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....
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.
stereo more expands sound field in comparison to mono thus creates impression of better sound fidelity, albeit it's false improvementBut 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.....
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..
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?
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.
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..
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
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...
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?
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 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.
Enter your email address to join: