Sure! Just record the music as a wav audio file, then just let i-Tunes create an AAC file (AAC = Lossless compressed audio file = oxymoron). It will work just fine. You will need a RIAA preamp between the turntable and the line input of the PC (or laptop).

tsilv425 wrote:I already have an old direct-drive turntable from the 80's(!) that I still use once in a rare while - but, I want to be able to listen to some of these tunes when I'm traveling, which I do a LOT. Is there something better to buy to connect my turntable directly to my PC that will allow me to create an AAC file, for example, or something like that that iTunes will accept?

omnipotentq wrote:Again, I ask why (with no snark) this is? I don't understand it. =(

A) A good vinyl record on a quality turntable (I listen through an old amp from Heathkit my dad built - TUBES!) will produce more frequencies than are in an mp3 file. Are they all audible? Probably not, but certainly some are to some people.

B) Album art used to be otterific before it was miniaturized!

Dude, have you listened to the dynamic range of current popular CDs? It's very close to 0 dB! Commercial vinyl pressings were never as compressed as most CDs are produced today.
As far as crappy vinyl quality, well yes it WAS pretty bad until the mid '70's. Yes, dbx encoded albums were great, I have just about every pressing made in that format.

kendall1950 wrote:All this talk about vinyl is great until you remember that Vinyl records in the past have been compressed as well.In additon, they used to use reground vinyl which induced noise itself as opposed to virgin vinyl. If you really like vinyl then you purchased 1/2 speed masters. these were specially made for real audiophies. We also used such devices as DBX 117s that expanded vinyl records to approach the duynamic range of live recordings. Certain uncompressed records had the abiltility to literally throw the needle out of the groove such as the Cincinnati Symphony recording of the Tchaikosky 1812 overture wherin acutal cannon shots were used.In summary, vinyl is not final. The really superior recordings have care taken to them through the whole recording chain & manufacturing process. This most likely applies to about 1-2% of most modern recordings.

I have a lot of old LPs, and had digitized some of them using my old turntable and amplifier, connecting headphone out to sound card in.

More recently, I got an ION turntable on a previous Woot. The ION turntable connected to USB was more convenient and resulted in better quality digitizing than my old setup produced.

I'm not sure I'd want to use an ION turntable to repeatedly play the LPs - it tracks with greater force than my old turntable - but for a single play to digitize the LP, it's great!

beala wrote:
Very few people can tell the difference between lossless and MP3 320kbps (or even 192 kbps), but you don't have to take my word for it.

Did anyone else just hear the Reading Rainbow music?

ke4nt wrote:Any kind of anti-skating, or tracking weight adjustment, or upgradeable cartridge on this thing?

I saw no mention of it in the linked PDF file.

If you're looking for a turntable with actual 'features', this isn't the one for you!

I might use this to convert a stack of scratchy old 45s, but if you are looking for audiophile (or near-audiophile) quality, find a good old analog turntable, preamp, and good a/d converter (sound card). These Ions are about equivalent to an old BSR 'changer' with a cheap cartridge, not a Thorens turntable with a high end (or even middling) quality cartridge.

If it did 78s, I might have bought one - I have an old collection that needs conversion, and this would work fine (probably with a penny glued to the top of the cartridge shell :-)). If you are looking for quality audio, don't bother with the Ions.

The concept of an "all-analog" studio recording doesn't exist anymore, for all practical purposes. Most microphones used for high-quality recording these days are digital. Even if they aren't, the editing software will be digital. One way or another, the sound will be processed on computers that handle and store all data digitally.

It isn't possible for an analog playback system to reproduce a digital signal "more accurately" than a lossless digital system. Any information that is lost in a digital representation was lost long before it gets to the vinyl or CD stage. If the music has had excessive dynamic compression (which is different from routine MP3 signal degradation), that will be a problem whether it's on CD or vinyl. (Since CDs have a wider dynamic range than LPs, it would be silly to use greater dynamic compression for the CD master than for the LP master, although I can imagine it happens sometimes.)

People who prefer the sound of LPs to uncompressed CDs are probably responding to one of two things:

1. Thin, high-frequency hiss in audio playback equipment can be undetectable, but will still mask some high frequencies in the music. In other words, the playback setup has the effect of attenuating high frequencies slightly. This can be heard as a "warmer" sound. If you have a high-quality all-digital setup with a big equalizer, you can get a similar effect by bringing the highest frequency bands down a bit.

2. The turntable is a physical body undergoing physical vibrations. Some of these vibrations will resonate with the turntable cabinet or with whatever surface the turntable is sitting on. Some audiophiles try to mute this effect by placing the turntable on a hunk of foam rubber, but you'll still get some of it. These incidental vibrations of the cabinet or underlying surface will be picked up by the stylus and will become part of the signal. In other words, the physical turntable is acting sort of like a subtle subwoofer. This can be heard as a "fuller" sound.

In short, those who can tell the difference between LP and lossless CD -- and my guess is that there aren't many who really can -- are responding to ways in which the LP is less accurate than the CD, not more accurate.

As for the alleged loss of using a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, that means losing frequencies above 22050 Hz, which virtually no one can hear. Even if an LP setup preserves those frequencies in playback, it's very unlikely that the data in that region of the spectrum matches what came from the original performance, given all of the conversions and alterations the signal has gone through in the meantime.

MP3s are an entirely different story. 192 kbps is passable for most circumstances, but definitely inadequate for others. I've had the same issue with most VBR settings. Also, remember that the preamps in most MP3 players don't reproduce bass well, so there is an additional signal loss there. (iPods are almost unlistenable through real speakers.) If your choice is an MP3 or a top-quality LP system for playback, the vinyl is probably your better bet.

But otherwise, stick with CDs.

This is absolute crap. Anti-skating, tracking force - you've got to be joking! Save your money and buy a Rega p1 turntable for $395 - you won't regret it. Plus, the Rega comes in lots of pretty colors. Most new vinyl includes an MP3 download coupon now.

In addition, you can pick up a relatively cheap USB/Phono preamp for ripping the vinyl if you need to.

elindholm wrote:The concept of an "all-analog" studio recording doesn't exist anymore, for all practical purposes. Most microphones used for high-quality recording these days are digital. Even if they aren't, the editing software will be digital. One way or another, the sound will be processed on computers that handle and store all data digitally.

It isn't possible for an analog playback system to reproduce a digital signal "more accurately" than a lossless digital system. Any information that is lost in a digital representation was lost long before it gets to the vinyl or CD stage. If the music has had excessive dynamic compression (which is different from routine MP3 signal degradation), that will be a problem whether it's on CD or vinyl. (Since CDs have a wider dynamic range than LPs, it would be silly to use greater dynamic compression for the CD master than for the LP master, although I can imagine it happens sometimes.)

People who prefer the sound of LPs to uncompressed CDs are probably responding to one of two things:

1. Thin, high-frequency hiss in audio playback equipment can be undetectable, but will still mask some high frequencies in the music. In other words, the playback setup has the effect of attenuating high frequencies slightly. This can be heard as a "warmer" sound. If you have a high-quality all-digital setup with a big equalizer, you can get a similar effect by bringing the highest frequency bands down a bit.

2. The turntable is a physical body undergoing physical vibrations. Some of these vibrations will resonate with the turntable cabinet or with whatever surface the turntable is sitting on. Some audiophiles try to mute this effect by placing the turntable on a hunk of foam rubber, but you'll still get some of it. These incidental vibrations of the cabinet or underlying surface will be picked up by the stylus and will become part of the signal. In other words, the physical turntable is acting sort of like a subtle subwoofer. This can be heard as a "fuller" sound.

In short, those who can tell the difference between LP and lossless CD -- and my guess is that there aren't many who really can -- are responding to ways in which the LP is less accurate than the CD, not more accurate.

As for the alleged loss of using a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, that means losing frequencies above 22050 Hz, which virtually no one can hear. Even if an LP setup preserves those frequencies in playback, it's very unlikely that the data in that region of the spectrum matches what came from the original performance, given all of the conversions and alterations the signal has gone through in the meantime.

MP3s are an entirely different story. 192 kbps is passable for most circumstances, but definitely inadequate for others. I've had the same issue with most VBR settings. Also, remember that the preamps in most MP3 players don't reproduce bass well, so there is an additional signal loss there. (iPods are almost unlistenable through real speakers.) If your choice is an MP3 or a top-quality LP system for playback, the vinyl is probably your better bet.

But otherwise, stick with CDs.

I like the sound of CD playback, however, I find the sound "fatiguing and etched" over a long stretch of time. I have an all-analog system know including tube amp, tube phono preamp so the I find vinyl sound much richer and detailed.

Happy listening.

tomh922 wrote:[quote postid="4133099" user="bassinlynch"]Gotta call BS on this explanation since many of the "facts" are simply wrong. CD's are sampled at 44,100 times per second (not per minute). That is 88,200 samples per second since there are two channels. No human being can discern the difference between a sample value of say 31,202 and 31,203. Human perception is simply not that acute.
snip

ahhh, check your math please. 44.1K is just 44.1K not twice that because there are 2 channels. Yes digitally it's a serial, 1 channel stream, but that's just because they interleave the data. The audio is still only sampled at 44.1K.
AND in my opinion Human perception is that acute. Or can be trained to be that acute.

Checked my math and I am correct; each channel is sampled at 44.1k, and thus the result is a total of 88.2k samples per second of audio information. Let me know how that ear training works out. I would love to put it to the test in the lab. If you can tell the difference in a 0.0015% change in SPL, I'll eat my audio analyzer.

hnrqoliv wrote:MP3 files cannot compare to a proper vinyl...

Absolutely untrue. Also depends on what you're listening through. If you have a $10,000 stereo and a lousy MP#, maybe. If you have an average stereo and good MP#, no way.

I have the TTUSB earlier version of this turntable and it works well. Just takes time to transfer all that vinyl, so be ready to kill many hours of time doing the transfers.

hnrqoliv wrote:Like i said, and I apologize for my cornyness, but it's all about the feeling for me.

i couldn't agree more.

beala wrote:RE: Vinyl is better because it can produce higher frequency sounds.

1) Most people can't hear these higher frequencies.
2) Even if you can hear these frequencies, you probably can't hear them while other sounds are playing.
3) On vinyl the frequency response in the 20kHz range is awful--often up to 5 to 10 db. So, these higher frequencies are often very distorted.
4) In terms of record wear, these higher frequencies are the first to go. In other words, if they existed during the first play, they probably won't exist during the second.

My only addition is that even though you can't hear the exact tones, it is what causes vinyl to sound so rich and cds to sound so horribly flat.


Vinyl > Cds all day everyday. :D

Are replacement needles relatively easy to find? I had to discard my last turntable because they discontinued their replacement needles.

I've been interested into getting one of these that records directly to flash media. I don't want to have to install software or run a usb cable to my computer. Otherwise I'd have to lug the turntable and vinyl to the room where the computer is located and move it back when I want to use it as a regular turntable which would be its main use. I looked at the ION Profile Flash turntable which records that way and ruled it out because the record button has to be pushed for each song. Are there any turntables like that which record the entire side of an LP that require no action by the user? It'd be nice if it could use up to a 32GB flash card but that wouldn't prevent me from purchasing one. I could manage fine on 2GB. Thanks!

The Mutant MIG-MT201 LP Capturer USB Turntable with Built-in MP3 Encoder. ds looks intriguing.

Ringo4422 wrote:All laptops have an "Audio Input" jack. You are incorrect.

No, most laptops don't have "Audio Input." In fact, the 17" multimedia laptop I'm using right now doesn't have it. What you're referring to is the "Mic Input," which is different in several ways to an "Audio Input." For one thing, the "Mic Input" is mono, while "Audio Input" is usually divided into R and L. Some jacks are hybrids which accept both a mono "Mic Input" and a stereo plug (necessitating a RCA converter).

elindholm wrote:The concept of an "all-analog" studio recording doesn't exist anymore, for all practical purposes. Most microphones used for high-quality recording these days are digital. Even if they aren't, the editing software will be digital. One way or another, the sound will be processed on computers that handle and store all data digitally.

It isn't possible for an analog playback system to reproduce a digital signal "more accurately" than a lossless digital system. Any information that is lost in a digital representation was lost long before it gets to the vinyl or CD stage. If the music has had excessive dynamic compression (which is different from routine MP3 signal degradation), that will be a problem whether it's on CD or vinyl. (Since CDs have a wider dynamic range than LPs, it would be silly to use greater dynamic compression for the CD master than for the LP master, although I can imagine it happens sometimes.)

People who prefer the sound of LPs to uncompressed CDs are probably responding to one of two things:

1. Thin, high-frequency hiss in audio playback equipment can be undetectable, but will still mask some high frequencies in the music. In other words, the playback setup has the effect of attenuating high frequencies slightly. This can be heard as a "warmer" sound. If you have a high-quality all-digital setup with a big equalizer, you can get a similar effect by bringing the highest frequency bands down a bit.

2. The turntable is a physical body undergoing physical vibrations. Some of these vibrations will resonate with the turntable cabinet or with whatever surface the turntable is sitting on. Some audiophiles try to mute this effect by placing the turntable on a hunk of foam rubber, but you'll still get some of it. These incidental vibrations of the cabinet or underlying surface will be picked up by the stylus and will become part of the signal. In other words, the physical turntable is acting sort of like a subtle subwoofer. This can be heard as a "fuller" sound.

In short, those who can tell the difference between LP and lossless CD -- and my guess is that there aren't many who really can -- are responding to ways in which the LP is less accurate than the CD, not more accurate.

As for the alleged loss of using a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, that means losing frequencies above 22050 Hz, which virtually no one can hear. Even if an LP setup preserves those frequencies in playback, it's very unlikely that the data in that region of the spectrum matches what came from the original performance, given all of the conversions and alterations the signal has gone through in the meantime.

MP3s are an entirely different story. 192 kbps is passable for most circumstances, but definitely inadequate for others. I've had the same issue with most VBR settings. Also, remember that the preamps in most MP3 players don't reproduce bass well, so there is an additional signal loss there. (iPods are almost unlistenable through real speakers.) If your choice is an MP3 or a top-quality LP system for playback, the vinyl is probably your better bet.

But otherwise, stick with CDs.

Yet again, virtually nobody can hear them HOWEVER your mind still absorbs them whether you hear them or not. It's a matter of overtones. If you cut them out, your music sounds dull and lifeless, that's why CDS don't sound as good as Vinyl.

If anyone is curious as to see if you can hear these tones, go to a piano (not an electric one), gently press down the E or G key above middle C so that you've pressed the key down, but it didn't make a noise. Now, very hardly press down middle C while you still have E or G pressed down, and you will be able to hear that E key as well as possibly a whole mess of really faint higher tones if you have a good piano. These tones (overtones) are some of the things that Vinyl maintains and your garden variety CD loses due to the production process.


Just a little food for thought as I take my lunch break!

It would cost me about $4,000 to replace all my vinyl and truthfully, in that vintage not all the CD productions sound nearly as good as what I have. However, like costume jewelry (and the real stuff in the safe) having the MP3 equivilant in the car or MP3 player this is pretty useful.

omnipotentq wrote:You'd be surprised how many people still have LPs. My grandfather has (literally) thousands of them, and is about 1/4 the way through transforming them into digital form. I guess he can't find them in CD form or isn't willing to spend the money on buying them again.

Sprankton wrote:Are replacement needles relatively easy to find? I had to discard my last turntable because they discontinued their replacement needles.

Yes, most ION replacement needles are available on Amazon.com, among other places.

Interesting... I have my older XP desktop (has the blue mini audio input jack). I have a Dell and a HP laptop, both have the green in/out jack that autodetects when you plug something into it and you "click" the bullet in the pop up window and choose whether it is "Line Out", "Line IN", "MIC IN", or Subwoofer out". BTW, the Dell is an XP Home Edition laptop, the HP is a Windows 7 machine. What am I missing?
Oh, I forgot. I also have a ASUS EEE netbook that also has the Green input/Output jack that autodetects when you plug something into that little green jack!

sdc100 wrote:No, most laptops don't have "Audio Input." In fact, the 17" multimedia laptop I'm using right now doesn't have it. What you're referring to is the "Mic Input," which is different in several ways to an "Audio Input." For one thing, the "Mic Input" is mono, while "Audio Input" is usually divided into R and L. Some jacks are hybrids which accept both a mono "Mic Input" and a stereo plug (necessitating a RCA converter).

rski1 wrote:
If it did 78s, I might have bought one - I have an old collection that needs conversion, and this would work fine (probably with a penny glued to the top of the cartridge shell :-)). If you are looking for quality audio, don't bother with the Ions.

Please see my other post re: 78s. Basically, yes, you can convert and record 78s. Although the machine itself won't play them at the correct speed, you can play them at 33 or 45 rpm and record the 78 into a temporary file. Conversion software then speeds up the recording to create a final recording. Many of these turntables come with the software. If not, simply download it.

The biggest flaw to this technique is the fact that 78s normally require a sapphire needle to play, and the grooves are cut at a different angle. Any distortion will probably be imperceptible, however, since 78s are low fidelity.

Ringo4422 wrote:Interesting... I have my older XP desktop (has the blue mini audio input jack). I have a Dell and a HP laptop, both have the green in/out jack that autodetects when you plug something into it and you "click" the bullet in the pop up window and choose whether it is "Line Out", "Line IN", "MIC IN", or Subwoofer out". BTW, the Dell is an XP Home Edition laptop, the HP is a Windows 7 machine. What am I missing?
Oh, I forgot. I also have a ASUS EEE netbook that also has the Green input/Output jack that autodetects when you plug something into that little green jack!

What you have is the hybrid jack I mentioned. It will autodetect whether the input is mono or stereo. Many newer laptop makers have gotten rid of audio input because it's so seldomly used, and all audio input can be done via USB. It's similar to the PS/2 external mouse and keyboard connector that older laptops have but newer laptops don't. Most peripherals are now connected through USB.

No 78's? No buy

ION is owned by Numark, same company is owned by the same guy that owns Alesis and Akai. This turntable is a Chinese Manufacturer knock off of their least expensive USB turntable, Rosewill also has a similar model on NewEgg.

For Xeju, there's no 78 mode, for that you have to buy the more expensive model. However to get proper 78 playback you need a 78RPM needle which is heavier than any modern turntable that offers 78 playback.

Audio is class-compliant USB-Audio Stereo Input over USB. It will work on PC, Mac or Linux. The software you use is of your choice. Audacity is free open source, if you don't like it, use something else, (some other cheap software - Reaper or N-Track, Mac? Use Garage Band, just make sure your audio is setup in Audio MIDI Setup).

bassinlynch wrote:Checked my math and I am correct; each channel is sampled at 44.1k, and thus the result is a total of 88.2k samples per second of audio information. Let me know how that ear training works out. I would love to put it to the test in the lab. If you can tell the difference in a 0.0015% change in SPL, I'll eat my audio analyzer.

I believe you're getting data rate and sampling rate confused. The audio is only being sampled at 44.1K, having 2 or more channels doesn't increase the "samples per second of audio information" at least not in the conventional way of speaking about sampled signals. Because once those samples are in the digital domain all bets are off. You could clock them into a FIFO at 44.1K and clock them out at 1M data rate if you wanted to. You'd run out of data real quick but it could be done for one reason or another. But that higher data rate wouldn't change the fact that the original audio sampling rate, and all it's associated Nyquist phenomenon, was done at 44.1K, end of story.
As to hearing acuity, perhaps I over stated my point. Which was that the human ear brain combination is an amazing piece of hardware. And it can be trained to discern differences in sound that are in many cases are not measurable by normal instrumentation. Some of these "perceived differences" may be "high end audio snake oil" but some are quite audible even to the average listener.
As I stated in my original post, listening to music is a very subjective experience. One's personal tastes will usually trump high tech equipment and the techno-babel that goes with it.
I think the take away from all the posts is that this is a SoSo to Ok product. It may be fine for some but there are other and in many opinions better ways to get your vinyl digitized.
743 albums, 17 done, 726 to go, sigh
but it's fun to hear the old stuff again

elindholm wrote:The concept of an "all-analog" studio recording doesn't exist anymore, for all practical purposes. Most microphones used for high-quality recording these days are digital. Even if they aren't, the editing software will be digital. One way or another, the sound will be processed on computers that handle and store all data digitally.

It isn't possible for an analog playback system to reproduce a digital signal "more accurately" than a lossless digital system. Any information that is lost in a digital representation was lost long before it gets to the vinyl or CD stage. If the music has had excessive dynamic compression (which is different from routine MP3 signal degradation), that will be a problem whether it's on CD or vinyl. (Since CDs have a wider dynamic range than LPs, it would be silly to use greater dynamic compression for the CD master than for the LP master, although I can imagine it happens sometimes.)

I wonder about this. I would think a digital reproduction would manifest its dynamic range limit differently than an analog one. In the case of analog, the low end of the dynamic range is when the signal gets swamped by noise, so that you'd hear hiss about as loud as the thing you're trying to hear. On a digital signal, very small signals are those limited by quantization; signal approaching that level have increasing quantization noise. I'd argue that quantization noise is a lot more objectionable than normal analog additive noise. So, maybe theoretically 16 bits is more dynamic range than an LP has, but I'm not sure that's the entire story, and human listeners might prefer the LP anyway.

f4phantom2500 wrote:jesus christ everyone's missing the biggest technical reason of why vinyl is considered superior to CDs...in fact most everyone is comparing them to MP3s...but anyway I already posted a link to this Google answers page to explain why vinyl is superior to CDs, but since nobody seems to be reading it I'll just quote the damn thing:

A record player which plays LP?s is strictly analog. A vinyl record
has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's
waveform. The record player than transforms this groove to an analogue
sound signal which can be fed into an amplifier.
In this process, no information can be lost. No snapshots need to be
taken and the sound doesn't need be converted to one of the possible
65,536 values. There basically is an infinite number of 'snapshots'
and 'possible values'. Therefore vinyl recording sound richer than CD
recordings (as long as you have a decent vinyl record player)."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=375592

You should know by now not to believe everything you read on the internet. Few subjects attract more charlatans than audio. The sampling rate determines the highest frequency that can be reproduced. There is no other loss inherent to sampling than that, and trust me, an analog system has a frequency limit, too. There is no "infinite" number of effective "snapshots" as that ridiculous article implies. Second, the only real loss of meaningful information in a CD is the quantization (i.e. the 16 bit part). Now THAT is a true source of trouble, and the reason some people think we should have 24 or 32 bit CDs. It's especially an issue for classical music where there can be a huge difference in volume levels between parts.

I'm not saying 16 bits aren't enough, I've never done any testing, but I believe people that say they can hear a difference, especially for music that hasn't been compressed (dynamically, not talking about lossy coding).

Vinyl sounds better than CD. Don't degrade your analog vinyl by modulating it to digital because it will sound worse.

sanmeets wrote:If anyone thinks Vinyl is obsolete is wrong. The general music industry view is MP3 and Vinyl's are here to stay while CD's will eventually fade out. Yep, the vinyl sales have been on the up if you check numbers...

The fact that vinyl sales are up is meaningless because the numbers were so low to begin with. It's simply indicative of a temporary fad among collectors -- just like beanie babies and Cabbage Patch Dolls. You still have collectors and even gatherings, but they're an insignificant influence on the toy industry. The fact is, you'll never be able to find most of the recordings you want on vinyl. As for obsolescence, vinyl is indeed obsolete. Just because you still have collectors paying thousands for standalone PacMan machines and Atari 26000 cartridges doesn't mean that they're not obsolete. Heck, I still know people who use VHS and even Beta and U-matic tapes (mostly libraries) but that doesn't mean that they're not obsolete.

bassinlynch wrote:Checked my math and I am correct; each channel is sampled at 44.1k, and thus the result is a total of 88.2k samples per second of audio information. Let me know how that ear training works out. I would love to put it to the test in the lab. If you can tell the difference in a 0.0015% change in SPL, I'll eat my audio analyzer.

Dude, quit while you're ahead. Read a book on digital signal processing. This is actually a well-studied branch of engineering, you know. People have figured it out using crazy things like math and logic. It's not subject to hand waving and crap you make up during internet arguments.

bassinlynch wrote:Checked my math and I am correct; each channel is sampled at 44.1k, and thus the result is a total of 88.2k samples per second of audio information. Let me know how that ear training works out. I would love to put it to the test in the lab. If you can tell the difference in a 0.0015% change in SPL, I'll eat my audio analyzer.

Thinking about this a bit more, or as I tried to say in my previous post; yes your "88.2k samples per second of audio information" would be correct but as a data rate, NOT as sampling rate. The way I read your original post it sounds like you were implying you get a higher sampling rate because there are 2 channels.
pardon me for being persnickety, and if I misread your original post, ehh chalk it up to Friday

I still drive a standard shift, and that's obsolete too. I'll give it up when you pry my cold dead hand off the shift lever. And no, you can't have my 400 LP collection either. (Including the Beatles White album on white virgin vinyl - French pressing with pictures and lyrics big enough to see).

sdc100 wrote:The fact that vinyl sales are up is meaningless because the numbers were so low to begin with. It's simply indicative of a temporary fad among collectors -- just like beanie babies and Cabbage Patch Dolls. You still have collectors and even gatherings, but they're an insignificant influence on the toy industry. The fact is, you'll never be able to find most of the recordings you want on vinyl. As for obsolescence, vinyl is indeed obsolete. Just because you still have collectors paying thousands for standalone PacMan machines and Atari 26000 cartridges doesn't mean that they're not obsolete. Heck, I still know people who use VHS and even Beta and U-matic tapes (mostly libraries) but that doesn't mean that they're not obsolete.

"got one of these on Woot Off.. Works fine, but quality of converted file is awful. Intended on converting a couple 100 albums, gave up after 5.. only used for a few songs not available on itunes"

I could have wrote this. This is exactly what happened to me... Plus, on the ION that I have, the CD recognizes one side of the album as one song. The only way to get around this is to record one song at a time, which would take forever. As it is, you have to play the whole side and record at the same time. Not like burning a CD in a few seconds.
Then you get every little scratch and pop. I would only buy this again if your albums are in pristine condition.

birge wrote:You should know by now not to believe everything you read on the internet. Few subjects attract more charlatans than audio. The sampling rate determines the highest frequency that can be reproduced. There is no other loss inherent to sampling than that, and trust me, an analog system has a frequency limit, too. There is no "infinite" number of effective "snapshots" as that ridiculous article implies. Second, the only real loss of meaningful information in a CD is the quantization (i.e. the 16 bit part). Now THAT is a true source of trouble, and the reason some people think we should have 24 or 32 bit CDs. It's especially an issue for classical music where there can be a huge difference in volume levels between parts.

I'm not saying 16 bits aren't enough, I've never done any testing, but I believe people that say they can hear a difference, especially for music that hasn't been compressed (dynamically, not talking about lossy coding).

and then there are the the CD upconverting players like the Wadia that add in the "missing samples" through curve fitting and then play it out at 4 times the original 44.1K rate. There is an audible difference between that an a regular CD. Is it worth the big bucks? Only your ears and your wallet can tell.

Harleycat, please don't take what I am saying personally but what you and some others have said about making one long track without seperating the songs... WAAAAA! You big baby. We vinyl buyers HAD to make one song at a time, with a mechanical device called a tape recorder. Take 5 minutes with an audio editing program and split them yourself! :-)

harleycat wrote:"got one of these on Woot Off.. Works fine, but quality of converted file is awful. Intended on converting a couple 100 albums, gave up after 5.. only used for a few songs not available on itunes"

I could have wrote this. This is exactly what happened to me... Plus, on the ION that I have, the CD recognizes one side of the album as one song. The only way to get around this is to record one song at a time, which would take forever. As it is, you have to play the whole side and record at the same time. Not like burning a CD in a few seconds.
Then you get every little scratch and pop. I would only buy this again if your albums are in pristine condition.

And don't forget to buy that $100 Monster cable that will surely make your music sound sooo much better and "Transparent".
Oh yea, and there's "Wondercaps" for you to replace all of the capacitors in the audio chain in the audio circuits of your amp to make it sound even better! LOL!!

tomh922 wrote:and then there are the the CD upconverting players like the Wadia that add in the "missing samples" through curve fitting and then play it out at 4 times the original 44.1K rate. There is an audible difference between that an a regular CD. Is it worth the big bucks? Only your ears and your wallet can tell.

The debate on which format's audio properties are superior is superfluous. People convert to mp3's because it's portable and durable.

jrs1980 wrote:But where do I go to buy vinyls now?

Best. Record. Store. Ever.

http://www.vinylsolutionrecords.com/

buffaloed wrote:The debate on which format's audio properties are superior is superfluous. People convert to mp3's because it's portable and durable.

I don't disagree with this idea; if I've got time to sit and listen, I will take a good vinyl pressing over anything else without question, but I can't play a record in my car...it's a conscious decision to sacrifice quality for convenience.

That said, the Ion is a terrible way to convert your LPs to a portable format. Forget any inherent shortcomings of MP3s - this is a crappy, cheap turntable, and whatever you record using it will already be of such poor quality that by the time you convert to MP3 you're not really out anything.

Most people think vinyl is nothing but "clicks and pops" because they've never had the chance to hear a record on a good turntable. Don't judge the LP format based on what this mostly-plastic piece of junk does.

atgrammer wrote:Vinyl sounds better than CD.

Not according to blind tests, unless "better" means "artificial.". Such tests have been published in Stereophile, and was part of NPR's week on "audio illusions."

Much of the "warmth" that vinyl-lovers refer to is actually noise generated by the medium and turntable. In other words, sounds that were not in the studio during the actual session. The NPR piece showed how simply introducing artificial low level white noise to a CD can give it an LP-sound, and listeners were not able to distinguish the modified WAV file from an actual LP in pop and rock recordings.

If you want to demonstrate the comforting warmth of ambient noise, simply put on a pair of noise cancellation headphones. Note how artificially sterile and disorienting it becomes when the noise cancellation is first turned on. LP noise may be "warm," but it's an artifact of the turntable.

LPs also have lower harmonic and dynamic ranges than CDs, so you'd also have to modify those if you want to make a CD sound like an LP. In other words,the LP is worse at capturing sounds as they really are. This is VERY obvious in some orchestral recordings, especially by von Karajan who made full use of dynamics. LPs will distort very loud sounds, i.e. the cannons in Tchaichovsky's 1812 Overture. Compare crashing cymbals on a CD vs an LP. Or compare "whistle notes," in the famous "Queen of the Night" aria from The Magic Flute. The LP will sound incredibly muffled.

I've made direct comparisons of the same recording on both vinyl and CD (i.e. Mobile Fidelity), and CDs are vastly superior for revealingintentionalsounds that can't be heard on LPs. Since both were mastered from the same original tapes, I can only assume that the weak link is the vinyl medium. I can't afford a laser turntable but I've heard that the sounds are missing or muddled even when played n the laser turntable. That means that vinyl simply can't capture certain sounds accurately.

Just think about all the physical constraints of a record groove. Do you really think that a needle wiggling sideways and up/down can accommodate 90db of dynamic range and a frequency of 22khz? A CD can do so with ease. A needle simply can't wiggle 22,0000/sec at 33rpm -- let alone do this for TWO channels (aka stereo) and encode other information like 90db of dynamics (aka volume)... all on one groove.

Again, if "better" and "warmth" means the introduction of noise that was not in the recording session, and the compression of harmonic and dynamic ranges, then I'd agree with you. I personally prefer to hear music as if I was there live.