[Distorted Vision]

I'm looking for an Audiophile soundcard for recording vinyl from my
turntable. I set it up last night using the on-board Realtek AC97
audio. I was looking at either the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 or M-Audio
Audiophile 192.

Also can you please advise what the best non-lossy file format is for
archiving purposes and software to use. I used Audacity and saved as
uncompressed WAV 48kHz sampling rate. Will sampling at 192kHz justify
the extra cost of the Audiophile 192 soundcard?

Also is Audacity the best softare to use? From my understanding there
is a special version of Pro Tools called M-Powered specificially for M-
Audio devices. Is this worth using?

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:42:57 -0800 (PST), Distorted Vision
wrote:

I'm looking for an Audiophile soundcard for recording vinyl from my
turntable. I set it up last night using the on-board Realtek AC97
audio. I was looking at either the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 or M-Audio
Audiophile 192.

Also can you please advise what the best non-lossy file format is for
archiving purposes and software to use. I used Audacity and saved as
uncompressed WAV 48kHz sampling rate. Will sampling at 192kHz justify
the extra cost of the Audiophile 192 soundcard?

Also is Audacity the best softare to use? From my understanding there
is a special version of Pro Tools called M-Powered specificially for M-
Audio devices. Is this worth using?

Without commenting at all on your specific computer hardware (all
very much nicer than I have experience of), perhaps you'll allow me
a few more general comments about the whole transfer process?

First, second, and third: the only really important things happen
in the intersection of the stylus and the vinyl. Nothing that
occurs here can really be undone, fixed, equalized, etc. So making
the original transfer right is 99 percent of the gig. Everything
else is really just... something else.

Fourth, a high sampling rate is, perhaps surprisingly, potentially
very useful for translating antique media. High slew rates, and high
supersonic content in general, are useful as indicators of non-audio
impulse noises, artifacts of the media. Very useful information, and
very important to keep, for later computer processing.


WRT vinyl transfer: do you have a record washing machine? If you
haven't heard your vinyl records properly washed, you haven't heard
'em. Nobody ever believes this, but it's true.

Properly cleaning the surface is about a gazillion times as important
as the choice of sampling rate, to give the project a mathematical
foundation.


All the best fortune,
Chris Hornbeck

[Distorted Vision]

Hi Chris,

Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki Nokki which I use
with L'Art du Son record cleaning fluid.
My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV tonearm and Ortofon
Kontrapunkt B.

I'm interested in what people have to say about the M-Powered version
of Pro Tools for the application that I want.

[Arny Krueger]

"Distorted Vision" wrote in message


I'm looking for an Audiophile soundcard for recording
vinyl from my turntable. I set it up last night using the
on-board Realtek AC97 audio.

How were the results?

I was looking at either the
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 or M-Audio Audiophile 192.

I have one of each - an AP 2496, and an AP 24192.

I have several Realtek AC97 and HD Audio devices in various machines that I
use.

Technically speaking, the Realtek interfaces are good enough for digitizing
inherently limited mediums like cassette and vinyl - the Realtek interfaces
have far better frequency response and dynamic range than the media you wish
to transcribe, given reasonable care for level-setting.

My preferred method for level-setting is to adjust gains for 6-10 dB
headroom using the loudest bands that will track, from the HFN test record.

Also can you please advise what the best non-lossy file
format is for archiving purposes and software to use.

In some sense the non-lossy file formats perform about the same. Depending
on the music they achieve about 2:1 compression more or less, and they are
all bit-perfect. Pick the one that you have the best software support for.

IOW, you're going to mostly play the LPs you transcribe, so pick a non-lossy
format that is easiest to use to play your recordings in your view.

I used Audacity and saved as uncompressed WAV 48kHz
sampling rate. Will sampling at 192kHz justify the extra
cost of the Audiophile 192 soundcard?

No.

Also is Audacity the best software to use?

No. You can spend more and get more, in the way of convenience and noise
reduction.

From my understanding there is a special version of Pro Tools
called M-Powered specifically for M- Audio devices. Is
this worth using?

No. Pro tools is very capable multitrack recording software for producing
modern musical recordings. All you are doing is 2-track stereo.

[William Sommerwerck]

Chris is broadly correct (though in common usage, it's ultrasonic, not
supersonic).

You need a good TT, pickup, and preamp. This needn't cost an arm and a leg,
but we're talking a system running $500 or more.

I have a not-inexpensive system, and its _lack_ of surface noise -- which is
due to the pickup's wide bandwidth, and the overall "deadness" of the 'table
and arm -- is remarkable. Sampling at a high rate preserves more of the
ultrasonic energy that helps distinguish surface noise from music.

You also need a good record-cleaning machine. This will run you another $250
or so.

[Mike Rivers]

Distorted Vision wrote:
I'm looking for an Audiophile soundcard for recording vinyl from my
turntable. I set it up last night using the on-board Realtek AC97
audio. I was looking at either the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 or M-Audio
Audiophile 192.

Either one will do nicely. The main difference between the "real" cards
and your built-in sound card is that they have more robust connectors
and will accept a wider and more predictable range of signal level. This
will make it easier for you to put together a reliable system and adjust
it for optimum recording.

Also can you please advise what the best non-lossy file format is for
archiving purposes and software to use. I used Audacity and saved as
uncompressed WAV 48kHz sampling rate.

Audacity is fine, though for convenience and so you won't wonder what's
going on with the math, I'd suggest recording at 44.1 kHz. I assume
you've figured out that you need to EXPORT as a WAV file, not just save
what Audacity produces (which is a zillion AIFF files each being a
couple of seconds long). Since you might want to make an occasional CD,
you'll already have the file at the correct sample rate. If you REALLY
want an ARCHIVE rather than a collection, there's some justification for
using a higher sample rate, say 96 kHz. Some noise cleanup (de-clicking)
software works better if it has a more accurate transient to work with.
You may not be interested in doing this yourself, at least not to the
extent that a skilled remastering engineer would, but some day someone
might. Honestly, though, I'd save the space and record at 44.1 kHz
16-bit with a decent sound card.

Will sampling at 192kHz justify
the extra cost of the Audiophile 192 soundcard?

No. No reason at all to record at 192 kHz.

Also is Audacity the best softare to use? From my understanding there
is a special version of Pro Tools called M-Powered specificially for M-
Audio devices. Is this worth using?

This isn't the sort of job that Pro Tools will be beneficial for, other
than that there are some "restoration" plug-ins available for it.
Audacity is just fine. One program that might find its way to the "best"
category is Spin It Again from Acoustica Softwa

http://www.acoustica.com/spinitagain/

It's designed specifically for this task so it integrates many of the
operations and may make your workflow smoother. It includes some
clean-up functions, and burns CDs. It's a tedious job, so anything you
can do to make it more automatic is helpful. You can download a trial
version for free. Check it out.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Chris is broadly correct (though in common usage, it's
ultrasonic, not supersonic).

You need a good TT, pickup, and preamp. This needn't cost
an arm and a leg, but we're talking a system running $500
or more.

Agreed.

I have a not-inexpensive system, and its _lack_ of
surface noise -- which is due to the pickup's wide
bandwidth, and the overall "deadness" of the 'table and
arm -- is remarkable.

I've been trying to get people to post tracks from test records that they've
transcribed digital, to see if there is actually any technical evidence that
expensive tables have the corner on either wide bandwidth or freedom from
resonances.

Data is sparse, apparently because most people who buy expensive tables
don't believe in owning test records or digitizing them. I've got a couple
of data points that have a ways to go to come close to the smooth response,
well-controlled resonances, and low distortion of my Rega/Grado system.

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/

Sampling at a high rate preserves
more of the ultrasonic energy that helps distinguish
surface noise from music.

Seems like a likely story. Of course many people seem to think that digital
denoising is about as desirable as owning a test record and digitizing it.
OTOH, there are people out there that do amazing things with noisy LPs.

You also need a good record-cleaning machine. This will
run you another $250 or so.

I've never seen any evidence that they do a better job than what you can do
with a kitchen sink and some inexpensive tools. A whole lot less mess,
though.

[Scott Dorsey]

Distorted Vision wrote:
I'm looking for an Audiophile soundcard for recording vinyl from my
turntable. I set it up last night using the on-board Realtek AC97
audio. I was looking at either the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 or M-Audio
Audiophile 192.

That's fine.

Also can you please advise what the best non-lossy file format is for
archiving purposes and software to use. I used Audacity and saved as
uncompressed WAV 48kHz sampling rate. Will sampling at 192kHz justify
the extra cost of the Audiophile 192 soundcard?

No, you will be hard-pressed to find anything on a disc above 20 KHz,
with a few careful excpetions. There's nothing wrong with 48 ksamp/sec
or 44.1 for the kind of thing you are doing. I rather prefer 44.1 since
it can easily be transferred to CD without resampling.

Also is Audacity the best softare to use? From my understanding there
is a special version of Pro Tools called M-Powered specificially for M-
Audio devices. Is this worth using?

If all you are doing is loading audio in and storing it, there is no reason
to use anything particularly sophisticated. Audacity seems to be bit-accurate
and while the user interface isn't wonderful, it will work just as well for
the job as anything else.

Spend all your money on a good arm, a good cartridge, and record cleaning
systems. Improving your arm will almost always buy you more per dollar
than improving your converters these days. If you already have a conventional
vacuum cleaning machine, you may consider an ultrasonic dunk tank as well,
especially if you do 45s.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Distorted Vision wrote:

Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki Nokki which I use
with L'Art du Son record cleaning fluid.
My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV tonearm and Ortofon
Kontrapunkt B.

How is the Kontrapunkt B? I tried the Kontrapunkt A and didn't think it
was worth the extra money over the old MC5, but I never got a chance to
hear the more expensive version.

I'm interested in what people have to say about the M-Powered version
of Pro Tools for the application that I want.

I think it's a whole lot of crap that you'll never use, and it doesn't
buy you anything over the cheaper alternatives. But then, I had horrible
experiences with earlier versions of Pro Tools and tend be biased against
it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Charlie Olsen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:48:49 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

You also need a good record-cleaning machine. This will
run you another $250 or so.

I've never seen any evidence that they do a better job than what you can do
with a kitchen sink and some inexpensive tools. A whole lot less mess,
though.

Care to share your methods Arny?

I will say that the record cleaning machines take clean records and make them
super-clean. The improvement is not a subtle one.

The kitchen sink process is still important to take dirty records and make
them clean, so you can put them into the record cleaner. I would not take
thrift store records and put them into the record cleaner without a serious
cleaning with alconox and a brush in the sink.

The advantage of the cleaning machine is that you can use fairly aggressive
cleaning fluid and not have any residue left behind, because the fluid is
removed from the record after cleaning. Just about every other process
leaves some residue, except possibly the PVA stripping method (which is a
pain in the neck and takes overnight but sometimes cleans gunk out that
nothing else will).
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Charlie Olsen wrote:

I've had some success using a combination of water and Dawn dishwashing
liquid.
Dawn is the soap of choice for car enthusiasts when they want to remove the
wax from their cars so they can start fresh.

I'm sure it's taking it's toll on the various stabilizers etc that are
impregnated in the vinyl but to be honest I have not had any problems.

It shouldn't hurt anything. But it will leave behind mineral residue from
the water, and Dawn residue.

The laboratory cleaners like Alconox, De-Contam, and Fisher Sparkleen will
leave less soap residue behind, but they still aren't magic.

The results range from decent to good, but nothing better than that.
I once tried using a Shop Vac with some very soft foam around the crevice
tool, to suck up the water.
It didn't work too good

I have often wondered how radio stations keep or kept their collections
pristine sounding.

A lot of them didn't... they just expected to replace records sometimes.

The radio stations that did have two attributes: they had DJs that actually
were careful and took good care of records, and they had cleaning machines.
Some of them also had a record librarian who helped beat up DJs who weren't
careful. Sadly, stations like this was in the minority.

We have an oldie's station here (NYC CBS 101.1) that does a spot called
"Turntable Tuesday" where they play vinyl selections and I am amazed at not
only the lack of pops and clicks, but the lack of distortion.
I can see them filtering the pops and clicks, but how come these records,
even after 40 years or more still sound very, very good and certainly much
better than anything in my collection from the 70's.

I would think after the thousands of plays, these records would be worn out
by now.

The answers were that they probably didn't get thousands of plays. But some
of it may have to do with good modern transcription on a good turntable with
a fineline stylus and a cleaning machine.

Records that got thousands of plays got replaced regularly, and the record
companies were delighted to do it, too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Geoff]

Distorted Vision wrote:
I'm looking for an Audiophile soundcard for recording vinyl from my
turntable.



I set it up last night using the on-board Realtek AC97
audio. I was looking at either the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 or M-Audio
Audiophile 192.

Also can you please advise what the best non-lossy file format is for
archiving purposes and software to use. I used Audacity and saved as
uncompressed WAV 48kHz sampling rate. Will sampling at 192kHz justify
the extra cost of the Audiophile 192 soundcard?

Also is Audacity the best softare to use? From my understanding there
is a special version of Pro Tools called M-Powered specificially for
M- Audio devices. Is this worth using?

"Distorted Vision' ? You shopuld change yer handle to 'Distorted Sound" !

Record in a real editing/DAW application, and save to a WAV file at the max
spec your soundcard offers, and then resave to 44k1/16/s for a CD version.
If Audacity can do that , fine, otherwise use something like Sound Forge or
WaveLab.

This lower spec version will still be orders of magnitude lower distortion
and higher bandwidth that your LPs can dream about.


geoff

[Geoff]

Distorted Vision wrote:
Hi Chris,

Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki Nokki which I use
with L'Art du Son record cleaning fluid.
My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV tonearm and Ortofon
Kontrapunkt B.

I'm interested in what people have to say about the M-Powered version
of Pro Tools for the application that I want.



M-Audio hardware is fine. But if you really want specs, try a Lynx
soundcard.

If you have a multitrack purpose, then get a DAW. Otherwise an audio editor
is all you need.You do not need a multitrack DAW to receord a single stereo
event.

ProTools is a pig. REAPER is a much better bet, as are Vegas, Acid,
Samplitude, Audition, etc, etc etc.. IMO.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

Charlie Olsen wrote:

I have often wondered how radio stations keep or kept their collections
pristine sounding.

I think the Pacifica station here takes pride in the surface noise and
pops on their jazz records.

We have an oldie's station here (NYC CBS 101.1) that does a spot called
"Turntable Tuesday" where they play vinyl selections and I am amazed at not
only the lack of pops and clicks, but the lack of distortion.

Maybe they're cleaned-up versions that the producer put on CD. Most
stations don't even have turntables any more.

I can see them filtering the pops and clicks, but how come these records,
even after 40 years or more still sound very, very good and certainly much
better than anything in my collection from the 70's.

They probably weren't played as much as a 70s teen ager played his or
her records, and on better maintained equipment. And it's usual for a
station that plays pop music to have several copies of the hits because
the DO wear them out.

They used to change records in juke boxes weekly. And radio stations
have been playing "records" on alternate media for many, many years. The
local teen age pop music station when I was in high school had a rack of
tape cartridges with the hits on them. There was one turntable in the
studio and the rest of them were in the production room. They'd get in a
new record, and when the music director put it into rotation, it got put
on a cartridge.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
The
local teen age pop music station when I was in high school had a rack of
tape cartridges with the hits on them. There was one turntable in the
studio and the rest of them were in the production room. They'd get in a
new record, and when the music director put it into rotation, it got put
on a cartridge.

Some of that is the result of not trusting DJs to play what they are
supposed to play...
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Charlie Olsen wrote:
You know though, there *is* something to be said about the nostalgia effect
which occurs with say hearing American Patrol (Glenn Miller, circa 1940 or
so) in all of it's limited audio spectrum compared to hearing it on a CD
like say "In the Digital Mood" which are the exact same charts played on
modern equipment.

A lot of that has to do with the fact that many newer big band recordings,
and I cite "In the Digital Mood" as a bad example, have been multimiked to
hell and beyond in such a way that completely loses the feel of the band.

Carts were the way for most stations.

That way you get the record noise AND massive azimuth issues...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

I have a not-inexpensive system, and its _lack_ of
surface noise -- which is due to the pickup's wide
bandwidth, and the overall "deadness" of the 'table and
arm -- is remarkable.

I've been trying to get people to post tracks from test records that
they've
transcribed digital, to see if there is actually any technical evidence
that
expensive tables have the corner on either wide bandwidth or freedom from
resonances.

How expensive is "expensive"? I would expect a good $300 arm + 'table (no
pickup) to be audibly superior in this regard to, say, a good Dual changer.


Data is sparse, apparently because most people who buy expensive
tables don't believe in owning test records or digitizing them.

I have test records. And I wouldn't mind dubbing some to 48kHz DAT.


I've got a couple of data points that have a ways to go to come close to
the smooth response, well-controlled resonances, and low distortion
of my Rega/Grado system.

I have a Well-Tempered system, and though I wouldn't be surprised if it were
audibly superior to your Rega, I wouldn't expect it to be hugely different.


You also need a good record-cleaning machine. This will
run you another $250 or so.

I've never seen any evidence that they do a better job than what
you can do with a kitchen sink and some inexpensive tools.
A whole lot less mess, though.

You might be right. The trick isn't cleaing the recording, but in thoroughly
removing everything the cleaning loosened. JGH used to recommend a garden
hose (no kidding).

[James[_7_]]

On Nov 13, 8:48*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I've never seen any evidence that they do a better job than what you can do
with a kitchen sink and some inexpensive tools. A whole lot less mess,
though.


Kitchen sink - implying tap water? - may be useful for initially
removing gross dirt, but you don't want tap water as your final wash
since it's full of minerals - i.e. little pieces of rock. The cleaning
process eventually needs to involve proper surfactant, distilled water
and vacuum irrigation.

I use Disc Doctor fluid and brushes and a homemade vacuum irrigation
rig.

[Powell]

"Distorted Vision" wrote in message
...
Hi Chris,

Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki
Nokki which I use with L'Art du Son record cleaning fluid.
My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV
tonearm and Ortofon Kontrapunkt B.


Nice setup, BTW.

I have the M-Audio 24/96 (an old design)

and 192. For your limited use the 24/96

single end input would work fine. Overall,

the entire process to record, edit and

produce a CD is a very time consuming

effort. Converting an entire LP collection

to CD is a huge black hole, unless your

time is as valueless as Arny Kueger's.

For convince I find using a notebook

computer plugged into a line level

output or tape output of your preamp/receiver

using a RCA to USB adapter works fine

and has other uses.

For example, check out: Behringer UCA202 $30.00

http://www.behringer.com/UCA202/index.cfm?lang=ENG

[Mark]

the previous discussion about the declicker programs working better
when they can "hear" the ultrasonic components of the clicks was
interesting...

I would guess there is not much desired audio above 20 kHz on a record
and that the frequency range of the impulsive clicks can extend up to
whatever the limit of the playback system is.. so if you see energy
above 20 kHz, it must be a click..

can someone verify that this is actually true and that the declickers
actually "listen" for this ultrasonic energy and that it actually
makes a diffference?

thanks
Mark

[Mike Rivers]

Mark wrote:

I would guess there is not much desired audio above 20 kHz on a record
and that the frequency range of the impulsive clicks can extend up to
whatever the limit of the playback system is.. so if you see energy
above 20 kHz, it must be a click..

It's possible to cut higher than 20 KHz on a record, but there really
isn't any significant energy put there. To assume, though, that
everything above 20 kHz is a click is probably going a little too far,
as is the converse assumption, that nothing below 20 kHz is a click.

can someone verify that this is actually true and that the declickers
actually "listen" for this ultrasonic energy and that it actually
makes a diffference?

De-clickers can act on whatever they find. Only the de-clicker knows for
sure. But it's not a matter that they "listen" above 20 kHz, but that
they get a better clue as to the actual waveform of the click and can
better decide how ot handle it. A de-clicker isn't a simple filter, it
actually reconstructs the waveform.

To be honest, unless you're undertaking a full-out restoration project
on a particular record, I'd not bother with recording at 2x sample rate.
The Library of Congress standardized on 96 kHz, but the thing is that
some day, someone may want to do a top notch restoration job, and there
will be more data for whatever program (or hardware) that's around at
that time to work with. You, on the other hand, will probably just
listen to your recordings four or five more times in your life, and the
disks will go into the dumpster when you die and your executors clear
out your house.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:
the previous discussion about the declicker programs working better
when they can "hear" the ultrasonic components of the clicks was
interesting...

I would guess there is not much desired audio above 20 kHz on a record
and that the frequency range of the impulsive clicks can extend up to
whatever the limit of the playback system is.. so if you see energy
above 20 kHz, it must be a click..

can someone verify that this is actually true and that the declickers
actually "listen" for this ultrasonic energy and that it actually
makes a diffference?

I cannot speak for CEDAR, but I can say some of the proprietary systems
have been designed to do so.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Mark wrote:

I would guess there is not much desired audio above 20 kHz on a record
and that the frequency range of the impulsive clicks can extend up to
whatever the limit of the playback system is.. so if you see energy
above 20 kHz, it must be a click..

It's possible to cut higher than 20 KHz on a record, but there really
isn't any significant energy put there. To assume, though, that
everything above 20 kHz is a click is probably going a little too far,
as is the converse assumption, that nothing below 20 kHz is a click.

I have seen half-speed mastering systems for CD-4 which were pretty flat
up to around 45 KHz and then dropped like a rock. The chance that anyone
today will ever have to deal with a record cut in this fashion is very slim,
however.

I'll say my lathe is about typical of what you'd find in the mid-sixties
and is down almost 6 dB at 18 KHz with the feedback turned on. You lose
a little more top end in the pressing process. I can actually bring the
top end up a bit by edging down on the stylus temperature but then the noise
starts going up.
--scott


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

[Arny Krueger]

"James" wrote in message

On Nov 13, 8:48 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've never seen any evidence that they do a better job
than what you can do with a kitchen sink and some
inexpensive tools. A whole lot less mess, though.

Kitchen sink - implying tap water?
- may be useful for
initially removing gross dirt, but you don't want tap
water as your final wash since it's full of minerals -
i.e. little pieces of rock. The cleaning process
eventually needs to involve proper surfactant, distilled
water and vacuum irrigation.

Seems like we have a failure to communicate. I said "evidence", and the
response was a "procedure".

Like so many things about vinyl, there seems to be a total lack of
experimental evidence to back up a ton of popular suppositions.

[James[_7_]]

On Nov 14, 4:23*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Seems like we have a failure to communicate. I said "evidence", and the
response was a "procedure".

Like so many things about vinyl, there seems to be a total lack of
experimental evidence to back up a ton of popular suppositions.


I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water isn't the best
thing to wash records with. If so, look around to find out what's in
tap water, or even just hold up a clean glass full of it sometime. If
it dries on the record surface, what's in it will be on the record
surface, along with residue left by cleaning products that aren't made
for the purpose.

[TimR]

I have a few LPs to transfer to CD as well, so thanks for some
valuable information.

However. Suppose the OP or myself succeeds in transferring the music
from the LP to a .wav file with as little loss as possible.

Now we need to A) burn it to a CD and B) have it last. I've had some
trouble with this process recently and am not sure what I've done
wrong. I've produced CDs that play fine once and fail on the next try
or on a different machine. I've been told that one year life on a CD-
R is all I can expect.

[Scott Dorsey]

TimR wrote:
I have a few LPs to transfer to CD as well, so thanks for some
valuable information.

However. Suppose the OP or myself succeeds in transferring the music
from the LP to a .wav file with as little loss as possible.

That's the hard part.

Now we need to A) burn it to a CD and B) have it last. I've had some
trouble with this process recently and am not sure what I've done
wrong. I've produced CDs that play fine once and fail on the next try
or on a different machine. I've been told that one year life on a CD-
R is all I can expect.

You should expect at least a 10-year lifespan if you use the slow speed
blanks. In general, the lower the speed rating, the harder it is for
the dye to fade.

The thing about CDs is that they normally have very high error rates and
they rely on error correction and concealment in the player to work
properly. CD-Rs have even higher error rates. If you cannot measure your
error rate, you never know how good your disc is... you only know that it
plays on a certain set of players.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

The issue is not just the bandwidth of the pickup. Generally, a "good" arm
and 'table will smear the transient less, which makes it easier to
distinguish transient noise from musical transients.

[William Sommerwerck]

The thing about CDs is that they normally have very high error
rates and they rely on error correction and concealment in the
player to work properly.

This is getting off-topci, but I just had my third defective CD (out of
several thousand). Towards the end of the disk there was a "swishing"
effect, as if the data were corrupt and the missing stuff filled in. When I
looked at the disk under a light, I could see a "streaky" area, as if the
aluminum had not been properly applied.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:40:07 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

The issue is not just the bandwidth of the pickup. Generally, a "good" arm
and 'table will smear the transient less, which makes it easier to
distinguish transient noise from musical transients.

It's unfortunate that the primary resonances of practical arms and
tables fall into the audio range. It's pretty much impossible to
back out of these resonances in later computation because they're
too connected to specific (including especially mechanical details of
the *particular* recording medium being played) not-generic-enough
mass/compliance products.

Some mass/compliance products *can* be brute-forced (JUST barely) out
of the audio range. The vinyl compliance/stylus effective mass
product can be nudged above the audio range with fancy cantilevers
and styli shaped to spread their insanely large pressures over
larger geometries. But, as Scott points out, even an octave is
really only an ideal from a bygone age, and even getting above the
audio range is a possibly now forgotten goal.

And the cantilever suspension compliance/ arm effective mass product
can really only be moved about an octave below the audio range without
entering the biggie range of media warps. A "fundamental" resonance
even approaching the warp range invites FM and all of its ills, so
numbers less than 8 Hz aren't ideal. All stuff that you know already,
of course, but mentioned so that I could say:


Everything important happens where the stylus meets the record.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:28:43 -0800 (PST), TimR
wrote:

I have a few LPs to transfer to CD as well, so thanks for some
valuable information.

However. Suppose the OP or myself succeeds in transferring the music
from the LP to a .wav file with as little loss as possible.

Now we need to A) burn it to a CD and B) have it last. I've had some
trouble with this process recently and am not sure what I've done
wrong. I've produced CDs that play fine once and fail on the next try
or on a different machine. I've been told that one year life on a CD-
R is all I can expect.

Here's more than you can imagine about CD-R's:

http://cdrfaq.org

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

I've produced CDs that play fine once and fail on the next try
or on a different machine. I've been told that one year life on a CD-
R is all I can expect.

In the early days of CD-R we took a lot of trouble matching media
brand to burner and discovering the optimum burning speed (which
WASN'T always the lowest possible!). And we paid a premium price for
Plextor burners, which really WERE better. Not any more!

Some of these issues persist with DVD burning. But CD-R technology
has matured and you shouldn't have problems gettng a good recording.

There's just one thing to watch. Even if the label trumpets "52X
speed", don't believe it! Choose a moderate speed setting. I once
took on a big duplicating job (which I didn't really want to do) and
tried to rush it through by burning at top speed. Half of them came
back. I repeated the job at 16X, none came back.

You don't need to buy expensive, individually-packed media. I expect
someone will sell you really cheap rubbish if you insist, but I've
never had a problem with anything above the very bottom of the market.
I suggest you choose media designed for inkjet printing - the
printable coating gives extra protection.

Also, a quick visual check of bulk media is a good idea. The odd
imperfect or scuffed disk does sometimes slip through.

But, I emphasise, if you're burning bad CD-R the betting's heavily on
your choosing top buring speed being the culprit.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The issue is not just the bandwidth of the pickup. Generally, a "good" arm
and 'table will smear the transient less, which makes it easier to
distinguish transient noise from musical transients.

That _is_ related to the bandwidth of the pickup. Good frequency and
impulse response go hand in hand. And yes, there is a huge difference
between arms and cartridges, as a quick view of the 1 KHz square wave
track on the Shure test record will show on a scope.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The thing about CDs is that they normally have very high error
rates and they rely on error correction and concealment in the
player to work properly.

This is getting off-topci, but I just had my third defective CD (out of
several thousand). Towards the end of the disk there was a "swishing"
effect, as if the data were corrupt and the missing stuff filled in. When I
looked at the disk under a light, I could see a "streaky" area, as if the
aluminum had not been properly applied.

This is a sputtering problem and it used to happen a lot in the early
eighties before manufacturers got their process control down. I haven't
seen one of those in years, though. Look in the center and see what plant
made it.

I have a Golden Bough CD from PDO which has a couple big holes in the
metallization right in the middle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

This is getting off-topci, but I just had my third defective CD (out of
several thousand). Towards the end of the disk there was a "swishing"
effect, as if the data were corrupt and the missing stuff filled in. When
I
looked at the disk under a light, I could see a "streaky" area, as if the
aluminum had not been properly applied.

This is a sputtering problem and it used to happen a lot in the early
eighties before manufacturers got their process control down. I haven't
seen one of those in years, though. Look in the center and see what plant
made it.

It's at work, so I can't look right now. But it was a disk from EMI's budget
box of the Beethoven String Quartets. (Despite the rave reviews, these are
very disappointing performances.)

[Arny Krueger]

"James" wrote in message

On Nov 14, 4:23 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Seems like we have a failure to communicate. I said
"evidence", and the response was a "procedure".

Like so many things about vinyl, there seems to be a
total lack of experimental evidence to back up a ton of
popular suppositions.

I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water
isn't the best thing to wash records with. If so, look
around to find out what's in tap water, or even just hold
up a clean glass full of it sometime.

The water is pretty clean around here.

If it dries on the
record surface, what's in it will be on the record
surface, along with residue left by cleaning products
that aren't made for the purpose.

Seems like we have a failure to communicate. I said
"evidence", with an implication that it would be directly related to the
problem at hand.

IOW, someone showed that using relatively pure tap water from say New York
city would significantly raise the noise level of a LP, compared to say
distilled water.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water
isn't the best thing to wash records with. If so, look
around to find out what's in tap water, or even just hold
up a clean glass full of it sometime.

The water is pretty clean around here.

You don't let the cleaning solution -- whatever it is -- dry on the record's
surface. You vacuum it off, or blot it off with a ShamWow!

(By the way, those ads for super-absorbent synthetic towels are among the
few honest things on late-night TV. I've had several for 25 years, and they
work as advertised.)

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water
isn't the best thing to wash records with. If so, look
around to find out what's in tap water, or even just
hold up a clean glass full of it sometime.

The water is pretty clean around here.

You don't let the cleaning solution -- whatever it is --
dry on the record's surface. You vacuum it off, or blot
it off with a ShamWow!

That's what I always did in the day of. Of course in those days the tool of
choice was a regular towel.

(By the way, those ads for super-absorbent synthetic
towels are among the few honest things on late-night TV.
I've had several for 25 years, and they work as advertised.)

They have been around for a long time - we've been using them for camping
for over 20 years. Made in Germany, right?

Another thing that works well on dishes and bodies are microfiber towels.
Never tried one on LPs.

[William Sommerwerck]

As for ShamWow! I'm real surprised you guys like that thing?
A couple of us purchased them at a car show and the general
consensus was that they are terrible. We call them SCAMwow!

I haven't used that particular product. Mine -- also made in Germany -- were
purchased about 25 years ago in a shopping center.

[Distorted Vision]

Thanks for all your replies. I'm going to investigate Adobe Audition
as an alternative to Audacity. I've tried Soundforge in the past and
didn't like it.

Cheers!