Jonathan Gazeley wrote:
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> frank pirrone wrote:
>> Grammostola Rosea wrote:
>>> frank pirrone wrote:
>>>> Olivier Guilyardi wrote:
>>>>> garry.ogle(a)tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> frank pirrone wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd also look into Gramofile:
>>>>>>> for pop/click filtering and automatic breaking of a
continuous
>>>>>>> recording into "tracks" or songs. It can be used
for
>>>>>>> post-processing the recordings you make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd recommend gnome-wave-cleaner for post-processing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://gwc.sourceforge.net/
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for Gnome Wave Cleaner. I successfully digitalized 50+ years old
>>>>> persian
>>>>> music LP's using this app.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, me too. It's a fine program, but my reason for referring the
>>>> OP to Gramofile was primarily its functionality for breaking a
>>>> continuous recording into individual tracks or songs based upon the
>>>> silence between as delimiter.
>>>> Anyone have another program recommendation for that operation?
Gnome Wave Cleaner --> Markers / Mark songs
Not sure if you can save all detected songs into multiple files at once though.
Another thing about Gnome Wave Cleaner that I liked, is how efficiently it
handled large files.
>>>> Of course it's easy enough to
manually split a waveform where one
>>>> tune ends and another begins, but if one were digitizing an entire
>>>> record collection that would be beyond onerous. Also DAO can
>>>> certainly handle impressing that continuous recording onto optical
>>>> media, but that's not the same as having individual files - for any
>>>> of a number of purposes.
Splitting can't be fully automatic anyway, you need to review it and maybe
adjust markers manually.
>>> Thanks all. Interesting suggesting
Frank...
>>>
>>> Btw. Does it matter for quality what soundcard is used?
>>>
>> Not in my experience. It's not a demanding audio task. Others may
>> report differently.
IMO, the problem is at the preamp level. If I had some more LP's to digitized
today I'll certainly give a try using the amplified mics input of my Presonus
Firebox firewire device. From the voice/singing recordings I made, I can say
that the Firebox preamps sound excellent to me.
Can someone
confirm or reject this thesis?
Going back a few years I digitised a set of LPs
using a SoundBlaster 16
card with a consumer Technics turntable, amplified by an ancient Inkel
MX-1810 mixer, hooked up to the line-in socket of the SB16 with a 3.5mm
jack.
IIRC I used a SB16 too :)
Sounded surprisingly good given the bodged setup!
I had no amplifier/mixer, I think I plugged the turntable directly into the mic
input of the SB16. The sound was ok, but using a mixer or some sort of quality
preamps as you did is certainly much better.
However, there seem to be some other subtleties, especially about equalization:
http://www.tappin.me.uk/Linux/audio.html
Obviously you will get better sound quality with a
decent sound card,
but depending on your source, you can get away with a cheap sound card.
I don't recommend motherboard onboard sound chips though. They usually
pick up a lot of digital noise from the computer.
At the time I made those recordings, I was a Windows user and would
probably have used Steinberg Wavelab. I don't know what I'd use these
days under Linux though.
--
Olivier