing price of storage that it would be worth storing at 96/24 for those of us who fork out for expensive hi-fi.

 

[ADD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Click repair is MUCH better using a high end VST plugin. It can make repairs that are much less intrusive and more effective than manual selection and filtering or redrawing the waveform.

Hi Steve,

To be honest those MP3 examples aren't much good to me. The second (fixed one) was clearly a lot worse than the first to my ears. That was until I saw that the second one was half the bitrate as the first - so no wonder!

Anyway, I will definitely take a look at Click Repair. Many times I feel my life is too short to be spending hours on each LP doing this manually, even though I am happy with the results (but not happy with the time spent). Especially when the pressing is a noisier one (which seems to be the luck of the draw with brand new vinyl).

Anyway, I just tried the demo version of Click Repair on a track that was a tad noisier than usual for a new LP. Just listening to the output via headphones connected to my X-Fi card, I am impressed enough to experiment further. The problem with listening to test files with click Repair is that blind testing is pointless - you know immediately what file you are listening to because the clicks have gone or they are still there!

Every product I have tried thus far has been at best damaging to the sound and at worst it gets butchered - there was something that cost over $500, for example that really hurt the purity of the sound.

What I need to do is play around with the parameters on this thing and then do some serious listening. It seems the default settings were overkill for the track I tried - it now has precisely the same background noise as the CD!

 

[ADD]

OK, I have just done some serious listening and the default settings have indeed noticeably changed the sound at the default settings (50), though nothing like some other software has.

I tried a couple more runs and 15 still gets rid of the clicks but still at a cost of a slight loss of instrumental timbre - mainly violins and woodwind. A setting of 11 got rid of a lot of the noise with still less impact to the music.

So far this software beats anything else I have tried by a huge margin..but Steve..do you know of anything better again that is priced below around $400 and will work on a PC (either stand alone or as a plug-in).

I realise this is all going to have to be a compromise. Orchestral instruments are always going to be relatively hard done by when it comes to digital processing but given how well this software gets rid of clicks I am actually surprised at the relatively small differences between input and output.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif To be honest those MP3 examples aren't much good to me. The second (fixed one) was clearly a lot worse than the first to my ears. That was until I saw that the second one was half the bitrate as the first - so no wonder!

You're listening for the wrong thing. That's a low rate for streaming on the internet. I bumped the noise one up a notch because the clicks just slurred over at the regular bitrate. If you've done manual declicking, you know what kind of artifacting editing out clicks causes... those low mid bumps from the ring out. Can you imagine declicking that particular track manually without getting any bumps at all? It would take a lifetime. Listen past the mp3 artifact. There's not a single declick artifact in that track and there are thousands of edits there.

I've never tried click repair. I use Spark XL and SoundSoap Pro in Peak.

See ya
Steve

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Click repair is MUCH better using a high end VST plugin. It can make repairs that are much less intrusive and more effective than manual selection and filtering or redrawing the waveform. Compare http://www.vintageip.com/records/VIP...7-Trk08raw.mp3 to http://www.vintageip.com/records/VIP-CL-1007-Trk08.mp3 There is a slight high end pre-emphasis to the raw track, and the mp3 compression is creating a little phasiness, but you'll get the idea. By the way, that isn't groove wear. It's thousands of tiny instantaneous clicks caused by the material the record was pressed on. See ya Steve

The clicking/hiss in the 1st MP3 -- are you trying to say that's what Vinyl sounds like? I don't remember ever hearing a clicking/hiss that loud and intrusive.

EDIT: Sorry if i'm way off base here, admittedly i'm entering mid-conversation

 

[ADD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's not a single declick artifact in that track and there are thousands of edits there.

Yes, I realise the software had done an excellent de-clicking job but what I am interested in with these products is how much they reduce the sound quality whilst still doing the job they are intended for and those MP3 were not useful for that purpose.

I think Click Repair software seems to do a pretty reasonable job even though when using it on a 24-96 wav file at a very low setting I could still hear how it effected the music itself. But I should add that although it did effect the music it did not necessarily make it less tolerable to listen to all the time.

I will have to disagree about manual declicking though. I can't really relate to whatever method you may have in mind. I would challenge anyone on the planet to hear where I have manually declicked my files. To my ears there are no artifacts that are audible even when I know precisely where the edit was performed. Perhaps we can put this to the test - I could upload a file with manual declicks and people here have to tell me where I did them. Then I could upload the original. I think I can say now that no one would get the answer right.

I do agree about it being prohibitively labour-intensive though, which can arguably make it an academic subject anyway.

I think I did try to use Soundsoap Pro but for some reason it fell over whenever I tried to access it from within Acoustica.

 

[ADD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek /img/forum/go_quote.gif The clicking/hiss in the 1st MP3 -- are you trying to say that's what Vinyl sounds like?

Not normally for a well kept record or a new one. I guess it's like those ads for anti-ageing creams. The ones where the before photo (usually taken with a $2 camera) has a woman who looks like death warmed up. And then in the professionally taken "after" photo she is smiling, has a new hairstyle and better teeth too!

Seriously though, I have bought about 40 brand speanking new audiophile LPs over the last 6 months at $35 a piece. Three of them sounded exactly like the "before" MP3 example in terms of surface noise. I did not think this was good enough for a brand new $35 record, so I returned them for exchange.

 

[jiiteepee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Steve, To be honest those MP3 examples aren't much good to me. The second (fixed one) was clearly a lot worse than the first to my ears. That was until I saw that the second one was half the bitrate as the first - so no wonder! ...

Maybe the conversion from stereo ripping to mono has something to do with this too? Also if you noticed already, the raw data is 48kHz and the de-clicked 44.1kHz.



jiitee

 

[regal]

The perfect example for this thread is Led Zeppelin. The CD's suck. Not because digital is inferior to vinyl but because the mastering was was so much better on the vinyl. I have some low budget vinyl to digital transfers that sound much better than the commercial CD's.

My dream is to find a high quality transfer of all the Zeppelin vinyl with a top-end phono system and a ADC like a 744T. Shoot me a PM if you know of anyone who has done this.

I think that now with DVD-A and SACD dead, high quality vinyl to digial transfers will be the future of audiophile digital.

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif But for everyday listening at fixed volume levels, the added dynamic range at the lowest end of the spectrum is totally unnecessary. See ya Steve

Yes, but you are oversimplifying the process. The 24 bit headroom makes the transfer and mastering much easier for an ametuer. Getting full dynamic range with a 16 bit window is not an easy task, I have seen many ametuer transfers ruined when trying to hit 16 bit target. When they do the transfer to 24 bit they have a much better chance of nailing it. Then you are stuck with 24 bit unless you have a high quality dithering software which is expensive. So you might as well just leave it at 24 bit.

This is the reason 24/96 ameteur analog->digital transfers have become so popular.

 

[Tarkovsky]

I think what even more a danger is people will record at 96k, resample to 44k1 and not put a high filter on causing woe untold!

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're probably thinking of the mono era. In the stereo era, RIAA curve was a precise standard, applied the same at every label. Very early mono LPs and 78s all have their own equalization curve.

Indeed. The RIAA curve was meant to be effective from 1955 but wasn't really universalised until 1958 and probably took longer outside of the USA. But it's more complicated than that as different companies implementations of the RIAA curve even today can be subtley different, remeber how small the electrical signal coming off the cartridge is and it only takes a tiny fraction of difference in cartridge loading, or even a different tonarm cable for instance to make the same RIAA curve sound completely unbalanced at the frequency extremes.

So having the ability to tweak these settings like you get on many modern phonostages like the Graham Slee is sometimes useful. Even God forbid tone controls like the "curve" on old Quads and Rogers. Or you could always use the dreaded "graphic equaliser" ....cough, cough...splutter

 

[jiiteepee]

FYI, if someone needs this type freeware software for vinyl digitalization ...

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/so...rt-2-a-311909/

jiitee