Hello, I'm new to turntables and vinyl since they're before my time. (I'm 19) My father is an avid collector and he has quite a collection but his turntable is in need of a new cartidge. He has an old Technics 1200 MK2. I already own about 10 records, mostly modern rock and some european dance. However, I want to buy a solid turntable that will let me import the records onto my comuter and keep the sound pure and better than cd. I already own the records I have on cd. I want to import the LP's in a way that will let me hear the difference clearly. I mainly listen to my music on my ipod or my computer. I am considering buying a Technics 1200 MK5 and attaching an Audio Technica Turntable Cartridge AT150MLX to it and using a Rolls/Bellari VP530 to import onto my computer. The total cost for this investment will come around 1k. Now what I want to know is, will this be a good enough investment for me to imporve on the sound of my cd's? I don't want to invest a grand in equipment and the records will sound identical to the cds on my ipod. I understand that headphones are part of the equation so I already own Bose Quiet Comfort 3 to be able hear a better range of frequencies. Am I wasting my money investing in all these parts? Instead of investing in all these parts, should I just stick to the turntable and the Rolls/Bellari VP530? Any help is greatly apreciated. Thank you!

Moderation: Please stick to the standard font, thank you.

I foresee this being a contentious statement. Would you mind clarifying it, so we can focus the incoming discussion?

I want to be able to hear a difference between my records and my cd's. Any difference is good enough. haha. It'll justify my madness.

The CD format's technical limitations are much wider than vinyl's. So if you have bad sounding CDs it's not the format's fault, but very probably a form of mastering that you don't like.

If you like the degraded sound of vinyl use a dynamic compressor and lowpass and add some sizzling noise to your CDs and you will get the same.

I know that vinyl sounds good when you're listening to it. However, it loses sound when it's converted into a digital format right? I've listened to vinyl before, and I love how smooth the transitions sound and there's a noticeable difference in the high's and low's.

No, with a halfway decent recording and playback system (PC + < $300 soundcard) and properly dithered, it will be exactly the same as direct playback from your deck.

All of my records are brand new, and I haven't taken any out of their cartons. I don't think any have any dust or scratches. They're all sealed. Which file format keeps the most information about the vinyl when you digitize it? Is it 24/96 Wave? Is it possible for you to send me a sample song?

Bit-depth and sampling rate depend on what you're going to do with the files once transferred. If you're going to do any processing on the files, such as applying the equalization curve in software, it's probably a good idea to record at 24 bits / 96khz sample rate.

[edit] So I took a look at the VP 530 - the ADC in this device supports a max of 16-bit/44.1khz sample rate. [/edit]


As far as file formats go, you'll want to pick a lossless format for long-term storage of your LP transfers. Some of the benefits of these include space savings, the ability to save album artwork, greatly enhanced tagging ability.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison

so the VP530 would not be adequate enough? right? I would apply the equalization curve in the software.

I recently read about sampling Records at 24Bit/192Hz, is this a meaningful sample rate for listening to records on my computer? Will this be arduous to achieve and/or pointless?

As LPs are neither able to reproduce frequencies > 22kHz nor able to reproduce dynamics > 96 db, why would 44.1/16 not be sufficient, again?

TheSneakerDude,

You're going to be told the truth on this site.

And judging by your pre-conceptions, you're not going to like it.


Take an LP, record it properly at 44.1kHz 16-bits, and the only change to the sound is in some listener's imagination.


People who trust their imagination will try to tell you that vinyl sounds better than CD, CD isn't good enough to capture the information on vinyl etc, and most importantly that everyone here is deaf.

Yet there are people here with a few more records than you (I have over 10,000), better systems, and long experience of copying LPs onto CDs / digital. And not one of them can hear anything wrong with the result (or at least, any faults that weren't already present on the LP itself!).


Now, the question is, can these people who claim vinyl sounds better and CD sounds worse really hear the difference, when they don't know which one is being played to them?

Every test carried out so far suggests they only think vinyl sounds better when they know they're listening to vinyl. When know-one tells them whether they're listening ot vinyl direct, or vinyl copied onto CD, they can't tell the difference.

Draw your own conclusions.


Some recordings are far far better mastered on vinyl than on CD. Copying these onto CD can give you something far more enjoyable than the commercial CD release. Using "better than CD" digital parameters will make no difference on decent equipment, and little difference on inferior equipment.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.

Thank you very much by your honesty it has helped me in my dilemma. I am a little disappointed by this however, it has made me more humble towards my cd collection. I already own about 2K. Sometimes it is better to find happiness and value in what you already have. Thank You.

Why is it posted under flac? No one spoke about flac

A 96khz sample rate is unnecessary. 44.1kHz/24bit is quite adequate for an LP transfer that is to be processed further (e.g. declicking). If I were the OP, after a new cart I'd invest in a good LP vaccum cleaning device..even new records can benefit from good cleaning.

Overall, see Clive Backham's page for a good guide to LP transfer.

http://www.delback.co.uk/lp-cdr.htm

@ Krabapple:

Thank you for pointing that out. It didn't even occur to me - this type of project is something I've dabbled in myself, but never sat down and really thought through. The natural pairings of recording settings (in my head) were 16/44.1k, 24/96k ... didn't even think about it.

-Rob

Does anyone from New York know a store where one can bring Vinyl records to be digitized?

Interesting that someone said 'you'll get the truth here' then goes into a hundred and one biased misconceptions........

A someone who worked in hi-fi for years, owns a high end TT, CD player and multi format player, and has top quality PC gear for ripping to digital I was just breathaken at some of the comments on here about conversion and the relative quality for formats.

Let's ignore for a minute both the reviewers comments, some of whom have worked in hif-fi for decades, and who have a vested interest (believe me, they do) in promoting Digital over Analogue yet still praise Vinyl reproduction over Digital, and more importantly the increasing level of criticism of Digital reproduction (mastering etc) by sound engineers, and concentrate on the basics.

Yes, it's fair to say that plenty of people have misconceptions about what 'Vinyl sound' is and should be. Yes, much of what is said IS crap ('warm' sound, etc) but that still leaves it open to question as to whether Digital is better, because sadly I've heard too much rubbish come from that camp as well. Not withstanding the lies about CD's reproduction capability from day one, the lack of quality in Hi-Res, and the lies told about it's capability (now being addressed I'm pleased to say), again issues not raised by 'vinyl addicts' but by Sound Engineers. On that note, there are some brilliant, if rather scathing articles out there on both of the latter topics.

That is not to say that 'Vinyl good', 'CD bad', or Hi-Res all bad for that matter. In recent years vinyl reproduction has resurged (in the UK it was the only growth sector in software sales in the last two years 2007 -2008) due in no small part due to the almost uiversally awful mastering of modern mainstream CD. A fact that can be applied to Hi-Res as well. Vinyl replay, unlike Digital, is also infintely upgradeable, and there is no 'diminishing return threshold'. Again unlike Digital. I have heard (and demonstrated myself) some very expernsive indeed High end CD and wondered why on Earth people pay that sort of money when players half the price gave equally good, and slightly less artificial sound!

On the flipside, A high end TT will trounce it's cheaper counterparts in every region, and many that Digital players cannot go, and never have. Timing, stereo image, superior soundstage, greater 'reality' in the reproduction of high fequency and low bass are what I want, not 'warmth'. I have yet to find (at any price) Digital players that do that for me. That is not to say , again, that Vinyl is 'universally better'. It's just that I, after years in the biz, and based on what I have heard, have yet to find, in any area, that digital is equal to Vinyl

On the recording side, I have copied many LP's to Hi-res and CD. On the advise, not of 'some guy on a forum' but on that of a sound engineer, I use Hi-Res 24 -96 the vast majority of the time. Why? Because as he put it, it will best capture the wave form. There is no difference I hear you say. Well, I have blind tested several people and recordings made with both, 16-44 and 24-96, using the same player (a top flight Multi Format player noted for it's excellent CD performance), have produced almost universal results - people could hear the difference.

It was interesting to note that those who couldn't were those known to be 'Digital nut's. One asks therefore, is it only 'Vinyl addicts' who judge not with their ears, but on suppositions.......

Sorry to barge in, but after seeing so many 'people who prefer Vinyl are talking rubbish' posts I had to attempt some balance.

In particular as it may well not be true.

The best advice would be 'suck it and see' rather than 'they' are all talking drivel.

On either side.

Overpaid - you seem to be under the impression that you are posting somewhere that tolerates anecdotal claims about audibility. Testing is king here; single blind anecdotes from hi-fi store clerks are unlikely to hold any water unless they are rigorously documented. Reality can be readily tested in a reproducible, double blind fashion such that human bias is removed.

That has been done already WRT vinyl (as mentioned) by technically adept personnel, and the results tend to be the opposite of your "blind testing" anecdote.

Recall that pharmaceuticals must exceed the efficacy of placebo for a very good reason - individuals taking a placebo very often believe the placebo is ameliorating their symptoms.

You seem to believe that the individuals you are responding to do not have a level of technical knowledge on the subject that would justify their statements. You are incorrect in that assumption, as you would discover very rapidly if you bother to examine their posting history. Likewise, suggesting that vinyl cannot be captured then mastered to 16/44.1 and played back in such a way that it is totally transparent and indiscernible from the same at 24/96 is a bit humorous in the context of a post attempting to 'clear the air' on such issues.

Please review the terms of service, particularly TOS #8.

Couching audibility in the context of "two sides" is absurd in the extreme.
edit: disambiguation

I look forward to seeing your statistically significant double-blind test results.

And/or, if you want other people to try the test (always a good thing), some samples would be nice - identical recordings, but one 44.1/16, and one 96/24. 30 seconds maximum. There's an uploads forum here on HA, or use mediafire to share them.

Cheers,
David.

The above are simply unsupported repetitions of the usual false claims that we hear from people who prize vinyl above all reason and reliable facts.


Here's an evaluation of vinyl from another forum, by someone who seems to be agnostic about digital versus analog, and is trying to decide for themselves based on listening:

For the layman out there ( I don't have the technical ability to explain otherwise lol ) Having been into vinyl for many years, and amassing over 1000 albums in my 48 years, I have to say stick with cd's/digital. To even come close to the quality of a cd you must have equipment up to the task. The recording will be only as good as the signal you record. My Planar 9 $2800, My Grado cartridge $500 ( And that's a less expensive cartridge ) My Audible Illusions tube preamp, better part of three grand, and it sounded awsome! BUT!!!!! 1000 albums taking up an inordinate amount of space, the cost of the equipment, the degradation of the vinyl everytime you put the needle to it, getting up to change songs or albums every 10-20 minutes, and on and on. Just to many hassles and expense for something that can more conveniently be had on a $10 cd, and a few hundred dollar player. $1000 in equipment is not going to give you anywhere near the quality of a cheap cd playing through a $50 player. If you are really into vinyl, by all means spend the cash, I did, and enjoyed it very much, but beware the cost to get the analog signal into a digital format equal to what you can buy off the shelf for $10-$15 is cost prohibitive, and just a plain pain in the *** if you ask me. lol

Sneaker Dude:

I'd get a cheap as chips second handle turntable to try out the whole vinyl thing.

Check out a sample on very basic and old equipment
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=72973.

With regards to sound I'd back my generic $20 DVD player against any turntable ever or yet to be made.

I would tend towards that conclusion as well, but to be completely fair, there's an unusual amount of tracking/tracing/groove wear distortion on this clip. It's especially obvious on the vocals.

I don't mean this as an attack but I do have a question. Given the relatively prohibitive costs to reach a level with vinyl where it merely nearly replicates the abilities of CDs (I don't know if you DBT this so I'll simply accept your word for the sake of this discussion), why did you embark down this path? Before CDs came out I can understand it, but since their advent you seem to have spent a lot of money for an experience that you yourself admit diminishes every time you play each record due to wear.

Again, merely a question and not an accusation. I'm interested why people still prefer the vinyl experience and your setup certainly shows you to be dedicated.

How did I miss this thread? Tuberocity and Overpaid1963, you are both in contravention of our Terms of Service, point 8.

CD-quality audio is sufficient to capture all of vinyl's audible sound. Vinyl is capable of reproducing ultrasonics, but as these are not audible, that fact is irrelevant.

Vinyl's noise floor is usually on the order of 80dB or less. CD's is 96, without doing any kind of noise-shaping trickery, which can push it to 120. Vinyl playback varies depending on playback equipment, while CD playback is defined enough to be able to actually measure the characteristics of the system reproducing it.

Vinyl is low fidelity. CD is high fidelity. The science is quite unambiguous on this point.

Axon:
Luckily, I have no idea what "tracking/tracing/groove wear distortion" sound like and do not notice them! A good argument for never becoming trained at listening for defects.

Hopefully the clip serves as an example of the sound you can expect from a cheap turntable and an old record.

I have many LPs that have a noise floor that is rarely audible (except some very random pops in the silent grooves). You just need a good quality TT and cartridge. Based on my research, ultra high end tables are not really doing anything special besides emptying your pockets. Now, unlike CD players, you do need to invest much more in a player for vinyl because it's a purely mechanical process and low cost units are not going to have very high pitch accuracy, low noise levels or low resonance arm/chassis systems. But, for right under $2,000 USD or so, you can start to find tables that have all of what seems necessary to have as transparent a playback process that vinyl can possibly offer. There are some good tables for $500 as well - though not up to perhaps the most transparent record reading ability possible - but you can pick and choose the shortcomings you can tolerate best at this price range.

As for the two people that think vinyl is higher fidelity than CD; there are credible double blinded tests that show that CD format is transparent to vinyl and hi-rez digital, using a wide variety of listening subjects. There are also blind tests that show it is not; but these tests are not nearly as well designed/executed based on what I have read of them. Sloppy/non-thorough tests don't hole much weight. Commonly, tests producing positive results have over looked critical technical details. These tests are usually designed/executed by people with little actual knowledge in terms of human perception vs. measured behavior(s) and do not bother to test their comparison systems/formats to validate performance. Also, they rarely collect statistically significant results, in terms of how the trials were conducted, or they even have huge flaws in the supposed 'blind' testing method they used by doing single blind tests or accidentally providing small identifiable cues as to the switched mode(s) being tested.

-Chris

How can I make my LPs sound better than CDs to play on my BOSE with my IPOD? That's just funny!