"Needledrops for Dummies"? :)

O.k., just to satisfy you, how about this: You are right. The fact that I like my stand alone recorder makes no sense. You happy? Jeez.

 

Nice post. Good to see there are some reasonable folks around here.

 

No, you didn't follow me. I did not say it was a better choice, just a reasonable choice. The OP didn't seem very comfortable with the whole idea of doing needldrops, and I simply offered a simple option that can produce great results. At no time did I say you can't do a great needledrop with a computer based system, but I did say you can do a great needledrop without a computer based system.
I also will say that I believe too much post processing can indeed be bad for the finished product, but at the same time I admit it is sometimes needed for some less than mint vinyl.
I have no fear of computers, I work and play with them everyday and they can be a great tool in audio, but they are not the only choice and they are not always the best choice.

 

What a lot of people fail to understand is that with today's restoration tools, you can get that. I think some of you are either operating on five-year-old information, or had experience with crappy software....or just didn't have the expertise to do it right.

 

Exactly! These guys just don't realize that most recorded product is passed through a DAW at some point.

 

We can do the exact same thing on a computer.

 

Phil,
I couldn’t disagree more.
1. The OP makes no mention at all of making CD’s. But it doesn’t surprise me that people who prefer a standalone would assume that is the end result. I haven’t made one for myself in years and I do needledrops all the time.
2. You initiated the computer vs. standalone quality difference in an earlier post (which led to my response). I’m only getting the facts out there on the issue.

He wants advice on how to make needledrops (not CD’s) and also requested how to separate tracks. The easiest way, which also happens to provide the best sounding method, is to record to a computer and edit in a wav editing program. If he wants to make a CD, he can do that just as easily too.

The only advantage that a standalone can offer is the initial setup time. And I do mean the initial setup/install only. Once that’s out of the way, having to burn a CD and then moving it to your computer to rip (so you that can edit it) will quickly offset that advantage.

 

I never suggested that you couldn't. And I would like to say that in spite of your condescending tone that I am fully aware of the path the original analog signal goes through to become digital.

 

I'm not being condescending, but you standalone guys always push that easy method hard. As Dreendrazi says, a CD-R may not be his final format.

 

Tim,
Just to clarify, I am following what you said. But you quoted a post that I made (to others) that did deal with quality differences. That’s why I asked you (and to others) to define the factual differences. Capice?

 

This is true, the OP mentioned putting the needle-drops on an iPod. Would probably be faster recording to a computer for that.

 

Is it easier to import WAV files into Itunes or to "rip" a CD into Itunes? I don't know what it takes to go from a computer WAV file to Itunes, I generally avoid Itunes. I do know that it is outstandingly simple to import from a CD into Itunes.

 

It's the same thing, you just change the iTunes settings to import as wav. Ripping and importing is the same thing as far as iTunes goes.

I can't see how a stand-alone burner could sound better or be at all practical.

 

If one uses a program like iTunes, you can simply import as mp3, and bypass the wav stage.

 

Wouldn't that pile on two layers of lossy compression? What would the goal be?

 

If he does a needledrops to wav first, he can put that through iTunes to produce his mp3s, or whatever.

Of course, we don't know the level of knowledge he has about codecs. Some novices record and save in mp3 because they don't know any better. The second you save your initial recording to mp3 or lossy AAC, it's all over, soundwise.

 

When I was using a computer to do needle-drops I recorded as wav files direct to my hard drive, then I would burn to a cd-r. I save a step now, using my stand alone recorder, and get the cd-r directly.

 

Hello, the OP here. Thanks to everybody for all your help, I genuinely appreciate it. Believe me, I didn't mean to start a a melee ~! But all of you have indeed been extremely helpful.

I actually have an old-school (i.e. it was around $600 when I bought it way back when) standalone Philips CD-Recorder hooked into the stereo receiver where the new record player is, and both are nowhere near my computer, so the standalone route is the one I will more than likely end up taking for now. I'm not saying that it's better, or greater .....(said in my best John Lennon voice) just a lot easier for me in my situation right now.

I actually didn't mention an iPod in my original post, and although that is where I will end up listening to the songs most of the time, I DO want to record the needledrops initially as good as possible (either directly onto a CD-R, or as a .wav file into the computer). And I actually have Adobe Audition, I've used it to make fade-ins and outs on my live recordings for live comps, didn't even think of using it for seperating the large wav files. Thanks!

I would LOVE to record needledrops on an ultra-high end system, but that simply isn't financially feasible for me right now, so I simply want to make the best version that I can for my own listening pleasure. That said, I do want it to sound as good as THAT possibly can.

I think probably a lot of people have been helped by this thread, not just myself, so thanks again everybody.

 

I LOLed!!

I'm sure the music CD-R route will work great for you.

 

I have been utilizing the standalone recorder method since 2002 with great results. This approach was born from necessity since my PC was in a different room than my stereo and turntable. But the standalone has other advantages, one being that you don't have to worry about computer noise being introduced into the equation.

I also use Audition (and its predecesor Cool Edit) for click repair, volume normalizing and (very rarely) minor EQ.

Over the years I have upgraded my analog equipment as well as replacing the old Phillips CD recorder with a very nice Tascam that allows me to record to DVD at higher bitrates. These upgrades have resulted in truly excellent sounding needledrops.

While recording at higher bitrates is a plus, I found the biggest improvements were gained by upgrading my turntable and phono preamp, combined with taking extra effort to obtain the best condition source vinyl possible. No amount of restoration software in the world is a substitute for a near-mint pressing transferred using excellent equipment. I have been surprised at the minimal level of click repair that is required when using a source in great condition.

 

I have used the computer method since 1998, and this method is fast, and gives me full control over the sound and editing. I can manipulate songs any way I see fit in mere seconds.

 

I like just what comes off the record. I don't like "manipulating" music.

 

I do that in a computer too.

 

You'll do fine that way. You didn't cause a melee, just a spirited discussion among forum members. There were no injuries that I am aware of. Good luck and have fun.

 

Rookie question time again. What software do you use to burn the .wav files to CD? I've been using Nero as long as I've had a desktop, but it seems to me that Nero is now converting the .wavs into some other format, and when playing the disks today, I suspect the sound was compressed to some degree. Am I right in thinking this? Or is it just my imagination? Should I be using a different software program for burning?

I'm using Audacity to record the LPs, and I'm following everyone's advice, so it's greatly appreciated.