Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u "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. Roger that. Going fanless is a lot of expense and trouble and possibly warranted if you are recording live while sitting right next to the PC. But for transcribing tapes and LPs, going fanless is more trouble than it is worth. CPU power is also not an issue, so a CPU with modest power dissipation is just fine. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
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... You can't just imaging at ALL on cans. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
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... You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all, just stuff to the right and left. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Signal wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote: 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. You know nothing about my hearing acuity, or what I listen to, and nor did I say I _couldn't_ distinguish MP3 and PCM. Don't put words in my mouth you snotty little man. Oh, you have described your hearing acuity very well. It is as finely honed as your social skills. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all, just stuff to the right and left. Finally, after being on the usenet since 1993, I find something to disagree with you in. It is finding the usable cans for it that is difficult. --scott Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or
wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3. it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround.
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
at 192k sample rate? I find that hard to believe.
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
possibly. but if I select pcm on any dvd player I will get stereo, as
opposed to surround. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
I am most definitively not a professional. I have been a psychiatric patient
for the past 25 years, i.e. since I was 18, and I have never worked professionally at all, as a direct result of which my income has always been social security which, none the less, never held me back from making useful contributions to this group, though I admit to having studied philosophy for 7 months at the PU. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
where
did you GET that expression |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
so noted, but not agreed
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette.
they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium era. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
they used the same tape to record the masters for LPs of the orange BASF
label. classical stuff, but best recordings ever. you can easily recognize the tape from the record. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
I've been psychotic to many times to start all that again. but I believe
you. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"jer0en" wrote ...
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. "pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog) It is not a useful name for practical purposes. "pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much less stereo audio. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
I've opened up a revox once. it proved to be one giant removable connection.
and that's how it sounded, moroles like a sound blaster. are you sure the nakamichi dragon is any different? since they are in the same price category. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
even on mp3
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
ok
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
and isn't it wonderful?
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"jer0en" wrote in message
. .. so noted, but not agreed PLONKED for refusing to follow basic rules of conversation. We have no idea what you are replying to unless you quote it. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
metaphysics. ok. why do I place my speakers as far apart as possible? to
approximate headphones as much as possible. because headphones is how the engineer/mixer made it, and what (image) the engineer/mixer meant it to be. if what was meant includes an image is the matter we are discussing. so what is an image? if an image is something that speakers add to what the mixer made with headphones alone, it cannot be meant that way, and therefore we should consider it undesirable, blame it on distortion and not attempt to reproduce it. however, if the image was indeed meant and made as such by the mixer we should, and appreciate it. personally I doubt if the human brain is capable of extrapolating interlacing speaker images using headphones alone, unless the mixer would be using speakers as monitors, which they don't. this is largely supported by my findings that the less (analogue) play-back is distorted, the more the signal will separate into simply left and right, like david gilmour's solo on us and them, each note coming from the other speaker. so in my opinion the stereo image is a ghost of distortion, a user projected atmosphere assiociated with particular equipment, but I could be wrong, and also it could actually be mixed using speakers. appreciate the five-way split-up of the headphone image, didn't know that. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all, just stuff to the right and left. Really? I understand people who complain about the "In the head" sound, because I do hear that. Unlike them, I don't find it to be objectionable. I mix on headphones all the time. I hear a stereo image with a right, to midright, to center, to midleft to left sound source positioning, all within my head. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
"Signal" wrote in message
"Peter Larsen" wrote: 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. You know nothing about my hearing acuity, or what I listen to, and nor did I say I _couldn't_ distinguish MP3 and PCM. Don't put words in my mouth you snotty little man. Oh, you have described your hearing acuity very well. It is as finely honed as your social skills. Another puffed up cretin who can't read. Actually, he reads quite well, especially the "snotty little man" part. ;-) |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
am I correct in summarizing that, just like hard disks used to record data
in mfm, CDs record digital audio in pcm? short, that pcm is the encoding type used for all non-SA audio CDs? I had no idea. in that case, of course, there would be a slight but noticeable difference between pcm and mp3, only worth discussing in would-be satanic congregations seeking the submission and subsequent destruction of man through copyright law. satan could have my soul anytime, at least he isn't liable to make any copies. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
pcm. why won't it just say "stereo"?
instead of referring to the bloody redbook. who cares about data encoding in nineteen 2008 anyway? since the ATA interface standard from 1987 NOBODY knows what storage/encoding technology is applied on any hard drive that is produced, except for the manufacturer who is in an air-tight chamber behind locked doors on floor 53. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
bloody hell we don't even know the logical format of an NTFS partition. who
cares about pcm????? |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of digital
audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen to digital music. so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from people I know. I have never played mp3 at home. doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it will sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to play back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records! |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:17:08 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article ): "jer0en" wrote ... pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. "pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog) It is not a useful name for practical purposes. "pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much less stereo audio. Actually it refers to the TYPE of digital encoding called "Pulse Code Modulation." There are other types as well such as MFM (Modified FM Modulation), DPM (Digital Phase Modulation) etc. These other are generally not used for audio AFAIK. DSD or Direct-Stream Digital is the only other encoding type that I know of that is used for audio and its the format for SACD. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:29:26 -0700, Signal wrote
(in article ): "Richard Crowley" wrote: pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. "pcm" literally means binary, digital (vs. analog) It is not a useful name for practical purposes. "pcm" doesn't even specifically imply audio, much less stereo audio. PCM in this context, whatever could it mean?? Sorry for being so ambiguous that I got you flustered. Sheeesh... I thought this group was populated by audio professionals, not space cadets! -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t Pulse Code Modulation. Its the method by which ones and zeros are written to media to represent a digital word In Redbook CD each word consists of 16-bits and each bit is written to disc (or tape, or the hard drive) using Pulse Code Modulation. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 14:05:03 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ): what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3. It's neither. It has nothing to do with the actual quanization, only how the samples are written to media. In other words asking whether PCM is compressed or not is like asking someone is a gasoline powered car has two doors or four. it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
In article ,
"jer0en" wrote: got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of digital audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen to digital music. so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from people I know. I have never played mp3 at home. doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it will sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to play back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records! You should quote what you are replying to. Otherwise, your point is lost and people don't bother to read you. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
In article ,
Signal wrote: Jenn wrote: got the picture, see above. I know the specs, or rather the names of digital audio formats, but except for a few imperative CDs I never actually listen to digital music. so I only know pcm from my stereo tube when I play a dvd and mp3 only from people I know. I have never played mp3 at home. doing a test would be easy, but why bother if you already know what it will sound like? it's not gonna be anything else than golf-ball speaker sounds coming from a 15 inch woofer speaker system, which is what you need to play back analogue audio. not the tape cassettes, the records! You should quote what you are replying to. Otherwise, your point is lost and people don't bother to read you. I wouldn't bother Jenn. He claims to be psychotic. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t ic |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Peter Larsen wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: You can't judge imaging at ALL on cans. There's no real image at all, just stuff to the right and left. Finally, after being on the usenet since 1993, I find something to disagree with you in. It is finding the usable cans for it that is difficult. Any suggestions? Do you include a shuffler? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
jer0en wrote:
what do you mean? pulse code modulation? is pcm uncompressed, like cd or wav? no. so of course there wouldn't be any noticeable difference with mp3. ..wav files and red book CDs are PCM. PCM is a general description of any data format that is directly sampled with direct waveform amplitudes. it's virtually impossible to begin with to determine any difference between mp3 and cd or wav quality, unless you have a studio theatre in your living, let alone pcm and mp3. it would require (sigh) astral hearing. I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
jer0en wrote:
pardon? pcm is just stereo. no surround. No, there are plenty of PCM surround formats. Not very popular for distribution, though. Just because it's PCM doesn't mean it has any particular channel format. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
jer0en wrote:
you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette. they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium era. I used that stuff for bin mastering work for years. If you like that stuff, RMGI is still making it. Tape Warehouse will sell you big pancakes of it, or bulk load it into whatever cassette shells you'd like. Won't do anything about the massive flutter problems inherent in the cassette format, of course. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
jer0en wrote:
they used the same tape to record the masters for LPs of the orange BASF label. classical stuff, but best recordings ever. No, I believe that stuff was done on 369. Sort of the predicessor to the modern RMGI 468 tape. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
jer0en wrote:
pcm. why won't it just say "stereo"? Because stereo is the channel format. It has nothing to do with the encoding. instead of referring to the bloody redbook. The Red Book refers to the channel format, the encoding, and the the medium. Red Book volumes contain PCM data, either stereo or quadrophonic. Sadly, when the Red Book was written, nobody was thinking about a mono format although in retrospect it would have been useful. who cares about data encoding in nineteen 2008 anyway? since the ATA interface standard from 1987 NOBODY knows what storage/encoding technology is applied on any hard drive that is produced, except for the manufacturer who is in an air-tight chamber behind locked doors on floor 53. Audio engineers care about data encoding, because it is their job. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,alt.audio.equipment
|
|||
|
|||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:34:59 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): jer0en wrote: you have definitely never heard the original BASF low noise tape cassette. they came in white plastic cases. beats pulp of anything from the chromium era. I used that stuff for bin mastering work for years. If you like that stuff, RMGI is still making it. Tape Warehouse will sell you big pancakes of it, or bulk load it into whatever cassette shells you'd like. Won't do anything about the massive flutter problems inherent in the cassette format, of course. --scott Or self erasure, or poor S/N, or high distortion or drop-outs caused by narrow track widths, etc. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings. | Pro Audio | |||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help! | General | |||
Analog recordings on a computer | Tech | |||
Why don't classical piano recordings sound as good as pop recordings? | High End Audio | |||
digitizing cassette recordings | General |