Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono (Read 4011 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

I've been ripping vinyl and cassette for a while now (8-9 years) and have been refining my technique as I go along. For records that I consider especially important I will record to wave (or more often in my case sd2) do a little cleaning up, burn myself a CD, and then use LAME as I would with any digital source, but often I will want to do a lot of stuff quickly and prefer to just rip directly to mp3. I use a portable player so I want fairly small files, but with very good quality; for records I'll usually target about 172 kb/s and for cassettes about 144 (numbers I've picked with no real scientific basis but with which I'm satisfied).

I'm severely limited by hardware (PII 350, go ahead and laugh) so the only program I've found that will work without dropouts is mixmp3alpha using abr with LAME 3.91. If you use the older version of mixmp3 you can replace the included endoder with a newer version of lame_enc and use presets, but I haven't got the CPU available to do this.  I've also tried LAMEr, MESSER and HDOgg, but none of them will quite work for me.

I'm currently using an audiophile 2496 which has ASIO drivers so I run Tobybear's MiniHost to host a few VST plugins before the encoder.  Most importantly I use a limiter plugin with a treshold of  -3 to -6 dB and a ceiling of -0.3 dB. If necessary I'll use a plugin called Stereo Tools to adjust the balance if there's a major difference in volume between channels (common with cassettes) and for particularly noisy/second gen cassettes I'll use some eq, generally a fairly narrow notch filter around 12 kHz and maybe a highpass filter at 20-25 Hz which seems to tame the hiss and rumble a bit.

Currently I'm ripping a mono LP and I've been fooling around with the settings.  I'm using Stereo Tools to make the signal mono before it goes to the limiter (adjusts volume and sums channels) I've done this because using a stereo stylus you will get stereo surface noise and probably some difference in volume between channels. I tried encoding with -mm at abr 128 and got a file with a bitrate of ~131 but with bad clicking artifacts so I've settled on -mj at abr 192 which also gives a bitrate of about 133 and sounds pretty good to me. Mixmp3, although it uses lame_enc, doesn't allow you to use all the switches so I was unable to try adding -a.

So my question for you folks is basically what am I doing wrong? I'm sure you can come up with about a dozen things so let me have it. Really I'm quite amazed that I can do the VST plus realtime encoding at all on my machine, but I'm sure there are some improvements I could make.

Thanks.

PS, my number one, super-important tip for ripping vinyl: clean the records very well beforehand. I use Groovy Cleaner with a soft, lint-free cloth followed by an application of Gruv Glide. Works better than my old Discwasher and much better than any noise reduction software I've seen.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #1 –
I just finished an LP copying project. Handling mono LPs for me depended upon the age of the  LPs. For truly mono cut LPs (mostly from the 50's-mid 60's, as opposed to later mono releases that fed the same information on two channels of a stereo cut LP) I used a mono stylus with my Stanton 881s Cartridge. This helped eliminate a lot of noise on these older LPs. I also recorded the original wav files as 705 kbps mono. The mono stuff tended to clean up VERY nicely.  I compressed all the wavs to flac, rather than using lossy codec. I now just make lossy files from the flac files,  codec used is depending on the situation.
you will make mp3's for compatibility reasons.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #2 –
I'm curious why you wouldn't use the mono stylus even for the "fake" mono records, wouldn't you get the same noise reduction and avoid any phase problems that might creep in if you were to mix the channels coming from a stereo pickup?

Or do you just record these albums in stereo?

I think I'll invest in one of these styli when I get that transcription (17") turntable I've been dreaming of.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #3 –
I'm not a vinyl recording expert, but I think the benefit of recording a "fake" mono record in stereo is that if there's a click or pop in just one channel, you can just copy-paste the "clean" channel onto the one with the pop.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #4 –
Quote from: thunderthud,Jan 27 2005, 11:14 PM

I'm curious why you wouldn't use the mono stylus even for the "fake" mono records, wouldn't you get the same noise reduction and avoid any phase problems that might creep in if you were to mix the channels coming from a stereo pickup?

Well, the mono stylus tracks at 3-5 grams, and its shape is "optimized" for mono cut records-it would damage the groove(s) of a stereo cut record (in truth it is merely a "special" spherical shaped stylus that rides a mono cut record better) The stereo cut mono recordings I use the normal stereo stylus, but still combine the channels at recording time to reduce the phase problems, and record the wavs mono as well.
you will make mp3's for compatibility reasons.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #5 –
Quote
I'm not a vinyl recording expert, but I think the benefit of recording a "fake" mono record in stereo is that if there's a click or pop in just one channel, you can just copy-paste the "clean" channel onto the one with the pop.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=268776"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cyaneyes makes a very important point.

The mix down to mono can be done in software as the last step, and provides exactly the same benefits as doing so at the recording stage (the main benefit being an approx 3dB reduction in the noise floor). If you do it at the recording stage, you eliminate the possibility of taking advantage of differences in the stereo channels when fixing any damage. I've been transferring LPs to digital for many years now (I started off around 1994 using DAT, before CDR was affordable), and I've *never* dealt with a mono record that didn't have quite significant differences in the damage on the two sides of the groove wall (resulting in many cases of clicks that are mainly or sometimes entirely in only one channel).

I will agree that if you just want to do a quick transfer without any restoration, then mixing down to mono at the recording stage is fine.

(BTW, what's a "fake mono" LP? Are people referring to mono recordings that have been processed to give some sort of pseudo-stereo effect? In that case, I'd call them "fake stereo" rather than "fake mono").

And finally: what are these "mono stylii" being spoken of? It's the *cartridge* that is mono or stereo: the stylus merely transfers the mechanical movements to the generator assembly within the cartridge. I can conceive theoretically of a stylus with a suspension that prevents vertical movement (and uncharitably might suggest the Decca London to be an inadvertant example of this!), but as far as I am aware no stylus is deliberately made this way. mdmuir describes his "mono stylus" as having a spherical tip and designed to track at a high downforce, but stylii intended for stereo can equally well have a spherical tip. And there's no problem in using an elliptical stylus on a mono record. Or are we talking about 78 rpm records here?

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #6 –
The size of the groove in a true mono (made before stereo was even thought of) record is different from the size of the groove in a more modern record, containing true mono information but cut using a cutting stylus designed to cut stereo recordings.

Also, old mono records will have been played using old mono styli that would not be suitable for stereo records because they're just too big.

For both of these reasons, it can make sense to play old mono records with a special mono stylus. Just like you would play 78rpm discs with a different stylus - so that it fits the different sized (and sometimes shaped) grooves, and (sometimes) avoids previous damage.

That's the theory - I've not tried the practice - how much difference does it make mdmuir?

Cheers,
David.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #7 –
Quote
The size of the groove in a true mono (made before stereo was even thought of) record is different from the size of the groove in a more modern record, containing true mono information but cut using a cutting stylus designed to cut stereo recordings.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=268857"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, I see. You're referring to non-78 records from the time before microgroove LPs were introduced. I'd forgotten about them. Were they around for very long? I got the impression that microgroove LPs appeared fairly soon after 78s were abandoned. I recall my sister-in-law had an Elvis LP dated 1959, and I'm pretty sure it was a microgroove (despite the inner sleeve recommending a tracking force of "no more than 1/3rd of an ounce" :-)

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #8 –
A somewhat related vinyl ripping question:

Does anyone find that recording at a high sampling rate makes repairing clicks and pops easier?  I would think that it would be easier to detect a click this way, since the upper frequencies of the click could be very high -- higher than the upper frequencies of the music.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #9 –
Quote
A somewhat related vinyl ripping question:

Does anyone find that recording at a high sampling rate makes repairing clicks and pops easier?  I would think that it would be easier to detect a click this way, since the upper frequencies of the click could be very high -- higher than the upper frequencies of the music.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=268973"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This has been in the back of my mind for a while. Even if your target
output was 44/16, filters would have a much better chance of doing no
audible harm if they were taillored for the likely higher rise of clicks
and pops. Hope someone more knowlegeable than I can shed some light.

Reality check re: ripping LPs esp. mono

Reply #10 –
Quote
(BTW, what's a "fake mono" LP? Are people referring to mono recordings that have been processed to give some sort of pseudo-stereo effect? In that case, I'd call them "fake stereo" rather than "fake mono").

And finally: what are these "mono stylii" being spoken of? It's the *cartridge* that is mono or stereo: the stylus merely transfers the mechanical movements to the generator assembly within the cartridge.



I used the term "fake mono" to refer to what mdmuir had mentioned, a record recorded from an originally mono source but cut on a stereo mastering whatchamacallit.  Not a technical term, but I thought he had explained it well enough.  Fake stereo is just a terrible thing, and I imagine pretty difficult to correct. Turns out the record I recorded yesterday was originally stereo in the 60s and released as mono in 1982, so I don't know what kind of animal it really is.

The point about the stylus/cartridge is well taken, I hadn't thought that through.

Anyway the subject does give much food for thought.