Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 14 Mar 2010 10:59 Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > On 14/03/2010 06:58, Larry Stoter 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? > > > > I looks as though this should all work but I'd like to hear from anybody > > who has actually done it ..... > > > You can buy record decks with a USB output specifically for doing this. > At the last trade auction I went to, they were struggling to make �10. > Expect to find some for next to nothing on Ebay. That's considerably more than they are worth. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
From: T i m on 14 Mar 2010 13:07 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:34:36 +0000, Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: >On 2010-03-14 14:05:50 +0000, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> said: > >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:32:00 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter >> Ceresole) wrote: >> >>> T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Is it just me or are nearly all fast panned video shots juddery? >>> >>> I have a Panasonic TV, with a Freeview aerial feed, and I don't see any >>> of that at all. >> >> I wonder if everyone can? I'm not saying you couldn't if it were >> present etc but I bet there are loads of people who wouldn't notice >> even a bad example? > >Subject dear to my heart at the moment. By total co-incidence, this is >exactly what caused us to pick the TV we went for on Sunday. So not just me seeing this then! ;-) > I've >avoided HD TV for years, and one of the reasons has been that I've just >not found its picture to be superior to CRT. Me neither. I went from playing FPS on a 17" CRT to doing the same on a 17" TFT and I swear the TFT suffered this jerkiness I referred to. Ok, the 'picture' is probably better in at least it's clinical geometry but as for fluidity .. I down't fink so (on the kit I have anyway). > Clearly its form factor >is, and still images may well be too, but motion? Scaling artefacts? >Naah. And that. > >The thing that finally sold us on this Sony KDL-52V4500 was its motion >handling. I've no idea what its technical response time is in millis or >what have you, just that there was a clear difference between it and >almost any other TV there. Weird. So it was that obvious to you was it? > The comparable ones were �3k+ (very + in >some cases...). I do know that the Sony has 200Hz scan which should >help in theory - opinions round the web differ as to whether it >actually is doing, but -something- is helping that particular set look >better and most of the others we saw were 100Hz (acceptable) and 50Hz >(utterly acceptable to me - your mileage may vary). I notice such >things a lot, and have always distrusted a lot of HD stuff because >whilst it looks fabulous with not much going on, it all fell apart when >things started to move with any pace. Yup, same here, however I think it can also depend (or I can only see) this 'pace' related thing under particular circumstances. Like, if someone is dancing about (pop video etc) then that's generally ok, however a long-fast panned scene often looks to me as if it was filmed on those vertical material office blinds? As if something in the process was tripping over itself in an effort to get all the data out? > > >>> On the contrary, I think the flat panel image quality is >>> considerably superior to any CRT I have see, except possibly for the >>> video monitors we used at the BBC. >> >> I'm not talking of quality here, I'm talking of the 'quirks' that may >> arise from having to create 25 fps using a string of 1's and 0's. I'm >> pretty sure it isn't just down to me having some VFM kit, I've seen >> such issues on a few grand's worth of plasma. With analogue data / >> sets you simply can't get that sort of thing as it's all displayed >> *instantly* (you can see the processing delays on all this digital >> stuff when you turn two sets on within earshot of each other). > >Well....ish. We currently have a 36" CRT Philips and to make broadcast >images acceptable it has to do some digital trickery, which it calls >Pixels Plus. When it does so, you get the jerking problems there as >well. Without it, well it's vaguely smooth but everything is hideously >blocky. So a large-szed CRT has to compromise here as well. So it's something in the digital-signal processing rather than the display itself (which makes sense). > >That said, I have a 28" CRT upstairs with none of these problems, and a >20" CRT in the arcade machine that also has none of these problems. >Indeed, the multisync nature of the 20" arcade monitor is a revelation, >making even 320x128 graphics look superb at that size. I think displays are like tyres ... they all look similar but it's only when you use them hard do you notice the real difference. ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: Rob on 14 Mar 2010 13:38 On 14/03/2010 14:54, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: > Peter Ceresole<peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> 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. > > The rule with transfers from analogue to digital is to put the majority > of the effort into getting the analogue side right and leave as little > as possible for the digital side to do. > > Anyone seriously considering doing the job properly should at least have > a parallel tracking pickup and a record cleaning machine (or the > equipment to play the records while they are wet). > I've managed to get pretty good results with just a normal turntable, arm and cartridge. What would you recommend, hardware wise? Not much beyond the mass production Japanese decks come up on ebay. > 'Modern' L.P.s are easy enough to get right, but older ones from the > early 1950s are a nightmare. See chapter five of the manual below for > details: > > <http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/sound/anaudio/analoguesoundres > toration.pdf> > Interesting document, thanks. Rob
From: Graeme on 14 Mar 2010 13:44 In message <4aqpp5pkrir7i1e71r2urn12n1an150lh7(a)4ax.com> T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:32:00 +0000, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter > Ceresole) wrote: > > >T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Is it just me or are nearly all fast panned video shots juddery? > > > >I have a Panasonic TV, with a Freeview aerial feed, and I don't see any > >of that at all. > > I wonder if everyone can? I'm not saying you couldn't if it were > present etc but I bet there are loads of people who wouldn't notice > even a bad example? Conventional TV is shot with interlaced frames which smooths out movement. Film on the other hand works with progressive frames, ie each picture is transmitted complete, which means there are bigger gaps in the display of a moving object so a fast pan will produce a juddery effect. There has grown up a fad amongst some directors with delusions of being Speilberg to shoot video in progressive rather than interlaced formats to mimic film. However they forget the bit about taking pans more slowly. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Larry Stoter on 14 Mar 2010 14:06
SteveH <italiancar(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > > > > I looks as though this should all work but I'd like to hear from anybody > > > who has actually done it ..... > > > > > You can buy record decks with a USB output specifically for doing this. > > At the last trade auction I went to, they were struggling to make �10. > > Expect to find some for next to nothing on Ebay. > > But those decks are utter trash, as you'd expect from a cheapie deck. > > If you already have a decent turntable, it's best to invest in a decent > pre-amp with USB output, IMHO. Costs a fair bit more, but quality > usually does. I have quite a reasonable hi-fi system with a good turntable and have always suspected the turntables with USB outputs are not going to get anywhere near the quality of my current turntable. Larry |