Good info on the USB turntable. I guess I assumed there would be at least one of decent quality out there. I really don't want to go down the audacity road but will if I have to.
As for the interface issue. I guess I'm an oddball. My PS3 plays music. I have some stored on the hard drive -- but the interface is made of fail and yes it takes forever to load the list. I really don't mind using the PS3 control to 'type' stuff in on netflix and I would love a 10 UI for browsing artists and albums provided the load time issue didn't exist. Not at all excited about making a mac book an integral part of my audio system or being married to iTunes.
@Muggsy - Hit up craigslist or ebay. There's a big market for used analog equipment even if it's just for parts. If it's a good tape deck I'm sure somebody will want it.
@the_? - The problem with those USB turntables is that the arms don't properly track. So you're putting way too much weight on the vinyl. To be fair, if you're only going to run a record through it once and only use it to record to the PC, it probably isn't a big deal. But if you also want to listen to them on it, spend the extra money. You can still get other parts that will let you connect it via USB. Actually, the Pro-Ject Debut Carbon has a USB version.
Also, I'd recommend looking for a cheapo tablet/android player. You can probably get something for less than a hundred bucks that would then be your remote. So you won't be stuck using a full computer for it. One such scenario is storing all media on a NAS, connecting a Raspberry Pi (running something like OpenELEC) to your TV/sound system, and then installing XMBC Remote on an old android device.
Hmm...turns out there are still some CD-Rs on the market that are compatible with my Philips CD recording deck.
So perhaps its better for me to digitize my vinyl within my stereo system and then move the digits on burned CDs into the computer. My concern with the analog to computer method is that it's not necessarily a great setup either. Most PCs aren't designed for high-end audio and I would expect there to be a real risk of picking up environmental noise from within the PC box when the analog signal is digitized.
As I've mentioned above, I liked the results I got from the Philips device. So perhaps I'd be best served by taking whatever I would have had to spend on turntable + sound card and just using that to purchase the best turntable I can get for the money. The added bonus of the Philips device is that I can slice the tracks while its playing (if I'm willing to sit there and monitor the recording). From there perhaps something like MusicBrainz would be able to fingerprint the track and tag it for me.
@Muggsy -- Looking back on it, I think that Nakamichi bubble-bay was a bit of marketing hype. Yes I wanted one and yes they sounded good. But if I remember correctly their marketing was along the lines of "Our tape heads are so awesome you don't want to pay for auto-reverse. It's cheaper to pay for mechano-reverse and only purchase one head."
Okay, I'm still having trouble understanding why it's important to keep computers out of an audio system since in general they do nothing but good things, but if you like the results you get with an outboard CD-Recorder, that's perfectly fine. However, the thing about vinyl ripping is that people almost always want to process the digital recordings after-the-fact in order to remove noise, pops, clicks, low-end rumble from the turntable motor, etc., and in some cases "sweeten" the results with EQ or even compression. With a CD recorder you'd have to rip the CD onto a computer to do that, so you'd be "double-ripping," but if that's what your ears (or wallet?) prefer, more power to ya.
Earlier on, I stated that I used a DAT recorder for vinyl ripping because it had a good DAC, but that was actually an error on my part - I used it because it had a good ADC (analog-digital converter), not a good DAC. It did also have a good DAC in comparison with other components available in those days, but I wasn't actually using the DAC for vinyl rips, I was using the ADC. Sorry about that!
Anyway, to conclude... I don't really want to come off as some sort of purist, and again I have no intention of doing this now myself, but the "audiophile" vinyl ripping setup these days usually would involve (in addition to a good turntable/cartridge) something like a Creative Labs E-MU 404, which is typically used for recording vocals via microphone, direct to digital. (A good example would be someone who records audiobooks for Librivox, that sort of thing.) You'd also need a pair of inexpensive XLR adapters and maybe a pair of additional (also inexpensive) attenuators to go along with it (the attenuators are to prevent clipping of the signal from your turntable/cartridge, though the e-MU has attenuation knobs too so maybe this isn't necessary).
At that point, your ADC takes place in the E-MU, which is a completely solid-state device so there won't be any chance of additional noise or hum, assuming you've got it plugged into a properly grounded outlet of course. You'd also have the highest possible level of bit-accuracy (which is another way of saying "losslessness"). The cost of this is a lot less than the TEAC DAC I linked to earlier, and it can actually be used as a DAC too, in place of the TEAC (though it doesn't have an iPod dock). So, if you (The_?, that is) decide the CD Recorder isn't getting it done, this might be a good alternative to look into. But hey, whatever floats your boat, as they say!
Yes, it would definitely involve double ripping. PITA for sure but my sense is that it's worth a try to see if the results are better than digitizing the audio stream inside a computer. Perhaps I'm wrong about this but I've always felt that one would get better results using equipment which is engineered for the task at hand. Computers aren't necessarily designed with audio in mind so it seems like it might be a better idea to digitize in another device.
With that in mind your suggestion of using the E-MU 404 also seems like it is worth a try (perhaps a first try since the hassle-factor will be greatly reduced and the quality might be superior to what I could achieve with the Philips deck).
I guess I need to get the right turntable first and then focus on which of these three works best.
Either way, thanks for all your advice. Very helpful stuff.
Any suggestions on a good non-usb turnable that is $100 or so? I'm not quite ready to get one, mainly due to lack of space for records, but know I'm going to take the plunge at some point.
Perhaps there's a good used table for around $100. I thought I remembered reading something about a good, low-cost turntable. I found it at CNet's Audiophiliac blog:
Most cheap turntables sound cheap -- they're rumbly, thin and distorted -- but the U-Turn Orbit Basic suffers no such faults. Before the $179 Orbit's debut, audiophile turntable prices started at around $400.
@Muggsy -- Looking back on it, I think that Nakamichi bubble-bay was a bit of marketing hype. Yes I wanted one and yes they sounded good. But if I remember correctly their marketing was along the lines of "Our tape heads are so awesome you don't want to pay for auto-reverse. It's cheaper to pay for mechano-reverse and only purchase one head."
Of course it was hype, to some extent, but Nakamichi was the sh*t back then. My 2000 Lexus GS400 came with a Nakamichi sound system, and it sounded good. Of course, it also had a cassette deck, with plain old boring auto-reverse. When I look back at stuff like that, the fact that I now have all my music on a hard drive that's smaller than a carton of cigarettes, and I can listen in multiple rooms of my house and control everything with an app on my phone, is pretty freaking amazing.
My days of aspiring to be an audiophile, though, are long gone. I work with a guy who in his spare time does online audio reviews for ultra high-end equipment, and the cables in his system probably cost more than my car. I'm sure it all sounds amazing, but the technology has evolved to the point where you can put together a system that sounds damn good without taking out a second mortgage.
@muggsy, agreed. The scary thing to me about audiophile is that spending money does not seem to necessarily equate to quality. When I was buying my Hsu speakers, more than one review by an audiophile reviewer said that they sound as good as massively more expensive systems. And they do sound amazing to my ear. So I have the distinct impression that spending more is unlikely to actually get me much more.
The issue with using a computer in an audio setup is that most people would be using internal components to do the processing. And, from what I've read in the past, computers tend to be poorly shielded from protecting analog signals from interference. So that awesome $200 SB card that someone plugs into a PCI slot is not going to record or playback nearly as cleanly as a dedicated audio system. But once you use an external DAC that problem is eliminated.
Using a Pi (or Arduino, etc.) may also eliminate a lot of potential interference since it has no moving parts or power supply. But poking around I found a write-up on how to make a killer hi-fi setup with a Pi and home-built DAC. Something I might try out.
Going full-on audiophile is absolutely nuts. I asked my boss (who used to be a recording engineer) if he knew of any good USB DACs. He said the only guy he knew using one had spent over $10k on it. Crazy. The last cartridge my boss bought for his turntable was worth more than my whole (albeit meager) sound system. But he admitted that at this point the ROI for improving the sound quality for his own system is not worth it - he would have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars and the difference would be nearly imperceptible.
I'm sticking with the low end of the spectrum. My turntable was less than $300 with all of the discounts, the receiver/pre-amp was about $70 or $80 used, and my current speakers were less than $40 for the pair. I'll probably get a $200 soundbar for the front room and maybe a couple solid DACs for the Pi up front and my computer in the back. Eventually I'll add a larger pair of speakers for occasional "alone time." I also plan on building my own cabinet for isolating the turntable - preferably with some used butcher block off craigslist. The whole system will still cost less than my NAS.
The thing that I question for the full audiophile experience is unless you are super rich the price of your audio system is going to eat into the size of your music collection. I guess you could use one of those online music subscription services but then what sort of quality are you getting anyway. I'd like to drop maybe 2K more upgrading my setup. Beyond that it doesn't seem worth it.
It gets to the old consulting question of how many nines do you want to pay for. In my case, the answer is probably one and a half at the most.
My buddy the audiophile recommended this USB DAC to me, and it's the one I bought (for $179). He told me I'd have to spend a whole lot more to get something that sounds better. Works just fine and sounds great with my setup.
Since this thread has turned into a general gear/software thread I'll link to a few things that others might find useful.
Here's a review of some receivers that have compressed audio restoration technology on-board. http://gizmodo.com/5480790/av-receiver-battlemodo-600-or-bust. It's a bit old but the reviewer seems fairly impressed with the Onkyo receiver in this regard. I question (from an audiophile perspective) how appropriate it would be to run a turntable through one of these receivers. But for MP3s, it might be the way to go.
Additionally, there are some tools out there to declip wave files (essentially turn the volume down on a CD and restore what has been clipped.
When you run a stereo (aka "2.0") source into a home-theater receiver, the receiver performs a "crossover point" cutoff that sends audio below a certain frequency (usually somewhere from 100 Hz to 200 Hz) to the subwoofer. The rest is sent to your front "satellite" speakers, which on many systems are just little piddly things with tiny 2" cones that don't do so good in the 150-1000 Hz range. What you're seeing in the 2010 Gizmodo article, with "compressed audio retrieval" circuitry, was the then-current state of the art of combatting this midrange-dropout effect when playing stereo sources in 5.1 - essentially, glorified digital EQs.
But that stuff has been around since 5.1 sound was invented. It keeps improving, I'll admit, but mostly they just keep calling it different names to get you to buy new gear every 2-3 years or so. I probably shouldn't make a blanket statement about this because not all systems are the same or even close, but in the early days of 5.1, the fancy EQs were okay if you listened mostly to pop/rock music; jazz & classical not so much, but still (usually) an improvement. They're better now, but still no substitute for getting decent (i.e., not tiny) front satellite speakers with good midrange response.
Note also that most of the effort here is made to make movies sound better when they don't have Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks, which would include all movies streamed from Netflix for example - all of that audio is extremely compressed, for obvious reasons. And without at least some sort of fancy EQ, most 2.0 sources sound horrible on a 5.1 system, no matter what kind of speakers you have. Then again, if you're like me and listen to a lot of shoegaze bands, you probably don't mind losing the midrange (which includes a lot of the vocals) so much because dropping out the vocals to the point of being inaudible is a key part of the artistic statement being made.
Anyway, if you have a 5.1 receiver, whether or not your satellite speakers are piddly little things, you should get a 5.1 version of at least one CD that you already own as MP3s, or as a 2.0 stereo CD. (In my case, it's Fear of Music by the Talking Heads.) Comparing the (likely-to-be-awesome) 5.1 mix to the (less-so) crossover-filtered 2.0 version will give you an idea of how good or bad the "retrieval" circuitry is - if you can make this comparison before you actually buy the 5.1 receiver, so much the better.
Great suggestion, ScissorMan. My go-to 5.1 mix is Wish You Were Here. Really outstanding. Another one I don't have, that's supposed to be awesome, is Aqualung.
Comments
As for the interface issue. I guess I'm an oddball. My PS3 plays music. I have some stored on the hard drive -- but the interface is made of fail and yes it takes forever to load the list. I really don't mind using the PS3 control to 'type' stuff in on netflix and I would love a 10 UI for browsing artists and albums provided the load time issue didn't exist. Not at all excited about making a mac book an integral part of my audio system or being married to iTunes.
@the_? - The problem with those USB turntables is that the arms don't properly track. So you're putting way too much weight on the vinyl. To be fair, if you're only going to run a record through it once and only use it to record to the PC, it probably isn't a big deal. But if you also want to listen to them on it, spend the extra money. You can still get other parts that will let you connect it via USB. Actually, the Pro-Ject Debut Carbon has a USB version.
Also, I'd recommend looking for a cheapo tablet/android player. You can probably get something for less than a hundred bucks that would then be your remote. So you won't be stuck using a full computer for it. One such scenario is storing all media on a NAS, connecting a Raspberry Pi (running something like OpenELEC) to your TV/sound system, and then installing XMBC Remote on an old android device.
So perhaps its better for me to digitize my vinyl within my stereo system and then move the digits on burned CDs into the computer. My concern with the analog to computer method is that it's not necessarily a great setup either. Most PCs aren't designed for high-end audio and I would expect there to be a real risk of picking up environmental noise from within the PC box when the analog signal is digitized.
As I've mentioned above, I liked the results I got from the Philips device. So perhaps I'd be best served by taking whatever I would have had to spend on turntable + sound card and just using that to purchase the best turntable I can get for the money. The added bonus of the Philips device is that I can slice the tracks while its playing (if I'm willing to sit there and monitor the recording). From there perhaps something like MusicBrainz would be able to fingerprint the track and tag it for me.
Earlier on, I stated that I used a DAT recorder for vinyl ripping because it had a good DAC, but that was actually an error on my part - I used it because it had a good ADC (analog-digital converter), not a good DAC. It did also have a good DAC in comparison with other components available in those days, but I wasn't actually using the DAC for vinyl rips, I was using the ADC. Sorry about that!
Anyway, to conclude... I don't really want to come off as some sort of purist, and again I have no intention of doing this now myself, but the "audiophile" vinyl ripping setup these days usually would involve (in addition to a good turntable/cartridge) something like a Creative Labs E-MU 404, which is typically used for recording vocals via microphone, direct to digital. (A good example would be someone who records audiobooks for Librivox, that sort of thing.) You'd also need a pair of inexpensive XLR adapters and maybe a pair of additional (also inexpensive) attenuators to go along with it (the attenuators are to prevent clipping of the signal from your turntable/cartridge, though the e-MU has attenuation knobs too so maybe this isn't necessary).
At that point, your ADC takes place in the E-MU, which is a completely solid-state device so there won't be any chance of additional noise or hum, assuming you've got it plugged into a properly grounded outlet of course. You'd also have the highest possible level of bit-accuracy (which is another way of saying "losslessness"). The cost of this is a lot less than the TEAC DAC I linked to earlier, and it can actually be used as a DAC too, in place of the TEAC (though it doesn't have an iPod dock). So, if you (The_?, that is) decide the CD Recorder isn't getting it done, this might be a good alternative to look into. But hey, whatever floats your boat, as they say!
With that in mind your suggestion of using the E-MU 404 also seems like it is worth a try (perhaps a first try since the hassle-factor will be greatly reduced and the quality might be superior to what I could achieve with the Philips deck).
I guess I need to get the right turntable first and then focus on which of these three works best.
Either way, thanks for all your advice. Very helpful stuff.
Even includes a cartridge.
Of course it was hype, to some extent, but Nakamichi was the sh*t back then. My 2000 Lexus GS400 came with a Nakamichi sound system, and it sounded good. Of course, it also had a cassette deck, with plain old boring auto-reverse. When I look back at stuff like that, the fact that I now have all my music on a hard drive that's smaller than a carton of cigarettes, and I can listen in multiple rooms of my house and control everything with an app on my phone, is pretty freaking amazing.
My days of aspiring to be an audiophile, though, are long gone. I work with a guy who in his spare time does online audio reviews for ultra high-end equipment, and the cables in his system probably cost more than my car. I'm sure it all sounds amazing, but the technology has evolved to the point where you can put together a system that sounds damn good without taking out a second mortgage.
Using a Pi (or Arduino, etc.) may also eliminate a lot of potential interference since it has no moving parts or power supply. But poking around I found a write-up on how to make a killer hi-fi setup with a Pi and home-built DAC. Something I might try out.
I'm sticking with the low end of the spectrum. My turntable was less than $300 with all of the discounts, the receiver/pre-amp was about $70 or $80 used, and my current speakers were less than $40 for the pair. I'll probably get a $200 soundbar for the front room and maybe a couple solid DACs for the Pi up front and my computer in the back. Eventually I'll add a larger pair of speakers for occasional "alone time." I also plan on building my own cabinet for isolating the turntable - preferably with some used butcher block off craigslist. The whole system will still cost less than my NAS.
It gets to the old consulting question of how many nines do you want to pay for. In my case, the answer is probably one and a half at the most.
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Streamer-High-Resolution-Converter/dp/B0038O4UFQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392170855&sr=8-1&keywords=hrt+music+streamer+ii
Here's a review of some receivers that have compressed audio restoration technology on-board. http://gizmodo.com/5480790/av-receiver-battlemodo-600-or-bust. It's a bit old but the reviewer seems fairly impressed with the Onkyo receiver in this regard. I question (from an audiophile perspective) how appropriate it would be to run a turntable through one of these receivers. But for MP3s, it might be the way to go.
Additionally, there are some tools out there to declip wave files (essentially turn the volume down on a CD and restore what has been clipped.
See here for one such tool: http://www.cutestudio.net/index.php?missing=1
And here is a discussion about the above tool http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64077
But that stuff has been around since 5.1 sound was invented. It keeps improving, I'll admit, but mostly they just keep calling it different names to get you to buy new gear every 2-3 years or so. I probably shouldn't make a blanket statement about this because not all systems are the same or even close, but in the early days of 5.1, the fancy EQs were okay if you listened mostly to pop/rock music; jazz & classical not so much, but still (usually) an improvement. They're better now, but still no substitute for getting decent (i.e., not tiny) front satellite speakers with good midrange response.
Note also that most of the effort here is made to make movies sound better when they don't have Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks, which would include all movies streamed from Netflix for example - all of that audio is extremely compressed, for obvious reasons. And without at least some sort of fancy EQ, most 2.0 sources sound horrible on a 5.1 system, no matter what kind of speakers you have. Then again, if you're like me and listen to a lot of shoegaze bands, you probably don't mind losing the midrange (which includes a lot of the vocals) so much because dropping out the vocals to the point of being inaudible is a key part of the artistic statement being made.
Anyway, if you have a 5.1 receiver, whether or not your satellite speakers are piddly little things, you should get a 5.1 version of at least one CD that you already own as MP3s, or as a 2.0 stereo CD. (In my case, it's Fear of Music by the Talking Heads.) Comparing the (likely-to-be-awesome) 5.1 mix to the (less-so) crossover-filtered 2.0 version will give you an idea of how good or bad the "retrieval" circuitry is - if you can make this comparison before you actually buy the 5.1 receiver, so much the better.