Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Larry Stoter on 14 Mar 2010 14:06 Steve Hodgson <hamrun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-14 06:58:41 +0000, Larry Stoter said: > > > 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 ........ > > Lot the last. I still listen to my LPs although I've converted a couple > and bought MP3 versions of others. The time needed to make a good > conversion means it's actually 'cheaper' to just buy any that are > available unless you've loads of free time. > > > 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 ..... > > I spotted this article this week on converting vinyl to MP3 and maybe > it's of some use. > > <http://bit.ly/cYefuJ> > > It doesn't deal with the scenario you are describing but seems to have > lots of detail in about the conversion process. Thanks - interesting.
From: Chris Ridd on 14 Mar 2010 14:15 On 2010-03-14 18:06:55 +0000, Larry Stoter said: > SteveH <italiancar(a)gmail.com> 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? >> >> Highly unlikely - the USB on the Airport is there to run mass storage >> devices and printers. >> > So it is 2-way ........ > > So why wouldn't the iMic work ...? There's software on the Airport Express to talk to different USB devices. Basically driver software. What driver is going to be used to talk to the iMic? -- Chris
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 14 Mar 2010 14:37 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:06:55 +0000, larry(a)666.com (Larry Stoter) wrote: >Rob <patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14/03/2010 08:02, Steve Hodgson wrote: > snips ..... >> >> Not sure - is the Express audio jack out only? If so, there'd be a >> problem, but it's got to be worth trying. I've used the iMic with an >> audio cable and it works well. As does line in come to that. >> >snips ... > >Not planning to use the audio socket on the Airport Express ....... > >I was thinking of using a Griffin iMic for the analogue-to-digital >conversion. This has a USB connection which is what I was going to >connect to the Airport Express. Won't work, I'm sorry to say. >As Airport Express will connect to things like printers and HDD, I >assume the ethernet and USB sockets are two-way. They're not, the AE sets itself up as a printer/HDD server and shares the printer or HDD, rather than proxying USB fully to another machine. Cheers - Jaimie -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
From: Ian McCall on 14 Mar 2010 15:04 On 2010-03-14 17:07:31 +0000, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> said: > 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? Yep, very clearly. Whether it's the 200Hz or some other algorithmic work or (more likely) a combination of the two I don't know, but the motion on this was drastically better than on others. Doesn't seem like a co-incidence to me that they're marketing this using the name MotionFlow. > ...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). Yep, but without any digital things at all switched on the picture also looks quite poor - doesn't scale up well. I'm resisting so far getting rid of my CRT for the C64 and SNES, because I imagine I'll hit scaling problems straight away. The Sony is now of a standard where I was happy to watch it during movement, so it's the end of CRT in the main room. For the specialised stuff though, the retro kit/arcade machine, CRT is still the way to go. Cheers, Ian
From: T i m on 14 Mar 2010 15:28
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:04:52 +0000, Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: >> Weird. So it was that obvious to you was it? > >Yep, very clearly. Whether it's the 200Hz or some other algorithmic >work or (more likely) a combination of the two I don't know, but the >motion on this was drastically better than on others. Doesn't seem like >a co-incidence to me that they're marketing this using the name >MotionFlow. Indeed and that makes me wonder how many other manufacturers will start pushing this 'solution', a solution to a problem many people may not have even noticed or questioned? > > >> So it's something in the digital-signal processing rather than the >> display itself (which makes sense). > >Yep, but without any digital things at all switched on the picture also >looks quite poor - doesn't scale up well. I can put up with a poor picture as long as it's working well (I'd like it all to be good of course). The point is you can still enjoy the content (the point unless you are watching art on TV) if it's all smooth and well lip sunk (?) more than you could if there was a pin sharp but jerky picture. Maybe it's the utilitarian in me that judges things so ... it first has to work, then we'll consider the frilly bits. > > >I'm resisting so far getting rid of my CRT for the C64 and SNES, >because I imagine I'll hit scaling problems straight away. It's funny isn't it ... we are all plodding along with out multi-synch CRT's, having them transparently switching to the right format all on their own. Then we upgrade to TFT's and have to adjust the output resolution to cater for the display and/or suffer the issues seen when not at the native resolution. > The Sony is >now of a standard where I was happy to watch it during movement, so >it's the end of CRT in the main room. I wonder how much power each consumes? > For the specialised stuff though, >the retro kit/arcade machine, CRT is still the way to go. Or the way to stay? <g> Can you still buy CRT monitors? Cheers, T i m |