Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Back in the 1970s I had a high-speed Revox A77 which was mainly just a
domestic recorder,

I'd more describe it as semi-pro. Properly lined up they exceeded the
performance of some bottom end pro machines.

--
*Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

So, you finally admit that you can't win on scientific terms, which is
another way of saying that you've lost. The correct thing to do now
it graciously admit defeat, and not weary us with further pointless
argument.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:12:51 +0000, Rob wrote:

To
illustrate my preference I have to use non-scientific language. I can
never 'stand up' for my preference on scientific terms, so I 'lose' the
argument.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
If you're going to say that a CD is a better reproduction of the
original than an LP, then I'd agree almost always. (I have one
exception, and that is a mixing cockup caused by a 1990s producer
"sensitively remastering" a 1960s recording to make the drums much
louder - and even that is an artistic not a technical error)

What I want to hear at home is the studio master as signed off by the
production team.

LPs *had* to go through an additional mastering process since not
everything that could be recorded well to tape would cut perfectly.
Although one would hope a production team would know this and not allow
anything through that required drastic change.

CD, of course, can reproduce perfectly anything a tape can throw at it.

In the early days of CD, the studio master was more or less just
transferred to CD straight. If the LP had lots of tweaks when being
re-mastered, that could account for a difference in sound not accounted
for just by the inherent LP flaws. And since you knew and loved the LP
before hearing the CD...

These days CDs are also heavily re-mastered. To make the studio master
more 'commercial'. Regardless of what the production team or even artists
want. The suits rule as always.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:06:52 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Even the best analogue tape is not really close to CD, although like vinyl
it does depend on the material.

Well, as explained in my reply to Don, the FR was almost identical,
and I did say "apart from tape-hiss", ie SNR.

There's quite a revival, I'm told, for using analogue tape machines again
- mainly for pop stuff. If they really were close to CD, there's be little
point. The sad thing is most of these machines were skipped as nobody
wanted them a few years ago.

Crazy, I'd say.

But don't get me wrong - I loved tape. Because in its day, nothing
bettered it, and I preferred its distortions to LP. I still have several
working 1/4" machines, and can play or record any of the common speeds
and configurations.

Yes, that was the point, nothing bettered it.

My particular use for it was to create compilations of favourite
artists, and to record all the records in succession of ballets,
operas, etc. Both these uses had the advantages that I could just put
the tape on at the beginning of the evening to work to it, without
having frequently to break my concentration to change a record, and
that I didn't have to play favourite vinyls, thus preserving them
against inevitable accidents.

I've remade some of these compilations for CD, as well as many new
ones, but I keep meaning to remake the Curved Air and Audience ones,
and a later Ossian one I had on AC for use in the car.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 11/11/2011 15:32, Java Jive wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:23:44 +0000, wrote:

On 10/11/2011 22:02, Java Jive wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:57:20 +0000, wrote:

Better means 'my preference'.

NO IT DOESN'T. 'BETTER' IMPLIES SOME SORT OF OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT.

It may to you, but not in the way I used it. Just me. Nobody else
necessarily.

Rob, you are either way out of your depth here, or else deliberately
being an obstreporous troll.

Way out of my depth I suspect. You've obviously tackled, and mastered,
notions of critical realism, social construction ('constructivism'), and
have a pretty clear idea, ontologically, of what you're expressing.
Without that level of mastery, assuredness and certainty you would come
across as an an arrogant twit.

One thing niggles. You have a funny, almost child-like, way of
expressing yourself. It's almost as though you're wandering, aimless and
blind, without a clue. Curious.

Good vinyl rips though :-)

Rob

On 11/11/2011 16:56, Steve Thackery wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Then can you do the whole conversation a favour and talk about your
preference rather than saying better and having to qualify it every
time? Better is something you can demonstrate, prefer is your personal
taste.

Hear, hear! I've asked Rob the very same thing. Please stop conflating
"is better" with "I prefer".

Rob, you are in a minority of one: everyone else here uses "better" to
mean something which is objective and measurable (in line with the
dictionary definition).

Please, don't keep misusing the word as a substitute for "my
preference". Why do you insist upon making the whole discussion so much
more difficult by continuing to use you own (incorrect) special
definition of "better"?

You are helping no-one.


I was only ever speaking of my own preference. Habit and social circles
I suppose.

Rob

On 11/11/2011 18:36, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:23:11 +0000,
wrote:

On 11/11/2011 17:22, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:09:36 +0000,
wrote:

On 11/11/2011 16:56, Steve Thackery wrote:


Rob, you are in a minority of one:

That's because the people who agree with him mostly wouldn't bother to post to
groups full of deluded ones who don't realise that their belief in an 'objective
external world with it's own ontology' is as much an act of faith as any
religious belief.

Thank you for demonstrating that there is no such thing as unutterable
drivel.

Thank you for demonstrating that you're a complete and utter imbecile.

No, you see, mine works as both truth and humour - but yours is simply
stupid. If you are going to make a comeback, try and inject at least a
little wit; you should be able to manage half of that.


Poor sweet Don :-)

Rob

On 11/11/2011 19:13, Java Jive wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:09:36 +0000,
wrote:

On 11/11/2011 16:56, Steve Thackery wrote:

Rob, you are in a minority of one:

That's because the people who agree with him mostly wouldn't bother to post to
groups full of deluded ones

But, by apparently his and certainly your own ontology, how do you
deduce that we, and not yourself/ves, are the ones who are deluded?

who don't realise that their belief in an 'objective
external world with it's own ontology' is as much an act of faith as any
religious belief.

Why have you quoted part of this sentence? Google doesn't return any
hits against it, so it's obviously not a well-known quotation, and
no-one up thread has used the phrase.

on·tol·o·gy/än?täl?je-/
Noun: The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

met·a·phys·ics/?met??fiziks/
Noun:
1. The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of
things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, cause,...
2. Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

No-one here is dabbling in either ontology or metaphysics, just very
practical things hands-on things that are amenable to science. The
only people here who are acting out of faith or religious belief
rather than by rational decision are Rob and possibly yourself.

For many years I have defined a religious belief as any belief that
can not be made on the basis of science. Under that useful working
definition, Rob's belief in the superiority of analogue/vinyl over
digital/CD is indeed quasi-religious, as is his defence of it in the
face of all practical empirical evidence.

Ah you're playing now! Come on!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_McGinn

Rob

On 11/11/2011 16:29, Buzz wrote:
a écrit dans le message de news:
...
"Steve a écrit dans le message de news:
...
JJ, do you have a website?

This account is interesting and informative, and I think lots of people
with vinyl would find it helpful.

I think it warrants posting somewhere more prominent than NNTP. Nice
work.

--
SteveT


===============================================

My way of doing the same things : here :

http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/restauration.html


--
Allen RENY
www.a-reny.com
================================================== =
Nobody talking about 78 RPMs ?

--
Allen RENY
www.a-reny.com


I don't have the means, nowadays. Is there any commercial mileage in
this do you think? I see adverts from time to time, and the USB record
deck phase seems to have come and tailed off.

Good site, by the way. I don't bother with software processing beyond
fade in/out. I used to manually 'knit' the wave file in Audacity to
remove pops and clicks - very effective but time consuming.

Rob

On 11/11/2011 23:56, Java Jive wrote:
So, you finally admit that you can't win on scientific terms, which is
another way of saying that you've lost. The correct thing to do now
it graciously admit defeat, and not weary us with further pointless
argument.


Oh no, I win :-)

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:12:51 +0000, wrote:

To
illustrate my preference I have to use non-scientific language. I can
never 'stand up' for my preference on scientific terms, so I 'lose' the
argument.

Rob