Hi, I hope I'm posting in the right section.
I would like to ask forum members for your recommendations for a good quality dac for 2 track recording.
I'm mostly archiving vinyl but I already have a high quality phono pre-amp already, so no RIAA eq required.
I have been using an EMU 0202 for a number of years, but suspect things have moved on since then.
I have done the normal research around the web for recommendations, but found most reviews not based on straight 2 track line level recording.
My ideal budget would be around £150. Any recommendations would be very much appreciated.
Thanks
but suspect things have moved on since then
The thing have not moved on is vinyl. ADC/DAC quality (especially a known model with excellent published measurements like EMU0202) is never a bottleneck in vinyl archiving and vinyl rip playback.
https://www.ixbt.com/proaudio/emu/0202/emu-0202usb-2444-lineout.shtml
https://www.ixbt.com/proaudio/emu/0202/line-in-24-44.shtml
I'd suggest spend the money elsewhere, like buying some vinyl records and so on.
I would like to ask forum members for your recommendations for a good quality dac for 2 track recording.
"ADC", you mean?
Folks: what are the input level/volume considerations?
Folks: what are the input level/volume considerations?
Interfaces with input level equal to or higher than the preamp's output level are fine. Usually written in the specs (dBV/dBu/Vrms).
No such limitation if the interface and/or the preamp have adjustable analog gain.
have been using an EMU 0202 for a number of years, but suspect things have moved on since then.
As long as the drivers still work with your current operating system, you're fine.
As a rule, the
only "spec" to be concerned with is
noise. Frequency response and distortion are usually better than human hearing, even with the line-input on a consumer soundcard. (The mic input on a regular soundcard or laptop is generally useless for quality recording). With an analog record, the record noise plus the analog hum and hiss from the preamp usually dominate so
a "better" interface is unlikely to give you better results. Sometimes you can get (excessive) noise in USB-powered interfaces that comes from the computer's power supply. It's usually a high-pitched whine. Some interfaces are more sensitive to power supply noise than others and a different computer can make it better, or worse. An interface with it's own separate power supply will avoid that issue.
I'd suggest spend the money elsewhere, like buying some vinyl records and so on.
Or CDs or MP3s. :D
Many thanks for your replies to my post. Looks like the consensus is to carry on with my 0202 Dac. It has always given me good results, I was just wondering if there had been any new dacs released that would give me better results, as I've been using this dac for about 7, 8 years or so.
Hi Porcus, Noted, although I have posted as Dac, it is an ADC question I've raised. I only use it for recording, as I have a standalone Dac for playback. No hum or hiss from my phono set up, apart from any that may be on vinyl itself.
No hum or hiss from my phono set up, apart from any that may be on vinyl itself.
Continue, then. It has 24 bits in, so even if the recorded stream peaks at tens of dB below zero, you should not lose dynamic range.
Even without considering vinyl's limitation and transparency, those old EMU interfaces still have godlike specs at their price point. Find some random Behringer, Tascam, Focusrite, M-Audio interfaces at £150, their measurements are not necessarily better than the EMUs. The better spec'd ones like RME Babyface Pro are well over £150 with features like digital I/O and FPGA mixer which are irrelevant to ADC quality.
Ok, good to know it can still compete.
The ADCs mentioned in previous post are the ones I've been reading about, but as you've suggested they tend to come with facilities that I'd never use.
Many Thanks
This is interesting for me too since I'm about to digitalize my vinyls. I hope the OP doesn't mind me asking a question here.
As a rule, the only "spec" to be concerned with is noise. Frequency response and distortion are usually better than human hearing, even with the line-input on a consumer soundcard. (The mic input on a regular soundcard or laptop is generally useless for quality recording). With an analog record, the record noise plus the analog hum and hiss from the preamp usually dominate so a "better" interface is unlikely to give you better results.
Does this mean that I might as well use the line-in on a PC soundcard for the recording instead of chasing down a higher quality ADC?
What I have are a couple of 10-year old desktops from ca 2008 with
onboard sound and a 3-year old laptop. I think I've heard that desktops have much better soundcards than laptops - is this (still) true?
10-year old desktops from ca 2008 with onboard sound
I guess a 2008 desktop motherboard may have an AC97 or a newer HD Audio codec. The main problem is such codecs usually have a rather low and fixed analog input level like 1Vrms which may clip some phono preamps with fixed output level.
If you still want to try, record at 16-bit 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz in order to avoid the potentially low quality resampling from typical AC97 codecs. 24-bit is pointless as the ADC in a 2008 codec is usually something like 80-90dB SNR.
I guess a 2008 desktop motherboard may have an AC97 or a newer HD Audio codec. The main problem is such codecs usually have a rather low and fixed analog input level like 1Vrms which may clip some phono preamps with fixed output level.
The desktops I have from ca 2008 have Intel HD Audio. It seems that this is still the standard today? Or do newer desktops have better onboard sound?
If you still want to try, record at 16-bit 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz in order to avoid the potentially low quality resampling from typical AC97 codecs. 24-bit is pointless as the ADC in a 2008 codec is usually something like 80-90dB SNR.
Is low quality resampling and 80-90dB SNR still the case with the newer Intel HD Audio codecs?
There are premium HD Audio codecs like ALC1150/1220 on "gaming" grade and usually full sized ATX motherboards, they are $100-200 more expensive than mainstream motherboards with ALC892 which is not too different from a 2008 HD Audio chip like ALC888. However this $100-200 premium also includes irrelevant features like fancy RGB LEDs, more PCIE lanes for multiple GPUs, NVMe SSD and so on.
Yet the codec model is not a reliable indication of quality. Loopback test (line out -> line in) reveals the weakest link and depends on different motherboard design, the same codec can perform very differently in real world situation:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/74183-gigabyte-aorus-z270x-gaming-5-motherboard-review-12.html
...and a 7 years old discrete soundcard still blow them away, and with a 2Vrms input.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,100481.0.html
If one can spend additional $100-200 for a motherboard, I would say spend on a discrete soundcard or USB interface which has a more consistent performance, and can be reused on another computer. The motherboard I am using is only $62 (2015) with an ALC892, about 90dB ADC performance and no AC97 low quality resampling issue.
Thank you, well explained.
So maybe my old PCs could be up to the task, but I would need to do loopback testing to determine. Since I tend to put too much time into testing stuff once I get started, I think I'll take the easy way this time and just grab an external ADC instead.
If one can spend additional $100-200 for a motherboard, I would say spend on a discrete soundcard or USB interface which has a more consistent performance, and can be reused on another computer.
Is $100-200 also the price range required for a good external ADC? Or would it be possible to get a good/excellent one under $100?
90dB ADC performance is not a limitation as long as there is no clipping, it can be identified by finding squashed peaks in the recorded waveform. As an example I attached some files here, can you tell which one sounds best or worst by listening?
Is $100-200 also the price range required for a good external ADC? Or would it be possible to get a good/excellent one under $100?
Possible but you need to do some research, google keywords like "[product name] + rmaa" or "[product name] + rightmark" to find some reports, and don't forget to read reviews and forum posts to find complains about driver stablity/compatibility and so on.
I couldn't hear any differences between the files. But I could hear the same kind of very small imperfection in all three files at 0:18-0:19 though.
Is this example of clipping as "bad" as it gets with 90dB ADC performance, or did you give me a tough one to detect?
If I decide to use an external ADC, I could use an optical input (toslink) on one of my desktops. Is this preferable over USB?
I couldn't hear any differences between the files. But I could hear the same kind of very small imperfection in all three files at 0:18-0:19 though.
Is this example of clipping as "bad" as it gets with 90dB ADC performance, or did you give me a tough one to detect?
(a) Recorded by my ALC892's line-in
(b) Recorded by my ALC892's mic-in
(c) Original file (CD)
So if there are any artifacts, they are in the original file rather than additional audible distortion. I've attached the RMAA report of (a) vs (b).
The result is clear, 90dB is good enough even for CD quality loopback, no way it would be inadequate for vinyl. Toslink/internal/external is irrelevant.
(a) and (b) are played by the same source, ALC892's DAC, with carefully adjusted output level to avoid clipping. Therefore the key point is whether your phono preamp is capable of output level adjustment or not. The Realtek's input level are adjustable, but only within a rather narrow range.
If I decide to use an external ADC, I could use an optical input (toslink) on one of my desktops. Is this preferable over USB?
toslink is relevant only if you have ground loop problems, in such cases there will be obvious and distracting hum. You also need to have a turntable/preamp with toslink output and a soundcard with toslink input to use it. If you don't have all of these already it will surely cost more than $100-200 with potentially no improvement if you don't have ground loop problem in the first place.
To avoid misunderstanding, all toslink jacks you can find on desktop motherboards are for output, not input.
(a) Recorded by my ALC892's line-in
(b) Recorded by my ALC892's mic-in
(c) Original file (CD)
I could visibly see that (c) differs from (a) and (b) in Cool Edit (yes, I still use that old program...), but it was inaudible to my ears.
Yes, the result is clear to me. And my "best" motherboard for audio (Abit QuadGT) has HD Audio and should be of decent quality of its time, but I still need to do loopback testing I guess.
/.../ the key point is whether your phono preamp is capable of output level adjustment or not. The Realtek's input level are adjustable, but only within a rather narrow range.
My phono preamp is a Cambridge 651P which has fixed output, so a potentional matching problem there.
If I decide to use an external ADC, I could use an optical input (toslink) on one of my desktops. Is this preferable over USB?
toslink is relevant only if you have ground loop problems, in such cases there will be obvious and distracting hum. You also need to have a turntable/preamp with toslink output and a soundcard with toslink input to use it. If you don't have all of these already it will surely cost more than $100-200 with potentially no improvement if you don't have ground loop problem in the first place.
To avoid misunderstanding, all toslink jacks you can find on desktop motherboards are for output, not input.
I have toslink in and out on one of my motherboards (Abit QuadGT), so it's an option and I would only need to buy an external ADC with toslink output, eg. this one: http://www.cypeurope.com/store/store/app/product/AU-D4/Analogue-Audio-Converter
So price-wise it probably doesn't matter compared to an external ADC with USB output.
But I don't know if I have ground loop problems, I haven't checked this.
I have toslink in and out on one of my motherboards (Abit QuadGT), so it's an option and I would only need to buy an external ADC with toslink output, eg. this one: http://www.cypeurope.com/store/store/app/product/AU-D4/Analogue-Audio-Converter
So price-wise it probably doesn't matter compared to an external ADC with USB output.
But I don't know if I have ground loop problems, I haven't checked this.
Motherboards with toslink input are really rare and I am surprised.
That means the conversion quality depends on the AU-D4 itself. It is 48kHz fixed, input voltage level is unspecified so there is no guarantee of clip-free operation, noise and distortion level is also unspecified and therefore not necessarily better than the Realtek.
To identify ground loop and clipping you can attach some 30-second recordings with loudly recorded vinyls and empty preamp noise here, speculation is not needed.
But I don't know if I have ground loop problems, I haven't checked this.
If you are not hearing "excessive" power-line hum, don't worry about it.
If the hum is bad, you might have a ground loop or a missing/broken ground.
There are other sources of hum... There is almost always
some AC hum picked-up by the cartridge and amplified by the preamp, and sometimes hum can get-in through the preamp's power supply. If you're not hearing it at normal listening volume, you're OK.
Thank you both for helping out. So the clipping issue is probably my only concern.
I'm not at my home location right now, but I have checked that I have the ALC888 chip and the previously mentioned Cambridge 651P with fixed output. If this combo creates clipping, would it be a bad idea to use my stereo preamp in the chain to adjust the levels?
record player > phono preamp > ALC888
vs
record player > phono preamp > stereo preamp > ALC888
On the stereo preamp, I can either use the volume control normally or I can fix the output at a desired level separately for each input so that the volume control is disabled (but I don't think it's bypassed, I think it's just fixed).
But this would also mean to introduce an additional amp in the chain, is this a bad idea?
But this would also mean to introduce an additional amp in the chain, is this a bad idea?
If it prevents clipping it's a REALLY GOOD IDEA! ;)
Theoretically, it's best to minimize the number of active-analog "links in the chain" but in the real it's the high gain circuit (the phono preamp) that's most likely to introduce noise or cause other trouble.
...As long as you are not clipping you don't have to be too concerned with recording levels. Just make sure you are not clipping and if the level is too low you can amplify or normalize digitally after recording. This isn't like analog tape recording where you needed a strong signal to overcome tape noise.
But this would also mean to introduce an additional amp in the chain, is this a bad idea?
The method itself is fine, and free, so you may try it. Who cares about double amping if there is no audible distortion?
In case it does sound bad, something like a passive volume control is fine. Passive means no power supply is required, therefore they can just reduce output rather than boost.
The cheap ones:
https://www.amazon.com/Stellar-Labs-1013015470-CONTROL-HEADPHONES/dp/B008DJTB32
The premium ones:
https://www.jdslabs.com/products/177/ol-switcher/
http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/recording-broadcast/monitor-controllers/nano-patch-plus
All of them should sound more or less the same as long as they are not defective. The biggest concern is durability. The premium ones have a larger knob and will be easier to make fine adjustment.
There are some stupidly expensive models out there, but just ignore them, typical snake oil. I can't recommend which one to buy and you may need to do some research on your own.
...If I were you, I'd use the preamp.
Here is another inexpensive passive volume control/attenuator (https://www.parts-express.com/axxess-aalc-2-ch-remote-level-controller--266-008?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pla).
You can also get fixed attenuators (https://www.parts-express.com/Search.aspx?keyword=RCA%20attenuator&sitesearch=true) but you have to guess how much attenuation you need or buy multiple pairs, and I can't currently find any that are "reasonably priced".
P.S.
One thing to watch-out for with "cheap stereo volume controls" - Sometimes the left & right don't track well and the left-right balance can be thrown-off. It can be fixed digitally in "post production" but it's something to be aware of. (The phono cartridge or the amplifier circuits or the record itself can have similar imperfections.)
Concerning clipping: wouldn't that show up as peak = 0 (or 100 percent)? Or will vinyl pops typically skyrocket peaks anyway?
(Listening through every potentially troublesome part on every record isn't that time-efficient ...)
Concerning clipping: wouldn't that show up as peak = 0 (or 100 percent)?
Yes, if your ADC (or file*) hits 0dB (=1.0 =100%) you're probably clipping.
Usually I check the peaks after recording (I usually use GoldWave) and if they hit 0dB I reduce the levels and start-over. That is, if I haven't already noticed the meters going "into the red".
Or will vinyl pops typically skyrocket peaks anyway?
That's possible, but I can't remember actually seeing clicks that were the highest peak. ...I probably had some LPs that would do that but I've only digitized my records that I couldn't get digitally plus a handful for other people.
Listening through every potentially troublesome part on every record isn't that time-efficient ...)
Audacity will show red anyplace there is clipping so it's easy enough to listen to those spots to see if it's caused by a click. GoldWave will tell you what the peak is (in dB) and where it is, but if you have multiple 0dB peaks it will only find the 1st one.
* Of course that's only true before processing. If you normalize you can have many peaks that hit 0dB without clipping.
And, most audio editing applications use floating-point so they can internally-temporarily go over 0dB without clipping. For example, if you boost the bass in Audacity you might see red for
potential clipping. But, the waves actually go over without clipping so as long as you normalize (or otherwise attenuate) before exporting to regular-integer WAV, your "finished product" won't be clipped.
On the other hand... If you waveform is truly-clipped and you lower the volume, Audacity will no-longer show red but you've still got flat-topped distorted-clipped waves.
Concerning clipping: wouldn't that show up as peak = 0 (or 100 percent)? Or will vinyl pops typically skyrocket peaks anyway?
(Listening through every potentially troublesome part on every record isn't that time-efficient ...)
The uncertainty is when the so-called "unity gain" is unknown. If the recording interface has a mixer app showing the 0dBFS position there will be no guesswork, like creation.png.
For example I can get the digital level right (-1dBFS) but it still clips when I feed a 2Vrms signal into the Realtek, and I don't know what is the meaning of "23" in clip.png.
noclip.png is Realtek's "correct" self-loop input level (31) when the output is 100%.
BTW, how to inline my attached pictures?
Very informative answers again, thank you.
I will try to connect the phono amp directly to the PC first, and if clipping occurs I'll try to add the stereo preamp. If I'm still not happy I will try adding a passive volume control instead.
This isn't like analog tape recording where you needed a strong signal to overcome tape noise.
Actually a very good reminder! At times I have an analog way of thinking. I have watched a lot of VU meters in my day while recording cassette tapes...
Talking about pops and clicks. When I did a few needle drops almost 20 years ago, I remember being dissatisfied with the results of pop-removal.
Are there good programs for this today, or do you still have to do a lot of visual inspection / manual editing in the wave forms for a satisfactory result?
I remember being dissatisfied with the results of pop-removal.
Are there good programs for this today, or do you still have to do a lot of visual inspection / manual editing in the wave forms for a satisfactory result?
You know what they say...
"Your mileage may vary."I don't think I've ever ended-up with "digital quality" but the cleaned-up digitized copy has always been better than the original LP. If you have "pristine" records you can probably get nearly digital sounding results. (All of the records I digitized were old, and although I tried to take careful care of them, they "deteriorated". )
Audacity has a
Click Removal effect, which is automatic and
Repair where you have to manually find and select the defect. Or, you can zoom-in and re-draw the waveform. (For the manual repairs, it's usually easier to "find" the defect in the spectral view.)
Wave Corrector (http://www.wavecor.co.uk/) is a fully-automatic program, and it's now freeware.
I've used
Wave Repair (http://www.delback.co.uk/wavrep/) ($30 USD) for a long time. The bad news is that you have to manually find the defects. It usually takes me a full weekend to fix-up a digitized LP. The good news is, it only "touches" the audio where you identify a defect. And, it's got a handful of different repair algorithms/methods and you can get "audibly perfect" results with most (but not all) clicks & pops.
You know what they say... "Your mileage may vary."
Yes, I realize this topic is subjective.
Most of my records are not in pristine shape, so I don't expect perfect results. I'm mostly concerned that de-clicking will muffle the audio, which I experienced the last time. I think I ended up just letting it be (if clicks weren't severe) and put up with the imperfections, since there was too much work and mediocre results. But this was almost 20 years ago...
Have you experienced muffled audio with the programs you've used? Maybe this isn't an issue with modern algorithms. But do you sometimes opt to not correct a defect because the result is worse than having the defect?
The good news is, it only "touches" the audio where you identify a defect.
I take it this is the very reason you use Wave Repair? It still gives a better result than Audacity et al., even though it has not been developed for 11 years?
I take it this is the very reason you use Wave Repair?
Well... I bought it because at the time it seemed to be the best of the "affordable" options.
But, yes I like the fact that it doesn't "muffle" the sound or introduce artifacts where there is no defect. In fact, when you "save" it only over-writes the few bytes you've changed so saving is super-fast, even with album-length files. (It's a good idea to keep a backup of the original because Wave Repair directly over-writes the file you're working on.)
I have NOT carefully compared or evaluated these programs. I've only tried Audacity's Click Removal a couple of times and it didn't
seem to as good of a job as the specialized applications. I'm also a long-time GoldWave user and it's click & pop filter doesn't seem to work as well as the specialized programs either.
Maybe a year or so ago, I had a few LPs to digitize and I was getting impatient with Wave Repair so I tried-out Wave Corrector and Click Repair. I bought Wave Corrector because it seemed easier to use.
But do you sometimes opt to not correct a defect because the result is worse than having the defect?
Yes. But ironically, the worst clicks and pops are often the easiest to remove... Maybe because they are easier to pinpoint. Wave Repair rarely makes it
worse. Like I said, there are multiple repair options and if the defect is short-duration you can usually fix it. If it makes a particular defect worse, you can simply un-do and try another method or move-on to the next click.
This page (http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm#clean_pops) written by the developer of Wave Repair has several other software recommendations, and TONS of other information about digitizing LPs. (As far as I know, this page hasn't been updated for a long time either.)
Thanks, your explanations have been very informative. I'm sure I'm gonna achieve much better results than the last time I tried this. I have Audacity already installed, but I have a feeling I will appreciate a dedicated program like Wave Repair or Wave Corrector better for this purpose. But my first step will be to setup the gear and start recording.
My apologies to the OP for borrowing this thread.
Maybe the topic could be changed to "ADC" or "Vinyl Recording" to better reflect the questions from the OP and me?
Hi Vilsen, no problem with highjack. Still reading with great interest.
I've been slowly digitising my Vinyl collection for some time now.
I use Reaper. Gave up on editing sound(Audiograbber with sound tools) as I found it always sounded worst.
I'd rather suffer the Vinyl related imperfections than edit the life out of them for the sake of getting rid of a little snap, crackle and pop.
I use Reaper. Gave up on editing sound(Audiograbber with sound tools) as I found it always sounded worst.
I'd rather suffer the Vinyl related imperfections than edit the life out of them for the sake of getting rid of a little snap, crackle and pop.
I can take some minor crackles, but some of my LP's aren't in great shape so I really need to clean those up. Hopefully I won't have to edit so much on my better LP's. Plus I'm hoping that Wave Repair or Wave Corrector will achieve much better results than the program I used many years ago.
Ok, please let me know how you get on with the newer restoration software.
I can suggest to look up for ClickRepair. It's not expensive, and I've had very good results with it.