Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:23:41 -0500, Charlie Olsen
wrote: Currently I have a reasonable sized collection of D2D and "early digital" vinyl I am interested in preserving, more for the music, so this thread is important to me. You may find, as I finally did just a couple years ago (I'm a really slow learner), that you can make a pair of .wav files as you play your nice clean records, tops-n-tails 'em, chop into tracks, save, and enjoy it just as much from then on without all the drama and ceremony of properly playing vinyl. Or maybe not - transparent A/D/A conversion is in the ear of the beholder, and I'd be the last person to discount the importance of ritual and personal, physical involvement to us Human Beans. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Keith. wrote:
I have a garage full of precious LP's covered in fine clay from a recent flood, so I am taking a special interest in this thread. This is a seperate sort of problem. These are records that require pre-washing by hand, before they can be put into the vacuum machine. An ultrasonic dunk tank may actually be the best solution for them, followed by the vacuum cleaning. The discussion seems to focus on removing water from the grooves after washing,so I thought if you can suck ,then you may as well blow. A perfectly clean wet groove in a perfectly clean room may result in a perfectly clean dry groove,with time,but we aren't perfect are we?.....so remove the remaining water with the best available means as quickly as possible. The purpose of the vacuum machine is to take a clean record and make it very, very clean. It removes very small amounts of residue in the groove. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Charlie Olsen wrote:
I went /am still going through a similar situation. In my case it was a basement flood and mold. Mold sends filaments into the vinyl and damages it physically. This can substantially increase the noise floor. If you have mold, you need to get it stopped as quickly as possible. Freezing may be the easiest solution. I have done a few test cleans with various dish soap / brush /rinse/light alcohol etc and have not had very good results overall. Some records seem to clean up reasonably good and others sound awful with mostly ticks and pops. Take one of the ones that ticks and pops and look at it under a light microscope and see what is going on. I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say, to get a good transcription and that failed as well. I'm not sure I really understand what the mechanism of wet playing really is.... it's not just that it keeps gunk in solution in the groove but it also seems to provide some mechanical damping too. But if it does not change the noise floor, the noise floor is probably not surface noise but actual physical scratching. I'm starting to think a decent vacuum based cleaning machine is the only real solution however I am concerned with the cost of the fluid and if it's just snake oil anyway. It's not snake oil, it's extremely effective. It's also not very expensive, really. You can make your own fluid with photo-flo, water, and alcohol, without any problem. It's really just 25% alcohol with a strong surfactant added. BUT, it won't solve your problem, I don't think. Call around to used record stores in town and see if any of them have a cleaning machine... a lot of them will let you take a record in and have it cleaned for a couple bucks. Doing this will let you see if it's of any real benefit for your problem, but I suspect if you have physical damage from mold it might not be. If you want, you're welcome to send me a record with a couple bucks and I'll run it through and send it back. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Keith. wrote:
In another life I have used ultrasonic cleaners to great effect to vibrate fine debris away. A commercial version designed to take an LP,to my mind would be brilliant. There are several on the market. I have one of them here and it is very effective at getting deep gunk out of grooves, especially on styrene 45s. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Keith. wrote: In another life I have used ultrasonic cleaners to great effect to vibrate fine debris away. A commercial version designed to take an LP,to my mind would be brilliant. There are several on the market. I have one of them here and it is very effective at getting deep gunk out of grooves, especially on styrene 45s. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis. Do you have any details on these units?.I would be very interested in tracking these down. Vinyl quality was mentioned before and I am sure it varies with time and country.In Australia I preferred GB pressings to ours and US pressings. I have an Australian pressing("That's enough for me" Peter Yarrow 1973) that was remarkably clean when purchased and seems to stay relatively grit free.This was the time of the first oil crisis and I can remember 'virgin' vinyl becoming scarce and the industry was reluctant to recycle old vinyl. Keith. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
|
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
I'm starting to think a decent vacuum-based cleaning machine
is the only real solution however I am concerned with the cost of the fluid and if it's just snake oil anyway. A 25% or 50% mixture of denatured alcohol and distilled water -- with a drop or two of Photo-Flo -- is fine. You don't need those horribly expensive fancy fluids. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:12:02 -0500, Charlie Olsen
wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:46:06 +1100, Keith. wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air (filtered?) be used to dry/remove remaining grit? Did you think this through before posting this? Why would you want to dry the record surface in such a way that left grit behind? I have a garage full of precious LP's covered in fine clay from a recent flood, so I am taking a special interest in this thread. Get a record cleaning machine already. You may need to do some 'brushing' while the cleaning fluid is on an especially dirty record, OTOH you might NOT want to do that as it might push this clay around and scratch the surface. Start with your "least valuable" LP's, or buy a stack of LP's from a thrift store, perhaps give some the same treatment your valuable LP's went through, and experiment with cleaning one at a time, and play it to hear the results. The discussion seems to focus on removing water from the grooves after washing,so I thought if you can suck ,then you may as well blow. Getting it sucked is much better. Trust me. A perfectly clean wet groove in a perfectly clean room may result in a perfectly clean dry groove,with time,but we aren't perfect are we?.....so remove the remaining water with the best available means as quickly as possible. Keith. I went /am still going through a similar situation. In my case it was a basement flood and mold. I have done a few test cleans with various dish soap / brush /rinse/light alcohol etc and have not had very good results overall. Some records seem to clean up reasonably good and others sound awful with mostly ticks and pops. I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say, to get a good transcription and that failed as well. I'm starting to think a decent vacuum based cleaning machine is the only real solution however I am concerned with the cost of the fluid and if it's just snake oil anyway. IOW can I substitute some household chemicals and get decent results. Maybe not "household" but you can buy a large supply of whatever chenicals are suggested for less than the cost of the Nitty Gritty. Scott mentioned Alconox many years ago, and I bought a quart container direct for under $20. At 1 percent to 5 percent mix with distilled water, I probably have enough to clean all my records, and at one record a day it's gonna take ten years to go through them anyway. I recall trying a water/alcohol/photoflo mix, and the record (perhaps) ended up 'too clean' - I had poping in the playback caused by static (successive plays had the pops in different places). YMMV, just get a cleaning machine already. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Keith. wrote: Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air(filtered?) be used to dry/remove remaining grit? No, the whole point is to AVOID evaporation. Just spend fifty bucks and buy a used Nitty Gritty machine. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." It was just a thought about using compressed air to physically 'blast' the water out of the grooves rather than evaporating the water. Could have used a heat gun for that No Nitty Gritty's on Ebay at the moment. Keith. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 18, 8:07*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say, to get a good transcription and that failed as well. I'm not sure I really understand what the mechanism of wet playing really is.... it's not just that it keeps gunk in solution in the groove but it also seems to provide some mechanical damping too. *But if it does not change the noise floor, the noise floor is probably not surface noise but actual physical scratching. A problem I've seen described with wet playing is that it cools the record surface and changes the elasticity of the grooves, the stylus tends to break off the tips of the peaks in the groove. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say,
to get a good transcription and that failed as well. I'm not sure I really understand what the mechanism of wet playing really is... it's not just that it keeps gunk in solution in the groove but it also seems to provide some mechanical damping too. But if it does not change the noise floor, the noise floor is probably not surface noise but actual physical scratching. A problem I've seen described with wet playing is that it cools the record surface and changes the elasticity of the grooves, the stylus tends to break off the tips of the peaks in the groove. This has been discussed several times. Ortofon (or another company) took SEM photos that showed the damage done playing the disk wet. The water cools the vinyl, which instead of heating and deforming under the stylus, remains rigid (or more rigid) and is damaged. Chunks of vinyl are supposedly torn out. I am of the opinion that you should let a disk sit for at least 10 minutes after wet cleaning before playing it. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
In article ,
Keith. wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Keith. wrote: In another life I have used ultrasonic cleaners to great effect to vibrate fine debris away. A commercial version designed to take an LP,to my mind would be brilliant. There are several on the market. I have one of them here and it is very effective at getting deep gunk out of grooves, especially on styrene 45s. Do you have any details on these units?.I would be very interested in tracking these down. I have a big unit from Branson that can hold about a dozen LPs at a time. I bought it surplus a decade ago, and it's basically one big relaxation oscillator built with two sets of four 2N3055 transistors in parallel going into some kind of ceramic transducer on the side of a fluid tank. The oscillator settles down into the resonant frequency of the transducer. I think VWR also makes some ultrasonic units with reasonable dimensions for LPs. Vinyl quality was mentioned before and I am sure it varies with time and country.In Australia I preferred GB pressings to ours and US pressings. I have an Australian pressing("That's enough for me" Peter Yarrow 1973) that was remarkably clean when purchased and seems to stay relatively grit free.This was the time of the first oil crisis and I can remember 'virgin' vinyl becoming scarce and the industry was reluctant to recycle old vinyl. Well, the problem is that those are often not just different pressings but sometimes different mastering jobs. If you compare the British pressings of the first four Beatles records with the American ones, they sound totally different... the American label rolled all the top and bottom end off and made them sound awful in comparison. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
The argument would go like this: playing in air generates temperatures of 700 to 900 F; playing in water would cause a big thermal difference between the inside bits and the outside bits of the groove depth; instead of the slower post- play de-melting of air-cooling, the vinyl would undergo a shocking! rapid post-play freezing. Yes, this clearly does happen. BUT, how does this reduce the noise floor? Or maybe, the thermal conductivity of vinyl is good enough over small distances to allow more-r-less isothermal, rather than adiabatic play, even in contact with the presumably perfect heat sink of a water bath. But then, why the reported damage? The damage is visible on a scope... the microcracking does happen. One of Marshall Leach's grad students did a study on this in the seventies completely with SEM micrographs. I can't imagine anything could cause it other than rapid cooling but I'd be happy to be disproven. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Well, the problem is that those are often not just different pressings but sometimes different mastering jobs. If you compare the British pressings of the first four Beatles records with the American ones, they sound totally different... the American label rolled all the top and bottom end off and made them sound awful in comparison. Oh, so true. When I was serving in Germany during the late 60s, buying european pressings of my favorite artists, both US and European, was a tremendous revelation. As a rule they were remastered for sound quality, not loudness or ????. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 19, 11:56 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Well, the problem is that those are often not just different pressings but sometimes different mastering jobs. If you compare the British pressings of the first four Beatles records with the American ones, they sound totally different... the American label rolled all the top and bottom end off and made them sound awful in comparison. Oh, so true. When I was serving in Germany during the late 60s, buying european pressings of my favorite artists, both US and European, was a tremendous revelation. As a rule they were remastered for sound quality, not loudness or ????. broadcast capacity! |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
|
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:02:54 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote: missed an important word: One understandable product of cooling is to decrease vinyl effective compliance, pushing the stylus effective mass x vinyl compliance RESONANCE higher, and reducing the resonant rise in frequency response. Maybe a few dB, or whatever, here is important enough to matter some too. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 09:51:25 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: BUT, how does this reduce the noise floor? The mechanical damping argument doesn't really work for me. It just seems (to my poor understanding, anyway) that the pressures involved are so high that some liquid nearby wouldn't be significant. This could be. The problem is that I don't have a better argument. But, on a very, very local level, the liquid might be churned up into a turbulent froth, maybe with extra resistive effect. A wacko theory, fersure, but stuff at these small dimensions can surprise. And my money would be on a surprising answer (if an answer is ever found). Maybe, but what good would that do? I can imagine it happening, I can't figure out how it would help. One understandable product of cooling is to decrease vinyl effective compliance, pushing the stylus effective mass x vinyl compliance higher, and reducing the resonant rise in frequency response. Maybe a few dB, or whatever, here is important enough to matter some too. I don't buy it, because what drops is the actual impulse noise. It's not just a change in response or an improvement in damping causing the impulses to ring less. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 21:02:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Okay, if we can't believe that either mechanical or electrical damping (six-o'-one, ha'pence of another, anyway) is causing the observed noise reduction, it must (always a bad word to enter any discussion, because implying futility. arf) be an actual mechanical effect on the impulse noise generation. Right. And I'm not sure I even understand all the impulse noise generation issues. Assuming that the boulders causing the impulse noise are fixed in place (are we assuming this? yikes!) then the observed noise reduction might be related to the way that the stylus interacts with the boulders. Or not. Cool gedanken-thingy either way. Well, we have several mechanisms: 1. Striking big chunks of stuff in the groove. Now, I know that wet playing DOES help this a lot because it gets some of the stuff in solution and allows them to move around. But I also know that wet playing can reduce the noise floor on _some_ perfectly clean records. 2. Groove damage due to scratches 3. Groove damage due to surface layer cracking 4. Uneven groove surfaces due to rough surface (sometimes the result of small bubbles in pressings 5. Stiction against the groove wall I have no idea which of these are improved by wet playing, if any. And I probably missed a bunch more noise mechanisms too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Hi Scott,
I think the Kontrapunkt B is a wonderful musical catridge, great resolution and dynamics with a nice clean neutral sound. I haven't listened to the rest of the range but they have similar qualities. So I'm surprised you didn't like the Kontrapunkt A. On 13 Nov, 14:34, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Distorted Vision wrote: How is the Kontrapunkt B? *I tried the Kontrapunkt A and didn't think it was worth the extra money over the old MC5, but I never got a chance to hear the more expensive version. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Distorted Vision wrote:
I think the Kontrapunkt B is a wonderful musical catridge, great resolution and dynamics with a nice clean neutral sound. I haven't listened to the rest of the range but they have similar qualities. So I'm surprised you didn't like the Kontrapunkt A. Oh, I liked it... it was a great sounding cartridge, but I just didn't think it was head and shoulders better than the MC5. And it is head and shoulders more expensive than the MC5. The MC5 really is a great sounding cartridge at a reasonable price... it's neutral but not as dry as the A-T OC9 and it tracks worn discs just as well. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Chris is broadly correct (though in common usage, it's ultrasonic, not supersonic). You need a good TT, pickup, and preamp. This needn't cost an arm and a leg, but we're talking a system running $500 or more. I have a not-inexpensive system, and its _lack_ of surface noise -- which is due to the pickup's wide bandwidth, and the overall "deadness" of the 'table and arm -- is remarkable. Sampling at a high rate preserves more of the ultrasonic energy that helps distinguish surface noise from music. ....for software noise reduction, you mean. For human ears, not so much. "Ultrasonic" by definition is beyond audible. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
John wrote:
In article , (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Distorted Vision wrote: Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki Nokki which I use with L'Art du Son record cleaning fluid. My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV tonearm and Ortofon Kontrapunkt B. How is the Kontrapunkt B? I tried the Kontrapunkt A and didn't think it was worth the extra money over the old MC5, but I never got a chance to hear the more expensive version. I'm interested in what people have to say about the M-Powered version of Pro Tools for the application that I want. I think it's a whole lot of crap that you'll never use, and it doesn't buy you anything over the cheaper alternatives. But then, I had horrible experiences with earlier versions of Pro Tools and tend be biased against it. --scott i think he needs one of these. http://www.mil-media.com/lpe-2.html for not much money you could get a basic 2ch apogee convertor that will sound miles better then the m-audio. Miles better? Really? Would this apparent in a blind listening test? -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
John wrote: In article , (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Distorted Vision wrote: Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki Nokki which I use with L'Art du Son record cleaning fluid. My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV tonearm and Ortofon Kontrapunkt B. How is the Kontrapunkt B? I tried the Kontrapunkt A and didn't think it was worth the extra money over the old MC5, but I never got a chance to hear the more expensive version. I'm interested in what people have to say about the M-Powered version of Pro Tools for the application that I want. I think it's a whole lot of crap that you'll never use, and it doesn't buy you anything over the cheaper alternatives. But then, I had horrible experiences with earlier versions of Pro Tools and tend be biased against it. --scott i think he needs one of these. http://www.mil-media.com/lpe-2.html for not much money you could get a basic 2ch apogee convertor that will sound miles better then the m-audio. Miles better? Really? Would this apparent in a blind listening test? Yes, when digitizing vinyl with maybe 65 dB dynamic range, the difference between and audio interface with 110 dB versus 115 dB dynamic arange will be immediately apparent. ;-) IOW, I'm sure he's joking. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Keith." wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Keith. wrote: Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air(filtered?) be used to dry/remove remaining grit? No, the whole point is to AVOID evaporation. Just spend fifty bucks and buy a used Nitty Gritty machine. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." It was just a thought about using compressed air to physically 'blast' the water out of the grooves rather than evaporating the water. Could have used a heat gun for that No Nitty Gritty's on Ebay at the moment. Keith. I agree with vacuuming grooves, but until this technique is available to me, I thought I would experiment with compressed air. I used a sacrificial '45 and a home/auto air compressor at 8bar/115psi through a 2mm trigger nozzle. The record with water/surfactant as expected produced a thin film over the surface and grooves. Rinsing produced water clinging to the grooves due to surface tension but was removed fairly rapidly with the nozzle angled at 45degrees and swept over the record,progressing from one side to the other. About 20 seconds to complete the task. I did the job outside as inside the air would no doubt stir up dust. It looked clean !,new sleeves would be needed as the old sleeves quickly returned dust. Keith. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Charlie Olsen" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:01:17 +1100, Keith. wrote: "Keith." wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Keith. wrote: Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air(filtered?) be used to dry/remove remaining grit? No, the whole point is to AVOID evaporation. Just spend fifty bucks and buy a used Nitty Gritty machine. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." It was just a thought about using compressed air to physically 'blast' the water out of the grooves rather than evaporating the water. Could have used a heat gun for that No Nitty Gritty's on Ebay at the moment. Keith. I agree with vacuuming grooves, but until this technique is available to me, I thought I would experiment with compressed air. I used a sacrificial '45 and a home/auto air compressor at 8bar/115psi through a 2mm trigger nozzle. The record with water/surfactant as expected produced a thin film over the surface and grooves. Rinsing produced water clinging to the grooves due to surface tension but was removed fairly rapidly with the nozzle angled at 45degrees and swept over the record,progressing from one side to the other. About 20 seconds to complete the task. I did the job outside as inside the air would no doubt stir up dust. It looked clean !,new sleeves would be needed as the old sleeves quickly returned dust. Keith. Interesting How did it sound when played? I really need to do a before(regular cleaning) and after(regular plus water/air cleaning),with a decent recording to do a fair comparison. I will try to estimate debris reduction and not have excess record wear interfere with this. Keith. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
LP (vinyl records) ripping? | Pro Audio | |||
Opinions on ripping vinyl records to MP3 via USB enabled players | Pro Audio | |||
Ripping Vinyl to the computer? | Pro Audio | |||
Ripping From Vinyl | General |