Author:
Date:
Subject:
Kompu Kid
2008-07-03 17:55:00
Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Hello All:
I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
one.
What brand and model would you folks recommend?
Thanks!
Deguza
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is some background info:
- One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
old records and cassettes to digital medium.
- I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
providing 6-channel audio".
- I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
may not be able to hear the difference.
- I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Eeyore
2008-07-04 02:37:03
Re: Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Kompu Kid wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
> one.
>
> What brand and model would you folks recommend?
For value for money you can't really ever go too far wrong with Dell. I've used several and they all worked fine. None were the cheapest but not by a long way
were they THAT expensive either.
The best PC is one you spec (and probably build) yourself, taling into account your needs.
DO NOT 'overspec' what you need. It's simply money down the drain and it'll likely be noisier. too.
Avoid Windows Vista like the plague. Dell ought still be able to install XP for you. If not get a copy of XP 'somewhere else'. IIRC MS has just said it'll
continue to support XP til 2014.
> - One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
> old records and cassettes to digital medium.
Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or uncompressed for example ?
> - I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
> motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
> providing 6-channel audio".
A totally rubbish chipset for on-board (MOBO) audio IIRC. Anything today would beat it without even trying. Hey, it was adequate at the time.
> - I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
> can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
> older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
> may not be able to hear the difference.
Almost anything today will be better. I recently bought secondhand a brace of Creative Audigies on ebay, for little more than a couple of dollars each.
They'll outrank any on-board audio most likely but do read the manual as to how to turn OFF the onboard audio first.
And if you want REALLY good quality PC audio you can now buy cards that rank up with the bulk of broadcasting and recording studios.
> - I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
> Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.
If noise is an issue for you, you may prefer a lower spec PC that uses less power and hence needs less cooling. That'll do audio just fine and requires almost
zero cooling compared to today's power PC gamer machines. A 1 GHz CPU will EASILY do the job. Look at 'mini ITX' for example.
You can even get 'fanless' PCs these days. Ideal for an audio server but probably not for 'Need for Speed' !
Graham
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Kompu Kid
2008-07-03 21:19:00
Re: Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Jul 3, 6:37 pm, Eeyore <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Kompu Kid wrote:
> > Hello All:
>
> > I want to replace my 7-year-old computer with a new off-the-shelf
> > one.
>
> > What brand and model would you folks recommend?
>
> For value for money you can't really ever go too far wrong with Dell. I've used several and they all worked fine. None were the cheapest but not by a long way
> were they THAT expensive either.
>
> The best PC is one you spec (and probably build) yourself, taling into account your needs.
>
> DO NOT 'overspec' what you need. It's simply money down the drain and it'll likely be noisier. too.
>
> Avoid Windows Vista like the plague. Dell ought still be able to install XP for you. If not get a copy of XP 'somewhere else'. IIRC MS has just said it'll
> continue to support XP til 2014.
>
> > - One of the things I do with my existing computer is to convert my
> > old records and cassettes to digital medium.
>
> Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or uncompressed for example ?
>
> > - I built the computer from scratch. The sound card on the
> > motherboard seems satisfactory for what I am doing. It is a "CMI 8738
> > providing 6-channel audio".
>
> A totally rubbish chipset for on-board (MOBO) audio IIRC. Anything today would beat it without even trying. Hey, it was adequate at the time.
>
> > - I am sure there are much better sound cards but I am not sure if I
> > can hear the difference in quality, giving that I am starting with
> > older technology, and that my and, to that matter, most people's ears
> > may not be able to hear the difference.
>
> Almost anything today will be better. I recently bought secondhand a brace of Creative Audigies on ebay, for little more than a couple of dollars each.
> They'll outrank any on-board audio most likely but do read the manual as to how to turn OFF the onboard audio first.
>
> And if you want REALLY good quality PC audio you can now buy cards that rank up with the bulk of broadcasting and recording studios.
>
> > - I tested a Dell Optiplex GX820 I use at work. It was noisy. But a
> > Dell laptop (inspiron?), worked relatively well.
>
> If noise is an issue for you, you may prefer a lower spec PC that uses less power and hence needs less cooling. That'll do audio just fine and requires almost
> zero cooling compared to today's power PC gamer machines. A 1 GHz CPU will EASILY do the job. Look at 'mini ITX' for example.
>
> You can even get 'fanless' PCs these days. Ideal for an audio server but probably not for 'Need for Speed' !
>
> Graham
Graham,
Thanks for your comments.
You ask:
" Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
uncompressed for example ?"
I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.
I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".
For my mp3 player, I convert them into highly compressed mp3 files. I
use the same for my podcast page.
For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
I even go higher to 320 bps.
Deguza
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Steven Pigeon
2008-07-04 10:57:07
Re: Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
Kompu Kid wrote:
> You ask:
>
> " Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
> uncompressed for example ?"
>
> I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.
>
> I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".
You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give you
some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big as
RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have perfect restitution
on decompression; for "masters", it's pretty much win-win.
> For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
> I even go higher to 320 bps.
VBR + psychoacoustic modeling tend to converge to a given file
size, even when you let the bitrate go arbitrarily high. You might
see only a 5% file size difference between a 320 kbits/s vbr file
and a 256 kbits/s vbr file (given all psychoacoustic optimizations
are on). I do too use the 320 kbits/s format.
Best,
S.
>
> Deguza
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Kompu Kid
2008-07-04 16:44:33
Re: Computer recommendation for digitizing older recordings.
On Jul 4, 7:57 am, Steven Pigeon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kompu Kid wrote:
> > You ask:
>
> > " Using which software btw ? Into what format ? Compressed or
> > uncompressed for example ?"
>
> > I use Nero and once in a while Audacity.
>
> > I digitize everything as wave files and keep these as "masters".
>
> You can use lossless encoding, like FLAC. FLAC will give you
> some compression (2:1, or so) so the files aren't as big as
> RIFF/wave files. Since it's lossless, you have perfect restitution
> on decompression; for "masters", it's pretty much win-win.
The version of Nero I use (6.6.1.4) does not seem to have the FLAC
encoding.
I wonder if later versions would have them.
> > For my CD player, I use 192 bps or higher mp3 files. For certain music
> > I even go higher to 320 bps.
>
> VBR + psychoacoustic modeling tend to converge to a given file
> size, even when you let the bitrate go arbitrarily high. You might
> see only a 5% file size difference between a 320 kbits/s vbr file
> and a 256 kbits/s vbr file (given all psychoacoustic optimizations
> are on). I do too use the 320 kbits/s format.
My experiments some months ago came up with a linear increase in size
when I saved at different bit rates.
Deguza
|
