High quality (personal) but easy vinyl digitising

[Saracen999]

Does it not have a tape deck recording line level output? That would seem electrically better suited than a headphone amp matched to drive small speakers.

I'd have to go and look to be certain, but from memory I'm about 90% that it does, yes. And that probably makes more sense. The benefit, IIRC, was variable level on it, rather than line out.

[scaryjim]

First, mods, can I ask this? If not, please delete. ...

As Ferral's already contributed that's a fairly clear implicit green light, but to add a more formal mod statement:

This discussion is about format shifting existing, legally purchased, media for the purposes of back-up, storage, and playback on modern hardware. As the source medium is vinyl, the process does not involve bypassing any security or anti-copy systems. Unless the law has changed recently, that makes it perfectly legal, and therefore perfectly acceptable for hexus.

If the thread veers away from that towards obtaining such media by other means or distributing the shifted media, we'd need to revisit that position; so let's keep it on track (as everyone has, so far).

That's all from me folks, please carry on

[Saracen999]

Thanks, Scary.

In the interests of complete disclosure, I was pretty sure it was okay, which is why I didn't follow quite what I should have, and asked first. Sometimes, I get confused about which hat I wear (or not) now. I had the admin hat for so long I can still feel it even now that I don't.

I did, however, immediately PM Ferral and g8ina to draw attention to it.

I thereby took a bit of a liberty. I would strongly advise others, however, to ask first. I certainly risked egg on my face, and a slap, if I got it wrong. It is a subject area bordering on contentious.

[scaryjim]

with my mod hat off for a minute, I use a setup similar to to what matts-uk has already suggested for format shifting tapes - my old deck hooked up to a USB audio interface (Tascam US-1200 in my case), record into audacity, then clean and shift into mp3. I'm pretty sure I use 16bit/44.1KHz sampling, but then I'm usually outputting 128kbps mp3s, so higher rates probably wouldn't gain me anything. Audio quality it still pretty damn good though, imho.

[Saracen999]

It's all about intended use, IMHO.

I tend to use a principle I adopted for photo, especially film, scanning which was to scan at the highest resolution I reasonably could, bearing in mind time and, for some images, file size.

Archive that as the master.

Then, depending on the intended usage, and subject to the principles of avoiding interpolation (to avoid generating pixels) scale down to intended use.

If I scan for a relatively low-res use (like on-screen for a website) and then need a high-res file for printing, I have to start at beginning. On the other hand, if I hav a maximum res master, I can simply copy and rescale to what I need now.

I feel inclined to do the same here, and even if 16/44.41 is fine for this exercise, I'd rather digitise as high as reasonably possible, and then downscale, especially given that LP ripping ids a real-time process. It's certainly not a project I intend to do twice.

[scaryjim]

... I'd rather digitise as high as reasonably possible, and then downscale, especially given that LP ripping ids a real-time process. It's certainly not a project I intend to do twice.

Very fair - I'm aware that the sound quality I'm content with isn't for everyone.

Looking around, you'd need to go up to ~ £60 before you start getting 24b/96k as an option. Given your use case, it might be worth the investment...? e.g. https://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_...a_umc202hd.htm (although you lose the RCA inputs so would need to invest in appropriate leads/adapters as well...) or maybe https://www.thomann.de/gb/esi_maya_22_usb.htm (ESI isn't a brand I know, though)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you check back to the Audiosciencereview links I posted,people with the Behringer 202 series ADCs,talked about distortion problems. This is why they were suggesting products from companies such as Focusrite. It really is a very good forum for stuff like DACs,ADCs,etc. Lots of tests are posted on there.

[Saracen999]

If you check back to the Audiosciencereview links I posted,people with the Behringer 202 series ADCs,talked about distortion problems. This is why they were suggesting products from companies such as Focusrite. It really is a very good forum for stuff like DACs,ADCs,etc. Lots of tests are posted on there.

Not got to it yet,Cat, but it's on my to-do.

[matts-uk]

It's all about intended use, IMHO.

Yep.

If it was all about quality I would buy a used DAT recorder. Convenience was and still is my overriding priority for shifting to a digital format.

I feel inclined to do the same here, and even if 16/44.41 is fine for this exercise, I'd rather digitise as high as reasonably possible, and then downscale, especially given that LP ripping ids a real-time process. It's certainly not a project I intend to do twice.

How much do you want to spend?

I very nearly bought a Scarlett 2i2. Native Instruments make some interesting USB interfaces too.

Affordable, 24bit / 192Khz what's not to like? In a word, jitter. Recording with a less than real time operating system, increasing the sample rate increases the jitter. Maybe I start trying to mitigate that with a faster CPU and faster dedicated storage. To hell with it, what I really need is a dedicated digital hard-disk recorder. Before I know it I'm looking at a semi-pro recording studio, a big hole in my bank account and spent more than the equivalent CDs.

The moment of sanity. CD quality is good enough for home recording on a PC that is used for other purposes. Distortion is manageable. When people say they prefer vinyl to CD a lot of what is missing from the CD is the distortion

You may of course think differently.

[Saracen999]

....

You may of course think differently.

Or not.

I'm a bit of a fish out of water, here.

Your point about jitter is exactly the kind of issue that I'd miss.

I could certainly justify the 2i2 price, but I don't want to go too much further than that, and changing an entire system to solve that is a non-starter. Thanks for the warning.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yep.

If it was all about quality I would buy a used DAT recorder. Convenience was and still is my overriding priority for shifting to a digital format.


How much do you want to spend?

I very nearly bought a Scarlett 2i2. Native Instruments make some interesting USB interfaces too.

Affordable, 24bit / 192Khz what's not to like? In a word, jitter. Recording with a less than real time operating system, increasing the sample rate increases the jitter. Maybe I start trying to mitigate that with a faster CPU and faster dedicated storage. To hell with it, what I really need is a dedicated digital hard-disk recorder. Before I know it I'm looking at a semi-pro recording studio, a big hole in my bank account and spent more than the equivalent CDs.

The moment of sanity. CD quality is good enough for home recording on a PC that is used for other purposes. Distortion is manageable. When people say they prefer vinyl to CD a lot of what is missing from the CD is the distortion

You may of course think differently.

Well on Audioscience review they said the 2i2 has much less distorton than the equivalent 202 series ADCs. However,one or two people actually use this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tascam-Vers...dp/B004OU2IQG#

It is a portable PCM recorder,so the OS overhead isn't there.

[matts-uk]

Well on Audioscience review they said the 2i2 has much less distorton than the equivalent 202 series ADCs.

Is that one of those sites that fires sine waves at kit and declares you can buy something more expensive that performs better

I'm not recording sine waves for playback on my oscilloscope. I'm not recording live performance or straight from a mic or pickup. I'm not down-mixing multi-track. Below recording levels in danger of clipping, to my mind (or is that ears), distortion is a non-issue. All electrically amplified music is coloured by distortion. Distortion does not scare me. Jitter on the other hand is a digital artefact that badly damages the musical quality.

Within sensible levels and sonic frequencies the UCA202 distortion is low enough to be inaudible. Much better than compact cassette, which I always struggled to tolerate. The analogue outputs aren't great, especially into consumer kit but it's not really a device for high quality playback. What it does do very well for the price is ADC into USB and USB to optical. If I wanted the very best analogue playback I would not be digitising at all.

However,one or two people actually use this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tascam-Vers...dp/B004OU2IQG#

Yes there are loads of semi-pro audio gadgets at whatever price you want to choose. I know a few skint semi-pro musicians too

I thought about a dedicated hand-held PCM recorder but was a little worried it might come optimised for performance. 24 bit might be nice but I'm not inclined to chase Khz for home recording - It still needs post processing. I was also keen to avoid any thing that needed a software driver (2i2). My thinking was have a punt on the Behringer and if I didn't like the sound I could always sell it on and spend more. As it is I am content with the results at CD lossless.

There is a parallel with digital cameras here somewhere. Buying on specification and mega-pixels doesn't always equate to better pictures.

[Saracen999]

.....

There is a parallel with digital cameras here somewhere. Buying on specification and mega-pixels doesn't always equate to better pictures.

Amen to that. Printers and scanners too. "Resolution" can easily turn from a useful metric to a marketeer's best friend. Oh, the arguments I've had about dpi, ppi, etc.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Is that one of those sites that fires sine waves at kit and declares you can buy something more expensive that performs better

I'm not recording sine waves for playback on my oscilloscope. I'm not recording live performance or straight from a mic or pickup. I'm not down-mixing multi-track. Below recording levels in danger of clipping, to my mind (or is that ears), distortion is a non-issue. All electrically amplified music is coloured by distortion. Distortion does not scare me. Jitter on the other hand is a digital artefact that badly damages the musical quality.

Within sensible levels and sonic frequencies the UCA202 distortion is low enough to be inaudible. Much better than compact cassette, which I always struggled to tolerate. The analogue outputs aren't great, especially into consumer kit but it's not really a device for high quality playback. What it does do very well for the price is ADC into USB and USB to optical. If I wanted the very best analogue playback I would not be digitising at all.

I don't agree entirely about the distortion,because IMHO that can be a problem in it's own right,especially with certain types of music.

Also regarding the website quite the opposite. If you look at their reviews,the main reviewer does seem to have a solid engineering background,and has pointed out how several more expensive devices are inferior to cheaper devices,which has lead to problems with certain companies. An example Schiit Audio having issues with them,when the chap pointed out there were problems with some of their devices,and cheaper devices from Topping did a better job. Schiit are considered "budget champions" in the US. Then look at the review of the Chord Mojo:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-and-amp.5120/

It uses an FPGA,which is advertised as "state of the art" by many publications.

There is really nothing broken in Chord Mojo. It performs well in a variety of tests. The issue with it is so much technical hype about its superiority that one is left empty after seeing performance that is well below state-of-the-art. We have DACs at less than half the price easily outperforming it on many tests. I cannot see any technical benefit to its design approach. On the contrary, that approach brings with it much higher cost, and power consumption. Combine that with the poor user interface and the Chord Mojo is simply not my cup of tea.

Again, the Mojo is a competent product unlike some other boutique DACs that compete with each other to see who can produce worse performance. It goes a different route but leaves the road well paved. So if you are attracted to it, I am not going to sit here and tell you that you should not buy it.

A rant: Rob Watts owns an audio precision analyzer which he uses for the design of his DACs. Why on earth then are his specs are shorter than markings on a car tire? Why not post full measurement report? This review is going to garner some amount of angst among people. To short circuit that, I am going to remind you that the only answer to my review is manufacture posting similar measurements showing different results. That they don't do that, is a more serious problem than any conflict between the data I have and what is claimed.

The whole takeaway from the reviews,and especially the ODAC project,is most of the boutique DACs are a waste of time. Many of these companies don't appear to do proper measurements,and just take onboard official components specs,without proper measurements.

The distortion issues include the more expensive UHD202HD and UHD204HD:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...e-review.9856/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-review.10187/

So the price difference between the UHD204HD and a 2i2 is around £30 at most.

I think in some instances he has pointed out how the onboard sound on a laptop has done a better job than certain DACs!

Yes there are loads of semi-pro audio gadgets at whatever price you want to choose. I know a few skint semi-pro musicians too

I thought about a dedicated hand-held PCM recorder but was a little worried it might come optimised for performance. 24 bit might be nice but I'm not inclined to chase Khz for home recording - It still needs post processing. I was also keen to avoid any thing that needed a software driver (2i2). My thinking was have a punt on the Behringer and if I didn't like the sound I could always sell it on and spend more. As it is I am content with the results at CD lossless.

There is a parallel with digital cameras here somewhere. Buying on specification and mega-pixels doesn't always equate to better pictures.

The PCM recorder is probably more for recording events via a microphone. But instead of using the line-in connected to a microphone,you can plonk a line-in from another device and record to SD card. It basically cuts out the whole need of a computer.

Amen to that. Printers and scanners too. "Resolution" can easily turn from a useful metric to a marketeer's best friend. Oh, the arguments I've had about dpi, ppi, etc.

It isn't so much about resolution - I never talked about resolution,etc. Don't get me started about resolution....that is more marketing stuff there. High resolution is important for mastering,not so much for normal listening.

I talked about distortion.Jitter maybe one thing,but distortion isn't great either. For me to bother digitalising a record and going through the effort and time of doing it,I would probably attempt to get it as close to decent as possible,but not to spend excessive amounts of money.

[DanceswithUnix]

In a word, jitter. Recording with a less than real time operating system, increasing the sample rate increases the jitter.

With my engineering hat on, I don't see how any competently designed ADC can have noticable jitter. The ADC should sample on a rock steady sample rate using a timer, and I would hope those readings would get buffered as they go into something like a USB interface.

There are a gazillion ways sampling can go wrong, but the OS shouldn't have any influence over any of that other than seeing overruns where you miss blocks of samples if the CPU can't keep up with the incoming data stream and any buffers in the way fill up.

[Saracen999]

....

It isn't so much about resolution - I never talked about resolution,etc. Don't get me started about resolution....that is more marketing stuff there. High resolution is important for mastering,not so much for normal listening.
.

Indeed. It was just an analogy, to where bigger and apparently better numbers can be either misleading, or perhaps merely pointless. This was in the context of the discussion with matts about whether 16/44.1 was 'enough' or whether, for my needs, 24/192 was worth payyingg for.