[denny]

What software does/did yours come with?  

I've used Audacity and have to say it's got some pretty powerful features for editing audio.  And it's free.

Also, in your experience, do you think that the data transfer on the USB is superior than bringing the sound in through the microphone jack on the sound card?

In the past, I've run my old turntable through an amplifier and in through the mic-in.  Sound quality is pretty good, but I'm also dealing with some old old vinyl that has some warping and scratching.  I could also probably use a new needle.

And do you have a recommendation on a USB turntable?  When I looked at USB turntables a few years ago, my concern was that they seemed relatively cheap compared to the high-end turntable I bought oh so many years ago.

They come with a variety of software, none of which I use.  As a veteran of the digital audio scene, I have a lot of pro quality software around.  I typically use Sound Forge.  But the software that comes with the TT shpould automatically recognize tracks, making thisngs a bit easier.

USB will be vastly superior to using the computer mic jacks.

You don't need a high end TT just to do xfers.

[Joe Sr.]

Thanks, Denny.  I appreciate the advice from someone who's knowledgeable.

Any experience with an RCA to USB adaptor?

When I was transferring albums before (through the mic-in), my recollection is that I had to bring it in through an amplifier.  I can't recall for sure why (it's been a few years) and I was going at it ad hoc.  My assumption is that the unamplified signal from the turn table just wasn't enough to register without the amplifier.  I don't know if that would be an issue going with an RCA/USB adaptor.

JOE

[bo]

Make sure it accepts a phono input. They include a preamp.

[morticaixavier]

and IANARE (I Am Not A Recording Engineer), 60 bits per second that means that every second you take 60 samples of what the sound is doing but if you double that to 120 per second you get twice as much info and you can continue to double that sample rate indefinetly until you run out of storage without ever getting the same sample twice.

Well, I am a recording engineer.  44.1K is the standard for CDs.  Most music these days is produced at a 96K sample rate and either 24 or 32 bits.  That's getting up there in terms of resolution.  So you can see that even a 256K MP3 is a vastly reduced sample rate, not to mention the data compression (like saying "hey, we don't think you can hear that so we're throwing it out") that they do.  But you're correct in that more is better.

I knew you would be able to expand. thanks Denny!

[punatic]

Well, I am a recording engineer.  44.1K is the standard for CDs.  Most music these days is produced at a 96K sample rate and either 24 or 32 bits.  That's getting up there in terms of resolution.  So you can see that even a 256K MP3 is a vastly reduced sample rate, not to mention the data compression (like saying "hey, we don't think you can hear that so we're throwing it out") that they do.  But you're correct in that more is better.

I hoped Denny would check in with his engineer hat on.

Not being argumentative - just looking for answers...

Theoretically records are analog and music is analog.  Digitizing music quanitizes it into a series of "square" bits of a single value.  You lose the changing value in the bit in the digital recording that is present in the same time space in the analog recording.  The smaller period of time the bit represents (higher bit rate), the closer you can come to matching the analog curve.  (like integral calculus).

However, analog music recordings on vinyl lose a little of the peaks and valleys in the groove every time the record needle tracks across it.  So the recording is degraded with every play (not to mention the snap, crackle and pop of dust and scratches).

If analog recordings on vinyl are superior, wouldn't there be a market for new music recorded that way among audiophiles?

Using compressed files to store digital photos does the same "hey, we don't think you can hear that so we're throwing it out' game, only with light.

[Joe Sr.]

Carl - I believe there is a market for new vinyl among audiophiles.

However, the market is so small that the major labels couldn't care less about it.  And the costs of producing the small amount of vinyl people would actually buy are probably cost prohibitive.

But there is definitely a market.  I read an article somewhat recently about a company that's producing small runs of vinyl.  I can't recall if it was new music or not, but IIRC it may even have been a local Chicago company.

EDIT: Not the article I was looking for, but here's one from Time in 2008 about a resurgence in vinyl. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702369,00.html

However, if new music is digitally mastered, what's the point of an analog play-back format?

[morticaixavier]

[If analog recordings on vinyl are superior, wouldn't there be a market for new music recorded that way among audiophiles?

Using compressed files to store digital photos does the same "hey, we don't think you can hear that so we're throwing it out' game, only with light.

There is a market for that. interestingly, in my experience though it is largley among punk and hardcore listeners. No idea why you need highest possible fidelity to listen to an angry englishman scream but...

True the quality degrades and you can drop some serious bucks on heavy gauge (Is gauge the right word here?) LPs that in theory will not warp as easily. But at least at first the sound quality is better.

Pearl Jam had a clause in their contract requiring that all their albums be released on vinyl as well as CD.

[jaybeerman]

it's all about convenience rather than pure sound.  yes there is a small yet fantastic selection of new vinyl

[punatic]

Well then that leads to the question:

If the analog recording technique used on vinyl records is better, could modern methods and materials be used to make the records more robust?  And convenient?

[roguenationpatriot]

There is a market for that. interestingly, in my experience though it is largley among punk and hardcore listeners. No idea why you need highest possible fidelity to listen to an angry englishman scream but...

True the quality degrades and you can drop some serious bucks on heavy gauge (Is gauge the right word here?) LPs that in theory will not warp as easily. But at least at first the sound quality is better.

Pearl Jam had a clause in their contract requiring that all their albums be released on vinyl as well as CD.
[/quote]

I have a large amount of vinyls, cd's, and mp3's in my collection.  I probably should get rid of the vinyls eventually, but I just find that that listening to music on vinyl to be more enjoyable.  I don't know if has anything to do with sound quality, but it's definately not notalgia since I grew up with tapes and cd's.  But there is something about different about listening to vinyl.  Also, I definately am in favor the vinyl segment of the the punk industry, they work with colored, picture vinyl, and 7 inches.

[jaybeerman]

Well then that leads to the question:

If the analog recording technique used on vinyl records is better, could modern methods and materials be used to make the records more robust?  And convenient?

I guess you haven’t seen my in-dash vinyl player or my 400 album pocket record case. 

seriously though - it's hard to beat a thumb drive for convenience.  That said, I thoroughly enjoy sitting down and listening to vinyl

[Joe Sr.]

That said, I thoroughly enjoy sitting down and listening to vinyl

Who has the time?

Now if I could do it at work...

[morticaixavier]

[Also, I definately am in favor the vinyl segment of the the punk industry, they work with colored, picture vinyl, and 7 inches.

Wow, trailer park boys and punk on vinyl, I'm starting to like you RNP

[jaybeerman]

Who has the time?

Well...apparently I do.  I think it's one of those things, you either make time or it doesn't happen.  cheers, j

[corkybstewart]

There is a market for that. interestingly, in my experience though it is largley among punk and hardcore listeners. No idea why you need highest possible fidelity to listen to an angry englishman scream but...

True the quality degrades and you can drop some serious bucks on heavy gauge (Is gauge the right word here?) LPs that in theory will not warp as easily. But at least at first the sound quality is better.

Pearl Jam had a clause in their contract requiring that all their albums be released on vinyl as well as CD.

I have a large amount of vinyls, cd's, and mp3's in my collection.  I probably should get rid of the vinyls eventually, but I just find that that listening to music on vinyl to be more enjoyable.  I don't know if has anything to do with sound quality, but it's definately not notalgia since I grew up with tapes and cd's.  But there is something about different about listening to vinyl.  Also, I definately am in favor the vinyl segment of the the punk industry, they work with colored, picture vinyl, and 7 inches.


[/quote]For me it's part nostalgia but not completely.  We put an album on the turntable and the same CD in the player simultaneously.  I switched back and forth between the CD and the album and the consensus was the the vinyl sounded much fuller and richer than the CD.  The effect was more pronounced in classical music(I used Palchobel's Canon) than with AC/DC but it was there.  It was a blind test, nobody knew which player they were listening to.