"RJH" wrote in message
...
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.


Consider Stienberg Clean. It is very simple to use - you simply play
the whole LP side into it then go along the graphic of the music and
place a marker where a track ends and press a button - bingo all the
tracks seperated.

It will also remove clicks quite effectively, and can be made to fade
up and down at start and end of tracks as you prefer.


Per Jim's query about the deterioration of my LPs, it sounds like a
sytlus clogged with muck - distorted and level variant. Mind you that
is using mt AT90E MC cartridge the state of the stylus of which I know
not. ISTR that for the last LPs I transferred I used my M75EDII and
that worked OK - then.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.


It doesn't just follow that jazz (ah, how I remember Mr Loussier) or
classical transfers that have problems. One of the best albums for
demo (and the title track is probably the best) is Love Over Gold by
Dire Straits, but the LP sounds just so much 'nicer' and more
melodious than the CD.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
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.


Hey, I used to do that - and it worked.

Then there was that stuff that you sprayed on, left to dry, and then
peeled off taking all the muck with it. I seem to think that was a
Soundguard product as well.



--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

And therein lies the crux of the matter.
After decades producing poor quality media the industry wishes us to exonerate their blatant lack of professionalism.
They hope to avoid responsibility for poor equalisation decisions in the past by claiming the current betterment in fidelity is due to increased bitdepths and sampling rates in new replay files.
A promise of professional mastering this time around would have been more than satisfactory, rather than deceiving the public even further.

In article , Woody

wrote:


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.


Consider Stienberg Clean. It is very simple to use - you simply play
the whole LP side into it then go along the graphic of the music and
place a marker where a track ends and press a button - bingo all the
tracks seperated.

Even sox can be used to automate snipping into 'tracks' if you wish.

It will also remove clicks quite effectively, and can be made to fade
up and down at start and end of tracks as you prefer.

I'm personally wary of 'automated' declicking. Indeed, I find Audacity's
'repair' much more useful than its 'de-click'.


Per Jim's query about the deterioration of my LPs, it sounds like a
sytlus clogged with muck - distorted and level variant. Mind you that
is using mt AT90E MC cartridge the state of the stylus of which I know
not. ISTR that for the last LPs I transferred I used my M75EDII and
that worked OK - then.

I'd be inclined to test the stylus. I haven't encountered the effect you
describe - so far as I know, anyway. I'm still using my old V15 styli.
Fingers crossed they continue to survive!

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

In article ,
Woody wrote:

It doesn't just follow that jazz (ah, how I remember Mr Loussier) or
classical transfers that have problems. One of the best albums for
demo (and the title track is probably the best) is Love Over Gold by
Dire Straits, but the LP sounds just so much 'nicer' and more
melodious than the CD.

I agree. Its largely a question of the care and judgement employed when
each example was made. I have many CDs that sound superb, and give clearer
results than the LP. I also have many CDs which sound crushed or have a
poorer balance, etc, than the LP. Its not so much a matter of how well LP
or CD *can* deliver good results. Its a question of when the makers can be
bothered and apply the required skill and care.

In the last few years I've bought both:

A) boxed sets of CDs and found that, for example the 'Philips 50' and
Decca Analogue Years' boxes of classical music are very enjoyable with
generally superb sound.

B) new sets of LPs, and found that The Shadows Singles Collection (2LP) and
The Beatles Mono LPs box sound great.

What I do wish, though, was that EMI had bothered to take that much care
when pressing the Beatles/Shadows LPs back in the day!

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

In article , John R Leddy
wrote:

'Jim Lesurf[_2_ Wrote:
;93638']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.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. After decades producing poor
quality media the industry wishes us to exonerate their blatant lack of
professionalism. They hope to avoid responsibility for poor equalisation
decisions in the past by claiming the current betterment in fidelity is
due to increased bitdepths and sampling rates in new replay files. A
promise of professional mastering this time around would have been more
than satisfactory, rather than deceiving the public even further.


Agreed. Hence the way HiFiNews keep catching out 'high rez' files on sale
being simply upampled older versions. i.e. more bits, but no improvement in
results or content.

FWIW Although KK tended to refer to PRT as Purveyors of ReTreads I found
their CDs a few decades ago were blessed by employing Mike Dutton to do the
digital transfers, etc, from their old master tapes. As a result their CD
re-issues of the old Pye Barbirolli recordings generally sound much better
than some later 'EMI' re-issues. Fortunately in some cases their 'Pheonixa'
re-re-issues used Mike's work as well. Alas, their Vaughan Williams 60CD
shovel-in-in box was a real guddle of good and poor transfers.

Company run by accountants. Must have been a real frustration for the
engineers, etc, who cared.

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

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
It doesn't just follow that jazz (ah, how I remember Mr Loussier) or
classical transfers that have problems. One of the best albums for
demo (and the title track is probably the best) is Love Over Gold by
Dire Straits, but the LP sounds just so much 'nicer' and more
melodious than the CD.

I agree. Its largely a question of the care and judgement employed when
each example was made. I have many CDs that sound superb, and give
clearer results than the LP. I also have many CDs which sound crushed or
have a poorer balance, etc, than the LP. Its not so much a matter of how
well LP or CD *can* deliver good results. Its a question of when the
makers can be bothered and apply the required skill and care.

I've never quite understood why CDs have any 're-mastering' at all. Surely
the producer and artist are happy with the final mix in the studio? So all
that would be needed when producing the final CD *might* be some subtle
level alterations between tracks - if that sort of CD?

--
*I yell because I care

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

On 13/02/15 15:04, 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.

This. ^^^^^^^^

On 15/02/2015 21:24, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 13/02/15 15:04, 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.

This. ^^^^^^^^
With the proviso that they are available on CD. Many of my LPs aren't.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.