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.
Other possibility (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amazing new tech! (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't just hook line out to line in and expect a decent result. You need some decent software as well. this guy [lp2cd.com] makes a living doing decent conversions. If it was truly as easy as you say, he'd be out of business.
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Those guys are wankers - but valves do have a different sound. When valve amps clip, they have a nicer sound then transistor amps. This is thought to be caused by a more 'rounded' curve, caused by even order harmonics. see this page [westhost.com] for more information.
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.
Remember when 256 colour graphics cards came out? I bet you thought 'Wow! I'll never need more then those'. When high colour came out 'This is great - more won't make a difference, since the eye can't see any more'. as technology improved, so did our desire for more quality.
What I found Interesting.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The results of the poll can be found here [linmagau.org]
Re:Why do this? (Score:1, Interesting)
this partly due to the quality of the recording equipment, and also the regularly used more and better vinyl (now the use old recycled stuff and about half as much). also other reasons, such as the tricks engineers got up to later on gradually ruined the art of recording.
everything you buy now is recorded on nasty equip, mixed and compressed horribly by the engineers, and if vinyl, pressed onto about 1/2 a gram of old car-tyres.
there are exceptions, such as sony's direct digital and some direct-to-disk 'audiophile' shit.
Re:Why do this? (Score:2, Interesting)
The master pressing can be made from maybe a high quality tape (also analogue), or maybe a digital source with a very high sample rate / sample depth. So not necessarily made from a digital source.
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't records made from digital sources?
Depends. Many studios still use magnetic tape, although others use Pro-Tools and their ilk for everything. Once the multi track recordings are done, then the mastering might be to magnetic tape, DAT or Exabyte (amongst others). Then comes the mastering at the pressing plant, which is where any recording will go digital (if it's being pressed onto CD) at the glass mastering stage. Vinyl mastering produces a die, and this is still an "analog" process.
And yes, bass frequencies are limited on vinyl, I remember an early acid house track called "Oochy Koochy" which had such a massive kick sound that it trashed the mastering studios cutting head, something they weren't insured for. That reminds me - I'll have to extract that record from my brothers grubby mitts next time I see him ...
Chris
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the equalisation curve [paia.com] was specified by our good friends, the RIAA... all amplifiers that have a "Phono" input use an RIAA EQ curve in the pre-amp stage to boost/reduce the frequencies to get back to a flat response that should sound like the studio mix off the (pre vinyl mastering) master tape.
Often these days all mastering is done at a flat EQ curve, because CDs can handle this, and then mastering happens *again* for the vinyl stage. It used to be the other way round, so early CDs were replaced with "digitally remastered" cuts - Brothers in Arms, Pink Floyd catalogue, that sort of stuff - and had a sound that was more faithful to the original, pristine LPs without sounding "tinny" like the first released CDs.
Digital to Analogue converters and preamps are so good these days that there is little difference between vinyl and CD. A lot of the "warmth" that supposed audiophiles go on about is probably "rumble" anyway (that is, the 50 or 60Hz drone that comes from the platter's electric motor and is passed to the needle, and other artifacts created by the rotation of the record in slightly less than perfect circles, etc).
What I like about LPs is the bigger artwork, the physical effort required to play a recording, and the soothing 33 and one third RPM of the disc as it spins on my old JVC turntable. Also, records which are well kept - as they generally are in my collection - sound pretty good too. However, they're not *better* than CDs. Just different. Old analogue stuff has afficionados everywhere, but please stop bleating that it's because it's better. It's just different.
One interesting argument though - a big thing in digital audio is to keep a fully digital path all the way to the very last, then have a top D to A converter right in the amp and straight to the speakers, some people even sending a digital feed to speakers which have reference D to A converters or even some system to use the digital signal to generate an analogue wave which goes beyond normal D to A electronics (can't remember too much about that, Google around if you feel so inclined). With my vinyl setup, however, I have a signal path that is fully analogue, and no need of a DtoA stage at all ;-) - although I do have solid state electronics in the system... which old wind up 78rpm players didn't have. I bet some people claimed they sounded better than the newer 33rpm records with electric motors and all that, too.
Re:Why do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
This cheap stereo system (high street retailers cheapest "got everything" model) sounded absolutely marvellous. Like kit costing fity times as much.
Ever since then, I have been of the opinion that it is not worth spending a fortune on hi-fi kit if you intend to install it in a room in which you intend to Have a Life. The necessary compromises to live in a room - particularly if you share with other people - will cancel out all the advantages of super-duper kit. If you are prepared to set up a special listeneing room, it might be worth investing in this kit. Until then, buy more music or more beer.
Re:Other possibility (Score:2, Interesting)
Back before CDs came along, a UK childrens TV programme (Blue Peter) had on a guest who could 'read' the music between the grooves.
The presenters handed him a bunch of LPs (with the labels covered) and he proceded to correctly hum or sing all of the tunes on them.
Try doing that with your HD full of MP3s
- Derwen
Another worthwhile program (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestin (Score:4, Interesting)
A nice side effect is that buying music became fun again. Browsing records and then putting them on the store's listening turntable is somehow a nicer experience than pressing a couple of buttons on a CD player. I now have a couple of albums that I didn't buy because of copy protection and couldn't be happier. Of course CDs are easier to handle, and there is none of the static and other little noises you can get with a record. But for me music never was about the highest possible sound quality.
Re:In Your Cupboard? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dispite the fact that I was born in the 70s... I only recently gained an apprication for vinyl. As a kid, when I bought records, it was cause I didn't have a tape player, and I treeted my vinyl poorly. I went with cassettes cause they were so much more portable, I could play them on my TI-99/4a data recorder, and they didn't get damaged too much if I didn't put them back in their cases.
But I was missing something actually. Amazingly enough vinyl is actually a really good standard. Part of my prejustice was the fact that I was a kid and was listening to the stuff on my folks record player, some wooden cabinate deal with cheepo tv tweaters, stereo that was screwy from date of purchace, and an 8track that the program button was screwy. And plus the fact that all the records I had at the time were hand me downs from family members, played to death.
When CDs came out, I was instently impressed... vast sound improvement vs cassettes I noticed right off the bat, no background hiss, and vs the vinyl players *I've experenced* no background 60 cycle hum. So I went for one of those, I was older and could afford one, at first a simple boom box, eventualy a dedicate amp and a multi-disk changer with remote, and then I had something resembling a servicable sound system.
While I'm not a true audiophile, there are those who believe that vinyl is a superior standard to CD. Recent experiments have show me personaly that it's good, it's pretty damn good. If you are lucky enough to have a decent turntable, with a decent cartrage, a new needle, proper alignment, and kick ass wires that don't pickup that annoying 60 cycle hum that most turn tables seem to be a victim of, they sound great, in fact, they do kick ass. Wether or not they have a more natural sound due to the fact that they are analog and have more descrete values between their max and minium range, or if the better cartrage / styluses pickup more noise giving it a warmer feel rather then accurate, I don't know.
Before I get too off the mark, it's reasonable to believe that an analog vinyl record can more accuratly produce natural sounds due to it's analog nature, that whole issue with descrete values in the human percieved range is easy enough to believe. I've never seen it personaly, but i'm willing to believe this. However, in order to achive maxium effect, you need a virgin pressing, virgin record, kick ass turn table, etc... etc... and ya know... I am not going to spend that sorta money on a sound system, nor am I going to spend hours tweeking with my stylus alignment. Forget that. CDs sound pretty damn good, mp3s at a high enough bitrate are adquate for portable audio. Even an old goodwill CD-rom drive will proved *great* audio at sub $20.00.
So to answer your question, no you are not weird like that. While some will argue that the vinyl standard is superior in quality, you can't argue about the entry level cost of CD vs vinyl. CD provides damn good sound for few bucks. CDs are damn cheep to produce dispite the phohographs simple technology to extract sounds from a disk.
But now we are getting stanards for digital audio that more then double the sample rate and 33% the bit width... it would be interesting to see how phonophiles feel about sound quality vs ye old snap crackle hiss humm.
Re:Why do this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Best is to have a digital crossover filter and then two DACs to feed two amps per speaker. One for the woofer, one for the tweeter. This will minimize phase problems in your speaker. Some studio monitor speakers do just that.
You could extend to three- or four-way systems, but that's overkill.
Re:Why do this? Brothers in Arms (Score:1, Interesting)
Or am I out to lunch?
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Another impossible-to-live-with arrangement that I found made for excellent sound out of a pair of cheap speakers was hanging them from the the pipes in my basement room ceiling with some twine.
I can only guess that the lack of mechanical connection between the speakers and a hard surface allowed for better bass resonance.
I think the basement helped as well, since the ceiling was some kind of cheap cardboard-like material (harder than cardboard, softer than masonite) and the fact that that the floor was carpeting over concrete. The walls were paneling over foam board on concrete.
I eventually added two home-made subs and some surround speakers and haven't had a stereo setup that sounded that good since, in spite of spending more money.
analog (Score:3, Interesting)
People all have a certain type of music that sounds the best to their ears and is the most comfortable to listen to... likewise, people have a certain type of audio gear that is most comfortable.
For me, I prefer using my analog vacuum tube amp (an Antique Sound Labs MG-SI15DT with Svetlana KT88 power tubes and Electro-Harmonix 12AX7 preamp tubes... if you're interested). It sounds much different than my Sony receiver... anyone can tell there is a difference. However, whether or not it is better is a completely personal matter. To me it is better. Different tubes even will accentuate different parts of the music. Different speakers will produce different ranges differently.
As far as media goes... I'm fine playing back CDs and MP3s... I do have records (some are brand new), and they're fine and good... but to me the main benefit of records is just how enjoyable it is to take it out of the sleeve and gently place it down on the turntable... place the needle on the track you want... and watch it spin.
Just use the Terapin MCR-TX3300 (Score:1, Interesting)
Word.
Great news for Jazz (Score:5, Interesting)
Just think of all the music produced in the 20's, 30's and 40's that was never remastered and released on CD. Big Band Swing, Jazz, Blue Grass, tons of music that still has a copyright on it (thank you disney), but the copyright owner doesn't want to keep current in their catalog (too expensive). Get this music out on Kazaa, and introduce yourself to a generation of music that is slowly being lost.
Re:Why do this? (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with you 100% there. Over these past few years, I've mixed on full analog, solid-state, and digital audio boards. Analogs (like a certain Trident) are my favorite for rock because when they clip, you don't get hit by it.
Solid-state boards are what I grew up with, so the clip isn't that bad...but not nearly as "nice as analog." The new digital boards suck in this regard--when they clip, they clip, generally leaving the technician (usually me) screaming "gaaaaa..."
Compare... (Score:2, Interesting)
There simply ain't no comparison; the album was recorded on an old 8 track in his garage before the record company made him "clean it up a bit for release." Then, when they made the CD, they "cleaned it up" even more (this time without any input at all from Elvis). It ain't even a close race - vinyl wins start to finish. In comparison to the album, listening to the CD is like trying to view the mona lisa through a shower door.
Not saying it's ALWAYS best (hell, I don't even buy CDs anymore - most of my collecion is HBR MP3 with a few APEs thrown in) but sometimes there's no other avenue. I rotate what few LPs I have left as wall art; try finding impLOG's "Holland Tunnel Dive" (Ooooh, what a ride...) on CD. Or Tex and the Horseheads. Or...
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Longevity of analogue recordings (Score:2, Interesting)
blind test (Score:4, Interesting)
Basicly I was getting annoyed at some audiophile dj friends of mine. Ones who will quote stats and specifics yet not really give you a decent answer to the question, "does this sound good".
What I did was I was demonstrating turn table vs CD. I actually had a few things that were made most recently, like pearl jam for example. What I did was I played the CD, and when I told them I was playing the vinyl, I secretly replaced the sound they usually hear with literaly what I filtered out of an entirely diffrent album. I call the track crack pop fizzle and hum.
And sure enough... I was told that the second play, with the added snap pop crackle and 60 cycle hum was indeed had a warmer feel to it, and was the superior recording.
Needless to say after revieling to them that it was a wave file with just vinyl noise, otherwise it was the same thing.
While I appricate a good audio file who can put terms too annoying aspects of my sound setup that I can't place my finger on... I have little tolerance for idiots who are making a judgement based on feeling. I'll be the first to agree that a CD's clean sound may sound artifical to ears who were raised listening to vinyl. So the solution for this market is clear, create a turntable noise generator and those few vinyl psuddo-elitists will be happy.
This is not to say that there are not people out there who trully have an ear to pickup the diffrences between analog and something sampled 44.1kHz. But should you be bothered with such folk, do your own blind test and see what happens.
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, so a tube amp sounds more pleasant when operated out of spec. The real problem is that headroom is expensive. A well designed tube amp that isn't clipping isn't going to sound any different from a well designed transistor amp. By well designed, I mean it has highly linear response from around 10Hz all the way up to 20Khz under a variety of inputs and listening levels. Even a cheapy amp can sound good if the volume is moderate and it's hooked up to good speakers.
This is the basis of gag that's been played on audiophiles numerous times. A cheap amp is EQed to an expensive amp with pink noise and a spectrum analyzer at low volume. They'll sound nearly identical as long as no one touches the volume knob. You then hide the cheap kit behind the expensive kit and laugh at them as they ooh and ahh. Of course, the mystical excuses will flow freely once the "Golden Ears" realize they've been had.
The point is that a good amp (of either tube or transistor design) shows it's quality when it's cranked. If it's clipping then you need to back off. The tube amp is just more forgiving to the listener who likes to turn it up to "11". This is a subtle point often lost on teenagers and college boys. High wattage speakers and amps aren't intended to be operated at "11" to win bigger uh equipment contests. They're intended to be louder without distortion. A 200W-RMS amp designed for wide headroom in a fairly small room is more expensive than a 500W-peak crank-em-up-contest amp for a reason.
On the other hand, I have no argument with guitar players who insist on tube amps or least a tube preamp stage. Some guitar preamps are even designed to exaggerate tube distortion. Sound production is an entirely different beast from sound re-production.
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
But we should remember that the original sounds are not a digital signal, they are in fact a complex collection of analogue signals.
Ultimately, anyone who really cares about the issue (and who has the requisite financial wherewithal) can check it out by comparison of a top-quality turntable with an equivalent CD player with a good combination of amp and speakers. Nobody will notice much difference with any music produced electronically, but with acoustic instruments and voices, there can be a marked difference in fidelity. I'm not going to get into silly definitions like "warmth", though, since that may in fact be applying different values to the initial signal, which although they might be easy on the ear do not qualify as faithful reproduction.
Re:Why do this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why do this? (Score:2, Interesting)
No. Simply because it sounds fantastic. If music is reproduced as close to the original performance as possible, then the detail, and dynamics and passion that led to its creation can be felt more. I can lose myself in the music, feel it more, and that is after all why I listen to music, to feel, to live. If that makes me an audiophile tosser then thats what I am happy to be.
By the way, it aint just subjective poppycock like 'warmth' and 'roundness' that back me up.
There are many reasons (based in science and logic) why vinyl is superior to CD.
Regards
Re:Great news for Jazz (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
A relation of mine once met Bob Carver in the 70s and when he figured that he wasn't a Golden Ear tweak he showed him such a setup...at an electronics show well attended by tweaks. They did indeed ooh and ahh over the equivalent of a $100 Radio Shack amp. Of course, they thought it was $15,000 tube amp. Carver wanted to test something he starting to realize about so-called "Golden Ear" audiophiles. That is the genesis of my knowledge of this gag. No, it was not "made up". Secondly, by "spectrum analyzer" I was referring to the piece of kit that used to test radio and audio equipment under repair, not the cheezy bargraph device on flashy stereo equipment. The reason for pink noise is that it gives a continous curve on the display of the analyzer. That way, the effect of tweaking the EQ can be seen across the device's entire bandpass. Tones will not get you as close with a continous display of the amp's response. Thirdly, my relation later became a salesman of high end stereo equipment and had a tweak co-worker. He pulled the same stunt on him with the same results. If a "Golden Ear" thinks it's expensive uber gear and it doesn't blatantly sound like crap then yes they'll rave on and on about it like an Absolute Sound review.