Who has digitised their vinyl?

[Gray]

Why would you bother? is what some of you will be saying I know. After all, analogue has the ultimate sample rate, stick to playing the vinyl.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a decent turntable / phono preamp, if they did it, what they used and how it has worked out.

Having used EAC to FLAC my CDs, I can imagine how much more of a faff vinyl to HDD could be.

If you were to consider it, don't you think that Korg's DS-DAC-10R might be a handy device? (Top rate DSD recording - I've heard loads of 'DSD better than 24/192' comments and several 'no difference' opinions but (so far) have never heard anyone say that DSD is worse than 24/192, though with this ADC you've got the choice)

http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/ds_dac_10r/

True you could digitise using Behringer's UF202 at about a twentieth of the Korg's price. (Albeit at 16bit / 48kHz - more than good enough, some will say)

Or would you never bother?

 

[Gazzip]

Why would you bother? is what some of you will be saying I know. After all, analogue has the ultimate sample rate, stick to playing the vinyl.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a decent turntable / phono preamp, if they did it, what they used and how it has worked out.

Having used EAC to FLAC my CDs, I can imagine how much more of a faff vinyl to HDD could be.

If you were to consider it, don't you think that Korg's DS-DAC-10R might be a handy device? (Top rate DSD recording - I've heard loads of 'DSD better than 24/192' comments and several 'no difference' opinions but (so far) have never heard anyone say that DSD is worse than 24/192, though with this ADC you've got the choice)

http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/ds_dac_10r/

True you could digitise using Behringer's UF202 at about a twentieth of the Korg's price. (Albeit at 16bit / 48kHz - more than good enough, some will say)

Or would you never bother?

I wouldn't bother. Look at the mill that the original recording goes through to get it on to the record press, understand the level of processing it goes through, and ask yourself the same question again. Vinyl is far more compressed than 16/44, with a great deal of the lower frequency range converted to mono so that records can last more than 5 minutes. Enjoy your albums for what they are but for accuracy and quality buy the CD or even the MP3 and you will get a more accurate and "bigger" recording.

 

[tino]

Why would you bother? is what some of you will be saying I know. After all, analogue has the ultimate sample rate, stick to playing the vinyl.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a decent turntable / phono preamp, if they did it, what they used and how it has worked out.

Having used EAC to FLAC my CDs, I can imagine how much more of a faff vinyl to HDD could be.

If you were to consider it, don't you think that Korg's DS-DAC-10R might be a handy device? (Top rate DSD recording - I've heard loads of 'DSD better than 24/192' comments and several 'no difference' opinions but (so far) have never heard anyone say that DSD is worse than 24/192, though with this ADC you've got the choice)

http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/ds_dac_10r/

True you could digitise using Behringer's UF202 at about a twentieth of the Korg's price. (Albeit at 16bit / 48kHz - more than good enough, some will say)

Or would you never bother?

I did about 70 albums wth a Creative X-Fi HD external USB sound card and digitised at 24/96 resolution. Results were good even if it took me ages. The device cost me around £60, and I can still use it as an external PC sound card / ADC / DAC / headphone amp.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Why would you bother? is what some of you will be saying I know. After all, analogue has the ultimate sample rate, stick to playing the vinyl.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a decent turntable / phono preamp, if they did it, what they used and how it has worked out.

Having used EAC to FLAC my CDs, I can imagine how much more of a faff vinyl to HDD could be. 

If you were to consider it, don't you think that Korg's DS-DAC-10R might be a handy device? (Top rate DSD recording - I've heard loads of 'DSD better than 24/192' comments and several 'no difference' opinions but (so far) have never heard anyone say that DSD is worse than 24/192, though with this ADC you've got the choice)

http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/ds_dac_10r/

True you could digitise using Behringer's UF202 at about a twentieth of the Korg's price.  (Albeit at 16bit / 48kHz - more than good enough, some will say)

Or would you never bother?

I wouldn't bother. Look at the mill that the original recording goes through to get it on to the record press, understand the level of processing it goes through, and ask yourself the same question again. Vinyl is far more compressed than 16/44, with a great deal of the lower frequency range converted to mono so that records can last more than 5 minutes. Enjoy your albums for what they are but for accuracy and quality buy the CD or even the MP3 and you will get a more accurate and "bigger" recording. 

vinyl is more compressed and use cd or mp3 for bigger sound? If your using a Cyrus with it's dac on top of range hifi? I would say cd is as big a sound as vinyl..and I think very good cd players are equal in a lot of respects to vinyl..or certainly gets close, but average cd players? No way! I would recommend a turntable every time over average cd player for big sound and less compressed sound..when you get £1000 cd players it starts getting closer..a £400 turntable is better than £400 cd player..but get to £1000 cd player? Like my quad cdp (new price) mmm?

 

[drummerman]

The only time I would digitise my vinyl is either if I had an ultra rare pressing (and wanted to preserve it) or if I'd give up on the format.

Neither is the case.

Until then I'll enjoy the dynamic sound, the ebb and flow of music, the sheer naturalness which digital very rarely can do and the pleasure of seeing the things spin.

All of the above under the proviso the recording is good in the first place of course.

 

[Gazzip]

The only time I would digitise my vinyl is either if I had an ultra rare pressing (and wanted to preserve it) or if I'd give up on the format.

Neither is the case.

Until then I'll enjoy the dynamic sound, the ebb and flow of music, the sheer naturalness which digital very rarely can do and the pleasure of seeing the things spin.

All of the above under the proviso the recording is good in the first place of course.

Exactly as above. Enjoy records for what they are, which is not digital, so why digitise them?

 

[MajorFubar]

Who has digitised their vinyl?

Me, but only about a dozen albums that you can't buy digitally.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Not me.

 

[DIB]

I did a few years back when I had my old PC set up in the same room as my hi-fi. Over the years, using the free Audacity* programme, I must have copied about 50-70 LPs. I did it simply and solely to burn CD-R's to play in my works van during the day.

I gave it up eventually as it was too much of a faff and I couldn't be bothered any more.

* If you should want to go down the copying route I can recommend this programme. Plenty of helpful tutorials on Youtube.

.

 

[abacus]

Did it years ago, (I think I used either Magix Audio Cleaning Lab or Cubase Wavelab and a pro DAC (Can’t remember which one) and I can guarantee that there is absolutely no difference between the digitised sound (Either in standard FLAC or burnt to CD) or the original vinyl. (Assuming the they are played back on the same system with a quality DAC)

The master for a vinyl record has to be more compressed than a CD because vinyl has a limited dynamic range (About 50-60db) compared to the CD, (About 96db) hence the difference in sound is purely down to the mastering. (The same reason for a difference between 16/44 & 24/96)

I do wish people would get their old school science books out, as many seem to have forgot even basic facts, this ignorance also makes the Hi Fi buff look like a joke in the pro (Real) world. (Actually their words are a lot stronger, but this is a family forum)

Bill

 

[davedotco]

The 'sound' of vinyl that is so loved, is the sound of a record being played on a microphonic, highly resonant player which gives the music it's 'warm', 'organic' quality.

Once this has been added to the signal it can be recorded, digitally if you wish, and played back with the 'warm', 'organic' quality still intact.

Digitising vinyl is, carried out correctly, 100% transparent.

Back in the day (late 90s) we used to demonstrate vinyl vs digital using a decent record player and a Wadia CD player. A lot of people insisted that the specially chosen AAA records were superior to the equivilent AAD cd releases which 'proved' that analogue was better than digital.

Of course the point of the dem was that the CD player was one of the earliest models to have digital inputs so the output of the vinyl player was digitised and the Wadia used as a pre-amp. A lot of people were shocked by this revelation.

 

[The_Lhc]

I tried it a few years ago but it was such a ballache I gave up, wasn't worth the effort.

 

[AntAxon]

I have digitised some of my vinyl that is unavailable now epecially if it has a lot of crackles etc. I used Roxio Easy DVD Creator. It was quite easy I just connected it to the audio output of the amp and to the USP port on the computer. The hardest bit was naming each individual track. With some records it recognises them and even does that for you, it does not always get it right though. The software also allows you to edit out the hiss and crackles and there is also a graphic equaliser which I don't usually use. I usually create wav files and burn CD's and also save them to iTunes.

I'm very pleased with the results as some records which were almost unlistenable have been given a new lease of life. Also I can listen to them while out and about on my iPod.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Even though CD is capable of 96dB dynamic range, I wonder how many CDs actually take advantage of even 8/10ths of that range...

Rather than spending an inordinate amount of time digitising a vinyl collection, I'd rather just buy a proper vacuum record cleaner to preserve the records in the best way possible and just enjoy them. Better than using scratch filters, which would generally be best avoided.

If this is more of a convenience thing, I'd still buy the vacuum record cleaner to make sure they're as clean as possible in order to transfer in as good a condition as possible - sell it on afterwards - the amount you will lose (not too much) will be well worth it.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Even though CD is capable of 96dB dynamic range, I wonder how many CDs actually take advantage of even 8/10ths of that range...

How is that relevant here?

It was in reply to post #11, which was claiming CD's superiority to vinyl with regards to CD's possible dynamic range.

 

[BigH]

Even though CD is capable of 96dB dynamic range, I wonder how many CDs actually take advantage of even 8/10ths of that range...

How is that relevant here?

The point is digital has enough dynamic range to record everything on the record.

I can see lots of reasons to digitalise records.

1) its easier to play them.

2) It will not damage the record.

3) It will not wear your stylus.

4) you can play them anywhere, car, on the move etc.

5) you can play endlessly, you don't have to keep getting up to turn the record over or change it, this especially true if playing the new 45 rpm lps.

 

[Electro]

I have digitized a few rare LP's and some that have never been realeased digitally.

I chose a very simple way to do it , I recorded the LP directly using my Philips CDR 760 adding the track numbers on the fly .

I then stored a digital copy from the burnt Cdr onto my computer so I could convert it to any digital format I wished.

I used my now sold LP12 Lingo with Ittok lv3 and Lyra Lydian cartridge through an EAR 834p phono stage .

The burnt Cdr sounded exactly the same and I mean identical in every way to playing the original LP in a direct comparison switching between the two with my eyes closed I could not tell which was playing.

 

[BigH]

Even though CD is capable of 96dB dynamic range, I wonder how many CDs actually take advantage of even 8/10ths of that range...

How is that relevant here?

It was in reply to post #11, which was claiming CD's superiority to vinyl with regards to CD's possible dynamic range.

I see, well its probably best to quote them if replying several posts down.

I think some people get confussed that because many cds are compressed that recording vinyl will also be, this is not the case, the compression is done by the mastering engineer, cd has more dynamic range, some that are not compressed have to carry health warnings, 24 bit has even more range but is not required to record lps.

 

[tino]

I can see lots of reasons to digitalise records.

1) its easier to play them.

2) It will not damage the record.

3) It will not wear your stylus.

4) you can play them anywhere, car, on the move etc.

5) you can play endlessly, you don't have to keep getting up to turn the record over or change it, this especially true if playing the new 45 rpm lps.

6) You can archive your old albums and singles and sell your turntable afterwards! *biggrin*

 

[MajorFubar]

Enjoy records for what they are, which is not digital, so why digitise them?

Because it's difficult fitting a turntable in your coat pocket when you want to listen to some records on the move. Huge swathes of material never made it to CDs , downloads or streaming services.

The whole subject of LPs vs digital is awash with misinformation, but commonly more on the 'pro vinyl' side. Probably 90% of records made after about 1978 were either cut from a digital master or the analogue tape was fed through a digital delay line on its way to the cutting head. Not even one of the ardent anti-digital brigade (which isn't necessarily aimed at anyone here) would be able to reliably tell the difference between a record played 'live' and the same record played through a pro-grade ADC-DAC loop.

 

[MajorFubar]

I think some people get confussed that because many cds are compressed that recording vinyl will also be, this is not the case, the compression is done by the mastering engineer, cd has more dynamic range, some that are not compressed have to carry health warnings, 24 bit has even more range but is not required to record lps.

Such as some of the early DDD recordings on the Telarc label.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

You can archive your old albums and singles and sell your turntable afterwards! *biggrin*

As always, the digital brigade miss the whole point of owning and playing records. Anyone who wants to copy all their records to a digital file, doesn't love vinyl, I do, and I have no intention of ever wasting my time copying them to a digital format.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Did it years ago, (I think I used either Magix Audio Cleaning Lab or Cubase Wavelab and a pro DAC (Can’t remember which one) and I can guarantee that there is absolutely no difference between the digitised sound (Either in standard FLAC or burnt to CD) or the original vinyl. (Assuming the they are played back on the same system with a quality DAC)

The master for a vinyl record has to be more compressed than a CD because vinyl has a limited dynamic range (About 50-60db) compared to the CD, (About 96db) hence the difference in sound is purely down to the mastering. (The same reason for a difference between 16/44 & 24/96)

I do wish people would get their old school science books out, as many seem to have forgot even basic facts, this ignorance also makes the Hi Fi buff look like a joke in the pro (Real) world. (Actually their words are a lot stronger, but this is a family forum)

Bill

science versus my hearing? My hearing wins hands down.as I said before very good cdp sound close to vinyl..presumably the greater range that you speak about is unearthed by the better electronics? I can attest to this as I have both cheaper and decent cd players..but where it falls is if vinyl doesn't have the range? Why do better turntable etc sound better? If vinyl is so limiting? Why are the worlds most esoteric hifi vinyl based? People believe their ears...

 

[Electro]

Did it years ago, (I think I used either Magix Audio Cleaning Lab or Cubase Wavelab and a pro DAC (Can’t remember which one) and I can guarantee that there is absolutely no difference between the digitised sound (Either in standard FLAC or burnt to CD) or the original vinyl. (Assuming the they are played back on the same system with a quality DAC)

The master for a vinyl record has to be more compressed than a CD because vinyl has a limited dynamic range (About 50-60db) compared to the CD, (About 96db) hence the difference in sound is purely down to the mastering. (The same reason for a difference between 16/44 & 24/96)

I do wish people would get their old school science books out, as many seem to have forgot even basic facts, this ignorance also makes the Hi Fi buff look like a joke in the pro (Real) world. (Actually their words are a lot stronger, but this is a family forum)

Bill

science versus my hearing? My hearing wins hands down.as I said before very good cdp sound close to vinyl..presumably the greater range that you speak about is unearthed by the better electronics? I can attest to this as I have both cheaper and decent cd players..but where it falls is if vinyl doesn't have the range? Why do better turntable etc sound better? If vinyl is so limiting? Why are the worlds most esoteric hifi vinyl based? People believe their ears...

I believe this may go some way to explaining it. *smile*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs

 

[expat_mike]

I have no intention of ever wasting my time copying them to a digital format.

It wouldn't be a waste of time if you have a record you can't buy or or download and you want to listen to it away from your turntable. That was my main reason.

Vinyl is an emotive subject for several forum members.

It does seem like most vinyl lovers try to believe that they have only one use case, when listening to music - ie sitting down at home, close to their turntable.

In reality most people have at least 3 use cases:

1 - listen at home

2 - mobile listening away from the home

3 - listen in the car

Carrying around a turntable is not a realistic option for two of those use cases - but digital (or cassette tape) is.

So some people do have a valid reason to digitalise their vinyl, if cannot be bought in digital format, or if they do not want to damage a precious/rare disc.