Digitizing Vinyl - A special case

[TBone]

Go on: Do a properly controlled double blind abx. I dare you!

Blind testing is hardly required to prove the above anymore ... non-warping, reality type, vinylheads have longggggggg tested/realized that a quality 16/44 ADC will capture vinyl, DR et all, warts et all ...

 

[Deleted member 43441]

Hello all

I thought I would make this post as I am currently researching gear to purchase for a rather special project.

My dad spent a lifetime as a professional musician & teacher - and sadly has advanced dementia.

After 6 years of constant searching I have FINALLY found & purchased a very special vinyl record that he was a performing musician on. Given the rarity of the vinyl and it simply not being anywhere digital - I am wanting to transfer it to a high quality digital version

I am looking for recommendations on a setup that would give me a decent turntable (that would warrant future upgrades), pre-amp, and audio interface - budget is 1-2k AUD

The goal is to rip the vinyl soon (along with the rest of the collection I have), and fingers crossed my dad remembers this album

cheers for any suggestions

While I am not happy to hear about your dad‘s dementia, this is a very noble project indeed.

I think well within your budget if you don’t have a turntable already, and I didn’t read all the threads and I don’t have time right now. There are some decent USB turntables, and you can’t go wrong with an audio Technica, probably for less than $500 coupled with your laptop and a CD burner and you’re ready to go. You’ll just need the correct program.

If you already have a turntable I can suggest the Rega a2d phono preamp, you just need to attach your turntable RCA’s into the input, and it will output via USB into a laptop or desktop.

Best wishes for you and your dad.

 

[analogSurviver]

I must have made an error in the post above - omitted were the replies to two of your claims:

1. " Vinyl, generally anything above 10khz is going to include resonant peaks and valleys, distortion, and near 0 separation. advantage digital."
Not always true. There are/were ( 80s ) cartridges capable of very flat response AND good separation all the way to the test record limits of 50 kHz.

The constant nagging - mostly from pros - that > 20 kHz does not matter made even microphone manufacturers no longer hanging the frequency response extended WAAAY above 20 kHz in their promo material on the big bell. Both the capabilities and specs are still there, only they tried to minimize the hassle of people complaining that people can only hear to 20 kHz.

There are very few published objective test results on cartridges beyond 20 kHz - for much the same reason as above. Although quad failed in the market ( sloppy execution, poor quality vinyl, lack of reasonably priced record cleaning machines at the time ), its requirement to cover response at least to 45 kHz brought immense improvement to phono cartridges ever since.
Usually, tests beyond 20 kHz have been published only for nominally quad capable cartridges - even if tested together with other stereo cartridges in scope of the same survey/issue, the stereo carts were not measured beyond 20 kHz .

There are many "nominally stereo only" cartridges with remarkably good performance above 20 kHz. But, one has to test by him/herself.



2. " "any" CD ... not even remotely close to reality. "
ANY CD conforming to Red Book. It can not reproduce what is expressly forbidden in its own very definition.

 

[ThatM1key]

Hello all

I thought I would make this post as I am currently researching gear to purchase for a rather special project.

My dad spent a lifetime as a professional musician & teacher - and sadly has advanced dementia.

After 6 years of constant searching I have FINALLY found & purchased a very special vinyl record that he was a performing musician on. Given the rarity of the vinyl and it simply not being anywhere digital - I am wanting to transfer it to a high quality digital version

I am looking for recommendations on a setup that would give me a decent turntable (that would warrant future upgrades), pre-amp, and audio interface - budget is 1-2k AUD

The goal is to rip the vinyl soon (along with the rest of the collection I have), and fingers crossed my dad remembers this album

cheers for any suggestions

I personally liked the Creative SoundBlaster Titanium HD & EVGA NU Audio for recording. USB Turntables and using Realtek ADCs is probably the worst way to archive an album. There is good outside USB ADC's out there.



This for the people debating about LPs:
A record can last 100 years but a CD can technically last forever through various physical digital formats and computer storage as bit for bit perfect copies. You can technically record a LP lossless at the end but the whole process of getting there is lossy while CDs is not.

LP --> Cartridge --> Turntable --> Pre-Amp --> ADC --> Recording Software --> Final Output (Single + Manual Cue, Single, or Separate Tracks)

CD --> Optical Drive --> Ripping Software (+Tuning for bit-perfect error-free accurate ripping) --> Final Output (Single + Cue or Separate Tracks)

 

[analogSurviver]

Few do, which is a pity, as it'd give a lot of folks perspective on noise contribution. In anything that was actually engineered and executed competently I've never seen the record itself not be the dominant source of noise.

I have read that the the actual pressed record is less noisy than the lacquer. As noted, no personal experience.

The second claim that record itself not being the dominant source of noise is in real world debatable. There are any number of phono playback equipment devices with sharp ( high Q ) resonances - which NEVER were being shown in ANY/VAST majority of objective measurements reviews published. Usually, such glaring defects have been masked by either the scale of the graph or excessive smoothing - all in desire/need/requirement for the measurements to look good. It will be no surprise if revealed that reviews are just another form of advertising - and the reviewer would not survive long if all the truths revealed by the measurements would actually make it to the prospective buyers, who are the primary readers of such reviews/tests.

I have experienced quite a few such sugarcoating reviews the hard way - and , no, it did not leave good taste in mouth.

 

[JP]

I have read that the the actual pressed record is less noisy than the lacquer. As noted, no personal experience.

The second claim that record itself not being the dominant source of noise is in real world debatable. There are any number of phono playback equipment devices with sharp ( high Q ) resonances - which NEVER were being shown in ANY/VAST majority of objective measurements reviews published. Usually, such glaring defects have been masked by either the scale of the graph or excessive smoothing - all in desire/need/requirement for the measurements to look good. It will be no surprise if revealed that reviews are just another form of advertising - and the reviewer would not survive long if all the truths revealed by the measurements would actually make it to the prospective buyers, who are the primary readers of such reviews/tests.

I have experienced quite a few such sugarcoating reviews the hard way - and , no, it did not leave good taste in mouth.

Goes without saying that one needs to be able to separate marketing material from actual data, however much of a non-sequitur injecting that in to the discussion is.

 

[Robin L]

Which matters to us mere humans limited to hearing up to @20kHz at best how?

And LPs are audibly limited in the low frequencies, requiring both summing bass to mono and reduction of bass level to prevent distortion or having the needle fly out of the groove. That limitation is very audible, anything above 20khz is not.

 

[TBone]

1. Not always true. There are/were ( 80s ) cartridges capable of very flat response AND good separation all the way to the test record limits of 50 kHz.

meaningless in reality ...

i currently use a nag50s, arguably 1 of the best "(80s)" cart. yes, best measuring cart in my canon, imo best sounding to boot.

... while my nag setup is awesome, esp with >dr content, the exact same master on cd will (at the very least) sound "identical" ... but without all that inherited noise & distortion -45dB down (only achieved if u r lucky and good) ...

2. ANY CD conforming to Red Book. It can not reproduce what is expressly forbidden in its own very definition.

poor ole CD, inherited specs forever to tarnish performance. maybe it never stood a chance, never had a street cred, even in death, so misunderstood ...

And LPs are audibly limited in the low frequencies, requiring both summing bass to mono and reduction of bass level to prevent distortion or having the needle fly out of the groove. That limitation is very audible, anything above 20khz is not.

i can post many lp to cd ccmparisons depending on album, left & right channel, in which the low end fr looks exact. these generally sound identical to the end listener. nearly everything pre1980 has little bass below 50hz anyways, such is the advantage of many early DAT recordings, which clearly have lower bass down to 20hz ...

 

[BDWoody]

There IS. Not hear directly with ears - but perceive .

Mainly trough skin - particularly the region around the eyes is supposedly sensitive to sound beyond 20 kHz. There are medical studies out there - which have proven that people can distinguish between reproduction limited to 20 kHz and "unlimited" one - visible on EKG results.

Here's a study from a couple years ago...what studies are you referring to?

Edit: Also note the spl thresholds in the study... What music could possibly have that level of energy up there anyway?


"Abstract
As airborne ultrasound can be found in many technical applications and everyday situations, the question as to whether sounds at these frequencies can be heard by human beings or whether they present a risk to their hearing system is of great practical relevance. To objectively study these issues, the monaural hearing threshold in the frequency range from 14 to 24 kHz was determined for 26 test subjects between 19 and 33 years of age using pure tone audiometry. The hearing threshold values increased strongly with increasing frequency up to around 21 kHz, followed by a range with a smaller slope toward 24 kHz. The number of subjects who could respond positively to the threshold measurements decreased dramatically above 21 kHz. Brain activation was then measured by means of magnetoencephalography (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and with acoustic stimuli at the same frequencies, with sound pressure levels (SPLs) above and below the individual threshold. No auditory cortex activation was found for levels below the threshold. Although test subjects reported audible sounds above the threshold, no brain activity was identified in the above-threshold case under current experimental conditions except at the highest sensation level, which was presented at the lowest test frequency."
https://www.degruyter.com/document/...ang=en#:~:text=Abstract,lowest test frequency.

 

[_thelaughingman]

There IS. Not hear directly with ears - but perceive .

Mainly trough skin - particularly the region around the eyes is supposedly sensitive to sound beyond 20 kHz. There are medical studies out there - which have proven that people can distinguish between reproduction limited to 20 kHz and "unlimited" one - visible on EKG results.

One producer of >> 20 kHz speakers and headphones even suggests to his prospective customers to try to listen with their eyes like normal and then covered; those who can perceive the difference when listening to playback with > 20 kHz capability with eyes normal or covered, will benefit from equipment with > 20 kHz bandwidth.

So you mean to say that every single human is capable of hearing or perceiving >20khz through their skin because sound waves can permeate the skin and cause a vibration at that frequency. I honestly do not believe in this because I am in the medical field and oscillation of sound waves that high would not necessary yield the response to the cells or nerves that sit below the eyes.

 

[analogSurviver]

So you mean to say that every single human is capable of hearing or perceiving >20khz through their skin because sound waves can permeate the skin and cause a vibration at that frequency. I honestly do not believe in this because I am in the medical field and oscillation of sound waves that high would not necessary yield the response to the cells or nerves that sit below the eyes.

It does not matter what we believe in. It has been scientifically proven - for SOME, not necessary all human beings. But enough to be statistically valid. Since you are from the medical field, it will be easier for you to find the papers in question. All are, IIRC, payable ( or available trough university channels, etc ) - the results were visible on subjects' EKG, regardless if they stated to have "heard" the difference or not. The music/reproduction containing frequency spectrum above 20 kHz yielded demonstrably higher EKG activity. I may have used wrong words, but the general idea behind these tests is about above lines.

The same/similar "better with > 20 kHz present" has been reported decades ago - when testing people if they hear any difference when using Ionovac tweeter - once the music has been filtered sharply above 20 kHz, once without any filtering at all. Those old test relied on statements from the subjects of the test only; present tests involve evidence from EKG reading.

 

[BDWoody]

It does not matter what we believe in. It has been scientifically proven -

Either provide the evidence, or stop with the claims. Insistently repeating yourself isn't going to do it.

 

[_thelaughingman]

It does not matter what we believe in. It has been scientifically proven - for SOME, not necessary all human beings. But enough to be statistically valid. Since you are from the medical field, it will be easier for you to find the papers in question. All are, IIRC, payable ( or available trough university channels, etc ) - the results were visible on subjects' EKG, regardless if they stated to have "heard" the difference or not. The music/reproduction containing frequency spectrum above 20 kHz yielded demonstrably higher EKG activity. I may have used wrong words, but the general idea behind these tests is about above lines.

The same/similar "better with > 20 kHz present" has been reported decades ago - when testing people if they hear any difference when using Ionovac tweeter - once the music has been filtered sharply above 20 kHz, once without any filtering at all. Those old test relied on statements from the subjects of the test only; present tests involve evidence from EKG reading.

A small sample of humans in a study does not equate to proving a theory. It’s still an unfounded theory with no substantial proof validating the claim.

An EKG is not a valid tool to measure electrical impulse on the epidermis by the eye. To me it’s a flawed methodology to test electrical impulse on epidermis when the tool is specifically designed to capture electrical impulse of the heart and heart rate performance. Now if the EKG was used to measure the response to stimuli from the audio tone there is still a fatal flaw in that testing because the stimuli does not directly show a cause and effect to heart rate. A persons heart won’t beat faster due to a >20 kHz tone.

 

[dtaylo1066]

Look for a used Sony HX500. Not sure why, but I think they no longer make it. I have the HX500 and it works just fine as a normal turntable and also for digital recordings. Sony recording software is free to download and does the job.

Sony Premium Home Entertainment - PS-HX500

www.sonypremiumhome.com

Sony PS-HX500 Hi-Res USB Turntable Review

Performance Features Ergonomics Value

www.soundandvision.com

 

[analogSurviver]

Either provide the evidence, or stop with the claims. Insistently repeating yourself isn't going to do it.

I did reply to the member who is from medical field, whose first language is English and who is much more likely to get to the papers required. I can remember "EKG" and that these are medical, not primarily acoustics papers.

On second thought, it might not be EKG - but encefalogram. The first link with "encefalogram music ultrasonic" in the search engine brought this : https://www.amazon.com/prefer-music-ultrasonic-content-investigation/dp/3330068175
It has obviously been inspired and influenced by https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

Re-finding those links to the medical papers dealing with the subject each costing at least say 20$ may take a while - but, as noted, obviously there are members more suited for and closer to this particular search.

 

[BDWoody]

On second thought, it might not be EKG - but encefalogram. The first link with "encefalogram music ultrasonic" in the search engine brought this...
It has obviously been inspired and influenced by https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

I am not familiar with the book, and don't plan to buy it, but that linked paper simply indicates there can be musical energy in high frequencies. No one disputes that. How much is audible is the issue.

That paper also references the Oohashi study, which I don't believe has ever been replicated and is generally not considered valid as evidence in support in this subject. Was that the ECG evidence you were talking about?

The other referenced is about bone conduction, which I'm not sure is directly relevant to listening to very low level airborne audio signals.

Did you look at the study I posted? Did you see any reason not to believe the results?

Seems that in order to even recognize sounds at high frequencies, the spl required is so high, @100dB, that it's hard to imagine it being any issue with music.

Must have made those listening tests fun...

 

[Robin L]

What kills me is this: defenders of LP reproduction are pointing to ultrasonic frequencies. "Ultrasonic" means you can't hear it Full stop. May be a few mutants out there, but as an average of the whole population, 15khz is closer to the mark. Meanwhile, they're brushing aside the entirely audible pitch and speed variations of analog playback. Sometimes that speed variation is pressed into the grooves of an off-center record---and no record is 100% centered, none have the speed accuracy of a digital recording, not a single one. The problem is there, it's measurable, and it can't go away as it's built into the formula. There's no way to make the inconsistency of speed a feature, it's a bug and it's a bug that's built into every single LP.

 

[JP]

no record is 100% centered

Mine are.

 

[ThatM1key]

Look for a used Sony HX500. Not sure why, but I think they no longer make it. I have the HX500 and it works just fine as a normal turntable and also for digital recordings. Sony recording software is free to download and does the job.

Sony Premium Home Entertainment - PS-HX500

www.sonypremiumhome.com

Sony PS-HX500 Hi-Res USB Turntable Review

Performance Features Ergonomics Value

www.soundandvision.com

Years ago I wanted that turn table because it recorded in DSD. In terms of editing, I'm fairly certain the Sony recording software lets you DSD by converting it to DXD first than back to DSD like how many SACDs are made. I don't know enough about DSD editing though. The TASCAM Hi-Res Editor claims to edit DSD without converting to PCM/DXD.

I always wanted to know if that one laser turntable was snake oil or not. I think it was called ELP LT-1XA, as I'm writing this reply.

 

[Robin L]

Mine are.

View attachment 185701

But and still, not 100% as the disc itself is not perfectly centered relative to itself. Even if you get this down to centering the disc as much as this complicated machinery will allow, it will always be less than 100%.

And if you think I'm talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin, how do you think I feel about people claiming to have ultrasonic hearing?