Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: zoara on 14 Mar 2010 17:46 Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > 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. I read an article once that explained how games of that era exploited the weaknesses of current display technology to improve the image. A simple example is that CRTs will create a psuedo-antialiasing effect, but it went a lot deeper than that. So viewing those same games through MAME etc on a modern monitor can make them look worse than they did years ago. Wish I could find that article again. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 14 Mar 2010 17:46 Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > 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. > You have an arcade machine? Jealous. -z- (strictly speaking I'd prefer a pinball machine, but beggars can't be chipsets) (and yes, that was the iPhone autocorrect at work. But I could hardly change something as nice as that, could I?) -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 14 Mar 2010 18:18 Rob <patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I can't really give you any commercial recommendations, I tend to build or adapt most of my kit myself. I'm sure there are plenty of really good quality units out there - and even some cheap ones that work well as long as they are used withing their limitiations. > > > '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 -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
From: Rowland McDonnell on 15 Mar 2010 01:01 Rob <patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Most especially with vinyl - I've read of USB record decks on sale to digitize LPs that, to save money, do the RIAA equalization in software, after digitizing and the fact that it does this is trumpted as a huge advantage! Well, it makes it cheap all right, but you don't half lose a lot of information in the digitizing stage if you take that approach. If noise didn't exist and 32 bit digitizing were in use, doing that probably wouldn't matter much... > > 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. For domestic listening purposes, that'll be perfectly okay. You should be able to get a recording that'll play back `in the real world' sounding as good as playing the record on the same kit for most practical purposes. But if you want /really good/ reproduction, the very very best possible, you need the specialist approach that Adrian knows all about and I've only heard about. >What would you recommend, hardware wise? Not much > beyond the mass production Japanese decks come up on ebay. [snip] If I were doing the job, I'd be looking at getting the records in question as dust-free as possible before playing, and setting up the record player `just so', and fitting a brand new needle. No point having huge numbers of dust clicks captured forever, even if it's nigh on impossible to eliminate them completely, unless you use the serious methods Adrian suggests. Then you want a really good RIAA stage before digitizing - I assume that that last step, turning it into bits, is the easiest part to get at really high quality. Assume, that is. But it ought to be. 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: Rob on 15 Mar 2010 01:48
On 14/03/2010 22:18, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: > Rob<patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I can't really give you any commercial recommendations, I tend to build > or adapt most of my kit myself. I'm sure there are plenty of really > good quality units out there - and even some cheap ones that work well > as long as they are used withing their limitiations. > >> Ah, OK, thanks. Building is *way* beyond my abilities! Rob |