Does it actually record, or just digitize?

Post #274,895 by Nightowl 12/5/06 6:29:52 PM Reply	Does it actually record, or just digitize? John's tried digitizing music from more than one CD and has problems with it so far (on my PC). I would like to be able to simply play the music and actually record from it, (similar to the CD players that record a CD on cassette tape). But I don't just want to convert or "rip" platters, I also have 900+ cassettes I would like to convert. I know it's doable and the technolgy is out there, but it seems to be very difficult to do by the digitizing method. I would like to be able to do it myself, which the other method (play it and record at the same time) would do. I don't use mp3s. I prefer CDs, but I would do it in whatever form worked to preserve some of my cassettes and albums. Thanks for the info. :) Brenda "When you take charge of your life, there is no longer need to ask permission of other people or society at large. When you ask permission, you give someone veto power over your life." -- By Geoffrey F. Abert ************************** "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind, don't matter - and those who matter, don't mind." -- By Dr. Seuss ******************************* "Sometimes it takes a whole lot more strength to walk away than to stand there and fight." -- By the character of John Abbott: said on Young & Restless on 5/19/06 *******************************
Post #274,914 by a6l6e6x 12/5/06 11:10:10 PM Reply	Re: Does it actually record, or just digitize? Well, it's digitized and then stored as a file on disk. Often, people process (i.e. run a program on) the file to try to remove some of the hiss or clicking that one finds playing scratched records. All CDs are digital. On the usual audio CDs that one buys, the recorded sound signal was sampled, a technical term meaning measured, and digitized to 16 bits (2 bytes), 44,100 times a second. 16 bits allows you to assign one of 64K values to the signal. That's 88.2 KB of data per second. Only a Luddite like Ashton would consider that insufficient for recorded music! :) Compressing the data, and MP3 is only one version of compression, allows much more music to be put on a CD. Many CD players, for example those included in DVD players, play MP3 files. Alex When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
Post #274,965 by jake123 12/6/06 11:39:17 AM Reply	Oh, no, that's definitely insufficient You can hear the difference between 24b 96KHz and 16b 44KHz pretty easily.
Post #275,016 by Ashton 12/6/06 7:09:48 PM Reply	Luddites for Reeducation LLC replies - The dynamic range, distortion of mp3 is immediately apparent as unsuitable for orchestral works - you don't need Golden Ears to audition That. Now as to the idiosyncrasies of the modern very-big DACs, ADCs -- there are interminable discussions extant, many comparisons (a few even Bob-Pease-grade: ie double blind!) Out There. Alas, to play in those strata - one needs everything from the $5K cartridge on through a plethora of philosophies/religions surrounding the speaker end and everything in between. Academic por moi; my little cilia have been eroded sufficiently as to miss the characteristically low levels of IM: as appear mostly as high-freq. artifacts. But, snake oil guzzlers aside - there appears to be a consensus amongst even the non-tetched that goes: ~~ with suitably trained ears (that means: both the large personal Interest in the nuance of sound reproduction plus teachable techniques for helping the brain ID certain effects: The very best vinyl pressings and analogue-throughout reproduction will tend to produce more goose-bumps (of the I think it's Live! sort) over the expensive CD players + their selected, very-well recorded CD selections -- preferably of similar if not identical live performances, in the more compelling tests. But of course the S/N ratio is poor amidst the zealots of either camp. At the moderate-center of the topic, though, there is what I'd call agreement that where $$ is no object: vinyl 'wins'. Academic, given the sparse new releases-on-vinyl VS artists VS material of one's personal interest. ie as most of the Great performances of all time: were recorded in the past, and only a trifling % of those ever transferred to digital (even fewer - at highest quality?) -- this is not an issue only for audio-reproduction purists. We are going to LOSE art that should not die, until some Billionaire type, perhaps atoning for a lifetime of cunning greed? throws a lot of money into finding, cleaning, processing these disks: for all humanity. (I can always enjoy Amelita Galli-Curci, over the noise; but would still love to have the reducible repetitive crap digitized out!) One $15K? or $150K laser player seems like a decent expenditure, once it is demonstrated to exceed the performance of the $5K+ jewel-like cartridges of today. IMO. But we'd rather build a new Plutonium fab and replace the B-2 bomber yada because we are Sick.
Post #275,017 by bepatient 12/6/06 7:18:38 PM Reply	You can digitize anything without loss of range the problem is the compression. lossless encoding works beyond your ears ability to detect. Digital actually has BETTER range (96db vs 80db) Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!