×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

415 comments

Early Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104152)

This Early POst Goes to Punk Rock Pirates Marc and Laura.

A Rox

Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104156)

Glad to know Linux finally has an audio editing program worthy of copying your vinyl records to a digital format. Unfortunately, Windows has had this since, say, 1993?

Re:Wow (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104163)

And the Mac, since the 80s. And no worrying about "loading the viaXXXX sound driver" or recompiling your kernel here. Hah!

vinyl is for fags (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104159)

I'm teh furst and not a subscriber. loLlll!!!

Re:vinyl is for fags (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104190)

Sorry,

Perhaps I can be the first to say YOU FAIL IT!

Why do this? (3, Insightful)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104160)

Just remember - a new record will sound far, far better then a CD.

Records only get crappy after much use. If they could make them out of a more robust material, I'd be first in line to buy.

Re:Why do this? (4, Insightful)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104176)

Not really.

Only to audiophiles who use worthless and unquantifiable terms like "warmth" and "roundness".

A good quality cd in a good quality system is more than adequate for any normal human being who doesn't base their life's worth on the amount of vacuum (sp) tubes in their living room.

Re:Why do this? (5, Interesting)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104194)

Only to audiophiles who use worthless and unquantifiable terms like "warmth" and "roundness".

Those guys are wankers - but valves do have a different sound. When valve amps clip, they have a nicer sound then transistor amps. This is thought to be caused by a more 'rounded' curve, caused by even order harmonics. see this page [westhost.com] for more information.


A good quality cd in a good quality system is more than adequate for any normal human being who doesn't base their life's worth on the amount of vacuum (sp) tubes in their living room.


Remember when 256 colour graphics cards came out? I bet you thought 'Wow! I'll never need more then those'. When high colour came out 'This is great - more won't make a difference, since the eye can't see any more'. as technology improved, so did our desire for more quality.

Re:Why do this? (4, Interesting)

AlecC (512609) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104279)

Long, long ago, I set up a really cheap and crappy stereo system in a really perfect room - the library of a stately home. The wallw sere lined with books - acoustically absorbing but not dead. The wall behind was coverd with curtains. teh room was large (say 50 ft by 40) and exactly symmetrical, and with a sofa at the optimum listening position.

This cheap stereo system (high street retailers cheapest "got everything" model) sounded absolutely marvellous. Like kit costing fity times as much.

Ever since then, I have been of the opinion that it is not worth spending a fortune on hi-fi kit if you intend to install it in a room in which you intend to Have a Life. The necessary compromises to live in a room - particularly if you share with other people - will cancel out all the advantages of super-duper kit. If you are prepared to set up a special listeneing room, it might be worth investing in this kit. Until then, buy more music or more beer.

Re:Why do this? (2, Insightful)

ketamine-bp (586203) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104384)

I agree with you for most part, yet please do note that different people may have different taste on music and different requirements in music, that is, you may well be satisified with 40-15kHz, but many may not even be satisified with 20-20kHz, like me, Well, I still demand the harmonics.

Moreover, different speakers do have different response to different sources, I believe that you will changge your mind saying 'absolutely marvellous' if you try listen to more hi-fi models, for example, alchemist amp with a marantz cdplayer, etc.

Re:Why do this? (2, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104417)

You're so right.

Another impossible-to-live-with arrangement that I found made for excellent sound out of a pair of cheap speakers was hanging them from the the pipes in my basement room ceiling with some twine.

I can only guess that the lack of mechanical connection between the speakers and a hard surface allowed for better bass resonance.

I think the basement helped as well, since the ceiling was some kind of cheap cardboard-like material (harder than cardboard, softer than masonite) and the fact that that the floor was carpeting over concrete. The walls were paneling over foam board on concrete.

I eventually added two home-made subs and some surround speakers and haven't had a stereo setup that sounded that good since, in spite of spending more money.

Re:Why do this? (1)

chefren (17219) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104284)

A cheap portable radio seems to be adequate for most people. That still doesn't change that many people like the vinyl sound better than they like the cd dound.

Re:Why do this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104300)

HEY! Your comment is only valid if you state what you base YOUR life's worth on buster.

And it better not be any of that "I keep my family fed and happy" crap either.
Wait, slashdot? wife? children? what am i saying?

Re:Why do this? (1)

Mr Smidge (668120) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104209)

I cant' get to the article, so I'm not sure what quite makes this utility so special..

I'm an avid vinyl fan, and the only music I ever buy seems to be on 12", so when I want to listen to the music on my PC, the ripping process for me often takes about 30 minutes for the entire vinyl.

I rip both the brand new records I get and the old ones, and with the proper tools to clean up the audio, there's very little degradation from crappy records (for anybody interested, I use CoolEdit 2000).

If they could make them out of a more robust material, I'd be first in line to buy.

Vinyls are in fact made from a more robust plastic than they used to be a few decades ago. They're reasonably durable (obviously nothing compared to that of a CD), but do indeed get bashed about in their lifetime.

Re:Why do this? (5, Informative)

zcat_NZ (267672) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104247)

Gramofile is special because it's useful, small, free, and open source.

What is does is;

Record a whole side at a time

Apply some filtering to remove clicks and pops

Find the gaps between tracks for you, and split the final tracks into individual files.

Not sure why you can't just go read the article; It loaded fine for me just now.

Re:Why do this? (1)

inaeldi (623679) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104212)

Ok, there's something here I don't understand. Aren't records made from digital sources? Aren't CDs digital sources?

I've listened to both brand new records and brand new CDs. The only conclusion I could draw is that records sound like crap on the bass (relatively speaking).

Re:Why do this? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104234)

Uh, unless they are made from an analouge source, you know, like a good ole' analouge mastertape or, heck, even a direct to disc recording.

Re:Why do this? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104237)

the best recordings come from the late 60s and early 70s classical and some easy-listening type stuff (the soundtrack to the film 'Casino Royale' is said to be a stomper).

this partly due to the quality of the recording equipment, and also the regularly used more and better vinyl (now the use old recycled stuff and about half as much). also other reasons, such as the tricks engineers got up to later on gradually ruined the art of recording.

everything you buy now is recorded on nasty equip, mixed and compressed horribly by the engineers, and if vinyl, pressed onto about 1/2 a gram of old car-tyres.

there are exceptions, such as sony's direct digital and some direct-to-disk 'audiophile' shit.

Re:Why do this? (2, Interesting)

Mr Smidge (668120) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104242)

Records are pressed from master pressings, metal discs that make the grooves on each bit of PVC they want to make into a vinyl.

The master pressing can be made from maybe a high quality tape (also analogue), or maybe a digital source with a very high sample rate / sample depth. So not necessarily made from a digital source.

Re:Why do this? (4, Interesting)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104249)

Aren't records made from digital sources?

Depends. Many studios still use magnetic tape, although others use Pro-Tools and their ilk for everything. Once the multi track recordings are done, then the mastering might be to magnetic tape, DAT or Exabyte (amongst others). Then comes the mastering at the pressing plant, which is where any recording will go digital (if it's being pressed onto CD) at the glass mastering stage. Vinyl mastering produces a die, and this is still an "analog" process.

And yes, bass frequencies are limited on vinyl, I remember an early acid house track called "Oochy Koochy" which had such a massive kick sound that it trashed the mastering studios cutting head, something they weren't insured for. That reminds me - I'll have to extract that record from my brothers grubby mitts next time I see him ...

Chris

Re:Why do this? (2, Informative)

cpoch (673846) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104251)

Almost all music is mastered in the digital domain today. Even the music that you can still buy on vinyl. Professional audio editing is much easier using nonlinear editing tools, which are all digital. If you don't think the sound of the CD is up to par with other sources, maybe you need the newer formats of SACD or DVD-A. Personally, I can hear the difference between those formats and standard CD, but the difference is minimal. I'd rather have a 5.1 channel format than a higher sampling rate.

Re:Why do this? (1)

n3k5 (606163) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104270)

Aren't records made from digital sources?
Sure, all of them! (kind of)
Aren't CDs digital sources?
But of course!
And aren't all digital sources the exact same?
Naturellement, that's the very definition of 'digital'! All that talk about bitrates, samplerates, bit depth, channels, DACs and codecs is pure poppycock, intended to confuse pure customers and talk them into upgrading from the perfectly good record players they bought from their pocket money as a child!

Re:Why do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104229)

Just remember - A new record with Britney Spears will sound far, far worse than a classic, out-of-print one with Carusoe.

It's a matter of CONSERVATION. Not "Hey, I can rip crap..."

So what? (4, Interesting)

n3k5 (606163) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104246)

Just remember - a new record will sound far, far better then a CD.
A digital file with a high enough bitrate will also sound far, far better than a CD, no matter how old it is. Just remember -- you don't have to restrict yourself to 44.1KHz, 16bit on-board sound. In fact, many people buy good soundcards for the sole purpose of digitising their records the very first time they play them back, to have a non-degrading copy before using them for DJing or just normal playback.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104290)

and how do you propose you obtain this super high bitrate digital file ? you cannot create what doesnt exist, upsampling and the like is a waste of time if you are ripping from CD

Re:So what? (1)

rudiger (35571) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104313)

you totally missed his point. he is referring to digitizing records (read: LPs), and not limiting one's self to the 44.1KHz, 16bit or whatever standard of CDs

You're off topic (1)

n3k5 (606163) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104317)

and how do you propose you obtain this super high bitrate digital file ? you cannot create what doesnt exist, upsampling and the like is a waste of time if you are ripping from CD
And another one who's compelled to start babbling about CDs upon reading about ripping records. Look, my parent said if a record's audio quality is higher than a CDs, there's no point in ripping it to CD. I merely reminded him that you don't have to put your rip on a CD-Audio. Absolutely no one was talking about ripping from CD.

Re:So what? (1)

kinnell (607819) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104359)

you don't have to restrict yourself to 44.1KHz

Actually even 44.1kHz is overkill for audio recordings. The highest frequency that someone with excellent hearing can pick up is closer to 14kHz. CDs are capable of digitising frequencies up to ~22kHz. Increasing the bandwidth of the recording will not make it sound any better at all.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104370)

Umm... I think he means a 44.1Khz sampling rate, not the maximum frequency. 44,100 16 bit samples per second.

Re:Why do this? (5, Interesting)

fruey (563914) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104252)

One of the reasons that LPs have a different sound is to do with the mastering process. The lower frequencies (bass) cannot be mastered at full volume and cut onto a record, because they'd cause the grooves to be too wide and literally make the needle jump out of the groove. So, the bass frequencies are attenuated or reduced in order to get "as much sound" in the grooves as possible (referred to as pre-emphasis). Then, the levels are all set to as high as they will go while bearing in mind that a groove will be wider as amplitude increases, so if a side of a record is going to be over 20 minutes or so long, then the grooves need to be narrower to fit all the tracks on one side, so the levels are adjusted accordingly.

Now, the equalisation curve [paia.com] was specified by our good friends, the RIAA... all amplifiers that have a "Phono" input use an RIAA EQ curve in the pre-amp stage to boost/reduce the frequencies to get back to a flat response that should sound like the studio mix off the (pre vinyl mastering) master tape.

Often these days all mastering is done at a flat EQ curve, because CDs can handle this, and then mastering happens *again* for the vinyl stage. It used to be the other way round, so early CDs were replaced with "digitally remastered" cuts - Brothers in Arms, Pink Floyd catalogue, that sort of stuff - and had a sound that was more faithful to the original, pristine LPs without sounding "tinny" like the first released CDs.

Digital to Analogue converters and preamps are so good these days that there is little difference between vinyl and CD. A lot of the "warmth" that supposed audiophiles go on about is probably "rumble" anyway (that is, the 50 or 60Hz drone that comes from the platter's electric motor and is passed to the needle, and other artifacts created by the rotation of the record in slightly less than perfect circles, etc).

What I like about LPs is the bigger artwork, the physical effort required to play a recording, and the soothing 33 and one third RPM of the disc as it spins on my old JVC turntable. Also, records which are well kept - as they generally are in my collection - sound pretty good too. However, they're not *better* than CDs. Just different. Old analogue stuff has afficionados everywhere, but please stop bleating that it's because it's better. It's just different.

One interesting argument though - a big thing in digital audio is to keep a fully digital path all the way to the very last, then have a top D to A converter right in the amp and straight to the speakers, some people even sending a digital feed to speakers which have reference D to A converters or even some system to use the digital signal to generate an analogue wave which goes beyond normal D to A electronics (can't remember too much about that, Google around if you feel so inclined). With my vinyl setup, however, I have a signal path that is fully analogue, and no need of a DtoA stage at all ;-) - although I do have solid state electronics in the system... which old wind up 78rpm players didn't have. I bet some people claimed they sounded better than the newer 33rpm records with electric motors and all that, too.

Re:Why do this? (1, Insightful)

Derwen (219179) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104327)

A lot of the "warmth" that supposed audiophiles go on about is probably "rumble" anyway (that is, the 50 or 60Hz drone that comes from the platter's electric motor and is passed to the needle, and other artifacts created by the rotation of the record in slightly less than perfect circles, etc).
This wouldn't produce 'warmth', but pitch variation :o(
The best thing about good analogue recordings is the 'air' around the instruments. The soi-disant clean sound of solo string instruments on many CDs bears little resemblance to the sound of a real instrument in a real space.
...although I do have solid state electronics in the system... which old wind up 78rpm players didn't have. I bet some people claimed they sounded better than the newer 33rpm records with electric motors and all that, too.
It is unlikely that such a claim would be made. However early 78s benefit from predating the adoption of microphones (circa 1927?) - and voice recordings of this era certainly benefit, as you can hear on the CD rereleases ;-P
- Derwen

Re:Why do this? (2, Interesting)

McWilde (643703) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104401)

some people even sending a digital feed to speakers which have reference D to A converters

Best is to have a digital crossover filter and then two DACs to feed two amps per speaker. One for the woofer, one for the tweeter. This will minimize phase problems in your speaker. Some studio monitor speakers do just that.
You could extend to three- or four-way systems, but that's overkill.

Re:Why do this? Brothers in Arms (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104406)

Brothers in Arms WAS digitally mastered. Wasn't that it's original claim to fame? (Aside from being a great album) It was the first to go all digital from recording to CD...

Or am I out to lunch?

Re:Why do this? (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104254)

People, at least the more picky hi-fi ones, used to buy a record, and 1st thing record it onto open reel tape, file the record away and listen to the tape.

BION I found a 78, yes, a shellack 78rpm disk in my collection that sounds like it's never been played. it's a shame the song basically stinks but the 1st time I put it on it stood out from all the rest for sheer lack of surface noise, and it sounds damn good.

Re:Why do this? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104272)

If your LPs are getting worn that rapidly, it could mean that:

1. Your turntable is crappy (spend a couple of hundred dollars fer chrissake).

2. Your turntable is not configured correctly in the arm/pickup/tracking department. Really, extremly fine tolerances are involved, and you should get a professional to set it up.

LPs...decades of use...bla bla.

I was a skeptic too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104428)

But a few months back I cleaned the thick dust off the turntable and played some records, and they sound much better than CDs. At least it sure seemed that way to me.

-- ac at home

Amazing new tech! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104161)

Everyone else uses something we call "line in".

Re:Amazing new tech! (5, Interesting)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104170)

Most people know how to connect line out to line in - but there are other issues. RIAA filtering (No, it's not evil - google it), wow and flutter filtering, among others.

You can't just hook line out to line in and expect a decent result. You need some decent software as well. this guy [lp2cd.com] makes a living doing decent conversions. If it was truly as easy as you say, he'd be out of business.

Re:Amazing new tech! (1)

The Blue Meanie (223473) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104213)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's NOT as simple as line-out to line-in. Phonograph signal levels are notably lower than "standard" line-levels, such as CD, and require a pre-amp of some sort.

Re:Amazing new tech! (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104276)

Ya know I don't know of the details my self, but in short you are correct. For those of us with vintage amplifiers, we have phono jacks in order to amplify the input we get from the magnetic turntable cartrage. I would *think* phono level output is similar to microphone in some aspect, but would need to research the issue.

{side note, i've heard reference to 1v line level, and reference to the empeg using either 1v for stereo output, and 4v for quad output, but really don't have any clue}

There are exceptions to this rule, many turntables made now a days offer line level output by default, bassicly assuming that your recently purchaced amp doesn't have phono level inputs, which is a safe bet. Audio technica is among one company who produdes such an animal.

As far as getting a good phono preamp, well I don't know what's good to be honest. I'm just using mine on my "made in the 80's when quality started to decline" amp.

In theory radioshack (I refer to them only cause they did support vinyl till like last year or so) offered a serviceable pre-amp for like the $20 range to give you some idea about the entry level costs if you have an existing traditional turn table.

Re:Amazing new tech! (2, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104245)

A good quality 70's or 80's vintage receiver will do the trick taking care of the low level and RIAA equalization. Most have a magnetic cartridge phono input and will provide line out to the record jacks for the tape deck. If you have the turntable, you also have the receiver don't you?
Unless you need to do lots of scratch and pop filtering, CDex is a great program for ripping both CD's and Vinyl. Under tools, use Record. It works great.

Re:Amazing new tech! (1)

Davidge (71204) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104263)


You can't just hook line out to line in and expect a decent result. You need some decent software as well. this guy [lp2cd.com] makes a living doing decent conversions. If it was truly as easy as you say, he'd be out of business.


Well he sure as hell doesn't make a living from Web Design, that site is just plain aweful.

Re:Amazing new tech! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104315)

RIAA filtering? Thats what a phono-stage is for! You use the line signal from that, not from the 'table itself!

Re:Amazing new tech! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104180)

Some of us actually know what gramofile does.

I thought the correct way of ripping a vinyl was (4, Funny)

tamnir (230394) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104165)

to scan it [slashdot.org] ?

Re:I thought the correct way of ripping a vinyl wa (5, Funny)

Kieckerjan (38971) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104219)

Duh.. The other way around would be a much cooler hack, because it would be even more useless: software to convert an mp3 into a huge PNG of a well worn record, that plays just fine when fed back into this guys software.

Re:I thought the correct way of ripping a vinyl wa (1)

LNN (304087) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104354)

Duh.. The other way around would be a much cooler hack, because it would be even more useless: software to convert an mp3 into a huge PNG of a well worn record, that plays just fine when fed back into this guys software.

Yeah, that sounds like a cool project for the first few days of the summer! Thanks for giving me the idea!

Other possibility (4, Interesting)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104166)

I personnally enjoyed the way this guy rips vinyls: by scanning [huji.ac.il] them !

Re:Other possibility (1)

inaeldi (623679) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104199)

Yeah, but did you hear the ripped mp3? You can barely tell what it is.

Re:Other possibility (1, Interesting)

Derwen (219179) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104295)

Yeah, but did you hear the ripped mp3? You can barely tell what it is.

Back before CDs came along, a UK childrens TV programme (Blue Peter) had on a guest who could 'read' the music between the grooves.
The presenters handed him a bunch of LPs (with the labels covered) and he proceded to correctly hum or sing all of the tunes on them.
Try doing that with your HD full of MP3s ;-P

- Derwen

In Your Cupboard? (3, Funny)

krystal_blade (188089) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104167)

just the thing to help you bring all those LPs in the cupboard

Did I somehow miss something when I was growing up? Other than the occasional "Loose Plate", or "Little Platter" I've never seen any kind of LP in someone's cupboards.

(And I check... I'm weird like that.)

Not really hip on this whole LP scene, I guess. Can someone shed some light on this?

krystal_blade

Re:In Your Cupboard? (2, Insightful)

B1ackDragon (543470) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104179)

LP's can sound incredible, especially new ones (you might be suprised by how many bands you like produce LP's, go check out eBay or half.com). Also, they're just more fun to play, and have a "different", usually discribed as warmer, sound.

I think the goal here though is to save those old Pink Floyd/The Who records you still want to play every other day, but don't want to wear out from constant use. And who wants to go out and buy a whole new set of CD's?

Re:In Your Cupboard? (1)

B1ackDragon (543470) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104193)

Ok, scratch that. Er, no pun intended there. I just did a quick check of half.com and couldn't easily find much vinyl. But I know ebay has some, and if you live in a much populated area check out used record stores. I've seen from Rage Against the Machine to Nirvana to System of a Down to Radiohead to NIN to Portished to AFI to ... all on vinyl.

Re:In Your Cupboard? (1)

Latent IT (121513) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104376)

Well, of course. Most DJ's still use vinyl...

Well, I've met one or two who really love the final scratch [finalscratch.com] . So much so, it's a little freaky, actually.

Re:In Your Cupboard? (1)

krystal_blade (188089) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104197)

It's just the whole storing them in the cupboard thing that's got me...

I mean, on a bad hangover day, I might just wind up piling on some eggs and bacon on top of ole Pink Floyd, and that just wouldn't do...

(It would probably make the eggs taste bad...)

krystal_blade

Re:In Your Cupboard? (1)

B1ackDragon (543470) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104231)

Ha! As everyone knows, Pink Floyd makes every experiance better.

In so much as breakfast is an "experiance", I think your milage may vary.

Re:In Your Cupboard? (3, Informative)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104341)

i have over 300 lps, all bought since 1995. have you not noticed 'dance music' (i think it's called electronica in the states, both are shit names). 99% of house, jungle, breakbeat, drum & bass, techno, trance, booty bass etc etc etc is released on vinyl first for djs.

with the advent of tools like final scratch [finalscratch.com] , people are starting to switch, which means that there's a hell of a lot of vinyl to rip. Also, there's a lot of rare tunes, dubplates and white labels that have been deleted, and are only available on vinyl.

Re:In Your Cupboard? (4, Interesting)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104397)

Vinyl is highly reccomended if you have kids as far as demonstrating how sound works. You really don't get that positive feedback system, nor can you use a catas needle in a styrophome mug to demonstrate the whole gramaphone concept. Ok, this will definatly cause your record to degrade.

Dispite the fact that I was born in the 70s... I only recently gained an apprication for vinyl. As a kid, when I bought records, it was cause I didn't have a tape player, and I treeted my vinyl poorly. I went with cassettes cause they were so much more portable, I could play them on my TI-99/4a data recorder, and they didn't get damaged too much if I didn't put them back in their cases.

But I was missing something actually. Amazingly enough vinyl is actually a really good standard. Part of my prejustice was the fact that I was a kid and was listening to the stuff on my folks record player, some wooden cabinate deal with cheepo tv tweaters, stereo that was screwy from date of purchace, and an 8track that the program button was screwy. And plus the fact that all the records I had at the time were hand me downs from family members, played to death.

When CDs came out, I was instently impressed... vast sound improvement vs cassettes I noticed right off the bat, no background hiss, and vs the vinyl players *I've experenced* no background 60 cycle hum. So I went for one of those, I was older and could afford one, at first a simple boom box, eventualy a dedicate amp and a multi-disk changer with remote, and then I had something resembling a servicable sound system.

While I'm not a true audiophile, there are those who believe that vinyl is a superior standard to CD. Recent experiments have show me personaly that it's good, it's pretty damn good. If you are lucky enough to have a decent turntable, with a decent cartrage, a new needle, proper alignment, and kick ass wires that don't pickup that annoying 60 cycle hum that most turn tables seem to be a victim of, they sound great, in fact, they do kick ass. Wether or not they have a more natural sound due to the fact that they are analog and have more descrete values between their max and minium range, or if the better cartrage / styluses pickup more noise giving it a warmer feel rather then accurate, I don't know.

Before I get too off the mark, it's reasonable to believe that an analog vinyl record can more accuratly produce natural sounds due to it's analog nature, that whole issue with descrete values in the human percieved range is easy enough to believe. I've never seen it personaly, but i'm willing to believe this. However, in order to achive maxium effect, you need a virgin pressing, virgin record, kick ass turn table, etc... etc... and ya know... I am not going to spend that sorta money on a sound system, nor am I going to spend hours tweeking with my stylus alignment. Forget that. CDs sound pretty damn good, mp3s at a high enough bitrate are adquate for portable audio. Even an old goodwill CD-rom drive will proved *great* audio at sub $20.00.

So to answer your question, no you are not weird like that. While some will argue that the vinyl standard is superior in quality, you can't argue about the entry level cost of CD vs vinyl. CD provides damn good sound for few bucks. CDs are damn cheep to produce dispite the phohographs simple technology to extract sounds from a disk.

But now we are getting stanards for digital audio that more then double the sample rate and 33% the bit width... it would be interesting to see how phonophiles feel about sound quality vs ye old snap crackle hiss humm.

Request for Name Change... (4, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104184)

One more example of the analog hole in action, I guess ;)

I don't want to sound picky, but I REALLY think we need a new name to replace "analog hole". Something about it just doesn't sound right.

Re:Request for Name Change... (0)

soliaus (626912) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104202)

One more example of the analog hole in action, I guess ;)

I believe it is now known as the "Anal. Hole".
my trolliness scares me...

Re:Request for Name Change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104271)

/me waits for the inevitable goatse link :)

Re:Request for Name Change... (1)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104203)

Spiral Scratch?

The title of an old fanzine *cough* years ago. I always thought it described it perfectly.

Bob

Analog Hole? (0, Funny)

krystal_blade (188089) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104189)

Is that some kind of exploit people use when you bend over?

A real "breech" of security, eh?

Nothing quite like being caught with your pants down...

I got it... That's where the whole "Ripping" comes from... Although the "vinyl" thing might be a bit too kinky... not to mention sweaty...

krystal_blade

MP3 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104191)

> bring all those LPs in the cupboard into your MP3 collection

So the most difficult part will be to convert all those MP3 to Ogg after ripping

Digital (4, Informative)

billy_troll (567434) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104196)

if you want better quality when you are recording vinyl, a high end pro turntable such as Numark ttx1, (http://www.ttx1.com/) stanton str8-150 (http://www.stantonmagnetics.com/alpha44/tt_str8-1 50.asp) does onboard digital, so you can get digital straight out into your computer. better than your onboard soundcard. (although you need a digital in....)

Re:Digital (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104218)

Really?

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but why would any audiophile take an analogue signal off your precious vinyl and convert it to digital on the way to the amp, only to convert it back again. You might as well have those nice pre-digitized from the masters CDs to start with.

Unless, by "high end pro" you mean for DJs, of either the broadcast of performance kind. I can see why being able to play back vinyl to an optical out would be useful there. Which is fair enough, and will probably give you the best digital copy for your time as well as minimal inconvenience should you be needing to do so.

Personally, I just record vinyl to minidisc, as thats easy, and actually better than CD for portability (the main reason why I'd record a record in the first place).

What I found Interesting.... (2, Interesting)

SkArcher (676201) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104198)

was the results of the poll linked from the left hand side of the page. These indicate that the vast majority of people want either Hard copy of music only, or freebies only - indicating very little interest in Pay-per-Play and other forms of chargeable online music.

The results of the poll can be found here [linmagau.org]

Weird (2, Insightful)

Kieckerjan (38971) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104200)


> though it's interesting to note that even now
> some indie bands (notably the White Stripes with
> their recent Elephant album) are still releasing
> stuff on vinyl.

This sentence strikes me as slightly weird: why would I buy the latest White Stripes on vinyl if I was intending to convert it into mp3? Maybe because of the artwork? *shrugs*

Cool record btw, although De Stijl remains their best.

Re:Weird (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104241)

Why buy something on vinyl when you want an mp3 version?

Probably because you're like me in that you like having vinyl for playing at home in the living room, but its not such a great band that you're prepared to give them double the cash for a CD or Mindisc as well just to be able to listen to it while you're on the move. My car just doesn't have a 6-disc LP changer, oddly enough.

Of course, there are times that I end up doing just that. The new Blur just had to be bought in the lovely book CD, normal CD for the other artwork and the gatefold double vinyl as well for instance, and I'll end up with every format that the new Radiohead comes out in too.

Re:Weird (1)

Derwen (219179) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104309)

The new Blur just had to be bought in the lovely book CD, normal CD for the other artwork and the gatefold double vinyl as well for instance, and I'll end up with every format that the new Radiohead comes out in too.
I'll bet the RIAA just loves you :^)

Re:Weird (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104329)

Well, yeah, I do go a little overboard for my favorite bands. I just love the packaging as well as the music, really.

Besides, there comes a point where you're buying enough copies of the genuine album that you absolutely refuse to feel guilty about having the odd live bootleg as well. They get enough of my cash off the proper releases to be able to cope with me occasionally owning things they don't want to release properly as well.

DUMBA** MODERATOR ALERT (-1, Offtopic)

krystal_blade (188089) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104215)

How can you possibly rate a comment as "overrated" when there hasn't been any rating done to that post yet? I could see "Offtopic" or something to that tune, but for fucks sakes, think about the what your trying to say...

Saying "I think the people who NEVER moderated this story Overrated it." is pretty stupid, isn't it? Hello? Is this thing on? (Tap Tap Tap)

P.S. Your mother was overrated... But she was still rated first, ya schmuck!

krystal_blade

Re:DUMBA** MODERATOR ALERT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104260)

How about "Rating this post at 0 would be over-rating it, so I shall say that this post is overrated." That makes sense to me.

Re:DUMBA** MODERATOR ALERT (-1, Offtopic)

krystal_blade (188089) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104280)

Your right, your post was rated at 0...

The use of the "overrated" moderation is to indicate that you feel that the moderators who have come and gone have somehow given too high a rating to a post.

What it is not there to do, is to moderate down a post that sits at it's current score by it's own merit... (Score of 1, or 2 through higher Karma scores).

To effectively, correctly moderate the post down, it would have to be rated as offtopic (which it is) inflammatory (which it probably was as well), Inappropriate, etc... Those are all valid reasons for moderating an initial score down.

Check out the moderator guidelines...

krystal_blade

Re:DUMBA** MODERATOR ALERT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104344)

(iainl replying as AC, since this really is offtopic)

Actually, I think a lot of the people using the over/underrated options when moderating are doing it for the same reason that plenty used to use redundant.

Some out there, despite the changes to "excellent" etc on the Karma front are paranoid about losing any in meta - over, under and redundant don't seem to appear in meta, and so you can't be hurt on it. Its petty, and its not like there aren't plenty of chances to score easy Karma to make it back should you care, but some people are just like that. Don't take it personally.

Re:DUMBA** MODERATOR ALERT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104396)

I certainly wish they'd bring back the visible karma score. It's no fun being stuck in excellent all the time. I want a number damnit! From 1 to 100!!!

Holy crap!!!! (1)

teqron (638715) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104216)

I have about 120 of those things in my cupboard. Hell I even have the turntables to put them on. Guess being a dj does have some advantage.

iMic and Final Vinyl (5, Informative)

Davidge (71204) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104228)

A similar, but non-linux solution is to use the extremely useful Griffon Technology iMic [griffintechnology.com] (USB audio) and their software, Final Vinyl [griffintechnology.com] on MacOS X (not everyone runs x86 hardware).

F.V. allows you to rip to wav or aiff and allows you to split tracks based on cue marks. It includes built in RIAA filtering and auto or manual gain and equalisation.

You just plug the iMic into you USB port on your Mac, plug the turntable directly into the iMic's input socket (well, ok, with an RCA to 3.5mm plug adapter), setup your preferred gain in F.V. and off you go.

The Need For a Long Patch Cord (3, Insightful)

tres3 (594716) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104233)

This could actually be the program that gets me to dig out the hundred plus albums and my old turn-table from storage and start to work. Now I either need a really long patch cord or I'll have to find one of those old Radio-Shack pre-amps that allows you to hook up a turn-table to a standard Line-In plug. The impendance is not the same on a decent turn-table as it is on other things that you plug into stereos (like CD players, tape decks, etc.) and if I remember correctly you can barely hear the music without one. Hell, I'm not even sure that my current pre-amp (my system has seperate components: pre-amp, tuner, and three power amps for the front, center, and rear speakers) in the other room (yes I'm too lazy to get up and check right now) has a Phono connection. I know finding one of the old pre-amps from Radio Shack is probably out of the question - does anyone else remember the little black boxes with RCA in and RCA out jacks, a screw terminal for the ground wire that also comes out of turn-tables and a power cord? They didn't even have any knobs or switches!!! If I can't find my old one and my current system doesn't have a Phono in then I'll have to find an old stereo at Goodwill to plug the turn-table into. If my component pre-amp does then how much sound quality will I lose with a 30 foot patch cord? I've never plugged my computer and stereo together. How many other Slashdotters are going to have to figure out some creative wiring to make this work? For that matter how many other Slashdotters still have vinyl? I wonder if this trip down memory lane will induce any flashbacks! ;-)

Re:The Need For a Long Patch Cord (1)

fruey (563914) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104259)

http://www.paia.com/riaa.htm

There ya go... see my post further up for more info

Re:The Need For a Long Patch Cord (5, Informative)

lateralus (582425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104443)

I buy at least as much vinyl as I do CDs. I used Baudline [baudline.com] to tune the setup before creating a digital representation of the music on my hard disk in the form of an OGG file.

I have a number of artists; old and new on heavy vinyl. Stunning.

Try this interesting experiment. Play a CD and a vinyl record of the exact same track into Baudline's spectrum analyzer and notice the average DB across the high frequencies. Doing so with Fugazi's "End Hits" album showed me that the CD cuts off above 16Khz while the vinyl continues to reproduce the signal up to 20khz.

Most people can't hear above 16Khz but such signals create harmonics that extent down into the audible range.

I did (4, Informative)

Konster (252488) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104257)

I did this last November using a trial edition of Sound Forge and their lp restoral plug in.

It took a few hours' worth of fiddling (even with the plug in), but I finally constructed a digitized version of a recording made in the late 40's and it sounded excellent, save for the last disk which had an off center hole. It had varying pitch, which I was still able to tone down a bit.

The rest of the lps in the collection were in very good condition, but still had poor sound attributed to its 50+ year age.

I am unfamiliar with the results that the professionals produce, but even a simple trial version of Sound Forge can work wonders on old LP's for merely the cost of electricity and a blank cd.

Next Illegal Project: How to Rip FM Radio (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104269)

Be sure to give your vinyl a good cleaning, that often helps tremendously. I just use warm soapy water and a new, clean toothbrush, and try not to get the label wet. Esp the ones you pick up at the Salvation Army store usually need crap cleaned out of the grooves.

Re:Next Illegal Project: How to Rip FM Radio (-1, Offtopic)

krystal_blade (188089) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104298)

I always found that my Vinyl always performed a little better after I used some New Finish 2001 or Armor All on it. Of course, sometimes those cigarrete burnholes can be a pain in the ass... I just take a little sandpaper, and a vinyl repair kit to those, and it fixes them right up.

oh, wait, you were talking about "Records"...

silly me...

krystal_blade

Re:Next Illegal Project: How to Rip FM Radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6104303)


And then rinse with distilled water (available at most grovery stores) - esp if you have well or hard water.

A friend has a reverse osmosis (RO) water maker. That would make the final rise easy.

Medium reliability (1)

sh0rtie (455432) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104274)


At least my vinyl will be playable in 100 years, can we say the same about harddrives [slashdot.org] and compact discs [slashdot.org] ?

personally when i buy music it will always be on vinyl, i get a fairly robust product,no DRM, great artwork and will last with good care [garrard501.com] forever
(having already 20,000 from 20years of dj'ing might sway my opinion somewhat ;)

Re:Medium reliability (1)

shunnicutt (561059) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104368)

Whoa. Down, boy. Isn't the point of this software that you can rip you vinyl to a digital file, thus having both formats to enjoy? I don't know about you, but I love having music on my iPod.

My take on this software (since I can't read the article) isn't that mp3's are better than vinyl. It's that if you have vinyl, you can make mp3's.

Reliability? Since you have vinyl records, you're in an excellent position to rip them to mp3 and see which is still around in 100 years. Not arguing for one or the other, just saying it would be an interesting experiment. Besides, aren't backups great?

As for DRM, I agree with you. However, redbook cd's are also what I call "future-proof". So long as a mechanism exists to play them, nobody can tell me what I can do with them, Congress willing and the creek don't rise.

Another worthwhile program (3, Interesting)

SIGBUS (8236) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104324)

Last fall, I used "Gnome Wave Cleaner to clean up the sound from a bunch of LP's that I had recorded. I was quite happy with the results.

What I do... (3, Informative)

Tronster (25566) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104335)

I DJ on both vinyl and CD, but prefer spinning CDs. The problem is that all the "good tracks" can still only be purchased on vinyl.

After reading the Tom's Hardware guide on the TerraTec DMX 6 Fire [tomshardware.com] I knew that would be the next sound card to purchase. It has a phono-in as two RCA jacks, and comes with decent* software to clean up scratchy vinyl (*- Yet doesn't clean up RIAA filter artifacts. See below.)

Ripping vinyl is not intuitive though. I made a few rips via Sound Forge and wondered why all my bass wasn't coming through. The card had on-board RIAA filtering, which caused other problems. The solution: Download the RIAA Direct-X plug-in and run the filter on the WAV after it has been captured.

The RIAA filter itself works most of the time, but about one in every 6 records I rip, the filter creates very loud, 1 to 2 sample, "popping" artifacts, that need to be manually removed. I don't know if it's the filter itself or the implementation...either way I just wish it wasn't it didn't have that effect.

Once that is done, normalize to a good level and you're done. The process takes about 20-45 minutes per record. It's a pain, but spinning the end result on CDJ-1000 [cnet.com] makes it all worth it.
--

Interestin (3, Interesting)

sebi (152185) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104367)

I would like to check out the page, but the Slashdot effect was faster. I actually went back to buying records instead of CDs a while ago. With all the copy protection schemes on new CDs I have to rip them via line in anyway. With a record it's basically the same amount of work, but I don't support copy protected discs this way.

A nice side effect is that buying music became fun again. Browsing records and then putting them on the store's listening turntable is somehow a nicer experience than pressing a couple of buttons on a CD player. I now have a couple of albums that I didn't buy because of copy protection and couldn't be happier. Of course CDs are easier to handle, and there is none of the static and other little noises you can get with a record. But for me music never was about the highest possible sound quality.

There's still music that's vinyl only. (5, Informative)

phaxkolumbo (572192) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104419)

There's lots of (quality) music released today that's released only on vinyl. DIY punk/noise, techno, electro and house, to name a few.

Personally (as a wannabe-DJ) I buy vinyl instead of CD (as a form of protest?), and preferably from small labels. And I've got a collection really old 7" artifacts and oddities. It's a big plus to get the tracks in mp3 (or ogg), for archival and sharing purposes (which I almost consider the same). After all, one day, you might not find a working turntable anymore...

Yes, I believe it's okay to share stuff that's limited to 500 pressings, sold out and almost impossible to find. There are actually labels that release their music on vinyl and free mp3 download.

The point of this post? Not really any, just wanted to let you know what this software might be used for.

What's this "ripping directly" (3, Funny)

mrselfdestrukt (149193) | more than 10 years ago | (#6104432)

I don't understand your concept of ripping directly to PC. All my music I rip using a kareoke machine, 10 friends and a microphone and Windows recorder. The quality just never comes out the same as the original.
Wow.Your idea is phenomenal!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...