Vinyl -> Digital

[firedog]

http://www.furutech.com/a2008/product2.asp?prodNo=374

 

relatively inexpensive, good sound. made for this purpose

 

[AudioDoctor]

that Audacity is recording at 96K? The device might be capable of it, but are you sure it is actually doing it?

 

[kennyb123]

I've been using a Roland FA-66 FireWire interface along with Pure Vinyl to record vinyl. I went with the Roland because it has RCA inputs, a rarity it seemed in products of this kind and this price. Price also factored into my decision too, as I wanted to see how much performance I could squeeze out of something affordable.

 

The rips made using the FA-66 retain much of vinyl's magic, but there are losses compared to playing the LP directly. The FA-66 does surprisingly well though given its cost.

 

I was able to clearly hear differences between the interconnects feeding the FA-66, even using my earbuds to play black the tracks on my PC at work. Also, to my surprise, a Oyaide NEO FireWire cable improved recording quality.

 

The rips I've made from vinyl tend to be far superior to both commercial CDs and high res downloads from HD Tracks. The 96/24 rip I made from the 45 RPM AP reissue of "Waltz for Debbie" absolutely humiliated the HD Tracks version. But that has a lot to do with my analog front end being superior to my digital front end. But also the AP team did a better mastering job.

 

Ken

 

[jhstn58]

I am only as sure as I can tell from reading what the "Project Rate" is showing in the bottom left hand corner of the screen. Is it possible that it is actually using a different rate, and if so, how do I tell?

 

[DavidL]

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/ADC-Analogue-Digital-conversion

 

 

[Julf]

On a pristine, well mastered LP, with a good pickup, you might get some signal above 22 kHz the first one or two times you play it, but mostly 22 kHz is the practical upper limit. I know that the quadraphonic systems managed to push the response to above 40 kHz, but that was under special circumstances, with special mastering, limited amplitude and special pickups/styluses.

 

Under ideal conditions, the signal-to-noise ratio of a LP is around 70 dB, so a dynamic range of 12 bits. Thus the resolution of a LP is comparable to 44.1/12.

 

 

[pilgrum]

clean the records like you never cleaned them before. I personally have had little success with transferring vinyl flawlessly people do it i just don't have a .o4 wow/fl table or expensive needle/tonearm. there is software that will filter vinyl noise but it will also misinterpret and compress it. kind of like dnr with tapes. Look into it though there are communities out there. i did a job for the manager of the american jazz society and they were digitizing 33.45.78's (like an entire house full and i mean house full) with a pro-tools mbox and 2 $2000+ turntables.

 

[Teresa]

On a pristine, well mastered LP, with a good pickup, you might get some signal above 22 kHz the first one or two times you play it, but mostly 22 kHz is the practical upper limit.

 

Not correct attached is a plot spectrum and spectrogram of Chris Jones's "No Sanctuary Here" from Stockfisch Records Vinyl Collection 180 Gram LP clearly showing frequency response to 45kHz.

 

Under ideal conditions, the signal-to-noise ratio of a LP is around 70 dB, so a dynamic range of 12 bits. Thus the resolution of a LP is comparable to 44.1/12.

Sorry you are extremely wrong this time, forget about the fact that one cannot compare digital bit rate with analog's continuous reproduction of the original analog waveform. The resolution of LP would be more comparable to 384kHz PCM with UNLIMITED bits. On LP one can hear below the noise floor, many Reference Recordings LPs have up to 80dB dynamic range but more importantly LPs do "micro dynamics" better than any current PCM and on par with DSD. That is why so many people only record LPs using DSD. With PCM I would not use anything less than 24 bit 96kHz to record an audiophile LP. LPs to 16/44.1kHz sound almost as bad as CDs, however LPs to 24/96kHz have about 90% of the sound of the original LP. IMHO LP is still sonically superior to any PCM.

 

[larryb]

I have an lp vacuum cleaner, that rotates the records, applies a cleaning fluid and vacuums the gunk up. It makes a huge difference. I think that while there are some things amateurs can do to clean up the sound, my previous experience with a windows box way back when was that it is easy to deaden the sound.

 

[pilgrum]

Theresa is talking i am listening. That is the best post I have read yet.

 

[pilgrum]

I dream for one of those vacumatic record cleaners most of the time 90%+ of the pops and noise is dirt/dust. Cleaning is the cheapest way to get good sounding vinyl. Even a vinyl that looks clean usually isn't. I clean them every play. A good platter/pad helps also. If your looking for budget ways to tweak your setup I generally tune my turntables every month or so and have it setup for 180 gm. i don't have enough records in other weights to worry about tuning for every weight i have a shit table that i tune for 130-160. Go through the usual checklist make sure the table is level, ground noise check, run it so the motor is stable, dust cover down, no pets, blah blah blah. if you decide to get a new needle break it in. I buy budget needles if you want my recommendations I enjoy ortofon om super10 or the ortofon 2m red for sub $100 investments 2m blue or bronze if you want to push it past 200. I know i am semi getting off topic but with the little coverage of vinyl i have seen on here some of this may be relevant for someone just getting into it. I will also say that I prefer to listen to vinyl noise than a pristine digital recording just because the soundstaging on my system is so much better on vinyl (i am sure there are dac's that can hang but i dont have one and possibly after friday i wont have a dac at all temporarily).

 

[pilgrum]

Good thing you didn't tell her ;p

 

[Mike27]

I'm kind of a bottom feeder. My systems have always been a hodgepodge of mostly "pre-owned" gear mixed with a few items I bought new but which are now old. So naturally I fell into dubbing my records inadvertently when a co-worker threw out an M-Audio 24/96 sound card that I stuffed into what was then the grandkids' game PC until I maxed out the hard drive and they moved away. Audacity is free and works quite well for my purposes.

 

My initial impetus was a fairly large pile of 45s, specifically making it more convenient to hear them. Have to manually move the belt on the living room turntable. Ok, I'll admit to having an old Garrard changer off in the corner, and a fairly decent DJ setup besides, but either way, it's still fairly labor-intensive to keep 'em playing for more than a couple hours. And then there the greatest hits albums and multi-artist compilations...

 

So I fairly quickly settled on 96k for archiving, with Audacity saving at 32 bit for the raw files. Having a mixer makes it easy to set input levels for each disc; I try to peak around -6 while recording to leave a little headroom for subsequent manipulation.

 

A lot of records excite my arm/cartridge resonance around 8 Hz, so I take a quick look at the spectrum in bass-heavy parts and make an executive decision about where I want to put a high pass filter. If the music has significant energy below 40Hz I might pick 18 or 22 Hz corner for a 36 dB/octave filter. A lot of my oldies don't have much below 60-80 Hz so I might go with 28 or 32 Hz if I don't think it will be detrimental. My woofers will thank me later. Invoking this filter might *increase* some peaks 2-3 dB.

 

Next comes click reduction. I keep my discs pretty clean... the click removal tool in Audacity can remove too much so I only use that on fadeouts. The repair tool works better for me for the relatively few loud clicks. I ignore some of the smaller visible ones if they're not too noticeable while listening. 99.9% of discs get no further noise reduction (I have taken hum out of a few but generally don't like what happens if I try to reduce hiss.) I then do a 50 ms fade-in before the music starts, and fade & trim the end to taste. For album tracks I find a convenient zero crossing around 50 ms before each track & place a marker for subsequent track splitting via "export multiple."

 

Next I do a level adjustment. Audacity's "normalize" works on each channel independently so may or may not be appropriate depending on the record. Some records have differing left and right peak levels when properly balanced. I trust my ears here... If doing albums I normalize the whole side to preserve level differences between tracks.

 

At this point I save an archival 24 bit FLAC. This may be the final master, but I'll usually listen on several systems to see if there are any obnoxious noises I might have missed. I use MediaMonkey (also free) to burn a test CD. About half the time I'll hear something in the car or the big system that I didn't notice at the computer (note to self, you have better speakers, hook some up to the PC. And use those headphones more!)

 

After fixing any problems discovered at this phase, I can now burn CDs, save mp3s, etc. at will. I've made a few DVD-As with another shareware that I'll probably end up buying since its trial period expired. And yes, I'll eventually upgrade MM to the paid version, and should slip the Audacity folks a few bucks...

 

Another useful bit of shareware is mp3tag.exe. Handy for putting those Billboard chart numbers into the metadata.

 

I'm not seeing quite the same HF extension as Ron or Teresa. But there is definitely significant information up to 30 kHz on some of my records, so worth saving at the higher sample rates.

 

Technique is still evolving, but I need to get more drive space soon!

 

[Julf]

Teresa,

 

"attached is a plot spectrum and spectrogram of Chris Jones's "No Sanctuary Here" from Stockfisch Records Vinyl Collection 180 Gram LP clearly showing frequency response to 45kHz"

 

And when I look at that spectrogram, I would say it shows actual music content up to something like 22 kHz / -60 dB, and then some smoothly decaying hiss (noise) above that. But my eyes are not your eyes (or ears).

 

"The resolution of LP would be more comparable to 384kHz PCM with UNLIMITED bits."

 

That is of course an interesting opinion. Do you have anything to support that claim?

 

 

 

[Teresa]

I can't guarantee that 384kHz PCM with unlimited bits would capture 100% of the sound of a great LP since 24/96kHz captures about 90%, it was a educated guess and perhaps I was being too generous. My heartfelt feeling is that PCM at any resolution will never capture 100% of the sound of an LP or live acoustic music for that matter. In my experience analog is closer to the real thing, with DSD not far behind.

 

Maybe you'll like this plot spectrum better? Gould: Latin American Symphonette - Analogue Productions LP.

 

[Julf]

"I can't guarantee that 384kHz PCM with unlimited bits would capture 100% of the sound of a great LP since 24/96kHz captures about 90%, it was a educated guess and perhaps I was being too generous."

 

All I can do is repeat my comment/question. Yes, that is an interesting opinion. Do you have any references/facts/research to support your opinion, or is it just a personal opinion? Nothing wrong with a personal opinion, as long as it is flagged as such.

 

"Maybe you'll like this plot spectrum better? Gould: Latin American Symphonette - Analogue Productions LP."

 

How was this recorded? What kind of equipment/front end? What kind of recording system?

 

And I do have to point out that even a harmonic distortion of as little as 0.05% will produce HF content (that wasn't there in the original music) with a level of -70 dB. So it is still quite possible that all the HF above 23 kHz shown in your graph is just harmonic distortion and noise. I am not saying it is - I am just saying there is no way to tell if it is or isn't.

 

[Teresa]

This is based on my listening to the resulting music files made at 16/44.1k, 24/48k and 24/96. For my ears it absolutely requires 24/96k to even approach the sound quality of audiophile vinyl. Vinyl to 16/44.1k is a waste of time as it doesn't sound much better than CD.

 

The majority of people who listen to LPs transferred to digital prefer the highest resolution they can muster. Many will settle for no less that double speed DSD (5.6448 MHz)

 

The Gould was not my rip but here are the details:

 

Analogue Productions, all tube recording. Roksan Radius III/Audioquest PT-9/Ortofon X5-MC (Moving Coil)

Phono Cable: Van den Hul D-502

Preamp: Counterpoint SA 5.1 (vacuum tube Sovtek 6922)

 

I have a lot of high resolution 24 bit downloads from HDTracks and others but the very best sounding music files I have are from audiophile LPs. That is also my opinion.

 

[Julf]

"Preamp: Counterpoint SA 5.1 (vacuum tube Sovtek 6922)"

 

Ah. Any idea of it's harmonic distortion? Perhaps above 0.05%?

 

"This is based on my listening to the resulting music files made at 16/44.1k, 24/48k and 24/96."

 

It is a pity you decided not to participate in the hi-res listening test I was/am running. Would have been interesting to see the result from somebody with such discerning ears as yours.

 

 

[realhifi]

"Sorry you are extremely wrong this time, forget about the fact that one cannot compare digital bit rate with analog's continuous reproduction of the original analog waveform. The resolution of LP would be more comparable to 384kHz PCM with UNLIMITED bits. On LP one can hear below the noise floor, many Reference Recordings LPs have up to 80dB dynamic range but more importantly LPs do "micro dynamics" better than any current PCM and on par with DSD. That is why so many people only record LPs using DSD. With PCM I would not use anything less than 24 bit 96kHz to record an audiophile LP. LPs to 16/44.1kHz sound almost as bad as CDs, however LPs to 24/96kHz have about 90% of the sound of the original LP. IMHO LP is still sonically superior to any PCM."

 

I agree. LPs are still king (IMHO of course). You could simply get a Linn DSM unit that includes a phono stage and simply broadcast your records 24/96 digitally through the house if you really want to make it digital.

 

[m_j_s]

I have seen earlier comments on both of these interfaces but the question remains for me which is the better quality interface. My audio system is reasonably high resolution and I am interested in the best possible outcomes at a not too exorbitant price. By this I mean reproducing as closely as possible what's on the vinyl, particularly detail and soundstage. There are many LPs that I wish to digitise as I have recently had my turntable upgraded.

 

I have previously used an Echo Mia PCI card on a pc with excellent results, but I am now in a Mac Mini environment using a Presonus Firebox and Wavelab Elements software, recording to wav and aiff and there's something missing from the results, eg the "air" and soundstage on some live recordings is not quite there. I am looking at potentially upgrading the interface and would be interested in other's views on either the Apogee Duet 2 or the RME FF 400. Number of channels, other capabilities etc don't matter too much, I want the best possible reproduction. Not really fussed over FireWire vs USB. Don't think that software is an issue.

 

Any views on one over the other? Clearly there are also other options, eg RME Babyface, maybe MOTU, but the Duet 2 and the FF 400 get most mentions. By all means throw anything else in but it would want it to be less than AUD1200.

 

Thks

 

[pilgrum]

From what I asked the tech at the jazz society it seemed like the phonograph components/vinyl purity was the key element in getting a high quality transfer. I am interested in hearing what is said about this. I remember he did also mention they switched from dat to HDD based on cost and clutter not drastic quality improvements. This was in 2007. I my friend has some vinyl that was never released in a digital format so I am hoping to get back to him he is going to use a digi-2 or HD i think.

 

[Paul R]

I've been using an Impact Twin to digitize some albums, but I never really tried using it as a DAC.

 

For some reason, I am under the impression that when used as a DAC it cannot auto switch the sample rates from the computer?

 

-Paul

 

 

[m_j_s]

I'm happy enough with the front end and vinyl quality, ie the quality is there in the first place to extract. I'm more concerned about being able to keep it intact in the transfer, hence the query about interface quality.

 

[AudioDoctor]

with a low output MC cartridge and the mic pre amps (not powered up with 48v) are dead silent. Very important when bypassing the phono amp and letting Pure Vinyl do the RIAA corrections. I record at 24/192 and the rips sound so close to the actual vinyl its very hard to tell the difference. If you can, I would say get the Fireface.

 

[m_j_s]

I also have a low output MC cartridge but a very competent MC pre-amp as well. My recording is at line level already RIAA corrected. Pleased to hear that the FF400 gives results that are very difficult to distinguish from the original. That is what I am after.