Analogue transfers to CD
Posted by: David O'Higgins on 01 April 2004
I'm interested in transferring some of my LPs to CD ("out of print items"). I have done this once using a Pioneer 609 recorder, so I'm familiar with the process. Can anyone offer an opinion on which machine(s) are best at analogue to digital conversion, or are they largely all the same.
Posted on: 01 April 2004 by Wolf
From what I understand from a class I took on sound and editing you would have to have a DAT recorder to go frum analogue to digital. My teacher was recomending a Sony product but there was another one that was smaller and portable. tho I doubt your recording would be equal to what they use from the master tapes. It would be serviceable.
glenn
Life is analogue
glenn
Life is analogue
Posted on: 01 April 2004 by syd
David.
I can thoroughly recommend the Pioneer PD 609 as I use one. The quality is excellent and copies will be determined by the quality of your TT, arm, cartridge and phono input.
Yours in Music
Syd
I can thoroughly recommend the Pioneer PD 609 as I use one. The quality is excellent and copies will be determined by the quality of your TT, arm, cartridge and phono input.
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 01 April 2004 by Not For Me
I use a Marantz CD630R studio CD recorder and et great results on analogue inputs.
Whats all this a about a DAT being needed?
DS
ITC - Anthony Rother - Magic Diner
Whats all this a about a DAT being needed?
DS
ITC - Anthony Rother - Magic Diner
Posted on: 01 April 2004 by o.j.
quote:Hy David!Years ago
Originally posted by David O'Higgins:
I'm interested in transferring some of my LPs to CD ("out of print items"). I have done this once using a Pioneer 609 recorder, so I'm familiar with the process. Can anyone offer an opinion on which machine(s) are best at analogue to digital conversion, or are they largely all the same.
i used a wadia a/d converter i think it was at the time the best thing.Maybe new Nagra recorder is nowadays top.also possible elgar dsc converter,do not K now if they have a/d
converters.I mo better to use a pc than a hifi
audio burner.I have the experience that if you
duplicate copies in an hifi cd burner(which is only analog possible,digital is prohibited by
music industrie )those copies sound often alittle bit compressed and flat.Pc programs have no copyright limits and maybe thats one of the reasons why they sound nearer 1to1.
O.J.
Posted on: 01 April 2004 by David O'Higgins
Syd.
I'm using an LP12/Ekos/Helikon/Prefix to 552 sitting on 2 levels of Mana. The first LP copy I made sounded much noisier on playback than the LP. I feel that the recording level may be a critical factor - too low and surface noice is accentuated, too high and distortion will ruin the result, but it seems that the line is quite a fine one.
Is this your experience?
To those who suggest that using a PC, instead of a CD Recorder, could you please explain the advantages - and deal with the drawback of introducing such unwieldy machinery to the listening space, not to mention the rows which would ensue in a household of 5 PC users - and I'm not going to install a network at home!
I'm using an LP12/Ekos/Helikon/Prefix to 552 sitting on 2 levels of Mana. The first LP copy I made sounded much noisier on playback than the LP. I feel that the recording level may be a critical factor - too low and surface noice is accentuated, too high and distortion will ruin the result, but it seems that the line is quite a fine one.
Is this your experience?
To those who suggest that using a PC, instead of a CD Recorder, could you please explain the advantages - and deal with the drawback of introducing such unwieldy machinery to the listening space, not to mention the rows which would ensue in a household of 5 PC users - and I'm not going to install a network at home!
Posted on: 01 April 2004 by yaman
I would recommend NAD C660 which I use for the purpose. It makes perfect digital copies of CDs and quite good analog conversion. Of course your vinyl performance plus the quality of A/D conversion will determine the outcome. Adding a better outboard A/D converter to any copier should increase the quality.
By the way with hi-fi copier decks, like C660, you can make as many copies as you wish from the original but you can not make another copy from a copy because of copy-protection. Another point is you have to use "Audio" marked CD-Rs. These are more expensive than the standard blank CD-Rs because a small amount goes to record companies as loyalty.
Yaman
By the way with hi-fi copier decks, like C660, you can make as many copies as you wish from the original but you can not make another copy from a copy because of copy-protection. Another point is you have to use "Audio" marked CD-Rs. These are more expensive than the standard blank CD-Rs because a small amount goes to record companies as loyalty.
Yaman
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by Claus
Pioneer PDR-05
A pretty old model, but top quality at the time and it makes very good recordings, from LP or tuner.
It's even quite ok as cdplayer as well.
Only downside is that it can not use RW discs.
Claus
A pretty old model, but top quality at the time and it makes very good recordings, from LP or tuner.
It's even quite ok as cdplayer as well.
Only downside is that it can not use RW discs.
Claus
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by blythe
quote:
Originally posted by David O'Higgins:
Syd.
To those who suggest that using a PC, instead of a CD Recorder, could you please explain the advantages - and deal with the drawback of introducing such unwieldy machinery to the listening space, not to mention the rows which would ensue in a household of 5 PC users - and I'm not going to install a network at home!
I use my PC to burn the discs NOT to listen to the music on!!!
Because it is impractical to move either my PC to the LP12 or LP12 to the PC, I record onto MiniDisc, then connect that to my PC (optical connection into the PC)
The results sound surprisingly good.
Computers are supposed to work on 1's and 0's - in other words "Yes" or "No" - why does mine frequently say "Maybe"?......
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by Chris L
I'll put in another vote for the Pioneer PD 609.
As a consumer CD recorder it's far better than it has any right to be. To get much better you need to go to a pro or semi-pro recorder like the Marantz that DS uses.
If you want to use a PC, I'd suggest getting a soundcard with a digital input, and an external analogue to digital converter with a good power supply. The insides of a PC are far too noisy with RF to allow good quality conversion of analogue audio to digital.
Chris
As a consumer CD recorder it's far better than it has any right to be. To get much better you need to go to a pro or semi-pro recorder like the Marantz that DS uses.
If you want to use a PC, I'd suggest getting a soundcard with a digital input, and an external analogue to digital converter with a good power supply. The insides of a PC are far too noisy with RF to allow good quality conversion of analogue audio to digital.
Chris
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by Claus:
Pioneer PDR-05
A pretty old model, but top quality at the time and it makes very good recordings, from LP or tuner.
It's even quite ok as cdplayer as well.
Only downside is that it can not use RW discs.
Claus
I used to have a Pioneer PDR 05 and it makes quite exceptional recordings of LP and from thr NAT 01. It has a new owner (care to comment Duncan?) as I didn't use it as much, but it is of very high quality.
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by Geoff P
Regardless of which CD recorder you choose there are options for getting an analogue signal out of "NAIM".
I personally use one of the spare signal outputs on a PS. In my case now it is a Supercap, in the past it was a HiCap and it could also work with a FC aswell.
Alternatively you can have a Din-RCA "out" cable made and use a rec. out on the pre-amp.
Certainly the transfer quality sounds pretty good to my ears. Once you have it on a CDR (or RW) you can optionally read it into a PC and use software to remove "scratch & noise" then burn the cleaned up sound to an CDR or RW.
Of course if you have a nice clean first recording the PC stuff is not necessary, unless you just want to archive and then build mixed track lists for final burning.
regards
GEOFF
I personally use one of the spare signal outputs on a PS. In my case now it is a Supercap, in the past it was a HiCap and it could also work with a FC aswell.
Alternatively you can have a Din-RCA "out" cable made and use a rec. out on the pre-amp.
Certainly the transfer quality sounds pretty good to my ears. Once you have it on a CDR (or RW) you can optionally read it into a PC and use software to remove "scratch & noise" then burn the cleaned up sound to an CDR or RW.
Of course if you have a nice clean first recording the PC stuff is not necessary, unless you just want to archive and then build mixed track lists for final burning.
regards
GEOFF
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by TomK
To do this on a PC you need a decent quality sound card and software to clean up and edit as you require. Sound cards have drastically reduced in price in recent years so you no longer need to pay hundreds of pounds for one that's good enough. I've been doing it now for about 4 years and when I started out the Soundblaster Live was the standard recommended affordable one but you can get far better now for not much more than I paid for mine. Ideally you would connect your turntable directly to you PC but for most folk that's not practical. I use a Sony Pro Walkman as the intermediate stage. The quality of this machine is unbelievable - with decent tape it's easily a match for any other recording machine, analogue or digital, that I've ever heard. Then it's a matter of recording that on to your hard drive as a wav file, and using Sound Forge or something similar to clean up the ticks and pops etc and split up into tracks. There's any number of software packages that record to CD. I use Roxio Easy CD Creator which works very well for me but some other folk don't like it.
It's a labour-intensive process and you don't do it save the price of a CD but I've had results that were nothing short of phenomenal. I've been able to compare the odd track on CD with my own version and generally it compares very well - sometimes better than the CD version. This confirms to me that much of the early criticism of CD was due to crappy mastering, not the medium itself.
One thing to be wary of though. I've found my ears much less forgiving of surface noise when I'm listening to CD than vinyl so try to clean up as much noise as possible before writing to CD. If you don't then those little clicks that you've ignored for years on vinyl will very quickly start to irritate the hell out of you when you're listening on CD.
It's a labour-intensive process and you don't do it save the price of a CD but I've had results that were nothing short of phenomenal. I've been able to compare the odd track on CD with my own version and generally it compares very well - sometimes better than the CD version. This confirms to me that much of the early criticism of CD was due to crappy mastering, not the medium itself.
One thing to be wary of though. I've found my ears much less forgiving of surface noise when I'm listening to CD than vinyl so try to clean up as much noise as possible before writing to CD. If you don't then those little clicks that you've ignored for years on vinyl will very quickly start to irritate the hell out of you when you're listening on CD.
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by Not For Me
o.j. & Yaman,
You are not 100% right about digital copies on standalone CD recorders.
The restriction applies to consumer CDRs with SCMS (Serial Copy Management System).
Studio or Pro CD recorders often have options to disable ot ignore these constraints. You can also use el- cheapo computer CD blanks rather than the much more expensive 'Audio CD blanks', a saving that can help justify the more expensive machines.
Use of an off-board ADC into a computer can also yield good results, as you can edit and trim, de-noise, de-crackle and set track markers and generally fiddle around with the WAV files before burning. It is particularly useful to get rid of a troublesome scratch on the vinyl. The only trouble is that you have to have the Hi-Fi near the computer, but that might be O.K for some.
DS
ITC - Current 93 - Thunder Perfect Mind revised
You are not 100% right about digital copies on standalone CD recorders.
The restriction applies to consumer CDRs with SCMS (Serial Copy Management System).
Studio or Pro CD recorders often have options to disable ot ignore these constraints. You can also use el- cheapo computer CD blanks rather than the much more expensive 'Audio CD blanks', a saving that can help justify the more expensive machines.
Use of an off-board ADC into a computer can also yield good results, as you can edit and trim, de-noise, de-crackle and set track markers and generally fiddle around with the WAV files before burning. It is particularly useful to get rid of a troublesome scratch on the vinyl. The only trouble is that you have to have the Hi-Fi near the computer, but that might be O.K for some.
DS
ITC - Current 93 - Thunder Perfect Mind revised
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by o.j.
quote:Hy david!my experience with pdr 04 and 05 is:digital copy was always louder and more
Originally posted by David Slater:
o.j. & Yaman,
You are not 100% right about digital copies on standalone CD recorders.
The restriction applies to consumer CDRs with SCMS (Serial Copy Management System).
Studio or Pro CD recorders often have options to disable ot ignore these constraints. You can also use el- cheapo computer CD blanks rather than the much more expensive 'Audio CD blanks', a saving that can help justify the more expensive machines.
Use of an off-board ADC into a computer can also yield good results, as you can edit and trim, de-noise, de-crackle and set track markers and generally fiddle around with the WAV files before burning. It is particularly useful to get rid of a troublesome scratch on the vinyl. The only trouble is that you have to have the Hi-Fi near the computer, but that might be O.K for some.
DS
ITC - Current 93 - Thunder Perfect Mind revised
flat(better term compressed) as the original.
Copy of a friend of mine made on Pcs was one to
one.Analog copies of pdr 05 had the same effect.
i know this exact because my friend came with his laptop to my house so we could compare the
results playing the burnt cds on my cambridge
Cd player.Do not know much about computers but
maybe my friends laptop had a better burning soft(or hard)ware
than pioneer had.
O.J.
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by David O'Higgins
Geoff P
This is getting to the essence of the problem. I'm trying to record to CD a well loved 1969 LP (10 songs by Tucker Zimmerman) which has been unavailable for almost 30 years. It still sounds very quiet via LP/12/552/prefix etc but the digital copy seems to accentuate the surface noise.
I suppose I'm really asking is there any chance of a 'Naim CDR 609', but I suppose that's dreaming.
This is getting to the essence of the problem. I'm trying to record to CD a well loved 1969 LP (10 songs by Tucker Zimmerman) which has been unavailable for almost 30 years. It still sounds very quiet via LP/12/552/prefix etc but the digital copy seems to accentuate the surface noise.
I suppose I'm really asking is there any chance of a 'Naim CDR 609', but I suppose that's dreaming.
Posted on: 02 April 2004 by TomK
Ross,
That's a powerful looking piece of kit, and just what I'd have loved to have been able to use (the connectivity in particular looks fantastic as I've never been entirely happy at having to go through the Pro Walkman even though there was no apparent loss of quality). It's pretty pricey though. It would be interesting to hear how the results achieved compare with mine.
That's a powerful looking piece of kit, and just what I'd have loved to have been able to use (the connectivity in particular looks fantastic as I've never been entirely happy at having to go through the Pro Walkman even though there was no apparent loss of quality). It's pretty pricey though. It would be interesting to hear how the results achieved compare with mine.
Posted on: 03 April 2004 by NaimDropper
I transfer from my LP12/Naim to my Roland VS1680 digital recorder. This thing is a stand-alone studio and is overkill for the application we're discussing here.
It has inputs and converters better than most PC soundcards (especially after I hot-rodded it).
The device Ross shows in principle would be great. I don't know the details of this thing, but I'm sure it's working fine for him.
As to the quality of sound, I agree that my recordings of early stuff sound MUCH better than the commercial CD for the same... Must have been bad mastering at the time. Or even sub-standard equipment used by the studios. Remember, that the common thought at the time was that digital was perfect and there was nothing that could make it sound bad...
As to the recording levels, welcome to the digital domain. There is NO forgiveness for going "over" like with analog tape. The results are horrible sounding clipping. And if you get the levels too low then you find out how little actual dynamic range there is with the 44.1/16 format! A careful balance with constant monitoring is required.
Oh, and be judicious with the post-processing software if you're doing it with a PC. There are pop and scratch / noise eliminators out there available as "plug ins" but they can do more harm than good to your precious analog sounds. They're meant for the headbanging MP3 crowd.
Have fun and happy recording.
David
It has inputs and converters better than most PC soundcards (especially after I hot-rodded it).
The device Ross shows in principle would be great. I don't know the details of this thing, but I'm sure it's working fine for him.
As to the quality of sound, I agree that my recordings of early stuff sound MUCH better than the commercial CD for the same... Must have been bad mastering at the time. Or even sub-standard equipment used by the studios. Remember, that the common thought at the time was that digital was perfect and there was nothing that could make it sound bad...
As to the recording levels, welcome to the digital domain. There is NO forgiveness for going "over" like with analog tape. The results are horrible sounding clipping. And if you get the levels too low then you find out how little actual dynamic range there is with the 44.1/16 format! A careful balance with constant monitoring is required.
Oh, and be judicious with the post-processing software if you're doing it with a PC. There are pop and scratch / noise eliminators out there available as "plug ins" but they can do more harm than good to your precious analog sounds. They're meant for the headbanging MP3 crowd.
Have fun and happy recording.
David
Posted on: 03 April 2004 by TomK
The important thing to realise is that it's possible to create very high quality CDs from your LPs but:
1. It can take an awful lot of work to get the sound just so and
2. An old knackered LP is not going to sound much better even when it's been cleaned up. You can remove a fair amount of crap without affecting the sound at all but if it's been played for years on an SP25 forget it!
1. It can take an awful lot of work to get the sound just so and
2. An old knackered LP is not going to sound much better even when it's been cleaned up. You can remove a fair amount of crap without affecting the sound at all but if it's been played for years on an SP25 forget it!
Posted on: 20 April 2004 by David O'Higgins
Thanks to all who contributed so far.
I've now made a number of acceptable recordings using CDR 'for audio use only'. These are all taken from analogue sources so there is no problem making further copies in my PC if I wish.
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether a copy made in a PC will be as good as the first copy made in the CD Recorder ?
I've now made a number of acceptable recordings using CDR 'for audio use only'. These are all taken from analogue sources so there is no problem making further copies in my PC if I wish.
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether a copy made in a PC will be as good as the first copy made in the CD Recorder ?
Posted on: 20 April 2004 by prowla
quote:That is incorrect - you do not need a DAT. Also, why would anybody want a Sony product (with the possible exceptioon of the Walkman Pro)???
From what I understand from a class I took on sound and editing you would have to have a DAT recorder to go frum analogue to digital. My teacher was recomending a Sony product...
Regarding Ross's M-Audio A/D converter: is the MIDI required?
quote:Well - if you've got a laptop it wouldn't need to be too long.
How long can the USB cable be?
Regarding Walkmans: why convert to tape first and then to computer?
quote:- Well this could open a can of worms! IMHO the copys will be identical, but others swear that they aren't, and that the media they're recorded onto makes a big difference.
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether a copy made in a PC will be as good as the first copy made in the CD Recorder ?
Paul
Posted on: 21 April 2004 by TomK
"Regarding Walkmans: why convert to tape first and then to computer?"
Simple logistics. I have no way of connecting my PC directly to my turntable. They are in different rooms and my early attempt at using an extended cable was a miserable failure. The sound was poor and there was an unacceptable level of hum in the background. However that may change tonight as I've just received a super-duper new high quality, highly screened cable which will hopefully get round this. If it works then goodbye Walkman. However I must say that some of the transfers I've already done have been of staggeringly good quality. The Pro Walkman is a formidable machine.
Simple logistics. I have no way of connecting my PC directly to my turntable. They are in different rooms and my early attempt at using an extended cable was a miserable failure. The sound was poor and there was an unacceptable level of hum in the background. However that may change tonight as I've just received a super-duper new high quality, highly screened cable which will hopefully get round this. If it works then goodbye Walkman. However I must say that some of the transfers I've already done have been of staggeringly good quality. The Pro Walkman is a formidable machine.
Posted on: 21 April 2004 by Andrew L. Weekes
quote:
How long can the USB cable be?
USB2 is specced at 5m max.
The advantage of doing it with a PC is the editing facilities, to guarantee track splits with a CD recorder you need to be there and press the button (or at least on mine you do) the automated track splitting doesn't seem very good, or adjustable.
I use an M-Audio A-D, then feed digital data over SPDIF to the PC, in another room. This adds jitter, and the resultant quality is dependant upon the cable and the receiver at the PC, but I get good results like this.
I record at 32 bit (24 actual data bits) edit and do any pop removal and track splitting / normalisation, then convert to 16 bit for final CD master. The results are pretty comparable to my Marantz CD recorder.
Andy.
Posted on: 21 April 2004 by Geoff P
Questions
Has anybody tried using an "IMIC" which is a little gizmo sold by Apple which allows you to input via a mini etreo jack from an audio source and pass it to the PC software via USB 2.
http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic/why_imic.php
According to the supplier it has several benefits including:
External A/D & D/A so not affected by internal computer noise.
24 bit sampling
and so on:
I have picked one up because it is rdiculously cheap, but have not got round to using it yet.
regards
GEOFF
Has anybody tried using an "IMIC" which is a little gizmo sold by Apple which allows you to input via a mini etreo jack from an audio source and pass it to the PC software via USB 2.
http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic/why_imic.php
According to the supplier it has several benefits including:
External A/D & D/A so not affected by internal computer noise.
24 bit sampling
and so on:
I have picked one up because it is rdiculously cheap, but have not got round to using it yet.
regards
GEOFF
Posted on: 21 April 2004 by domfjbrown
I also have a PDR609, but, err, I've NEVER used the A/D conversion in it! I originally bought it for CD playing duties upstairs (it was £80, boxed, mint, with 3 weeks' use!!!), and I then connected it coax-digitally to my Sony (sorry!) JB940 MD.
I actually reckon the A/D in the Sony is fairly damn good - I master to MD, edit, then dump across to the Pioneer via digital. I also use analog recording when dubbing CDs onto compilations, since SCMS gets in the way otherwise.
The results are pretty damn good - even WITH the Minidisc stage in the middle. Good pace etc, and the MD side of things only has a subtle effect on soundstage etc and doesn't add much in the way of harshness to the sound.
If the Pioneer had a less hassly editing system, I'd try mastering direct to CDRW, but MD's easier to use in this respect...
__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!
I actually reckon the A/D in the Sony is fairly damn good - I master to MD, edit, then dump across to the Pioneer via digital. I also use analog recording when dubbing CDs onto compilations, since SCMS gets in the way otherwise.
The results are pretty damn good - even WITH the Minidisc stage in the middle. Good pace etc, and the MD side of things only has a subtle effect on soundstage etc and doesn't add much in the way of harshness to the sound.
If the Pioneer had a less hassly editing system, I'd try mastering direct to CDRW, but MD's easier to use in this respect...
__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!