prism orpheus and LP's

[Nate Najar]

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

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

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

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

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

[PStamler]

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

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

Peace,
Paul

[Nate Najar]

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

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

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

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

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

>
> Peace,
> Paul

[geoff]

On 10/06/2015 5:12 p.m., Nate Najar wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
>> Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some
>> interfaces will indeed work for >this, as long as there are two of
>> them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this
>> again >you might want to look up the input impedance of those
>> instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to >add some parallel
>> resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge
>> wants to see.
>
> I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge
> wanted an impedance that low.
>
> The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K
>
>>
>> iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start
>> out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.
>
> that's good to know. I don't actually have the izotope software. I
> use a program called "sample manager" which uses the izotope
> algorithm for SRC.
>
>>
>> Peace, Paul


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

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

geoff

[Trevor]

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

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

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 10/06/2015 06:12, Nate Najar wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
>> Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some interfaces will indeed work for >this, as long as there are two of them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this again >you might want to look up the input impedance of those instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to >add some parallel resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge wants to see.
>
> I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge wanted an impedance that low.
>
It does depend on the cartridge. Most, if not all magnetic cartridges
are designed to expect 47kOhms resistive load impedance, but on a deck
that age, it may have had a ceramic cartridge, which gave a flat(tish)
200mV response at a megohm or so, but also gave a similar response to a
magnetic cartridge when loaded to 47k.

> The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K
>
If you just pad the line inputs with a 33kOhm resistor, you'll lose some
level, but it may make the frequency response flatter. Or you can buy a
battery powered RIAA preamp for a few dollars, which takes care of the
matching and gives a (usually -10dB) unbalanced frequency compensated
output which will feed a 600 ohm line, and if you pay a bit more, you
can get one that gives you a 0dB, 600 Ohm balanced output. In the UK,
you can get a kit to build the preamp for about ten pounds, so the same
thing in the USA would be about 10 bucks.

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

>>
>> iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.
>
> that's good to know. I don't actually have the izotope software. I use a program called "sample manager" which uses the izotope algorithm for SRC.
>
The click remover in Audacity's not bad, either, and there are free or
paid for VST plugins to do the job better.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 10/06/2015 6:29 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 06:12, Nate Najar wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
>>> Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some
>>> interfaces will indeed work for >this, as long as there are two of
>>> them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this
>>> again >you might want to look up the input impedance of those
>>> instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to >add some parallel
>>> resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge wants
>>> to see.
>>
>> I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge
>> wanted an impedance that low.
>>
> It does depend on the cartridge. Most, if not all magnetic cartridges
> are designed to expect 47kOhms resistive load impedance, but on a deck
> that age, it may have had a ceramic cartridge, which gave a flat(tish)
> 200mV response at a megohm or so, but also gave a similar response to a
> magnetic cartridge when loaded to 47k.

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


>> The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K
>>
> If you just pad the line inputs with a 33kOhm resistor, you'll lose some
> level,

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


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

Exactly.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 2:23:38 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 5:12 p.m., Nate Najar wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:23:06 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
> >> Congratulations on the good results. The instrument inputs on some
> >> interfaces will indeed work for >this, as long as there are two of
> >> them (a lot of interfaces just have one). If you plan to do this
> >> again >you might want to look up the input impedance of those
> >> instrument inputs and use a Y-connector to >add some parallel
> >> resistance to bring it down to 47k, which is what the cartridge
> >> wants to see.
> >
> > I just looked it up, it's 1meg. I didn't realize that cartridge
> > wanted an impedance that low.
> >
> > The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K
> >
> >>
> >> iZotope RX has a pretty decent scratch and crackle treatment; start
> >> out with it set to about 1.2, and increase as needed.
> >
> > that's good to know. I don't actually have the izotope software. I
> > use a program called "sample manager" which uses the izotope
> > algorithm for SRC.
> >
> >>
> >> Peace, Paul
>
>
> Jeepers - I though everybody over 45 knew moving-magnet phono cartridge
> spec is 47K, and MC cartridges usually have a transformer to match it up !
>
> Any reason to not simply use a phono preamp, and obviate the deleterious
> effects of a 40dB curve done in software ? Mind you, if you are happy
> with your results using your method I guess that's fine ;-)

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

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

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/gitarzan-s.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/gitarzan-s-promo.jpg

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:12:01 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Nate Najar > wrote:
> >But I digress, I took the turntable into the mix room, put some rca-1/4" ad=
> >aptors on the cord (and wedged the ground wire prong into one of the 1/4" a=
> >daptors) and plugged it into the instrument inputs on the front panel of th=
> >e Orpheus. I tried the line inputs on the back, but then you don't get to =
> >use preamp gain, and I'm not sure if the impedance is optimal or not. It s=
> >ounded fine in the line input, if not very quiet, but the instrument inputs=
> > are optimized for a high impedance, unbalanced signal (like a guitar magne=
> >tic pickup... or a turntable cartridge!) and by bringing up the gain with t=
> >he preamps instead of digitally, I could monitor it at a better level. In =
> >the software I set the filters to RIAA compensation and gave it about 45db =
> >of gain which was enough to get a very strong signal but no peaks were in d=
> >anger of clipping. I set pro tools to 192 (I've never used 192 before but =
> >it seemed like a good time to try it) and recorded a pass. Top and tail, e=
> >xport, izotope for src and I've got a track now. =20
>
> The good news about this approach is that high frequency noise and distortion
> products get reduced in the RIAA de-emphasis, so doing the de-emphasis in the
> digital domain eliminates some of the artifacts you might have with your
> converters.
>
> The bad news about this approach is that some MM phono cartridges are very
> touchy about loading, and they need to ahve a 47k load.

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

Jack


MC cartridges are
> loosely-coupled and mostly don't care about loading, but you can easily get
> changes in the top octave if the loading isn't right. And unfortunately one
> of the things that having ringing in the top octave can do is to make small
> clicks and pops into more annoying louder ones.
>
> >It sounds extremely good. A tiny bit of crackle and pop because of the med=
> >ium and my less than well maintained equipment, but it's actually barely no=
> >ticeable. The sound is very detailed and precise. It makes me want to hir=
> >e a young person to digitize and archive my collection (no money for that b=
> >ut it's a nice thought!).
>
> It should make you want to sit down and play some records, which I recommend
> doing whenever possible. No need to digitize it, just set aside a half hour
> and listen to an album.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

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

> >> The line inputs are 14.5K and the mic press are 5.5K
> >>
> > If you just pad the line inputs with a 33kOhm resistor, you'll lose some
> > level,
>
> Which you can't really afford to do when you are only starting with a
> few millivolts and applying a huge amount of post EQ.

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Paul

[Nate Najar]

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

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

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

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

[geoff]

On 11/06/2015 8:25 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 3:53:10 PM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
>
>> Doing the EQ in software actually works, and if you record in 24 bits you've got plenty of dynamic range to work with.
>> No, what Nate did is probably the most effective method. Short of getting a decent phono preamp, which the $10 units aren't.
> that's the reason I didn't use my little memorex phono preamp that is hooked up to the living room stereo. I figured the Prism would sound better. The RIAA eq isn't done digitally either, one of the features they market for the prism is "RIAA Equalization on inputs 1 & 2." I assume that's for the DJ set. But I saw this as an opportunity to see what it sounds like. You select the RIAA in the control software in the same drop down as the high pass filter. You can select flat, rolloff or RIAA.


The perfect scenario then !

geoff

[Trevor]

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

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

Trevor.

[Trevor]

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

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

Trevor.

[Nate Najar]

Trevor,

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

N

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 1:55 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> Trevor,
>
> I can't figure out how to quote with Google groups on my iPhone and
> I'm on the road so the phone is all I have, but I didn't compare them
> because I have more important things to do. In the original post I
> mentioned I needed to transcribe the tune so my goal was to get it
> digitized. I posted here because it came out better than I expected
> and I wanted to share the experience.

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

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

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

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

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

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

> Trevor

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Luxey]

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
>> time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
>> of course.
>
>How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
>- assuming you haven't thrown away your record player? This may be a
>good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
>it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
>of his records.

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

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

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

That's an even MORE depressing thought.

>You're acting like a 10 year old.

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

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

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

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

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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

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

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

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

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

[geoff]

On 15/06/2015 11:17 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
>> time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
>> of course.
>
> How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
> - assuming you haven't thrown away your record player? This may be a
> good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
> it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
> of his records.
>
> When you own hundreds, or a couple of thousand records, you won't live
> long enough to play them all enough to wear them out. Or maybe you will.
> You're acting like a 10 year old.
>


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

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

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(hank alrich) wrote:
> Trevor > wrote:
>
>> And the reason you don't try both so you can actually compare for
>> yourself is what, just laziness?
>
> No, it's to entice people who are full of themselves to reveal the
> nature of their stuffing.
>


A wise man once said:

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

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 9:13 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/15/2015 12:18 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Which is totally pointless to anyone else because you offered NO
>> objective data, no comparisons, and we don't know and probably don't
>> share *your* expectations.
>
> Quit being an asshole. I don't care about your successes either, if you
> have any.

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

Trevor

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 9:17 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
>> time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
>> of course.
>
> How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
> - assuming you haven't thrown away your record player?

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

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

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


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

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

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 15/06/2015 11:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>> On 6/14/2015 11:38 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> NO, *definitely* digitise it so you don't wear the album or stylus every
>>> time you want to hear it again! Not to mention far greater convenience
>>> of course.
>>
>> How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
>> - assuming you haven't thrown away your record player? This may be a
>> good method for someone who plays a record over and over and over until
>> it wears out, but Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
>> of his records.
>
> I hear Trevor's basic attitude with a lot of young kids these days, viewing
> the record as something exotic and irreplaceable that degrades every time it
> is played.

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


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

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


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

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

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2015 12:55 AM, hank alrich wrote:
>> Quit being an asshole.
>
> Good luck with that. It's genetic with him.

And what's your excuse?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

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

So nothing unusual for you then.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

>> How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
>> - assuming you haven't thrown away your record player?
>
> Well not having to clean the records and swap sides every 15-20 minutes
> is a pretty good start IMO.

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

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

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

>> Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
>> of his records.
>
> As do I, by NOT playing them more than I have to!

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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



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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2015 8:37 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 6:13 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>>> How is listening to a digitized LP more convenient than just playing it
>>> - assuming you haven't thrown away your record player?
>>
>> Well not having to clean the records and swap sides every 15-20 minutes
>> is a pretty good start IMO.
>
> You have a strange concept of "convenient."

I was thinking exactly the same of YOU!

>First you have to digitize the record.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


>>> Nate isn't a teenager and I'm sure he takes good care
>>> of his records.
>>
>> As do I, by NOT playing them more than I have to!
>
> So what do you plan to do with all of your rarely-played records? Give
> them to the Library of Congress? ;)

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

>
>> Yep I still own thousands, and some of them I'd never wear out for
>> certain. But they are ones I probably will never get around to
>> digitising anyway.
>
> And there's the rub. You have a collection that isn't well managed. Why?
> Because it's a pain in the butt.

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


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

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


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

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


>
>> The stylus still wears though, and they are NOT
>> cheap, at least mine aren't, perhaps yours are. Or you just have more
>> money than sense
>
> I don't have a lot of either these days, but I know that I'm past the
> point where I worry about record wear. I'm just not going to play
> anything enough to wear it out. And I've managed to live for 72 years
> without wearing out any records that I've owned. I'll tell you that I
> don't mind a tick here or there. It doesn't spoil the experience for me,

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


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

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

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 15/06/2015 11:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> It's true that there -are- irreplaceable records out there, but
>> not so many.
>> Sit down and listen to the record. If you manage to wear it out, get another
>> one.
>
>What an idiotic thing to do. Even before CD's people copied records to
>tape for convenience, to play in the car, and so they could keep the
>record from wearing out.

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

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

[Trevor]

On 16/06/2015 9:10 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 6:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> Ditto, if that's all *YOU* can add to the conversation!
>
> Says the man who has nothing to contribute other than to disagree with
> those who don't share your distaste for playing records. OK, we get it.

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

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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


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

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2015 12:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 15/06/2015 11:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> It's true that there -are- irreplaceable records out there, but
>>> not so many.
>>> Sit down and listen to the record. If you manage to wear it out, get another
>>> one.
>>
>> What an idiotic thing to do. Even before CD's people copied records to
>> tape for convenience, to play in the car, and so they could keep the
>> record from wearing out.
>
> Right, that's the problem. They were listening to the record over and over
> again, often in the car where listening conditions are poor at best. Don't
> listen like that. This is exactly the sort of "listening" that the whole LP
> format discourages. Sit down and listen to the record as if it is the last
> time you'll ever hear it.

Oh I see, it's fine for you to tell ME how I *MUST* listen (no thanks)
but not for me to query whether not using a preamp was really the best
way to digitise vinyl?

I hope you won't be too upset if I don't agree with that "logic"!
(or lack thereof)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2015 1:01 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 10:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> With automatic cataloging it's *FAR* easier to find ANY file on my
>> server than finding a vinyl record or even physical CD!!! Plus I can
>> easily search for tracks even if I don't know the album or even the
>> artist!
>
> This is truly amazing. How long does it take to set up a system like
> this? And how long does it take to enter all that data if you're working
> with recordings that don't have an on-line listing of all their relevant
> data?

Glad to see you DO realise there is NO effort involved with commercial
CD's using the internet these days, and recordings I make for others
must have all relevant details recorded as I go along anyway, so no
extra effort there either.
What's truly amazing is you'd even bother to argue this point!


> It's a cool concept that apparently fits your needs, but I'd find
> it more trouble than it's worth.

Your choice, I find it something that I dreamed of once upon a time,
something that did take MANY hours when I was entering all the details
by hand into my own database program 25 years ago, but something that is
effortless and *SO* nice to use these days that I simply wouldn't want
to be without it! I'm amazed you do.
You still haven't given me ANY downside AFAIC!


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

What do you need to know? There are lots of ripping programs that use
the online databases to pick up album/track details and even cover
photo's when you load in a CD into your computer, and lots of database
programs that can read, store and search that data with very little
effort. And it's So nice having umpteen thousand albums on one hard
drive (and a backup of course) ready to play anything in seconds, or
less! And if you copy vinyl you can still have all the noise, clicks,
pops, distortion, wow, flutter, rumble etc, that you want, while not
wearing out your records or stylus. And simply do a manual online
database search to copy the track information if you want. Or not if you
really can't be bothered.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2015 1:09 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 10:12 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> I simply disagreed with the concept of how he digitised them, and
>> pretended it was the best way without providing ANY measurement or
>> comparison, thus possibly misleading others IMO.
>
> Well, he HAS a Prism converter. Do you know what it is?

Yep, absolutely fine if used properly. Just as many other are, including
some less expensive ones.


> Based on the
> reputation of the company and the one unit from this company that I've
> tested, I think that there's no reason to believe that something that he
> doesn't have, or isn't as convenient for him to use, would do a better
> job for the job he had at hand.

We have no idea, since he hasn't bothered to measure or even compare.
Since I have reasonably good phono pre-amps, (as well as ADC-DAC's) I do
know MY system works better than when not using a pre-amp however!


> He's not archiving a whole collection at
> high resolution in hopes of never hearing those records in any worse
> condition than the are now, he just wanted to transcribe a song. We used
> to do that with a tape recorder, or even using the little lever on the
> turntable that raised the tone arm while we wrote out the last couple of
> lines that we just heard. And we survived, and were happy.

I don't remember going around telling everybody that was somehow novel,
or the best way to do it though. Perhaps you did.


>> YOU OTOH just want to throw **** around to make a mess it seems.
>
> And you continue to wade in it.

True, there does seem to be more and more ****, and less and less useful
information here these days unfortunately. And anyone questioning the
**** just gets more abuse. :-(

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 17/06/2015 12:08 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>>> On 15/06/2015 11:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's true that there -are- irreplaceable records out there, but
>>>> not so many.
>>>> Sit down and listen to the record. If you manage to wear it out, get another
>>>> one.
>>>
>>> What an idiotic thing to do. Even before CD's people copied records to
>>> tape for convenience, to play in the car, and so they could keep the
>>> record from wearing out.
>>
>> Right, that's the problem. They were listening to the record over and over
>> again, often in the car where listening conditions are poor at best. Don't
>> listen like that. This is exactly the sort of "listening" that the whole LP
>> format discourages. Sit down and listen to the record as if it is the last
>> time you'll ever hear it.
>
>Oh I see, it's fine for you to tell ME how I *MUST* listen (no thanks)
>but not for me to query whether not using a preamp was really the best
>way to digitise vinyl?

You can query all you want. But yes, it's fine for me to tell you how
to listen, and not only that I have printed in liner notes directions
on how to listen.

>I hope you won't be too upset if I don't agree with that "logic"!
>(or lack thereof)

Musicians and engineers spent a lot of time making that record, respect them
and give it the attention it deserves.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2015 12:55 PM, Trevor wrote:

> Glad to see you DO realise there is NO effort involved with commercial
> CD's using the internet these days, and recordings I make for others
> must have all relevant details recorded as I go along anyway, so no
> extra effort there either.
> What's truly amazing is you'd even bother to argue this point!

I wasn't arguing, I was asking if this was how it works. So can I infer
from your comment that:

(1) If you have commercial CDs, relevant details can be grabbed from the
Internet and automatically entered in the data base

(2) If you have recordings that you've made yourself, any details can
also be entered into the data base (how?) with no extra effort?

> I find it something that I dreamed of once upon a time,
> something that did take MANY hours when I was entering all the details
> by hand into my own database program 25 years ago, but something that is
> effortless and *SO* nice to use these days that I simply wouldn't want
> to be without it! I'm amazed you do.

I dream about it all the time, and never get around to doing it.
However, I can't say I've missed not having a data base. Sometimes I'll
just browse through the record stacks and pull one out on a whim, maybe
because I like the jacket or I recall a song from it.

> You still haven't given me ANY downside AFAIC!

I'm not trying to convince you to give up your process, I'm just trying
to find out if there's something about it that I would make my life
better. For me, one downside is that most of my music collection is
either on phonograph disk (which, as far as I know, you can't stick into
a computer and point it to a web site), or recordings that I've made
either in the studio, in the field, or at festivals. Those are typically
only documented by date, event, and maybe who's on the tape (or,
nowadays, digital file). Lots of data to be entered by hand there. I'd
need a grant to hire an intern, and a damn smart one at that who can
listen and understand what he's hearing, and spell all the names
correctly (something for which the Internet may be of some use).

> What do you need to know? There are lots of ripping programs that use
> the online databases to pick up album/track details and even cover
> photo's when you load in a CD into your computer, and lots of database
> programs that can read, store and search that data with very little
> effort.

What do I need to know? How do I use it if there are no CDs to rip? And,
by the way, didn't this discussion start over digitizing a song FROM AN LP?

> And if you copy vinyl you can still have all the noise, clicks,
> pops, distortion, wow, flutter, rumble etc, that you want

Silly boy! I never said I WANTED extraneous noises, I said that they
didn't keep me from enjoying the music. I really don't worry about
making it incrementally worse with each playing because I don't play
them that much.


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/16/2015 1:07 PM, Trevor wrote:

> We have no idea, since he hasn't bothered to measure or even compare.
> Since I have reasonably good phono pre-amps, (as well as ADC-DAC's) I do
> know MY system works better than when not using a pre-amp however!

I'm sure that it does work better than when not using a preamp. Have you
measured enough preamps to know where yours stands? The guts of the
Prism interface that Nate owns indeed include a genuine phono preamp as
one of its many available input choices. It's like having a good preamp
but not having to buy it separately and connect it to the interface
(which is no big deal, of course).

Certainly there are better preamps than the one Prism included, but
there are a whole lot worse ones. I would hazard a guess that it's
better than what you'd find in a $15 thrift store stereo receiver from
Pioneer, Yamaha, Sony, or any of the other common household brands. Not
that any of those wouldn't have been good enough for Nate's project.
Probably good enough for digitizing all of your LPs, too.



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

[John Williamson]

On 16/06/2015 18:34, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> Oh I see, it's fine for you to tell ME how I *MUST* listen (no thanks)
>> but not for me to query whether not using a preamp was really the best
>> way to digitise vinyl?
>
> You can query all you want. But yes, it's fine for me to tell you how
> to listen, and not only that I have printed in liner notes directions
> on how to listen.
>
>> I hope you won't be too upset if I don't agree with that "logic"!
>> (or lack thereof)
>
> Musicians and engineers spent a lot of time making that record, respect them
> and give it the attention it deserves.
>
I have 3 ways of listening to music. The first way is when I'm recording
it and mixing it. I'm listening hard for faults and bad mix decisions on
the best playback system I can get as well as other systems. When I'm
happy, I stop listening to the piece that way. Then someone else listens
that way, and we agree on what needs changing.

Secondly, when I'm listening to a piece for the first time, I listen
carefully to get an idea of the writers' and performers' idea of how
that music should sound. I also sometimes start thinking "I would have
recorded that a different way", but that's just me. I still usually
enjoy the performance and the music.

Thirdly, I listen to music in the background, either because I'm
stressed and want to relax, or because I want to be kept more alert for
a particular job such as driving or working through the night, or I just
fancy listening to a random album because that's the mood I'm in. That's
when listening to a (Possibly degraded) copy on a player or computer
comes in handy, as I can't play the original, whether vinyl, tape or CD
without being distracted from the task at hand when the music stops and
I need to change the disc or tape. It also saves me going to the library
and having to find the recording I want, so stopping what I'm doing and
losing the thread. My MP3 player works through headphones or an
amplified system, and has on it about a month's worth of continuous
music without repeating, some of which is only played every year or two,
but which is really appreciated when that's the only piece to match my mood.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:04:37 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 15/06/2015 9:13 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 6/15/2015 12:18 AM, Trevor wrote:
> >> Which is totally pointless to anyone else because you offered NO
> >> objective data, no comparisons, and we don't know and probably don't
> >> share *your* expectations.
> >
> > Quit being an asshole. I don't care about your successes either, if you
> > have any.
>
> Ditto, if that's all *YOU* can add to the conversation!

This is becoming a hostile newsgroup!! Before you know it, I'll be the nice troll and the others will be miserable SOBs, duking it out :)

Mike isn't very nice, especially by his reply to my drums question and then he went to tell a regular off - did you read the manual, donkey dick!?

Jack :)



>
> Trevor

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:25:24 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 16/06/2015 12:55 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> >> Quit being an asshole.
> >
> > Good luck with that. It's genetic with him.
>
> And what's your excuse?

Remember, you don't screw with Mike or Scott. They and Hank are responsible for this group!!! And if you're not carful, Hank might take his beard and give you a lynching! :)

Jack

>
> Trevor.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 7:10:46 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 6:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
> > Ditto, if that's all *YOU* can add to the conversation!
>
> Says the man who has nothing to contribute other than to disagree with
> those who don't share your distaste for playing records. OK, we get it.

Before my grandmother passed, she gave me an old phonograph. What was the stylus? I'll tell you, a steel needle!! Went to the Five & Dime and bought a pack of 50 for a nickel! How crude. Maybe the audiophile version had titanium plating!! :)

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/17/2015 12:34 AM, JackA wrote:
> Before my grandmother passed, she gave me an old phonograph. What was
> the stylus? I'll tell you, a steel needle!! Went to the Five & Dime
> and bought a pack of 50 for a nickel! How crude. Maybe the audiophile
> version had titanium plating!!

I have some bamboo needles for my springwound Victor phonograph. They
were easier on the records because they wore out faster than the record
surface.

The official instructions were to change the needle (either steel or
bamboo) after every playing.


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

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2015 3:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> But yes, it's fine for me to tell you how to listen

And equally fine for me to ignore your OPINION when I disagree. So feel
free to waste all the time and electrons you like.

>> I hope you won't be too upset if I don't agree with that "logic"!
>> (or lack thereof)
>
> Musicians and engineers spent a lot of time making that record, respect them
> and give it the attention it deserves.

I do, which is FAR easier without all the limitations and distractions
of vinyl of course!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2015 3:41 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 12:55 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> Glad to see you DO realise there is NO effort involved with commercial
>> CD's using the internet these days, and recordings I make for others
>> must have all relevant details recorded as I go along anyway, so no
>> extra effort there either.
>> What's truly amazing is you'd even bother to argue this point!
>
> I wasn't arguing, I was asking if this was how it works.

You were arguing previously that it was too much effort. Glad to see you
have changed your mind then.

>So can I infer from your comment that:
>
> (1) If you have commercial CDs, relevant details can be grabbed from the
> Internet and automatically entered in the data base

Yep.

> (2) If you have recordings that you've made yourself, any details can
> also be entered into the data base (how?) with no extra effort?

FAR less effort than playing vinyl anyway. And that doesn't seem to
bother you.


>> I find it something that I dreamed of once upon a time,
>> something that did take MANY hours when I was entering all the details
>> by hand into my own database program 25 years ago, but something that is
>> effortless and *SO* nice to use these days that I simply wouldn't want
>> to be without it! I'm amazed you do.
>
> I dream about it all the time, and never get around to doing it.
> However, I can't say I've missed not having a data base. Sometimes I'll
> just browse through the record stacks and pull one out on a whim, maybe
> because I like the jacket or I recall a song from it.

The two are not mutually exclusive you know!


>> You still haven't given me ANY downside AFAIC!
>
> I'm not trying to convince you to give up your process, I'm just trying
> to find out if there's something about it that I would make my life
> better. For me, one downside is that most of my music collection is
> either on phonograph disk (which, as far as I know, you can't stick into
> a computer and point it to a web site)

You simply type the album name into the web site, is that really TOO hard?


> or recordings that I've made
> either in the studio, in the field, or at festivals. Those are typically
> only documented by date, event, and maybe who's on the tape (or,
> nowadays, digital file). Lots of data to be entered by hand there. I'd
> need a grant to hire an intern, and a damn smart one at that who can
> listen and understand what he's hearing, and spell all the names
> correctly (something for which the Internet may be of some use).

Sure is, for live recordings I sometimes have to search for proper track
names if I don't know them already. Something I couldn't do a few
decades ago.

>
>> What do you need to know? There are lots of ripping programs that use
>> the online databases to pick up album/track details and even cover
>> photo's when you load in a CD into your computer, and lots of database
>> programs that can read, store and search that data with very little
>> effort.
>
> What do I need to know? How do I use it if there are no CDs to rip?

See my previous answers to this same question, doesn't seem like you
really want to know.

>And, by the way, didn't this discussion start over digitizing a song FROM AN LP?

Yes, and when they are digitised most people (other than you of course)
like to add the artist, track name etc. to the file, (I save both FLAC
and MP3) which can then be automatically saved to a database as I have
already said. If that is too much trouble for you, then that's your
problem. Certainly worth the effort AFAIC!

>
>> And if you copy vinyl you can still have all the noise, clicks,
>> pops, distortion, wow, flutter, rumble etc, that you want
>
> Silly boy! I never said I WANTED extraneous noises, I said that they
> didn't keep me from enjoying the music. I really don't worry about
> making it incrementally worse with each playing because I don't play
> them that much.

Exactly, I bet I get to listen to my digital music FAR more than you
ever play your vinyl. I know I hardly ever play vinyl these days, and
then ONLY once to copy it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2015 3:48 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 1:07 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> We have no idea, since he hasn't bothered to measure or even compare.
>> Since I have reasonably good phono pre-amps, (as well as ADC-DAC's) I do
>> know MY system works better than when not using a pre-amp however!
>
> I'm sure that it does work better than when not using a preamp. Have you
> measured enough preamps to know where yours stands? The guts of the
> Prism interface that Nate owns indeed include a genuine phono preamp as
> one of its many available input choices. It's like having a good preamp
> but not having to buy it separately and connect it to the interface
> (which is no big deal, of course).

The previous posts here indicated it had a totally wrong input
impedance, and no RIAA EQ before the ADC. So which is it, "a genuine
phono preamp", or as others have said a guitar input that can be made to
sort of work if you don't actually think about quality?


> Certainly there are better preamps than the one Prism included, but
> there are a whole lot worse ones. I would hazard a guess that it's
> better than what you'd find in a $15 thrift store stereo receiver from
> Pioneer, Yamaha, Sony, or any of the other common household brands. Not
> that any of those wouldn't have been good enough for Nate's project.
> Probably good enough for digitizing all of your LPs, too.

Certainly NOT good enough for me, but then I have always been more
critical than most when it comes to music quality. That's why I was very
pleased when vinyl was superceded by something far better. :-)


Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/17/2015 8:24 AM, Trevor wrote:

> You were arguing previously that it was too much effort. Glad to see you
> have changed your mind then.

I still think it's too much effort. What made you think I changed my
mind? Or about what?

>> (2) If you have recordings that you've made yourself, any details can
>> also be entered into the data base (how?) with no extra effort?
>
> FAR less effort than playing vinyl anyway. And that doesn't seem to
> bother you.

Here we disagree. Playing a record, for me, just involves getting it out
and putting it on the turntable. I realize that you put a lot more
effort into playing a record than I do, but you're the outlier here.

If I were to enter information about the record into a data base, I'd
have to go to a computer, open a program, look up the information on the
record jacket, and type it in. That's a lot more effort than either
playing the record or letting an on-line data base search for
information (that I may or may not care about) about a ripped commercial
CD.

The advantage to manually entering data into a data base (or editing an
automated entry) is that I can include the information that I want, and
information that will help me find a song or album. But that isn't
really a problem for me, so I'm not looking for a solution.

> You simply type the album name into the web site, is that really TOO hard?

And if it turns up nothing?

And if it turns up a 10 page Wiki article and 900 other search results,
I have a lot of reading to do, as well as a lot of copying and pasting,
or paraphrasing.

> Sure is, for live recordings I sometimes have to search for proper track
> names if I don't know them already. Something I couldn't do a few
> decades ago.

You're talking about a commercially issued LP of a live concert? I have
several that are on small labels, limited production, that are not
likely to be easily found on the Internet, yet all the information that
I need is printed on the jacket or on the included booklet.

> I bet I get to listen to my digital music FAR more than you
> ever play your vinyl.

I'll bet you do. And I'll bet I listen to the radio (or radio programs
on-line) more than you do, and, these days, more than I listen to my
records, tapes, or CDs. I really should get back to just kicking back
and listening to a record like I used to do before I had the Internet to
distract me.



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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>The official instructions were to change the needle (either steel or
>bamboo) after every playing.

The notion with this system is that the discs contained an abrasive which
ground the needle to the shape of the groove. Peter Copeland's manual for
archivists has a good description of the basic process. If you played a
vinylite pressing or those RCA Red Seal 78s, you needed a jeweled stylus.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 17/06/2015 11:45 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 8:24 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> You were arguing previously that it was too much effort. Glad to see you
>> have changed your mind then.
>
> I still think it's too much effort.

Fine, and as I said, I think playing vinyl these days is too much
effort. Each to their own.


> What made you think I changed my
> mind? Or about what?

Well your statements keep changing tune, but I don't really care any
more. Good luck with your choices.

>
>>> (2) If you have recordings that you've made yourself, any details can
>>> also be entered into the data base (how?) with no extra effort?
>>
>> FAR less effort than playing vinyl anyway. And that doesn't seem to
>> bother you.
>
> Here we disagree. Playing a record, for me, just involves getting it out
> and putting it on the turntable. I realize that you put a lot more
> effort into playing a record than I do, but you're the outlier here.
>
> If I were to enter information about the record into a data base, I'd
> have to go to a computer, open a program, look up the information on the
> record jacket, and type it in.
> That's a lot more effort than either
> playing the record or letting an on-line data base search for
> information (that I may or may not care about) about a ripped commercial
> CD.
>
> The advantage to manually entering data into a data base (or editing an
> automated entry) is that I can include the information that I want, and
> information that will help me find a song or album. But that isn't
> really a problem for me, so I'm not looking for a solution.

Exactly, it isn't a problem for me either, and I obviously do it a lot
more than you do.

>
>> You simply type the album name into the web site, is that really TOO
>> hard?
>
> And if it turns up nothing?
>
> And if it turns up a 10 page Wiki article and 900 other search results,
> I have a lot of reading to do, as well as a lot of copying and pasting,
> or paraphrasing.

You aren't searching the free music databases in that case. Google is
not your friend if you only want track information to put into the file
metadata.


>> Sure is, for live recordings I sometimes have to search for proper track
>> names if I don't know them already. Something I couldn't do a few
>> decades ago.
>
> You're talking about a commercially issued LP of a live concert?

No, I'm talking about my recordings. I don't always know all the song
names, so looking them up on the internet is handy.


> I have
> several that are on small labels, limited production, that are not
> likely to be easily found on the Internet, yet all the information that
> I need is printed on the jacket or on the included booklet.

Right, but you were complaining about having to type it in when making a
digital copy that's all.


>> I bet I get to listen to my digital music FAR more than you
>> ever play your vinyl.
>
> I'll bet you do. And I'll bet I listen to the radio (or radio programs
> on-line) more than you do,

Absolutely, since I never listen to radio or internet streams.
(actually I sometimes listen in the shower, but only listen to news and
traffic reports on the car radio. When I want music I play my own!)


> and, these days, more than I listen to my
> records, tapes, or CDs. I really should get back to just kicking back
> and listening to a record like I used to do before I had the Internet to
> distract me.

Or do like I do, listen to your own music on your own computer while
surfing the net!

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 17/06/2015 11:45 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 6/17/2015 8:24 AM, Trevor wrote:
>>
>>> You were arguing previously that it was too much effort. Glad to see you
>>> have changed your mind then.
>>
>> I still think it's too much effort.
>
>Fine, and as I said, I think playing vinyl these days is too much
>effort. Each to their own.

The effort is the whole _point_ of vinyl today, because it forces the
listener into a different mode of listening.
--scott


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2015 10:00 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The effort is the whole_point_ of vinyl today, because it forces the
> listener into a different mode of listening.

It seems that Jack's "different mode of listening" is to fool around
with the sound of a song that he's downloaded until he's pleased with
his own work.

Just another form of entertainment that involves music that works for him.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2015 5:06 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Fine, and as I said, I think playing vinyl these days is too much
> effort. Each to their own.

Stand back, fella. They're coming to get ya!

SALINA, KAN., June 16, 2015 — Just three months after buying 13 vintage
record presses to meet the surging demand for vinyl LPs, Acoustic
Sounds’ CEO Chad Kassem has purchased The Mastering Lab (TML) from the
estate of legendary mastering engineer Doug Sax.The sale pairs Quality
Record Pressings (QRP), a division of Acoustic Sounds and an
industry-recognized audiophile LP manufacturer, with the Grammy®
Award-winning sound engineering and LP lacquer cutting business started
four decades ago by Sax, who passed away in April. Sax worked throughout
his career with the music elite, including Pink Floyd, The Rolling
Stones, The Who, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, Barbra
Streisand, and dozens more.

Kassem said his strategy behind the purchase was to create the country’s
only vertically integrated vinyl LP production facility. From mastering
and record pressing to graphic design and printing to direct-to-consumer
sales, QRP now has all the capabilities needed to bring LPs to
market.“Expanding and rounding out our capabilities to meet the growing
demand for vinyl was the key to this acquisition,” said Kassem. “That,
coupled with the history of The Mastering Lab and Doug's reputation,
makes this purchase very gratifying.”Plans call for relocating and
incorporating TML business, now based in Ojai, Calif., to Acoustic
Sounds’ headquarters in Salina, Kan. “I'm very confident that Chad will
do everything he can to honor Doug's legacy by maintaining his high
standards for quality,” said Bill Schnee, a veteran producer/engineer
and multiple Grammy Award winner. “It’s also comforting to know there's
going to be a little bit of Doug in everything that QRP produces.

"Sax was a legend in the music industry — a mentor and friend to audio
engineers, producers and musicians. With partners Lincoln Mayorga and
older brother Sherwood Sax, he opened the doors to TML in Hollywood in
December 1967. Relocated north to Ojai in 2006, TML remains a
revolutionary, state-of-the-art company, utilizing unique concepts of
signal flow and electronics pioneered by Sherwood Sax.The Lab's custom,
all-tube electronics and console are all designed and handcrafted by
Sherwood. Additionally, TML was the first independent mastering facility
and set itself apart by prioritizing sound quality, instead of the
economic efficiencies favored by some of the major music
labels.Utilizing cutting lathes that have become legendary for vinyl LP
production, the studio turned out many classic rock albums, including
The Wall, Who’s Next, Nilsson Schmilsson, the Rolling Stones’ Sticky
Fingers and the Eagles’ debut album.

Sax also established a pioneering set of procedures for testing and
evaluating audio components by ear. The Mastering Lab earned more Grammy
nominations for engineering than any other mastering facility. Sax and
Robert Hadley were also the first mastering engineers to win a Grammy
Award for Best 5.1 Surround Album for Ray Charles – Genius Loves Company
in 2004.Sax worked on numerous records for Acoustic Sounds' reissue
label, Analogue Productions, including in 1992 the first title that
Kassem reissued, Virgil Thompson's The Plow That Broke The Plains. Other
notable titles for Analogue Productions that Sax mastered include The
Weavers Reunion at Carnegie Hall, Bill Evans Trio's Waltz For Debby, and
Sonny Rollins' Way Out West.

Sax famously once told an interviewer: “I don't want to be wedded to the
past, but I don't want to forget its virtues.”That philosophy matches
Kassem's own approach to bringing the two companies together.

“Maintaining Doug’s reputation for quality will be our company's
challenge and our reward,” Kassem said. “We'll keep Doug's legacy alive
by offering the highest-quality audio mastering done to standards
matching Doug's, using his equipment that he used to produce so many
fine, award-winning recordings.”

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>SALINA, KAN., June 16, 2015 — Just three months after buying 13 vintage
>record presses to meet the surging demand for vinyl LPs, Acoustic
>Sounds’ CEO Chad Kassem has purchased The Mastering Lab (TML) from the
>estate of legendary mastering engineer Doug Sax.The sale pairs Quality
>Record Pressings (QRP), a division of Acoustic Sounds and an
>industry-recognized audiophile LP manufacturer, with the Grammy®
>Award-winning sound engineering and LP lacquer cutting business started
>four decades ago by Sax, who passed away in April. Sax worked throughout
>his career with the music elite, including Pink Floyd, The Rolling
>Stones, The Who, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, Barbra
>Streisand, and dozens more.

Part of the problem is that while it's pretty easy to press records, it's
hard to do a good job, and the few plants that do a good job are backed up
insanely right now. The plants that tend to be sloppy have become even more
sloppy because there is so much work going into them.

I am seeing turnaround times approaching three months from United
right now, after sending them a lacquer. That's crazy! Demand has really
gone through the roof in the past year.

I can't imagine this is going to be sustained but I'm not complaining.

The problem is that this is being combined with some of the real experts
dying off. Losing Doug Sax was a great tragedy, but losing Al Grundy is
going to have an impact all across the whole industry because there is not
a cutting room in the country that doesn't have something Al built or rebuilt.

So, it's good that Tchad and others are trying to preserve what we've got,
at a time when demand is continuing to increase.
--scott

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

[Richard Kuschel]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 4:32:08 AM UTC-6, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 12:34 AM, JackA wrote:
> > Before my grandmother passed, she gave me an old phonograph. What was
> > the stylus? I'll tell you, a steel needle!! Went to the Five & Dime
> > and bought a pack of 50 for a nickel! How crude. Maybe the audiophile
> > version had titanium plating!!
>
> I have some bamboo needles for my springwound Victor phonograph. They
> were easier on the records because they wore out faster than the record
> surface.
>
> The official instructions were to change the needle (either steel or
> bamboo) after every playing.
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

And for those who desired to use a bamboo needle more than once, I have a stylus trimmer that recuts the stylus at the correct angle.

It is a specialized scissor.

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >SALINA, KAN., June 16, 2015 -- Just three months after buying 13 vintage
> >record presses to meet the surging demand for vinyl LPs, Acoustic
> >Sounds' CEO Chad Kassem has purchased The Mastering Lab (TML) from the
> >estate of legendary mastering engineer Doug Sax.The sale pairs Quality
> >Record Pressings (QRP), a division of Acoustic Sounds and an
> >industry-recognized audiophile LP manufacturer, with the Grammy(R)
> >Award-winning sound engineering and LP lacquer cutting business started
> >four decades ago by Sax, who passed away in April. Sax worked throughout
> >his career with the music elite, including Pink Floyd, The Rolling
> >Stones, The Who, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, Barbra
> >Streisand, and dozens more.
>
> Part of the problem is that while it's pretty easy to press records, it's
> hard to do a good job, and the few plants that do a good job are backed up
> insanely right now. The plants that tend to be sloppy have become even more
> sloppy because there is so much work going into them.
>
> I am seeing turnaround times approaching three months from United
> right now, after sending them a lacquer. That's crazy! Demand has really
> gone through the roof in the past year.
>
> I can't imagine this is going to be sustained but I'm not complaining.
>
> The problem is that this is being combined with some of the real experts
> dying off. Losing Doug Sax was a great tragedy, but losing Al Grundy is
> going to have an impact all across the whole industry because there is not
> a cutting room in the country that doesn't have something Al built or rebuilt.
>
> So, it's good that Tchad and others are trying to preserve what we've got,
> at a time when demand is continuing to increase.

OT: Doug Sax is pretty good at remastering. A bit heavy on the bass one of the individual CS&N artists, but a fine job on Pink Floyd, Dark Side... album.

And may I add, I believe this 15% figure with those who appreciate quality sound, and those who I wouldn't change a thing with their remastering [for example, whoever did Jackson Browne's catalog of songs - I detect remixing].

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2015 10:00 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > The effort is the whole_point_ of vinyl today, because it forces the
> > listener into a different mode of listening.
>
> It seems that Jack's "different mode of listening" is to fool around
> with the sound of a song that he's downloaded until he's pleased with
> his own work.
>
> Just another form of entertainment that involves music that works for him.

Truthfully, it passes the time. I'd much rather be doing something more constructive.
And I do agree with a participant here, rather than me fiddle and artificially enhance sound, remixing would achieve more pleasing results.

Same with advice of one person [YouTube] who mixes tracks - get your [stereo] mixes as close as possible, before they are processed. Very good advice.

Personally, I forget what this Subject is about, however, I did/do appreciate the sound of vinyl records, I just had a very tough time dealing with pops and ticks, that's all.

Jack

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:40:36 AM UTC-4, Richard Kuschel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 4:32:08 AM UTC-6, Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 6/17/2015 12:34 AM, JackA wrote:
> > > Before my grandmother passed, she gave me an old phonograph. What was
> > > the stylus? I'll tell you, a steel needle!! Went to the Five & Dime
> > > and bought a pack of 50 for a nickel! How crude. Maybe the audiophile
> > > version had titanium plating!!
> >
> > I have some bamboo needles for my springwound Victor phonograph. They
> > were easier on the records because they wore out faster than the record
> > surface.
> >
> > The official instructions were to change the needle (either steel or
> > bamboo) after every playing.
> >
> >
> > --
> > For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
>
> And for those who desired to use a bamboo needle more than once, I have a stylus trimmer that recuts the stylus at the correct angle.
>
> It is a specialized scissor.

Oh, I thought a converted pencil sharpener!! :)

This phono my grandmother gave me played [at least] 45s. Did that use the same steel needles as 78's?...

Was given a Edison record, 78 RPM, so heavy, like slate, 1/4" thick. Was a barbershop quartet recording. Attempted playing on my stereo phono, not a bit of singing (just noise). I think I rewired the cartridge, maybe swapping polarity, and was happy to hear singing!

Jack



Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2015 11:37 AM, JackA wrote:
>> And for those who desired to use a bamboo needle more than once, I
>> have a stylus trimmer that recuts the stylus at the correct angle.
>>>
>>> It is a specialized scissor.

> Oh, I thought a converted pencil sharpener!!:)

The bamboo needles are triangular in cross section, not round, and the
point is cut diagonally, like an engraving tool.

> This phono my grandmother gave me played [at least] 45s. Did that use
> the same steel needles as 78's?...

Two speeds! Wow! It probably played LPs as well. Columbia introduced
the 33 in 1948, and RCA, also working on a new format at the time,
hustled out the 45 in 1949 as a competitor. 45s and LPs uses a smaller
radius stylus than 78s. Generally, store-bought phonographs from the
1950s-on had a "turnover" cartridge with a level sticking out the front
that flipped the needle assembly so you had a 78 stylus with the lever
in one position and a "microgroove" stylus in the other position. The
better ones had a diamond point for the microgroove stylus and a
sapphire for the 78s.

> Was given a Edison record, 78 RPM, so heavy, like slate, 1/4" thick.
> Was a barbershop quartet recording. Attempted playing on my stereo
> phono, not a bit of singing (just noise). I think I rewired the
> cartridge, maybe swapping polarity, and was happy to hear singing!

Edison records were cut vertically ("hill-and-dale"). If you do the
vector math, you'll understand that left-minus-right of a stereo
cartridge responds to vertical motion.


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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 12:15:24 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2015 11:37 AM, JackA wrote:
> >> And for those who desired to use a bamboo needle more than once, I
> >> have a stylus trimmer that recuts the stylus at the correct angle.
> >>>
> >>> It is a specialized scissor.
>
> > Oh, I thought a converted pencil sharpener!!:)
>
> The bamboo needles are triangular in cross section, not round, and the
> point is cut diagonally, like an engraving tool.
>
> > This phono my grandmother gave me played [at least] 45s. Did that use
> > the same steel needles as 78's?...
>
> Two speeds! Wow! It probably played LPs as well. Columbia introduced
> the 33 in 1948, and RCA, also working on a new format at the time,
> hustled out the 45 in 1949 as a competitor. 45s and LPs uses a smaller
> radius stylus than 78s. Generally, store-bought phonographs from the
> 1950s-on had a "turnover" cartridge with a level sticking out the front
> that flipped the needle assembly so you had a 78 stylus with the lever
> in one position and a "microgroove" stylus in the other position. The
> better ones had a diamond point for the microgroove stylus and a
> sapphire for the 78s.

Yeah, flip over cartridge!! Good memory!!! Can't say it played 33-1/3, too, but sure 45s (because I had no 78s to test with)!!

>
> > Was given a Edison record, 78 RPM, so heavy, like slate, 1/4" thick.
> > Was a barbershop quartet recording. Attempted playing on my stereo
> > phono, not a bit of singing (just noise). I think I rewired the
> > cartridge, maybe swapping polarity, and was happy to hear singing!
>
> Edison records were cut vertically ("hill-and-dale"). If you do the
> vector math, you'll understand that left-minus-right of a stereo
> cartridge responds to vertical motion.

Ah, okay!!! You know what the material was? Was it slate? Heavy, man! :)

Thanks.

Jack

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2015 1:48 PM, JackA wrote:
>> Edison records were cut vertically ("hill-and-dale").
> Ah, okay!!! You know what the material was? Was it slate? Heavy, man!:)

A shellac compound was used from the 1890s until about 1940 when they
started using vinyl, so your heavy record was probably shellac.

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:47:24 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2015 1:48 PM, JackA wrote:
> >> Edison records were cut vertically ("hill-and-dale").
> > Ah, okay!!! You know what the material was? Was it slate? Heavy, man!:)
>
> A shellac compound was used from the 1890s until about 1940 when they
> started using vinyl, so your heavy record was probably shellac.
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Thanks, Mike. I was thinking more of the core or body. It's weight and feel reminded me so much of slate, it must have been the China clay they began using since it didn't absorb moisture.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 19/06/2015 12:00 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 17/06/2015 11:45 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2015 8:24 AM, Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>>> You were arguing previously that it was too much effort. Glad to see you
>>>> have changed your mind then.
>>>
>>> I still think it's too much effort.
>>
>> Fine, and as I said, I think playing vinyl these days is too much
>> effort. Each to their own.
>
> The effort is the whole _point_ of vinyl today, because it forces the
> listener into a different mode of listening.

Sure does, right back to where you have to *try* and ignore clicks,
plops, wow, flutter, rumble, distortion etc. in an attempt to enjoy the
actual music, while jumping up every 20 minutes to change sides and go
through the cleaning ritual. If that's what turns you on, good luck to
you. The vast majority of the population was more than happy to give
that up however so they could enjoy the music itself without the
problems and effort.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 19/06/2015 12:21 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2015 5:06 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Fine, and as I said, I think playing vinyl these days is too much
>> effort. Each to their own.
>
> Stand back, fella. They're coming to get ya!
>
> SALINA, KAN., June 16, 2015 — Just three months after buying 13 vintage
> record presses to meet the surging demand for vinyl LPs, Acoustic
> Sounds’ CEO Chad Kassem has purchased The Mastering Lab (TML) from the
> estate of legendary mastering engineer Doug Sax.The sale pairs Quality
> Record Pressings (QRP), a division of Acoustic Sounds and an
> industry-recognized audiophile LP manufacturer, with the Grammy®
> Award-winning sound engineering and LP lacquer cutting business started
> four decades ago by Sax, who passed away in April. Sax worked throughout
> his career with the music elite, including Pink Floyd, The Rolling
> Stones, The Who, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, Barbra
> Streisand, and dozens more.
>
> Kassem said his strategy behind the purchase was to create the country’s
> only vertically integrated vinyl LP production facility. From mastering
> and record pressing to graphic design and printing to direct-to-consumer
> sales, QRP now has all the capabilities needed to bring LPs to
> market.“Expanding and rounding out our capabilities to meet the growing
> demand for vinyl was the key to this acquisition,” said Kassem. “That,
> coupled with the history of The Mastering Lab and Doug's reputation,
> makes this purchase very gratifying.”Plans call for relocating and
> incorporating TML business, now based in Ojai, Calif., to Acoustic
> Sounds’ headquarters in Salina, Kan. “I'm very confident that Chad will
> do everything he can to honor Doug's legacy by maintaining his high
> standards for quality,” said Bill Schnee, a veteran producer/engineer
> and multiple Grammy Award winner. “It’s also comforting to know there's
> going to be a little bit of Doug in everything that QRP produces.
>
> "Sax was a legend in the music industry — a mentor and friend to audio
> engineers, producers and musicians. With partners Lincoln Mayorga and
> older brother Sherwood Sax, he opened the doors to TML in Hollywood in
> December 1967. Relocated north to Ojai in 2006, TML remains a
> revolutionary, state-of-the-art company, utilizing unique concepts of
> signal flow and electronics pioneered by Sherwood Sax.The Lab's custom,
> all-tube electronics and console are all designed and handcrafted by
> Sherwood. Additionally, TML was the first independent mastering facility
> and set itself apart by prioritizing sound quality, instead of the
> economic efficiencies favored by some of the major music
> labels.Utilizing cutting lathes that have become legendary for vinyl LP
> production, the studio turned out many classic rock albums, including
> The Wall, Who’s Next, Nilsson Schmilsson, the Rolling Stones’ Sticky
> Fingers and the Eagles’ debut album.
>
> Sax also established a pioneering set of procedures for testing and
> evaluating audio components by ear. The Mastering Lab earned more Grammy
> nominations for engineering than any other mastering facility. Sax and
> Robert Hadley were also the first mastering engineers to win a Grammy
> Award for Best 5.1 Surround Album for Ray Charles – Genius Loves Company
> in 2004.Sax worked on numerous records for Acoustic Sounds' reissue
> label, Analogue Productions, including in 1992 the first title that
> Kassem reissued, Virgil Thompson's The Plow That Broke The Plains. Other
> notable titles for Analogue Productions that Sax mastered include The
> Weavers Reunion at Carnegie Hall, Bill Evans Trio's Waltz For Debby, and
> Sonny Rollins' Way Out West.
>
> Sax famously once told an interviewer: “I don't want to be wedded to the
> past, but I don't want to forget its virtues.”That philosophy matches
> Kassem's own approach to bringing the two companies together.

> “Maintaining Doug’s reputation for quality will be our company's
> challenge and our reward,” Kassem said. “We'll keep Doug's legacy alive
> by offering the highest-quality audio mastering done to standards
> matching Doug's, using his equipment that he used to produce so many
> fine, award-winning recordings.”
>

Not surprisingly he doesn't list any "virtues" of vinyl, nor what a
miserably small percentage of music sales vinyl now makes up, even IF it
is growing from a totally negligible base for the last couple of decades.
Nothing wrong with satisfying niche markets of course, but so what?
More to the point, want to buy some pristine vinyl? I have a couple of
thousand you can buy for less than what they are charging now. I'm
certainly NOT buying any more! :-)

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2015 8:09 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Not surprisingly he doesn't list any "virtues" of vinyl, nor what a
> miserably small percentage of music sales vinyl now makes up, even IF it
> is growing from a totally negligible base for the last couple of decades.

I think it's a positive thing that they aren't saying how great vinyl
is. They're saying that there's a demand and a short supply, and they're
going to try to fill that gap.

If I remember correctly, this is a company that announced a few months
ago that they bought a warehouse full of presses that had been in
storage for over 20 years. So first they have to overhaul those before
they can get up to the production level they're planning.

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:03:46 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 6/20/2015 8:09 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Not surprisingly he doesn't list any "virtues" of vinyl, nor what a
>> miserably small percentage of music sales vinyl now makes up, even IF it
>> is growing from a totally negligible base for the last couple of decades.
>
>I think it's a positive thing that they aren't saying how great vinyl
>is. They're saying that there's a demand and a short supply, and they're
>going to try to fill that gap.
>
>If I remember correctly, this is a company that announced a few months
>ago that they bought a warehouse full of presses that had been in
>storage for over 20 years. So first they have to overhaul those before
>they can get up to the production level they're planning.

I hope they don't over-invest capital in those old presses. Pretty
soon people are going to discover all over again why we applauded the
switch to CDs.

d

[Trevor]

On 20/06/2015 11:03 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/20/2015 8:09 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Not surprisingly he doesn't list any "virtues" of vinyl, nor what a
>> miserably small percentage of music sales vinyl now makes up, even IF it
>> is growing from a totally negligible base for the last couple of decades.
>
> I think it's a positive thing that they aren't saying how great vinyl
> is. They're saying that there's a demand and a short supply, and they're
> going to try to fill that gap.
>
> If I remember correctly, this is a company that announced a few months
> ago that they bought a warehouse full of presses that had been in
> storage for over 20 years. So first they have to overhaul those before
> they can get up to the production level they're planning.

Yep, there is a good reason why those presses have been in storage and
that pressing capacity is TINY compared to what it was many years ago
when we had no better options. So glad we do now though!!!

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2015 9:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> I hope they don't over-invest capital in those old presses. Pretty
> soon people are going to discover all over again why we applauded the
> switch to CDs.

Not as long as it remains a niche market, and it probably will. Greater
production capacity isn't going to increase the number of sales, it's
just going decrease the time between mastering and sale.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 6/20/2015 9:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> I hope they don't over-invest capital in those old presses. Pretty
>> soon people are going to discover all over again why we applauded the
>> switch to CDs.
>
>Not as long as it remains a niche market, and it probably will. Greater
>production capacity isn't going to increase the number of sales, it's
>just going decrease the time between mastering and sale.

Also _hopefully_ the added competition will drive pressing plants to
higher quality, because once there is a choice customers are less likely
to put up with bad quality pressings.

That's the real problem with the LP... the manufacturing process is very
finicky and there are a lot of things that can go wrong that result in
audible problems. The difference between a totally silent pressing and
an annoyingly noisy pressing might be a matter of 2% added regrind and
a couple second change in cycle time.

Of course, everyone is running presses with as short timing as they can
get away with in order to meet the demand, which means a lot of bubbles
and microblisters especially early in the run. So you get customers doing
longer runs and discarding a higher percentage on spot checks and then
you get longer backlogs...
--scott

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

[Edi Zubovic]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 22:00:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 19/06/2015 12:00 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>>> On 17/06/2015 11:45 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2015 8:24 AM, Trevor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You were arguing previously that it was too much effort. Glad to see you
>>>>> have changed your mind then.
>>>>
>>>> I still think it's too much effort.
>>>
>>> Fine, and as I said, I think playing vinyl these days is too much
>>> effort. Each to their own.
>>
>> The effort is the whole _point_ of vinyl today, because it forces the
>> listener into a different mode of listening.
>
>Sure does, right back to where you have to *try* and ignore clicks,
>plops, wow, flutter, rumble, distortion etc. in an attempt to enjoy the
>actual music, while jumping up every 20 minutes to change sides and go
>through the cleaning ritual. If that's what turns you on, good luck to
>you. The vast majority of the population was more than happy to give
>that up however so they could enjoy the music itself without the
>problems and effort.
>
>Trevor.
>
--All right, stop. Here's something from the both of the worlds. It's
an old favorite of mine, direct-to-disc, 45 RPM. All information
inside of file as metadata, rename apppropriately. Just digitized, I
left the clicks because they don't bother me and you can't do
declicking on a finely recorded piano that easy.

http://uloz.to/xkUg5SXT/rapro-mp3

The file has some 60 MB, all pictures and discographical is inside.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>Edison records were cut vertically ("hill-and-dale"). If you do the
>vector math, you'll understand that left-minus-right of a stereo
>cartridge responds to vertical motion.

Edison Diamond Discs are very different than conventional 78s and need to
be played with a fairly large jeweled needle. They can't be played with
steel needles because there is no abrasive in the mix the way normal
Victor-system records were. But, they'll usually play okay with a modern
3.0 mil "78" stylus. The hill and dale cut means mistracking issues are
a little different than you're used to...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

To go way back in this discussion...one reason to digitize LPs is to avoid the pain-in-the-ass aspects of record cleaning. Also record centering -- a lot of LPs were made with the stampers a little off-center, and the wow is extremely audible. You can get it centered right, digitize it, and not have to deal with centering again.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

Now theres an idea for a dsp function
Automagic wow removal.

If you can tell the sw the rpm and hence the rep rate of the wow
it should be pretty easy to recognize and remove it.

Somebody probably already did it.

Mark

[geoff]

On 5/07/2015 6:21 a.m., PStamler wrote:
> To go way back in this discussion...one reason to digitize LPs is to
> avoid the pain-in-the-ass aspects of record cleaning. Also record
> centering -- a lot of LPs were made with the stampers a little
> off-center, and the wow is extremely audible. You can get it centered
> right, digitize it, and not have to deal with centering again.
>
> Peace, Paul
>

And the CD will faithfully reproduce all the nuances imparted on the
music during the transcription.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Now theres an idea for a dsp function
>Automagic wow removal.
>
>If you can tell the sw the rpm and hence the rep rate of the wow
>it should be pretty easy to recognize and remove it.
>
>Somebody probably already did it.

We tried something like that in the early nineties.... it was problematic
because it relied on the turntable speed being absolutely precise. First
problem was finding a point in the record where the pitch was at the highest
or lowest and putting that number into the program, the second problem was
judging how much the pitch actually shifted from apogee to perigee and
putting that number in. Then, if the transcription had been done at perfect
speed, the program would go through and normalize everything. It kind of
worked but took a lot of trial and error.

In the end it was just a lot easier to center the record by eye and get a
proper dub in the first place.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."