[Nate Najar]

Just a comment. I had a tune I wanted to transcribe the ensemble arrangement and this particular record was never released on CD. Rather than doing it the old fashioned way of continuing to drop the needle and go back and listen, etc... I thought to record it into the DAW and work with the tune in a media player instead. 21st century workflow and all....

So I grabbed my record player from the living room and brought it into my mix room. It's a technics sl1200 with a shure cartridge of some sort. I bought this turntable when I was in high school, 20 years ago, for $15 at a pawn shop (with a kenwood receiver! but the receiver is long gone). I keep meaning to buy a new turntable, or at least a new cartridge and needle, but it actually sounds fine and I have much more important things to be spending cash on these days. Also, I am super distrustful of hi fi shops and sales people and marketing and internet information so I am a little apprehensive to make a decision on what to get.

But I digress, I took the turntable into the mix room, put some rca-1/4" adaptors on the cord (and wedged the ground wire prong into one of the 1/4" adaptors) and plugged it into the instrument inputs on the front panel of the Orpheus. I tried the line inputs on the back, but then you don't get to use preamp gain, and I'm not sure if the impedance is optimal or not. It sounded fine in the line input, if not very quiet, but the instrument inputs are optimized for a high impedance, unbalanced signal (like a guitar magnetic pickup... or a turntable cartridge!) and by bringing up the gain with the preamps instead of digitally, I could monitor it at a better level. In the software I set the filters to RIAA compensation and gave it about 45db of gain which was enough to get a very strong signal but no peaks were in danger of clipping. I set pro tools to 192 (I've never used 192 before but it seemed like a good time to try it) and recorded a pass. Top and tail, export, izotope for src and I've got a track now.

It sounds extremely good. A tiny bit of crackle and pop because of the medium and my less than well maintained equipment, but it's actually barely noticeable. The sound is very detailed and precise. It makes me want to hire a young person to digitize and archive my collection (no money for that but it's a nice thought!).

Anyway, I just wanted to share as this is the first time I had ever down anything like that before.

[PStamler]

Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some interfaces will indeed work for this, as long as there are two of them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this again you might want to look up the input impedance of those instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to add some parallel resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge wants to see.

iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.

Peace,
Paul

[Nate Najar]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some interfaces will indeed work for this, as long as there are two of them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this again you might want to look up the input impedance of those instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to add some parallel resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge wants to see.

I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge wanted an impedance that low.

The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K


iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.

that's good to know. I don't actually have the izotope software. I use a program called "sample manager" which uses the izotope algorithm for SRC.


Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

On 10/06/2015 5:12 p.m., Nate Najar wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some
interfaces will indeed work for this, as long as there are two of
them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this
again you might want to look up the input impedance of those
instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to add some parallel
resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge
wants to see.

I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge
wanted an impedance that low.

The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K


iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start
out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.

that's good to know. I don't actually have the izotope software. I
use a program called "sample manager" which uses the izotope
algorithm for SRC.


Peace, Paul


Jeepers - I though everybody over 45 knew moving-magnet phono cartridge
spec is 47K, and MC cartridges usually have a transformer to match it up !

Any reason to not simply use a phono preamp, and obviate the deleterious
effects of a 40dB curve done in software ? Mind you, if you are happy
with your results using your method I guess that's fine ;-)

geoff

[Trevor]

On 10/06/2015 4:23 PM, geoff wrote:
Any reason to not simply use a phono preamp, and obviate the deleterious
effects of a 40dB curve done in software ?

Probably because it would cost more than he paid for the turntable,
otherwise there isn't any benefit in doing it his way.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 10/06/2015 06:12, Nate Najar wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some interfaces will indeed work for this, as long as there are two of them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this again you might want to look up the input impedance of those instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to add some parallel resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge wants to see.

I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge wanted an impedance that low.

It does depend on the cartridge. Most, if not all magnetic cartridges
are designed to expect 47kOhms resistive load impedance, but on a deck
that age, it may have had a ceramic cartridge, which gave a flat(tish)
200mV response at a megohm or so, but also gave a similar response to a
magnetic cartridge when loaded to 47k.

The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K

If you just pad the line inputs with a 33kOhm resistor, you'll lose some
level, but it may make the frequency response flatter. Or you can buy a
battery powered RIAA preamp for a few dollars, which takes care of the
matching and gives a (usually -10dB) unbalanced frequency compensated
output which will feed a 600 ohm line, and if you pay a bit more, you
can get one that gives you a 0dB, 600 Ohm balanced output. In the UK,
you can get a kit to build the preamp for about ten pounds, so the same
thing in the USA would be about 10 bucks.

Incidentally, the output from the cartridge may well not be connected to
earth at the turntable end, so you may be able to feed it to the line
inputs as a balanced source, with, if your impedance figures are
correct, a 15 kOhm resistor in each leg of the signal feed, then apply
the RIAA curve in the DAW.


iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.

that's good to know. I don't actually have the izotope software. I use a program called "sample manager" which uses the izotope algorithm for SRC.

The click remover in Audacity's not bad, either, and there are free or
paid for VST plugins to do the job better.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 10/06/2015 6:29 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 10/06/2015 06:12, Nate Najar wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some
interfaces will indeed work for this, as long as there are two of
them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this
again you might want to look up the input impedance of those
instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to add some parallel
resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge wants
to see.

I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge
wanted an impedance that low.

It does depend on the cartridge. Most, if not all magnetic cartridges
are designed to expect 47kOhms resistive load impedance, but on a deck
that age, it may have had a ceramic cartridge, which gave a flat(tish)
200mV response at a megohm or so, but also gave a similar response to a
magnetic cartridge when loaded to 47k.

He already said it was magnetic and the fact that he loaded it with 1meg
AND used inverse RIAA EQ means it wasn't a ceramic.


The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K

If you just pad the line inputs with a 33kOhm resistor, you'll lose some
level,

Which you can't really afford to do when you are only starting with a
few millivolts and applying a huge amount of post EQ.


Or you can buy a battery powered RIAA preamp for a few dollars,

Exactly.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/10/2015 4:29 AM, John Williamson wrote:
It does depend on the cartridge. Most, if not all magnetic cartridges
are designed to expect 47kOhms resistive load impedance, but on a deck
that age, it may have had a ceramic cartridge,

"That age?" A ceramic cartridge? Not unless someone changed it out.
Ceramic cartridges were common 50 years ago and Nate, nor the SL1200
turntable, is that old.

Weathers made a stereo ceramic cartridge in the 1960s. I had one, along
with one of their turntables. And I may still have one of their FM mono
cartridges. .

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar wrote:
But I digress, I took the turntable into the mix room, put some rca-1/4" ad=
aptors on the cord (and wedged the ground wire prong into one of the 1/4" a=
daptors) and plugged it into the instrument inputs on the front panel of th=
e Orpheus. I tried the line inputs on the back, but then you don't get to =
use preamp gain, and I'm not sure if the impedance is optimal or not. It s=
ounded fine in the line input, if not very quiet, but the instrument inputs=
are optimized for a high impedance, unbalanced signal (like a guitar magne=
tic pickup... or a turntable cartridge!) and by bringing up the gain with t=
he preamps instead of digitally, I could monitor it at a better level. In =
the software I set the filters to RIAA compensation and gave it about 45db =
of gain which was enough to get a very strong signal but no peaks were in d=
anger of clipping. I set pro tools to 192 (I've never used 192 before but =
it seemed like a good time to try it) and recorded a pass. Top and tail, e=
xport, izotope for src and I've got a track now. =20

The good news about this approach is that high frequency noise and distortion
products get reduced in the RIAA de-emphasis, so doing the de-emphasis in the
digital domain eliminates some of the artifacts you might have with your
converters.

The bad news about this approach is that some MM phono cartridges are very
touchy about loading, and they need to ahve a 47k load. MC cartridges are
loosely-coupled and mostly don't care about loading, but you can easily get
changes in the top octave if the loading isn't right. And unfortunately one
of the things that having ringing in the top octave can do is to make small
clicks and pops into more annoying louder ones.

It sounds extremely good. A tiny bit of crackle and pop because of the med=
ium and my less than well maintained equipment, but it's actually barely no=
ticeable. The sound is very detailed and precise. It makes me want to hir=
e a young person to digitize and archive my collection (no money for that b=
ut it's a nice thought!).

It should make you want to sit down and play some records, which I recommend
doing whenever possible. No need to digitize it, just set aside a half hour
and listen to an album.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 2:23:38 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 10/06/2015 5:12 p.m., Nate Najar wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some
interfaces will indeed work for this, as long as there are two of
them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this
again you might want to look up the input impedance of those
instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to add some parallel
resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge
wants to see.

I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge
wanted an impedance that low.

The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K


iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start
out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.

that's good to know. I don't actually have the izotope software. I
use a program called "sample manager" which uses the izotope
algorithm for SRC.


Peace, Paul


Jeepers - I though everybody over 45 knew moving-magnet phono cartridge
spec is 47K, and MC cartridges usually have a transformer to match it up !

Any reason to not simply use a phono preamp, and obviate the deleterious
effects of a 40dB curve done in software ? Mind you, if you are happy
with your results using your method I guess that's fine ;-)

I built my own phono preamp, etched PC boards an all!
Nothing but the best passive components! Yeah!! :-)

I'm sure someone used noise reduction on this gem, never made it to CD, Promo vinyl single only "legit" source.

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...gitarzan-s.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...an-s-promo.jpg

Jack

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:12:01 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nate Najar wrote:
But I digress, I took the turntable into the mix room, put some rca-1/4" ad=
aptors on the cord (and wedged the ground wire prong into one of the 1/4" a=
daptors) and plugged it into the instrument inputs on the front panel of th=
e Orpheus. I tried the line inputs on the back, but then you don't get to =
use preamp gain, and I'm not sure if the impedance is optimal or not. It s=
ounded fine in the line input, if not very quiet, but the instrument inputs=
are optimized for a high impedance, unbalanced signal (like a guitar magne=
tic pickup... or a turntable cartridge!) and by bringing up the gain with t=
he preamps instead of digitally, I could monitor it at a better level. In =
the software I set the filters to RIAA compensation and gave it about 45db =
of gain which was enough to get a very strong signal but no peaks were in d=
anger of clipping. I set pro tools to 192 (I've never used 192 before but =
it seemed like a good time to try it) and recorded a pass. Top and tail, e=
xport, izotope for src and I've got a track now. =20

The good news about this approach is that high frequency noise and distortion
products get reduced in the RIAA de-emphasis, so doing the de-emphasis in the
digital domain eliminates some of the artifacts you might have with your
converters.

The bad news about this approach is that some MM phono cartridges are very
touchy about loading, and they need to ahve a 47k load.

This mentions a recommended 10k "load"...
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable...pic.php?t=6674

Jack


MC cartridges are
loosely-coupled and mostly don't care about loading, but you can easily get
changes in the top octave if the loading isn't right. And unfortunately one
of the things that having ringing in the top octave can do is to make small
clicks and pops into more annoying louder ones.

It sounds extremely good. A tiny bit of crackle and pop because of the med=
ium and my less than well maintained equipment, but it's actually barely no=
ticeable. The sound is very detailed and precise. It makes me want to hir=
e a young person to digitize and archive my collection (no money for that b=
ut it's a nice thought!).

It should make you want to sit down and play some records, which I recommend
doing whenever possible. No need to digitize it, just set aside a half hour
and listen to an album.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 2:53:47 AM UTC-6, Trevor wrote:

The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K

If you just pad the line inputs with a 33kOhm resistor, you'll lose some
level,

Which you can't really afford to do when you are only starting with a
few millivolts and applying a huge amount of post EQ.

And you'll add a bunch of noise with that 33k resistor. The level problems will get ya before that, though; nominal output level on a typical magnetic cartridge is about -45dBu, which doesn't fit well with either a +4dBu or -10dBV (about -8dBu) line input.

The proper parallel resistor for a 1M input impedance is 49.9k.

Doing the EQ in software actually works, and if you record in 24 bits you've got plenty of dynamic range to work with.

No, what Nate did is probably the most effective method. Short of getting a decent phono preamp, which the $10 units aren't.

Peace,
Paul

[Nate Najar]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 3:53:10 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:

Doing the EQ in software actually works, and if you record in 24 bits you've got plenty of dynamic range to work with.


No, what Nate did is probably the most effective method. Short of getting a decent phono preamp, which the $10 units aren't.

that's the reason I didn't use my little memorex phono preamp that is hooked up to the living room stereo. I figured the Prism would sound better. The RIAA eq isn't done digitally either, one of the features they market for the prism is "RIAA Equalization on inputs 1 & 2." I assume that's for the DJ set. But I saw this as an opportunity to see what it sounds like. You select the RIAA in the control software in the same drop down as the high pass filter. You can select flat, rolloff or RIAA.

[geoff]

On 11/06/2015 8:25 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 3:53:10 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:

Doing the EQ in software actually works, and if you record in 24 bits you've got plenty of dynamic range to work with.
No, what Nate did is probably the most effective method. Short of getting a decent phono preamp, which the $10 units aren't.
that's the reason I didn't use my little memorex phono preamp that is hooked up to the living room stereo. I figured the Prism would sound better. The RIAA eq isn't done digitally either, one of the features they market for the prism is "RIAA Equalization on inputs 1 & 2." I assume that's for the DJ set. But I saw this as an opportunity to see what it sounds like. You select the RIAA in the control software in the same drop down as the high pass filter. You can select flat, rolloff or RIAA.


The perfect scenario then !

geoff

[Trevor]

On 10/06/2015 10:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It should make you want to sit down and play some records, which I recommend
doing whenever possible. No need to digitize it, just set aside a half hour
and listen to an album.

NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
of course.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 11/06/2015 6:25 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
that's the reason I didn't use my little memorex phono preamp that is
hooked up to the living room stereo. I figured the Prism would sound
better.

And the reason you don't try both so you can actually compare for
yourself is what, just laziness? Is it really easier to post here
instead? And if you are so certain of the outcome, why even bother
posting, just enjoy.

Trevor.

[Nate Najar]

Trevor,

I can't figure out how to quote with Google groups on my iPhone and I'm on the road so the phone is all I have, but I didn't compare them because I have more important things to do. In the original post I mentioned I needed to transcribe the tune so my goal was to get it digitized. I posted here because it came out better than I expected and I wanted to share the experience.

N

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 1:55 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
Trevor,

I can't figure out how to quote with Google groups on my iPhone and
I'm on the road so the phone is all I have, but I didn't compare them
because I have more important things to do. In the original post I
mentioned I needed to transcribe the tune so my goal was to get it
digitized. I posted here because it came out better than I expected
and I wanted to share the experience.

Which is totally pointless to anyone else because you offered NO
objective data, no comparisons, and we don't know and probably don't
share *your* expectations.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/15/2015 12:18 AM, Trevor wrote:
Which is totally pointless to anyone else because you offered NO
objective data, no comparisons, and we don't know and probably don't
share *your* expectations.

Quit being an asshole. I don't care about your successes either, if you
have any.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
of course.

How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player? This may be a
good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
of his records.

When you own hundreds, or a couple of thousand records, you won't live
long enough to play them all enough to wear them out. Or maybe you will.
You're acting like a 10 year old.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 15-06-2015 04:38, Trevor wrote:

On 10/06/2015 10:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It should make you want to sit down and play some records, which I
recommend
doing whenever possible. No need to digitize it, just set aside a
half hour
and listen to an album.

NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
of course.

First time you want to listen to an old record: digitize it. Next time:
do the minimal clean up (clickfixing single large clicks, leave the rest
and the crackle, it is proof of authenticity) and cartridge response
correction. Third time: enjoy.

Trevor

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Luxey]

"This little device has an almost mythic reputation for high-quality sound, so expect to pay a silly amount for one in good condition."

I'm proud to have one in perfectly working condition. No fuss with DIAA, preamp, impedance, capacitance ..., It's all in the box right from the start!

http://tinyurl.com/AT-727-Sound-Burger

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
of course.

How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player? This may be a
good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
of his records.

I hear Trevor's basic attitude with a lot of young kids these days, viewing
the record as something exotic and irreplaceable that degrades every time it
is played. It's true that there -are- irreplaceable records out there, but
not so many.

Sit down and listen to the record. If you manage to wear it out, get another
one. Yes, every wear will degrade it, so listen carefully and don't waste your
time or the record. Consider the transitory nature of the LP part of the
charm.

When you own hundreds, or a couple of thousand records, you won't live
long enough to play them all enough to wear them out. Or maybe you will.

That's an even MORE depressing thought.

You're acting like a 10 year old.

He's acting like someone who doesn't realize the whole world is ephemeral,
not just records. Lots of people are like that. Go read Ozymandias and
listen to a Taj Mahal record.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

And the reason you don't try both so you can actually compare for
yourself is what, just laziness?

No, it's to entice people who are full of themselves to reveal the
nature of their stuffing.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 6/15/2015 12:18 AM, Trevor wrote:
Which is totally pointless to anyone else because you offered NO
objective data, no comparisons, and we don't know and probably don't
share *your* expectations.

Quit being an asshole.

Good luck with that. It's genetic with him.

I don't care about your successes either, if you
have any.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

On 15/06/2015 11:17 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
of course.

How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player? This may be a
good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
of his records.

When you own hundreds, or a couple of thousand records, you won't live
long enough to play them all enough to wear them out. Or maybe you will.
You're acting like a 10 year old.



Or if you really like it, don't have it or can't get ot on CD, feel free
to digitise it if you want, and maybe avoid the (maybe euphonic)
acoustic feedback through the room, turntable, arm, and cartridge.

Mine is on a solid slab table, concrete piles through the floor to the
ground. But for listening I prefer a *good* CD, and have transpose my
favourites or those unobtainium.

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(hank alrich) wrote:
Trevor wrote:

And the reason you don't try both so you can actually compare for
yourself is what, just laziness?

No, it's to entice people who are full of themselves to reveal the
nature of their stuffing.



A wise man once said:

"Some of you might not agree.
But you probably likes a lot of misery.
But think a while and you will see... "

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 9:13 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/15/2015 12:18 AM, Trevor wrote:
Which is totally pointless to anyone else because you offered NO
objective data, no comparisons, and we don't know and probably don't
share *your* expectations.

Quit being an asshole. I don't care about your successes either, if you
have any.

Ditto, if that's all *YOU* can add to the conversation!

Trevor

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 9:17 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
of course.

How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player?

Well not having to clean the records and swap sides every 15-20 minutes
is a pretty good start IMO.

This may be a
good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
of his records.

As do I, by NOT playing them more than I have to!


When you own hundreds, or a couple of thousand records, you won't live
long enough to play them all enough to wear them out. Or maybe you will.

Yep I still own thousands, and some of them I'd never wear out for
certain. But they are ones I probably will never get around to
digitising anyway. The stylus still wears though, and they are NOT
cheap, at least mine aren't, perhaps yours are. Or you just have more
money than sense, which might not be too hard I guess going by your
recent posts.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 11:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
of course.

How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player? This may be a
good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
of his records.

I hear Trevor's basic attitude with a lot of young kids these days, viewing
the record as something exotic and irreplaceable that degrades every time it
is played.

Which it does, as does the stylus. Those of us who have had to replace
them know full well. You can't play them much if you've never replaced
either.


It's true that there -are- irreplaceable records out there, but
not so many.
Sit down and listen to the record. If you manage to wear it out, get another
one.

What an idiotic thing to do. Even before CD's people copied records to
tape for convenience, to play in the car, and so they could keep the
record from wearing out.


Yes, every wear will degrade it, so listen carefully and don't waste your
time or the record. Consider the transitory nature of the LP part of the
charm.

They have no charm, only limitations that we once put up with because
there was no better alternative. Those who think their limitations are
"charm" are simply delusional from wearing rose colored glasses too much.
I bet you subscribe to the notion "nostalgia ain't what it used to be"
as well!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2015 12:55 AM, hank alrich wrote:
Quit being an asshole.

Good luck with that. It's genetic with him.

And what's your excuse?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2015 3:08 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
I just realized I got the lyrics backward.

So nothing unusual for you then.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2015 6:13 AM, Trevor wrote:

How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player?

Well not having to clean the records and swap sides every 15-20 minutes
is a pretty good start IMO.

You have a strange concept of "convenient." First you have to digitize
the record. Then you have to go to a computer, which isn't usually in
place that's comfortable for music listening in order to hear it -
unless you carry your music with you and listen on earphones (how can
you possibly enjoy that?). Then you have to find the file and start it
playing. None of that seems like anything convenient or fun to me.

If you keep your records stored properly, just a dab with a cleaning pad
while it's spinning will clean it sufficiently. If you leave your
records out where the dog can shed on them, then you probably need to
send it through the Kieth Monks cleaning machine before playing.

I used to have a record changer that played both sides of a record. But
if I don't get up every 20 minutes or so, I fall asleep. Turning over a
record, or deciding to listen to the other side another time is a
welcome break for me.

Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
of his records.

As do I, by NOT playing them more than I have to!

So what do you plan to do with all of your rarely-played records? Give
them to the Library of Congress?

Yep I still own thousands, and some of them I'd never wear out for
certain. But they are ones I probably will never get around to
digitising anyway.

And there's the rub. You have a collection that isn't well managed. Why?
Because it's a pain in the butt. And that's why there are so many other
collections like that. A good plan is that whenever you feel like
listening to a record, digitize it while you're listening. Then store
the record someplace where you won't pull it off the shelf again and say
"I wonder if I should play this or look in my computer to see if I have
it in digital format."

The stylus still wears though, and they are NOT
cheap, at least mine aren't, perhaps yours are. Or you just have more
money than sense

I don't have a lot of either these days, but I know that I'm past the
point where I worry about record wear. I'm just not going to play
anything enough to wear it out. And I've managed to live for 72 years
without wearing out any records that I've owned. I'll tell you that I
don't mind a tick here or there. It doesn't spoil the experience for me,
but I accept the fact that some people go cuss at the slightest pop or
click.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2015 6:24 AM, Trevor wrote:

Even before CD's people copied records to
tape for convenience, to play in the car, and so they could keep the
record from wearing out.

I copied records to cassette so I could listen to them in the car when
on a long trip. I never copied a record to another media just for
convenience. Poor media as cassettes are, having music of my choice to
listen to on a trip when I can't depend on finding decent music on the
radio was a real plus. But I cycled records through about 10 cassettes,
I never had a large collection of records duplicated on tape.

Today I record radio programs that play music that I enjoy, put a few of
those 2-3 hour "records" on an MP3 player and enjoy hearing new and old
things when I'm flying or driving for hours. Sometimes those radio
stations play old scratchy records. Great fun.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2015 6:04 AM, Trevor wrote:

Ditto, if that's all *YOU* can add to the conversation!

Says the man who has nothing to contribute other than to disagree with
those who don't share your distaste for playing records. OK, we get it.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2015 8:37 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/16/2015 6:13 AM, Trevor wrote:

How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player?

Well not having to clean the records and swap sides every 15-20 minutes
is a pretty good start IMO.

You have a strange concept of "convenient."

I was thinking exactly the same of YOU!

First you have to digitize the record.

Which is as easy as recording it while you play it ONCE when you want to
listen to it anyway! A little longer if you split tracks and name them.
You don't need to do that if you don't want that *extra convenience* in
future though of course!


Then you have to go to a computer, which isn't usually in
place that's comfortable for music listening in order to hear it -
unless you carry your music with you and listen on earphones (how can
you possibly enjoy that?).

You need to stop thinking everyone is a Luddite like you. Some of us
listen to music on our HiFi systems through network servers and quality
DAC's rather than fiddle with vinyl turntables or even CD players these
days! But most portable players can do Wav and FLAC these days, and many
easily beat vinyl for fidelity. And surely you do know how to plug one
into an amplifier and speakers if you don't want to listen on
headphones, or is that too far beyond your capabilties?
(And I *can* enjoy music on my Sennheiser HD580's when I want that
anyway thanks very much!)


Then you have to find the file and start it
playing.

With automatic cataloging it's *FAR* easier to find ANY file on my
server than finding a vinyl record or even physical CD!!! Plus I can
easily search for tracks even if I don't know the album or even the artist!


None of that seems like anything convenient or fun to me.

Well that's just because you obviously cannot keep up with technology
*improvements*. Your choice.


If you keep your records stored properly, just a dab with a cleaning pad
while it's spinning will clean it sufficiently. If you leave your
records out where the dog can shed on them, then you probably need to
send it through the Kieth Monks cleaning machine before playing.

I find a proper cleaning machine is necessary before I can play a NEW
vinyl record unfortunately. Even then some are noisy or distorted due to
poor pressings :-( And even though stored in zip lock bags, I still find
it necessary to clean them before playing again. One of the things I
hated most about vinyl. So glad I haven't bought any in nearly 30 years!


I used to have a record changer that played both sides of a record. But
if I don't get up every 20 minutes or so, I fall asleep. Turning over a
record, or deciding to listen to the other side another time is a
welcome break for me.

Good for you, I'd rather go for a walk when I want exercise.


Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
of his records.

As do I, by NOT playing them more than I have to!

So what do you plan to do with all of your rarely-played records? Give
them to the Library of Congress?

Nope, enjoy them *without* extra noise and distortion due to wear. And
probably get more money if I ever sell them too. YOU may actually prefer
the extra noise and distortion if you really want that nostalgic "vinyl"
sound of course.


Yep I still own thousands, and some of them I'd never wear out for
certain. But they are ones I probably will never get around to
digitising anyway.

And there's the rub. You have a collection that isn't well managed. Why?
Because it's a pain in the butt.

Exactly, and my digital collection *IS* well managed because it is NOT a
pain in the butt!!!


And that's why there are so many other
collections like that. A good plan is that whenever you feel like
listening to a record, digitize it while you're listening.

Isn't that just what I have been saying?!!!


Then store
the record someplace where you won't pull it off the shelf again and say
"I wonder if I should play this or look in my computer to see if I have
it in digital format."

Nah, I know the records I have yet to digitise that I could actually be
bothered playing.



The stylus still wears though, and they are NOT
cheap, at least mine aren't, perhaps yours are. Or you just have more
money than sense

I don't have a lot of either these days, but I know that I'm past the
point where I worry about record wear. I'm just not going to play
anything enough to wear it out. And I've managed to live for 72 years
without wearing out any records that I've owned. I'll tell you that I
don't mind a tick here or there. It doesn't spoil the experience for me,

Well it always did for me, and distortion even more so!


but I accept the fact that some people go cuss at the slightest pop or
click.

Glad to hear you understand not everyone has the same low concept of
quality.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 15/06/2015 11:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's true that there -are- irreplaceable records out there, but
not so many.
Sit down and listen to the record. If you manage to wear it out, get another
one.

What an idiotic thing to do. Even before CD's people copied records to
tape for convenience, to play in the car, and so they could keep the
record from wearing out.

Right, that's the problem. They were listening to the record over and over
again, often in the car where listening conditions are poor at best. Don't
listen like that. This is exactly the sort of "listening" that the whole LP
format discourages. Sit down and listen to the record as if it is the last
time you'll ever hear it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2015 9:10 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/16/2015 6:04 AM, Trevor wrote:

Ditto, if that's all *YOU* can add to the conversation!

Says the man who has nothing to contribute other than to disagree with
those who don't share your distaste for playing records. OK, we get it.

I simply disagreed with the concept of how he digitised them, and
pretended it was the best way without providing ANY measurement or
comparison, thus possibly misleading others IMO. (If he only wants to
possibly mislead himself that's fine by me, but no need to post it here
then AFAIC)
YOU OTOH just want to throw **** around to make a mess it seems. :-(

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2015 10:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
With automatic cataloging it's *FAR* easier to find ANY file on my
server than finding a vinyl record or even physical CD!!! Plus I can
easily search for tracks even if I don't know the album or even the artist!

This is truly amazing. How long does it take to set up a system like
this? And how long does it take to enter all that data if you're working
with recordings that don't have an on-line listing of all their relevant
data? It's a cool concept that apparently fits your needs, but I'd find
it more trouble than it's worth.

Still, I like to learn about those sort of things, so tell me more - and
don't just point me to a web site. I'd like to benefit from your
experience as a user.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2015 10:12 AM, Trevor wrote:
I simply disagreed with the concept of how he digitised them, and
pretended it was the best way without providing ANY measurement or
comparison, thus possibly misleading others IMO.

Well, he HAS a Prism converter. Do you know what it is? Based on the
reputation of the company and the one unit from this company that I've
tested, I think that there's no reason to believe that something that he
doesn't have, or isn't as convenient for him to use, would do a better
job for the job he had at hand. He's not archiving a whole collection at
high resolution in hopes of never hearing those records in any worse
condition than the are now, he just wanted to transcribe a song. We used
to do that with a tape recorder, or even using the little lever on the
turntable that raised the tone arm while we wrote out the last couple of
lines that we just heard. And we survived, and were happy.

YOU OTOH just want to throw **** around to make a mess it seems.

And you continue to wade in it. That's the fun of Usenet. There are so
many great toys to play with.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com