Mrkim Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 03:21AM
Glad to say I skipped right past this phase! And these days rippin from an old
LP into a digital .mp3 format is easily done with USB turntables, but the
overall quality of most of the USB turntables available is pretty shitty in
terms of wow and flutter control (speed control of the platter), overall tone
arm weight and balancing and the quality of the needle (stylus) they come with
compared to an old school quality turntable.
One of these days when I find myself with too much time on my hands I will
finally get around to convertin the 150 or so of old LPs I have which I haven't
been able to find in digital format but that process will definitely take some
time to get done.
Fossil found and donated a great Sansui turntable to this cause on craigslist
that was missing the diamond from the stylus which luckily was interchangeable
with the one from my old dead Technics turntable but I no longer have an amp to
interface between the turntable and computer, so I still need that piece of
hardware to get it done too. He had also located an awesome old Fischer receiver
on craiglist we were both droolin over till we hooked it up and found out only
the tuner section still worked
Luckily I did manage to keep my old record cleaning gear over the years but just
properly cleanin an LP and then de-ionizing it before you ever even let the
needle (stylus) hit the LP takes a good cuppla minutes per side which will add
quite a bit of time to the overall rippin/encoding process
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18/08/2011 03:26AM by Mrkim.
woberto Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 04:19AM
pulse Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 08:32AM
Haha woberto on the case
This one's bigger though
mrk; I've been considering buying a quality DJ deck recently because I've been
bored and like the idea of buying some vinyl.. the main thing that's stopped me
is, new, the vinyls range $50-100 each. And 2nd hand record stores are pretty
much dead 'round these parts.
So yeah, great idea but seriously the only albums I'm likely to buy on vinyl, I
already own on CD ... so it kind of becomes a bit redundant.
I wish SACD was more popular, since I have a SACD player and capable amp... or
even DVD-A.
Everything's so expensive
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 08:59AM
Sheesh! At those prices I'll be lookin to divest myself of my vinyl collection
after I get 'em ripped in.
I have about 300 LPs total and most of 'em are still pretty pristine since I was
always pretty careful with 'em and did not loan 'em out. In that collection
there's about 100 that I used to have on CD before rippin in my collection and
sellin 'em in a garage sale.
These albums have been stored in Shell Rotella T 15w40 6-gallon case boxes which
snugly hold 100 albums each in perfect upright position for over 20yrs now
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 11:13AM
this is a local record store that's been around as long as i can remember:
Bill's
woberto Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 11:21AM
Pulse, 75 Swan Street Richmond, check it out.
pulse Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 11:48AM
I'll have a look, I've been working on Church St a bit lately so Swan is an
easy walk
There's still one 2nd hand store in the city but it's fucking expensive. There's
also one on Barkley St in St Kilda but likewise it's pretty pricey
ebay seems to have a few good ones but I dunno, my issue is more I have no space
for a turntable
woberto Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 11:58AM
Half the fun is flicking through them in a store.
Of course you can't beat eBay if you know exactly what you want.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 18, 2011 02:48PM
I got a USB turntable several years ago as a gift. The A/D converter to the USB
interface sucks boulders but the TT has a built-in preamp so it's a simple
matter of running a stereo cable to the sound card line input and sounds 100%
better. If your TT lacks a preamp you can get one for $17 at Radio Shack. The TT
I got is DC motor belt drive and has solid speed so there are no wow/flutter
issues. My kid broke the damn needle though and I haven't replaced it yet. We've
got about 150-200 albums too but sadly they have not been taken care of very
well and most were bought used and in not so great shape when we got em.
Somewhere in life travels I lost two cleaning kits I had. A new kit costs more
than a new stylus.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 19, 2011 10:08AM
I don't have any LPs any longer but I remember seeing at Fred's locally a new
am/fm/cd burner/turntable being sold. I thought it was pretty cool as it would
allow burning copies of LPs straight to cd but not have LP collection I didn't
buy it and it wasn't very expensive.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 19, 2011 02:49PM
A turntable-cdburner like that would be pretty cool.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: August 19, 2011 05:05PM
As somewhat of a purist regarding such things (basically totally anal in truth)
I want a good quality turntable and amp system to do any LP encoding. The
quality of the equipment always has an impact when doin reproductions and even
under best case scenarios any reproduction also carries with it a certain amount
of overall loss, and in this case that loss can equate to quite a bit if the
equipment itself is sub par.
Something a lot of folks have never fully understood about the concept of Dolby
filtering is that the reduction of noise, hiss, etc. always comes at the cost of
loss of the overall signal being filtered too. Dolby uses compression
technology to effectively limit the reproduction of both the upper and lower
ranges of sound to achieve their result.
I've swayed several folks away from using Dolby filtering by showing them with
sound tests on their own equipment how Dolby can tend to muffle the bass and
decrease the crispness of the higher end sounds too. In my opinion, with the
increased quality of digital sound reproductions these days Dolby is a lot more
of a marketing/branding/sales tool than it is in actually working to produce
overall clarity in sound reproduction.
In digital file choices available today there's also a HUGE difference between
the common 128 bit rate .mp3 files and say a 256 bit rate file. These
differences are even more pronounced when using higher bit rate .ogg files
though my faves are the totally uncompressed .flac files I most prefer. These
files are HUGE by comparison but with HD space as cheap as it is these days it
dudn much matter, so ...
Having shown folks a side by side sound test using various formats and bit rates
of digital music files the .flac files always get the nod from every single
music fan I've exposed to their increased range and clarity.
Back in the 80s JVC offered their own system called ANRS (automatic noise
reduction system) and Super ANRS for their high end cassette tape decks. With
my Super ANRS deck and simply high bias quality TDK tape I was able to produce
tapes far superior to what was commercially available even when recording from
LPs, something that should never have been possible since the record labels had
the actual master tapes to reproduce their retail tapes from.
My plans to rip/encode my old LPs will stay on hold till I can locate a nice
receiver/amp that has a flat line input/output capability. I'll use Audacity to
digitally make any changes to the .flac files I'll be using to encode with
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19/08/2011 05:12PM by Mrkim.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 19, 2011 09:02PM
I'm right there with you on the audiophile anal stuff Kim. Dolby blows goats.
JVC ANRS and SANRS is superior for sure but all of them are based on frequency
pre-emphasis/de-emphasis which are nothing more than relatively fixed, staged,
pre/post tone controls. ANRS does have the advantage of being more dynamically
responsive to input signal amplitude but it is still flawed. I prefer raw, no
equalization signal transfer between input and output and if need be use EQ to
tailor the freq response to my own tastes and capabilities of the sound
reproduction equipment in use. I have done extensive recording from various
source material to magnetic and digital media and have found it pays off to have
hands on control and fuck the "automatic" shit. I also prefer discrete
audio component gear that is up to the task of obtaining near-flat frequency
response. Unfortunately such perfect gear does not exist commercially but some
things can get close.
It is pretty simple to build a near flat amp circuit but unfortunately when
recording from LP to other media you still have to contend with RIAA
equalization of the LP which is an imperfect "standard" to begin with
and varies significantly between record companies. I have learned to settle for
a happy medium.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 19, 2011 09:04PM
Oh, forgot to add...
Audacity is ok but I prefer Goldwave. Probably just because I'm used to the
interface even though it does leave much to be desired.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: August 19, 2011 11:53PM
Good to hear you're an audiophile too dude, I may lean on ya for some help once
I get started doin my conversions
I remember back in the 70s when Dolby 1st started gettin attention my
observations then were that it really only helped mask the inferiority of the
equipment being used, yet even then it was all too obvious how much music was
bein lost to their filtering/compression.
Havin always liked JVCs equipment and havin been really enamored of their amp
technologies and their penchant to do tons of audio research, it was always my
brand of choice until movin into the computer systems I use now instead. I
agree their SANRS was still a compromise but it seemed to be way less than what
Dolby was and for tapes I used to drag around in my car it did seem to clip off
just enough of the high end signal to eliminate some of the hiss without
appreciably losing much on the bass end of the spectrum either, so it was a
decent trade off overall.
The only real reason I plan to use Audacity is since it's open source it plays
well with my Ubuntu OS. I'm sure there'll be a learnin curve once I start
playin with it but I hope to do as little modulation of the input signal as
possible. I'm right with ya on lettin in everything you can get and then
tailoring the result headed to the speakers by playin with the EQ settings.
If you haven't yet experimented with .flac files you'd be amazed at the
difference in overall fullness of the sound when compared to .mp3s, even when
comparing extremely high bit rates in .mp3s the .flacs will blow 'em away
dynamically
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 01:52AM
I may not be the best resource to lean on but don't mind helping if I'm
able.
I am what true audiophiles would consider an audiophile-wannabe or an amateur
because I have never been able to afford to get into it "properly" but
I am a musician (or have been up until a couple of years ago anyway) with a
pretty good ear and I know what sounds good to me and most people. I initially
got into technology primarily because of my love for music.
I have been an electronics technician and a computer technician / systems admin
but I've probably forgotten most of what I used to think I knew about
electronics and have been out of the loop with technology in general for a
couple of years too.
I used to do a LOT of home recording with chintzy gear and learned how to make
crappy gear sound as good as it possibly can. It's really a matter of getting
the best stuff you can but more than that using your ears and not being afraid
to experiment. If you have good hearing and it sounds good to you then it is
great.
I am not into being an audio or a tech snob for the sake of being one and I
don't automatically take everyone's opinions as gospel either. I've known a lot
of snobs who although do have something valid to say at times are often just
full of shit, that shit being themselves.
I think that the digital music revolution is fantastic but there is still
development in the analog realm. I'm not an analog snob either but a 30 ips tape
deck would be awesome to play with. I wonder if magnetic disc technology has
been or will be adapted for analog recording. Like I said, I am terribly out of
the loop on stuff and just know the basics anymore. It would be cool to see
somebody develop optical media for analog use. Hell, for all I know they may
have already. I'm sure it is technically possible.
woberto Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 02:08AM
BETA tape gas better sound quality than CD. My geeky friends have their entire
libraries on BETA and done serious amps & speakers in their sheds.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 02:40AM
sheds?
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 02:56AM
I've heard/read the same being true of VHS tape for audio. There are two
significant problems; one being the lack of control and monitoring audio signal
levels and the other being the use of agc (automatic gain control) circuits
which cannot be disabled. The result of no monitor/control is hit and miss
attempt at input signal levels even if using an external mixer. The result of
acg is a compressed recording meaning loss of dynamics. Musical passages meant
to be quiet become louder and passages meant to be louder become quieter.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 03:08AM
I believe sheds = garages in down-under-speak.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 03:20AM
Blah's translation is correct.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 03:28AM
yeah i know, but it's still funny.
pulse Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 03:49AM
Not necessarily.
I park a car in a garage (*edit: or car port), keep my tools in a shed in the
yard
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20/08/2011 03:49AM by pulse.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 04:05AM
Kim's friend's wife makes us go smoke in the shed.
woberto Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 08:46AM
In Australia & NZ the "shed" is the mans domain.
woberto Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 10:01AM
Quoth the Wikipedia...
In June of 1983, Sony introduced high fidelity audio to videotape as Beta Hi-Fi.
For NTSC, Beta HiFi worked by placing a pair of FM carriers between the chroma
(C) and luminance (Y) carriers, a process known as frequency multiplexing. Each
head had a specific pair of carriers; in total, four individual channels were
employed. Head A recorded its hi-fi carriers at 1.38(L) and 1.68(R) MHz, and the
B head employed 1.53 and 1.83 MHz. The result was audio with an 80 dB dynamic
range, with less than 0.005% wow and flutter.
Prior to the introduction of Beta Hi-Fi, Sony shifted the Y carrier up by
400 kHz to make room for the 4 FM carriers that would be needed for Beta Hi-Fi.
All Beta machines incorporated this change, plus the ability to hunt for a lower
frequency pre-AFM Y carrier. Sony incorporated an "antihunt" circuit,
to stop the machine hunting for a Y carrier that wasn't there.
Some Sony NTSC models were marketed as "Hi-Fi Ready" (with an SL-HFR
prefix to the model's number instead of the usual SL or SL-HF). These Betamax
decks looked like a regular Betamax model, except for a special 28-pin connector
on the rear. If the user desired a Beta Hi-Fi model but lacked the funds at the
time, he could purchase an "SL-HFRxx" and at a later date purchase the
separate Hi-Fi Processor. Sony offered two outboard Beta Hi-Fi processors, the
HFP-100 and HFP-200. They were identical except that the HFP-200 was capable of
multi-channel TV sound, with the word "stereocast" printed after the
Beta Hi-Fi logo. This was possible because unlike a VHS Hi-Fi deck, an NTSC
Betamax didn't need an extra pair of heads. The HFP-x00 would generate the
needed carriers which would be recorded by the attached deck, and during
playback the AFM carriers would be passed to the HFP-x00. They also had a small
"fine tracking" control on the rear panel for difficult tapes.
For PAL, however, the bandwidth between the chroma and luminance carriers was
not sufficient to allow additional FM carriers, so depth multiplexing was
employed, wherein the audio track would be recorded in the same way that the
video track was. The lower-frequency audio track was written first by a
dedicated head, and the video track recorded on top by the video head. The head
disk had an extra pair of audio-only heads with a different azimuth, positioned
slightly ahead of the regular video heads, for this purpose.
Sony was confident that VHS could not achieve the same audio performance feat as
Beta Hi-Fi. However, to the chagrin of Sony, JVC did develop a VHS hi-fi system
on the principle of depth multiplexing approximately a year after the first Beta
Hi-Fi VCR, the SL-5200, was introduced by Sony. Despite initial praise as
providing "CD sound quality", both Beta Hi-Fi and VHS HiFi suffered
from "carrier buzz", where high frequency information bled into the
audio carriers, creating momentary "buzzing" and other audio flaws.
Both systems also used companding noise-reduction systems, which could create
"pumping" artifacts under some conditions. Both formats also suffered
from interchange problems, where tapes made on one machine did not always play
back well on other machines. When this happened and if the artifacts became too
distracting, users were forced to revert to the old linear soundtrack.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 04:01PM
That's some great info, thanks.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2011 06:14PM
The "pumping" effect mentioned in the article is one effect of the
compression I was referring to caused by agc and other methods of automatic
level control. Careful use of peak limiting is preferable to compression. If you
need to use so much limiting that it is audible than your signal levels are too
high to begin with. The idea is retain the full dynamic range of the original
recording or source material and in my opinion/experience peak limiting is used
only for possible transient spikes as a precaution so you don't overdrive the
next stage into clipping.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 21, 2011 09:47AM
How bout this coincidence. Talking about the combo
am/fm/cd/cassette/turntable, I bought one yesterday from the fleamarket which
was brand new for $30.00. I will put it on my table today for $60.00 and I
should get it. Fred's sold them for over $100.00. I will play with it while I
try selling it today.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 21, 2011 04:18PM
What make is it?
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 22, 2011 01:45AM
BTW, I should probably mention that companding is the combination of
compression and expansion of the audio signal levels.
Compression lowers the higher signal levels and expansion raises the lower
levels. Companding makes the overall signal level more constant and is unnatural
sounding with even more lack of dynamics. The "pumping" and
"breathing" is even more noticeable than compression because during
lower level passages the signal to noise ratio is less (less signal, more noise
by comparison) and boosting the signal also boosts the noise by the same amount.
Compression alone produces pumping and breathing because the result of lowering
higher levels also makes the lower levels (and noise) louder by comparison. In
cheaper compressors the pumping and breathing is more audible, in really good
high end compressors it is barely noticeable unless too much compression is
used.
It's easy to make good gear sound bad. It's an art to make mediocre gear sound
good.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 22, 2011 11:21AM
Blah I never even notice what brand it is. I am pretty sure it is not American
made. I tested it out and it seems to work out pretty good. Only wish I still
had my record collection.
