Member
Joined 2019
Member
Joined 2019
Oh I thought you already have made the tonearm. Do post updates.
Regards
Member
Joined 2019
I have made it and my YouTube clips with LPs digitalized by using it are several tens. But I do not consider TTT as an 'industrial product', which may be distributed in the market, but as a personal technical / experimental device, aimed to a good quality initial digitalization. So I am feeling free to experiment and introduce changes any time. I am sorry to repeat that I do not listen to vinyl "as it is". I listen to its' high quality edited digital copies.
Last edited:
I am not sure why you need to listen to digital recordings of your original LP's and what do you mean by "high quality" and "edited".
I imagine he likes the conveinience and lack of wear from listening to digitized rips. High quality means he doesnt want to listen to rips made on a shitty turntable and cheap soundcard. Edited means he prefer to manipulate rips to remove nasty stuff, set a desired signallevel and maybe eq to his liking. Those are at least some ways one can edit. The youtube bits Ive heard of his, sound really great on my phone with cheapish headphones and max resolution
Member
Joined 2019
Sirs, the procedures I use during the digital editing are listed in every YouTube clip I post: right-down. A more detailed description is given here:
YouTube
Note that the clip is quite old and some hardware and software data mentioned there are not valid today.
Guerilla, I do not change the sound's frequency content by any means, except by equalizing it within 30-20000 Hz according to the cartridge frequency response I measure regularly. "Eq of my liking" is an insane action, may be acceptable by some audiophiles, but not by a Hi Fi enthusiast. I set the peak signal level at -0.5 dB.
By "high quality digital copy" I mean a .wav file of 48 kHz and 32 bit floating point. Initially I used wavs of 96 kHz, but later I found, after certain measurements, that for vinyl sources going beyond 24 kHz does not add practically anything to the sound quality.
Finally, I remind that all these procedures are especially beneficial in the case of older and quite noisy records. The new and high quality printed ones will have a lesser improvement, but it will be there as well.
YouTube
Note that the clip is quite old and some hardware and software data mentioned there are not valid today.
Guerilla, I do not change the sound's frequency content by any means, except by equalizing it within 30-20000 Hz according to the cartridge frequency response I measure regularly. "Eq of my liking" is an insane action, may be acceptable by some audiophiles, but not by a Hi Fi enthusiast. I set the peak signal level at -0.5 dB.
By "high quality digital copy" I mean a .wav file of 48 kHz and 32 bit floating point. Initially I used wavs of 96 kHz, but later I found, after certain measurements, that for vinyl sources going beyond 24 kHz does not add practically anything to the sound quality.
Finally, I remind that all these procedures are especially beneficial in the case of older and quite noisy records. The new and high quality printed ones will have a lesser improvement, but it will be there as well.
Last edited:
It is very ignoring to read written language in video. I just don’t understand why to use video to present your view which can be easily written down.
In the beginning of the video, you claim digital has better specifications so you need to digitize analog sound before listening to analog.
What you did were to cut everything out under 30 Hz, to equalize the signal based on the inferior AT cartridge, and to de-click.
So, my question to you is:
Why you need to use analog gears to digitize the sound? Just listen to CD. It solves all your problems and it is even better than your solution. CD contains information under 30 Hz and it has no clicks and low in noise as well. Finally, no need to equalize.
In the beginning of the video, you claim digital has better specifications so you need to digitize analog sound before listening to analog.
What you did were to cut everything out under 30 Hz, to equalize the signal based on the inferior AT cartridge, and to de-click.
So, my question to you is:
Why you need to use analog gears to digitize the sound? Just listen to CD. It solves all your problems and it is even better than your solution. CD contains information under 30 Hz and it has no clicks and low in noise as well. Finally, no need to equalize.
Last edited:
You mean you raise the level to match other digital sources like CD for exampel? And filter for noise and cracks if neseary?
I mostly wouldnt eq also, but I would really really love to have a version of Razamataz by Nazareth where the guitar was made less sharp. All the recordings Ive heard of it turn unpleasant, as soon as the volume comes up a little. Im just not sure if it can be done without changing the vocals too much.
Wow, why didn't I realize all these benefits before?
I now see the light and just put all my vinyl equipment up for sale on the auction site and dusted off my CD's. Oh, I forgot, I don't need to dust off the CD's because the laser beam works through the dust.
Meanwhile, all these years I had struggled with servo-linear designs. And, on other threads, diyr's struggled with air bearing linears having shaft design issues and air pump issues, or struggled with mechanical linears having roller bearing friction/sticktion issues, or struggled with articulated tangential trackers having skating issues. Here is a new approach to a floating linear design, but so far it's been in greater danger of being sunk by criticism than the Titanic trying to dodge an iceberg.
I think Captain PK has some interesting ideas here, and I'd like to see everyone hold back on the gunfire and instead help him steer this ship to see where it goes.
Ray K
Member
Joined 2019
I mean to improve the quality of the sound. Not necessarily to conform with other standards, say CD.
Not exactly. I claim that digitizing with high quality parameters will not result in degradation of the digitized analogue sound.
1. A lot of my >700 LPs have not CD editions
2. Even if some have, the mastering may differ from that of the LP.
3. I do not dislike the LP sound, I just like it improved as much as possible. And this often requires the application of serious digital editing.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2019
Ray, I need always to remind that the idea of floating linear design is not mine, but of the Russian colleague Nicolay Ivanov, who has also patented it. Mine is only the proposed version for implementation.
Last edited:
Yes. I have to say again, that Im not often, but too often, shocked how people attack like a pack of wolves, when someone comes up with a new idea that is different from generic solutions. Often claiming that science proves that the idea is stupid and will never work. Then too many pages later a working prototype is running with aid from more helpfull members.
Now I guess Im delaying the progress also - Sorry about that.
Ray, this is ridiculous. You take my words completely out of context. I said it is better to listen to CD’s based upon his three steps to digitize LP.
1. He filtered all the information under 30 Hz. WHY? Can’t records playback any information under 30 Hz? A CD surely contains information under 30 Hz.
2. He equalizes all the frequencies based on AT cartridge. It is very problematic how accurate the cartridge can capture the information embedded in the records. Can this process of equalization beat the process of CD mastering? NO.
3. He de-clicked and reduced the noise level. I dislike the method because it may reduce other information as well. He is not able to separate the music information from noise and clicks. CD doesn’t have this kind of problem.
So, I said if you want to go through all these three steps to digitize records, you actually degrade the sound. A cd surly will sound better.
NO. If the design is a truly good one, criticism WON’T sink the design. Instead, the more criticisms, the more we will realize how clever the design is. But I don’t see this is what is happening here.
I can’t see any interesting ideas so far. I am all ears. Please educate me.
Last edited:
Years ago, I digitized some of my LP’s just for fun. I used RME internal PCI sound cad and recorded at 32 bit and 192 kHz, 24 bit and 96 kHz. The information captured was way above 20 kHz. It was about 40 kHz. I don’t like any editing at all. If you want the digital copy sounds like original LP, don’t edit it. I didn’t edit the copies. However, these copies didn’t sound exactly as playing records physically. It was almost same as original LP. If you want a digital copy of LP sounds like original LP, you need to get good recording equipment and good playing back equipment, too. A regular PC won’t do it. Later on, I used TASCAM DA-3000. I can say that Tascam DA-3000 is the best equipment to record LP and to playback your digital copies, too as far as I know. It sounded exactly same as my original LP’s. The Tascam can record in DSD, 24/192.
If you digitalized lps for the propose of archiving, I would not say a word. But if you think digital editing will improve the sound, I would say it is not possible under your three steps unless you have different standards.
Last edited:
In addition what I said above, if you want your digital copies sound like your original LP, you should not use internal DAC of your sound card. You should use an external DAC with digital output from the sound card. Then, there will be messy because there are so many outboard DAC's available.
Member
Joined 2019
My digitalization procedure became a new topic of interest, replacing the floating tonearm. Well, I have some answers, which will be given in different posts.
What a complicated question about a quite trivial subject! The system "Cartridge + Phono Preamp" is supposed to have a linear frequency response within 20-20000 Hz. For certain reasons, related to both parts of the pair, this is not true and it is derived from frequency response measurements with a proper measuring disk. What I do is to apply a digital frequency correction to the recorded signal, so that the observed deviations from the linearity are reduced to about ±0.2 dB. A really trivial action, similar to the fine Preamp input capacitance tuning to "match" the Cartridge, applied by some experienced enthusiasts.
The CD has nothing to do with this. The CD may not exist.
What a complicated question about a quite trivial subject! The system "Cartridge + Phono Preamp" is supposed to have a linear frequency response within 20-20000 Hz. For certain reasons, related to both parts of the pair, this is not true and it is derived from frequency response measurements with a proper measuring disk. What I do is to apply a digital frequency correction to the recorded signal, so that the observed deviations from the linearity are reduced to about ±0.2 dB. A really trivial action, similar to the fine Preamp input capacitance tuning to "match" the Cartridge, applied by some experienced enthusiasts.
The CD has nothing to do with this. The CD may not exist.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2019
Hiten, no reason to be sorry! I am interested in your ideas. Why did you abandon the rails idea? BTW, I am thinking about "the radical solution" - a purely magnetic guiding system. This will cause a very strong discomfort to some orthodox people, as the only stable value in my design - the Holy Tonearm Effective Length - will be abandoned as well and replaced with a tolerance of - say - 100 microns. The effect of this level of error is practically 0 for the lateral skating component and about 0.1 degree tracking error at the 60 mm groove > 0.075% THD.
Member
Joined 2019
My answers go on.
Before I selected 30 Hz for cutting frequency, I examined a lot of LPs, jazz and classic - and found that in almost all cases frequencies below 30 Hz are not present. Actually, the frequencies below 40 Hz are also quite rare and/or with very low levels. Nevertheless, I agree that in some rare cases F<30 Hz exist. These are typically cases of electronic music. I found one in the Net, music for meditation, with a long presence of strong 27 Hz signal. And so, where is the problem? I can recognize these rare cases and apply there a second variant of the FFT filter, with 20 Hz cut frequency instead of 30! But removing the very low rumble and tonearm resonance frequencies is beneficial.
Before I selected 30 Hz for cutting frequency, I examined a lot of LPs, jazz and classic - and found that in almost all cases frequencies below 30 Hz are not present. Actually, the frequencies below 40 Hz are also quite rare and/or with very low levels. Nevertheless, I agree that in some rare cases F<30 Hz exist. These are typically cases of electronic music. I found one in the Net, music for meditation, with a long presence of strong 27 Hz signal. And so, where is the problem? I can recognize these rare cases and apply there a second variant of the FFT filter, with 20 Hz cut frequency instead of 30! But removing the very low rumble and tonearm resonance frequencies is beneficial.