Converting Vinyl to CD

[Bob the Builder]

From talking around, here in Australia some of the professional Digital Remastering is done using CEADER - http://www.cedar-audio.com/

Bill Armstong here in Melbourne has produced so amazing British remastering from the 1930's.

Of course British records are always interesting, as the recording method were slightly different in comparison to a New York / Chicago recording of the same time. In many of them they have a wider frequency range.

Brian

[Bob the Builder]

I was listening to a Fletcher Henderson 1937/38 LP this morning.
The song "Let'er go" was playing away. It just wasn't sounding right at all. No mater what I did on the EQ there was no improvement.
Then it struck me that it was the pitch what was out.
By slowing the pitch down by about 2% it suddenly was balanced and sounded natural. Of course the next song needed to be set back to Zero pitch difference.
But there you go, some where along the multiple transfers from master to the final record the pitch was wrong.
I do remember reading about that problem form a remastering site.

Brian

[Lawrence]

I've no idea why they didn't enclude a 78 RPM speed.

Probably the same reason why most turntables made after 1970 don't have 78 RPM settings.

The biggest problem that most have overlooked so far in this thread (perhaps due to many being raised on CDs) is that not all turntables are created equally. The sound quality ranges between an average turntable, a good turntable, a great turntable, and an audiophile turntable are all MUCH greater than the difference between even an average CD player and an audiophile CD player.

The composition of the needle (diamond, saphire, nylon, etc.), the quality of the needle, the age of the needle, the quality and age of the needle housing, the wiring, the tone arm weight, the tone arm resistance to moving side to side, the angle of the tone arm, the smoothness of the turntable motor, the reliability and consistency of the turntable motor's speed, the electrical interference (or lack thereof) from the motor, and other factors all greatly affect the quality of sound you get off a record album. Some needles can penetrate scratches, dust, and other record imperfections better than others. Other needles can't penetrate dust or scratches that well, but still produce even better sound on a perfect record album because of their increased sensitivity.

None of those factors really come into play that much on a CD player. That was one of the big reasons why CDs took over the market even though records actually reproduce better, more accurate sound than a CD when you use top of the line equipment. The convenience of using digital files that could be read virtually the same by almost any laser eliminated all the variables required to make records sound good.

Thus, the biggest concern shouldn't be the convenience of connecting the turntable to the computer via USB ports or what have you, it should be on getting the best quality turntable possible and plugging it into ordinary, shielded RCA plugs on a good-quality sound card that takes it into the computer for conversion. The software from there is usually for correcting deficiencies in the source; but if you use a better turntable, you will get a better source and won't need to alter or tinker with it as much.

Indeed, I would almost presume that USB turntables will not provide you with the best source sound for converting record albums to digital formats. They seem to be designed for convenience, not quality.

[Lawrence]

I just watched an episode of "It's All Geek To Me" (a documentary series with David Pogue, a Technology editor for the New York Times) that focused on converting old media to digital format. The first segment was on converting vinyl to digital (CDs).

It featured three types of conversion products for LP to Digital conversion: a TEAC all-in-one device with a turntable and CD burner built into a single unit; an IVC turntable that hooked directly to your computer via a USB cable, converting the signal to editable digital form via software on your computer; and a Sony CD burner that hooked up to your stereo and burned directly to a CD-R, just like an ordinary stereo component, relying upon you to already have a turntable.

An "audiophile" then did a quick, blindfolded A-B-C-D test with some jazz-blues music: the three products and then the original LP record. Even through the television, I could hear the differences that he confirmed. The Sony burner connected to the stereo was the best and sounded almost exactly like the LP record; the IVC USB turntable was clearly second; and the TEAC all-in-one was by far the worst (less frequency range; tinny and not as much bass).

The difference stemmed in large part from exactly what I wrote above (which I actually forgot I had written until I came here to "report"): the quality of the source. The Sony burner sounded best because it took sound from an actual turntable, not some low-quality hack turntable that was thrown together for converting. The TEAC sounded worse because it used a low-quality turntable, most likely to make it affordable for the general public.

I suspect there was also difference in the encoding software each product used. But beware of the all-in-one products, and even the USB turntables. They will not give you the full dynamic range of your LP records. The best way to convert appears to be to get a stand-alone CD-burner and hook it to a good turntable through your stereo, not your computer.

[Toon Town Dave]

So what was the digital format these devices output? If they were all a common, uncompressed/lossless digital format, then definitely it comes down to the hardware.

I'm not sure I would understand when you say the IVC converted the signal to "editable digital form via software on your computer". Do you mean it allows you to edit the digitized music in your computer?

[Lawrence]

So what was the digital format these devices output? If they were all a common, uncompressed/lossless digital format, then definitely it comes down to the hardware.

I'm not sure I would understand when you say the IVC converted the signal to "editable digital form via software on your computer". Do you mean it allows you to edit the digitized music in your computer?

Yes, the Sony and the Teac converted it into Wave (or CDEAC?) lossless format: burned right onto a playable, audio CD. If you wanted to edit it; you would need to rip it from the CD.

And, yes, because the IVC, on the other hand, fed the signal into the computer via the USB cable directly into a sound editor, you could do with it what you want right away. Because it feeds directly into the computer, it is more flexible once the signal was converted. Nonetheless, for the A-B-C-D comparison, they would have used a lossless CD; the point was to measure and compare the different conversion processes, not the types of encoding format.

The point is to remind everyone of what we all considered so unthinkably revolutionary when CDs came out, but that everyone takes for granted today; unlike CD players where the parts in both cheap and expensive CD players are mostly fungible, turntables were a LOT more fickle. The quality of the needle, the freshness, purity, and longevity of the rubber stabilizers that held the needle, the quality of the cartridge housing for the needle, the quality of the tone arm and the amount of weight it placed on the record, the angle of the tone arm to the record grooves, whether the tone arm swung from a pivot point or glided across a perpendicular ledge, the motor mechanism that moved the turntable (and whether the motion was sufficiently constant or the motor caused interference), and even the composition of the surface of the turntable all greatly affected the quality of the final sound.

The new converters gloss over that process and use cheap (or very cheap) turntable materials, which will result in a poor conversion.

[Eyeball]

turntables were a LOT more fickle. The quality of the needle, the freshness, purity, and longevity of the rubber stabilizers that held the needle, the quality of the cartridge housing for the needle, the quality of the tone arm and the amount of weight it placed on the record, the angle of the tone arm to the record grooves, whether the tone arm swung from a pivot point or glided across a perpendicular ledge, the motor mechanism that moved the turntable (and whether the motion was sufficiently constant or the motor caused interference), and even the composition of the surface of the turntable all greatly affected the quality of the final sound.

That is so much fretting over very little.

We played LPs for years and still do and no one agonized like that except the 'sound nuts' because none of it *mattered* beyond theory.

In practicality, no one cared/cares about

"the freshness, purity, and longevity of the rubber stabilizers that held the needle",

"the quality of the cartridge housing for the needle",

"the composition of the surface of the turntable",

and all the other non-consumer trivia, most of which is now forgotten.

What near everyone did was went out and found a turntable that usually fell within a certain price range and that ran quietly, didn't produce any noticeable rumble, had a tone arm that would track sufficiently and lightly. The you purchased a good quality cartridge and stylus and you were good to go. And when that turntable 'wore out' - you bought a new one.

There was a certain point beyond which most listeners could not hear any difference between turntables and a certain price point beyond which few people cared.

The turntable was not the weakest link in the audio listening process.

Everybody lived. And everyone with a couple hundred dollars to spare had a fine and far more than adequate turntable.

[OneTrueDabe]

We played LPs for years and still do and no one agonized like that except the 'sound nuts' because none of it *mattered* beyond theory.

If you're talking about LISTENING to music, hell, use whatever you can get your hands on; as soon as it's hit your ears, you'll never hear it the same way again. If you're digitizing an old record, though -- making one "True" copy for all time -- you want to get the cleanest signal path possible.

It's like buying a high-quality sound system for your car; with all the road and engine noise, you're not exactly enjoying the cleanest listening experience possible.

But with all those other factors to account for, maybe you NEED higher-quality equipment to accommodate. (Crappy sound on TOP of bad acoustics will only make things worse, not cancel each other out.)

That's the difference between an aficionado and an audiophile, IMHO -- the true music lover listens to the music; the audiophile only listens to the equipment.

[Eyeball]

We played LPs for years and still do and no one agonized like that except the 'sound nuts' because none of it *mattered* beyond theory.

If you're talking about LISTENING to music, hell, use whatever you can get your hands on; as soon as it's hit your ears, you'll never hear it the same way again. If you're digitizing an old record, though -- making one "True" copy for all time -- you want to get the cleanest signal path possible.

It's like buying a high-quality sound system for your car; with all the road and engine noise, you're not exactly enjoying the cleanest listening experience possible.

But with all those other factors to account for, maybe you NEED higher-quality equipment to accommodate. (Crappy sound on TOP of bad acoustics will only make things worse, not cancel each other out.)

That's the difference between an aficionado and an audiophile, IMHO -- the true music lover listens to the music; the audiophile only listens to the equipment.

No, I'm not talking about "listening" to music as people today may consider it as disposable filler pumped into their heads with an Ipod.

No one who cares about music ever went out to try and buy an adequate stereo system. Everyone seeks to buy the very best sounding system that they can afford. Most people who care about music as more than breakfast cereal want each experience to be as good as if they were making an archive copy.

Oh - sound system for my car. Listening in a car is one of the most laughably ludicrious 'musical experiences' on earth. Tat's another topic, though for another forum.

But, yes, buy the best if you can.

[OneTrueDabe]

No, I'm not talking about "listening" to music as people today may consider it as disposable filler pumped into their heads with an Ipod.

That's "hearing" music (passive).

To Listen requires an active, concerted effort. And you can do that on an iPod, LP, or even 8-Track Tape for all I care; it's what you take away from the experience that matters. IMHO...

(And I'd say most iPod users at least SELECT the music they listen to, as opposed to tuning in to one of the countless "Z-100" Top-40 stations and being fed the same Industry-Selected pabulum all day...)

Oh - sound system for my car. Listening in a car is one of the most laughably ludicrious 'musical experiences' on earth.

When you buy a new CD, and you want to start learning the songs, hearing it over and over during your daily commute is a great way to become familiar with the music. You're not going to get chills from hearing the way the resonance of a particular instrument washed over you, but you'll learn where the breaks are, and get a feel for the overall mood.

At the end of the day, though, I'd rather have people listen to crappy music, than not listen to any music at all... *Shrug*