DVD-Audio from LP

[AllenLowe]

by the way I own a de-clicker - which is very similar to the de-crackler, only slightly less invasive. But, fellas, this is all noise reduction and that boat has already sailed. CEDAR is the standard -

[AllenLowe]

also, to add - I know at least one Mosaic engineer who has got the whole system and it is most likely he used de-click and de-crackle on his Mosaic projects - but as I said, they are similar (I've used 'em all) -

[Guest]

nono nonononononononoonno- EVERY sound restoration person in the world, (except me Allen) for the last 15 years, has used the phrase "noise reduction" to refer PRIMARILY to the removal of clicks and pops and crackle.

←

Allen please, listen to what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with you.

I merely meant to illustrate the point that when talking about audio restoration one may begin with the all-inclusive term 'Noise reduction'.

It's just that when you actually get into the job itself, the differences become obvious.

Goodness, if a friend of mine called what I do 'noise reduction' I wouldn't be offended.

However, if I'm discussing a new project with a client I am duty bound to highlight the differences between the major methods of removing unwanted noises. I'm not alone on this. For instance:

Cedar sell different modules clearly marked for their different functions.

In Cooledit under the menu 'effects' > Noise Reduction, you still have to choose if you're going to do a 'click and pop removal', 'noise reduction', hiss removal, clip restoration, etc.

I can't in all honesty say to a client that I am going to do 'noise reduction' if all I plan to do is declick. I need at some point to make sure the client knows the exact nature of my work, the possibilities at hand and the choices available. That is where I must clearly make the distinction so that we can agree on what I am to do. Sorry, there isn't any other way to do it but to call them different things - because different things they are.

The fact that all my clients understand me may or may not contribute to what is the accepted terminology but in the meantime I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to make the distinction.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

[Guest]

Addendum:

...to be perfectly honest I am happy with the general term 'Audio Restoration' more so than 'Noise Reduction' because it allows me to then make the distinction between what I consider to be 'Noise Reduction' and 'Click Removal' and that is what I open all my conversations with. I have yet to encounter an actual problem with a client over this.

Sorry if it offends anyone here, it's not meant to.

Col

[AllenLowe]

I have no problem with any of that - I was really answering kevin - at any rate, the other thing to consider is the orignal transfer - because if you transfer an LP and someone else transfers the same LP there will be considerable difference in sound - and you are right, it is essentially audio restoration - not unlike the craft of restoring old paintings -

Edited June 24, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Guest]

I have no problem with any of that - I was really answering kevin - at any rate, the other thing to consider is the orignal transfer - because if you transfer an LP and someone else transfers the same LP there will be considerable difference in sound - and you are right, it is essentially audio restoration - not unlike the craft of restoring old paintings -

←

How true - and everyone in art restoration knows there are more pitfalls than moments of glory. I have a sneaking suspicion though that audio restorers get away with a lot less criticism in general.

Allen, you're spot on to point out that many transfers are done badly at the first step i.e. the actual playing of the vinyl. So much work can be avoided if you do the basics right but more to the point very little can be done to retrieve good sound from a bad playback.

To illustrate Allens point: This will make you laugh/shudder, if you want a hint of the horror-show I'm in at the moment, check this tune from the collection I'm currently employed to clean up; a hideously overcooked and distorted Bollywood cut made in India:

Version 1 on budget t/table

Version 2 on my rather better deck

It's the same record, the same MP3 compression, no restoration at all. The only real difference is the deck that it was played on. The difference is astonishing.

How important is it to have a good replay? It is the MOST important thing.

Col

[StormP]

Anybody have any comment on the following:

MAGIX DVD Audio: Burn your music in unbeatable, top-quality (up to 24-bit and 48kHz) with real 4-channel surround sound

http://site.magix.net/index.php?id=411

It's free to try out.

[wolff]

How important is it to have a good replay? It is the MOST important thing.

Col

←

Interesting thread.

If I wanted someone to do this for me (LP transfers), I'd probably pick the guy with the best TT and phono stage. It never ceases to amaze how much more info and music the better TT's produce/retrieve. Ticks, pops and general surface noise can also be reduced tremendously by top flight TT's.

I'd be all over transfering my LP's to DVD-A, if it was as easy to do as what I'm doing now. Which is, put an LP on my Linn LP 12/Ittok/ Garrot P77. Run the signal to my tube phono stage(skipping the line stage circuits) and out to my Denon CDR-W1500. Adjust the levels, hit a button btween tracks as needed, and that's about it.

DVD-A and SACD as formats are sorely lacking in all areas except sound. As formats they have done so many things wrong it's ridiculous and unattractive to me at this time, and I do not see things getting better.

For starters the players need to output the hi-rez signal. Until they do, I ain't biting.

Edited June 27, 2005 by wolff

[AmirBagachelles]

yeah I have a question. hey who cut your hair?

[Guest]

How important is it to have a good replay? It is the MOST important thing.

Col

←

I'd be all over transfering my LP's to DVD-A, if it was as easy to do as what I'm doing now. Which is, put an LP on my Linn LP 12/Ittok/ Garrot P77. Run the signal to my tube phono stage(skipping the line stage circuits) and out to my Denon CDR-W1500. Adjust the levels, hit a button btween tracks as needed, and that's about it.

DVD-A and SACD as formats are sorely lacking in all areas except sound. As formats they have done so many things wrong it's ridiculous and unattractive to me at this time, and I do not see things getting better.

For starters the players need to output the hi-rez signal. Until they do, I ain't biting.

←

??

My DVD-A player does output hi-res digital. It's normal as far as I know. For obvious reasons you can't output commercial discs material but home-made? No problemo.

But what's this; "DVD-A and SACD as formats are sorely lacking in all areas except sound".

Really? Oh, well damn. I'd better stop what I'm doing then. Grr..

I am on about my 200th DVD-Audio disc, all made from vinyl and they are fantastic. If I can have so much fun and enjoyment with these discs, it pains me to then see people so completely unaware of how easy it is to do, and dismissing it so abruptly. Aside from the fact that you can't make your own SACD, I don't see what SACD has got 'wrong' nor DVD-A for that matter. They both work fine for me. If, as you say, they have "done so many things wrong it's ridiculous and unattractive" then perhaps you could do us the favour of telling us what you mean by that bold sweeping statement.

I do get the feeling that many people are simply put off by the newness of it all. It seems to be 'daunting' or whatever. I assure you it's anything but.

If you're making a DVD-A from vinyl on your computer, you use exactly the same methods for making CD-R ; Record, edit, burn.

Stand alone equipment? I take the point that it's easier to use your stand-alone Denon CDRW but there is a Tascam machine that does both DSD and DVD-A in exactly the same way.

So go on then, tell us all what you actually think is WRONG with the two formats. Maybe then we can talk about the issues.

Colin AKA SeeWhyAudio

PS Tony of Clapham North cuts my hair.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Colin, as I said, the main reason I convert LPs to digital is to listen to the music in my car. A small, secondary reason is to send it to a friend. CD-R is the modern-day equivalent of the cassette tape. I can send a CD-R to anyone, and I know that they'll be able to play it back. There are free computer applications to record, de-click and burn the music. It works for me. I think that CD-R captures the vinyl just fine.

If you look around here, you would realize that many of us just want to spend our music budget on software.

And for the record, I'm a gadget freak. I try everything. I am absolutely positive that I will try a high rez recording. However, I will be sure to convert the high rez over to CD-R and have my good buddy over for a listening test. I like to try to hear the differences. I would never assume that one is better than the other.

Kevin

[Shrdlu]

Thanks for starting this, Seewhy! I haven't waded through all the posts (guesswhy? ), but LP to CDr transfers are definitely the way to go.

I only have low-end stuff (I won't even list the brands and models) as I cannot afford better, but even with what I've got, my amateur results are better than the best Japanese CDs, apart from whatever crackles are present, of course.

Why indeed don't the record companies put out transferred LPs on CD regularly? They have done it in a few cases where the original tapes are lost (Duke Pearson's "Sweet Honey Bee" being one example), but that is not what we are talking about. Dare I even suggest transfers from LP of the now absurdly overpriced Blue Note LPs - even in mono at times. There have been some RVGs made from ageing tapes where the LP would be far better.

Like many others, I have been grabbing vinyl, as much as I can afford, before the LPs become even harder to find. Apart from Blue Notes, most LPs are still pretty reasonable on eBay, too, sometimes surprisingly so, and many have yet to appear on CD.

For the record, on the computer, I use Musicmatch for analog ---> digital (it is very user-friendly) and then Nero for the burns. Nero, in case anyone doesn't know, has a lot of editing features, such as the ability to trim each track at either end, to equalize volumes across the whole CDr, and to pan in and out. A lot of early stereo was panned too hard, and sounds uncomfortable on headphones, and Nero's pan in facility is very useful in such cases.

And now, back to the troll, already in progress ...

[vibes]

Welcome back, Shrdlu! Long time no see.

[AllenLowe]

3 Stooges - 3 Sounds - coincidence or conspiracy?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

For the record, on the computer, I use Musicmatch for analog ---> digital (it is very user-friendly) and then Nero for the burns. Nero, in case anyone doesn't know, has a lot of editing features, such as the ability to trim each track at either end, to equalize volumes across the whole CDr, and to pan in and out. A lot of early stereo was panned too hard, and sounds uncomfortable on headphones, and Nero's pan in facility is very useful in such cases.

←

Ooooo, unless you have a very different version of Musicmatch, this is a very bad way to go! Musicmatch only records using compression algorithms like mp3. Sure, Nero and EZ CD Creator can create a CD-R from .mp3 files, but that means that the analog signal goes to compressed digital and then gets converted to .WAV. There's an extra, un-needed, lossy step in there.

Switch to a different recorder. There are freeware recorders out there that won't compress the signal. Otherwise, everything else sounds fine.

BTW, I use Audacity for the fades/edits. It's freeware.

Kevin

[Jim Alfredson]

Shrdlu, you're alive!!! Good to see you! Hope all is well!

Allen, there is this great thing in the new software called "the ignore function". If you don't like couw so much, then please use it rather than crapping all over a thread, ok?

And as far as what is spam and what's not, how is starting a thread about LP transfers spam and yet post after post of questions, trying to be funny and derail the thread, not spam?

In summary... I'll worry about what is and what is not spam, thanks. And keep your personal member dislikes to yourself.

[neveronfriday]

[J.A.W.]

Shrdlu, you're alive!!!  Good to see you!  Hope all is well!

Allen, there is this great thing in the new software called "the ignore function".  If you don't like couw so much, then please use it rather than crapping all over a thread, ok?

And as far as what is spam and what's not, how is starting a thread about LP transfers spam and yet post after post of questions, trying to be funny and derail the thread, not spam?

In summary... I'll worry about what is and what is not spam, thanks.  And keep your personal member dislikes to yourself.

←

[AllenLowe]

Jim - you're coming a bit late to this and that question of spam has already been dealt with - and I'm entitled to express my reaction to a post, and expressed my belief accordingly, and stood, later, corrected, without a problem and without need of your intercession (try reading the whole thread). As for expressing my dislike of a fellow member, funny you should direct that at me and not Couw, who has made a point of posting after me on more than one occasion to offer personal and direct criticisms -

Edited June 28, 2005 by AllenLowe

[neveronfriday]

As for expressing my dislike of a fellow member, funny you should direct that at me and not Couw, who has made a point of posting after me on more than one occasion to offer personal and direct criticisms -

←

I wonder why?

[Jim Alfredson]

Jim - you're coming a bit late to this and that question of spam has already been dealt with - and I'm entitled to express my reaction to a post, and expressed my belief accordingly, and stood, later, corrected, without a problem and without need of your intercession (try reading the whole thread). As for expressing my dislike of a fellow member, funny you should direct that at me and not Couw, who has made a point of posting after me on more than one occasion to offer personal and direct criticisms -

←

Examples, please?

[neveronfriday]

The answer might take a while.

Allen is searching.

[AllenLowe]

Never on Friday - mind your own business - honestly, Jim, there is no easy way for me to trace every thread on every post, but the guy has made a habit of disagreeing with me in snide ways - however, in the interst of organissimo harmon y I will cease and desist, as this is not worth the trouble for me - notice, by the way, that Never on Friday (and others) has used profanity towards me without a whimper of critcism from you or anyone else -

[neveronfriday]

Allen. Stop whining, please.

You have dealt out heavily yourself and some people have taken you up on it (in a much milder fashion). I, for one, have been closely follwing many of your posts, not to catch you doing it but to read what you had to say (and yes, you have lots of good and interesting things to say). I could not help but notice that you have a knack for, err, overstating your case here and there. And I used profanity once, I think - today, when I expressed a bit more forcefully that you should keep it down. So don't make an issue of it. You're too smart for that.

Edited June 28, 2005 by neveronfriday

[AllenLowe]

intersting, NOF - you told me to shut the fuck up, but I should not make too big a deal of it - but you can make a major deal of my (more mild and joking) attacks on a fellow member - well, I can admit that I was probably out of line, but this is obviously something that would never occur to you - -