Vinyl

[MediumTex]

Steely Dan's recordings have always amazed me with their detail and clarity.

I had a really nice Nakamichi custom sound system a few cars back and Steely Dan CDs were some of the most enjoyable to listen to because of the detail and clarity.

Beck's recordings are also of very good quality.

[lazyboy]

I had all of Steely Dan's recordings on vinyl from the 70's and loved them- such tasty stuff. I saw them in concert a few years back and they sounded great.

[dualstow]

I'm grateful for the info here about transferring vinyl to mp3.
I really don't want to buy a USB turntable, because I love the Technics. (I don't have a 1200, though, nor anything like it).
I know where all the pops and crackles are in my copy of Rush's 'Cygnus X-1'. A store-bought mp3 of it would just sound too...clean!  :D

Jesus Christ, look at that thing!  Was your daddy a mohel?

Some say Jesus Christ's daddy was the Mohel to end all mohels.  ;)
That reminds me: I have the double vinyl LP of Peter Gabriel's 'Passion' soundtrack. I imagine, though, that the CD sounds better. Pete's up there with Steely Dan when it comes to fidelity and richness of sound.

Based on all this Led Zeppelin talk I purchased the complete Led Zeppelin set through iTunes for $99.  I can now shuffle 165 Led Zeppelin songs (the whole catalog, plus several live performances), which is quite cool.

That's a wise investment, indeed.
I could listen to Bron-Y-Aur Stomp and Travelling Riverside Blues all day long.

[flyingpylon]

I collect vinyl in a specific non-music niche simply because the vast majority of it has not been (and will never be, at least not commercially) transferred to digital. I'm doing my own transfers for convenience.  It's amazing to consider how much recorded material is going to be completely lost as vinyl records fade away.

I have a Pro-Ject Debut III turntable and I'm very happy with it.  It is a no-frills, belt-driven device but it is more than fine for my purposes.  I'm sure some "audiophile" could tell me exactly why it sucks and although I admittedly fall victim to the same perfectionist tendencies at times in other areas, I have refused to do so when listening to vinyl.  To me, these are "old records" and I'm delighted to be able to listen to them at all.  I clean them the best I can and store them properly and that's it.  I understand why people try to do extensive analog vs digital comparisons but I'm having none of it... I'm too busy just enjoying my records.

Oh and my sheets are just plain white cotton, but you probably already figured that...

[Coffee]

I can now shuffle 165 Led Zeppelin songs (the whole catalog, plus several live performances), which is quite cool.

Shoot me, now.

You don't like Led Zeppelin?

What do you like?

Don't get me wrong: I like Led Zeppelin.  A lot.  But some of their stuff is so esoteric and listening to too much of it is like listening to reggae too long.  Just gets boring.

Probably my short attention span, though.

Do you know that joke about Clapton and Jerry Garcia being taken hostage by terrorists and they're going to shoot both of them in the head? The terrorists give them each one last request.  Garcia says, "Let me play 'Truckin', one last time... the long version."

Clapton says, "Shoot me, now."

[MediumTex]

Shoot me, now.

You don't like Led Zeppelin?

What do you like?

Don't get me wrong: I like Led Zeppelin.  A lot.  But some of their stuff is so esoteric and listening to too much of it is like listening to reggae too long.  Just gets boring.

Probably my short attention span, though.

Do you know that joke about Clapton and Jerry Garcia being taken hostage by terrorists and they're going to shoot both of them in the head? The terrorists give them each one last request.  Garcia says, "Let me play 'Truckin', one last time... the long version."

Clapton says, "Shoot me, now."

What is your opinion about what type of music, if any, that dogs might enjoy listening to?

It's a serious question and I thought you might have an interesting opinion.

***

BTW, I think the joke above would be better if "Fire on the Mountain" was used instead of "Truckin'."

Here is a 13 minute version:  http://youtu.be/eFW8z7RObUM

[craigr]

I collect vinyl in a specific non-music niche simply because the vast majority of it has not been (and will never be, at least not commercially) transferred to digital. I'm doing my own transfers for convenience.  It's amazing to consider how much recorded material is going to be completely lost as vinyl records fade away.

When I had the Victorola I saw the same thing. So many great recordings on shellac records that are now gone or going. I have vinyl now that has not been moved to CD and probably won't. Some of the performances are simply not profitable I'm sure to do it, but they are still wonderful to listen to for me.

I have a Pro-Ject Debut III turntable and I'm very happy with it.  It is a no-frills, belt-driven device but it is more than fine for my purposes.

Those are good tables, I looked into them. People get too pedantic over this. I saw a turntable that was $20,000 at a shop though if you are looking for that upgrade. I was scared to touch it.

I understand why people try to do extensive analog vs digital comparisons but I'm having none of it... I'm too busy just enjoying my records.

That's the point I reached. I listened enough to the vinyl vs. CD to know the faults and plusses. But there are simply some albums that are only on Vinyl and that's likely where I'll spend my future dollars. So worrying about the vinyl vs. CD issue doesn't matter because there is no CD version to compare it to.

[Coffee]

You don't like Led Zeppelin?

What do you like?

Don't get me wrong: I like Led Zeppelin.  A lot.  But some of their stuff is so esoteric and listening to too much of it is like listening to reggae too long.  Just gets boring.

Probably my short attention span, though.

Do you know that joke about Clapton and Jerry Garcia being taken hostage by terrorists and they're going to shoot both of them in the head? The terrorists give them each one last request.  Garcia says, "Let me play 'Truckin', one last time... the long version."

Clapton says, "Shoot me, now."

What is your opinion about what type of music, if any, that dogs might enjoy listening to?

It's a serious question and I thought you might have an interesting opinion.

***

Totally anecdotal, but classical seems to do best for dogs. We even have a woman on our forum who claims that her dog will have extreme separation anxiety if left overnight in a vet clinic, unless they leave a radio on playing classical.  They claim to have tried other genres, but unless it's set to the classical station, the dog won't stay calm.

[MachineGhost]

Plus, the new Added Analog Fix buttons automatically apply sophisticated algorithms to exactly correct for the digital difference when you convert LPs, 45s, 78s and cassettes. The Fix Buttons use multiple curves enhancing sound and reducing noise to make your music dramatic without added distortion or noise. Then just use the EQ sliders to personalize the sound the way you want it for maximum digital dramatic output.

http://www.dak.com/reviews/2055story.cfm#fix

Below, using both an Electron Microscope and Metallurgical Microscopes we'll explore how your LP records reproduce sound. Using a stylus's eye view of the groove, we'll better understand how the stylus interacts with your groove and how to keep the interaction at its best from now on. There's a lot more to cleaning and removing static from your LPs than meets the naked eye.

http://www.dak.com/reviews/3306story.cfm

[Storm]

Plus, the new Added Analog Fix buttons automatically apply sophisticated algorithms to exactly correct for the digital difference when you convert LPs, 45s, 78s and cassettes. The Fix Buttons use multiple curves enhancing sound and reducing noise to make your music dramatic without added distortion or noise. Then just use the EQ sliders to personalize the sound the way you want it for maximum digital dramatic output.

http://www.dak.com/reviews/2055story.cfm#fix

I hate to break it to you, but you never want to make pre-equalized recordings of music for playback.  The reason is that mastering engineers intentionally make recordings that are equalized to include the full dynamic range of all frequencies.  The intent is that a song produced in the studio should be shipped at a neutral equalization setting so that no harmonic material is either missing (by being attenuated too much) or distorted (by having certain frequency ranges amplified too much).

Because each listening room and stereo system are different, you are supposed to take the neutral recording you receive (in whatever format: vinyl, tape, CD, MP3, 8-track cassette, etc) and equalize it on the final playback, on your equipment.

Think about it for a second - how could a mastering engineer that is making a recording for millions of listeners possibly know that your stereo needs a 3db boost to the bass frequencies to make it sound richer?  And, even if he knew that your stereo needed this, if he did it on the main recording, it would make the bass 3db louder for everyone else, and a lot of people would have to turn the bass down by 3db to compensate.

So, knowing all this, why would you purchase this product?  If you EQ the recording so it sounds perfect on your computer speakers, then you play it in your car and it's going to sound like crap because your car needs a totally different equalization profile.

This product does nothing more than iTunes built in equalizer, or any other equalizer that already exists in your stereo.  Just use the bass/mid/treble controls or EQ built into whatever stereo you are listening to at the time and leave your master recordings alone.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the more you process digital recordings, especially lossy formats like MP3, the more you distort the original material.

TL;DR - this is snake oil and you should avoid purchasing.

[MachineGhost]

I agree, but I think you misconstrued the Analog Fix settings vs the permament Equalizer settings.  The Analog Fix settings act as a preamp to restore the rolled off low and high frequencies that are the limitations of fitting enough data and bandwidth on analog recording mediums.  The permanent Equalizer is so you don't have to custom adjust for every song every time its played; you can just leave the iPod, car stereo equalizer flat, etc..

What I find interesting from that page is that the alleged dynamic range of a LP is 55dB and for a 45rpm its 45dB, while a CD is 90dB.  That puts the Loudness Wars as even more batshit insane stupidity than before!

Just think, if you have a vinyl LP with a great Loudness Wars rated dynamic range, it should sound even better with the Analog Fix preamp restoring the rolled off lows and highs.  And then burning that result to CD should blow away the CD version -- unless the CD was utterly and superbly mastered.

[Storm]

I agree, but I think you misconstrued the Analog Fix settings vs the permament Equalizer settings.  The Analog Fix settings act as a preamp to restore the rolled off low and high frequencies that are the limitations of fitting enough data and bandwidth on analog recording mediums.  The permanent Equalizer is so you don't have to custom adjust for every song every time its played; you can just leave the iPod, car stereo equalizer flat, etc..

Again, this is complete BS.  Rolled off low and high frequencies?  Limitations of fitting enough data and bandwidth on analog recording mediums?  You can't magically restore low and high frequencies that weren't there on the original recordings.  What you can do is boost the existing low and high frequencies so that it sounds better.

If you have a good turntable with a full range needle, decent tonearm, and a good pre-amp, your vinyl will sound fine.  If you need to boost the bass or treble, do it on your stereo.  Don't import it into a computer in a digital format, mangle it in some questionable equalizer, then play it back out in analog and expect it to sound better.  You've just gone through 2 analog to digital conversions (introducing whatever artifacts cheap analog digital converters have) and questionably processed the data.  Does the equalizer use 32-bit internal precision for your audio data?

What I find interesting from that page is that the alleged dynamic range of a LP is 55dB and for a 45rpm its 45dB, while a CD is 90dB.  That puts the Loudness Wars as even more batshit insane stupidity than before!

Just think, if you have a vinyl LP with a great Loudness Wars rated dynamic range, it should sound even better with the Analog Fix preamp restoring the rolled off lows and highs.  And then burning that result to CD should blow away the CD version -- unless the CD was utterly and superbly mastered.

I'm not sure you understand what dynamic range really means.  0dB is the loudest a signal can possibly be, and analog medium have a noise floor below this.  For vinyl it is -80dB.  That means that the crackle and hiss of a vinyl record, or the empty space in between tracks, will be right around -80dB.  So, you have 80dB of dynamic range between the absolute quietest (silence) and the absolute loudest signal.  For CDs, that are properly mastered and dithered it can be as high as 150dB.

Boosting the high and low frequencies doesn't give you any more dynamic range.  In fact, if you have to lower the overall volume to avoid clipping (going above 0dB) because of this boost, you might actually lose some dynamic range present in the original recording.

What's more, recording a vinyl record on your computer and burning it to CD doesn't magically give you more dynamic range.  Remember, the dynamic range is the room between the noise floor (crackle/hiss) of the record and the loudest signal.  If you record it on your computer, you record the noise along with the original signal, so your digital recording, even when burned to CD, still has the dynamic range of the original recording because the noise is still there.

I suggest reading up on some of these popular vinyl myths:  http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... hs_(Vinyl)

[craigr]

I'm about to have an experiment to separate the medium from the audio mixing done. In other words the bad CDs I hear I believe is simply how they were mastered into the digital format vs. the vinyl versions. So I am going to rip the vinyl version to digital for kicks and have a test.

I am going to digitize some known vinyl tracks to a lossless format and put on CD and raw files. I will use two different pre-amps for this (solid state and a tube preamp). I may also use two different cartridges through these pre-amps to have four versions of the songs. I am then going to send it to some friends of mine who have the same exact song in digital format. I will not let them know which is which and have them listen and rate which they prefer.

Maybe we can even do this experiment here somehow. I'll have to think about it and could probably only do short clips to avoid copyright issues. There is some ABX software out there to allow this to be done easily for blind testing.

Ok so I'm going to play with ripping this and will use my Mac laptop plugged into the output of the pre-amp and rip directly. Any input on this being a good or bad idea? I do not want to apply any kind of filtering/equalization to the signal so I'm going to use a raw encoder straight to FLAC or maybe Apple Lossless.

[Storm]

I'm about to have an experiment to separate the medium from the audio mixing done. In other words the bad CDs I hear I believe is simply how they were mastered into the digital format vs. the vinyl versions. So I am going to rip the vinyl version to digital for kicks and have a test.

I am going to digitize some known vinyl tracks to a lossless format and put on CD and raw files. I will use two different pre-amps for this (solid state and a tube preamp). I may also use two different cartridges through these pre-amps to have four versions of the songs. I am then going to send it to some friends of mine who have the same exact song in digital format. I will not let them know which is which and have them listen and rate which they prefer.

Maybe we can even do this experiment here somehow. I'll have to think about it and could probably only do short clips to avoid copyright issues. There is some ABX software out there to allow this to be done easily for blind testing.

Ok so I'm going to play with ripping this and will use my Mac laptop plugged into the output of the pre-amp and rip directly. Any input on this being a good or bad idea? I do not want to apply any kind of filtering/equalization to the signal so I'm going to use a raw encoder straight to FLAC or maybe Apple Lossless.

This sounds like a great experiment, and if you are able to setup an ABX comparison over the Internet I would love to participate.  It sounds like you already have a good handle on what you need to do to rip from vinyl to digital in a way that will work pretty effectively.

The only thing I would suggest is that the Macbook Pro's sound card is not ideal for recording, even though I'm sure your pre-amp is top notch.  What I would recommend instead is that you use a USB phono preamp so that you can get a pure digital signal into the Mac and avoid any noise or interference introduced at the sound card layer:

http://www.amazon.com/ART-USB-Phono-Plu ... =pd_cp_e_0

This one comes highly recommended.  The only limitation really is that it only records in 44.1khz or 48khz 16-bit.  This is fine for most purposes, since you are probably converting to Apple lossless codec which is a 16-bit codec anyway.  If it had 24-bit 96khz it would be perfect, but honestly it's probably more pain than it's worth because then you have to worry about what type of dithering algorithm would be optimal to dither from 96khz 24-bit down to 44.1khz 16-bit and that's probably not worth the effort.

[Storm]

I agree, but I think you misconstrued the Analog Fix settings vs the permament Equalizer settings.  The Analog Fix settings act as a preamp to restore the rolled off low and high frequencies that are the limitations of fitting enough data and bandwidth on analog recording mediums.

By the way, I just wanted to mention that I think I figured out what their misguided product literature is talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

RIAA equalization is a form of pre-emphasis on recording and de-emphasis on playback. A recording is made with the low frequencies reduced and the high frequencies boosted, and on playback the opposite occurs. The net result is a flat frequency response, but with attenuation of high frequency noise such as hiss and clicks that arise from the recording medium. Reducing the low frequencies also limits the excursions the cutter needs to make when cutting a groove. Groove width is thus reduced, allowing more grooves to fit into a given surface area, permitting longer recording times. This also reduces physical stresses on the stylus which might otherwise cause distortion or groove damage during playback.

A potential drawback of the system is that rumble from the playback turntable's drive mechanism is amplified by the low frequency boost that occurs on playback. Players must therefore be designed to limit rumble, more so than if RIAA equalization did not occur.

The thing is - you don't need to do this because every phono preamp manufactured since 1954 already does this for you!  So, basically, they are selling digital snakeoil.  Like any good snakeoil salesman, they take a nugget of truth, which is the RIAA equalization spec, which is public knowledge, and use it to sell a product that you think you need, but you actually don't.

If they were really trying to counteract the RIAA equalization curve, they would actually boost the bass frequencies and attenuate the treble, since the RIAA curve does the opposite of that, but since your phono pre-amp already does this, it's simply redundant.

[craigr]

The only thing I would suggest is that the Macbook Pro's sound card is not ideal for recording, even though I'm sure your pre-amp is top notch.  What I would recommend instead is that you use a USB phono preamp so that you can get a pure digital signal into the Mac and avoid any noise or interference introduced at the sound card layer:

http://www.amazon.com/ART-USB-Phono-Plu ... =pd_cp_e_0

Ok I'll check that out. Seems my vinyl retrograde is starting to add up in dollars!

I may try the Mac to see what results I get first. What is the limitation with the internal sound card? Is it just the ADC piece?

[Storm]

The only thing I would suggest is that the Macbook Pro's sound card is not ideal for recording, even though I'm sure your pre-amp is top notch.  What I would recommend instead is that you use a USB phono preamp so that you can get a pure digital signal into the Mac and avoid any noise or interference introduced at the sound card layer:

http://www.amazon.com/ART-USB-Phono-Plu ... =pd_cp_e_0

Ok I'll check that out. Seems my vinyl retrograde is starting to add up in dollars!

I may try the Mac to see what results I get first. What is the limitation with the internal sound card? Is it just the ADC piece?

Exactly; the ADC on the built-in sound card isn't really isolated from the rest of the computer as much as a dedicated external sound card, so you may get electro-magnetical interference (EMI) from other components in the computer, which results in buzzing or hum.  Actually, the Macs usually use pretty good components, so this may be minimal, but by using a USB ADC you move the conversion completely outside of the chassis of the computer and avoid much of the EMI that you might get by doing the conversion inside the computer.

[flyingpylon]

I don't trust computer sound cards either, so I have the Pro-Ject preamp that goes with my Debut III.  From there the signal goes into the line input of a Marantz digital recorder that I already had.  I record at the max resolution of 24-bit 48khz.  96khz might have been nice but back when I bought the recorder (2008 I think) those were much more expensive.

[MachineGhost]

Again, this is complete BS.  Rolled off low and high frequencies?  Limitations of fitting enough data and bandwidth on analog recording mediums?  You can't magically restore low and high frequencies that weren't there on the original recordings.  What you can do is boost the existing low and high frequencies so that it sounds better.

The "Fix Analog" boosts the existing low and high frequencies that were rolled off because of physical limitations of the analog mediums as well as the different RPMs.  Rolled off doesn't mean omitted in this case, but dampened down to minimize groove width.  It's essentially a lossless compression.  I don't see what is controversial about this, other than a regular equalizer likely doesn't have the specific algorithms to restore the rolled off frequencies correctly for the different analog mediums.

I'm not sure you understand what dynamic range really means.  0dB is the loudest a signal can possibly be, and analog medium have a noise floor below this.  For vinyl it is -80dB.  That means that the crackle and hiss of a vinyl record, or the empty space in between tracks, will be right around -80dB.  So, you have 80dB of dynamic range between the absolute quietest (silence) and the absolute loudest signal.  For CDs, that are properly mastered and dithered it can be as high as 150dB.

But how can it be 150dB if CD's are 16-bit which is only a 96dB dynamic range?

[Storm]

The "Fix Analog" boosts the existing low and high frequencies that were rolled off because of physical limitations of the analog mediums as well as the different RPMs.  Rolled off doesn't mean omitted in this case, but dampened down to minimize groove width.  It's essentially a lossless compression.  I don't see what is controversial about this, other than a regular equalizer likely doesn't have the specific algorithms to restore the rolled off frequencies correctly for the different analog mediums.

It's called RIAA equalization, which applies attenuation to the bass and amplification to the treble.  The reverse curve is implemented in every phono preamp manufactured since 1954, which, like you said, allows groove widths to be smaller because the bass signal is attenuated on the record.  The opposite curve is applied at the preamp and amplifies the signal back to the original level.  Note that the opposite occurs to high frequencies (boosted on the source and attenuated by the preamp) which helps to reduce record crackle and hiss.

Again, I'm not sure why you would need this, since your phono preamp already does this for you.

I'm not sure you understand what dynamic range really means.  0dB is the loudest a signal can possibly be, and analog medium have a noise floor below this.  For vinyl it is -80dB.  That means that the crackle and hiss of a vinyl record, or the empty space in between tracks, will be right around -80dB.  So, you have 80dB of dynamic range between the absolute quietest (silence) and the absolute loudest signal.  For CDs, that are properly mastered and dithered it can be as high as 150dB.

But how can it be 150dB if CD's are 16-bit which is only a 96dB dynamic range?
[/quote]

Dynamic range

Dynamic range is the difference between the largest and smallest signal a system can record or reproduce. With the proper application of dither, digital systems can reproduce signals with levels lower than their resolution would normally allow.[7] Therefore there is not a direct connection between bit depth and dynamic range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

Essentially most modern recordings are created from a 32 or 24-bit master, which is dithered down to 16-bits for the final CD master.  With the use of a proper dithering algorithm the dynamic range can be as high as 144-150dB.