Recording Vinyl onto CD
- Thread starter ajward549
- Start date
HH-Bham
Well-Known Member
Manfred, I appreciate that information. I picked up a JVC CD-R Music recorder but it has been a pain and the one CD I made for my son doesn't play well. I'm not inclined to spend much time fiddling with it -- everything you and 4-2-7 said plus this: CDR Music discs only record 80 min. Not enough usually for two albums -- so you have to pick which songs to leave off. Pain. Also I really don't want to have to deal with all those CDs.
Two questions, please. First, am I correct in understanding that the 24 bit/96 kHz is better resolution than Redbook/CD 16/44.1. In other words, I'll be getting a file with better quality than CD (whether I can hear it or not is another thing, and another thread). Second, could you give me an idea of how many minutes of recording will fit on 32 GByte card? Such a card goes for about $20, about how many 33 1/3 records would fit (say 45 minutes each)?
On the second point, I guess if I go this route (and am very interested), I need to understand storage capacity of my computer and the external drive I have.
Thanks.
Third question (sorry, you've opened a can of worms
): could I, a digital dummy, get the files from the Roland onto my iPhone?
I was "gifted" a great pile of old NM LPs (about 20 or so) with the stipulation I would make them CD copies. I offered computer stuff they could later burn but they said no. Since one of the LPs was a NM first press John Hurt Today I really wanted I went for it and bought that exact machine. After much consideration of price / quality and most importantly "value" I bought the Tascam ($330). I saw stuff I liked better but at much higher prices.
When recording vinyl realize in most cases the auto track will not work (due to noise) and you must enter tracks individually / manually if you want separate tracks. Also the keyboard is essential if you want text on CD.
My Tascam CD RW 900 MK II is also put into use now as my CD player and I like it better than my 90's Denon I was using before.
Despite the protestations above my post I like my Tascam but did have to send the first one back due to malfunctions. The recent one has so far been fine with about 50 hours of use.
Regarding 4-2-7 comment I agree an SD card (in particular the very affordable but older Marantz PMD line) machine is most likely far superior and had I not needed to burn CDs directly (my MAC lacks a CD drive nowadays) and my lack of comfort using Audacity (lo tech is an understatement for me) I would have gone that way and still intend to. I have narrowly missed a few bargain 570s on CL and Bay
I love it when I use it. It's pretty much like recording with tape, setting the record level and button layout. I keep it simple and record each side whole, by not stopping or editing the side will look like one track in a computer. So I title it and say side 1 or 2, In playback it sounds just like listening to the record with maybe some surface noise and time in between tracks. I record at 24bit WAV, then the fact your recording the true vinyl mastering, it sounds awesome as a digital copy. Most CDs you buy are mastered and EQed differently and 16bit or less.
Yes far better and...
I record at 24bit WAV, then the fact your recording the true vinyl mastering, it sounds awesome as a digital copy. Most CDs you buy are mastered and EQed differently and 16bit or less.
Yes
I think a 4 GB card @ 24bit WAV 96, is around 3 hours. But it really doesn't matter all that much because you can pull the card and transfer the music to your computer, then delete it off the card and start all over again. Well a big card can record a whole day if you need to also.
Third question (sorry, you've opened a can of worms
Ok once you'v transferred to your computer and save one copy to your hard drive, you can then share and open it with iTunes or your media player. At that point you can do what you normaly do to sync music to your phone. The only thing is the file size will take up more space on the phone.
Last edited:
ajward549
Super Member
I am really excited that this has helped someone (HH-Bham) else too! I am now struggling with where to place the Marantz digital recorder if/when I pull the trigger...
I am truly a neophyte with all of this, so I really do appreciate everyone's input! I think that moving more towards a CF platform will really be more realistic on many levels. I often get very little time to dedicate to true listening and enjoying my set-up (young children and all) and lately have been more focused on expanding my vinyl collection. For this reason, I think the CF digital recorder is the best choice.
The funny thing is, friends and co-workers have been interested in what I am doing (collecting and spinning vinyl), so making "mix tapes" of cd's would be a way for me to share my interest. Thank you all for pointing me in the right direction to do that!
I am truly a neophyte with all of this, so I really do appreciate everyone's input! I think that moving more towards a CF platform will really be more realistic on many levels. I often get very little time to dedicate to true listening and enjoying my set-up (young children and all) and lately have been more focused on expanding my vinyl collection. For this reason, I think the CF digital recorder is the best choice.
The funny thing is, friends and co-workers have been interested in what I am doing (collecting and spinning vinyl), so making "mix tapes" of cd's would be a way for me to share my interest. Thank you all for pointing me in the right direction to do that!
lini
just me...
HHB: Yup, 24/96 is better - however, from the portables one shouldn't really expect a significantly higher dynamic range or respectively SNR than possible with 16 bit (*), while one can expect the upper frequency limit to increase from ca. 20 to ca. 40 kHz. One could argue that 16/44.1 should already be good enough for vinyl rips, though.
And yes, one can approximately calculate the capacity. For that purpose one would first calculate the raw audio data rate: For CD that would be 16 bit = 2 byte * 44100 Hz * 2 (for stereo) = 176400 byte/s, for 24/96 that would be 3 byte * 96000 Hz * 2 = 576000 byte/s. Format overhead for extra control bits and the WAV container should be pretty small in comparison, so we simply ignore that. Nominal capacity on cards will typically refer to non-IT kilos, megas, gigas et cetera, so just factor 1000 instead of factor 1024 each, and the chosen high-level format will also have a bit of an impact on actual formatted capacity - hence personally I rather guesstimate somewhat conservatively (which should also compensate for the ignored format overhead) and calculate with 15 non-IT-Gbyte for a nominal 16 Gbyte card. So such a card should be good for ca. 15000000000 byte divided by the chosen audio data rate -> ca. 85000 seconds in 16/44.1 or 26000 seconds in 24/96 -> ca. 1417 minutes (= ca. 23,6 hours) or ca. 433 minutes (= ca. 7.2 hours). Hence a 32 Gbyte card should be good for ca. 20 complete LPs in 24/96 or ca. 65 LPs in 16/44.1.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
*) namely ca. 96 dB - while 24 bit theoretically would be good for ca. 144 dB (= 20 x log(2^24)), which however is only possible on the digital side, whereas on the analogue side noise will kick in sooner, because one can only expect so much in combination with a line-level of ca. 2 V maximum. Hence really good 24 bit equipment in practice will "only" reach ca. 120 dB.
P.S.: Do you also speak Brum in B'ham Alabama?
And yes, one can approximately calculate the capacity. For that purpose one would first calculate the raw audio data rate: For CD that would be 16 bit = 2 byte * 44100 Hz * 2 (for stereo) = 176400 byte/s, for 24/96 that would be 3 byte * 96000 Hz * 2 = 576000 byte/s. Format overhead for extra control bits and the WAV container should be pretty small in comparison, so we simply ignore that. Nominal capacity on cards will typically refer to non-IT kilos, megas, gigas et cetera, so just factor 1000 instead of factor 1024 each, and the chosen high-level format will also have a bit of an impact on actual formatted capacity - hence personally I rather guesstimate somewhat conservatively (which should also compensate for the ignored format overhead) and calculate with 15 non-IT-Gbyte for a nominal 16 Gbyte card. So such a card should be good for ca. 15000000000 byte divided by the chosen audio data rate -> ca. 85000 seconds in 16/44.1 or 26000 seconds in 24/96 -> ca. 1417 minutes (= ca. 23,6 hours) or ca. 433 minutes (= ca. 7.2 hours). Hence a 32 Gbyte card should be good for ca. 20 complete LPs in 24/96 or ca. 65 LPs in 16/44.1.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
*) namely ca. 96 dB - while 24 bit theoretically would be good for ca. 144 dB (= 20 x log(2^24)), which however is only possible on the digital side, whereas on the analogue side noise will kick in sooner, because one can only expect so much in combination with a line-level of ca. 2 V maximum. Hence really good 24 bit equipment in practice will "only" reach ca. 120 dB.
P.S.: Do you also speak Brum in B'ham Alabama?
HH-Bham
Well-Known Member
I am grateful for your response and explanation. But you are a bad, bad man. For the last month I was done buying new audio gear.
LOL.
HH-Bham
Well-Known Member
Danke sehr.
1985, limited German (3 years in high school), and "ein bier, bitte." Hofbrauhaus won and I lost. I hope German beer is still what it used to be. My daughter is currently studying in Bristol, UK. She sent me a link to local brewery. I was disappointed to see that in the UK they were following trend here in US for high hops beers. German lager is my favorite.
I had to google that.
Thanks for your help and 4-2-7. I must have a digital recorder.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
I guess I have had my PMD Marantz CDR 632 about 10 years. It does a great job recording. Especially if I play back the recorded disc on one of my Mcintosh players. Pre-recordered CD by others have a little edge like the recordings made on the recorder when played back by the Marantz recorder. But played back on the Mac players the pre-recorded cd's and the cd's recorded on the Marantz are of great quality. Of course the better the phono preamp section and the better the cartridge the better the CD copy will be. A lot of times the dub of the record sounds a lot better than a re-release by a major studio.
I chose the Marantz because you can make multiple copies of CD in the digital domain with out worrying about copy protection. Though I haven't made any copies accept for my own use, the practice could cost you a bunch if you did it for profit.
Using a CD recorder has some of the same hang-ups an old tape deck had with out the play back monitor head. You don't know the recording is any good till you play it back. Unless you are using re-write discs if there is an error you just have to throw the disc with an error away and do the work again. learning to use the recorder and how to set levels to guarantee best recording, proper starting and finishing with the indexing of tracks all takes practice. Its not rocket science, it just take a concious effort and a good pair of head phones. If you need to clean up records sonically, I would recommend a DBX 3BX and a good graphic equalizer. If you want to make discs for the car where you need to control the dynamic range, I like the DBX 119. You can use it as a soft compressor, or with the threshold control as a hard limiter to squeeze the dynamic range to fit with in the available sound envelope dynamic range your vehicle allows.
DBX also made a subharmonic generator for folks who want to play or dub discs with little output below 50 hz. It will analyze the sound and insert extended low frequencies and synthesize the bottom octave. We used connected to the processor the loop of DJ mixers where the DJ's could add just the correct amount to satisfy the patrons. Today you can do it all with modern digital products, but if you want to keep it all analog, DBX is a proven way. Mcintosh made some pre-amps with expander and compressor limiter built in similar to the 1 BX or 119 DBX's. C-32, 33 and 34V.
I chose the Marantz because you can make multiple copies of CD in the digital domain with out worrying about copy protection. Though I haven't made any copies accept for my own use, the practice could cost you a bunch if you did it for profit.
Using a CD recorder has some of the same hang-ups an old tape deck had with out the play back monitor head. You don't know the recording is any good till you play it back. Unless you are using re-write discs if there is an error you just have to throw the disc with an error away and do the work again. learning to use the recorder and how to set levels to guarantee best recording, proper starting and finishing with the indexing of tracks all takes practice. Its not rocket science, it just take a concious effort and a good pair of head phones. If you need to clean up records sonically, I would recommend a DBX 3BX and a good graphic equalizer. If you want to make discs for the car where you need to control the dynamic range, I like the DBX 119. You can use it as a soft compressor, or with the threshold control as a hard limiter to squeeze the dynamic range to fit with in the available sound envelope dynamic range your vehicle allows.
DBX also made a subharmonic generator for folks who want to play or dub discs with little output below 50 hz. It will analyze the sound and insert extended low frequencies and synthesize the bottom octave. We used connected to the processor the loop of DJ mixers where the DJ's could add just the correct amount to satisfy the patrons. Today you can do it all with modern digital products, but if you want to keep it all analog, DBX is a proven way. Mcintosh made some pre-amps with expander and compressor limiter built in similar to the 1 BX or 119 DBX's. C-32, 33 and 34V.
Last edited:
I am grateful for your response and explanation. But you are a bad, bad man. For the last month I was done buying new audio gear.
Your welcome.
I bought my PMD580 about 5 years ago and it was one of my second things to add to what will be a very compact and simple system.
But things just kept being added and here we are today and the PMD 580 hasn't moved.
My recommendation would be to get a machine that records (rips) to something besides a cd burner. Then use the pc in the other room to burn cds for wherever you require them such as the car etc. This may seem like an extra step, but it really will save you time in the long run as cds that you burn are not that reliable over the long run. They are not durable like factory cds and the time and effort it takes to rip to a cd from vinyl is far more than just transferring files from a chip to a cd. Cds are also a hassle to play compared to other forms of digital storage. If I was going to do what you are doing i would only want to record the lp once and not every time a burned cd fails .
Last edited:
Let's not forget to mention that in case you have a laptop to bring to your hi-fi it would be the most cost efficient solution. You'll only need a decent external sound card (interface) which is even cheaper than any recorder.
lini
just me...
On a side note: Nothing against 4-2-7's recommendation as such, but personally I wouldn't buy a PMD580, because the specs would appear not exactly great for a full-sized, mains-powered model with an output level of 2 V (on the unbalanced RCA outs) - i.e., just about on the same quality level as with the neat, little portable ones. To me that would seem somewhat disappointing, also considering that the PMD580 consumes 26 W, while the Roland R-05 is happy with ca. 0.9 W. So the main bonus of the PMD580 would just be the additional balanced analogue I/Os and digital I/Os, which however would seem pretty likely to not be of much use for typical hifi users...
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Pretty much inline with most line level and preamp outputs for RCA.
So why do you think it hurts the audio quality in recording and playback?
Last edited:
ajward549
Super Member
How do you even motivate yourself to leave the house!!!!!!!!
lini
just me...
4-2-7: Seems like you misunterstood that bit. Point is that this comparatively "healthy" output level should actually give the PMD580 a bit of an advantage over the little portables, which usually have a lower line-out level (not sure about the R-05, but the PCM-M10 is 1 V, so that it would have a general disadvantage of -6 dB in terms of dynamic range and SNR compared to the PMD580). So unless the Marantz would be even more conservatively specified than the Sony (which in practice measures a bit better than it's official specs - and even quite a bit better, if one measures to the medium only instead of "round-trip" (line-in to line-out)), one could say that the PMD580 doesn't make much use of its higher output voltage.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini