Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rob on 14 Mar 2010 06:04 On 14/03/2010 09:48, Andy Hewitt wrote: > Larry Stoter<larry(a)666.com> wrote: > >> I guess I am one of the last people in the universe not to have >> converted my vinyl LPs to digital, although I understand vinyl is trendy >> again ........ >> >> The Mac is rather a long way from the Hi-Fi, so I was hoping to do it by >> wifi. >> >> I have a Griffin iMic, essentially a compact sound card with analogue in >> and out sockets and a USB connection. >> >> Anybody know if this will work, connected to an Airport Express base >> station, to digitise and wirelessly transfer music from the Hi-Fi to the >> Mac? > > Unlikely, the Airport Express only handles printers (unless later > versions have changed). The audio is an output only. > >> I looks as though this should all work but I'd like to hear from anybody >> who has actually done it ..... > > I just take my MacBook to the HiFi, unplug the leads from the pre-amp, > and bung them into the MacBook (using appropriate adapter leads - e.g. > RCA-jack) > > I use Amadeus Pro (but you could also use the free Audacity, or possibly > even Garageband) to do the recording and conversion. Record a complete > album, then break it into tracks later (it's faster that way). It might > be worth experimenting with using the iMic and using the Mac's own jack > input, one or the other might produce better results. > > You can do lots of cleaning up in Amadeus - background hiss, clicks and > pops, that kind of thing. However, IME, it's better to keep this simple, > run a mild background hiss removal, and edit the worst 'pops', then > leave it. If you try too hard it's likely you'll just make the whole > track sound poor - might as well get a 96bps MP3 version. > The software that comes with (and only works with) the iMic is OK. > As others have said, it might be more cost effective to just buy the > albums on digital media as you find them. Record the LPs that you can't > find, or if you just want to give it a go. > > Having said that, some CDs I've bought have been fairly heavily > compressed (audio compression, not file compression), and sound quite > flat. I've recorded albums that have managed to retain some of that > extra 'something' that is popular with them. > Indeed. I've subscribed to an audio NG for several years, and the technocrats have only just come round to agreeing that this has been/continues to be a a significant problem with some CD production, and that LP can sound better than CD after all.
From: Peter Ceresole on 14 Mar 2010 06:18 Rob <patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Having said that, some CDs I've bought have been fairly heavily > > compressed (audio compression, not file compression), and sound quite > > flat. I've recorded albums that have managed to retain some of that > > extra 'something' that is popular with them. > > > > Indeed. I've subscribed to an audio NG for several years, and the > technocrats have only just come round to agreeing that this has > been/continues to be a a significant problem with some CD production, > and that LP can sound better than CD after all. According to my audio production friend (used to be at EMI, now freelance) this is entirely due to the remastering, and just means that the original LP mastering was done by somebody with more skill and interest in the production than the person who did the CD copy. Which isn't that surprising. As my BBC techs used to say (in the video field, but it also applies to audio) 'we can degrade any digital signal to analogue quality if you're stupid enough to want that'. -- Peter
From: T i m on 14 Mar 2010 07:32 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:18:13 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: > >As my BBC techs used to say (in the video field, but it also applies to >audio) 'we can degrade any digital signal to analogue quality if you're >stupid enough to want that'. But isn't (in theory) any digital representation of an analogue signal only that, a (lesser) representation? As the bit rate tends towards true analogue then that's all you can get, analogue! And what are you going to listen to this stuff on, digital speakers? AFAIK it's only in the storage, duplication, reproduction (as in magnetic coils and pickups) or manipulation that digital has any advantages. ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: Peter Ceresole on 14 Mar 2010 07:49 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > AFAIK it's only in the storage, duplication, reproduction (as in > magnetic coils and pickups) or manipulation that digital has any > advantages. ;-) Mainly, it's in robustness. Analogue takes a hell of a lot of mechanical and electronic care to reproduce properly. For instance the engineering nightmare of gramophone pickups is the kind of thing you'd only get into if there was no alternative. And the entire chain is only as good as its crappiest component. Digital, on the other hand, is robust, self-correcting and can give good results with only average component quality. It doesn't fail very gracefully, although even that can be managed if you're prepared to put in the money. But it's not usually necessary, beyond what's built in to the commercial circuitry. Of course, you do finish up with analogue speakers and final stages. That's where the weakness and the still high costs come in. But in every other aspect, digital, properly done (meaning with less or the same effort than goes into analogue) is much superior. -- Peter
From: T i m on 14 Mar 2010 08:29
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:49:13 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: >T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > >> AFAIK it's only in the storage, duplication, reproduction (as in >> magnetic coils and pickups) or manipulation that digital has any >> advantages. ;-) > >Mainly, it's in robustness. Analogue takes a hell of a lot of mechanical >and electronic care to reproduce properly. For instance the engineering >nightmare of gramophone pickups is the kind of thing you'd only get into >if there was no alternative. And the entire chain is only as good as its >crappiest component. Understood. > >Digital, on the other hand, is robust, self-correcting and can give good >results with only average component quality. It doesn't fail very >gracefully, although even that can be managed if you're prepared to put >in the money. And that I would say is the most obvious disadvantage to the non-technical user. What used to be a few sparklies on my TV set is now seconds of pixilated madness, frozen frames and bad lip synch. In fact it took a long time for me to learn to ignore regular lip synch issues, something you rarely saw from analogue. > But it's not usually necessary, beyond what's built in to >the commercial circuitry. Ok. > >Of course, you do finish up with analogue speakers and final stages. Whilst it's being used by humans it is. As soon as we get robots to listen to all our music for us then they can have it raw! ;-) >That's where the weakness and the still high costs come in. But in every >other aspect, digital, properly done (meaning with less or the same >effort than goes into analogue) is much superior. Not technically superior (it can't be), just easier and more manageable from a general pov. Is it just me or are nearly all fast panned video shots juddery? Again, something I never experienced on even the cheapest of analogue kit? Cheers, T i m p.s. Daughter recently commented on how slow her digital camera was between shots. Not something I ever remember hearing when she used (even) disposable film cameras. Whilst I'm a big fan of 'digital stuff' in general I think in some cases we have become numbed to the compromises we often have to make when using it. |