Turntable question

[GOS]

So - I have a question about ripping a mono vinyl using Audacity. Do I need to change the Audacity setting from 2 stereo recoprding to 1 mono recording? I almost wish you would tell me yes...because that's what I did....

 

[ji eff]

So - I have a question about ripping a mono vinyl using Audacity. Do I need to change the Audacity setting from 2 stereo recoprding to 1 mono recording? I almost wish you would tell me yes...because that's what I did....

That's what I'd do in Cubase.. That way you are certain there is no phasing or differences in the 2 channels carrying the original mono signal. You can convert to a stereo file afterwards if you feel the format is more "suitable" for playback.

 

[GOS]

That's what I'd do in Cubase.. That way you are certain there is no phasing or differences in the 2 channels carrying the original mono signal. You can convert to a stereo file afterwards if you feel the format is more "suitable" for playback.

Well, now you have just crossed the line of my understanding. I Never really understood mono vs stereo. I Guess it's 1 channel vs 2. But if you are starting with mono, what, if any, is any advantage to converting to stereo? I mean, regardless, it still plays in both front speakers.....I know, I know. I'm showing my ignorance here. lol

 

[0tto]

But if you are starting with mono, what, if any, is any advantage to converting to stereo? I mean, regardless, it still plays in both front speakers.....

stereo more expands sound field in comparison to mono thus creates impression of better sound fidelity, albeit it's false improvement

 

[ji eff]

Well, now you have just crossed the line of my understanding. I Never really understood mono vs stereo. I Guess it's 1 channel vs 2. But if you are starting with mono, what, if any, is any advantage to converting to stereo? I mean, regardless, it still plays in both front speakers.....I know, I know. I'm showing my ignorance here. lol

Well, the thing is that the "Red Book" CD format consists of 2 channels of information, even for a mono recording. With a mono recording the 2 channels would simply contain identical information. But as soundcards (or any piece of gear, for that matter), aren't perfect, when you are recording a mono signal from 2 inputs, there will always be "some" difference between them. (That was for the advantage of recording to 1 channel (mono)). Now, the advantage about converting the recorded mono to a stereo file instead, is that you are assured it will be played through your front speakers. On my computer, if I play a mono file when everything is setup to 5.1 surround, it will play through the center speaker only.. it sure sounds fine, but I can't crank it up as much as when the load is spread between 2 speakers..

 

[GOS]

Well, the thing is that the "Red Book" CD format consists of 2 channels of information, even for a mono recording. With a mono recording the 2 channels would simply contain identical information. But as soundcards (or any piece of gear, for that matter), aren't perfect, when you are recording a mono signal from 2 inputs, there will always be "some" difference between them. (That was for the advantage of recording to 1 channel (mono)). Now, the advantage about converting the recorded mono to a stereo file instead, is that you are assured it will be played through your front speakers. On my computer, if I play a mono file when everything is setup to 5.1 surround, it will play through the center speaker only.. it sure sounds fine, but I can't crank it up as much as when the load is spread between 2 speakers..

Oh, I see. I seriously didn't know that. So mono is truly 1 channel of information that is duplicated in whatever number of speakers you choose. Most particularly, 2 speaker stereo. But a true 2 channel recording can have ( or most likely has) different bits of information across 2 speakers....is that right?

 

[GOS]

So, if most folks that had stereo systems back in the day had 2 speakers.....why would "they" choose to record in single channel mono? I guess I don't get that part. If in fact I'm getting this at all.

I mean, I know many people didn't have 2 speaker stereos....many had small single speaker radios, or even most cars had a single speaker in the dash, etc.

 

[ji eff]

Oh, I see. I seriously didn't know that. So mono is truly 1 channel of information that is duplicated in whatever number of speakers you choose. Most particularly, 2 speaker stereo. But a true 2 channel recording can have ( or most likely has) different bits of information across 2 speakers....is that right?

Yep ! (That's for a mono CD, though... a mono vinyl is 1 channel only)

 

[ji eff]

So, if most folks that had stereo systems back in the day had 2 speakers.....why would "they" choose to record in single channel mono? I guess I don't get that part. If in fact I'm getting this at all.

I mean, I know many people didn't have 2 speaker stereos....many had small single speaker radios, or even most cars had a single speaker in the dash, etc.

That part I don't really get either, but when I listen to some of the first stereo recordings, with a mono drum on the left, and a mono bass on the right, I understand why it took some time for everyone to switch from mono to stereo.. but when albums like Pink Floyd's DSOTM got out, I think there were no more excuses to record exclusively to mono, except for pure "nostalgic" reasons..

 

[ji eff]

So, if most folks that had stereo systems back in the day had 2 speakers.....why would "they" choose to record in single channel mono? I guess I don't get that part. If in fact I'm getting this at all.

I mean, I know many people didn't have 2 speaker stereos....many had small single speaker radios, or even most cars had a single speaker in the dash, etc.

Thinking about it, the radio stations back in the days weren't able to transmit stereo. Also, the first turntables were built to play mono content only. It takes a whole other level of technology to play stereo vinyls.. I saw graphics that explain how this is done, but I still have difficulty to understand how this can actually work and give a flawless stereo signal (without any bleed), as it's still coming from a single needle running through a single groove..

 

[GOS]

Thinking about it, the radio stations back in the days weren't able to transmit stereo. Also, the first turntables were built to play mono content only. It takes a whole other level of technology to play stereo vinyls.. I saw graphics that explain how this is done, but I still have difficulty to understand how this can actually work and give a flawless stereo signal (without any bleed), as it's still coming from a single needle running through a single groove..

Good point...hadn't thought of that. Pretty interesting...wish there was something on wiki to explain all that...or someone here that knows...maybe someone who was in radio back in the day...

 

[ji eff]

Good point...hadn't thought of that. Pretty interesting...wish there was something on wiki to explain all that...or someone here that knows...maybe someone who was in radio back in the day...

This is all before my time, as I was born in '77, but if there was a time where FM radio didn't exist, it would mean stereo music couldn't be played through radio stations. I'm sure someone here could enlighten you on that subject matter.. I just felt talkative and thought I'd "think out loud" as I ventured into the subject for the very first time of my life... Man, some things we take for granted..

:worthy God I love music, and these days we live in

 

[GOS]

This is all before my time, as I was born in '77, but if there was a time where FM radio didn't exist, it would mean stereo music couldn't be played through radio stations. I'm sure someone here could enlighten you on that subject matter.. I just felt talkative and thought I'd "think out loud" as I ventured into the subject for the very first time of my life... Man, some things we take for granted..

:worthy God I love music, and these days we live in

Me too man - but it would be excellent to hear some insight on the subject...by someone who lived it and maybe even worked it. I sure didn't...I was just a consumer. I appreciate your comments...

 

[ji eff]

Me too man - but it would be excellent to hear some insight on the subject...by someone who lived it and maybe even worked it. I sure didn't...I was just a consumer. I appreciate your comments...

btw, I'm having a good read on the subject as we speak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound

 

[Franklin]

I would advise to record in two channel stereo. Unless your cartridge line up is bang on (and whose is?) and probably linear tracked you are likely to get some problems. An advantage with recording in two and mixing down to one is you can lose some surface noise, but that trades off with potential slight phase issues which would be most noticeable at the top end. If you take the best side of the two channels and double up you can risk hearing more surface nose/rumble. Also you will could have trouble playing or file converting a single channel, so whatever you do you should make sure you have two channels, even if they are identical. I would advise experimenting and seeing what you like best, although bear in mind the results could vary from record to record. Does that make sense?

 

[GOS]

I would advise to record in two channel stereo. Unless your cartridge line up is bang on (and whose is?) and probably linear tracked you are likely to get some problems. An advantage with recording in two and mixing down to one is you can lose some surface noise, but that trades off with potential slight phase issues which would be most noticeable at the top end. If you take the best side of the two channels and double up you can risk hearing more surface nose/rumble. Also you will could have trouble playing or file converting a single channel, so whatever you do you should make sure you have two channels, even if they are identical. I would advise experimenting and seeing what you like best, although bear in mind the results could vary from record to record. Does that make sense?

Well, it makes total sense. Why? Because I ripped Surrealistic Pillow mono 45 RMP disc at the mono setting in Audacity. As I was going back tidying up the usual slight rumble in between songs...I kept hearing these odd click sounds. No, not click like a speck of dust...very different. Almost as if the sound were dropping off a bit for a split second or 2. I thought I was going crazy... That must be what that was, or at least the potential problems you refer to.

So, if that is the reason - then I'd say next time I have a mono album, I better record it with Audacity set to stereo. I'll do it over and see if that eliminates those oddities I mentioned.
Thanks for the comments.

 

[GOS]

So - I'm sort of a "un-box it and use it guy". At least, with my turntable I am. What does that mean? It means I'm pretty clueless about any potential upgrades I might be able to make with the cartridge.

I have a Pro-Ject Carbon Debut DC turntable. It came with a single tonearm/headshell installed. Meaning, it's 1 piece. So, I can't change the headshell - but I assume I could purchase a new cartridge if I want to.

Also, the cartridge that came pre-mounted to this arm is the Ortofon 10. Not the pro series...just 10. I have no clue of the value of this?

Next question - if the installed cartridge is a very basic one...meaning...less than a $70 value, can I get a better one...considering the one piece tone arm headshell?

How would I know??

 

[von kulper]

So - I'm sort of a "un-box it and use it guy". At least, with my turntable I am. What does that mean? It means I'm pretty clueless about any potential upgrades I might be able to make with the cartridge.

I have a Pro-Ject Carbon Debut DC turntable. It came with a single tonearm/headshell installed. Meaning, it's 1 piece. So, I can't change the headshell - but I assume I could purchase a new cartridge if I want to.

Also, the cartridge that came pre-mounted to this arm is the Ortofon 10. Not the pro series...just 10. I have no clue of the value of this?

Next question - if the installed cartridge is a very basic one...meaning...less than a $70 value, can I get a better one...considering the one piece tone arm headshell?

How would I know??

GOS,

What you have is Ortofon's OM line of cartridges, which have sort-of been replaced with the 2M line of cartridges, which I think is a better cartridge. The OM line has a stubby cantilever, and the stylus housing rides very close to the playing surface, and tends to bottom out on records that are a little warped, at least in my experience. I have a Musichall MMF 5.1 (no, no surround playback its just the name) which is similar to the Pro-jects, and it came stock with the OM 10 just like yours. You could definitely upgrade the cartridge, but it is a little bit of a project, especially since you can't remove the headshell. You'll need a protractor, which should have been supplied, and I'd recommend a drop-force gauge, and some steady hands as you have to be careful with those tiny little wires . But, you could also upgrade the stylus, which is a simpler task, and will definitely give you some noticeable improvements.

I'm currently using this stylus on mine:

http://www.needledoctor.com/Ortofon-20-Stylus

It's a direct replacement for the stylus supplied on your cartridge, and I've been very happy with the results.

Ortofon cartridges have a good and well-earned reputation. Aside from the occasional bottoming out (which can be annoying) there's really nothing wrong with the OM line, and they're definitely fitting for the price-point of your TT.

 

[GOS]

GOS,

What you have is Ortofon's OM line of cartridges, which have sort-of been replaced with the 2M line of cartridges, which I think is a better cartridge. The OM line has a stubby cantilever, and the stylus housing rides very close to the playing surface, and tends to bottom out on records that are a little warped, at least in my experience. I have a Musichall 5.1 (no, no surround playback its just the name) which is similar to the Pro-jects, and it came stock with the OM 10 just like yours. You could definitely upgrade the cartridge, but it is a little bit of a project, especially since you can't remove the headshell. You'll need a protractor, which should have been supplied, and I'd recommend a drop-force gauge, and some steady hands as you have to be careful with those tiny little wires . But, you could also upgrade the stylus, which is a simpler task, and will definitely give you some noticeable improvements.

I'm currently using this stylus on mine:

http://www.needledoctor.com/Ortofon-20-Stylus

It's a direct replacement for the stylus supplied on your cartridge, and I've been very happy with the results.

Ortofon cartridges have a good and well-earned reputation. Aside from the occasional bottoming out (which can be annoying) there's really nothing wrong with the OM line, and they're definitely fitting for the price-point of your TT.

Thanks for your post. Very helpful. So, dumb question about terminology. I assumed stylus was simply the needle....your link seems to show a needle, and a sort of housing. So, what you show is not the cartridge (with a needle)? Sorry for the dumb NOOB comments...I really don't know the parts as well as I should.

 

[von kulper]

Thanks for your post. Very helpful. So, dumb question about terminology. I assumed stylus was simply the needle....your link seems to show a needle, and a sort of housing. So, what you show is not the cartridge (with a needle)? Sorry for the dumb NOOB comments...I really don't know the parts as well as I should.

Not dumb at all, buddy! And correct, that is not a whole cartridge, that's just the "needle" or stylus. The stylus is set in a plastic housing and that's the very tip of your cartridge like in this picture http://www.needledoctor.com/s.nl/it.A/id.274/.f

When you replace the stylus on the OM, that whole plastic tip is going to slide off, and then you just slip the new stylus on.