Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Vinyl to MP3...

  1. #21
    Supermod pea Manu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    On your screen
    Posts
    5,718
    I have done once a file restoration on a file recorded from a record dated 1966, "Grand Prix" soundtrack. That record being 50 years old it had tons of clicks and pops. I processed that through soundforge + removed a lot of it manually. The end result is amazing, so to me it works. I have done lots of restorations with really good results.


    Lol at the static gun video. Dude wants to remove static, places the record over a synthetic carpet...

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Manu View Post
    Lol at the static gun video. Dude wants to remove static, places the record over a synthetic carpet...
    That might be how he got enough static on the record to hold a peanut in the first place.
    The U.S. pentagon budget consumes 80% of individual income tax revenue. The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

  3. #23
    Supermod pea Manu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    On your screen
    Posts
    5,718
    How to instantly put some dust on your record as well...

  4. #24
    The thing with records and static is.. the static doesn't really affect the playback, it's more about static attracting dust.

    But if you clean the record when it comes out of the sleeve, it's not going to have dust on it when you put it on the turntable.. and also if you clean it with a liquid cleaner that helps. If you live in a dry area then static/dust is more problem. I used to use Stanton 680 carts, they had a little brush to collect dust while the record was playing.. not sure if that affected the sound at all.. at the time I didn't notice any difference.

    DiscWasher used to be what everyone used to clean their records.. not sure what's popular now.. I'm sure there's something like it.
    And I'd make my own cleaning solution similar to what Windows 95 suggested.. cause otherwise it's stupidly expensive.

    As far as processing the audio when ripping vinyl.. why would you want to do that? It's already been mastered. If you were just listening to the record or DJing with it, you wouldn't run it through a mastering plugin would you? You don't put extra eq and multiband compression on every track you play do you? Someone did that already.

    Try a little thought experiment:

    Let's say you have a digital mixer like the O/P's DJM850 that converts analog to digital on the way in, and digital back to analog on the way out...
    Now let's say you play a record.. and you record it from the mixer via USB.. you're saving the digital data.
    Now you play that file back out through the mixer. It's going to sound EXACTLY the same as playing the original record, which is what you want, no?

    Except that when you're DJing with vinyl you use carts that are made for cueing.. but when you are ripping you can use better sounding carts.. you can use a better preamp and a better converter too than what you might have in the mixer.. if you want.. so that when you play that digital file, it'll be as if you were playing that record with a great cart that you couldn't have used for DJing because it's not made for back-cueing.. but now you can get that better sound as if you were able to do that... So then you can be playing your digital 'vinyl' as if you had a great hifi turntable with you...

  5. #25
    Member Tobias Enstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    At My Computer
    Posts
    321
    All you are doing by removing clicks and pops and EQing is changing phase relationships, changing the mixing and mastering decisions of the original engineers, and generally lowering the sound quality.

    I simply cant understand why people go to the trouble of digitising their records using a decent signal path, and then ruining them with post processing software. Different strokes I guess. Youre never going to achieve anywhere near the quality of a professionally mastered version.

    I think youd be surprised about how many tracks you have, have been remastered digitally. For me, paying $2 to have all of that pro attention to a track far outweighs the effort required to make a mediocre version myself.
    Not sure I agree with your first 2 paragraphs.
    When I have edited clicks and pops out of a record, the vast majority are with in half a cycle. I can't see how that can cause any issues with phase relationships.
    EQing does cause phase issues, particularly when boosting but a 2dB shelf increase is hardly going to ruin a track or make the phase be heard.

    I add very minor amounts of processing. The limiter I use is to get the levels closer to the volume of other tracks and even then I'm very conservative with the levels. I don't want to kill the dynamics!
    I know there are amateurs out there who are heavy handed with their processing and they do ruin their tracks.
    If you can find an upload of mine where you think I have ruined/lowered the quality of the original, please show me.

    As OP has already said on here, not all records have a digital version you can buy.

    As far as processing the audio when ripping vinyl.. why would you want to do that? It's already been mastered. If you were just listening to the record or DJing with it, you wouldn't run it through a mastering plugin would you? You don't put extra eq and multiband compression on every track you play do you? Someone did that already.
    The Global Underground unmixed CD series has tracks that have been mastered from vinyl which would involve some tweeking with EQ, Compression and so forth.
    All records have differing volumes as some are cut louder and some are cut quieter to save space and get more on. A 45rpm 12" will have a different volume to an LP so the tracks on the GU albums would be mastered to have all the same perceived volume,
    Last edited by Tobias Enstrom; 05-17-2017 at 01:19 PM.

  6. #26
    Member DennisBdrmDJ 2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Windows 95 View Post
    I think I paid less than $5 at a K-Mart in the 1970s for mine. They became expensive when vinyl records went from something the masses bought, to something hipsters & audiophiles buy.

    Record vacuum machines become unbelievably over priced in recent years. (Every since CDs became more popular than records.)
    Something I kind of wish I would have bought back in the 1970s or 1980s.
    something,we agree on! I purchased a record vacuum machine,around 2001,and it was then a small fortune at $800....but if own a vast collection,I highly recommend getting one..They make old records look good as new (somewhat).Now,they don't absolute eliminates all scratches,pops and hiss,but they go a long long way in helping.I love my machine. http://www.nittygrittyinc.com/minipro.htm

  7. #27
    Nice! That's an awesome thing to own. There used to be a really great hifi store on Long Island that had a machine similar to that.. it wasn't the same I don't think but similar idea.. and they would clean your records for free. When I was a teenager I would go there every so often to browse all the gear I wanted but could not afford, and bring records for them to clean.. which they were very good natured about. I did later on buy some used gear from them a few times, so I paid for my cleanings just a little bit

  8. #28
    But yea on the subject of mastering already-mastered stuff when you are digitizing it.. naw I really can't agree. Of course you can normalize the level.. that doesn't change the sound at all. But adding compression and EQ to records.. especially compression.. that's not doing them any favor. Some records do have quite weak bass if it was an LP with long playing time or if it's the last couple of tracks on the side.. I could see putting some gentle EQ on my DJ copy, because it's not what the artist or producer wanted, but more like what the mastering engineer HAD to do to get it on the record. But I'd want to keep the original untouched rip around. Compression I wouldn't touch. You can't make every record sound like every other records.. and it's not like you are putting together a compilation that'll always be played in the same order. DJ's job is to figure out what records go well together, isn't it? It's funny because recorded music used to be much less compressed and now after years of loudness wars everything is compressed till it barely has any dynamics at all.. and it's something that a lot of music lovers have complained about and a lot of people in the industry want to change, and here you go taking these nice sounding older records and compressing them so they are as 'loud' as everything else. I'm just not into it.
    Last edited by light-o-matic; 05-17-2017 at 02:47 PM.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobias Enstrom View Post
    Not sure I agree with your first 2 paragraphs.
    When I have edited clicks and pops out of a record, the vast majority are with in half a cycle. I can't see how that can cause any issues with phase relationships.
    EQing does cause phase issues, particularly when boosting but a 2dB shelf increase is hardly going to ruin a track or make the phase be heard.

    I add very minor amounts of processing. The limiter I use is to get the levels closer to the volume of other tracks and even then I'm very conservative with the levels. I don't want to kill the dynamics!
    I know there are amateurs out there who are heavy handed with their processing and they do ruin their tracks.
    If you can find an upload of mine where you think I have ruined/lowered the quality of the original, please show me.

    As OP has already said on here, not all records have a digital version you can buy.


    The Global Underground unmixed CD series has tracks that have been mastered from vinyl which would involve some tweeking with EQ, Compression and so forth.
    All records have differing volumes as some are cut louder and some are cut quieter to save space and get more on. A 45rpm 12" will have a different volume to an LP so the tracks on the GU albums would be mastered to have all the same perceived volume,
    Thats a completely different use case than applying post processing to single ripped tracks from vinyl. DJ mixers have gain knobs and EQ knobs to match tracks from different sources.

    Different strokes I guess, i simply dont see the point unless you have an truly flat playback system and a professionally tuned room. This is what mastering engineers get paid for, and its a highly specialised industry.

  10. #30
    Moderator pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    old orléans
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by light-o-matic View Post
    But yea on the subject of mastering already-mastered stuff when you are digitizing it.. naw I really can't agree. Of course you can normalize the level.. that doesn't change the sound at all. But adding compression and EQ to records.. especially compression.. that's not doing them any favor. Some records do have quite weak bass if it was an LP with long playing time or if it's the last couple of tracks on the side.. I could see putting some gentle EQ on my DJ copy, because it's not what the artist or producer wanted, but more like what the mastering engineer HAD to do to get it on the record. But I'd want to keep the original untouched rip around. Compression I wouldn't touch. You can't make every record sound like every other records.. and it's not like you are putting together a compilation that'll always be played in the same order. DJ's job is to figure out what records go well together, isn't it? It's funny because recorded music used to be much less compressed and now after years of loudness wars everything is compressed till it barely has any dynamics at all.. and it's something that a lot of music lovers have complained about and a lot of people in the industry want to change, and here you go taking these nice sounding older records and compressing them so they are as 'loud' as everything else. I'm just not into it.
    In principle I agree.
    I also find it interesting that people will spend up to '000s$ on expensive equipment, effectively changing the sound to get something that sounds 'good' to their ears.
    We can all agree that vinyl mastering is a compromise. There are certain tracks released on vinyl that will never sound 'good' or even as the artist intended, based on the fact that the vinyl mastering process is limited - whether it be by frequencies or dynamic range.
    Even in the situation where a master is perfect, the record will only sound 'correct' for the first few plays before the vinyl medium degrades.
    Also bear in mind that a lot of mastering engineers are either not good, or not putting out their best work into a lot of tracks.

    So to then turn around and say that through post-processing it is ruining the sound, sounds a bit rich. The sound is already compromised.

    The vinyl snob in me appreciates that it should be respected, but I have also heard DJ mixes where the tracks have been altered in post that sound amazing. I remember KevinJames uploaded an 80s mix in 128kbps. It sounded clearer and much more dynamic than the versions of the tracks I had on original vinyl. Plus the levels throughout mix was smooth as hell. When I found out he used extensive use of Ozone, it made me question minimal approach I had always used with my mixes.

    At the end of the day, if the objective is to make the sound as 'good' to one's ears as possible, either through spending a fortune on hifi, spending a fortune on fresh records or through post-processing ... so be it. Having a clean, clear 'natural' rip is always good for archiving. But when I am in my car and need some songs that don't sound completely out of place next to modern mastered tracks, I see little reason in trying to be virtuous by playing a poor sounding (to my ears) vinyl rip or unmastered mix.
    bored, curious, deaf or just bad taste in music?
    finally a mix by me
    and what's this, another shoddy mix...another dull mix

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
a