[alexone]

hi, all!

to record a 44.1/16 cd up to any higher sampling frequency (f.e. 48/24, 96/24 or even 192/24) and store it on hdd doesn't make sense as the 44.1/16 format is already reduced. this way you cannot improve the sound, correct?!?

what you need is the master tape or something that is compareable to it. there is one device (among others) that can do recordings in the Megahertz range: the KORG MR-2000. this resolution is DSD which is used for SACD (1bit/2.8224Mhz or 1bit/5.6448Mhz)!!!
let's say you are doing some vinyl recordings at 1bit/5.6448 Mhz. the Korg MR-2000 can easily sample down this HIGH resolution to almost any other format and store it on a hdd if you wish. for best performance and playback ability on your home stereo for example with Bryston's BDP-1 you would then choose 192/24.

so please guys and everyone who knows...does it make sense? is this the right way to digitize vinyl?

http://www.korg.com/Default.aspx

however, this device is very interesting and everyone is called to read the specs about it on the Korg website. take your time and take a good look at the MR-2000's manual...


al.always thinking .

[Napalm]

to record a 44.1/16 cd up to any higher sampling frequency (f.e. 48/24, 96/24 or even 192/24) and store it on hdd doesn't make sense as the 44.1/16 format is already reduced. this way you cannot improve the sound, correct?!?

Correct.

the Korg MR-2000 can easily sample down this HIGH resolution to almost any other format and store it on a hdd if you wish. for best performance and playback ability on your home stereo for example with Bryston's BDP-1 you would then choose 192/24.
so please guys and everyone who knows...does it make sense? is this the right way to digitize vinyl?

If the intended format is PCM 192/24 then it makes sense to record directly in this format without going through an intermediary step of DSD->PCM conversion. Don't get fooled by the MegaHertzes, DSD is a completely different beast:

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

I still stand behind my recommendation to record directly to PCM 24/96 and forgetaboutit.

Nap.

[JBLMVBC]

Alexone,

how do you use this to record vinyls then? Could you explain where you insert this unit? Thanks in advance.

[niels]

The most degrading bit would certainly be the vinyl player/cartridge/riaa, and the vinyl record itself.
Why not buy the cd?

[drummermitchell]

I remember recording a Album to a cd with a HHB CDR recorder,
the soundstage shrank bigtime.
If a person could keep that stage,then maybe I'd do more,until then buying the cd is fine or better yet
drop the needle.

[Wayner]

I've recorded lots of vinyl onto CD and almost every time, it beats the CD version, hands down. Why? because the CD version and the vinyl versions are not the same masters. Success at this depends on the table, the arm, the cartridge, the phono preamp, and the CD burner. Any weak link in the chain screws it all up. And the cartridge has to be aligned properly as well. I'd say that almost any quality recorded LP will trounce any CD counter part, any day.

Wayner

[drummermitchell]

My preference,LP's.CD's,convenience,even well recorded ones.
course perhaps hirez cd's come closer or maybe yet to hear the BDP-1,
Home audition to see or I should say hear.

[robb]

I dont understand why anyone would want to digitize the original analog sound .   

[alexone]

Alexone,

how do you use this to record vinyls then? Could you explain where you insert this unit? Thanks in advance.

JBLMVBC,

the MR-2000 has analog and digital inputs. in my case i would plug the analog outs of my BP 1.5 phono preamp into the analog ins of the recording device (shortest signal path). headphones are needed to check the recording.
you can also use the tape out of your amp/preamp and plug it into the MR-2000's analog input (headphones are not required).

al.

[alexone]

The most degrading bit would certainly be the vinyl player/cartridge/riaa, and the vinyl record itself.
Why not buy the cd?

niels,

yes...to buy the cd is another way to listen to music. storing vinyl on hdd just makes sense to me. it's a matter of convenience while the pure analog sound of vinyl is still great.
talking about limitations of the cartridge/vinyl player and so on...what limitations do i have to expect?

thanx,

al.

[alexone]

I've recorded lots of vinyl onto CD and almost every time, it beats the CD version, hands down. Why? because the CD version and the vinyl versions are not the same masters. Success at this depends on the table, the arm, the cartridge, the phono preamp, and the CD burner. Any weak link in the chain screws it all up. And the cartridge has to be aligned properly as well. I'd say that almost any quality recorded LP will trounce any CD counter part, any day.

Wayner

Wayner,

cool input. what software/soundcard did you use?

thanx,

al.

[alexone]

I dont understand why anyone would want to digitize the original analog sound .   

robb,

as i already said it's a matter of convenience (for me!). surely analog sound is great. i'm just trying to find out how to get the most natural copy...

al.

[alexone]

Nap,

i just ordered a ESI Juli@ soundcard which is capable of 192/24 playback and recording. so using the analog ins of the card and record 96/24...is that your recommendation?
(software would be Cubase 5 LE/Steinberg).

thanx again,

al.

[srb]

The only way you'll know for sure is to make a few sample recordings in both formats.  Then you can decide which sounds better on your system, or if the difference is subtle, if the higher sampling rate justifies ~ 2X the storage space.
 
Just make sure when you audition playback that you are using a player that supports a driver that will bypass the internal Windows mixer so that you are not internally downsampling both files to 44.1KHz or 48KHz (J.River, foobar, etc.).
 
Steve

[Napalm]

Nap,

i just ordered a ESI Juli@ soundcard which is capable of 192/24 playback and recording. so using the analog ins of the card and record 96/24...is that your recommendation?
(software would be Cubase LE/Steinberg).

thanx again,

al.

Yes. Go for 96/24 as the final format. If you want a straight recording, then record directly in 96/24. If you want to apply filters/compressors/EQ (i.e. process the recorded sound), then you could also consider recording at 192/24, do all the processing in this format then downsample to 96/24.

Nap.

[James Tanner]

http://www.channld.com/purevinyl/index.html

james

[Wayner]

I have one of these:

 

And yesterday, added one of these

 

I usually use CD-RWs to make the original recording, then export to the computer, where I use Cakewalk ProAudio to edit the tracks, making the beginnings quiet and doing a computerized fad at the end. With a clean record, you can't tell that it's from an LP, except that you'll notice that it sounds better.

Wayner

[Quiet Earth]

I think the most important thing to focus on when you make a digital recording is it's final destination. If you intend to listen to the final recording as a red book cd then you should get better results by recording to 16/44.1 in the first place. Why? Sample rate conversion is more destructive than any benefits you might have gained using a higher rez to start with. This has been my experience anyway.

I believe that digital recordings sound "digital" because once we digitize something, we think we can do whatever we want to it without penalty. You can hear this in professional 24/96 remasters that are sold on red book CD. They have a zippy, metallic,  edgy quality to them.

The other thing to consider is the A/D converter that you are using. It's hard to compare the sound of a Korg to an HHB to a whatever, because they all have different sounding internal A/D converters. The quality of the A/D converter may be more important than the bit and sample rate that you choose.

[drummermitchell]

I can see where a computer will clean up to some extent the ticks and pops ect,using parametric eqs,
ADC's and whatever(even new).cleanup or LP character loss.
Also the average CDR  will give you a convenience copy(compressed,lifeless, compared to LP.
I'd love to hear an exact copy of a LP without any loss especially that wonderful organic body or reverberated space the needle is picking up,or distotions.
If cdr's can copy and capture ALL the heard and unheard sonics of an LP,then I'm sure audiophiles would have left LP's a long time ago,can't wait for that day.

[Wayner]

I do not fool around with the musical content by using pop or tick removers or graphic equalizers. They do nothing but screw up the original. Yes, a good D/A converter is required to make good recordings and you can't "red-line" any digital recording like you could with analog.

I have been recording for about 45 years, owning some real nice gear from ReVox, as have a Tascam DA-30MKII DAT. I gain ride the knobs a bit to get maximum level, without overload, and this technique takes practice, practice, practice.

In the old days, we would buy a record and a 3500 ft. of audio tape (I like Maxell) and record the LP on the first play and then put it away. Of course, many LP lovers got rid of their systems when CDs came along and now many are re-discovering what they have missed.

I will make this comment, that I really don't think it's the medium, but rather the recording, the artist and the label. I have excellent CDs as well as LPs that certainly can bid against each other over who is superior. I also have plenty of bad examples of both, thinking that a first time boy scout could have made a better recording with an old Lloyds portable cassette recorder.

Wayner