[Kompu Kid]

Hello All:

I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

Thanks!

Deguza

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is some background info:

- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

Hello All:

I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

For value for money you can't really ever go too far wrong with Dell. I've used several and they all worked fine. None were the cheapest but not by a long way
were they THAT expensive either.

The best PC is one you spec (and probably build) yourself, taling into account your needs.

DO NOT 'overspec' what you need. It's simply money down the drain and it'll likely be noisier. too.

Avoid Windows Vista like the plague. Dell ought still be able to install XP for you. If not get a copy of XP 'somewhere else'. IIRC MS has just said it'll
continue to support XP til 2014.


- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or uncompressed for example ?


- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

A totally rubbish chipset for on-board (MOBO) audio IIRC. Anything today would beat it without even trying. Hey, it was adequate at the time.


- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

Almost anything today will be better. I recently bought secondhand a brace of Creative Audigies on ebay, for little more than a couple of dollars each.
They'll outrank any on-board audio most likely but do read the manual as to how to turn OFF the onboard audio first.

And if you want REALLY good quality PC audio you can now buy cards that rank up with the bulk of broadcasting and recording studios.


- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

If noise is an issue for you, you may prefer a lower spec PC that uses less power and hence needs less cooling. That'll do audio just fine and requires almost
zero cooling compared to today's power PC gamer machines. A 1 GHz CPU will EASILY do the job. Look at 'mini ITX' for example.

You can even get 'fanless' PCs these days. Ideal for an audio server but probably not for 'Need for Speed' !

Graham

[Kompu Kid]

On Jul 3, 6:37 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Kompu Kid wrote:
Hello All:

I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

For value for money you can't really ever go too far wrong with Dell. I've used several and they all worked fine. None were the cheapest but not by a long way
were they THAT expensive either.

The best PC is one you spec (and probably build) yourself, taling into account your needs.

DO NOT 'overspec' what you need. It's simply money down the drain and it'll likely be noisier. too.

Avoid Windows Vista like the plague. Dell ought still be able to install XP for you. If not get a copy of XP 'somewhere else'. IIRC MS has just said it'll
continue to support XP til 2014.

- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or uncompressed for example ?

- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

A totally rubbish chipset for on-board (MOBO) audio IIRC. Anything today would beat it without even trying. Hey, it was adequate at the time.

- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

Almost anything today will be better. I recently bought secondhand a brace of Creative Audigies on ebay, for little more than a couple of dollars each.
They'll outrank any on-board audio most likely but do read the manual as to how to turn OFF the onboard audio first.

And if you want REALLY good quality PC audio you can now buy cards that rank up with the bulk of broadcasting and recording studios.

- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

If noise is an issue for you, you may prefer a lower spec PC that uses less power and hence needs less cooling. That'll do audio just fine and requires almost
zero cooling compared to today's power PC gamer machines. A 1 GHz CPU will EASILY do the job. Look at 'mini ITX' for example.

You can even get 'fanless' PCs these days. Ideal for an audio server but probably not for 'Need for Speed' !

Graham

Graham,

Thanks for your comments.

You ask:

" Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
uncompressed for example ?"

I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.

I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".

For my mp3 player, I convert them into highly compressed mp3 files. I
use the same for my podcast page.

For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
I even go higher to 320 bps.

Deguza

[Steven Pigeon]

Kompu Kid wrote:
You ask:

" Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
uncompressed for example ?"

I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.

I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".

You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give you
some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big as
RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have perfect restitution
on decompression; for "masters", it's pretty much win-win.


For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
I even go higher to 320 bps.

VBR + psychoacoustic modeling tend to converge to a given file
size, even when you let the bitrate go arbitrarily high. You might
see only a 5% file size difference between a 320 kbits/s vbr file
and a 256 kbits/s vbr file (given all psychoacoustic optimizations
are on). I do too use the 320 kbits/s format.


Best,

S.


Deguza

[jwvm]

On Jul 3, 8:55*pm, Kompu Kid wrote:
Hello All:


- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard *seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

CMI makes some really bad sound chips. It might be OK for skype but
probably not much else.

- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

My experience with a similar chip is that is has lots of clicks and
pops. These are really easy to hear.


- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

Do you mean fan noise? A laptop will usually be quieter but the hard
drive won't win any speed contests. As Mike points out, you probably
don't really need a new computer for what you are currently doing.
BTW, most new computers come standard with Vista and that OS can be
quite painful for the sorts of things that you might want to do. If
you still think that you need a new computer, you might want to get a
(legal) copy of XP.

[Eeyore]

jwvm wrote:

BTW, most new computers come standard with Vista and that OS can be
quite painful for the sorts of things that you might want to do. If
you still think that you need a new computer, you might want to get a
(legal) copy of XP.

So, So agreed.

And DON'T update media player either or it'll start telling what you can and
can't do with your own files. It knows best you see.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

You ask:

" Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
uncompressed for example ?"

I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.

Nero's probably perfectly competent. Audacity is well regarded.


I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".

Fine.


For my mp3 player, I convert them into highly compressed mp3 files. I
use the same for my podcast page.

For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
I even go higher to 320 bps.

Is that simply to get more tracks on ? If you like quality I wouldn't go below 320kbps. I was astonished at the difference on complex tracks.

Seriously research fanless PCs btw. Audio needs very low processing power.

Graham

[Andrew Barss]

In rec.audio.tech Kompu Kid wrote:
: Hello All:

: I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
: one.

: What brand and model would you folks recommend?

Get a Mac Mini, if you're looking for a desktop style (these are tiny), or a
Macbook. Cheap, reliable, very easy to use. I just converted a 450 CD
collection to FLAC files using my Macbook with free software (MAX).

I wa a longtime Windows user, then switched over to Mac and OS X last fall.
Much better.


-- Andy Barss

[Martin Schöön]

Kompu Kid writes:

Hello All:

I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

I use a five year old Shuttle SK41G running Linux.
The sound HW on the motherboard is perfectly adequate for
recording music. I didn't count on this but gave it a try
and was delighted by the outcome.

The recording SW I use is Rezound. Audacity should be OK too.

Any of the CD-burning front-ends work fine for me.

--
Martin Schöön "Problems worthy of attack
show their worth by hitting back."
Piet Hein

[RD Jones]

On Jul 3, 7:55 pm, Kompu Kid wrote:
Hello All:

I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

Thanks!

Deguza

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is some background info:

- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

If you _want_ a newer computer on general principle, fine.
But you don't NEED a new machine to do basic 2 channel
audio.

Here's my suggestions:
Disable the on-board sound (in BIOS) and put in a real
sound card like the Audiophile 2496. It's unbalanced, but
high spec and ideal for your use.
Fill the thing with RAM, as much as the OS and MB will
support, at least 512M.
Possibly add some storage, hard drives are cheap these
days.
Defeat all the startup apps (AV) and run only what you need
running as you need it.


OK, OK, you still want a new 'puter. (the name KompuKid
sez it all).
Go git yerself that new multimedia machine with all the bells
and whistles and dedicate the old computer as an audio
workhorse.

rd

[Richard Crowley]

"Kompu Kid" wrote...
I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new
off-the-shelf one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

Your stated audio applications are not a compelling reason to
replace your computer. I regularly use a computer (or two)
that are at least that old for various audio applications. There
is nothing that has happened in computers in the last 7 years
that would provide any significant benefit to you for your stated
applications.

Now if you have some money burning a hole in your pocket,
go out and buy a decent audio interface (even an external USB
one, for example, so that you don't have to deal with whatever
digital hash exists inside the computer box.)

And may be a good turntable, arm, cartridge, stylus, RIAA
preamp, etc. for LP transcriptions. And a Nakamichi cassette
machine with adjustable azimuth for transcribing old cassettes.
You would actually get audible benefits from spending your
money on the audio bits, not on the computer.

Note that I make a living from the computer industry and have
every pecuniary interest in getting you to buy a new computer,
because it will likely have a CPU chip in it that we made next
door. But to be truthful, you don't appear to need a new PC
for your stated applications.

[jer0en]

it's not your ears or anybody else's. like the who's tommy you could
identify actual hifi the second you witness it. trouble is you probably
never will, since you've burnt all of it.

as to mp3, sounds the same on and from every pc, so why bother?

but if you actually care to do quality in digital audio, go as slow as it
will go. basicly use a 100Mhz Pentium 1 and run W98. it's the width of the
mainboard parallel lines that does it.

do not use soundblaster cards, use something inconspicuous with a lot of BIG
capacitors on it, which feed the bass. probably the older the better,
because of component quality.

problem would be the w98 software. no idea. I run MP9 under it. never used
it though. easy cd creator 5 works fine.

finally, do not create mp3 but WAV files. or what is the uncompressed cd
format again? no idea, cd's run under os12, probably no file format at all,
just a track format. anyway, create uncompressed digital audio, WAV is ok.

there is a remote but existing chance you would witness any difference on an
MP3 player, but if you record it on a cd, provided you have either 70's or
VH end amplifiers, you should be able to notice it.

by the way, did anyone ever inform you that copying soul is illegal?

[jer0en]

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

if other people also experience things get actually worse than mp3, I would
cry.

also I would file a complaint, don't ask me where. I would file a complaint,
because I would be denied the experience of the true sound of mp3 music for
the entirity of my life time.

[Kompu Kid]

On Jul 4, 9:31 am, jwvm wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:55 pm, Kompu Kid wrote:

Hello All:

- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

CMI makes some really bad sound chips. It might be OK for skype but
probably not much else.



- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

My experience with a similar chip is that is has lots of clicks and
pops. These are really easy to hear.

I never ran into this problem. My ears usually cannot distinguish
between the original and the digitized versions.




- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.

Do you mean fan noise? A laptop will usually be quieter but the hard
drive won't win any speed contests. As Mike points out, you probably

It is actually some sort of electrical noise that gets on to the
digitized music.

Deguza

[..]

[Kompu Kid]

On Jul 4, 7:57 am, Steven Pigeon wrote:
Kompu Kid wrote:
You ask:

" Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
uncompressed for example ?"

I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.

I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".

You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give you
some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big as
RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have perfect restitution
on decompression; for "masters", it's pretty much win-win.

The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have the FLAC
encoding.

I wonder if later versions would have them.

For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
I even go higher to 320 bps.

VBR + psychoacoustic modeling tend to converge to a given file
size, even when you let the bitrate go arbitrarily high. You might
see only a 5% file size difference between a 320 kbits/s vbr file
and a 256 kbits/s vbr file (given all psychoacoustic optimizations
are on). I do too use the 320 kbits/s format.

My experiments some months ago came up with a linear increase in size
when I saved at different bit rates.


Deguza

[Steven Pigeon]

Kompu Kid wrote:

My experiments some months ago came up with a linear increase in size
when I saved at different bit rates.

True when using CBR (constant bit rate). Using VBR + psychoacoustic
optimisation LAME produces files that are larger with higher bitrates
but not necessarily by much, and certainly not linearly in the bitrate.
When you go beyond 192 kbits/s, the files grow, but not by more than 5
to 10%, even if you double the bitrate. The psychoacoustic model (that
can be tweaked) removes anything it judges inaudible, so at high enough
bitrate, everything that was to be removed is removed.

For example:

The byte sizes (using full psychoacoustic optimization)

file:The replicants - TheConspiracy.wav
style: progressive trance / techno
wave 44.1Khz 85203596 bytes ("raw" from the CD)
112 kbits/s 6746564 bytes
128 kbits/s 7681056 bytes
160 kbits/s 9372175 bytes
192 kbits/s 10010644 bytes
256 kbits/s 10419792 bytes
320 kbits/s 10555355 bytes

same with
Beethoven - Zwolf Variationen 66.wav
style: classical
wave 44.1KHz 97078844 bytes ("raw" from the CD)
112 kbits/s 7620826 bytes
128 kbits/s 8403531 bytes
160 kbits/s 9101899 bytes
192 kbits/s 9198778 bytes
256 kbits/s 9219866 bytes
320 kbits/s 9226891 bytes


You can try this experiment yourself, using --vbr (or --vbr-new)
and -q 0 (max quality) -B maxbitrate as parameters to LAME.

Best,

S.



Deguza

[Scott Dorsey]

Kompu Kid wrote:
I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.

What brand and model would you folks recommend?

- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.

- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".

- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.

Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

jer0en wrote:

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Why do you snip everything before you so no-one has a clue who you're replying
to ?

Please learn some netiquette.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

jer0en wrote:
if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Hell, I notice discrepancies between different runs of the same mp3
converter on the same computer.

if other people also experience things get actually worse than mp3, I would
cry.

It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
okay, I will grant the Philips Compact Cassette is actually worse than MP3.
But you have to work hard at it.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Signal wrote:
"jer0en" wrote:

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

jwvm wrote:

Do you mean fan noise? A laptop will usually be quieter but the hard
drive won't win any speed contests. As Mike points out, you probably

It is actually some sort of electrical noise that gets on to the
digitized music.

LAPTOPS are NOTORIOUS for the BUZZ they cause when on mains power coupled to
audio equipment.

I know the EXACT reason and it's damn complicated but very involved with EMI
regulations. There are very fews ways of fixing it other than inline audio
transformers or active balanced line interfaces.

Get a DESKTOP. Like the fanless mini-ITX style I suggested. You DO NOT need a
fast CPU or latest O/S. A chcuk of memeory would likely do no harm though. And
don't load it up with junk freeeware, cos it'll only stop working properly.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Kompu Kid wrote:

The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have the FLAC
encoding.

Don't fret. Big disks are cheap today. Get a RAID interface and you can mirror
them and it doesn't even matter if one goes totally down. (worked for me ! ).
You just swap it out and rebuild.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

"jer0en" wrote:

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

Sometimes. You might be shocked. It's HIGHLY related to the 'complexity'
of the music.

I've heard mp3 vs (ok 192k) CD and almost thought it must have come from
a different master.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.

I kind of agree, but would he not benefit from a fanless PC to reduce the
acoustic noise floor ?

Depends where the PC is of course.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

jer0en wrote:
if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Hell, I notice discrepancies between different runs of the same mp3
converter on the same computer.

if other people also experience things get actually worse than mp3, I would
cry.

It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
okay, I will grant the Philips Compact Cassette is actually worse than MP3.
But you have to work hard at it.

If people only knew what mp3 did / how it worked, they'd run away screaming.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.

You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
with cans...

I could hear the difference in my Saab !

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 4 Jul 2008 22:20:21 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.

I'd like to see this and raise ya a record cleaning machine,
for the vinyl transfers, and I know you wouldn't disagree.

Folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records after being
properly cleaned just haven't heard 'em. It's not even remotely
just a matter of noise, either.

The threshold (in dollars) of when a record washing machine
becomes as important as the stuff in the signal path is a
tough call, but I personally place it in the small-hundreds-
of-dollars range.

IOW, after you've bought a nice phono cartridge and a modern
tonearm (something in the Rega class at least), my personal
call is that the next money needs to go towards a record
washing machine.

Good arguments can be made instead for a really good phono equalizer
(specialised electronics, included in conventional preamps,
but difficult to make perfect, for phono use only), and
both are important, but my call is for the washing machine,
even if it means using an "ordinary" phono equalizer.

Maybe I was a frustrated Maytag repairman in an earlier life.

Hopefully others will make a strong case for the better
electronics also, so the OP will go into the project as well
armed as possible. Vinyl playback is not trivial - very
cool if done right though, and, maybe surprisingly
very enjoyable.

And as you and others have said, the analog to digital
conversion isn't at all the first place to be expending
energies. The earliest parts of complex processes are the most
critical, (almost!) without exception.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[UnsteadyKen]

Signal said:

You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
with cans...

Try testing using a recording made with "Q" sound system, such as
Roger Water's Amused to death or Pink Floyd's Pulse.
The damage to the surround effects is fairly obvious over speakers.
IMHO.
--
Ken

[Richard Crowley]

"Signal" wrote ...
"jer0en" wrote:
if you actually experience discrepancies between mp3 recordings from
different PCs, you probably have astral hearing.

Eh? Decent bitrate MP3s are virtually indistinguishable from PCM.

That tells us about either you ears or the type of music you listen
to. You may not be able to "distinguish" it, but don't project that
onto others.

[Richard Crowley]

"Eeyore" wrote ...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all the rest of your
money into upgrading your arm and cartridge. Get a calibration tape for
your cassette deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.

I kind of agree, but would he not benefit from a fanless PC to reduce the
acoustic noise floor ?

Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in transcribing LPs and
cassettes? We must assume that the OP is not doing something
as silly as placing his turntable on top of the computer box.

[Mr.T]

"jwvm" wrote in message
...

My experience with a similar chip is that is has lots of clicks and
pops. These are really easy to hear.

"Clicks and pops" are not usually caused by the sound chip, but rather poor
computer optimisation and insufficient buffering, or bad CD/ripping
software.
However cheap sound chips usually have poor S/N ratio and/or poor distortion
and/or poor frequency response.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
news
Now if you have some money burning a hole in your pocket,
go out and buy a decent audio interface (even an external USB
one, for example, so that you don't have to deal with whatever
digital hash exists inside the computer box.)

That old wives tale again! In fact there are internal soundcards available
that beat any USB sound box on the market.
But reasonable examples of both can exceed the stated requirements by a LONG
way in any case.

And may be a good turntable, arm, cartridge, stylus, RIAA
preamp, etc. for LP transcriptions.

Definitely, but only if it's worth it to him.

And a Nakamichi cassette
machine with adjustable azimuth for transcribing old cassettes.

Now THAT is hardly ever worth it IMO, unless maybe you have some
irreplaceable, original recordings in that format, which you think actually
justifies the expense. If not, try to find a CD or vinyl copy instead.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in transcribing LPs and
cassettes?

It's easier to hear what you're doing if there isn't loads of noise
all around you.

And easier to simply use headphones for monitoring. Removes the chance of
acoustically induced turntable vibration as well.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
Possibly in mono, definitely not in stereo. It is shameful what MP3 does
to stereo imaging, even at very high bitrates.

You hear an obvious difference with MP3 compressed at the "extreme"
setting? It's subtle at best to my ears. Maybe I should try an A/B
with cans...

Just make sure you don't select the "joint stereo" option when compressing.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...
okay, I will grant the Philips Compact Cassette is actually worse than
MP3.
But you have to work hard at it.

You'd have to work hard at lowering the bit rate and coder quality, for MP3
to reach the abysmal level of the best cassettes.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Signal" wrote in message
...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
It's hard to imagine anything much worse than mp3. Maybe cassettes...

If only the standard cassette deck was a Nakamichi Dragon...

And the MP3 bit rate was 64kbs.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Kompu Kid" wrote in message
...
The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have the FLAC
encoding.
I wonder if later versions would have them.

Or you could simply try encoding the files BEFORE you try to burn them to CD
with Nero.

MrT.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:27:37 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

LAPTOPS are NOTORIOUS for the BUZZ they cause when on mains power coupled to
audio equipment.

I know the EXACT reason and it's damn complicated but very involved with EMI
regulations. There are very fews ways of fixing it other than inline audio
transformers or active balanced line interfaces.

You make it sound as if these are expensive or unweildy solutions.
They aren't. Anyone who wants the convenience of using his laptop as
a portable recording or playback device will have done something along
these lines. Or decided their usage needs are compatible with running
on battery.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kompu Kid" wrote in message

On Jul 4, 7:57 am, Steven Pigeon
wrote:
Kompu Kid wrote:
You ask:

" Using which software btw ? Into what format ?
Compressed or uncompressed for example ?"

I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.

I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as
"masters".

You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give
you some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big
as RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have
perfect restitution on decompression; for "masters",
it's pretty much win-win.

The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have
the FLAC encoding.

You may need to open up your horizons well past what Nero provides.

There is plenty of freeware out there to enable you to run FLAC stand-alone
and skip Nero all together.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message

"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote ...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Keep your computer. Get a better sound card. Put all
the rest of your money into upgrading your arm and
cartridge. Get a calibration tape for your cassette
deck and whatever tool is required to ride azimuth.

If he's got a whole bunch of tapes from various sources,
probably as well to tune azimuth by ear per tape.

I kind of agree, but would he not benefit from a
fanless PC to reduce the acoustic noise floor ?

Why is the acoustic noise floor a factor in transcribing
LPs and cassettes?

It's easier to hear what you're doing if there isn't
loads of noise all around you.

For digitizing tapes and LPs, headphones are the monitoring tools of choice,
and that make modest noise from the CPU a non issue.