Why don't those with top of the range vinyl record albums on to 24bit 192kHz digital?

Eh?

Would it not be easier just to play the vinyl?

I am archiving my vinyl to 9624. Why?

>Vinyl degrades over time;
>Older vinyl can be declicked once digitised;
>Once digitised I can include in in playlists;>Once digitised I can convert it to mp3 for portability;
>I can back up the files in case of catastrophe.

One of the primary reasons for buying my EAR868PL.

M

I've been copying to 4416, 4424 and 9624. My ageing ears detect little difference, if any, between the three. However, file sizes are significantly different, but whether that is a problem any longer is moot. I have hundreds of recordings on my NAS and am still nowhere filling even 1TB of space, which is, let's face it, massive. I've settled on 9624, although I'm sure 4424 would suffice. Going any higher is a waste for me as the differences are undetectable.

Mr Underhill makes the best points for digitising although my wife's arguments about clutter (how dare she), etc. are more persuasive.

Mr Underhill posted:

I am archiving my vinyl to 9624. Why?

>Vinyl degrades over time

I'm curious to what you attribute this degradation. Does vinyl replay quality change over time itself, are successive plays of a LP the culprit or some other factor. Do you prefer the sound of archived vinyl versus direct replay or is there a convenience factor involved?

My comments, there is nothing wrong in capturing the sound of turn table/arm/cartridge/phono amp playing vinyl (and of course that is what it is, not the vinyl it self), but the ADC process and DSP optimisation is obviously as important as the DAC process. Theoretically  these should be ideally matched but clearly not really viable when using hifi DACs. But the ADC does need to up to the task. Suitably competent ADCs seems to start life at around £2k .. and I would certainly want to audition different models. I just wouldn't bother with very much cheaper ADCs unless you were convinced it was right for you. The logic here is exactly the same as for your DACs. It's worth considering the ADC process is ultimately lossy, and you want to most likely keep the losses and distortions to a minimum for the recording not to sound lacking or not being a good copy.

its also worth noting most modern vintly is made from digital master files, so what you are recording here is effectively that digital file after it's been 'processed' and reconstructed by the vinyly manufacturing process and by your replay equipment. To capture that lossy and distorting reconstruction filter of the vinyl 'sound' at replay, that many of us find attractive, you will need a good ADC.

And what is the question again, please?

Adam, I think the OP is inviting discussion on the merits or otherwise of recording vintly playing on your TT.. at least that's how I interpreted it.. and seems a worthwhile discussion topic.

Simon - thanks for claryfing. I actually understood the title to be: why isn't digital music recorded straight away with a sampling frequency 192 kHz and a bit depth 24 bit.

But now that I read it again... It may also mean - why don't we digitise our vinyls, using top of the range decks.

If it is the latter - in order to digitise a vinyl, playing back using it's line outputs, would require a top notch, professional sound card. I could asctually try to use my bands's 8 channel TASCAM converter (balanced inputs, outputting g 8 channels simultaneously via a USB for a recording computer). Cannot remember the sampling frequency though.

Ulimately that begs a question: why?

I love playing my winyls. I have also ran comparisons of vinyls vs high-def remasters (of the same album). NDS in full swing comes close, but... (Comparison made against my Linn LP12 and Rega RP10). A very good deck has that extra fluidity that digital files somehow lack...

Caution, together with all the usual 'source quality' rules, seem to be thrown to the wind by some folk who, having invested seventy quid or so in one of these turntables with a digital out capability, think they can now convert their vinyl to digital files.  What the OP is suggesting seems to be something quite different... forget your £70 digitising turntables and use your top-of-the-range vinyl playback equipment as the source for digitising your vinyl.   And the problem with this admirable suggestion is, as Simon points out, that the resulting digital file quality will be dependant upon the capability of the analogue to digital converter you use.

I have a Klimax LP12 and I've invested in a £30 ADC box that plugs into my laptop's USB socket and takes the output from my Urika phono stage.  It's capable of 96/24 encoding, so I ought to be able to make some fine digital copies of my LPs.   For a few pounds more I could have upped the resolution to 192/24.

But who am I kidding ?   Do I really expect a £30 ADC to do justice to the analogue ouput from an LP12?   I'd be deluding myself if I did.  Simon has put a peg in the ground for the minumum price of an ADC (£2k) that you'd be needing.   Well, my vinyl collection is neither extensive or unique enough to warrent that level of expenditure on a box of tricks that would, at best, create a fair digital version of my LPs.  There's a reason I invested in a Klimax LP12... that was to listen to vinyl, not some inferior artefact... in fact I already have many of those in my collection; they're called CDs.

Roger

Roger - beautifully put, as always. 

Hi Roger,

I remember when I got my first proper job in 1983. I first went and bought a 42.5/110 to replace my Hafler DH101 / Sony power amp. When I finished training I went to The Sound Organisation and bought an LP12 / Ittock / Karma, and the cards for my 42.5, to replace my STD305S and Rega arm.

Over the years I have collected thousands of albums from a variety of sources, and in a variety of conditions. I am emotionally attached to my LP12 and I do enjoy the rituals around its use, but I also enjoy the factors I listed above in digitising the music. This has recovered music that has become poor on vinyl. For instance I love Oscar Peterson and have a number of the Verve albums, one of which was very poor. This is a mono album and I found on recording it that the damage was primarily on one track, I therefore used Audacity to removed this and double up the good side, the result was processed using some excellent software I have bought that does a FAR better job then I can manually, even after MANY hours of practice.

Today I keep a selection of my more pristine albums in the living room for direct play, but even these I have archived as experience has taught me that things degrade, even with the best will and efforts. My commitment to vinyl is such that I bought an EAR868PL which, of course, has one of the best phono stages available.

M

Ooooohhh; big digital numbers eh? It all sounds very impressive doesn't it? Beware the rampant marketing monster folks. Here we go again. Even the musically eminent Sir Reginald of Dwight announced on a chat show that he idiotically dumped his vinyl collection and had to buy it all over again, because no digital conversion can replicate that sound.

Digitised vinyl is a different kettle of fish to spinning  'ride the groove' vinyl. Some say that the sound of vinyl is in part due to a mechanical vibration travelling across the surface of the record and back to the stylus.

Colouration? It can of course just be a pigment of the imagination and if one likes it; job done. Overdriven guitar valve-amp anyone? Lots of lovely distortion there.

So go ahead and digitise if you so desire folks; but please don't make the mistake of dumping your vinyl collection.

John.

Do you people not understand the term "troll"? 

Mike Hughes posted:

Do you people not understand the term "troll"? 

As in Scandinavian folklore?

No.

rjstaines posted:

Caution, together with all the usual 'source quality' rules, seem to be thrown to the wind by some folk who, having invested seventy quid or so in one of these turntables with a digital out capability, think they can now convert their vinyl to digital files.  What the OP is suggesting seems to be something quite different... forget your £70 digitising turntables and use your top-of-the-range vinyl playback equipment as the source for digitising your vinyl.   And the problem with this admirable suggestion is, as Simon points out, that the resulting digital file quality will be dependant upon the capability of the analogue to digital converter you use.

I have a Klimax LP12 and I've invested in a £30 ADC box that plugs into my laptop's USB socket and takes the output from my Urika phono stage.  It's capable of 96/24 encoding, so I ought to be able to make some fine digital copies of my LPs.   For a few pounds more I could have upped the resolution to 192/24.

But who am I kidding ?   Do I really expect a £30 ADC to do justice to the analogue ouput from an LP12?   I'd be deluding myself if I did.  Simon has put a peg in the ground for the minumum price of an ADC (£2k) that you'd be needing.   Well, my vinyl collection is neither extensive or unique enough to warrent that level of expenditure on a box of tricks that would, at best, create a fair digital version of my LPs.  There's a reason I invested in a Klimax LP12... that was to listen to vinyl, not some inferior artefact... in fact I already have many of those in my collection; they're called CDs.

Roger

     

I'm almost inclined to the view that the OP is a p***take.  But giving the benefit of the doubt I think Roger expresses the views of the vinyl enthusiast; why sink £15k or more in to a high level turntable and then b****r about digitising it?  If it's really necessary buy a record cleaning machine and enjoy the music.