Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Graham J on 15 Mar 2010 10:42 "Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1jfedj2.1mq14ke6giw00N%adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... > "Graham J" <graham(a)invalid> wrote: > >> "Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:1jfe35w.1bho7su1ggefqwN%adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid... >> > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> FWIW, normal old-fashioned line-in is a much smaller signal than the >> >> CD >> >> standard usually expected as the line level by modern audio kit that I >> >> come across. >> > >> > 'Professional' i.e. BBC or GPO line level is equivalent to 1 milliwatt >> > into 600 ohms and is called "0 dBm". This is about 12 dB below the >> > maximum allowable signal and gives a reading of '4' on a BBC-type Peak >> > Programme Meter. Measured with a voltmeter in a 600-ohm circuit it >> > will >> > read 0.775 v R.M.S. >> >> It's an awful lot of money to pay for1mW into 600 ohms!!! > > It's not terribly expensive to build in at the design stage; but most > mass-produced stuff is made without it, so you only find it on expensive > equipment aimed at the real professional market (not Pro-Am). > > It can be a real blessing under fraught conditions when the signal must > get through. Half a mile of unscreened cable strung out across > hedgerows or through a theatre lighting gallery - and still no hum. > > ...and what price can you put on a wedding recording that would have > failed if I hadn't been able to parallel the outputs of two 600-ohm mic > pre-amps, confident that they wouldn't 'fight' each other. I was being perverse. Given that the output of each BBC radio programme is effectively 1mW into 600 ohms, that is what is an awful lot of money! It's really an old joke from some colleagues who once worked at the beeb! -- Graham J
From: Jim on 15 Mar 2010 10:55 On 2010-03-15, Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > >> You know those ultrasonic devices shops mount outside their front door that >> are only supposed to be audible to teenagers? I can hear the blasted things. >> >> I'm 43 next week. > > Ah, a child. Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Growing old is required; growing up isn't. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "[Cocaine] is addictive and probably quite bad for you if you have too much. But the same applies to Battenburg cake, and no one seems to freak out about that, do they?" The Daily Mash
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 15 Mar 2010 12:24 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:02:34 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> >I'm 43 next week. >> >> Me too, but I'm only 37 in a fortnight. > >Hang on a bit... I'll try that again: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:03:02 +0000, Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: >You know those ultrasonic devices shops mount outside their front door that >are only supposed to be audible to teenagers? I can hear the blasted things. Me too. >I'm 43 next week. I'm only 37 in a fortnight. Cheers - Jaimie -- >So, what do *you* do for a living? I sit in a chair pressing small plastic rectangles with my fingers while peering at many tiny, colored dots. -- Peter Manders
From: Rowland McDonnell on 15 Mar 2010 12:40 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > 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. I thought `everyone' knew that was the case - and that was in the 1980s. Has the world forgotten? > 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'. <cough> Roy Harper, who's been doing his own mixing and mastering for *decades*, is of the opinion that analogue beats CD-standard digital. And that's what he thinks because he's tried mixing digitally, and his ears tell him that unless you've got 24 bit data, digital signal processing isn't as good as what he can do with his old multi-track tape mixing desk. Roy does have a 24 bit digital mixing desk now, and he works in 24 bit, and he says that's as good as tape. As good as... There is nothing inherently better about analogue or digital in this way, not as far as I know. Digital signals are easy to handle without degradation, though. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Graeme on 15 Mar 2010 12:44
In message <4b9e4749$0$2481$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk> "Graham J" <graham(a)invalid> wrote: > I was being perverse. Given that the output of each BBC radio programme is > effectively 1mW into 600 ohms, that is what is an awful lot of money! > > It's really an old joke from some colleagues who once worked at the beeb! > On the lines of how inefficient Television Centre is, umpteen Megawatts in and 1 watt out. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/> |