"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2004 05:53:13 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
wrote:


"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:06:57 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Playing at 16 2/3rds RPM might be worth a try, though,
if you have a turntable that can. I don't. Should
help for warped vinyl anyway.

It sounds like the OP's intent was to transfer a lot of stuff
quickly. Running at 1/2 speed seems antithetical to the
original intent.


You want it done QUICK or you want it done RIGHT? :-)

Remember the 1/2 speed audiophile discs they made in the '70s?

I trust you're remembering that these were *mastered* at half-speed,
but intended for 33.33rpm replay, to allow high levels of 15-20kHz to
be cut without melting the cutter head! And then of course there were
the 12" 45rpm 'ultra fidelity' discs, which genuinely did have
extended frequency response.

I have a Mobile Fidelity half-speed master of The Beatles Abbey Road. It
still sounds pretty incredible.

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus
velocity and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for
both cutting and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just
too much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I
still think (IF done right) it would make considerably superior
copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

The cartridge is going to work differently, too.

Were I to try such a thing, I'd record a reliable test record's frequency
response tracks, and work from there.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus
velocity and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for
both cutting and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just
too much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I
still think (IF done right) it would make considerably superior
copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

The cartridge is going to work differently, too.

Were I to try such a thing, I'd record a reliable test record's frequency
response tracks, and work from there.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus
velocity and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for
both cutting and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just
too much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I
still think (IF done right) it would make considerably superior
copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

The cartridge is going to work differently, too.

Were I to try such a thing, I'd record a reliable test record's frequency
response tracks, and work from there.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus
velocity and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for
both cutting and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just
too much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I
still think (IF done right) it would make considerably superior
copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

The cartridge is going to work differently, too.

Were I to try such a thing, I'd record a reliable test record's frequency
response tracks, and work from there.

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

That's not a very good way to do it, because it ignores any "structural"
effects a given cartridge might introduce. And I suspect there would be
some.

I think the best (only??) way is to use a properly recorded reference
disc.

Isaac

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

That's not a very good way to do it, because it ignores any "structural"
effects a given cartridge might introduce. And I suspect there would be
some.

I think the best (only??) way is to use a properly recorded reference
disc.

Isaac

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

That's not a very good way to do it, because it ignores any "structural"
effects a given cartridge might introduce. And I suspect there would be
some.

I think the best (only??) way is to use a properly recorded reference
disc.

Isaac

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"Isaac Wingfield" wrote ...
Um, no, there's not. The same arguments apply -- lower stylus velocity
and FAR lower stylus acceleration are Very Good Ideas for both cutting
and reproducing LPs.

In fact, I considered a half-speed solution when I transcribed my LP
collection to CDs a few years ago. I gave it up, because it was just too
much trouble to rejigger the equalization, and so on. But I still think
(IF done right) it would make considerably superior copies.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Shouldn't be that hard to
re-calculate the RIAA curve turnover nodes (and component
values) downward by an octave.

That's not a very good way to do it, because it ignores any "structural"
effects a given cartridge might introduce. And I suspect there would be
some.

I think the best (only??) way is to use a properly recorded reference
disc.

Isaac

JeffK wrote:

I'm transferring some 33 1/3 LPs to MP3s.

The thought occurred that I could save time by recording at 78 rpm, and
altering the tempo later via software.

No. The cartridge can not track the records properly and will damage the
grooves. Not "may", WILL damage.

Has this been done?

All kinds of folly has been done. This would indeed be grave folly.

Has it been done without wrecking the music?

No. There is no way it could be done without wrecking music AND vinyl.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

JeffK wrote:

I'm transferring some 33 1/3 LPs to MP3s.

The thought occurred that I could save time by recording at 78 rpm, and
altering the tempo later via software.

No. The cartridge can not track the records properly and will damage the
grooves. Not "may", WILL damage.

Has this been done?

All kinds of folly has been done. This would indeed be grave folly.

Has it been done without wrecking the music?

No. There is no way it could be done without wrecking music AND vinyl.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

JeffK wrote:

I'm transferring some 33 1/3 LPs to MP3s.

The thought occurred that I could save time by recording at 78 rpm, and
altering the tempo later via software.

No. The cartridge can not track the records properly and will damage the
grooves. Not "may", WILL damage.

Has this been done?

All kinds of folly has been done. This would indeed be grave folly.

Has it been done without wrecking the music?

No. There is no way it could be done without wrecking music AND vinyl.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

JeffK wrote:

I'm transferring some 33 1/3 LPs to MP3s.

The thought occurred that I could save time by recording at 78 rpm, and
altering the tempo later via software.

No. The cartridge can not track the records properly and will damage the
grooves. Not "may", WILL damage.

Has this been done?

All kinds of folly has been done. This would indeed be grave folly.

Has it been done without wrecking the music?

No. There is no way it could be done without wrecking music AND vinyl.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************