Your Vinyl Transfer Workflow (sharing best needledrop practices)*

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Vocalpoint, May 11, 2011.

  1. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I agree 100%! But, there are instances where a preset hits the mark. Presets are mainly starting points. That learning assistant is there as a learning tool for beginners, and to speed up the process for the pros. Some may say that providing a path for beginners not a good sign for professional software used by real professionals. Me? I never use the assistant tool. To me, they are worthless and the results sound bad.

    I agree! I do use the learn functions quite a bit, particularly for NR. Again, it just provides that starting point. Getting good results means tweaking and listening. Trial and error. I'm the kind of person who will even spend ridiculous time on setting up the maximizer so it doesn't harm the music when I need to boost the volume. I'll spend a lot of time comparing dither and noise shaping, and what type of damage settings do the the music. That's how I decided to come back to using noise shaping. The spectrum analyzer and spectrogram both help me see what is being done to my final "product" in addition to listening.

    Some of the stuff we talk about here is going beyond those "purists" who just want a quick and dirty rip of their records for the car and such. But, as i've stated before, I try to get the best I can from whatever I am working on. I do lots of A/B'ing throughout the whole process.

    I don't understand your recommendation. Why wouldn't someone use them? As with anything else, you can get carried away to the detriment of the music. That's why one must listen to your work as you go.

    I also do this professionally on occasion. If someone is going to pay me, i'm going to do the best I can to give them their treasured music presented in the best way possible.

    As an aside, what I have started doing is leaving 1 db headroom. Until very recently, I used to leave -.2, or -.3 db. But, have been understanding that taking that result to a lossy codec such as mp3 can result in peaks that exceed FS 0. That matters if you are giving stuff to a client, as that's still what a lot of people want, if not a CD-R. 1 db seems like a lot, especially from the last decade, when even the industry were shooting peaks all the way up to FS.

    As much as it makes the purists on this forum shudder, I often use peak-limiting. But, the difference is that I take the time to mitigate any damage in the sound. I also shoot for a target loudness. In the last couple of months, i've started shooting for something like -12 or -13 LUFS after listening to some convincing arguments from mastering engineers on why that is better than, say, -14.

    But, on one needledrop I did for myself a few weeks ago, I sat there for a half an hour trying to decide if I should use a particular dither and noise shaping. I asked myself if I really wanted to do it to the sound. But, in order to take it to redbook, I had to make a choice. I made a choice, lamented the slight degradation of sound, and did the deed.

    Do I take this stuff too seriously?:laugh:
     
    GerryO likes this.
  2. mtemur

    mtemur Forum Resident

    as I said in my prior post; it’s (RX) not good enough for multi instrument+voice containing already mixed and mastered vinyl restoration but is still the best.
     
  3. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    And, as I asked, and you quoted me asking, what do you recommend?
     
  4. mtemur

    mtemur Forum Resident

    I recommend nothing else. RX is the best option but still not good enough. nothing is. maybe you should try Cedar but it’s too expensive and I doubt it’s better.
     
    Grant likes this.
  5. mtemur

    mtemur Forum Resident

    sorry I misinterpreted your prior post and deleted my response immediately.
     
    Icewater_7 and Grant like this.
  6. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I did likewise.
     
    Icewater_7 and mtemur like this.
  7. Icewater_7

    Icewater_7 The universe expressing a consciousness

    Location:
    El Dorado Hills CA
    Boy, we have had some different experiences with software tools. I found Ozone 9 very easy to use in standalone mode, and a little clunky within PT. But, I never knew it was possible to call up Ozone tools from within RX. You must teach us that trick! I do agree with you that ProTools is non-intuitive and difficult to update, as well as not the best for file handling. I started on the very first version of ProTools as I was working for the company that developed it at the time (Digidesign). I was using Digidesign’s precursors such as the 2-track Sound Tools programs even before that. The first Protools UI was deliberately designed to emulate the traditional analog tape methods for splice editing analog tape and mixing on analog consoles. Over time as digital sound editing/mixing became the dominant method the software became more and more complex to handle the needs of film, broadcast, and music sound professionals as well as individual proprietors. Every release had new features which increased complexity along with increased capabilities. I am comfortable with PT because I have been using it for so long and I’m familiar with it’s interface. I can see though how a new user could be put off for some very valid reasons. For home hobbyists there are better and less expensive choices. I’m stuck because it’s what I know and don’t wish to change.
     
    arisinwind and Grant like this.
  8. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Just hit the Plugin button on the right side of RX and the options pop up. Alternatively, you can just find it in the menu. I've been calling up plugins in RX that way for years.

    [​IMG]

    That is why PT remains the top choice of industry pros, because they don't want to change even though there are viable and better alternatives out there.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
    Icewater_7 likes this.
  9. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
    Icewater_7 likes this.
  10. Icewater_7

    Icewater_7 The universe expressing a consciousness

    Location:
    El Dorado Hills CA
    Thanks for the great tip! Never paid much attention to those tools down there. Will give it a try, and I’m sure it will make some of my projects get done faster. Great to learn.
     
    Grant likes this.
  11. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I replaced that graphic with one that shows RX is indeed a standalone program. The only thing it doesn't do is multitrack, which could come in handy for editing.
     
  12. BendBound

    BendBound Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bend, OR
    I began about that time too, in 1998 using a Pioneer PDR-609. As you will read, our approach was quite different, me using recorders, you using a computer with sound cards and software. On the 609 all one could do was get the machine to create a CDR on media where you paid an extra fee for those music CDRs. And then to get a label you either used a Sharpie or later printed up a paper label to stick on the CDR. Those labels eventually began to peal. And most of the CDRs, particularly Memorex, were absolute crap. No post burn processing. But I thought it was the cat's meow. In 2007 I moved to an Alesis Masterlink ML9600 that I had heavily modified. Again, I had to offload a dub by burning onto a Redbook CDR. About that time I began to use MAM-A CDRs and employed an Epson Stylus Photo R340 printer. Somewhere in here I began to use Brian Davis' ClickRepair. I also purchased a used VPI17 RCM.

    In 2011, I purchased a used Tascam DV-RA1000HD and had Jim Williams of Audio Upgrades make modifications. This move allowed me to pull the digital files from the recorder's HD into my computer... with the upgrades it sounded great, at least to me. In addition to ClickRepair, I used Audacity software. Meanwhile, over the next number of years I dramatically upgraded (several times actually) my phono preamp within the Whest line. I moved up in turntables, made mods to turntables, different tonearm, and improved phono cartridges. I also purchased Triumph audio processing software mainly to acquire the Izotope dithering algorithm, recommended to me by a studio mastering guy. Unfortunately, I had issues with that software; hard to use.

    In 2019, I moved to the Tascam DV3000, which allowed me to use a SANDISK compact flash card to offload my dubs. I acquired an ultrasonic machine and with Vinyl Stack improved the cleaning of my records. I do have more than a few and don't want to repurchase music I own, I like the hobby of making my own mini-LPs. Finally, I purchased IzotopeRX7 and began the long haul of trying to get the most from it. My learning has come from folks, Grant, you among them, piggy backing on the expertise you've acquired messing with various software and dubs. When it was released, I moved to RX9.

    My routine is straightforward:

    1. I record at 96kHz and 24bit at a level to ensure I do not go above -18dB. I have stop using XLR cables from the phono preamp to the recorder, instead using RCA cables. I've been told that the gain I was using with XLRs on this machine did not produce the best dubs, and I could hear that in ones I made that needed more gain. Using Waveform Stats I look to see that I did not make the digital file too hot. If I did, later I re-record the lp.
    2. First processing step is De-hum using for reference a dedicated five+ second section before vinyl play begins.
    3. Remove extra space between side 1 and 2, at the beginning and at the end.
    4. De-Click at settings suggested by folks here: Algorithm Multi-band (random clicks), Frequency Skew -2.3, Sensitivity 3.0, Click-widening 0.1 ms. Any improvements are welcomed. I have not experimented here, I've taken what others suggested a few years back.
    5. Using Waveform Stats I calculate what gain to use to get close to -18dB and make that adjustment. I no longer Normalize to -0.3 dB.
    6. Use Signal Generator add Gaussian White Noise, into the mix, at -85dB.
    7. Between track 1 and 2 or track 2 and 3, find a section to evaluate with Spectral DeNoise, at Quality D (best), Artifact Control 10, -30dB reduction, zero smoothing. I have not messed with Advanced Selections and could use some help there. This process removes a lot of background noise for me.
    8. Then I perform fade in or fade out depending on where it is, using mostly the logarithmic setting.
    9. Using Markers I add the title to every track.
    10. Resample to 44.1kHz. I have played with the shape of the Izotope SRC, but recently have just left is at the default setting with does include at very high frequencies some aliasing.
    11. Export Regions to Files, 16bit.
    12. Preserve the original recorded track as a master file in the event I want to go back and rework the file.
    13. Burn a CD with Taiyo Yuden Watershield CDRs. Print up the record label in Epson software for the Photo Stylus R-340 printers I use, then make a cover in Photoshop from scans of the lp cover in another routine I have to create what looks like one of those Japanese mini-lps CDs.

    I've done some other more trial and error creative processing to remove unwanted thumps or to work on sections with non-fill on the vinyl. On occasion I see a gain mismatch between the left and right track, and I will experiment with making those closer to the same. But I listen to the final processed copy to see if I prefer it. On mono recordings, I have experimented with creating a single verses double track.

    I purchased Ozone a year ago, but have yet to learned how to use it.

    My front end recording line I've invested in, using now an Ortofon A-95 phono cartridge. Recently a guy who has a terrific collection of Blue Note records lent me some (he makes his living buying and selling vinyl). I cleaned them in my process, then made him a mini-lp CDR of each title. He and another guy who are into audio listened to the dubs on their CD players. They told me I must be altering the files somehow to augment them, make then sound more detailed, wider soundstage. I think the issue is the quality of my recording line compared to their playback line. But also, the removal of unwanted background noise, including clicks and pops, just changes the listening experience. It improves it, in my view.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2022
    Jeff Yerkey, MIOM, Icewater_7 and 3 others like this.

  13. Bendbound - On your sprectral denoise you used a -30dB reduction. Don't you lose music at that setting? I usually denoise at -9db rarely going over -12dB. Having the ability to go higher without impacting the music would be great.
     
    BendBound likes this.
  14. BendBound

    BendBound Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bend, OR
    I'll try that next time around. If I am not mistaken, I used the settings I noted above because of suggestions for that step in the process from one of the more experienced guys here (one of Grant, BrilliantBob, or harby).
     
    arisinwind likes this.
  15. Icewater_7

    Icewater_7 The universe expressing a consciousness

    Location:
    El Dorado Hills CA
    I agree that -30dB may be excessive and potentially destructive. I do not make spectral denoise a regular step in my vinyl digital mastering process except to remove excessive analog tape hiss that seems too audible at fade-in or fade-out. I never apply it to normal audio levels in between those two.
     
    BendBound and arisinwind like this.
  16. Do you remove tape hiss that has always been in the recording? For example, CCRs Keep On Chooglin' has audible tape hiss. Was there in 1968 still there in reissues 50 years later. Would you remove that? What the rest of you?

    I tend to leave it. It's part of experience.
     
    ghost rider likes this.
  17. ivor

    ivor Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    I used to assume higher peaks were better, but at some point I read in this thread ADCs do best when the average is -16db. So I’m interested to know why you avoid peaks over -18dB? Maybe similar to the -16dB thinking?

    Thanks in advance! I’m self taught, so I like to learn when I can.
     
  18. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    If it was there in the original recording, i'd leave it in. If I ever found a legit source without it, i'd use that source.
     
    ghost rider and arisinwind like this.
  19. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I would think it depends on the A/D converter. In general, I go for an RMS of around -25. The peaks fall where they fall. That's what limiters are for. Yes?

    The thing is to not pay much attention to peaks. Pay attention to RMS.

    I started shooting for an LUFS of around -11.db. That means it is louder than most streaming services, and just below today's CD. But, still gives proper headroom. If I use lossy formats, I keep the peaks anywhere from 1.db - .6db. My tests show that if I keep my uncompressed peaks at -.6 db, they don't risk overshooting FS with most pop/rock/R&B material. But, if it's jazz or some really dynamic stuff, or if I enable Transient Emphasis, I will leave a full db headroom for a safety cushion. For hi-rez or plain ol' lossless, i'll stick with the -0.3db.

    Whew!
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022
    BendBound and arisinwind like this.
  20. harby

    harby Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR, USA
    You're going to get the best signal-to-noise and lowest distortion running an ADC at just below where the peaks would hit the digital maximum (and give yourself a little bit of margin so an overage doesn't require you to re-do your work.)
     
    Icewater_7 and arisinwind like this.
  21. BendBound

    BendBound Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bend, OR
    Honestly, don't give me any credit for knowing any of this. It seemed to me, unless I grossly misread about this, some six months to a year ago, this level (-18dB) was the suggested target. That is why I moved from normalizing to -0.3dB to using the Waveform analysis to get to or close to -18dB.

    So, from those of you who have done the experimentation on this final dub level, is the consensus now to be at -16dB?

    My recording line if from a phono cartridge, modded Mitchell gyro turntable, Woody tonearm into phono preamp then into the Tascam recorder. For the phono preamp I use the setting suggested by Whest on the PS.40RDT SE for my Ortofon A-95 MC cartridge, which they use as a reference for their preamps. I have control over the gain in the recorder. I've learned given the style of music how to set the gain, usually 1 or 1.5 dB over equipment set or null rate, if that makes sense. Then I pull the dub into IzotopeRX9 and use Waveform function to see RMS. If it too hot, and that means -16dB or lower, I think about re-recording it. If I need to make an adjustment because with a small bump I can to -18dB, I make that gain to get close.

    Bottom line, this topic was in hot discussion earlier this year IIRC. I decided to not Normalize to -0.3bB that was recommended routinely prior and to use the Waveform to guide me.

    Frankly, I am not quick on the lingo or jargon used by harby or Grant. I know they know what they are talking about. I have a tendency not to adjust based on music except to ensure proper gain on the Tascam, not making it too hot. But the post Grant had two above, I need time to understand it, and I need hand holding to figure out what to do in Izotope.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022
  22. psulioninks

    psulioninks Forum Resident

    Location:
    KC Chiefs Kingdom
    Like you, I changed my philosophy from normalizing to a standard to peak in favor of an average/overall -18dB setting. To me, this provides the best consistency when using the volume knob on my preamp. Peaks are just that...peaks. It only takes one to throw everything off if you are normalizing using it alone.
     
    Grant likes this.
  23. Icewater_7

    Icewater_7 The universe expressing a consciousness

    Location:
    El Dorado Hills CA
    We just returned from a brief vacation in Bend to visit our old neighbors who moved there and planned to attend the Tommy Emmanuel concert at the legendary Tower Theater. Drove up during the storm last Wednesday and it’s aftermath on Sunday. The diciest driving was in Bend itself on all that slippery and icy packed snow, but we got our old Minnesota winter driving habits back and did OK. Bend is a beautiful city so I envy you living there, but we are right where we need to be now. Glad you reside in a great city with lots of enjoyable benefits.

    I do want to thank you for taking the time writing up your digitizing process in full detail. Some interesting points in there. I skimmed through this thread from start to latest when I discovered it. I’m still curious about several posts like yours claiming that levels into the A2D converter front end should not exceed -18dB. However, I missed any documented evidence presented here to support that claim. I’m at kind of the opposite end as I have done very detailed calibration of the balanced inputs to my A2D so I can get as close to 0dBFS recorded digital levels as I can without clipping. I used the hottest cut D2D and 12” 45 RPM vinyl I had in my collection plus a new test LP from Acoustic Sounds to keep only a few dBs of headroom below 0dBFS no matter what LP I record. I want as many bits of digital resolution as I can get for maximal linearity which is my personal recording philosophy. So, can you site some scientific sources for that -18dB claim? Would like to explore that. I never shoot for RMS levels but let them be what they are. I do, however, use clip gain adjustments to even things out for car listening and go only by what my ears tell me what sounds best. No measured RMS values for me.
     
  24. Icewater_7

    Icewater_7 The universe expressing a consciousness

    Location:
    El Dorado Hills CA
    As I tried to say, I only remove hiss on vinyl very rarely, and only if the leading or trailing music levels are very low and competing for attention with the hiss. This helps my listening in the car. Never would I try to do hiss removal in a blanket manner across the whole track because Spectral Denoise is not a lossless process. It can add artifacts and alter the music signals while it is attenuating the noise. Have had much better results when I apply it to digital remasters of analog tape or cassettes as that noise floor is much more time-invariant than vinyl. I do respect the philosophy of preserving the original music as closely as possible and follow that virtually all of the time with some rare exceptions.
     
    arisinwind likes this.
  25. BendBound

    BendBound Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bend, OR
    Icewater_7. Next time you visit Bend, let me know. Maybe if it works out, we can get together.

    Now on to your query. See pages 199-200 in this thread: Your Vinyl Transfer Workflow (sharing best needledrop practices)*

    See the post by Grant where he discussed -18dB. He states "-18 db RMS is perfect for me too." Post 4983 on my machine. Grant quotes ghost-rider, who states:

    "I used to normalize to -.3 it seemed to work well enough. There was much discussion a while back sparked by John Morris instead of normalizing adjust the gain to get -18 RMS."

    Poster John Morris brought up the -18dB RMS target in a lengthy series of discussions before page 200, back to 2020 and through 2021. He based that off of best studio practices, I believe.

    If you do a search for -18dB RMS and by poster specific, John Morris, you will get three pages of posts where John mentions this level. The earliest post is May 2020, the latest in 2Q 2021.

    See Search Results for Query: -18dB RMS | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

    I simply adopted that as my new practice. Now I'm somewhat confused about -16dB suggestions, and other stuff mentioned now by Grant and harby that is over my head as far as my skill level.

    The mini-lps I make serve two primary functions. One, to listen to the CD at home on a decent CDP (Esoteric K-05) so that I minimize wear to my phono cartridge stylus, and two, to listen to music of my choosing while I drive, as you do.

    See this article I wrote in 2019 on my experience with stylus wear: The Finish Line for Your Phonograph Stylus… - The Vinyl Press.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2022
    arisinwind and Icewater_7 like this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine