Silly question!
 

On 10/07/2015 16:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
Then get an RIAA pre-amp. Vast range on Ebay from about 15 quid
upwards. Record deck plugs into that, output into the line in on the
computer. I assume the PC being a desktop has one?

Unfortunately not! Hence looking at using USB to access the beast.
(Apple iMac)

Another good reason not to buy anything Apple, then. All of my Windows
desktops and laptops have analogue line in and out.


That's quite a recent thing - past year or two. I've only just noticed
the new iMac I just bought doesn't have a line in. It's not a big deal
for me as I have a USB DAC, but still, pretty poor. Surprisingly, the
Apple store doesn't seem to sell anything suitable.

--
Cheers, Rob

Linn Majik
 

On 10/07/2015 18:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Has't someone produced a 'learning' handset that does so by capturing the
actual light output patterns? Perhaps also building up an open archive of
the details for people to use? If not, maybe its time.

Lots will do this if you have the original handset. But don't know of any
which can do it from the appliance, if the original is lost.


I had a http://www.oneforall.co.uk/ a while back, and I'm pretty sure
you can enter codes from their appliance database, straight into the remote.

--
Cheers, Rob

Silly question!
 

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:17:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


The Behringer UFO202 might be worth trying as they are fairly cheap,
and should 'just work' as they are Audio Class one. (i.e. work with a
Mac without any 'drivers' nonsense).

I've not tried one, but I did try (and have a) UCA202. I found the
results shown at
I have one which I bought as a means of bypassing burning CDs via my CD
recorder. I found it to be far inferior in terms of sound quality and I
have reverted to burning the CDs

The main things I'd hesitate about in the specs I read on the page I
references we

A) The -39dBV 'max' input which means about 11 mV. That seems on the low
side for clipping a MM signal.

B) The wide tolerance on the RIAA response accuracy.

How much either will matter will depend on circumstances.

And is it limited to 48k/16bit whereas better ADCs would offer more 'room'.

However it's cheap. So may be worth a punt.

It would be better, though, to use a 'proper' RIAA preamp, and perhaps use
a better ADC. I confess I would not be happy using the UFO202, but then I
have been making digital files from many LPs and want them to be as high
quality as possible. So am prepared to have a good (expensive) ADC and
computer connected to the main HiFi to do this with care.

But in the context of this thread I doubt it would make much sense to
recommend an ADC that costs much more than ten times the price of the
UFO202 and required a good RIAA preamp as well. 8-]

The Scarlett 2i2 I would recommend for general USB ADC uses. But although
it has mic inputs it has no RIAA amp. So we'd then be talking well over 100
quid for ADC + RIAA. Will make better (96k/24) recordings, but costs
accordingly.

FWIW At present I'm experimenting with symultaneous play/capture using the
2i2 for tasks like measurements on loudspeakers, amplifiers, etc.

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

Linn Majik
 

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 10/07/2015 18:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Has't someone produced a 'learning' handset that does so by capturing
the actual light output patterns? Perhaps also building up an open
archive of the details for people to use? If not, maybe its time.

Lots will do this if you have the original handset. But don't know of
any which can do it from the appliance, if the original is lost.


I had a http://www.oneforall.co.uk/ a while back, and I'm pretty sure
you can enter codes from their appliance database, straight into the
remote.

That's how the Harmony is meant to work. But you also have to programme in
what the various buttons do.

I'd have thought it better to have everything work, then give you the
choice of changing what does what - if the defaults ain't to your taste.

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

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

Silly question!
 

In article ,
RJH wrote:
That's quite a recent thing - past year or two. I've only just noticed
the new iMac I just bought doesn't have a line in. It's not a big deal
for me as I have a USB DAC, but still, pretty poor. Surprisingly, the
Apple store doesn't seem to sell anything suitable.

Yes. Of course, maybe everyone only deals with digital audio these days.
And many PC audio connections are of pretty average quality. I obtained a
used pro card with balanced ins and outs at an auction of BBC bits and
pieces when TV Centre closed down. That seems to work very well.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

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

Silly question!
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:
That's quite a recent thing - past year or two. I've only just noticed
the new iMac I just bought doesn't have a line in. It's not a big
deal for me as I have a USB DAC, but still, pretty poor.
Surprisingly, the Apple store doesn't seem to sell anything suitable.

Yes. Of course, maybe everyone only deals with digital audio these days.
And many PC audio connections are of pretty average quality. I obtained
a used pro card with balanced ins and outs at an auction of BBC bits and
pieces when TV Centre closed down. That seems to work very well.

'Meeja' companies don't like 'analogue holes' in equipment. It allows
people to bypass their attempts to control and sell you the same old same
old in more than one 'format'. These days Apple is a meeja company who flog
style-guru kit as a part of their walled garden.

That said, it may be there is an analogue input. I recall that some models
of Apple kit may seem to lack an spdif output. But in fact one lurks inside
the headphone socket as its a 'combi' port for analogue phones and optical
spdif. My (not Apple) laptop is also like this. So the number of apparent
sockets may be smaller than the number of ports.

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

Linn Majik
 

On 11/07/15 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:

I had a http://www.oneforall.co.uk/ a while back, and I'm pretty sure
you can enter codes from their appliance database, straight into the
remote.

That's how the Harmony is meant to work. But you also have to programme in
what the various buttons do.

I'd have thought it better to have everything work, then give you the
choice of changing what does what - if the defaults ain't to your taste.

That's just what you can do with the better One-For-All remotes. If you
can find a code which will turn the power off on your device, then you
can get the rest of the functions of that device assigned to keys if you
have the patience. They have provided me with the code map for
particular devices when I've asked them, and I have a TV upstairs where
my universal remote can switch directly to a given input, which is a
function the original supplied remote did not have. Also, it doesn't
need a windows computer in order to set it up, which is handy because I
don't have one.

--
╔�╦�╦�����╦���╗
â•‘ â•‘ â•‘ â•‘ â•‘
╔�� ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ╔��
╚���╩�╩�╩�╩�╩�� -- JimP.

Silly question!
 

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:26:01 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


clipped for brevity

The main things I'd hesitate about in the specs I read on the page I
references we

A) The -39dBV 'max' input which means about 11 mV. That seems on the low
side for clipping a MM signal.

B) The wide tolerance on the RIAA response accuracy.

How much either will matter will depend on circumstances.

And is it limited to 48k/16bit whereas better ADCs would offer more 'room'.

However it's cheap. So may be worth a punt.
I think these are all very valid points, esp. "...worth a punt" which
was my thought when I purchased mine. I just figured that the OP might
benefit from my experience, thereby making a more informed decision.
..
Interestingly, one of the big problems I had with using the external
RIAA phono stage was either insufficient OR excessive (read: clipping
big time) signal strength. In the end, I had to use the built in phono
stage to control that,with all the implied shortcomings.

As you, I am interested in only the very best quality of conversion,
even though I will continue to use the vinyl originals, (in fact I am
planning a major upgrade to the phono stage as last upgrade to the
system). My attitude is why listen to conversions that are inferior
to what I can already do, even at the expense of some inconvenience.
------------------------------------------
My email is JohnMee3 AT comcast.net, not whatever is in the header

Silly question!
 

In article ,
wrote:
As you, I am interested in only the very best quality of conversion,
even though I will continue to use the vinyl originals, (in fact I am
planning a major upgrade to the phono stage as last upgrade to the
system). My attitude is why listen to conversions that are inferior to
what I can already do, even at the expense of some inconvenience.

That takes for granted that the 'conversion' *is* audibly inferior. However
in practice I'm happy that the ones I'm making are not. Indeed, in many
cases they are *better* that the LP source, for the reason I give below.

I'm finding that 96k/24 captures made with the Benchmark ADC show no
audible sign to me that they aren't the LP. And I routinely am able to
remove clicks to make an 'inaudible mend'. For some old LPs that makes a
big difference.

In principle, I might at some later day buy a new TT/arm/cart. But the
reality is that as things stand I'm still able to use my old V15/III's and,
sadly, I don't regard any modern cartridge as matching these. So as well as
convenience the digital captures will allow me to hear what they can play
even when they cease being usable. That's another important reason I'm
making the digital captures.

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

Silly question!
 

On 12/07/2015 09:36, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
As you, I am interested in only the very best quality of conversion,
even though I will continue to use the vinyl originals, (in fact I am
planning a major upgrade to the phono stage as last upgrade to the
system). My attitude is why listen to conversions that are inferior to
what I can already do, even at the expense of some inconvenience.

That takes for granted that the 'conversion' *is* audibly inferior. However
in practice I'm happy that the ones I'm making are not. Indeed, in many
cases they are *better* that the LP source, for the reason I give below.

I'm finding that 96k/24 captures made with the Benchmark ADC show no
audible sign to me that they aren't the LP. And I routinely am able to
remove clicks to make an 'inaudible mend'. For some old LPs that makes a
big difference.


The click removal I can appreciate. But why is it necessary to capture
the audio at 96/24? Isn't 44/16 more than enough for LPs? Then save as
44/16 Flac.

That said, I do have some high bitrate Flac files that do sound very
good indeed. To my ear, better than CD. I'm just not sure why,
technically, they may sound better than say CD.

An example is Paul Simon (1972) - I have 3 flavours - LP, CD and these
high (96/24, m4a) files. Thing is, I can't remember where I got the high
rate files from, so I don't know if they're authentic (derived directly
from the source). All I know is that I didn't do it - I can tell from
the metadata, which cites Exactaudiocopy as part of the chain. Which in
turn suggests a CD source? Anyhoo . . .


In principle, I might at some later day buy a new TT/arm/cart. But the
reality is that as things stand I'm still able to use my old V15/III's and,
sadly, I don't regard any modern cartridge as matching these.

I've not heard a V15. My 'best' is an ATOC9, but I'm more than happy
using an AT440 on a standard Technics 1200 - the combination I've been
suing for the past few years. Aside form the 'sound', distortion
(especially on the inner grooves) is something that annoys me. I find
these AT cartridges manage that very well in a way that most others
don't - including other AT cartridges.

Might there be a way to host samples of tracks recorded using different
techniques and kit, I wonder?

So as well as
convenience the digital captures will allow me to hear what they can play
even when they cease being usable. That's another important reason I'm
making the digital captures.


LP playback for me is more than the sound. And barring a calamity, 40
years of listening to LPs through some pretty arduous storage and care
regimes hasn't affected the sound too much. I'd take your point on
recordings that no longer exist, though.


--
Cheers, Rob