In article , Java Jive
wrote:
Rate your collection as to how important to you each album really is.
If you can then get the most important ones on CD, maybe taking
advantage of sales, etc, and, at the other end of the spectrum throwing
out those you no longer like, then you may be left with a much smaller
number of digitisations to do, and you can justify spending greater time
on doing those well.

FWIW In my case I also have CD versions of many examples. But from
comparison there are differences. e.g. Old EMI LPs tend to have a different
frequency balance to the CD 're-issues'. And may have less level
compression or other 'improvements' sic that afflict some CDs.
Annoyingly, EMI apparently also started out using ADCs with *less* than
16bit resolution. Which may explain why some of their CDs don't sound as
good as they should. But then they had to be dragged kicking and screaming
into CD production because it was "not invented here".

I tend to choose "which LP to transfer next" mainly on the basis of what I
fancy listening to next. :-) This means that the process isn't a chore but
a source of enjoyment.

The real drag tends to be when:

1) The LP has lots of clicks but otherwise sounds very nice. So I then have
to spend ages with Audacity 'repairing' clicks to get a result that sounds
better than the LP. Takes time and attention.

2) Scanning LP sleeves, and any notes (libretto, etc). This is a real PITA
because A4 flatbed scanners can't cover a 12" LP in one go. So required
more than one scan per item, and then realignment, cropping and stitching
mutliple scans with GIMP (other programs are available :-) )

That said, both processes also give you more time to listen to the item as
well.

Use a good pair of headphones when working on declicking, etc. Makes it
easier to spot the smaller ticks. Assuming you want to really clean up the
recording.

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

On 14/02/2015 09:59, Huge wrote:
On 2015-02-13, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I'd disagree. I've been happily making digitial file copies of LPs for some
time now.

You must have a collosal boredom threshold.


Or an unusual record collection. A lot of LPs haven't been re-issued
digitally yet.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/02/2015 09:59, Huge wrote:
On 2015-02-13, Sumatriptan wrote:
So quiet in here...

I am considering getting hold of a turntable so I can get my small
(looks like about 100 items) collection of vinyl into lossless format
and then to CD. Any tips/traps/advice please?

It's very, very, very, very, very dull. Clean the record. Record it into
computer. Dehiss and declick. Chop into tracks. Add tags. Yawn.

Much better seeing if you can download whatever it is from somewhere. You
have, after all, already paid for it. Or borrow the CD from the record
library and rip it.


See other threads here about how remastering for CD release fouls up the
sound...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Well whatever you do you should get a reasonable editing package. I use
Goldwave myself and it is amazing with playing with the declecker and some
other noise reduction techniques, how much you can improve damage
records.
I'd also suggest that playing them wet after a clean with a fairy liquid
in s warm water can help with surface noise as the much gets into
suspension.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Sumatriptan" wrote in message
...
So quiet in here...

I am considering getting hold of a turntable so I can get my small (looks
like about 100 items) collection of vinyl into lossless format and then to
CD. Any tips/traps/advice please? I'm not after super quality reproduction
from what are going to be well-played records stored (vertically) in my
loft for 40+ years. 'Proper hi-fi' quality will probably be better than my
old ears these days, subjective I know.

I'm pretty sure I have a Shure M75 cartridge and almost new stylus from
the 1970s...somewhere in that loft.

I've been looking on Ebay at things like Pioneer PL-518, Technics SL-3200
and other direct drive tts. Would be reluctant to pay much more than
£50-£100 for what may turn out to be an aborted project if the disks
aren't playable. Am I wasting my time or what?

For PC line input via sound card know I need RIAA eq + preamp. I have
enough construction skills to build this, given circuit details. Or
perhaps CPC or RS do a ready made module?

Alternatively, I do have an external 24 bit res. audio capture unit
(Edirol UA-25) that has dynamic microphone inputs. I wonder if this would
work together with RIAA eq in software? MC cartridges and dynamic mics
have roughly similar output levels....don't they?

A bit rusty in this stuff...been a long time.

Comments appreciated.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:04:08 +0000, Eiron
wrote:

On 13/02/2015 14:24, Sumatriptan wrote:
So quiet in here...

I am considering getting hold of a turntable so I can get my small
(looks like about 100 items) collection of vinyl into lossless format
and then to CD. Any tips/traps/advice please? I'm not after super

Lie down in a dark room until the feeling goes away.
Then make a list of the LPs you want to copy and buy the CDs on ebay.

Some years ago I purchased a Japanese produced CD of an LP I
have. Oh dear! it was appalling. Instead of being sourced from
tape the CD was a copy of a mono disk played using a stereo
cartridge. Stereo snap, crackle, pop, and distortion.
--
Roger

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Eiron
writes
On 13/02/2015 14:24, Sumatriptan wrote:
So quiet in here...

I am considering getting hold of a turntable so I can get my small
(looks like about 100 items) collection of vinyl into lossless format
and then to CD. Any tips/traps/advice please? I'm not after super

Lie down in a dark room until the feeling goes away.
Then make a list of the LPs you want to copy and buy the CDs on ebay.

Maybe, but one does get attached to the familiar ambience (?) of old,
treasured vinyl recordings, with the all the old familiar pops and
clicks in all the old familiar places. Somehow, perfect new and
remastered versions don't evoke quite the memories of days long passed,
sitting on the floor and listening to the Rexine-covered Dansette.

Other thing is that LPs go through an additional mastering process to
allow the master tape to be cut to disc. CDs don't need this (although may
well be re-mastered too). So it may not just the fundamental differences
between the two formats you're hearing.

--
*Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition.

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

On 14/02/2015 09:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Java Jive
wrote:
Rate your collection as to how important to you each album really is.
If you can then get the most important ones on CD, maybe taking
advantage of sales, etc, and, at the other end of the spectrum throwing
out those you no longer like, then you may be left with a much smaller
number of digitisations to do, and you can justify spending greater time
on doing those well.


Maybe the OP likes the sound . . .

FWIW In my case I also have CD versions of many examples. But from
comparison there are differences. e.g. Old EMI LPs tend to have a different
frequency balance to the CD 're-issues'. And may have less level
compression or other 'improvements' sic that afflict some CDs.
Annoyingly, EMI apparently also started out using ADCs with *less* than
16bit resolution. Which may explain why some of their CDs don't sound as
good as they should. But then they had to be dragged kicking and screaming
into CD production because it was "not invented here".


.. . . and maybe they sound better?

I tend to choose "which LP to transfer next" mainly on the basis of what I
fancy listening to next. :-) This means that the process isn't a chore but
a source of enjoyment.


Quite. In any event, it's hardly as onerous as some seem to make out.

The real drag tends to be when:

1) The LP has lots of clicks but otherwise sounds very nice. So I then have
to spend ages with Audacity 'repairing' clicks to get a result that sounds
better than the LP. Takes time and attention.


Agreed, but for some reason, on the whole, it doesn't bother me.

2) Scanning LP sleeves, and any notes (libretto, etc). This is a real PITA
because A4 flatbed scanners can't cover a 12" LP in one go. So required
more than one scan per item, and then realignment, cropping and stitching
mutliple scans with GIMP (other programs are available :-) )


I'm sure I'm going to regret writing this because I think I know the
answer, but use the camera on your phone.

That said, both processes also give you more time to listen to the item as
well.


Well quite. The only slight faff for me was splitting and naming tracks
so the tags played with servers. I haven't done it for a while, but I
did find some software that split the tracks, and some other that named
them. Sometimes the naming software needed a hint or 2 - album, artist
or some-such.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2015-02-14, Jim Lesurf wrote:

I tend to choose "which LP to transfer next" mainly on the basis of
what I fancy listening to next. :-) This means that the process isn't
a chore but a source of enjoyment.

Ahhh. The digitising is, to an extent, an end in itself. That makes
slightly more sense.

No, its not simply the "end in itself". Just makes the process more likely
to be enjoyable. The "end" is a file from the LP that sounds better than
the LP because the bulk of the clicks have been removed. And can be played
more conveniently.

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

I guess it depends on whether you consider the whole process to be a bit Heath Robinson or not.

It's your time and money so who's to say, especially as it doesn't seem like you're prioritising sound quality?

Even if your LPs could be considered as new you'd still be stuck with a pretty lousy product: AudibleOddities – Audio Mastering Engineer for Internet, CD, and Vinyl | Vinyl

That said, CDs and FLAC files could, and regularly do, fail just as dramatically.

However I doubt very much if an analogue versus digital discussion is going to help, as it really does sound like only a soldering iron will scratch that itch.

Personally I'd be wary of chucking too much dosh at this project, but that's just me. You know, no matter how enjoyable the process, you will ultimately end up with pretty naff media.

In article , RJH
wrote:
On 14/02/2015 09:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW In my case I also have CD versions of many examples. But from
comparison there are differences. e.g. Old EMI LPs tend to have a
different frequency balance to the CD 're-issues'. And may have less
level compression or other 'improvements' sic that afflict some CDs.
Annoyingly, EMI apparently also started out using ADCs with *less*
than 16bit resolution. Which may explain why some of their CDs don't
sound as good as they should. But then they had to be dragged kicking
and screaming into CD production because it was "not invented here".


. . . and maybe they sound better?

Matter of the specific case and the listener's preferences I assume.

For EMI LP/CD issues of older (i.e. LP era) classical items the main
factors in my experience a

LP: Clicks and pops and other noises that are due to production problems.
Poor quality control, dirt, careless handling, pressing too quickly, poor
vinyl, and so on. i.e. The new LP had them before it was ever played. Also
warps and being absurdly offcenter. Sometimes careless flaws like cutter
'chatter' that generates a flutter effect, or similar problems.

CD: Levels too high or compressed. Poor analogue-to-digital conversions.
e.g. using a poor ADC, or a failure to dither correctly, or similar.

Differences in frequency balance also crop up. Partly I assume for the
reason Dave pointed out. But sometimes perhaps because the cutter setup
wasn't optimum or those in charge decided on a given balance.

In both case a lot of this is the difference between what *can* be done,
and what *was* done. So you're not comparing they *systems* but the foibles
of thise making the example LP or CD.

So I do often find a old EMI LP makes a more pleasing sound than a 1980s CD
resissue if I can get rid of the added rifle-shots and the rumble, wow,
etc, aren't bad.

OTOH I have many CDs I like very much. Although in terms of sound quality
they're more likely to be Decca or DGG or Philips than EMI.

FWIW in the last year or so I have started buying 2nd hand LPs. These tend
to confirm differences I recall from the past. e.g.s...

Many jazz LPs have fewer faults than pop/rock ones. How much that's down to
manufacture, how much the behaviour of previous owners, I'm not sure.

Classical LPs show up clicks much more than jazz / rock / pop because the
average levels of cutting tend to be lower, exposing clicks that would be
drowned by louder pop music.

One of the nicest LPs I've obtained 2nd hand is an early teldec Play Bach
No 1. This is form circa 1960. Stereo. Very good sound and peaks up near
+18dB RIAA. I prefer it to the CD reissue. It only had a few clicks which I
fixed easily.

Another good result is an EMI LP of Barbirolli conducting tone poems by
Sibelius. This had *hundreds* of ticks and clicks. But it was worth
removing them as the result sounds better than the EMI CD reissues I have.
The frequency balance is warmer encourages me to wind up the volume.

But other examples don't seem worth spending time on, so I don't bother
with any/much declicking and move on.

If all CDs were made with sufficient care I suspect I'd be quite happy with
them. Alas in the real world, many don't seem to have been made that way.
Alas, the same can be said for LPs.


1) The LP has lots of clicks but otherwise sounds very nice. So I then
have to spend ages with Audacity 'repairing' clicks to get a result
that sounds better than the LP. Takes time and attention.


Agreed, but for some reason, on the whole, it doesn't bother me.

Matter of how you listen and what you listen to.



2) Scanning LP sleeves, and any notes (libretto, etc). This is a real
PITA because A4 flatbed scanners can't cover a 12" LP in one go. So
required more than one scan per item, and then realignment, cropping
and stitching mutliple scans with GIMP (other programs are available
:-) )


I'm sure I'm going to regret writing this because I think I know the
answer, but use the camera on your phone.

I can give the answer you expected. I don't have a phone with a camera. :-)

However I *do* have some reasonable digital cameras. I have tried using
them for this. The results weren't good. Partly lighting problems. Partly
geometric problems with perspective. Partly not having the detail of a
300dpi scan on a flatbed.


That said, both processes also give you more time to listen to the
item as well.


Well quite. The only slight faff for me was splitting and naming tracks
so the tags played with servers.

In general I don't split the tracks unless there is a specific reason. And
I don't add metadata tags to the flac files. I use scans of the cover,
back, and any notes, etc. Quite happy in most cases to play the results as
'LP sides'. One file per side.

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