Ripping Vinyl Via Your Scanner? 537
An anonymous reader writes "This site describes a method of extracting audio off of scanned images of vinyl records. Kazaa vinyl swapping is on it's way!" While this method creates exceptionally noisy samples, you can definitely hear the underlying music.
Virile records? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Virile records? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:sorry no mod points (Score:3, Funny)
That's two, right? One for each side
(For the skeptical, it was either Monty Python's Matching Tie and Hankerchief, or New World Record. One side had two different starting points, so you would hear one or the other at random. They converged somewhere in the middle of that side, so the second half was the same.)
Now, who around here remember's Flipper's "Brainwash" single?
grooves per side (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:grooves per side (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sorry no mod points (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sorry no mod points (Score:2, Funny)
what's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what's next? (Score:2, Funny)
Why would anybody want that? We all know, that a picture is worth more than 1000 words.
Laser Turntable (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.elpj.com/
Re:Laser Turntable (Score:3, Interesting)
It's actually a good idea that doesn't have to sound like a CD. CD music=digitized music. A laser turntable can be used as a precise no-contact ANALOG reader.
In fact, they're obsolete now, but 12" laserdiscs are doing exactly this - the disk is an optical medium, but the signal on that disk is analog, not digital.
Now, you can't overcome the limits of the analog recording process, the cool thing about analog systems are that you can keep making them better and better. There is always hope.
David Fung
Re:Laser Turntable (Score:2)
It had a dust-free enclosure within which the magic happened, and tracked/read the groove with a laser.
From what I can gather, it sounded good, but suffered from problems in that the source material was -not- mastered with such a playback mechanism in mind. Skilled engineers will set up the cutting lathe, the equipment driving it, and the whole recording process with the target audience's anticipated hardware and enviroment in mind, trying to counteract whatever distortion or frequency response blips are likely to be a problem.
This beast was a bit far off in left field for it to be a factor in any of those educated guesses and adjustments, so there wasn't (AFAIK) any software made specifically to play on it.
But the biggest problem was dust, scratches, and other imperfections. Since it had no physical apparatus to follow the (very wiggly) groove, nor a needle to push microscopic dust particles out of its path, every flaw on the vinyl surface was very plainly heard and easily lead to mistracking. A case of something being too perfect, perhaps. Rough vinyl -loves- to soak up dust.
Ask groups.google.com about it. ISTR some discussion of this thing in rec.audio.high-end, once upon a time...
As for laserdiscs being obsolete, bzzt. The vastly superior video fidelity (compared to DVD, anyhow) and inexpensiveness of hardware and media (thanks, Ebay!) has kept the format kicking, and it's not due to die any time soon. You get Dolby Digital, chapter selection, and most of the other things that most people think were introduced with DVD, with the exception of the stupid fucking animated menus and impossible-to-skip commercials.
Same reason that Big Ugly Dishes are still fairly common items - sure, people could "upgrade" to some 18" DBS system for cheap (or free), but with a BUD you can recieve the same absolutely perfect AM-modulated analog video that DirecTV gets, -before- it gets routed through another few racks of lossy electronics and MPEG-esque compression, and another satellite, and another recieving dish, and a consumer-level IRD of marginal quality, before finally hitting the TV.
Some of this old tech is just too cool to die.
We began these posts by writing about turntables. Talk about ancient tech that just won't go away...
Re:Laser Turntable (Score:2)
As you mention dust was the big killer, if you bought one of these (hugely expensive) you also need an even more expensive record bashing/cleaning machine to be able to use it.
Re:Laser Turntable (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
It's spelled "vinyl" (Score:2)
I seem to recall in the last days of turntables and vinyl records, when CDs were starting to take over, that some company came out with a no-contact record pick-up that bounced light off the grooves. This is sort of a variation on that idea, except you don't need to spin the record.
Re:It's spelled "vinyl" (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty funny write-up, actually, but I'll believe he actually did it when I see the code.
show me the code (Score:5, Funny)
Or scan the floppy the same way as he scanned the LPs and email the jpg.
Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2, Informative)
Not that hard, folks. Especially when you get it right in the headline.
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
Most submissions I see go well until there is a some sort of joke at the end, which is practically a modified clone of the "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" joke. Go ahead and see for yourself. Damned submission side-comments!
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
Spelling InCorrect. It doesn't really mean that, but it might as well.
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
Tim
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the purpose of language is to communicate. So, yes, it's possible that an over-fixation on grammar could lead to a blockage of communication. But it's just as possible -- and I would say, even more likely -- that everyone striking out on their own and establishing their own "new rules" will lead to linguistic fragmentation and the death of communication. Look at it this way: Try picking up an early but still Modern English text -- something written back before printing presses and dictionaries. Try to read it. Pick up a New York Times article from, say, 100 years ago. Try to read it.
Which of those, do you think, would be more readily comprehensible? And don't you think it might have something to do with the standardized spelling and grammar employed in the Times?
As someone scientifically trained, I am simply aware that non-standard usages can be deadly to communication and the progress of the field.
Finally, I'd like to comment on
Actually, no. Usage of "[sic]" and other correction of grammar does not imply that there is a correct way of speaking. These do imply there is some sort of "correct" way of writing
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
Editors of real publications will fix spelling and inconsequential grammatical errors before publishing them. But if they're say... quoting George W. Bush, and the mistake is part of the reason they're quoting it, then they'll put in [sic] to show that it's the person being quoted, not the person typing up the quote that made the error.
note: [sic] almost always conveys a sense of the writer thinking him or herself better and more intellegent than the source. it's a very arrogant little journalistic device. it's sometimes needed, but not very often.
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
No, it conveys the sense that the writer who's quoting a source found that source confusing, wrong, or of dubious accuracy, in a context where the alternate sense of the quoted source is so compellingly obvious that the quoting writer needs to emphasize that the source actually conveyed the non-obvious interpretation.
Re:Vinyl/Vinile (Score:2)
"Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."
I've seen it used (and used it myself) most often to denote peculiar grammar or the use of a word that doesn't exist (most G.W.B. quotes seem to call for its use.)
practical applications? (Score:2, Funny)
Quick! (Score:5, Funny)
screw that... (Score:2)
Re:screw that... (Score:3, Funny)
Does this mean scanners are the next Napster... (Score:4, Funny)
I can't wait to start ripping my parent's vinyl. I used to listen to it all the time as a kid, and now my Pentium II is finally advanced enough to play 100 year old technology.
Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
More like he'd rather get his practical joke on slashdot, and if he supplied the code, it'd be a lot easier to prove it's fake.
Let's apply Occam's Razor.
Those music samples could have been generated by software that reads stitched together images of scanned vinyl records.
Or they could be just regular samples of music taken off a record/cd/tape and run through a static-izer for effect.
Which is simpler?
Let's see the code, please...
Of course it's a hoax (Score:3, Flamebait)
Not only that, but he's extrapolating a higher amount of data from a smaller amount, and that just does not work people! Listen to that MP3 on his site. That is just a recording of a record playing.. there are no hideous artefacts or giant gaps.. all of which would be expected with such a crazy new idea like this. It reeks of a hoax.
Just because it's not April 1st doesn't mean you haven't been fooled, folks! I have to give the guy credit for trying though.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Of course it's a hoax (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course it's a hoax (Score:5, Informative)
The guy goes on to say;
Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
The angles of stereo records are well known (Score:5, Interesting)
Now to see if my memory still works. Mono LPs used horizontal modulation; the needle moved back and forth within the groove. Stereo can be viewed two ways. Vertical is difference (L-R), horizontal is sum of the L+R. Viewed differently, the two diagonal walls of the groove are the two channels.
A flatbed scanner can only see the horizontal, so it might work a bit with mono, but it won't work too well! However do note that some very, very expensive ($10k+?) new turntables actually do use optical "needles" to track the groove without touching it. Talk about low tracking force!
Re:The angles of stereo records are well known (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The angles of stereo records are well known (Score:2)
http://www.elpj.com/
"New Low Prices!"
Sure... I can still buy a cheap car for the cost of one...
real people (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:real people (Score:2)
I'm not impressed, but I'll have to "age myself" too to explain why. I knew people back in highschool who recorded stuff off the air, and never labeled their tapes. They just knew the music by the brand of the tape, how dirty or scratched the plastic was, where it was thrown last, etc. I've seen that done with collections of 100 or more tapes. OK, it's not quite as impressive, but the leap to different patterns in the vinyl isn't that great.
bw of a jpq v mp2 (Score:2, Funny)
My Dual Turntable sounds much better. (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides I would not stick any of my 12 maxi singles of 1980s Billy Idol in the scanner to be scraped against the glass.
My NAD stereo has been faithfully updated over the years but the turntable remains the same. And I do use it on the odd occasion and sometimes do pick up an ablum at the flea market.
Puto
Re:My Dual Turntable sounds much better. (Score:2)
Re:My Dual Turntable sounds much better. (Score:2)
FWIW, I use a Mac to record the audio, then use Cool Edit in VirtualPC to do the click and noise removal. Then back to a Mac program to do final click removal and splitting. Actually works pretty well!
But, yes, it's time consuming and requires patience.
Billy Idol could be improved (Score:2, Funny)
Re:My Dual Turntable sounds much better. (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, apparantly scraping them with a small diamond is the limit of your tolerance level.
Cool, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Scanned Backward? (Score:4, Funny)
Hypothetical Question (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets say this is for real (not really sure about that one)
Lets also assume it eventually extracts 100% clear as a bell.
Would it be legal to trade/sell pictures of albums?
Re:Hypothetical Question (Score:3, Informative)
MP3s are not like-for-like copies of CDs, they're extremely lossy, and you only get a tenth of what's on the CD.. but.. you can still get busted for swapping them! I believe the copyright laws specify that any 'likeness' to which a third-party could associate with the original, is covered as such.
Ditto for music encoded within images, though this is a hoax.
Re:Hypothetical Question (Score:2)
You underestimate the power of the Content Cartel. In real life, they would get a judge to rule that you, with the picture of the album, had already violated the copyright. And it gets worse: This legal argument will then be extended to say that photos of album covers -- even if they're only incidental in the picture -- are violations. And then....
computer media? (Score:2, Interesting)
On a related note, is there any technology for using a high res laser scanner to read records? It might actually sound decent.
Re:computer media? (Score:2)
New slashdot low? (Score:2)
I love the part where he draws out all these superficially fancy-looking diagrams modelling 3d space but he doesn't bother to even use a compass for his angle drawing/measurements so his record looks like it was drawn by a 3 year old...
A way to remove the noise. (Score:2)
How about the opposite? (Score:2)
obDMCA: rot13 the poly data and call the FBI when the RIAA circumvents it...
oh boy now you've done it... (Score:2)
your scanner now is officially a copyright circumventing device, please upgrade firmware to prevent illegal vinyl scanning or else we will use the DCMA to it's full extent
Re:oh boy now you've done it... (Score:2)
Your scanner was already a copyright circumventing device; how do you think all those bootleg books get on the web? Not all copyright is sound, you know.
I hate to say it. (Score:3, Funny)
Why this is nonsense. (Score:2, Informative)
Think your scanner has that much resolution? Guess again -- 1200 dpi is roughly 21 microns, off by a factor of 100.
Note that 5 nanometers is way smaller than the wavelength of visible light (roughly 750 to 350 nm), so those laser turntables everyone is talking about don't work very well either, unless they've got x-ray lasers in them.
Why this comment is nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, where the analysis is wrong is a tougher question for me. I'm guessing, however, that it has something to do with the fact that the author assumes that the info isn't encoded on a logarithmic scale. You do, after all, have to have a very special amp to use a phonograph.
b.c
Re:Why this comment is nonsense. (Score:2)
Furthermore, the spacing between grooves (or rather, successive revolutions on the same spiral groove, to be pedantic) isn't uniform. The grooves are spaced closer together during quiet portions, and further apart during loud parts, to give more space to larger-amplitude waves. (The second photo in the article gives a great example of this.)
This can cause problems with really loud recordings. I know of at least one recording of Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" (the one with the cannons) that came with a warning about setting the tracking force appropriately lest the wild excursions during the finale cause the needle to jump the track. (It also had a warning about making sure your speakers had overload protection.)
Why, that was nonsense. =) (Score:2)
Well, you meant to say
"To reproduce a signal whose dynamic range is 90 dB, the smallest excursions have to be roughly 1/30000 of the maximum amplitude. 150/30000 microns is 5 nanometers."
First of all, the system isn't linear. Think about the sizes you're talking about. And 90dB?
But there's a more important issue: your complaint here would make sense if the software was tracking the groove movement by pattern recognition. But that's not what was suggested here; it's using the light levels along the grooves in the scans to estimate the surface angle and extrapolate the position. All the picture we need for that is a view a few pixels across on the groove. Of course, there still could be an issue with the lack of intensity resolution on the scanner... But since even my entry-level $130 Canon can do 36-bit colour optically (presumably yielding a 12-bit greyscale), you might just be able to shop your way round it.
Re:Why this is nonsense. (Score:2)
I think you're off somewhere... Let's try working the math a different, simpler way.
In the inner track, we have 4 inches * PI = about 12 inches. 33 1/3 RPM = 0.5 RPS, or about 6 inches of record per second. 20,000 cycles per second frequency = 20,000 grooves every 6 inches of record or around 3,000 grooves per inch. Based on that, it's still beyond a 1200 dpi scanner, but it's not the insane tolerances you're speaking of, either.
Now, that's for 20,000 Hz. The question is whether a 1200 dpi scanner could pick up enough data to get a very low quality signal.
Try this... (Score:2)
In the course of a minute, the record rotates 33 1/3 revolutions, or 12,000 degrees. This is 200 revolutions per second, or 12' per millisecond.
On a circle of radius 2400 dots, one millisecond corresponds to 8.375 pixels. Typically, it's closer to 24 pixels.
So, what you are essentially looking at is 24*6.66 = 160 pixels per millisecond at the minimum, and an average closer to twice this.
While one can not expect to get cd-quality audio from such a processing, it is well within the realm of possibility to produce something at 9kHz, similar to the old AM radio quality.
Certianly LP manufacturing has come a long way. The technology to make high quality 33 1/3 appeared around 1947. Before that the 45 and 78 dominated, and low quality 16 2/3 rpm. Microgrove stereo technologies appeared around the 1960s, and towards the end of the seventies and early eighties, there was some optical pickups.
Dollar for dollar, the LP still sounds better than the cdrom, purely because the digital noise, while not audible, provides a harsh overtone when compared to the vinyl.
On the other hand, with a bit of practice, one can follow the music by looking at the wriggles on the grove. I know I could identify music from the grooves.
The other trouble is that shading and colour carries information as well. So while there are 160 pixels per second, there may well be more information when colour is added into the picture.
Given that his audio samples are consistant with the calculated data information to be found.
So the stuff lines up pretty well, I should imagine.
Re:Why this is nonsense. (Score:2)
>is 90 dB, the smallest excursions have to
>be roughly 1/30000 of the maximum amplitude.
That may well be the case, but the vinyl LP tops out at about 60db of dynamic range. And that's with an audiophile virgin vinyl pressing produced on the finest equipment. 40-50db of dynamic range is the best you'll get from most discs & equipment, and even then not at all frequencies. When it comes to consumer audio, only the digital formats - DAT, MiniDisc, CD & its offspring - can deliver 90db of dynamic range. Although I suppose VHS Hi-Fi and quality cassette decks with Dolby S can come pretty close.
>the width of the groove is roughly
>meters, which is 150 microns.
This page [aardvarkmastering.com], which purports to be the text of an RIAA bulletin from 1963, lists all the standards for phonograph records. According to it, the grooves of a stereo record are at a minimum
For comparison, CD "grooves" (tracks, really) are 1.6 microns wide, according to this page [washington.edu].
Each pit is approximately
Whatever they're doing, they got a great review [stereotimes.com].
I agree though that there's no way a home scanner could suck enough detail off a stereo record to reproduce much of anything. 1200dpi isn't even close to what you'd need.
Re:Why this is nonsense. (Score:2)
Excellent quality vinyl, when played on top quality equipment, can have a noise floor of -85dB or so. Yeah, I know Bels are log, but that's still pretty impressive! Also, much better than most people realise.
More typically however, vinyl has a noise floor of -70 or -75dB.
Re:Why this is nonsense. (Score:2)
>equipment, can have a noise floor of -85dB or so.
Impossible. No vinyl has a -85dB noise floor. The grinding of the stylus against the groove walls alone limits you to around -75dB. Add in all the harmonics, dirt, electronic noise, rumble and other factors, and you're at around -70 to -65dB, tops, on the finest equipment with the finest virgin vinyl. Only the touchless laser turntables could hope for an -85dB noise floor (and even they don't claim it).
And of course, if you want to record more than about 6 minutes of audio with any kind of low bass content on a 12" disc, you're going to have to compress the dynamic range even further in order to get it to fit. The best 12" singles used in nightclubs have about 60dB of dynamic range, which is as good as it gets for vinyl in practical use. (Unless you resort to non-standard encoding. I think albums recorded with dbx were released in the late '70s or early '80s, for example. Those probably could get you 60 or 70dB of dynamic range on an album-length recording, but you'd need a special decoder, and you'd have to put up with the weird dbx artifacts.)
Since when.... (Score:3, Interesting)
C'mon. There's lots of filters out there that will introduce these types of effects into a sound file.
Hoax.
Re:Since when.... (Score:2)
looks possible (Score:5, Informative)
Standard rotational speed = 33 1/3 RPM
12" record
Circumference = pi * D
33.3RPM /60 ~ 0.5 R/second
12" * pi ~ 37" circumference.
0.5 * 37" = 18.5"
18.5 * 600dpi = 11,100 samples per inch, which gives a Nyquist limit of 5550Hz... a 2400 dpi or better might actually give full audio bandwidth, though in this case, the higher the better, since the area available for sampling decreases towards the center of the record, and for really high fidelity sound, more than 2 samples at 20K are necessary.
His model for how the record was encoded is *wrong*. The RIAA method of stereo modulation (back when they were mostly a standards organization) places the amplitude information on each wall of the V-shaped groove. It is intended to be picked up with a stylus connected to a something in the form of an Y , with channel information picked up by coil or magnet or other means attached to each upper leg of the Y.
Fixing his model should result in drastically improved performance if he's extracting stereo information. Cleaning the record would also help a lot.
His project actually *is* worth doing. An optimized algorithm should allow anyone or a museum with a good scanner to turn his vinyl (SPELLED CORRECTLY) collection into decent quality Red Book or MP3 tracks without any further damage to the records. The basic problem is to linearize the relationship between 16-24 bit gray scale information of reflected light and the depth modulation in each groove.
The suggestion of using software to extract 3D information from the grooves posted elsewhere is a good idea, but this is a good start.
Cool hack.
Re:looks possible (Score:2)
On the other hand, it's been done by others. There's an extremely expensive turntable that uses a reflective laser pickup instead of a stylus/cartidge to read the record. Great for museums. There have also been interesting SF stories about similar ideas in the past.
However, an entire record read with a common scanner? Cool! Even better, it's conceivable that image manipulation could repair certain defects in records far better than audio filters (analog or digital).
Neat!
Re:looks possible (Score:3, Funny)
This poster has no clue whatsoever. They are either incredibly high, making a joke that simply isn't funny, or incredibly stupid.
Very possibly more than one of the above factors is at work here.
Factual information to back up my claims, in simple and easy to understand words:
Needle grooves are not just squiggly lines like waveforms in your copy of WinRecord. The groove itself is going to be v-shaped, and can swing the needle both inboard and outboard, as well as rotate it slightly. Even a 2400 dpi scanner is not going to be sufficient to read that kind of subtlety... and let's not forget the other two factors here... the vinyl is both SHINY and BLACK.
When was the last time you tried to scan the cover of a black vinyl three-ring binder? Could you see the naugahyde (sp?) pattern in the scanned result?
Pffft.
Step _away_ from the bong, people.
Re:looks possible (Score:2, Informative)
To do this, one might scan the record multiple times at 600dpi. The information from the multiple images could be combined to interpolate the missing samples. Same priciple as 'interleave' mode on an oscilloscope. I guess it might also be necessary to deconvolute the image with the impulse response of the scanner.
Or... (Score:2)
This could work, but not very well (Score:3, Informative)
Much of microscopy work, which this is, involves fooling with the illumination direction vs. the viewing direction. Getting that right is a big part of doing it at all. This guy had to scan the record in four quadrants to get some halfway reasonable result. Obviously, you'd like a rotational scan, like a turntable with a stationary scan arm. The amusing thing is that you could read an entire vinyl record in one rev. Now, at last, the 1000x LP player!
Incidentally, the recording system for stereo LPs is called "45-45 Westrex", because there are two perpendicular tracks recorded 90 degrees apart (at +45 and -45 from vertical). Mono records, which have no vertical component, are thus backwards compatible. If all you can read is the horizontal component, you get a valid mono signal.
Reminds me of... (Score:2)
I think it was like 2-bit (no pun intended) audio. You could hear the music there as well, but you couldn't do anything like rock...it would just become noise. But, "spoken word" recordings were ok. I remembered having a disc that contained "historical recordings" (JFK, Nixon, etc). If you didn't expect too much, it was actually kind of fun
But my question is, how does this guy ever expect us to belive that these recordings were done in the method decribed if he won't release the code...
Alternative lighting for a scanner? (Score:2)
Oh, uh, I mean, I DID do that, yeah I did it already. Last week. It was easy because I'm a genius. But uhhh, I'm not releasing any pictures because they're lame and nobody would be interested in swapping them on Kazaa.
Seriously, has it been done?
Freaky (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:2)
The reason people use LP's is because they prefer analog reproduction, instead of the (down) sampling done by the digital format. These guys clean their power so it's perfect sine waves and then use vacuum tubes to amplify thhe signal. I've listened to one rig like this and I have to admit that it sounded pretty darn good. What's the point of doing a crappy scan of an LP if you're going to digitize the picture, mangle it through a bunch of filters and try and reproduce the sound.
I'm still not convinced that you can get decent sound out of a 1200 dpi scan of the LP. You'll only get two or three 32bit dots on the actual track. track speed of 9-18" per second, at 1200 dpi and you get 16800 x 3 dots, or about 50k dots per second. 60 Mega pixels of really really noisy, hard to work with information.
BTW, the ELPJ [elpj.com]'s laser turntable claims to be completely analog. If it were digital, they'd probably lose 70% of their market. After, the reason you have LP's is because you want the analog sound.
EnkiduEOT
Re: (Score:2)
Lies make Baby Jesus CRY! (Score:2)
If the had guy released code, I'd be EQing, fuzzing and modulating a different tune. Until then, a definite fake. One that I wish were real :(
Random thought on improving the process... (Score:2)
It's been tried on oil paintings! (Score:2, Interesting)
Version 2.0b (video version) (Score:3, Funny)
You want to try this at home? (Score:4, Informative)
http://arts.ucsc.edu/ems/music/tech_background/TE- 19/teces_19.html [ucsc.edu] contains basic information on how the LP record works. I think the most important thing for the experimenter is called RIAA equalization, in order to limit the physical motion of the recording stylus that cut the record, bass was reduced and treble increased in a very precise way, in order to reproduce the original sound, the opposite must be done.
The RIAA equalization curve is a plot of amplitude boost/cut vs. frequency. Apply its inverse to the raw analog signal(s) that come out of your signal processing.
You can find it at http://www.tanker.se/lidstrom/riaa.htm [tanker.se].
Oh, and CLEAN THE RECORD BEFORE DOING THIS. The info in Part 14 of the rec.audio.* FAQ is as good a place to start to find out how as any.
Have fun and feel free to let me know if you get anywhere.
You might also want a look at my other post to this thread [slashdot.org].
Woke up, fell out of bed... rampaged by a slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
I am sorry so many of you thought this page was a hoax only
because no source code was supplied (I'm sure you'll all agree, now that
you can see the code, that it is both straightforward and crappy).
I guess I didn't do enough on the actual explanation side either.
The whole thing was done in a couple of late nights so I didn't really
have much time to gather all the technical details concerning phonograph
modulations. Moreover the "archeological" reverse-engineering aspect was part
of the fun.
I now know (thanks to some great replies) that the horizontal modulation (the only
one I did decode) is not a whole channel in itself but merely a delta between
the h-modulation and the depth-modulation which I did _not_ decode.
Some repliers seemed to be a tad confused as to what recordings were
the actual decodings. I'd like to stress that gramophone3.mp3 is a recording
while the rest (dneedle*) were decoded from the image.
Have fun,
Ofer Springer
Re:Optical record players - found some (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.elpj.com/main.html [elpj.com]
Still, it's pretty darn neat to do it with a scanner.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Image=Music?! (Score:2)
1) it's an analog recording
2) there's no copy protection
I'm tired of people jumping around screaming "DMCA" in places where it's totally unjustified.
Re:If it's noisy, why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:cool fucking hack (Score:2)
Two words: "cochlear implant".