|
|
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Regulars will recall that I've been digitising all my ACs, MDs, and
vinyls. I've almost completely finished this now, and as I've made some discoveries which I at least found interesting, I'll put them on record, before they are forgotten ... First a reminder of the general situation ... In various posts June 2011, Java Jive wrote: I still have some audio recordings in the obsolete form of: ACs: 'The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy' first 2 radio series About 60 MiniDisks. About 125 LPs About 5 x 45 rpms Then there is the attendant hardwa Denon HiFi (seperates) around DRA-275RD amp downstairs in lounge Sanyo DC-007C Midi Tower (seperates) upstairs in bedroom/office. DMD-1300 MD deck in the downstairs HiFi (may be faulty) MDG-007 MD deck in the upstairs HiFi Dual 601 turntable, aged, some rumble, no preamp, Shure V15 Type III L-M cartridge Shure VN35MR elliptical stylus Phono inputs on Denon DRA-275RD downstairs. NAD Phono Preamp. Project TK38 turntable with inbuilt pre-amp, cartridge unknown Moth vinyl washing machine 2 x Desktop P4s W2k (still), each with ... SB Live with Digital IO dongle (SPDIF Coax & Optical In & Out) Dell Latitude 610 laptop + docking station USB Terratec Aureon 5.1 MKII (SPDIF Optical In & Out) [...] I record everything to LPCM wave files. For some time, I've been thinking that it would be good to: :-) Guard against irreplaceable but obsolescent kit going down :-) Digitise these remaining vinyls before further deterioration :-) Be able to play the vinyls without the associated hassle :-) Lose this significant pile of junk, but keep the recordings. I've had two major problems ... Dust and gunge on the vinyls Mains Hum I've described how I deal with the dust/gunge problems here ... http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...storation.html ... my plan being to record each vinyl, or at least each wanted track thereof, twice: 1st Pass unwashed, via the Dual 2nd Pass washed, via the Project ... and ultimately keep only the best. This didn't work out quite as expected, because I didn't like the sound of the Project deck - I suspect it has a ceramic cartridge of moderate quality, and therefore probably a pre-amp to match. Consequently, I dismantled, rewired. and reassembled the Dual deck to get rid of the hum. I ended up with quite severe tracking problems, but was able to solve these well enough to get the job done to a level of quality which I believe is about the best that could be hoped for without expense on new and better equipment. Despite having used it before (but perhaps my technique has improved), I was totally unprepared, and therefore unexpectedly delighted, at the almost complete restoration of most the vinyls by using the washer. Here's a sample of the results (each file is a WAV of about 8MB) ... Dual (before de-humming and vinyl washing): http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Cill...WifeBefore.wav Project (after vinyl washing): http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Cill...ifeProject.wav Dual (after de-humming and vinyl washing): http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Cill...sWifeAfter.wav Note that: :-) Many 'scratches' actually turned out to be grit or dust in the grooves and were completely removed by the washer. :-( The Project has a rather boomy sound which lacks the top-end transients obtainable from the Dual. :-) The rewiring of the Dual has COMPLETELY removed the hum. Barring a handful of problem records with bad scratches, the results obtained from the vast majority of them are far, far better than I ever dared hope, let alone actually expected. Effectively, many of my favourites sound 'as new', even before using software to remove those minor blemishes that remain after washing. Phew! I'm so relieved that it's now all but over. I hope anyone who is still misguided enough to consider that vinyls are superior to CDs will take note of all these problems (fuller details appended), none of which occur with CD. It shouldn't be necessary to say it, but such druids may care to note that when played back through the same equipment, there is no audible difference between the originals and the digital recordings. WASHING VINYLS For those interested who haven't seen one before, the washer consists of a motorised turntable the size of a vinyl's centre label, the central spindle of which is screw-threaded, and a velvet covered, hollow arm, the top surface of which is perforated level with the turntable, and which is connected to a vacuum pump. The motor and the pump are controlled by seperate switches on the front. The procedure for washing a vinyl is: 1) Attach it with Side 1 uppermost clamping it with a plastic nut which screws onto the turntable spindle 2) Switch on the motor 3) Using a fine brush provided, wet the upper playing surface (not the label) thoroughly with cleaning agent, which is a strong solution of Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA). 4) Angle the brush into the grooves against the normal direction of travel for a few revolutions, if necessary periodically moving the brush across the entire radius of the playing surface. 5) Stop the motor 6) Turn the vinyl over 7) Start both the pump and the motor. The wet Side 1 is now underneath, rubbing over the surface of the arm, which sucks off the IPA and hopefully all the gunge from the grooves with it, leaving it clean and dry. 8) During 7) for Side 1, you repeat 3) and 4) for Side 2, now on top. 9) Repeat 5) through 7) for Side 2. Record the vinyl straightaway, without putting it back in its sleeve. In fact, really, one should use a new inner sleeve, but these days my budget doesn't extend to spending any more money on obsolete technology. MAINS HUM The page linked above also mentions mains hum in passing, but a fuller discussion follows ... I found that however I connected up the Dual, I got a big hum. I tried all the following combinations severally and together, all without making much of a difference: Earthing the metal of the deck via the mains lead, and not Earthing via the earth terminal of the amp, and not Using the seperate preamp, and the phono inputs on the amp Finally, in desperation, I took the turntable out of its box, and discovered that the grounds of the cartridge connections were connected to the metal of the deck. I cut these connections and rewired them so that the metal of the deck is earthed via the mains lead, and separately the grounds of the cartridge, like the signals, come straight out of the back to the outputs. This is a HUGE improvement: there is no build-up of static, and it's effectively hum-free until I start the motor. With the motor running, there is some residual hum, which I'd like to get rid of, but at least the result is listenable. When I tried the new arrangement with the NAD pre-amp, there was just a little more hum, so I've been using the HiFi phono inputs. When I tried it additionally connecting the metalwork to the earth connection on the amp either there was either no difference or it was worse, I can't now remember which, only that no benefit was obtained. My conclusion from all of this is that a vinyl record-deck should be wired as follows, but I'd be interested to see if others agree ... If the deck is driven from mains voltages, then its metalwork should be earthed via the earth in a three-core mains lead connected to the earth in a 3-pin plug. In this case, the metalwork of the arm should be insulated from the deck and a seperate earth point provided to connect the arm to the amp earth. Whether or not the deck is driven by mains voltages, the cartridge should be connected to the outputs via screened cable over the entire distance. The problem is that screened cables are stiffer than the tiny wiring commonly used in an arm, and their stiffness might affect the tracking if the job's not carefully done. I did once wire up an old Garrard deck like this, as an experiment. My recollection is that it was hum-free. I got the shielded cabling from RS or Maplin's [...]. It was two cores, about the same thickness as you'd find in a pick-up arm, with a common braiding outside, then a thin outer insulation. It was quite flexible, I do not recall ever noticing tracking problems with it. The above was exactly how I removed the hum from the Dual. This was the cable used: http://www.maplin.co.uk/2-core-overa...ped-screen-127 As you can hear on the samples above, effectively this did completely remove the hum. I can just about hear something at about the same level as the white noise when the volume on the amp is turned up full, but if I were to actually play anything at that volume, it would probably demolish the house. However, the difference between the ways that the Garrard and the Dual bring the cable out of the pick-up arm allowed this to work quite well with the Garrard, but gave me quite severe tracking problems with the Dual. With the Garrard, the arm mounting was tubular in construction, so that the cables came out through the centre of the bearings. By leaving a generous loop hanging underneath the deck before the cable was brought back up and fastened to the underside of the deck, the leverage exerted by the stylus over the full length of the pick-up arm was sufficiently greater than any resistance to being twisted exerted by the cable, so the arm tracked sufficiently well. However, with the Dual, the bearings are not such that the cable can be brought out through them, but rather it escapes by a tortuous route, finally jumping off a plate underneath the arm mounting. That this is as much as a couple of centimetres in effective radius and the lack of any suitable points to fix the non-moving end of the cable at the optimum distance away meant that there had to be a significant loop of cable being pulled to one side or the other as the arm tracks, and the large radius coupled with the weight of the cable in the loop meant that the cable caused tracking problems. After a great deal of trial and error, I found that it was necessary to attach the cable when the arm was positioned approximately in the middle of its full sweep. Then, if I set the turntable running about 15mins or so before beginning recording so that the cable got nice and warm, then the arm would usually track over the entire span of an LP. If by chance it didn't, which was rare, and usually on the first LP of the day, I would set the Bias Compensation to max for the first three tracks or so, then lift up the arm, set the compensation to zero, and put down the arm again for the remainder of the side. I had occasional other problems. For example, there was a Dubliners' LP which was a tight fit on the central spindle, so effectively while it was on the turntable it was conical in shape, and, particularly on the last track or so, the stylus was always trying to fall out of the groove down the slope, leading to bad distortion. After some ineffectual random trial and error, I logically worked out the actual cause, pushed the centre of the LP down flat on the TT, and the problem was instantly solved. However, bad scratches were still very much more likely to make the stylus jump to a neighbouring groove than hitherto. I have about 6 such vinyls for which I'm probably going to have to accept the poorer quality of the Project. For some reason or other 45s were more prone to tracking problems than LPs, the worst of all being the 'floppy' records that magazines such as 'Private Eye' (every Christmas) and 'Guitar Player' used to supply with particular issues. I had to resign myself to using the Project for those - not a problem for the PE ones as quality was not an issue, but disappointing for the GP one that I have. So I've effectively rendered the Dual's second-hand value to zero, but, as I bought it in about 1972/3, I reckon I've got my money's worth out of it. I really think that those manufacturers who are still making turntables should consider using the above wiring scheme in every model. I'm sure the tracking problems should be solvable at the design stage. -- ================================================== ======= Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 06/11/2011 16:59, Java Jive wrote:
Regulars will recall that I've been digitising all my ACs, MDs, and vinyls. I've almost completely finished this now, and as I've made some discoveries which I at least found interesting, I'll put them on record, before they are forgotten ... snip Phew! I'm so relieved that it's now all but over. Ah, but to rediscover the music :-) I hope anyone who is still misguided enough to consider that vinyls are superior to CDs will take note of all these problems (fuller details appended), none of which occur with CD. It shouldn't be necessary to say it, but such druids may care to note that when played back through the same equipment, there is no audible difference between the originals and the digital recordings. While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. And well worth the effort. Your samples sound pretty good. Strikes me you could have raised the levels a little, although i'm not sure what difference that would have made to the sound. And it'd be nice if you could post something more mainstream (good though they sound!) for comparisons. Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
JJ, do you have a website?
This account is interesting and informative, and I think lots of people with vinyl would find it helpful. I think it warrants posting somewhere more prominent than NNTP. Nice work. -- SteveT |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"Rob" wrote
While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. Are you not contradicting yourself there? Or do you "much prefer" something that has "little discernible difference" from the alternative? It is interesting, I note, that you say "vinyl (digitised or not)". So its not digital audio as such that you have a problem with, its the lack of the distortion that vinyl introduces. If record producers cut a vinyl copy from their masters and then digitised that vinyl to make the CD release you'd be happy, fair enough. David. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article , David Looser
wrote: "Rob" wrote While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. Are you not contradicting yourself there? Or do you "much prefer" something that has "little discernible difference" from the alternative? It is interesting, I note, that you say "vinyl (digitised or not)". So its not digital audio as such that you have a problem with, its the lack of the distortion that vinyl introduces. [Snip] do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"charles" wrote
do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it is relevant? Rob apparently prefers digitised vinyl to the digitised master. In other words he considers an additional process (that of recording to, and subsequently playing back from, vinyl) to improve the sound of the original. Does that create "musicality"? I'd have thought that the musicality of a recording was something that is created by the musicians in the recording studio, not by technicians in a post-recording process. David. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 06/11/2011 21:10, David Looser wrote:
wrote do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it is relevant? perhaps you'd like to **** yourself with a thermonuclear munition. -- |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Yawn, plonk!
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:16:37 +0000, wertu wrote: perhaps you'd like to **** yourself with a thermonuclear munition. -- ================================================== ======= Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article ,
David Looser wrote: "charles" wrote do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it is relevant? Rob apparently prefers digitised vinyl to the digitised master. In other words he considers an additional process (that of recording to, and subsequently playing back from, vinyl) to improve the sound of the original. Does that create "musicality"? Yes. Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment I'd have thought that the musicality of a recording was something that is created by the musicians in the recording studio, not by technicians in a post-recording process. You'd be wrong. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:39:25 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote: Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment As a former amateur musician and singer of many years' standing, I find your own coined meaning of the word deeply insulting. Applying it, we are apparently to suppose that early recordings of famous pianists and opera singers made on wax rolls, wax disks, and pianola rolls have no musicality, or is it more, because of the poor quality of the reproduction! Yet, apparently, speech recordings made on vinyls, for example the comedians Bob Newhart and Shelley Berman that I have just digitised, - presumably including the inherent defects such as rumble, scratches, etc - are somehow more 'musical' than the same recordings would be on CD! How absurd. I'd have thought that the musicality of a recording was something that is created by the musicians in the recording studio, not by technicians in a post-recording process. You'd be wrong. No, he's absolutely correct. MUSICality is a quality of playing MUSIC introduced by MUSICians. Thank you for demonstrating so clearly to the rest of the world how illogical vinyl enthusiasts usually are. -- ================================================== ======= Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article ,
Java Jive wrote: On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:39:25 +0000 (GMT), charles wrote: Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment As a former amateur musician and singer of many years' standing, I find your own coined meaning of the word deeply insulting. Not "my coined meaning" - but a meaning used in the 1980s when CDs (digital stuff) first turned up. I, too, am "an amateur musician of many years' standing"; I don't see the relevance. Some people actually preferred distortion in recordings since they'd become accustomed to it. They'd obviously never been to a concert hall and heard real music. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
wertu wrote:
On 06/11/2011 21:10, David Looser wrote: wrote do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it is relevant? perhaps you'd like to **** yourself with a thermonuclear munition. Mr Wertu, you appear to be a foul-mouthed savage. Please don't drag the tone of this discussion down to your own level. Bill |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
charles wrote:
In article , Java Jive wrote: On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:39:25 +0000 (GMT), charles wrote: Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment As a former amateur musician and singer of many years' standing, I find your own coined meaning of the word deeply insulting. Not "my coined meaning" - but a meaning used in the 1980s when CDs (digital stuff) first turned up. I, too, am "an amateur musician of many years' standing"; I don't see the relevance. Some people actually preferred distortion in recordings since they'd become accustomed to it. They'd obviously never been to a concert hall and heard real music. I think what Charles is saying is that the word was coined by the specialist press and/or the cognoscenti as a means of glossing over the fact that many people expected the sound to meet their preconceptions, rather than be perfectly accurate. I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard a live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics, quite difficult to take. When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad) complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with it!" He didn't have a telly, I should add. He always listened to AM after the first few weeks. Oddly, he was a bander and attended many concerts. Bill |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:54:30 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote: charles wrote: In article , Java Jive wrote: On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:39:25 +0000 (GMT), charles wrote: Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment As a former amateur musician and singer of many years' standing, I find your own coined meaning of the word deeply insulting. Not "my coined meaning" - but a meaning used in the 1980s when CDs (digital stuff) first turned up. I, too, am "an amateur musician of many years' standing"; I don't see the relevance. Some people actually preferred distortion in recordings since they'd become accustomed to it. They'd obviously never been to a concert hall and heard real music. I think what Charles is saying is that the word was coined by the specialist press and/or the cognoscenti as a means of glossing over the fact that many people expected the sound to meet their preconceptions, rather than be perfectly accurate. I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard a live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics, quite difficult to take. When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad) complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with it!" He didn't have a telly, I should add. He always listened to AM after the first few weeks. Oddly, he was a bander and attended many concerts. My late wife sometimes complained about high quality reproduction of sound. Her objection was that it was "as though the people speaking or the musicians were in the room". She didn't want them in the room. She wanted to listen as though she was overhearing them from a different room. That was sort of understandable because she was normally listening while doing something else. Listening was not her main activity, and she didn't want the sound to distract her. High quality sound was too intrusive. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:26:09 GMT, Steve Thackery
wrote: JJ, do you have a website? Yes! As in ... In various posts June 2011, Java Jive wrote: I've described how I deal with the dust/gunge problems here ... http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...storation.html ;-) This account is interesting and informative, and I think lots of people with vinyl would find it helpful. I think it warrants posting somewhere more prominent than NNTP. Nice work. Yes. I can see both the above and 'Vinyl vs CD' ... http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...VinylVsCD.html .... being updated as a result of this. May not be able to be soon though, which is why I thought I'd put it all down on record somewhere now, while it was all still fresh in my memory. -- ================================================== ======= Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
mu·si·cal·i·ty /?myo?ozi?kal?te-/
Noun: 1. Tastefulness and accomplishment in music. 2. The quality of being melodious and tuneful. On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:35:59 +0000 (GMT), charles wrote: Not "my coined meaning" - but a meaning used in the 1980s when CDs (digital stuff) first turned up. So someone else's coined meaning then, and I apologise for the 'your'/'my'. However, my point still stands, that it's an illogical and absurd abuse of the generally accepted meaning of the word. -- ================================================== ======= Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 6 Nov,
Bill Wright wrote: I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard a live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics, quite difficult to take. Most of my recollections of live solo violins did not register "exquisite harmonics", The worst ones were my 3 sons practicing the second fiddle part of tne national anthem, a most discordant piece if ever there was one! Why on earth do fiddle teachers give that as homework? Is it to get their own back on parents? -- BD Change lycos to yahoo to reply |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"Steve Thackery" a écrit dans le message de news:
... JJ, do you have a website? This account is interesting and informative, and I think lots of people with vinyl would find it helpful. I think it warrants posting somewhere more prominent than NNTP. Nice work. -- SteveT =============================================== My way of doing the same things : here : http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html -- Allen RENY www.a-reny.com |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"charles" wrote in message
... In article , David Looser wrote: "charles" wrote do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it is relevant? Rob apparently prefers digitised vinyl to the digitised master. In other words he considers an additional process (that of recording to, and subsequently playing back from, vinyl) to improve the sound of the original. Does that create "musicality"? Yes. Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment I'd have thought that the musicality of a recording was something that is created by the musicians in the recording studio, not by technicians in a post-recording process. You'd be wrong. Well I'm only "wrong" if you use the meaning of "musicality" that you have quoted above. Its not a definition of the word I accept. Someone else posted this definition: Noun: 1. Tastefulness and accomplishment in music. 2. The quality of being melodious and tuneful. and if you accept that definition I am clearly not "wrong" David. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article , David Looser
wrote: "charles" wrote in message ... In article , David Looser wrote: "charles" wrote do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it is relevant? Rob apparently prefers digitised vinyl to the digitised master. In other words he considers an additional process (that of recording to, and subsequently playing back from, vinyl) to improve the sound of the original. Does that create "musicality"? Yes. Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment I'd have thought that the musicality of a recording was something that is created by the musicians in the recording studio, not by technicians in a post-recording process. You'd be wrong. Well I'm only "wrong" if you use the meaning of "musicality" that you have quoted above. Its not a definition of the word I accept. Someone else posted this definition: Noun: 1. Tastefulness and accomplishment in music. 2. The quality of being melodious and tuneful. and if you accept that definition I am clearly not "wrong" It was the abuse of the term some 30 years ago, to which I was refering. CDs apparently had no "musicality"; ie the distortions of vinyl were missing. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
|
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article om, Rob
wrote: While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. And well worth the effort. I think it would be wise to distinguish between two situations here. 1) Where you compare a 'professional' LP release with a 'professional' CD release of (nominally) the same recording or album. ('Professional' here means what you'd buy from a company in a shop.) 2) Where you have carefully made a CD copy of an LP. In case (1) it isn't surprising that the two can audibly differ, They are often equalised or compressed in different ways, for example. And may also be clipped on CD. In my experience in case (2) they can easily be audibly indistinguishable or have a level of audible difference that is too small to really notice or care about. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article , Bill Wright
wrote: I think what Charles is saying is that the word was coined by the specialist press and/or the cognoscenti as a means of glossing over the fact that many people expected the sound to meet their preconceptions, rather than be perfectly accurate. TBH I often felt that different writers were using it in undefined and different ways. So just meant "what I prefer has more 'musicality'" without having any clue what they really meant. I'm not now sure, but I think Paul Messenger may have been the first to use the term in the UK.. Similar for other terms beloved by audio journalists. Who remembers the old 'points' that Martin C used to hand out, only to change his scale whenever it suited him. All pretty meaningless beyond "I preferred this to that". Just gave a spurious sense of meaning or authority to one person's impression in one set of circumstances during one period of time, filtered by their taste at that time. I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard a live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics, quite difficult to take. When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad) complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with it!" When I first heard DAB (when it had higher bitrates than now) I also felt it didn't sound as 'good' as FM. However instead of abandoning it immediately I spent a few weeks going back and forth between FM and DAB to try and resolve the differences. Mainly using R3. I ended up after a few weeks perferring DAB for R3. The main difference being the absence of level compression (optimod) and background noise and HF distortions. But before that, the optimod compressions had given the FM a 'warm' sound that seemed to sustain piano notes, etc, in a way I'd become accustomed to. So it is very easy to become habituated to the alterations applied by a given system. That said, I don't now listen much to either DAB or FM. Mainly use the iPlayer. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article om, Rob wrote: While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. And well worth the effort. I think it would be wise to distinguish between two situations here. 1) Where you compare a 'professional' LP release with a 'professional' CD release of (nominally) the same recording or album. ('Professional' here means what you'd buy from a company in a shop.) 2) Where you have carefully made a CD copy of an LP. In case (1) it isn't surprising that the two can audibly differ, They are often equalised or compressed in different ways, for example. And may also be clipped on CD. In my experience in case (2) they can easily be audibly indistinguishable or have a level of audible difference that is too small to really notice or care about. All the vinyl enthusiasts I know are happy with a well made CD copy of vinyl. But are in denial that vinyl adds distortions to the original master that CD doesn't, and prefer to think of it as magic. Which is why they don't like a well made CD of the original master - if such a thing exists. It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds. Of course some individual instruments may sort of sound 'better' with vinyl distortion. But not all. Other thing is the processes that a studio master tape goes through before being cut to vinyl or CD. Which are different for each. Another reason why seemingly identical vinyl and CDs sound different. No magic about it at all. -- *I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
... charles wrote: In article , Java Jive wrote: On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:39:25 +0000 (GMT), charles wrote: Musicality referred to the "improvements" heard by some people playing recordings on imperfect reproduction equipment As a former amateur musician and singer of many years' standing, I find your own coined meaning of the word deeply insulting. Not "my coined meaning" - but a meaning used in the 1980s when CDs (digital stuff) first turned up. I, too, am "an amateur musician of many years' standing"; I don't see the relevance. Some people actually preferred distortion in recordings since they'd become accustomed to it. They'd obviously never been to a concert hall and heard real music. I think what Charles is saying is that the word was coined by the specialist press and/or the cognoscenti as a means of glossing over the fact that many people expected the sound to meet their preconceptions, rather than be perfectly accurate. I know from my own experience of many years ago that when I first heard a live solo violin I found the sound, with its exquisite harmonics, quite difficult to take. When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad) complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with it!" He didn't have a telly, I should add. He always listened to AM after the first few weeks. Oddly, he was a bander and attended many concerts. Digital reproduction often shows up deficiencies in the original recording that are masked by analogue technology. For example "Bright Eyes" by Art Garfunkel sounds distinctly distorted in places: http://www.countrydecor.altervista.org/brighteyes.mp3 For example the vocal from 1:20. The vinyl sounds OK unless sensitised by listening to the digital version first. -- Max Demian |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"charles" wrote in message ... do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Since there are no objective means for characterizing "musicality", and given that the word seems to be the last resort of people who seem to want to deify their preferences... |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:53:33 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote: "Bill Wright" wrote in message ... When FM radio became popular I remember people (especially my grandad) complaining bitterly that the sound was 'uncanny'! He used many other words and phrases, all of which meant 'realistic' but with a negative bias. "It doesn't sound like a bloody wireless, that's the trouble with it!" He didn't have a telly, I should add. He always listened to AM after the first few weeks. Oddly, he was a bander and attended many concerts. Digital reproduction often shows up deficiencies in the original recording that are masked by analogue technology. Yes. Because I've been, for the obvious reasons described in my OP, on the look out for distortion, particularly over the extremes of the arm's swing during the first and last two tracks, needless to say I've been hearing it everywhere. However, comparing the before and after recordings, and sometimes when unsure putting the vinyl on the Project, has nearly always shown that the distortion was there on the vinyl all along. Both the live recordings of The Dubliners had quite a lot of it (a difficult band to mix live, I would guess), which in the case of the conical one misled me for a while. Many other vinyls had it as well, particularly those done on cheap folk labels, regardless of whether they were UK or US labels. However, I single out Topic for the superior quality of their folk recordings. The House Band and the Sea Shanties LPs sound marvellous now they've been cleaned. On both, particularly dramatically on the latter where the needle was formerly jumping out of the groove, several 'scratches' turned out to have been grit or the like and have been completely washed away. For example "Bright Eyes" by Art Garfunkel sounds distinctly distorted in places: http://www.countrydecor.altervista.org/brighteyes.mp3 For example the vocal from 1:20. The vinyl sounds OK unless sensitised by listening to the digital version first. Actually the most obvious deficiency in that is the 'glass birdies' sound introduced by the low bitrate. I think I can hear what you are describing, but what I hear is in the background, rather than the foreground, so not obvious at all. -- ================================================== ======= Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 06/11/2011 19:56, David Looser wrote:
wrote While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. Are you not contradicting yourself there? Don't think so - just not very well written and no context! CD and LP often sound different. Or do you "much prefer" something that has "little discernible difference" from the alternative? I find the difference to be profound. It is interesting, I note, that you say "vinyl (digitised or not)". So its not digital audio as such that you have a problem with, its the lack of the distortion that vinyl introduces. If record producers cut a vinyl copy from their masters and then digitised that vinyl to make the CD release you'd be happy, fair enough. Happier, yes. There's still the handling/appreciation/association of the media. Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 07/11/2011 10:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , Jim wrote: In raweb.com, Rob wrote: While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. And well worth the effort. I think it would be wise to distinguish between two situations here. 1) Where you compare a 'professional' LP release with a 'professional' CD release of (nominally) the same recording or album. ('Professional' here means what you'd buy from a company in a shop.) Not sure what you mean. I'd have thought all recording are supposed to be professional. What'd be the point of anything else? CD and LP of Flaming Lips' Yoshimi Battles are similar, for example. 2) Where you have carefully made a CD copy of an LP. In case (1) it isn't surprising that the two can audibly differ, They are often equalised or compressed in different ways, for example. And may also be clipped on CD. Yep, could well be the reason for my preference. In my experience in case (2) they can easily be audibly indistinguishable or have a level of audible difference that is too small to really notice or care about. I'm not sure I can tell the difference. Or if I could, which was which. All the vinyl enthusiasts I know are happy with a well made CD copy of vinyl. But are in denial that vinyl adds distortions to the original master that CD doesn't, and prefer to think of it as magic. Which is why they don't like a well made CD of the original master - if such a thing exists. It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds. You've been here before :-) You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you find the phrase to be. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you like. Of course some individual instruments may sort of sound 'better' with vinyl distortion. But not all. Other thing is the processes that a studio master tape goes through before being cut to vinyl or CD. Which are different for each. Another reason why seemingly identical vinyl and CDs sound different. No magic about it at all. Of course. Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 07/11/2011 12:38, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message ... do you remember the term "musicality"? it seems to be relevant here. Since there are no objective means for characterizing "musicality", and given that the word seems to be the last resort of people who seem to want to deify their preferences... Or reify their prejudices :-) Experiencing music is not an objective, measurable experience. So to say CD is better than LP makes no sense. It's simply preference. Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article m, Rob
wrote: On 06/11/2011 19:56, David Looser wrote: wrote Or do you "much prefer" something that has "little discernible difference" from the alternative? I find the difference to be profound. Depends. I've just been enjoying some of the CDs in the recent box set of recordings of Steinberg conducting the Pittsburg SO that were made for EMI/Capitol in the 1950s. The box arrived here this morning. Some of the CDs could be said to be 'profoundly' better than my MFP/CFP mono LPs of some of the works that I bought mumble decades ago. Stereo, and not worn by ye olde Dansette! :-) Excellent set BTW. Recommended if you like music more than hifi. That said, the recordings do show how clear some old stereo recordings are. Even if the layout is a bit odd for some of them. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Excellent set BTW. Recommended if you like music more than hifi. That said, the recordings do show how clear some old stereo recordings are. Even if the layout is a bit odd for some of them. I listen to Radio Dismuke and Bryan Wright on Boston Pete, and the technical quality of some of the earlier recordings leaves a great deal to be desired. It doesn't matter though. The brilliance of the performers shines through. Bill |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article ,
Rob wrote: It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds. You've been here before :-) You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you find the phrase to be. Not technically expedient, technically correct. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you like. Not so. Analalogue can go through many stages of amplifiers etc without audible degradion. But cannon survive being cut to vinyl unharmed. Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent. -- *Stable Relationships Are For Horses. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"Rob" wrote in message
b.com... On 06/11/2011 19:56, David Looser wrote: wrote While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. Are you not contradicting yourself there? Don't think so - just not very well written and no context! CD and LP often sound different. Or do you "much prefer" something that has "little discernible difference" from the alternative? I find the difference to be profound. In which case why did you say that you have found there to be "little discernible difference between vinyl and CD"? David. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
"Rob" wrote
You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you find the phrase to be. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you like. It obviously bothers you when we call a spade a spade, or in this case call distortion distortion. Sorry, thats what it is, there's no other word for it. David. |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 07/11/2011 21:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message b.com... On 06/11/2011 19:56, David Looser wrote: wrote While I have found there to be little discernible difference between vinyl and CD - it's rare in my experience. I much prefer the sound of vinyl (digitised or not) to CDs, on the whole. Are you not contradicting yourself there? Don't think so - just not very well written and no context! CD and LP often sound different. Or do you "much prefer" something that has "little discernible difference" from the alternative? I find the difference to be profound. In which case why did you say that you have found there to be "little discernible difference between vinyl and CD"? As I said, poorly worded - while I *have* found the odd example where the difference is slight - it's rare. Yoshimi Battles is one of the rare examples. It's as if the Flaming Lips took the vinyl, digitised it, and copied it to CD. Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 07/11/2011 21:08, David Looser wrote:
wrote You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you find the phrase to be. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you like. It obviously bothers you when we call a spade a spade, or in this case call distortion distortion. Sorry, thats what it is, there's no other word for it. Well, you do need the context. We were talking about accounting for the difference in sound. 'Distortion' isn't the only, or possibly significant, variable. Of course if you say it is the only variable, there it rests. Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
On 07/11/2011 19:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In web.com, wrote: It doesn't have the distortions vinyl adds. You've been here before :-) You don't have to say 'distortion', however technically expedient you find the phrase to be. Not technically expedient, technically correct. Following that line doesn't get you any closer to understanding what you're trying to explain - the difference in experience, including preference. It's just different. Analogue and digital, if you like. Not so. Analalogue can go through many stages of amplifiers etc without audible degradion. But cannon survive being cut to vinyl unharmed. Er, OK. Digitizing an analogue signal correctly is totally transparent. Total? In all cases? Assuming, of course the method used can capture every nuance of the original sound. Which as we all know, it can't. Rob |
Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)
In article , Rob
wrote: On 07/11/2011 10:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In , Jim wrote: In raweb.com, Rob I think it would be wise to distinguish between two situations here. 1) Where you compare a 'professional' LP release with a 'professional' CD release of (nominally) the same recording or album. ('Professional' here means what you'd buy from a company in a shop.) Not sure what you mean. I'd have thought all recording are supposed to be professional. You mean when I made recordings of my parents decades ago they were 'professional'? Not sure if I should be flattered or upset by that! :-) However the distinction was wrt (2) below. 2) Where you have carefully made a CD copy of an LP. Where a private individual makes a CD copy for reasons of convenience, etc. In case (1) it isn't surprising that the two can audibly differ, They are often equalised or compressed in different ways, for example. And may also be clipped on CD. Yep, could well be the reason for my preference. In my experience in case (2) they can easily be audibly indistinguishable or have a level of audible difference that is too small to really notice or care about. I'm not sure I can tell the difference. Or if I could, which was which. It depends entirely on the circumstances. The "can" meant "depending on the circumstances of how well the LP - CD copy was made". e.g if the process avoided serious clipping, adding hum, and so on. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk