Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rob on 15 Mar 2010 01:56 On 15/03/2010 05:01, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > 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. > Indeed - just trying to figure out the route between OK and really good. For example, a Project RPM10/ATOC9 properly set up? Sort of OK? Although most of the time, cooking deck, I use an old Technics motor unit and a SME 3009/ATOC9. Sounds pretty good to me :-) >> 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. > Sort of quite. I'd obviously defer to Adrian's end result, but for precious vinyl I find I can edit a wav file quite effectively, smoothing clicks and so forth. Maybe an hour a track in the day, so not something I'd do often/at all nowadays. > 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. > Ah well then there'd be an issue. I use an EAR MC valve amplifier for that part, and have done for about 10 years now, seen many a SS phono stage come and go. Rob
From: Ian McCall on 15 Mar 2010 04:07 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > You have an arcade machine? Jealous. > > -z- > > (strictly speaking I'd prefer a pinball machine, but beggars can't be > chipsets) We've got an arcade machine and a pinball machine. Arcade box is a Win2000 P120 with an ArcadeVGA hooked up to an Electrocoin chassis with a Hanterax 21" monitor inside. Pinball machine is a Gottlieb Surf'n'Safari, which we recently had serviced. Before the service it was good, after when they'd repaired the auxiliary sound board it's great: James Earl Jones in a Carribean accent telling me that Whirlpool Millions is lit, via a rubber alligator wearing shades with flashing red nostrils: now -that's- entertainment. Must admit the pinball machine sees more action than the arcade, because it's so easy to just pick up and play (no booting into W2K then MAMEWah, selecting your game etc). Both machines always a hit when we do the fireworks and New Years parties though. Am on the iPhone or I'd dig out some photos: will remember to do so tonight. Cheers, Ian
From: Rowland McDonnell on 15 Mar 2010 04:21 Rob <patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Rob<patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Adrian Tuddenham wrote: > >>> Peter Ceresole<peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > >>> 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. > > Indeed - just trying to figure out the route between OK and really good. > For example, a Project RPM10/ATOC9 properly set up? Sort of OK? Better than anything I've ever played an LP on, put it like that... That'd be `really good', I think. Parallel tracking would be `best possible' *IF* you can get a really good parallel tracking rig, but if you happen to have a monster bit of kit like a Project RPM10/ATOC9 combo and you're digitizing for your own listening, hell yeah that'll do - provided that you get decent RIAA eq and pre-amp gain and analogue to digital conversion of the resulting signal. But that should just be a matter of looking up the right kit and plugging it together properly, sortathing. Gold plated connectors for all analogue signals if possible - if not, make sure they're clean and new-looking and shiny. Sod yer bloody oxygen free copper cables. Grrr. (and if anyone ever does prove O free Cu make a difference, I'll be even more grumpy). Do make sure you run the A-D converter at `as close to full range as you can manage' - you'll want variable gain and a level meter on the signal being fed to the A-D converter for that (hmm - actually, I suppose you could just look at the signal out of the A-D converter, couldn't you?) 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. Nope, I've no idea what they use professionally in the studios. > Although most of the time, cooking deck, I use an old Technics motor > unit and a SME 3009/ATOC9. Sounds pretty good to me :-) Look, it's all about playing the record as well as possible. If you want to digitize for an archive, you want to use the best possible method. Otherwise - well, whatever the best rig for playing records you can get together is best. Listen to the choices, decide what's best, and off you go. Really, the best record player for listening to ought to *also* be the best for `playing back for digitizing' in terms of quality, although with a record player you're using to archive a recording, you'd be willing to spend more time setting up for each play. Seriously, either go serious shopping and buy/hire (can one hire such things?) a deadly serious parallel tracking deck/arm combo with whatever the best cartridge for that rig seems to be, or stick with the best record player/etc combo you can get otherwise. (I base that advice mostly on a reading of Adrian's words and the very informative PDF he pointed us all at, added to my own relatively trivial experience.) > >> 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. > > Sort of quite. I'd obviously defer to Adrian's end result, but for > precious vinyl I find I can edit a wav file quite effectively, smoothing > clicks and so forth. Maybe an hour a track in the day, so not something > I'd do often/at all nowadays. Ah - righto. Well, not as good as not having the clicks to start with, but not a bad approach if you're just recording for personal listening rather than doing the job seriously for a serious archive. `Not a bad approach' because it involves not buying lots more expensive equipment, and produces results that any normal person would describe as `Well, I can't hear anything wrong with that, can you?' > > 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. > > > > Ah well then there'd be an issue. I use an EAR MC valve amplifier for > that part, and have done for about 10 years now, seen many a SS phono > stage come and go. I don't recall anything which indicates that a valve pre-amp isn't up to the job - provided you can get a line level suitable for feeding whatever A-D stage you're going to use, and that'd take further gain or an A-D stage not designed for modern domestic line-in levels. My dad's amp is a Quad II with Quad 22 control unit. When he still had /his/ Lowther cabinets (snaffled by middle bro with mother's collusion 'cos she always thought they were too big), there wasn't anything at all to complain about. Especially once he got the SME Series V arm and the old Garrard transcription deck together. <shrug> 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 05:56 On 14/03/2010 21:45, T i m wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:05:22 +0000, Ian McCall<ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > >> On 2010-03-14 19:28:21 +0000, T i m<news(a)spaced.me.uk> said: >> >>> 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. >> >> Must admit I did find the very early days of TFT monitors a bit >> confusing and mass-delusiona, until I realised the massive energy >> savings to had. They looked better in terms of appearance, not picture >> quality, but they sucked down much less power and that's important to a >> business. Much less movement there too, so no problem. > > Is that the case though, that they use much less power? I was asking > if you have actually measured yours as I don't have a CRT set online > any more here. (I have a 42" plasma I was given but haven't used > because I don't think I've got a big enough fuse to go in the plug!). >> >> With early HD TV, I really didn't get it beyond how the machine itself >> looked. > > (I believe our main TV, a UMC 17" is 'HD ready' but as I don't have > any HD sources I haven't been able to test it like that. Mind you, I'm > not fussed about doing so really, perfectly happy with what we have > now (especially at that size and my general lack of interest in TV as > a hobby). > >> Quality was noticeably worse than the better CRTs and to my >> mind has only just about reached parity. Of course, the kind of CRTs >> I'm taking about are the kind I've got - where it takes three people to >> shift it and takes up a daft amount of space. Specifically, it's one of >> these: >> <http://www.audioenz.co.nz/2002/Philips_36PW9527.shtml> (minor model >> number variance but appearance is identical, and it's a lot bigger at >> the back than it looks in that picture). > > That is a big beast! (I note it mentions the pan-jerk thing). >> >> HD TV over the last couple of years has seemed better to me, but >> there's still been the motion problem we were discussing. Only -very- >> recently do the TVs appear to actually match what I've been used to. > > It's funny that you and I see this issue that more people aren't > saying 'I'll wait till it works properly' ? > Yes, I can see it, but only if I look IYSWIM. I have a new 42" Panasonic LCD - better than the Toshiba it replaced in this and most other respects. A friend couldn't be in the same room, it irritated him that much. Rob
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 15 Mar 2010 06:27
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. De-facto Japanese 'line' level (as found on most domestic equipment) is specified as a voltage, but not into any particular impedance. Compared as a voltage, it reads about 12 dB lower than the professional level. Most good quality domestic valve equipment and most domestic transistor equipment ought to be able to drive most computer inputs, as long as the inputs are high impedance. Where the system falls down is with 600-ohm professional inputs. The domestic valve kit usually has a high output impedance and cannot deliver enough current, the domestic transistor equipment does not deliver enough voltage. If the professional equipment has enough gain to spare, lower input levels can be used and it should (in most cases) be just a matter of turning up its wick by 12 dB. Some modern professional equipment has alternative provision built in for de-facto Japanese input levels. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |