LP --> CD transfer: Digititis Introduced?
Dave
card (Santa Cruz in my case), does the LP --> CD transfer tend to
suffuse the warmth of LP analogue with hardness, stridency, and all
the known ills of digital?
I've never tried an LP --> CD transfer and am curious to know if a
very high level of fidelity retention is possible?
I'm one who still thinks tubes sound better than solid state and use
home built electrostatics, to give you some idea of where I'm coming
from--acknowledging that solid state and digital have advanced
enormously over the years.
Dave
Arny Krueger
"Dave" <ddhartwick@NO_SPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BF869211AB2CD8B0.4B47F2C2...@lp.airnews.ne
t...
> Assuming a superior arrangement: TT/cartridge/pre-amp to good sound
> card (Santa Cruz in my case), does the LP --> CD transfer tend to
> suffuse the warmth of LP analogue with hardness, stridency, and
all
> the known ills of digital?
Since all those "known ills of digital" are based on your
expectations, and not what good digital actually does...
> I've never tried an LP --> CD transfer and am curious to know if a
> very high level of fidelity retention is possible?
I've got a novel idea. Instead of reciting what you've been
programmed to believe by the specialty audio press, try listening for
yourself.
> I'm one who still thinks tubes sound better than solid state and
use
> home built electrostatics, to give you some idea of where I'm
coming
> from--acknowledging that solid state and digital have advanced
> enormously over the years.
Given that your perceptions are so highly controlled by your biases,
I think you should take all the digital gear you have, including your
computer, and make a bonfire with it in your back yard.
Dave
Is it possible to make a decent fucking copy of an LP to CD using a
goddamned computer?
Digital has advanced enormously, but the best digital reproduction is
still is not as good as the best analogue reproduction. Close
though...
If you think that is not true, you have cast-iron ears.
Arny Krueger
"Dave" <ddhartwick@NO_SPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
t...
> Why did you even bother to respond to this? Why?
Because you seemed to be looking for a response like the one I
provided.
> Is it possible to make a decent f*cking copy of an LP to CD using a
> g*ddamned computer?
Not with your piss-poor attitude, Dave. Audio/technical problems I
can deal with. Heads that aren't screwed on tight are someone else's
life's work.
> Digital has advanced enormously, but the best digital reproduction
is
> still is not as good as the best analogue reproduction. Close
> though...
Dave, since it is clear that by *analog* you mean that
gosh-almighty-piss-poor obsolete mess called the vinyl LP...
> If you think that is not true, you have cast-iron ears.
Ah Dave you are regaling us with the usual vinyl/tube elitist
song-and-dance. They are the only people who can hear, to read their
rants.
Dave, you obviously don't know who you are talking to. I have a
decent vinyl setup, as well as the digital. I've also checked out a
number of vinyl setups that are far better than mine. The bottom line
is that vinyl hasn't changed that much since the vast majority of
music lovers abandoned it over a decade ago. If you can't hear the
crappy frequency response and the gosh-almighty poor SNR and dynamic
range, then you are *listening* with something besides your ears.
Then there's always the matter of the tics and pops.
Dave, I also have some tubed equipment, that I was using with the
vinyl, but its going back into the storeroom because it just doesn't
do the job, even with vinyl, that good SS equipment does. Same
problems as vinyl only not nearly so bad. Frequency response is not
as good, distortion is not as good, SNR is not as good, and dynamic
range is not as good. It's also inherently far less reliable because
fire-bottles burn out a lot faster than sand-state.
Mike
Hope you don't belive in the virtues of silver unidirectional speaker
cables as well then....
The bottom line is that ANY D/A and A/D conversion process is going to
add an ammount of noise and distortion. However, if you are using a
professional soundcard, the level of this is going to be so far below
the general hiss crackle and pop of vinyl that you will never be able
to hear it.
Mike
Bob Masta
<ddhartwick@NO_SPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
Proper transfer to digital should preserve all the features of analog
that many people prefer... but compared to state-of-the-art digital
these "features" are more properly seen as "flaws". However,
they will be preserved as-is, for your enjoyment at a later time of
your choosing.
Bob Masta
tech(AT)daqarta(DOT)com
D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
Shareware from Interstellar Research
www.daqarta.com
Dave
apologize for the profanity. I am rolling around on the floor in the
throes of atonement. I've been hanging around the Linux groups too
much, trying to figure out to make Mandrake work.
I should have asked a more concrete question. I haven't actually
played the vinyl I have in years. The best TT/cart/pre-amp I can throw
together now consists of an old Technics DD TT with DIY damped,
unipivot arm, Audio Technica AT140ML cartridge, and homemade pre-amp
based on LT op-amps I built about 10 years ago. This is not an SOTA LP
set-up, but competent.
I guess the question is whether I need to improve upon the above? Will
the Santa Cruz, Plextor CDRW, and whatever software--say cool
edit--resolve any improvement I may make on my current TT/cart/Pre-amp
combo? I really have no feel for this. I've never pushed home PC
digital audio to the max. I've been using this machine to listen to
MP3s of wildly varying quality through a noisy old Marantz Quad SS
integrated amp and sub-mediocre cheapo Polk 2-Ways.
The consideration of the LP transfer project is part of a possibly
larger plan to raise the audio section of our little home PC network
to a higher level--good speakers, amp, etc.
Finally, I mis-represented myself on the analog/digital question. Good
digital repro can be superb, of course. It's just that I've never
heard massed violins produced quite right with digital; but there is a
subjective element to this. I guess I was trying to express the fact
that my ears are fairly good, albeit in a fatuous and slightly pompous
fashion. I'm developing tinnitus now, so the whole thing may be
academic soon.
BTW, I don't put special bricks on my amps, or use 10,000$ speaker
cable. I'm not of that school. Thanks...
Dave
Epox 8KHA+
Athlon Xp 1600+/retail HSF
512 megs Crucial DDR, 2100, 2.5
Visiontek Xtasy 5632 GEFORCE2 GTS-V (v23.11 drivers)
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
IBM 20 gig 60 GXP (8/12 gig partitions)
Plextor 16/10/40 CDRW
3COM nic
Enlight 7237AZ 340w
Sony Multiscan 200ES Monitor
Win2KPro SP2
Allen RENY
with noise reduction you can have your CDRs sounding as good as
your vinyl on your turntable.
That's my opinion and it only depends on my ears (Or yours later)
But one can also make things sound better and rejunevate some old
and scratched records. That is also a plus for the Lp to Cd transfer.
See my methods to start in this activity at :
www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html
Allen RENY
www.a-reny.com
or
http://a.reny.free.fr
=====================
"Dave" <ddhartwick@NO_SPAMearthlink.net> a écrit dans le message news:
BF869211AB2CD8B0.4B47F2C2...@lp.airnews.net...
deathwalker
scratchs and other audio anomolies. I beleive roxio do a basic version with
one of their cdwriting packages. The thing you have to get right is the
output of your vinyl to the line in of you card. Make sure it is the right
range. You may need a pre amp or attenuator or something as record player
cartridges are way below lineout levels.
"Allen RENY" <a.r...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:3c33267c$0$201$626a...@news.free.fr...
Arny Krueger
"Dave" <ddhartwick@NO_SPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
t...
> I should have asked a more concrete question. I haven't actually
> played the vinyl I have in years. The best TT/cart/pre-amp I can
throw
> together now consists of an old Technics DD TT with DIY damped,
> unipivot arm, Audio Technica AT140ML cartridge, and homemade
pre-amp
> based on LT op-amps I built about 10 years ago. This is not an SOTA
LP
> set-up, but competent.
The engineering way to figure out how good your vinyl playback system
actually is, involves finding test records and making measurements.
The situation is somewhat complexified by the fact that there is not
a lot in the way in the way of test records around right now, but it
looks to me like one of the two available - the HFN test LP you can
order from Audio Advisor, can do some work for you.
> I guess the question is whether I need to improve upon the above?
The two things that you can do something about are distortion and
frequency response.
If you get the arm and mounting geometry *right* you can minimize
distortion, which can be easily measured using the 300 Hz tracks on
the HFN test record and the spectrum analyzer in Cool Edit.
You can also use the last two 300 Hz tracking tracks on the HFN test
record to check your antiskating and the raw tracking ability of your
setup. You may or may not get clean results on the highest amplitude
band, but you should be able to get the next lower amplitude band
visibly free of distortion. BTW, mistracking on vinyl produces
clipping that looks something like a solid-state power amp. Pretty
flat tops.
You can also check frequency response using the pink noise tracks on
the HFN test disk. To measure response most accurately with pink
noise and a spectrum analyzer like the one in Cool Edit you need to
make an "unpinking" filter that goes up at 3 dB/octave over the whole
frequency range, but CoolEdit's FFT filter can be used to do that.
Once you determine the frequency response of your vinyl playback
system, you can turn around and program Cool Edit's FFT filter to
implement the inverse, thus providing yourself with very flat
response no matter what your cartridge does. This will generally
involve selectively filtering out some highs, but that's good for
minimizing the kinds of noise that LPs have lots of.
> Will
> the Santa Cruz, Plextor CDRW, and whatever software--say cool
> edit--resolve any improvement I may make on my current
TT/cart/Pre-amp
> combo?
Probably what you got will do the job, particularly if you can
implement the kinds of measurements that I was just writing about.
You see your vinyl system has distortion in the range of 0.2% (really
good at modest levels) to 30% (some mistracking at very high levels)
and frequency response that might be +/- 3-5 dB over the audible
range.
In contrast, my tests on the Santa Cruz put its distortion (please
see http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/santa_cruz/index.htm for
details) in the range of 0.0014% to 0.005%.
Can the Santa Cruz resolve the distortion in a typical vinyl playback
system? Heck yes!
Also, the frequency response on the Santa Cruz is 30-20 KHz +0.05 -
0.12 dB compared to the 2-5 dB of slop in your typical uncompensated
vinyl playback system including preamp. Maybe 0.2-0.5 dB of the slop
is in the preamp and the rest is the cartridge itself.
Can the Santa Cruz resolve the frequency response issues in a typical
vinyl playback system? Heck yes!
> I really have no feel for this. I've never pushed home PC
> digital audio to the max. I've been using this machine to listen to
> MP3s of wildly varying quality through a noisy old Marantz Quad SS
> integrated amp and sub-mediocre cheapo Polk 2-Ways.
If you want to test the resolution of your PC-based playback system
there are subject tests that you can apply to it that are
downloadable for free from http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .
Just start following the path for getting started at
http://www.pcabx.com/training/getting_started.htm .
> The consideration of the LP transfer project is part of a possibly
> larger plan to raise the audio section of our little home PC
network
> to a higher level--good speakers, amp, etc.
I have a couple of pretty fair PC-based sound systems. One takes the
simple route - I just added some Monsoon M-1000 speakers (its a three
piece setup with two flat panel speakers and a subwoofer).
I have another that uses a cheap Pioneer 100 wpc receiver and a pair
of KEF Q-15s. Even though these are some of the lower impedance
speakers around and some authorities that they should murder the
Pioneer receiver, this system really kicks for a small system.
I have another that uses some studio monitors from the pro-audio
world, together with a subwoofer that I built. This system really
kicks, period.
My main stereo (NHT 2.5i's with another home-brew subwoofer) can
access the digital out of an old Turtle Beach Malibu sound card with
its digital input.
> Finally, I mis-represented myself on the analog/digital question.
Good
> digital repro can be superb, of course. It's just that I've never
> heard massed violins produced quite right with digital; but there
is a
> subjective element to this. I guess I was trying to express the
fact
> that my ears are fairly good, albeit in a fatuous and slightly
pompous
> fashion. I'm developing tinnitus now, so the whole thing may be
> academic soon.
Well, a subjective equipment testing system can't possibly
distinguish the difference between bad ears and bad audio equipment,
so once you go through the tests at
http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm you'll have a better idea
about what you are working with.
You Know Who ~
restoration. In my opinion, no, it doesn't sound as good on CD as on vinyl,
but its close. And if you clean up an old scratchy LP the CD might sound
better to you.
--
You Know Who~
"Age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill."
-- Anonymous
Help at http://home.att.net/~You_Know_Who/
............................................................................
...................................................
"deathwalker" <ian-l...@blueyonder.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
news:oMIY7.2709$Xq2.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Dave
This is highly interesting and valuable info.
It's too bad a tube sound card is not available for computers. I jest!
(Wait--there probably is...)
Seriously though, thanks--especially the pcabx sites.
BTW, I did a lot of futzing with arm geometry and tracking error with
that arm. It should be close. Clearly, Digital does not suffer from
such should crude dependencies.
Years ago, Bruce Thigpen of Eminent technology sent me a bunch of
rejected pieces for one of his early arms, thinking I may be able to
assemble a complete one. It worked well, but I was never sure of the
real-world advantages of those arms.
I did a lot of experimentation with pivoted arms. The most critical
thing, assuming even acceptable geometry, was damping of of the
headshell and arm tube. A sand filled thin aluminum tube and minimal
balsa head shell worked best in my experiments.
Old stuff, but plenty of romance.
Dave
Arny Krueger
"Dave" <ddhartwick@NO_SPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
t...
> Thanks Arny--
> This is highly interesting and valuable info.
> It's too bad a tube sound card is not available for computers. I
jest!
> (Wait--there probably is...)
No, I don't think so. But I can tell you how to modify the sound with
Cool Edit to simulate "tube sound".
> Seriously though, thanks--especially the pcabx sites.
Enjoy!
> BTW, I did a lot of futzing with arm geometry and tracking error
with
> that arm. It should be close. Clearly, Digital does not suffer from
> such should crude dependencies.
Right.
> Years ago, Bruce Thigpen of Eminent technology sent me a bunch of
> rejected pieces for one of his early arms, thinking I may be able
to
> assemble a complete one. It worked well, but I was never sure of
the
> real-world advantages of those arms.
Based on an evenings worth of listening and measuring an ET-2 tone
arm, I developed quite a bit of respect for it. I also have some
respect for Bruce because he did the arm which is IMO a non-trivial
piece of work that actually works, and because he's written some
pretty cool stuff about using technical tests to set arms up, which
you can download from
http://www.eminent-tech.com/Manuals/et2manualpart2.zip .
> I did a lot of experimentation with pivoted arms. The most critical
> thing, assuming even acceptable geometry, was damping of the
> headshell and arm tube. A sand filled thin aluminum tube and
minimal
> balsa head shell worked best in my experiments.
There is a strong technical benefit to arms that are lack an offset.
I developed some evidence verifying it just recently. It's also
described in an AES paper:
Tonearm Geometry and Frequency-Modulation Distortion
JAES Vol. 30, Number 9 pp. 574 (1982)
Author: Raymond Kilmanas
Abstract: Investigated are the mechanisms by which a tonearm and
cartridge system can generate frequency-modulation distortion during
playback of phonograph records. Tonearm geometry is shown to
influence the relative amount of distortion, and, in particular,
tangential....
SteveR
wrote:
>Can the Santa Cruz resolve the [many problems cited] in a typical vinyl playback
>system? Heck yes!
Interesting application you're describing. No doubt that if you're
looking solely at frequency response everything you describe is
reasonable.
I'm just sitting here wondering what this all does to phase
relationships. I wouldn't be real surprised to see displacements of
hundreds of degrees where you're applying significant filtering. Any
chance you have some measurements on that? Does Cool Edit say
anything about phase response, for example?
As a general observation, it seems that most empirical data on
hardware in this general category seems to focus on amplitude-related
measurements (frequency response, noise...) and tends to ignore
time-dependent measurements (phase shift, jitter, latency...). Or am
I just not looking in the right places? (I know your sound card tests
assess jitter.)
IOW, a flat frequency response from DC to light ain't necessarily the
optimal solution.
SteveR
Arny Krueger
"SteveR" <sr...@spammenot.mochamail.com> wrote in message
news:hgfa3usdh23s2crl8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 02:18:48 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Can the Santa Cruz resolve the [many problems cited] in a typical
vinyl playback
> >system? Heck yes!
> Interesting application you're describing. No doubt that if you're
> looking solely at frequency response everything you describe is
> reasonable.
But I wasn't looking solely at frequency response, now was I?
> I'm just sitting here wondering what this all does to phase
> relationships. I wouldn't be real surprised to see displacements
of
> hundreds of degrees where you're applying significant filtering.
Any
> chance you have some measurements on that? Does Cool Edit say
> anything about phase response, for example?
Cool Edit Pro has a number of different equalizers. Some affect
phase, some don't. The FFT filter has very good phase response.
> As a general observation, it seems that most empirical data on
> hardware in this general category seems to focus on
amplitude-related
> measurements (frequency response, noise...) and tends to ignore
> time-dependent measurements (phase shift, jitter, latency...). Or
am
> I just not looking in the right places? (I know your sound card
tests
> assess jitter.)
CoolEdit lets you look at phase, but not measure it directly. The
other program I use for technical analysis, Spectra Lab, analyzes
phase.
My measurements are guided by listening tests, some of which people
can replicate using files from www.pcabx.com . For example
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/jitter_power/index.htm is about
jitter and http://www.pcabx.com/technical/LR-300-3K/index.htm is
about phase. http://www.pcabx.com/technical/polarity/index.htm is
about polarity.
Generally, the ear tolerates all three far better than it tolerates
frequency response variations. Listen for yourself and tell me what
you hear! You can use
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/dips_pips_tips/index.htm to get some
ideas about the ear's sensitivity to frequency response changes.
> IOW, a flat frequency response from DC to light ain't necessarily
the optimal solution.
I think that if you do the DBTs I've provided for you to do quite
easily, you will find that frequency response variations are VERY
audible, but polarity, phase and jitter are far more subtle. In many
cases, so subtle that they are audible. I'm not going to say they are
irrelevant, because they can be audible if sufficiently gross, and
sometimes they are actually sufficiently gross to be heard.
BTW, if you are worried about jitter, then so-called "high quality"
LP playback is the absolute worst thing that I've ever tested so far.
I suspect that in some cases FM multipath is even worse. Really good
analog tape is generally better, and of course good digital is
virtually free of audible jitter in comparison.
BTW, the best tool I've found for looking at the jitter (AKA flutter
and wow) in LP systems is the Stereo Review test record SR-12. In
PCAVTech terms, the best jitter numbers I've seen so far for vinyl
are about 50 dB down, which is at least 40 dB (100 times) WORSE than
even mediocre digital. Not only that, but the jitter is at
frequencies where the ear is most sensitive. Audible jitter is what
drove me away from LPs. I like to listen to piano recordings,
particularly those with long, sustained notes, and they can be very
sensitive to jitter.
If I ever get around to giving vinyl the PCAVTech and PCABX
treatments comparable to what I do for other equipment, I get this
feeling that some people will be quite upset. But, the measurable and
audible facts are what they are. I can't do anything but make vinyl
(or any other medium) as good as it can be.
I think that the specialty audio press has thrown a wool blanket over
the technical deficiencies of vinyl for decades, while raising all
kinds of misapprehensions about digital. They've done this to what I
think is a scandalous and highly deceptive degree. I think it's how t
hey've kept the market for turntables and tone arms alive and pricey!
It keeps their *analog* advertisers happy. Right now the market for
vinyl is mostly driven by Dj's and "turntablists". In some places
turntables are outselling guitars in music stores. This has created a
reservoir of durable but effective vinyl gear.
My part of the deal is that transcribing vinyl to digital is an
increasingly popular application for sound cards, and collecting and
optimizing performance using technical and subjective tools is my
hobby. They intersect here!
;-)