As far as the turntable goes I currently own a JVC L-F210 Turntable with a recently added 774-DED Stylus on a Shure Me95ed Cartridge.
I have recently ordered but won't have for a couple of weeks or so an Audio Technica AT-LP120XUSB-BZ Turntable which comes with their AT-VM95E phono cartridge; AT-HS6 headshell, and AT-VMN95E Stylus.
I ordered the new turntable mostly because of the USB Output. I discovered a few days ago that that particular USB Output is only capable of 16Bit / 44.1kHz / 48kHz which is why I started searching for other ways to transfer the music since I have been enjoying much higher resolution music for quite some time.
Once I have had it for awhile (And while only doing a few test transfers) I will likely upgrade the cartridge / Stylus to an Ortofon 2M either red or blue.
So this thread started because I was looking for a way to improve on the transfer from Vinyl over the included USB option.
I have now settled on the following path.
The turntable (s) are already connected to the Phono input on my Yamaha RX-A2A receiver. The receiver also has a Tape / MD Input / output option. I have ordered the Creative Labs Sound Blaster X5 which has RCA Line Input (And Output though I am not sure I will use that). So I will run the Tape / MD line out into the X5 Line in and record via Audacity.
Please note that until it all gets here and I have had some time to play around with it I have no real idea of how well this will work. But it is the only viable option that I found within my budget for the best compromise of quality and capability to get done what I want done.
Sure it isn't going to be as good as my Blu-Ray Audios, DVD-As and SACD (Downloaded DSD/DSF/ISO files for the SACDs) but it will get the music into my library in as good a quality as I can and should I hope at the very least be listenable.
It could be because the algorithms are different (and so is the hardware ).... Although, I figure in an AD/DAC device the designers would ensure that both sides are of an equal quality .
For separate ADC and DAC... as in the professional units used to encode for a CD or a High Bit file... the user's DAC might be an El Cheapo... That's why we -consumers- tend to hear different sounds coming from a commercial CD. Not all consumers spend money on a good DAC. Many are El Cheapos or perhaps just an off the shelf chip that got dumped in the middle of a complex receiver board with little concern about sound quality.
Just like an LP. Most consumers never spend ( spent ) the money on their turntable/preamp to get all the information that was put into the grooves...
The weak end in the chain is always the consumer.
I'm not going to wade into the shark infested waters of da CD vs Hi Res vs Vinyl wars. What I'm interested in is LISTENING TESTS.
In da previous Millenium, ALL properly conducted DBLTs on Bandwidth Limitation including our own, showed that OF THOSE WHO CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE, ie those who weren't deaf, PREFERED BANDWIDTH LIMITED TO 20kHz or even less.
In those Jurassic days, when the main HQ sources were reel-to-reel mastertapes and vinyl, I could explain this shocking result by pointing to the supersonic crud in such sources.
But this Millenium, when ALL HQ music is bandlimited, I find the same result. The DBLTs this Century include some august members of this forum.
If anyone knows of properly conducted DBLTs this Century that show different, please post links.
In da previous Millenium, ALL properly conducted DBLTs on Bandwidth Limitation including our own, showed that OF THOSE WHO CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE, ie those who weren't deaf, PREFERED BANDWIDTH LIMITED TO 20kHz or even less.
In those Jurassic days, when the main HQ sources were reel-to-reel mastertapes and vinyl, I could explain this shocking result by pointing to the supersonic crud in such sources.
But this Millenium, when ALL HQ music is bandlimited, I find the same result. The DBLTs this Century include some august members of this forum.
If anyone knows of properly conducted DBLTs this Century that show different, please post links.
BY DEFINITION..... Red Book encoding is NOT a lossy algorithm.
Please look it up.
You are twisting the meaning of words that have very specific engineering/mathematical/physics meanings.
BTW, my previous recommendation stands... there is little value to "archive" your LPs into files unless you have a front end that will never change and that already is damn good. You're front end set up is.. ahem.... mid fi at best. Also, for ADC recording I recommend that you use an USB2/3 ( USB-A/B/C - no microUSB ) external AD/DAC device. Use an external power supply and preferrably use a laptop. Using an internal PCI/PCIe board in a tower is going to introduce too much noise.
Naturally, I also recommend that you get a far better turntable/cartridge. I think your current turntable is likely better than the one you ordered. Get an USB AD/DAC device and connect it as a "Digital Tape Deck" on your receiver ( I guess if that's what you got )... Ideally, get a P3 and a better cartridge and hook that up via the AUX input of your receiver.
You could try the used market too...
Last edited:
Reading these posts as the thread now stands reminds me of ASR.
I suppose we should all drop our audio system and go run and buy a Bose Acoustimass, an Apple-Music-Whatever-Low-Bit-Rate subscription and use that as our sole source of music.
Whatever.. I got an n-channel DIY VFET amp and a Topping D90LE sitting right behind me... I bought both used, of course!... and I need to set them up.
So. have fun with this thread, but I'm not going to even bother with it. In the meantime, I think I'll put the old M-Audio ProFire 610 on Craigs List. I'm keeping the RME.
I suppose we should all drop our audio system and go run and buy a Bose Acoustimass, an Apple-Music-Whatever-Low-Bit-Rate subscription and use that as our sole source of music.
Whatever.. I got an n-channel DIY VFET amp and a Topping D90LE sitting right behind me... I bought both used, of course!... and I need to set them up.
So. have fun with this thread, but I'm not going to even bother with it. In the meantime, I think I'll put the old M-Audio ProFire 610 on Craigs List. I'm keeping the RME.
I recall "seriously getting back into lps" circa 2000 (I don't think I'd heard them called vinyls yet) after a decade of collecting old ones (LPs AND turntabes!) at yard sales, and decided I needed a new, "real" cartridge. The Grado Blue at $80 (perhaps from Needle Doctor) seemed sort-of okay, but I thought surely LPs should sound better than this. From a rec.audio.pro recommendation I got an AT440ML "on sale at half price" on Amazon for $99. I was SHOCKED at how much better it sounded. It appears the equivalent cartridge nowadays is in the $250 to $300 range.
For LP listening or transcribing, the TT and cartridge make a LOT more difference than 16/44.1 vs. higher bit depths and sample rates.
For LP listening or transcribing, the TT and cartridge make a LOT more difference than 16/44.1 vs. higher bit depths and sample rates.
The pitfall of DIY conversion. That new cartridge is better so the album must be reconverted.
Can't believe I ended up wading through this topic AGAIN, same thing every time. Nothing new here, same opinionated thing, should be banned along with the politic threads IMO.
To OP, sorry, to me it seems you may not completely understand what it is you are criticizing.
Could be some of it is that you seem to be mixing signal compression during the mastering process and file compression, these are NOT the same thing.
There is often a slight difference between the audio files pressed into vinyl and the digital copies, the vinyl works slightly better using a different dynamic and slightly lower compression, however there is far more resolution and therefore detail on the CD.
Looking at vinyl vs digital one thing is abundantly clear to me, despite a vast difference between the quality of the medium (in favour of digital) on which the music is delivered, every single album is mastered differently and that is far more annoying to me, it does not fudging matter because I will have to tweak the EQ and adjust the volume every single time!
"Purity of signal" is insignificant because nearly all the studios are doing a different thing all the time.
Enjoy your occasional rituals using vinyl.
For decent quality digital copies buy some 24bit/48 or 96kHz remastered from reputable sources, because they will for the most part come from better sources and have higher quality than you can ever hope to achieve.
To OP, sorry, to me it seems you may not completely understand what it is you are criticizing.
Could be some of it is that you seem to be mixing signal compression during the mastering process and file compression, these are NOT the same thing.
There is often a slight difference between the audio files pressed into vinyl and the digital copies, the vinyl works slightly better using a different dynamic and slightly lower compression, however there is far more resolution and therefore detail on the CD.
Looking at vinyl vs digital one thing is abundantly clear to me, despite a vast difference between the quality of the medium (in favour of digital) on which the music is delivered, every single album is mastered differently and that is far more annoying to me, it does not fudging matter because I will have to tweak the EQ and adjust the volume every single time!
"Purity of signal" is insignificant because nearly all the studios are doing a different thing all the time.
Enjoy your occasional rituals using vinyl.
For decent quality digital copies buy some 24bit/48 or 96kHz remastered from reputable sources, because they will for the most part come from better sources and have higher quality than you can ever hope to achieve.
Perhaps off topic, but Who determines the step values between bits in the "16 bit" vs. "24 bit" encodement? Seems the 16 bit format is encoded to provide 96 dB dynamic range, but couldn't that be manipulated either at the ADC or the DAC ends of the chain? I've been curious as to how these specifications were derived to achieve a balance between accuracy and practicality...
THEY do.
Seriously, though, it's just a measurement number. With more bits, you have more numbers. 16 bits (2^16) gives you ~65k numbers; 24 bit (2^24) gives you ~16 million numbers. It's like having additional digits on your multimeter.
Note that those numbers need to cover both the "positive" and "negative" parts of the waveform. (I say that recognizing that there are also signed and unsigned variants of some encoding formats).
Long story short:
It doesn't matter.
2^24−1=16777215
2^16−1=65535
If you chop 1 volt into 65535 pieces, and you amplify the signal to 10 volts out from the power amplifier, if you look at it from an ideal perspective, the signal is still made from those same 65535 pieces. It is just scaled up.
Edit:
For the record, ahem, a vinyl which is usually around 12 bits that is 4095 of those pieces.
It doesn't matter.
2^24−1=16777215
2^16−1=65535
If you chop 1 volt into 65535 pieces, and you amplify the signal to 10 volts out from the power amplifier, if you look at it from an ideal perspective, the signal is still made from those same 65535 pieces. It is just scaled up.
Edit:
For the record, ahem, a vinyl which is usually around 12 bits that is 4095 of those pieces.
Last edited:
Do you mean: why did they jump from 16 to 24? No idea, maybe something with 8 bit wordlength computers, going from 2 to 3 bytes?
By the way, Philips originally wanted 14 bit for CD, but Sony insisted on 16 bit.
Edit: 24 bit is the largest wordlength S/PDIF and AES-EBU can support. Apparently they reserved a few spare bits when defining the standard. That may also have something to do with it.
Sampling rate and bit depth are really easy marketing numbers. More must mean it's better, right?
But if you're recording an analogue signal, they're probably secondary considerations, at best. Much more important is the quality of the preamps, noise management inside the device, and overall circuitry that gets the signal from your input to the ADC. That will have a bigger impact on your sound quality. You can put numbers on them, but numbers like THD+N aren't as digestible as 32 bits! 384 kHz!
A lot of older recording gear that is very good is going for cheap(ish) secondhand. I have a soft spot for MOTU, but RME, Focusrite -- all these make decent gear that might not go as high on paper (maybe 24bit / 192) but have high quality components between the frontend and the digitizer. Some of the best digital recordings out there were made on gear that tops out at 192kHz. I've had the privilege of working with an Apogee Rosetta, a Lavry AD122, and a Prism Sound ADA-8XR. None of these go above 192kHz / 24 bit, but they're probably some of the best ADCs that money can buy. Only a fraction of that price is the actual ADC chip, though...
But if you're recording an analogue signal, they're probably secondary considerations, at best. Much more important is the quality of the preamps, noise management inside the device, and overall circuitry that gets the signal from your input to the ADC. That will have a bigger impact on your sound quality. You can put numbers on them, but numbers like THD+N aren't as digestible as 32 bits! 384 kHz!
A lot of older recording gear that is very good is going for cheap(ish) secondhand. I have a soft spot for MOTU, but RME, Focusrite -- all these make decent gear that might not go as high on paper (maybe 24bit / 192) but have high quality components between the frontend and the digitizer. Some of the best digital recordings out there were made on gear that tops out at 192kHz. I've had the privilege of working with an Apogee Rosetta, a Lavry AD122, and a Prism Sound ADA-8XR. None of these go above 192kHz / 24 bit, but they're probably some of the best ADCs that money can buy. Only a fraction of that price is the actual ADC chip, though...
Still, dividing 1 volt out into 65536 pieces as opposed to 16777216 pieces is a different level of "resolution". The noise floor of my amp may be at about 60 uV, but the max output would be only about 23 volts for example. defining 24 bits worth of points within this voltage range should be lower distortion than 16 bits. Wouldn't it?
Whatever happened to your reconstruction filter?
Except that a record has no quantization artefacts, it just has some noise.
The digital side doesn't know anything about volts. All it sees is a measurement for any given sample. Volts only matter in squishy analogue space.
More bits typically mean more precise measurement of a given input voltage, which (depending on lots of things) may translate to a better representation of the sound input, and thus more levels between nothing and everything.
More bits typically mean more precise measurement of a given input voltage, which (depending on lots of things) may translate to a better representation of the sound input, and thus more levels between nothing and everything.
Hahah! Indeed, and the bits drowning in the noise, and the bit sacrificed on the altar of dithering, and the bits lost in poorly planned pcb.
Of course there is a filter, but the filter can not ever ADD resolution, a filter can only take away, hopefully just the noise but there is always something lost.
The best 16 bit DACs can maybe get you 90dB signal to noise ratio, getting the full 96dB is not realistic.
A VERY respectable 24bit DAC might be able to give you 118dB signal to noise.
When the signal is sent to the pre amplifier you add degradation and noise, when the signal goes further to the power amplifier you degrade and add even more noise to the signal.
A very good power amplifier might give you 110dB signal to noise, if you have a really impressive signal chain around 108dB is perhaps what you can hope to achieve in total, not the theoretical 144dB.
And then we have the magic of passive filters in the speakers themselves, cone movement causing distortion in itself and not to mention diffraction as well as objects in the room!
My advice is:
Have as high quality of the signal chain as possible, everything you add is introducing some form of degradation.
Digital sources are great because they can reduce a lot of variables that you don't always have control of.
The best 16 bit DACs can maybe get you 90dB signal to noise ratio, getting the full 96dB is not realistic.
A VERY respectable 24bit DAC might be able to give you 118dB signal to noise.
When the signal is sent to the pre amplifier you add degradation and noise, when the signal goes further to the power amplifier you degrade and add even more noise to the signal.
A very good power amplifier might give you 110dB signal to noise, if you have a really impressive signal chain around 108dB is perhaps what you can hope to achieve in total, not the theoretical 144dB.
And then we have the magic of passive filters in the speakers themselves, cone movement causing distortion in itself and not to mention diffraction as well as objects in the room!
My advice is:
Have as high quality of the signal chain as possible, everything you add is introducing some form of degradation.
Digital sources are great because they can reduce a lot of variables that you don't always have control of.
One time in my life I wasted a couple vacation weeks just playing with audio all day. I found an early CD that didnt sound anything like the LP - until I removed the specified cartridge loading capacitor from the preamp input.
I imagined a conversation "How to you want me to EQ it, boss?" "Just make it sound like the LP". Plays LP with no or the wrong cartridge load. "OK, got it".
Here's hoping you have an LP with pink noise on one side, so you can check for that analytically. Like with REW or something.
I have no doubt this is absolutely true. However unlike the majority of my music which I have purchased multiple times on Vinyl, CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray Audio etc. etc... These particular albums I am not willing to repurchase and / or they are simply not available in any other format. Therefore I am going to try to convert them over as discussed and see how it goes.