so i just bought this:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009V3TU.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1107537729_.jpg

first off, i intend on scratching off the faggity pink writing.

but what else do i need. i realize i'll need speakers, but can i use the speakers off my cd player (for the time being)? do i need to get a reciever?--the turntable is the only thing i'll have hooked up to the speakers.

i get the record player in 3-7 days. i want to be ready. so what do i need outside of records? theres a small record shop close to home that sells tons of classic records for dirt cheep (probably slightly worn out) that i intend to raid.

all this is coming from my piece of shit stereo breaking. plus i fucking hate cd's. they scratch. they get lost easily. they sound like shit.

i've been planning this move for a while now. its finally 'go-time'.

I own about 200 pieces of vinyl and run mine directly off my Sony player with a set of Bose speakers. Not sure how many watts the machine puts out, but its louder than I need.

If you treat a record as well as you treat a CD you'll be fine. They, despite reputation, are relatively hearty and I have 1 record with any serious issue in my whole collection (skip in the middle of "Machine Gun" on the Hendrix/Guy joint "Band of Gypsies"), where as my CDs are all fucked. That and you can roll doobies on album covers real easy.

i'm well aware.

im a little confused by your speaker thing, though. how do you run it directly off your sony?

I have speaker outputs on the back of my unit. Just plug em right in. Its a few years old, not sure if you can get a similiar piece.

im hoping i can just plug mine right in too. i guess i'll probably just have to wait and see. thanks.

I'm presuming from the looks of that one that it won't be the case, mine has a bit more body to it to house the amp. But an old amp can be had mighty cheap.

i've heard that good recordings on vinyl can sound much better than CD recordings. can anyone confirm this? or is that a you-need-high-end-equipment-and-need-to-be-a-snooty-audiophile thing?

this is probably more than you want to know, but its good reading.

about records vs other:


Two points:

first: All recorded music is sampled. For a CD the sample rate is determined by how many bits fit in a second — in other words how many little reflective angles can bounce that laser in a second as the disc spins. For a record, it’s how many molecules of vinyl go by the needle in a second — and the size of the needle tip is probably the bigger limitation. For a cassette, it’s how many bits of magnetically alignable carbon can go by the head in a second. How many separate indistinguisable values are determined by the sample rate. In other words, if you could only get one “value” in a second, then you couldn’t distinguish much at all. Get LOTS of values, and you can represent a lot of sonic variation. So the fact that the music is digital or analog is not really the point. The sample rate is the thing that really determines the dynamic and tonal range that you can represent with a recording, and then next is the degree to which you can ACCURATELY obtain the original audio information and put it in some medium, to be later reinterpreted. “Analog” sources like records and whatnot get a fairly high sample rate, but are subject to a certain degree of variation and aging behaviors because of the nature of the medium.

The other point that Bob appears to make (in his classic obtuse style) is that today’s music is compressed and normalized intensely in production. This is absolutely true. The studio is really TRYING to reduce the dynamic range of the recording — so that people listening to music in “normal” environments that are somewhat noisy such as their car can hear everything. They effectively have a signal-to-noise ratio problem. In a car or in many other “normal” environments the noise level is really quite high. Low signals are lost in the noise.

This is not the best way to appreciate the true original music.
Apart from BEING THERE, the best way is to find a VERY quiet spot, get VERY high quality reproduction equipment, and sit on a VERY comfortable couch and float away! This is what “audiophiles” love to do.

But the fact is, if you look at the % of the market that fits in that category…it’s not that many. Most people are trying to listen to something on their way to pick up the kids or on their way downtown to meet their friends on the subway. Also the really good audio equipment is not accessable to the average Joe (try $20,000 for an amplifier and speaker set up). So the recordings are trying to cater to the vast majority of people listening in the most common environments. I don’t like it, but I can understand it.

What I would REALLY like, is if the industry (or the whore if you will) would put two copies of the songs on the next generation media. The unproduced version — as the artist intends, and the produced version — for when you’re in your car or whatever. I know that some of my favorite older reproductions honestly suck to listen to in the car, because I can’t hear a lot of it. But when I’m at home it’s great — much better and more rivetting to have the dynamics intact.

And yes folks, super-compressed formats such as MP3 are generally lossy. That means that if you run the math on the CD data to produce the mp3, then run the math on the mp3 to try to get back to the CD data, you can’t get 100% match. You lose information. It’s a really good mathmatical compromise, but you still lose. CD data is “lossless” meaning that it’s an accurate representation — AT THE SAMPLE RATE of the CD (44khz), it’s not encoded in any way, it’s truly just a direct map of the original wave intensity at the point in time that the sample was taken. Higher quality audio can be obtained from using more bits per sample (24 or 32 instead of 16 for example), or by increasing the sample rate. Either way you increase the bits per second that can be used to capture the original audio.

about compression:


There are two kinds of compression to consider, and I do think both were hinted at.

When you compress audio dynamically (there is a difference between dynamic compression and storage compression) you are taking out the dynamic range of the audio. You basically make the quiet stuff quieter and the loud stuff either just as loud or even back it off a little bit (the latter is strictly called limiting not compressing, but most compressors are compressors/limiters built into one). This makes it so that when you are in your car you can hear the “quiet parts” about as well as the loud parts. But it does take something out of the feeling of the music. This dynamic compression is something you can blame either on the studio or on your own stereo, depending on if your stereo attempts any of it — in addition to anything the studio may have done.

Storage compression is something else. Storage compression is when you try to take the original PCM data (bits) that is on a CD and convert somehow mathmatically so that it fits in less space. CD’s can hold like 500 MB of data, which is really a lot. Typical songs are normally about 30-50 MB worth each. FLAC’s, OGG’s, MP3’s, WMA’s, whatever IPOD’s use, and other formats are nothing other than somebody running some math on the original data (30-50MB) and trying to make it smaller.

There are various ways of doing that, some of them involve “compromise”. Some formats, such as FLAC are considered lossless, meaning that if you take the CD data, math it to put out FLAC, then take the FLAC data and de-math it, you get the exact same CD data back out. Others, such as WMA, are called lossy, meaning that once you math the CD data to get the WMA version, you can never go back. They had to compromise mathmatically when they decided how to re-arrange the bits. And you can hear it because the resulting sound has imposed static and other audible artifacts, especially at lower bitrates such as 96 or the “std” 128.

To understand how storage compression works, I can give you an example that is mathmatically simple. Take this: 00000111. It takes 8 letters or whatever to write it down. But what if I did it this way: 0X51X3. Now I have reduced it to only 6 letters. There is actually an image compression format (PNG) that works exactly like that. Instead of recording 100 reds it records “red”,”100″. Works well for non-photographic images. As you can see this is not lossy — I can get back to the original easily. Obviously this is a very simple scheme. You have to get more complicated when you deal with photographic images or music, and sometimes they compromise. Have you ever seen a low-quality jpg image on the net? Sometimes this is because you can see the algorithm has compromised somehow, and when it gets reinterpreted back out to display on your screen, it isn’t the same as the original. If you want to test this, go get “the gimp” and install it. It’s like photoshop but free. You can save images in many formats, some of them lossy and some lossless. BMP would be lossless. You can copy the same image and save it as many times BMP as you want. But if you use JPG instead, each time you open the last saved image and save it again (after changing it slightly so it actually resaves) it will get worse. Each time you save it you lose something. The jpg compression algorithm is lossy — and so are lots of the algorithms used to put lots of music on your IPOD.

Note that you always have to de-math a storage compressed format in order to play it, since the audio hardware that ends up sending the signal out to your speakers (meaning the DAC) eventually has to have it in the regular uncompressed CD type format.

Although there is some real discussion to be had about media, artistry, and etc. It’s my opinion that the original comment was directed at two things: dynamic compression and storage compression. The result of both is that when the end listener ends up finally consuming the music that the artist put down, it’s a lot different than what it *really* sounded like to begin with.

Where is this from b? Its very interesting.

i bought it off amazon. from my research, its a pretty good one for the price.

i'll let you know how much i spend when its all said and done. i just purchased the pre-amp off amazon. i'm expecting that means i'll have to buy an amp, and possibly a reciever and speakers. think i might go do some research at the record store.

Cool, I'd be interested in seeing how it all works out. What about the compression lession, where's that from? It looks like a message board discussion.

b-diddy: for starters, since that turntable has a changable needle cartridge (good choice) it's really easy to change the needle. unless the seller said that the needle is new, go buy a new one. personally i use Shure brand, they arent too expensive and sound nice. $20 or so, up to $35. if the record store youre talking about doesnt have them go to a dj shop. you will need a receiver or preamp of some sort... turntables have a VERY low output level, something like 1/10 or 1/20 of cd players, tape players, etc. make sure that whatever receiver you get has a phono input, because hooking into a cd input will be so quiet you will be cranking your stereo just to hear it. i think that covers the basics.

matt: yes good vinyl is better. an easy way to tell if a record is made well is A weight, and B groove width. older records have very thin grooves which is how they fit a whole album on one record. newer records, particularly techno and hip hop, have about 2-4 songs per record. the grooves are really wide which is pretty much required for bass, and good sound. just as a reference, old albums = one record, my copy of wu-tang forever is a quadruple vinyl set.

the record player is new, so the needle better be new, too.

i just arranged for the purchase of a used reciever for $30. if i really shopped around, i probably could have got a better deal.

unfortunatly, i didnt do my homework. last night i ordered a pre-amp (15 + 10 S&H), which will probably be superfluous since the reciever probably already has one.

so right now, i've spent about 145 (turntable was 90 after S&H--whats worst about the preamp is that had i ordered it with the table i would have saved 10 bucks, and if i had not ordered it at all i would have saved 25. in essence, i made the worst move possible. call me matt millen-- 25 on the pre-amp, and 30 on the reciever). for now, i'll keep my stereo's speakers, but i'll eventually upgrade.

kind of more than i anticipated, but i also just went to the record store and bought 30 records for 40 bucks (!!). some real gems too. you really do have different choices when your shopping for vinyl.

so i think you could put together a pretty good record player for ~100 if you were less sloppy than me. theres the added plus that its pretty cool to go to an old school record shop and pick up some LP's. way better than going to borders and buying cd's.

well im sure youll be happy with the setup. record shopping is the shit. my setup = about $2100 and another $5,000 or so on records lol. i wouldnt worry much about what you pay for your setup because in the end the records will cost you waaaay more.

Most record players aren't self amplified, at least ones made in the last twenty years. As Herm said, you can probably find an old amp for dirt cheap, maybe even as little as 20 bucks if you don't care too much about the power.

It's funny B-diddy posted this because the other day I was thinking about researching a similar idea.

I think the quality of Cd's is absolute shit and the way that most new albums are produced is only getting worse. The digital recording process has really hurt music, nothing sounds the same from album to stage. If you don't have the best sound system or know how to set up your sound system the exact way vocals are drowned out by overly produced arrangments overlays, and edits . Nothing beats an old fashion record and player set up. I just can't believe how frail Cd's have become, Yet the Music industry just can't figure out why sales are down overall.

What we're going to have to worry about is that most masters are kept on hard drives now as opposed to tapes. The hard drives go bad much faster than master tapes do and I can guarantee that some cost cutting record company is going to screw it up and we're going to lose the masters to some modern classic.

I'd imagine there's safety in backups for larger production houses.

That's fine for the big names but I guarantee they won't back up everything forever. It's not as simple as just making a backup and then you're good, you'd have to keep backing it up on to new hard drives every 8-10 years or so to be safe. Alot of stuff is going to get lost in the shuffle.

any decent studio i know of still records on DAT because they know that recording straight digital onto a hard disk doesnt preserve the original sound quality.

That's fine for the big names but I guarantee they won't back up everything forever. It's not as simple as just making a backup and then you're good, you'd have to keep backing it up on to new hard drives every 8-10 years or so to be safe. Alot of stuff is going to get lost in the shuffle.
That's not how digital archives work, its not like saving junk on your home computer.

It's not how digital archives -should- work. If you want a barrel of laughs, talk to folks who work at data recovery shops about the kinds of stuff that ends up their way. You'd be slackjawed.

[smilie=sad3.gif]

Well, its not how my digital archive works at least.

A couple friends of mine are in SRT and I've browsed through a few different trade pubs they have. I don't know enough about the technical details of the problem to describe it correctly but there are a number of big names in the industry that are extremely concerned about the problem.

personally i use Shure brand, they arent too expensive and sound nice. $20 or so, up to $35. if the record store youre talking about doesnt have them go to a dj shop.

Honestly, from the price you are talking about of your needles, it sounds like you're using the Shure SC35C cartridges. Personally, I don't think they sound good at all. I would use the Stanton 500 AL II's over them all day long.

Now, if you want to spend a bit more money on the cartridge, which is kind of important if you want your music to sound decent, get either the Stanton 680 or the Shure M-447G. Both of those carts provide nice output and clarity.

I do know that the cart that comes with that turntable is complete garbage. It's the same one that comes on Gemini turntables and those carts are made like utter crap.

I am also assuming that turntable is belt drive? Now, I now belt drive is the way to go on super hi-fi systems, but unless you're spending THOUSANDS of dollars on a belt drive turntable, the $100 ones aren't all that accurate. Just be careful of the pitch fluctuating during playback.

If you plan on getting totally serious about wanting to listen to vinyl and maybe archiving some tracks to a hard drive, I would suggest spending the cash and getting a Numark TTX. It's $399.99, but it gives you the option to use phono out's, line outputs, or even digital outputs. Plus, there's no ground wire, it's direct drive, and the thing is a tank. Check it out: http://www.djsupply.com/proddetail.asp?prod=1b%5FNUMARK%2DTT%2DX1

Anyway, if you guys have any more questions, I just so happen to manage a DJ shop and have worked here for about 9 years or so. Please feel free to hit me up with questions, if need be.

And, yes, I do own turntables. I own 2-Technic 1200's (industry standard), with Stanton 680 HP carts, and a Vestax PMC-50 mixer with rotarty knobs. I would love to have a pair of the TTX's, but I don't want to come off my 1200's to get them.

There are "DJ shops"?

Yep. There are REAL DJ shops, not guitar stores that disguise themselves as DJ shops, like Guitar Center. ;)

i just recommended some of the shure in that price range because it fit in with the amount diddy was spending. ill admit though, thats the one place i cut corners on my equipment is the needles.

DJ stores? lol thats cool you manage one, what kinda records does the store specialize in? website?

i just recommended some of the shure in that price range because it fit in with the amount diddy was spending. ill admit though, thats the one place i cut corners on my equipment is the needles.

DJ stores? lol thats cool you manage one, what kinda records does the store specialize in? website?

We used to sell records, but recently sold them all off because due to software like Final Scratch and Scratch Live, it's easier to DL MP3's and use your turntables as controllers.

However, we do sell equipment. Mixers, turntables, CD players, amps, speakers, karaoke, lighting, and whatever else.

The website I linked to in my other post, the one to the TTX, is my work's website. I put all the product up there and even did some of the graphics on the banners on the front page. I'm not a graphics genius or anything, but they look presentable.

thats cool, site looks good btw. final scratch is fun but theres something about records, i could never exclusively go to FS or cd tables. although i wouldnt mind having one cd table so if i were to make a track i could just burn it and mix it in with my set.