Audio Electronics Help

[gallahadesquire]

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a forum about electronics. Well, not the audio kind.

 

The suggestion of a sports topic has already been mentioned. One wonders if this can be created before Superbowl LI with Pats vs. Falcons. [Last I looked: Falcons by 0.5. Somehow I doubt that.]

 

In lieu of taking the "The Organ" thread too far off ... which is, oddly enough, under "Comedy and Tragedy", I thought I'd post this here.

 

I'm in need of a new turntable. I have about 400 vinyl LPs, essentially all classical, and the few that I've replaced with CDs i have, I must admit, regretted the sound quality. As I'm changing my electronics from a Nakamishi SR3a to a Rotel 1570 preamp and amp, driving [ancient] B&W DM3000 speakers, I'm at a loss for what should be playing my vinyl.

 

I apologize for the misplacement of this post. Maybe it should be in the Organ thread.

[+ honcho]

IMNVHO, I'm glad you're keep your [ancient] B&W DM3000 speakers; there haven't been major revolutions in speaker design since those were built. About the fanciest things are doing are taking room measurements and applying analysis

software to build custom digital signal processing modules to make mediocre speakers sound better, but there are limits to that.

 

I haven't been following turntables; I don't think there are any particular revolutions going on there. Is it not possible to get your current turntable refurbished?

[+ not2rowdy]

Probably the most popular current brand is Audio-Technia. They make higher end DJ quality turntables ($450) down to relatively inexpensive ($100) fixed stylus consumer models.

 

A consideration might be one that can connect directly to your computer via USB. That would allow fairly simple vinyl to digital recording (via included Audacity software). Some models have a selectable internal pre-amp which is useful when connecting to various audio components.

 

Another consideration is one that allows you to replace / upgrade the stylus.

 

There are workarounds with inexpensive external “converter boxes” that will allow you to do the same recording ability with RCA connectors found on both Audio-Technia and other turntable manufacturers.

 

Recording vinyl into a computer is a slow process. Primarily because it’s done at “real time”. None of this 10X “digital ripping” that you can do with CD’s.

 

My suggestions: AT-LP120-USB on the higher end ($300) that has all the features mentioned above or the AT-LP60-USB ($130) that has the USB capability but with a fixed stylus (that tracks at a bit higher pressure which = increased wear on your vinyl).

 

http://www.audio-technica.com/cgi-bin/product_search/turntables/turntables.pl?lang=eng

[maninsoma]

I will confess that I am an audiophile on a mid-fi level budget. Of course, what's high end and what's mid-fi is relative. For example, there is no way I would consider a sub $500 turntable higher end, but for someone who is considering an inexpensive Crosley (which is today's equivalent of a close-and-play) I suppose that $300 would seem like a lot to spend. My A/V system would cost me about $20,000 to $25,000 to replace if I had to buy similar equipment again new. Some audiophiles will spend that much on one piece of gear. I know the average person might not even spend 10% of that on their entire system.

 

I will also confess that I am by far an expert on vinyl playback, but if you are interested in exploring other forums there are a few I know of where you could spend many hours reading others' opinions of various turntables that cost anywhere from $500 to many thousands of dollars.

 

forums.stevehoffman.tv

forums.audioholics.com/forums

 

Neither one of them has a dedicated vinyl forum, but I know that the first one has many vinyl aficionados who post there in the audio hardware section.

 

audiokarma.org/forums has a dedicated vinyl playback forum.

[+ OliverSaks]

Smoke a joint and the audio quality goes up. Much less expensive than a nicer system....

[mike carey]

But will you remember the great music the next day?

[escortrod]

Facebook was pushing this at me yesterday. I don't use vinyl, but I thought it looked interesting. https://comingsoon-tech.com/love-the-first-intelligent-turntable

[+ OliverSaks]

But will you remember the great music the next day?

I don't listen to music on vinyl to remember how good the music was yesterday - I'm looking for a great time in the present moment!

 

(I haven't smoked weed in 2017)

[mike carey]

Ah, you sweet man, @OliverSaks, playing games with us!

[+ not2rowdy]

The “old days” of audiophile discussions! Yes, I remember those! Good times…

 

I’m jealous of your Rotel RA-1570 selection.

 

I’m probably just a bit above the typical music listener in my equipment quality - not even close to a true audiophile level. But here’s an additional suggestion.

 

Get a thorough hearing check at an audiologist. If you can’t hear anything above 12KHz it may make sense to adjust your equipment purchases accordingly. The audiologist report may also give you good ideas of how to set your level controls / equalizer to best compensate for any hearing deficiencies.

 

Additional comment regarding recording. You could record your vinyl to computer using a very high bit rate (i.e. “lossless”) that “should” be indistinguishable from the original vinyl. Then archive the vinyl and try to wear out the digital version. Make sure you have a backup strategy.

[whipped guy]

I am an audiophile of sorts yet I have long given up on vinyl even though it probably sounds better. However, if one has an extensive collection of LP's in good condition one needs a good turntable. Sterophile magazine publishes a semiannual list of recommended components. The least expensive turntables listed in their Oct 2016 issue are:

 

Pioneer PLX-1000 $699 including tonearm

Sony PS-HX5000 USB $599.99 with tonearm and moving-magnet cartridge

Rega RP1 $445 includes Ortofon OMe5 moving-magnet cartridge

 

Of course others are listed up to $105,000... but I don't care how golden one''s ears are there is only so much that one can hear! Since I don't have an extensive LP collection and the sound of CD's has improved greatly since the 1980's I have no need for a turntable. Plus most of my collection has been transfered to WAVE files or high quality MP3 for some broadcast materials... as I do have an extensive collection of live opera recordings many of which are only available in that format. Listening to the files is often more convenient than spinning a CD plus I can travel with my collection on an external hard drive and take it virtually anywhere. I transfer things to an iPod Classic and connect that to the stereo. One can't do that with the original LP's or even CD's unless they travel with a trunk!! So I would consider transferring your vinyl to lossless WAVE files as a good compromise.

 

Life is a series of compromises... while I would love to have access to a genuine harpsichord or 9 foot grand, my electronic keyboard is a reasonable facsimile... and it says in tune to boot... so no piano or harpsichord tuner need apply!

[gallahadesquire]

Smoke a joint and the audio quality goes up. Much less expensive than a nicer system....

 

AND it's legal in Massachusetts!

[gallahadesquire]

IMNVHO, I'm glad you're keep your [ancient] B&W DM3000 speakers; there haven't been major revolutions in speaker design since those were built. About the fanciest things are doing are taking room measurements and applying analysis

software to build custom digital signal processing modules to make mediocre speakers sound better, but there are limits to that.

 

I haven't been following turntables; I don't think there are any particular revolutions going on there. Is it not possible to get your current turntable refurbished?

 

I don't HAVE a current turntable. I forgot why I gave myDual 1219 away.

[+ honcho]

Additional comment regarding recording. You could record your vinyl to computer using a very high bit rate (i.e. “lossless”) that “should” be indistinguishable from the original vinyl. Then archive the vinyl and try to wear out the digital version. Make sure you have a backup strategy.

 

Sampling rate is independent of bit depth, which is independent of whether you are using lossless encoding or perceptually aware lossy compression.

 

Sampling rate determines the highest frequency that can be recorded in the digital file, but you have to take something

called an anti-aliasing filter into account. Traditional CD's are sampled at 44,100 times per second. That should be

enough to get flat frequency response to 20 Khz. (1/2 the sample rate with some leeway for antialiasing).

 

Bitdepth (24 bits vs 16) determines signal to noise ratio. 16 bits gives you 96 dB of dynamic range; 24 bits gives you 144.

(0 db is the quietest noise one is capable of hearing. A jackhammer 5 feet away is about 110 db).

 

The perceptual encoding may drastically cut down the amount of space it takes to store the file, and most people

won't be able to hear the difference between encoded and raw (in carefully conducted double blind tests) - provided you don't alter the playback. But if you use EQ (tone controls - like boosting bass or highs), many people will begin to notice

artifacts.

 

There were careful double-blind studies conducted back in the 80's that showed that most people could not tell the

difference between live and CD encoding (44.1k sampling, 16 bit depth).

Apple lossless will cut down the size of a 16 bit sampled file by about half (regardless of most common sample rates).

mp3's (lossy) will cut it down by a factor of 10.

[gallahadesquire]

I'm curious to know how many on this Forum have ever been able to compare MP3 with source material real time. I notice a very large difference.

[+ honcho]

By the way. The old fashion phone line had a bit-depth of 8 bits, which was 48 db of signal to noise ratio.

That's more than any cassette player (even audiofile ones) without noise-reduction. The best revox reel-to-reel consumer recorder only had about 55 db of signal to noise ratio.

[escortrod]

I'm curious to know how many on this Firum have ever been able to compare MP3 with source material real time. I notice a very large difference.

I have, and while I notice a difference with lower bitrate MP3s I can't hear any difference using 320kbps AAC, which is what iTunes and Apple Music use.

[+ honcho]

I'm curious to know how many on this Forum have ever been able to compare MP3 with source material real time. I notice a very large difference.

 

Since I record live concerts for folks as a 3rd level hobby, and generally get asked to provide mp3's of them, I have frequent opportunity to make such comparison.

 

If I use 192 kbit MP3 encoding, the difference is barely noticeable, but tolerable.

 

I record 24 bit, 44.1 sampling.

[gallahadesquire]

Well stated. Thank you.

Sampling rate is independent of bit depth, which is independent of whether you are using lossless encoding or perceptually aware lossy compression.

 

Sampling rate determines the highest frequency that can be recorded in the digital file, but you have to take something

called an anti-aliasing filter into account. Traditional CD's are sampled at 44,100 times per second. That should be

enough to get flat frequency response to 20 Khz. (1/2 the sample rate with some leeway for antialiasing).

 

Bitdepth (24 bits vs 16) determines signal to noise ratio. 16 bits gives you 96 dB of dynamic range; 24 bits gives you 144.

(0 db is the quietest noise one is capable of hearing. A jackhammer 5 feet away is about 110 db).

 

The perceptual encoding may drastically cut down the amount of space it takes to store the file, and most people

won't be able to hear the difference between encoded and raw (in carefully conducted double blind tests) - provided you don't alter the playback. But if you use EQ (tone controls - like boosting bass or highs), many people will begin to notice

artifacts.

 

There were careful double-blind studies conducted back in the 80's that showed that most people could not tell the

difference between live and CD encoding (44.1k sampling, 16 bit depth).

Apple lossless will cut down the size of a 16 bit sampled file by about half (regardless of most common sample rates).

mp3's (lossy) will cut it down by a factor of 10.

[escortrod]

When Tidal was launched they made much of their high bitrate encoding. To promote the service they had a site where you could compare, in real time, lossless and lossy files. It turned out that I preferred the lossy files. Most likely I'm used to the sound, in the way that those who grew up with vinyl are used to that particular sound. I have been re-educating my brain a little after that though.

 

http://abx.digitalfeed.net/

[whipped guy]

I'm curious to know how many on this Firum have ever been able to compare MP3 with source material real time. I notice a very large difference.

It depends on the Kbps. At 128 (the lowest recommended for music and waaay too low in my book) I can definitely hear a BIG difference. At 320 depending on the original source diffetences are not that great compared to lossless. The lowest I would use for music is 256 or 192 in a pinch (as @honcho uses) but personally the lowest that I prefer to use is 320 and is a good compromise for space used vs. quality.

 

Remember that transfering a 128 to 320 does not restore what is lost... once it's gone it's gone.

[gallahadesquire]

I'm not really planning on converting my vinyl to anything else at this point, but all the advice is great!