Ripping from Vinyl, Simplified 415
An anonymous reader writes "In a short article at linmagau.org
John Murray brings Gramofile to our attention, just the thing to help you bring all those LPs in the cupboard into your MP3 collection. One more example of the analog hole in action, I guess ;)" It may not be CEDAR, but it sounds like a lot of utility for a 76kB program.
Why do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Records only get crappy after much use. If they could make them out of a more robust material, I'd be first in line to buy.
Re:Why do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only to audiophiles who use worthless and unquantifiable terms like "warmth" and "roundness".
A good quality cd in a good quality system is more than adequate for any normal human being who doesn't base their life's worth on the amount of vacuum (sp) tubes in their living room.
Re:In Your Cupboard? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the goal here though is to save those old Pink Floyd/The Who records you still want to play every other day, but don't want to wear out from constant use. And who wants to go out and buy a whole new set of CD's?
Weird (Score:2, Insightful)
> though it's interesting to note that even now
> some indie bands (notably the White Stripes with
> their recent Elephant album) are still releasing
> stuff on vinyl.
This sentence strikes me as slightly weird: why would I buy the latest White Stripes on vinyl if I was intending to convert it into mp3? Maybe because of the artwork? *shrugs*
Cool record btw, although De Stijl remains their best.
The Need For a Long Patch Cord (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
The best thing about good analogue recordings is the 'air' around the instruments. The soi-disant clean sound of solo string instruments on many CDs bears little resemblance to the sound of a real instrument in a real space. It is unlikely that such a claim would be made. However early 78s benefit from predating the adoption of microphones (circa 1927?) - and voice recordings of this era certainly benefit, as you can hear on the CD rereleases
- Derwen
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, different speakers do have different response to different sources, I believe that you will changge your mind saying 'absolutely marvellous' if you try listen to more hi-fi models, for example, alchemist amp with a marantz cdplayer, etc.
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, when transistor amps came out in the 60s, everyone thought they would sound far better than tubes because they did not produce as much distortion (on the analyzer, at least). That turned out to be extremely wrong. The early transistor amps may not have produced as much distortion, but they sounded far worse than tube amps. It was later found out that this occurred due to intermodulation distortion, a particularly nasty-sounding type of distortion.
I will not agree that a CD is "more than adequate". That's like saying that 640K of RAM, 256 colors, or 56Kbps is more than anyone will ever need. A CD is mastered to an extremely shitty set of parameters. 44KHz is not enough to go up to even 22KHz (and humans can hear that rather well), and 16 bits is not nearly enough for a wide dynamic range. Remember, this technology was designed in the early 80s and was supposed to be cheap even then. Even the audio industry is now switching to new formats, such as SACD and DVD Audio.
Unlike records, you can't extract any "extra" quality from the CD. It's digitized, and you can't get what's not already on the disc. With LPs, better equipment makes a world of difference. With CDs, a better transport will at best reduce jitter but will not improve the quality significantly. That's why audiophiles prefer LPs -- that's currently the only way to get better-than-CD sound.
Finally, please listen to a truly good-quality audio system (no, I don't mean a trashy Bose or Infinity 5.1) at least once in your lifetime before posting such idiotic comments. You would be surprised.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
We know exactly what is responsible for it, in the same way we know why tube amplifiers generally sound nicer then solid state amplifiers. I was explained a couple of time already in this discussion. It has to do with filtering and the production of harmonics. Ofcourse we don't know exactly why some harmonics sound "nice", but we do know which.
Now don't let it be claimed that I am pissing on analog stuff here. I myself have invested a shitload of money on a tube guitar amp, so I acknowledge that they sound good. However, they sound good because their imperfections happens to overlap with what we like.
44KHz is not enough to go up to even 22KHz
Nyquist dissagrees with you, i believe.
(and humans can hear that rather well)
Most humans don't go beyond 18kHz once they are over 30 years old.
You do have a point however that a lot of research is being done on higher dynamic ranges and higher sampling frequenties, but as I understand it, this is mostly because higher sampling rates seem to work better with more then stereo sound (5.1 and stuff).
Finally, please listen to a truly good-quality audio system (no, I don't mean a trashy Bose or Infinity 5.1) at least once in your lifetime before posting such idiotic comments. You would be surprised.
I think this is a pretty cheap remark. I someone claims you spend to much money on audio equipment you just claim that someone with cheaper equipment would never understand. This is a load of bs. I have listened to quite a few pretty damn good audio systems. I noticed that if the record player is expensive enough (an order of magnitude more expensive then the cd player) I won't hear the difference.
Jitter (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Great news for Jazz (Score:4, Insightful)
I highly agree in saving very old recordings. Frankly, I think they're much better than the "digitally remastered" versions (Read: Guido shot first).
Dude... HEADPHONES! (Score:5, Insightful)
You certainly can get a worthwhile improvement from spending moderately serious amounts on equipment, but you're right in a way--the place to spend the money isn't always obvious, and a lot of expensive kit is wank that's beaten handily by stuff a fraction of the price.
For example, you can spend $1000 on a set of incredible audiophile speakers... or you can spend $300 on a pair of good headphones and a headphone amp. Unlike with speakers, you can put an audiophile headphone system in a shared apartment and not have to compromise. In fact, you can build a portable headphone listening setup that'll sound better than anything with speakers that you might plausibly set up in the communal living room.
Even cheap equipment can often be improved greatly by add-ons. I just upgraded to some Sennheisers for my Sony Walkman, and the difference is incredible. I have a better headphone amp on the way too...
Last time I auditioned CD players, one thing that surprised me was the amount of difference in sound quality in half a dozen big-name players at around the same price. If you're serious about sound quality, you really have to audition the stuff.
Re:Why do this? (Score:1, Insightful)
The audiophile 'analog-vs-digital sound' debate is a different issue.
Re:Digital (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're dead on. Many of the people who are like "you can't tell the difference" say that because they've never been exposed to a good system.
When I was younger, every 3 years I would go to get my prescription updated.
Every 3 years I would swear up and down that my prescription hasn't changed, and I can still see just fine.
Every 3 years I would get new glasses and be amazed at how much better I can see, and how I was practically blind before.
Sure the music sounds great to you now, but when you finally hear a good system, you'll wonder how you ever thought the old system was "good" let alone "great".