The Gadget Show
 

Laurence Payne wrote:

You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of
course?

It's in the wikipedia link I posted?

--
Adrian C

The Gadget Show
 

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:16:01 +0000, Adrian C
wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of
course?

It's in the wikipedia link I posted?


I see it is. Which makes it doubly strange that you stated it
couldn't be done :-)

The Gadget Show
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


David Looser wrote:

"Clive" wrote in message

--
It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds better because it is
"digital".

Or those who think vinyl is better because it's analogue.

Some people just don't 'get it'. The inherent problems with vinyl pressing
and
playback make any deficiencies with CD look minute.


Agreed. But it is the way that the potential of CD is
abused that leads people to the false impression that
vinyl is better.

There are countless examples, many of which have been
discussed on this and other groups. Buy both a vinyl pressing
and a CD of the Ray Charles/Count Basie recording "Ray Sings,
Basie Swings" (issued 2006) Compare them carefully, on good
equipment, and then come back here and tell us which you prefer
and why.



Regards
Iain

The Gadget Show
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"Clive" wrote in message
...

Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and listen to the
difference.

Eh? what are you talking about?


What can be done, if you have the time and inclination, is record vinyl
to a digital file. It then becomes digital.

Well indeed, but that is a very different thing from recording "a MP3
track to vinyl". I haven't got a clue what Clive thinks that means, he
probably doesn't either.

As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend has asked me to
record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum can listen to the
music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968. Quality seems
pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity, very good indeed
IMO.


I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as being more
convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid of a lot of the
clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no discernable
difference to the sound quality between the LP direct, and the CD copy.


That's because you have mastered it as it should be mastered - direct,
with no "post production improvemements" :-)

Iain

The Gadget Show
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as being more
convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid of a lot of
the clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no discernable
difference to the sound quality between the LP direct, and the CD copy.


That's because you have mastered it as it should be mastered - direct,
with no "post production improvemements" :-)

I doubt there are many commercial CDs which are a copy of the vinyl -
apart from rare stuff.

But it does sort of prove how good the medium is - a properly done copy of
vinyl to CD will sound identical to the vinyl. The other way round not so.

--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Gadget Show
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:16:01 +0000, Adrian C
wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
You know the simple dodge that lets SR record any length you like, of
course?
It's in the wikipedia link I posted?


I see it is. Which makes it doubly strange that you stated it
couldn't be done :-)

I'm doubly strange, and you have caught me ;-)

Though those workarounds are hardly convenient. It would test the
patience of a saint, who would quickly pronounce it unuseable in
practical ability.

However, if ye were stuck in the middle of a mysterious island about to
be fed to cannibals if ye didn't transfer some vinyl records washed up
on the shore to the leader's iPod, then MS Sound Recorder would soon
look useable I suppose ...

--
Adrian C

The Gadget Show
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
...


David Looser wrote:

"Clive" wrote in message

--
It's similar to people who think DABradio sounds
better because it is
"digital".

Or those who think vinyl is better because it's
analogue.

Some people just don't 'get it'. The inherent problems
with vinyl pressing
and
playback make any deficiencies with CD look minute.


Agreed. But it is the way that the potential of CD is
abused that leads people to the false impression that
vinyl is better.

There are countless examples, many of which have been
discussed on this and other groups. Buy both a vinyl
pressing
and a CD of the Ray Charles/Count Basie recording "Ray
Sings,
Basie Swings" (issued 2006) Compare them carefully, on
good
equipment, and then come back here and tell us which you
prefer
and why.



Regards
Iain

It is not just the CD but the SACD. When you have a
digitally remastered and produced album and then make the LP
sound better there is a problem here somewhere and it is not
a format one ;-)

BTW Iain have you had the chance to discuss this with any of
your peers in the industry? I would be very interested on
what their opinions are.

Cheers TT

The Gadget Show
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in
message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"Clive" wrote in message
...

Why not record a MP3 track straight to vinyl and
listen to the
difference.

Eh? what are you talking about?


What can be done, if you have the time and inclination,
is record vinyl
to a digital file. It then becomes digital.

Well indeed, but that is a very different thing from
recording "a MP3
track to vinyl". I haven't got a clue what Clive thinks
that means, he
probably doesn't either.

As to why people want to do this . . . well, a friend
has asked me to
record some vinyl to digital, and then CD, so her mum
can listen to the
music. Brass band music - Black Dyke Mills Band, 1968.
Quality seems
pretty good to me - used the latest version of Audacity,
very good indeed
IMO.


I've often done that myself (using Cool Edit). As well as
being more
convenient to listen to it also means that I can get rid
of a lot of the
clicks and pops. Apart from that, though, there is no
discernable
difference to the sound quality between the LP direct,
and the CD copy.


That's because you have mastered it as it should be
mastered - direct,
with no "post production improvemements" :-)

Iain

Have you noticed once you have removed the clicks and pops
(I do it physically by cutting them out) and then convert
them to high bitrate MP3 it then removes all the surface
noise? It really is marvellous way to clean up an LP.

Cheers TT

The Gadget Show
 

"TT" wrote in message
. au...


Have you noticed once you have removed the clicks and pops (I do it
physically by cutting them out)

Do you mean you edit them out? ("physically" cutting them out implies taking
a razor blade to analogue tape, and I guess you don't actually mean that!)
The trouble with that is that it can produce a discontinuity in the waveform
which, itself, produces a click, and it slightly changes the timing.

CoolEdit has a "click/pop eliminator" which works brilliantly on some clicks
and pops, but fails miserably on others. So I use a mixture of techniques
including CoolEdit's software click remover and editing out clicks the way
you do. But most commonly (assuming the software remover fails) I reduce the
signal level to zero for the duration of the click. By going for the nearest
zero-crossing I can avoid the discontinuity click, and it preserves the
timing. It can still leave an audible "hole" in the audio, depending on the
sort of programme material behind the click, but generally I find it the
least-worst option for the really difficult clicks.

and then convert them to high bitrate MP3 it then removes all the surface
noise?

I can't say I'd noticed that converting to mp3 removes surface noise
(generally I don't convert to mp3), I'll give it a go.

David.

The Gadget Show
 

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:45:07 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

"TT" wrote in message
.au...


Have you noticed once you have removed the clicks and pops (I do it
physically by cutting them out)

Do you mean you edit them out? ("physically" cutting them out implies taking
a razor blade to analogue tape, and I guess you don't actually mean that!)
The trouble with that is that it can produce a discontinuity in the waveform
which, itself, produces a click, and it slightly changes the timing.

CoolEdit has a "click/pop eliminator" which works brilliantly on some clicks
and pops, but fails miserably on others. So I use a mixture of techniques
including CoolEdit's software click remover and editing out clicks the way
you do. But most commonly (assuming the software remover fails) I reduce the
signal level to zero for the duration of the click. By going for the nearest
zero-crossing I can avoid the discontinuity click, and it preserves the
timing. It can still leave an audible "hole" in the audio, depending on the
sort of programme material behind the click, but generally I find it the
least-worst option for the really difficult clicks.

and then convert them to high bitrate MP3 it then removes all the surface
noise?

I can't say I'd noticed that converting to mp3 removes surface noise
(generally I don't convert to mp3), I'll give it a go.

David.


I would have thought that reducing the level to zero would produce
almost as bad a click as letting it hit peak level. I find that using
the manual click removal in Audition (Cooledit as was) is mainly a
matter of getting the size of the chunk dead right. It appears to use
an averaging function based on what precedes and follows the
selection, followed by some sort of smooth window to make the
transitions good. If the click is only on one channel, the option to
copy from the other channel seems to work well.

If you are doing restoration on an audio file, never ever save to MP3.
It pretty much wrecks your chances of making significant improvements
later. WAV is the only way to go - disk space can hardly be an issue
any more.

d